Lecture 14 Justification; The Nature And Reason Of Its Connection With Faith

WHEN the doctrine of Justification by Works has been abandoned as untenable, and that of Justification by Grace has been admitted, the fact that Faith, which is an infused and inherent grace, and the germ of holiness in heart and life, is indispensably required for our pardon and acceptance with God, has been made the plea or pretext for holding, that we are still justified by it as our evangelical righteousness, and that it bears the same relation to our Justification under the New Covenant, as that which subsisted between works and wages under the Old. It is not regarded as being the means of receiving and resting on the righteousness of Christ, but as being itself the righteousness which is the immediate ground of our acceptance; while the Grace of God which implants this faith in us, and the meritorious work of Christ, which procured for us the privilege of acceptance on this ground, are still, to some extent, acknowledged. For this reason, it is necessary to consider what relation subsists, according to Scripture, between Justification and Faith; and, for the full discussion of it, to review several distinct questions which have been raised respecting it. They are chiefly these—Whether Faith itself, and not the imputed righteousness of Christ, be the immediate ground of our acceptance? What is the nature of saving Faith, or what is the most correct and comprehensive definition of it? What is the kind of influence or efficacy which is ascribed to Faith in connection with our Justification, and whether it be best expressed by calling it a means, or an instrument, or a condition, of that privilege? What is the warrant of Faith, or what that is which entitles any one to receive and rest on Christ for his own personal salvation? And what is the distinctive peculiarity of Faith which renders it the sole and exclusive means of Justification, or, in what sense, and for what reason, it may be said that we are justified ‘by Faith only?’ In reply to these questions, we lay down the following propositions.

PROP. XXV. We are justified by Faith, and Faith is counted, or imputed to us, for righteousness; but Faith is not itself the righteousness on account of which we are justified.

When Justification by works, whether legal or evangelical, has been excluded, both in the case of sinners and believers, a large class of writers have shown a disposition to fall back on Faith, as if it might be represented as the ground of our pardon and acceptance with God; and they have argued that, as it is the distinguishing difference between one class of sinners and another, so it may be regarded as the real reason why some are accepted, while others, remaining in unbelief, are condemned. They have also adduced what they conceive to be express scriptural authority for their doctrine in the statement which is repeatedly made, and that, too, both by Paul and James, when, quoting the Old Testament, they say: ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.’

There is reason to believe that this line of argument has been adopted,—not with the view of showing that we are justified by Faith only, considered simply as belief in God’s promise, or reliance on Him in whom that promise was fulfilled,—but as a covert way of reintroducing the doctrine of Justification on the ground of an inherent personal righteousness, and rejecting that of the imputed righteousness of Christ. For the writers who have had recourse to it, have generally represented Faith as a compendious expression for the ‘new creature;’ as the germ or seminal principle of holiness, and as virtually containing in itself all the fruits which are subsequently produced by it. This seems to be implied in their speaking of it as ‘the distinguishing difference’ between those who are justified, and those who still remain in a state of condemnation; for that difference does not consist in any one grace, considered singly and apart from others, but in the whole of that gracious change which is wrought upon the mind and heart of a sinner, when he ‘passes from death unto life.’ It fails to be considered, therefore, in connection with the relation which Justification bears to the work of the Holy Spirit; and it should be reserved till that important topic comes under discussion. But whatever may be the sense in which they speak of Faith,—whether it be that of simple belief and trust, or that of a more complex grace, including contrition, charity, and hope,—their peculiar doctrine concerning it—in so far as it relates, not to the means, but to the ground or reason, of Justification—will be sufficiently disposed of, if it can be shown, that faith is expressly distinguished in Scripture from the righteousness by which we are justified,—and that, when it is said to be ‘counted for righteousness,’ the words are not intended to be exclusive, but comprehensive, of the imputed righteousness of Christ. (1)

