pected without the other; and though men are to forgive injuries in case the offender acknowledges his fault, and makes sufficient restitution; this they may do, inasmuch as the offence is only committed against a creature; and especially if the offence be of a private nature. But supposing this should be applied to juridical and forensick cases, will any one say, that the prince is obliged to forgive the criminal who is under a sentence of condemnation, because he is sorry for what he has done, or confesses his fault? Would this secure his honour as a law-giver? And if hereupon the offender were to be discharged from his guilt, would not this be a defect in the administration of the legislature? How then can this be applied to forgiveness, expected at the hand of God; in which justice, as well as mercy, is to have the glory that is due to it; and we are not only to be acquitted, but justified, or pronounced guiltless, since our acknowledgment of our offence cannot be reckoned a sufficient satisfaction to the justice of God?

Object. It is objected, by those on the other side of the question, that though repentance be not in itself a sufficient compensation to the justice of God for the crimes which we have committed; yet God may, by an act of grace, accept of it, as though it had been sufficient *. This they illustrate by a similitude taken from a person's selling an estate of a considerable value, to one who has no money to buy it, provided he will pay a pepper-corn of acknowledgment. Thus, how insignificant soever, repentance, or any other grace, which is deemed the matter of our justification, be in itself, it is by an act of favour, deemed a sufficient price.

Answ. In answer to this I would observe, that the objection, which was before brought against the doctrine we have been maintaining, concerning the imputation of Christ's righteousness, namely, that it was a putative righteousness, a not judging of things according to truth, and the like, seems to be of no weight when it affects their own cause; otherwise we might turn their argument against themselves, and ask them; whether this be for God to judge according to truth, when that is accepted as a sufficient payment, by his justice, which is in itself of no value? But passing this by, we may farther observe, that this is wholly to set aside the necessity of satisfaction, as the Socinians do; and therefore it is no wonder that they make use of this method of reasoning. As for others who do not altogether deny this doctrine, yet think that a small price may be deemed satisfactory for sin committed. That which

This is what is generally styled, by a diminutive word, Acceptilatio gratiosa, which is an accepting a small part of a debt, instead of the whole; a sort of compo sition, in which, though the payment be inconsiderable, yet the debtor's discharge is founded thereon, by an act of favour in the creditor, as though the whole sum hud been paid.

may be replied to it, is, that if justification, as tending to advance the glory of divine justice, in taking away the guilt of sin, depends upon a price paid that is equivalent to the debt contracted; and nothing short of a price of infinite value can be reckoned an equivalent thereunto, then certainly that which is performed by men, cannot be deemed a sufficient payment, or accepted of as such.

It is a vain thing for persons to pretend that there is a difference between satisfying God, and satisfying his justice; or, that to satisfy God is to pay a price, be it never so small, that he demands; whereas, satisfying justice is paying a price equal to the thing purchased; since we must conclude, that God cannot deem any thing satisfactory to himself, that is not so to his justice. Therefore, this distinction will not avail, to free their argument from the absurdity that attends it.

We might here observe, that as some speak of pardon of sin's being founded on our repentance; others speak of our justification as being by the act of faith, or by faith considered as a work, and in defending justification by works, as though it were not opposed to justification by faith (the contrary to which has been before proved) they argue, that we are often said, in scripture, to be justified by faith; but this faith is a work; therefore it cannot be denied but that we are justified by works. To which it may be replied, that it is one thing to say, that we are justified by faith, that is, a work, and another thing to say, that we are justified by it as a work; or, it is one thing to say, that we are justified for our faith, and another thing to say, that we are justified by it; which will more evidently appear under the following head, which we proceed to consider; namely,

II. What it is for us to be justified by faith, or how faith justifies. None can, with the least shadow of reason, deny, that justification by faith, is a scripture-mode of speaking, though some have questioned, whether the apostle's words, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, gives countenance to the doctrine of justi fication by faith; for they observe, that by putting a stop immediately after the word justified, the sense would be, that they who are justified by Christ's