No one truth, on this subject, can be established by clearer or more conclusive evidence than this—that the Faith and the Righteousness, which are both spoken of in connection with Justification, are distinct and different from each other,—that they are not one and the same in their nature,—and, consequently, that the relation which they severally bear to Justification cannot be one and the same. By identifying the faith with the righteousness, each of which is equally indispensable, many clear passages of Scripture will become utterly unintelligible. The righteousness is said to be ‘of faith’ (ἐκ πίστεως), and ‘to faith’ (εἰς πίστιν), ‘by faith’ (ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει), ‘through faith’ (διὰ πίστεως): it is connected, therefore, with faith; but if it be identical with it, what meaning can there be in these various prepositions? Suppose, even, that the righteousness intended were an inherent, and not an imputed,—a personal, and not a vicarious, righteousness,—it would still be distinct and different from the faith with which it is said to be thus connected. But still further to mark the difference between them, the faith itself is said to be ‘through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ;’2 it is bestowed upon us as the free gift of divine grace, but also as the fruit of Christ’s mediatorial work. ’It is given to us, on the behalf of Christ, to believe in His name.’ So that faith is doubly related to this righteousness: first, as it is procured by it, and bestowed on account of it; and secondly, as it is the means of apprehending and appropriating it,—the hand which receives it,—the reliance which rests upon it. The faith, therefore, and the righteousness, which are both connected, although in different ways, with Justification, are distinct and different from each other; and the relation which they bear, respectively, to that privilege must be different also,—the one being the means, merely, by which it is received and enjoyed, and the other the ground or reason on which it depends.

Many Popish writers, not content with identifying the two, have spoken of Grace,—Faith,—Righteousness,—and Justification, as if all the four were one and the same;—for they have confounded Grace with Faith, when they have made Grace to be an infused subjective habit, and not the free mercy or favour of God; they have confounded Faith with Righteousness, when they have made Faith to be an inherent quality, on account of which we are accepted of God; and they have confounded Righteousness with Justification, when they have made Justification the same with Sanctification, and obliterated the difference between righteousness imputed, and; righteousness infused. Some Protestant writers have also, held that faith is the righteousness by which we are justified, but have refused to admit that they are justly chargeable with overlooking the distinction between the two, since they only affirm that the one is substituted for the other, and that, under the new law of grace, faith and its fruits, or faith and sincere, but imperfect, obedience; are accepted instead of the complete righteousness which the law required. But, even according to this statement of the case, they must be held to identify faith and its fruits,—not, indeed, with the perfect righteousness which the original law required, for that would be a manifest contradiction as long as there is a difference between what is perfect and what is imperfect,—but with the righteousness by which we are justified. They do not say that our faith and obedience amount to a perfect righteousness, but they do say, that they are accepted as if they were perfect, and that, in God’s estimation, they are a sufficient fulfilment of the only conditions on which their salvation now depends. But God’s ‘judgment is ever according to truth:’ He cannot accept that faith as perfect, which is really imperfect,—nor that obedience as complete, which is really partial and intermittent; the one and the other must be sufficient to fulfil,—if not the law which requires a perfect righteousness,—yet that other law, whatever it may be, which is satisfied with less, but still requires a personal compliance with its easier terms. And if so, then what constant doubt and anxiety must be the portion of every one who looks to his own inherent or actual righteousness as the ground of his pardon and acceptance with God? and how can he ever experience that ‘joy and peace in believing’ which springs from the blessed persuasion that ‘Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one who believeth,’ and that as ‘He who knew no sin, was made sin for us,’ so we, who had no righteousness, are ‘made the righteousness of God in Him?’

But those who affirm that faith is substituted for the righteousness which the original law required, allege express scriptural authority for their doctrine; and the passages on which they mainly insist, are those in which ‘faith’ is said to be ‘counted’ or ‘imputed’ for righteousness. If it can be shown that these words are intended to be, not exclusive, but comprehensive, of Christ and His righteousness, their doctrine will be deprived of its chief support. As these passages have given rise to much discussion in all ages of the Church, and as they have occasioned difficulty to many sincere and honest inquirers after truth, it may be useful to bestow upon them our most careful consideration. (2)

Two distinct interpretations have been proposed. That which has been most generally received, amounts in substance to this,—that the term ‘faith’ is used in these passages, tropically, to denote the object of faith,—that is, Christ as revealed in the Promise, under the Old Testament,—and Christ as more fully revealed in the Gospel, under the New. It is clear that it does not always mean either the grace, or the act, of faith, but is often employed to signify the truth believed, as in the following examples: ‘The faith which was once delivered to the saints,’—‘thou boldest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith,’—‘striving together for the faith of the Gospel,’—‘he preached the faith which once he destroyed,’—‘he hath denied the faith,’—‘some have erred from the faith.’ It is used to denote ‘the word of faith,’ as well as ‘the spirit of faith;’2 and may thus stand for Christ, of whom the Apostle said, ’We preach Christ crucified.’ The efficacy, too, which is ascribed to it is derived entirely from its object; although that efficacy is connected in Scripture, sometimes with faith, and sometimes with Christ. ‘His name, through faith in His name, hath made this man strong; yea, the faith which is by Him hath given him this perfect soundness.’ The names of several other graces are also used, tropically, to denote their object; for example, Christ is expressly called ‘our hope;’4 and future blessings are also called by that name, for ’we are saved by hope, but that which is seen is not hope.’ It was in this sense that ‘faith’ was understood by Luther, when it is said to be ‘imputed for righteousness;’ and in opposition to the Popish divines, who held that it justified because, like a golden ring, it enclosed ‘charity,’ he strenuously contended that it justified because it enclosed ‘Christ,’—‘the pearl of great price.’

But some Protestant writers, who have held the doctrine of Justification on the ground of Christ’s imputed righteousness, have not accepted this interpretation of the term; and have preferred another, which they think the words would more naturally suggest, while it is equally consistent, in their opinion, with the truth of that doctrine. They have regarded it as denoting ‘a state of mind,’ and as descriptive either of the grace, or of the exercise, of faith. That this interpretation may be understood in a sense, in which it neither identifies faith with the righteousness by which we are justified, nor excludes the imputation of the merits of Christ to the believer, is argued from the twofold use which is made in Scripture of the verbs signifying to ‘impute.’ We are reminded that these verbs sometimes mean to reckon that to any one which did not belong to him personally, and was not previously his own, but became his only by its being imputed, or set down to his account,—as when God is said to ‘impute righteousness without works,’ or when the debt of Onesimus was set down to Paul’s account;—but that they sometimes mean, also, to reckon that to any one which was really his before, whether it be by the recognition of personal sin, or of personal righteousness. If faith be said to be imputed in the latter sense, then all that is meant by the passages in question amounts to this,—that God recognises true saving faith wherever it exists,—not as the ground on which any one is justified, for it can never supersede or supplant the vicarious righteousness of Christ,—but as a grace really existing in the believer, which is the effectual means, and the certain proof, of his Justification. It is thus stated as an alternative interpretation by President Dickinson. ‘Let it be even supposed, that Faith is here taken subjectively, and that it was Abraham’s faith itself, considered as an act of his own, that was imputed to him. It may, notwithstanding, be set in such a view, as will secure the truth of the doctrine I am pleading for. “His faith was imputed unto righteousness” (εἰς δικαιοσύνην); that is, as he was reckoned, judged, or esteemed of God to be a sound believer, so the faith, which was imputed or reckoned to him, was unto righteousness,—was instrumental to his attaining of righteousness,—was the means that “by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon him unto justification of life;” in other words, was the means of his interest in that righteousness of Christ by which he was justified. In this sense, the imputation respects his faith; and intends an approbation and acknowledgment of it, as true and sincere, and effectual for its proper purposes. He was approved of God as having a true and sound faith,—a faith effectual, as an applying means “unto righteousness,” and thereby “unto Justification.” ’ (3)

Neither of these interpretations is exclusive of the imputed righteousness of Christ; for whether faith be considered as used, in a tropical sense, to denote Christ as its object,—or, in a subjective sense, to denote the grace, or the act, by which a believer receives and rests upon Him alone, it is only through His righteousness that it is effectual for Justification. The faith, and the righteousness, are not identified, nor is the one substituted for the other; while all the other expressions which are descriptive of their mutual relations are preserved inviolate.

PROP. XXVI. The Faith, by which we are justified, is a spiritual grace,—as being the gift of God, and one of the fruits of His Spirit,—and, as such, is acceptable and well-pleasing to Him ‘through Jesus Christ.’

It is expressly declared to be the ‘gift of God:’ ‘By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.’ ‘It is given to us on the behalf of Christ to believe in His name.’ It is enumerated among the ‘fruits of the Spirit:’ ‘The fruit of the Spirit is in faith.’2 And it is directly connected with the work of Christ; for it is not only said to be ’given to us on His behalf,’ but also to be ‘obtained through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’

The question which has been raised in regard to the nature of saving Faith, when stated in its most general form, may be said to be—Whether it is a simple, or, in a greater or less degree, a complex, state of mind? and this question falls under our present consideration, only in so far as the answer, which is given to it, may be supposed to affect the method, or the ground, of our Justification. Some have held, that it is a mere intellectual belief, involving no gracious affection of any kind,—an opinion which has been maintained on different grounds, and applied to different purposes, by two parties standing apparently at opposite extremes on the subject of Justification,—by Popish writers, with the view of showing that faith is only a preparatory disposition, and has no value or efficacy until it is ‘informed by charity;’ and by Sandemanian writers, with the view of excluding from it everything else but ‘the truth believed,’—lest by conceiving it to include trust, or reliance, or gratitude, or love, we should thereby make Justification to depend on some other ground than the finished work of Christ. So far these parties, although placed at opposite extremes, have met, and occupied common ground; but beyond this point, they differ materially from each other; since the former have maintained that the faith of which they speak, and which is evidently nothing more than the ‘dead faith’ which James rejects, is not necessarily productive of love, or effectual for justification without it; while the latter have held that a true scriptural faith, although it consists only in the truth believed, is directly connected with, and inseparable from, Justification,—as also, that it is invariably productive of trust, gratitude, and love, as its immediate effects, and through them of universal holiness in heart and life. In opposition to both, Protestant divines have generally held, that faith itself is a spiritual grace, and that every act of faith is an act of obedience; since it is one of the fruits of the Spirit, which can only be implanted along with a spiritual apprehension of the truth, and a cordial approbation of it, while every exercise of faith is in conformity with the requirements of God’s revealed will; and yet they have denied that its being such is at variance with the doctrine of a free justification by the vicarious satisfaction and righteousness of Christ, simply because they exclude FAITH ITSELF, as well as all its fruits,—whether more or less immediate,—from forming any part of the ground of our acceptance with God. If it be once proved, by clear testimonies of Scripture, that faith is not itself the righteousness by which we are justified, but only the channel through which we receive another righteousness,—not personal, but imputed,—we need have little solicitude about the question how much, or how little, is included in it, and no jealousy of its being represented as invariably accompanied, or immediately followed, by other graces of the Spirit. To ascertain wherein it properly consists,—we must have recourse to the various descriptions and exemplifications of it which are given in Scripture; for it is in this way, rather than by any formal definition of its nature, that the Holy Spirit has taught us to conceive of it.

It is there described, sometimes as the belief of the Truth,—sometimes as trust in a Person,—sometimes as ‘looking unto Jesus,’ like the wounded Israelite when he looked to the brazen serpent,—sometimes as ‘fleeing for refuge to the hope that is set before us,’—sometimes as ‘coming to Christ’ that we may ‘find rest to our souls,’—sometimes as ‘receiving Christ,’—sometimes as ‘resting on Him’ as the sure foundation,—sometimes as ‘committing’ our souls to Him, as One who is ‘able to keep them until the great day.’ By all these various expressions, and many more, which are for the most part figurative, and, for that reason, better fitted than any formal definition to convey to our minds a vivid conception of its nature, and to preserve us from partial or one-sided views of it, the Holy Spirit has set forth the gracious principle, and actings, of saving faith; while He has recorded many instructive exemplifications of it in the life of Abraham and the Patriarchs under the Old Testament, and in the cases of ‘the woman that was a sinner,’—the Syrophenician,—the malefactor on the cross,—the gaoler at Philippi, and many more, under the New Testament, ‘whose faith’ we are called ‘to follow, considering the end of their conversation, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever.’ These figurative descriptions, and practical exemplifications, of Faith, seem to have been multiplied on purpose, to guard us against the danger of resting in defective views of it, and to impress our minds with the conviction that, while all true faith is saving, all faith is not true,—that there is ‘a dead’ as well as a ‘living’ faith,—and that it nearly concerns our everlasting salvation, to discriminate aright between the two, and still more to test our own faith by its fruits. (4)

Another question which has been much discussed in connection with the nature of Faith, is, whether the assurance of our own personal salvation is necessarily involved in it? Here, again, Popish writers have generally occupied one extreme, while a few Protestant writers have tended towards another. The former have maintained, not only that faith, in their sense of that term, does not include any sure hope of salvation, but that, even where vital religion exists in the heart as ‘faith informed with charity,’ assurance of salvation is unattainable in the case of the maturest believer, by reason of the uncertainty of his final perseverance; and that, so far from being necessary, it is not even desirable, since it might operate, as they conceive, injuriously on his character, by relieving him from the pressure of those doubts and fears, which are supposed to be a salutary restraint on evil passions, and a better safeguard against sin, than ‘faith working by love,’ or ‘joy and peace in believing.’ Some Protestants, recoiling from what the National Covenant of Scotland called the ‘desperate and uncertain repentance’—the ‘general and doubtsome faith,’ of the Church of Rome, have gone to the opposite extreme, and have maintained that the assurance of personal salvation is of the essence of saving faith; and so inseparable from it, even in its earliest beginnings, that no man is a believer, or can be justified, until he has attained it. In opposition to the one extreme, Protestant divines have generally held, that the assurance of personal salvation is attainable in the present life,—that, so fair from being injurious to holiness, it is eminently conducive, not only to the believer’s comfort, but to his advancement in the divine life,—to his cheerful discharge of every duty, and patient endurance of every trial,—that the actual attainment of it should be earnestly desired, since he is required ‘to give diligence to make his calling and election sure,’ and ‘to show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end,’—and that it is perfectly consistent with deep humility of heart, and a spirit of entire dependence on God, since it is founded, not on any presumptuous confidence in the strength of his own resolution, or his own ability to persevere, but on the faithfulness of God’s promise, and the unchangeableness of Christ’s love.2 In opposition to the other extreme, they have generally distinguished between two kinds or measures of assurance,—the one arising from the reflex,—the other from the direct, exercise of faith; and have held, that the former, which rests on the fruits or effects of faith, as evidences of its reality and genuineness, cannot be included in its essential nature, but can only spring from its actual exercise where it already exists,—that many true believers have been long destitute of it, and that some have even lived and died without it,—and that faith does not consist in believing,—either that we have been elected to eternal salvation,—or that our names are written in the Lamb’s book of life,—or that all our sins are already pardoned,—for these things are nowhere revealed concerning any particular persons in Scripture, although we may come to be assured of them all in the progress of our Christian experience; but they have also held, that some measure of assurance is involved in the direct exercise of faith, when it first believes the promise, and begins to rely on Christ for salvation,—that assurance which is implied in saying from the heart, ‘We believe, and are sure, that Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;’ for, receiving it as ‘a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ came into the world to save sinners,’ and that ‘He is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by Him;’—believing, moreover, that ‘to us is the word of this salvation sent,’ and that it is addressed to us individually as sinners, accompanied with the assurance that ‘whosoever believeth shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life,’—how can any one take that word as a sufficient warrant for his faith, and actually begin to rely on Christ, or trust in Him, for salvation, without having some measure of confidence, such as—whether it be called hope or assurance—will serve, at least, to sustain and comfort him, while he waits for clearer and fuller evidence of his personal salvation? It is the more necessary to insist on that measure of assurance which arises from the direct exercise of faith, because there is reason to believe, that many suppose their doubts and fears to arise only from the want of clear experimental evidence of their faith, when they may really have a much deeper source, in the want of a thorough realising conviction that ‘Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the Saviour of sinners,’—of a clear apprehension of the perfect freeness of His Gospel,—and an honest and cordial surrender of themselves into His hands to be saved by Him, and by Him alone, in life and in death, in time and through all eternity. And even when faith in His Gospel is confirmed by the strongest experimental evidence of a saving change in ourselves, assurance will still continue to rest on Christ;—for the fact that ‘we have believed’ is not of itself, or apart from Him, any ground of confidence at all,—it is only important as it is an evidence, that we are united to Christ,—and therefore the Apostle’s confidence was still grounded on Him and His all-sufficiency: ‘I know WHOM I have believed, and am persuaded that HE is able to save, what I have committed to HIM until the great day.’ (5)

PROP. XXVII. A real influence or efficacy is ascribed to Faith in connection with our Justification, but it is such only as belongs to a divinely appointed means of receiving and appropriating a free gift.

In regard to the influence or efficacy which is ascribed to Faith in connection with our Justification, the question, whether it may be best described as a means,—or as an instrument,—or as a condition, is of little importance, so far as it relates merely to the use of these terms,—for every one of them might be applied to it in a sound sense (6); but it becomes important when faith, or faith combined with charity, is represented, either as a meritorious means of procuring pardon and acceptance with God, or as a legal condition by the fulfilment of which we obtain for ourselves the enjoyment of these privileges. Protestant divines have generally held, that it is simply an instrumental means,—like the hand which a beggar stretches out to receive alms,—by which we apprehend Christ, and appropriate to ourselves the benefits of His salvation,—these benefits being at once the fruits of His purchase, and the free gifts of His grace; and while they have sometimes used the term ‘condition,’—as in the Larger Catechism of the Westminster divines,—they have been careful to explain the two senses in which it may be understood—as denoting either a legal condition, on the fulfilment of which eternal life becomes due, as wages are due for work done, in which sense it is rejected,—or as denoting an indispensable means merely in the order of the divine appointment for the attainment of an end, just as breathing is necessary for the support of life, while it is the air which really sustains it; or as eating is necessary for the nourishment of the body, while it is the food which really ministers to its health and strength; in which sense the term may be admitted, although, from its ambiguity, it is more expedient to employ another, that will be less liable to be misunderstood or misapplied. (7)

PROP. XXVIII. The only warrant of Faith is the Word of God, and that Word is sufficient, not only to entitle every sinner to receive and rest upon Christ for his personal salvation, but to make it his duty to do so without delay.

The question in regard to the warrant of Faith,—or what that is which entitles us to receive and rest upon Christ as our own Saviour,—may be answered, in general terms, by saying that it is the truth revealed. It does not relate to the ground of belief in the Scriptures as the Word of God, or the evidence by which their divine authority is established; that is a previous question, and it is one of primary importance; but it relates, more specially, to the right, or rather the duty, of every one to whom the Gospel is sent, to receive and rest upon Christ for his own salvation. (8) His doing so will depend, of course, on his views of the claims of Scripture to be regarded as a revelation of God’s mind and will; and it is to be feared that some remaining doubt on this point lies at the root of that diffidence and distrust which many feel in regard to their warrant to ‘believe and live;’—but even after that point has been established, and when it is clearly understood that Faith, considered as the belief of divine truth on divine authority, can have its ground and reason only in the Word of God, not a few of the hearers of the Gospel are found to have confused or erroneous ideas as to what that is which entitles them, at once and without any delay, to receive and rest upon Christ as their own Saviour. This generally arises from one or other of two distinct causes;—either from some miserable perversion of the doctrine of Election, which leads them to suppose that, since none but the elect will be saved, they are not entitled to rely on Christ for salvation, until they know that they belong to the number of His people;—or from some equally injurious misapplication of the truth in regard to the great spiritual change which is involved in saving conversion, as if it implied the necessity of certain moral qualifications in the sinner, before he is warranted to receive Christ as his own Saviour. Whereas the doctrine of Election,—although it is revealed in Scripture, and should, therefore, be submissively believed, as a truth contained in God’s Word,—has no relation whatever to the warrant of faith, simply because it makes known nothing more than the fact that there is ‘an election according to grace,’ but gives no information in regard to the individuals who belong to it; while ‘the word of the truth of the Gospel’ is addressed, not to any one class of men, but to sinners, as such, and to all sinners without exception, to whom it is sent as the ‘word of salvation.’ That word imposes on every one an immediate and imperative obligation to receive Christ, and to rely upon Him for his own salvation,—an obligation which does not depend in the least on his knowing ‘the secret things which belong to the Lord our God,’ but only and entirely on his knowing ‘the things which are revealed, and which belong to us, and to our children.’ So far as the doctrine of Election is concerned, we have the same warrant of faith on which any one ever believed to the saving of his soul; for, without an immediate personal revelation, such as was vouchsafed to Abraham and to Paul, with special reference to their peculiar vocation to the prophetic or apostolic office, no one needed to know his individual election before he believed, although he might afterwards come to be assured of it,—and, therefore, it was not the secret purpose of God, but the promise of His word, that was regarded as the sole warrant of faith in all ages of the Church. With regard, again, to the spiritual change which is involved in saving conversion, it is not denied,—either that such a change is indispensably necessary,—or that it may not be preceded by a preparatory work of the Spirit in convincing men of sin, and bringing them to feel their need of a Saviour; but it is denied that either the one, or the other, is the warrant of faith; for all are warranted to believe, and, for that reason, all are responsible for unbelief, to whom the Gospel comes; and while it is true that none will actually believe, until they are convinced of sin, so as to feel their need of salvation, and are effectually enabled and persuaded to receive and rest on Christ for it, yet it is the free call, and express command, of the Gospel,—and not anything in themselves, even though it be wrought by the Spirit of God,—which entitles, and even obliges, them to rely at once on Christ, as He is freely offered to them in the inspired Word.

It is not necessary, nor would it be consistent with fact, to deny, that some of the calls and invitations of the Gospel are specially addressed to those who have been convinced of their sin and misery, and have begun to feel their need of a Saviour; for there is a peculiar propriety in their being singled out for special encouragement, since they are apt, under deep convictions of sin, to ‘write bitter things against themselves,’ and to fall into dejection or despair. Accordingly, some of the most precious passages of Scripture relate to them,—such as these: ‘Come unto me, all ye that are weary and heavy laden;’—and ‘whosoever is athirst, let him come unto me and drink.’ But while this specialty is still preserved, the call is nevertheless addressed to sinners universally,—as when it is said, ‘Let the wicked man forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him;’ and when ‘the Spirit and the Bride say, Come,’—with a certain specification, in the first instance—‘whosoever is athirst, let him come,’ but more universally, in the second—and ‘whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.’ The Gospel offer is made to all sinners without any exception; the Gospel promise is made absolutely to ‘all them that believe.’ If their faith may be said to be a condition in order to their final salvation, it is not a condition in order to their warrant to receive and rest upon Christ for salvation; for that warrant consists in the free calls,—the gracious invitations,—and the express commands, of the Gospel, which speaks to sinners, as such, and to every sinner individually, saying, as Paul said to the Philippian gaoler, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and THOU SHALT be saved.’

PROP. XXIX. We are justified by faith only, simply because it is by faith, and by no other grace, that we believe the truth concerning Christ, and rely on Him alone for salvation as He is freely offered to us in the Gospel.

The exclusive instrumentality, and peculiar prerogative, which is ascribed to faith, in connection with our justification, when it is said that we are justified ‘by faith only,’ is sufficiently explained and established by proving, first, that the only ground of our acceptance with God is the finished work, or vicarious righteousness, of Christ; and secondly, that the only grace by which we rely or rest on that ground, as it is revealed in Scripture, is faith, considered as a cordial belief of the truth concerning Christ, and a confiding trust in Him for our personal salvation. If it were acknowledged, that we are justified by the work of Christ only, and that this must be the sole and immediate ground of our faith and hope, there would be little need of any nice metaphysical distinctions respecting the nature of faith, in order to prove that we are justified ‘by faith only;’ for that faith, whatever it be, by which we receive and rest on Christ alone for our acceptance with God, would be seen to be the only means of our Justification. It may involve a spiritual apprehension, and a cordial approbation, of the truth, as well as a mere intellectual belief of it; and it may be associated from the first with some measure of desire, trust, gratitude, love, and hope, as well as immediately followed by these kindred graces, without affecting the truth of the statement, that we are justified ‘by faith only;’ for that statement relates,—not to the simple or complex nature of faith,—but to its sole instrumentality as the means of justification; and if neither faith itself, nor any of the other graces by which it is accompanied or followed, forms any part of our justifying righteousness, we have only to ascertain what that is, which unites us to Christ, and makes us partakers of His righteousness. There can be no doubt that, in Scripture, a special connection is established between Justification and Faith, such as does not subsist between Justification and any other grace; and the reason of this is obvious, if that privilege is immediately apprehended and appropriated when a sinner so believes the truth concerning Christ as to rely on His righteousness only for salvation. (9)

It is true that ‘forgiveness of sins,’ which is included in Justification, is frequently connected, in Scripture, with repentance as well as with faith; as when we read of John preaching the ‘baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,’ and of ‘repentance and remission of sins being preached in Christ’s name among all nations.’ ‘Except ye repent,’ said our Lord, ‘ye shall all likewise perish;’ ‘Repent ye, therefore, and be converted,’ said Peter, ‘that your sins may be blotted out.’ But the repentance which is meant is not mere remorse of conscience, or sorrow on account of sin; it is a thorough change of mind and heart, and it includes faith, or ‘a lively apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ.’ Repentance, in this sense, is necessary to salvation; but it is the faith which is included in it that unites us to Christ, and makes us partakers of His justifying righteousness. This is the special and peculiar function of faith only. But the fact that it is connected in Scripture with repentance, and that both are declared to be necessary to salvation, is sufficient to show that they are constituent elements of that great spiritual change which is described as ‘a second birth,’ and ‘a new creation;’ and as this change must be effected in the case of every sinner who is pardoned and accepted of God, our inquiry would be incomplete, did we not rise, from the consideration of the special function and office of faith in justifying, to that of the more general and comprehensive question, respecting the connection which subsists between Justification and the Work of the Holy Spirit.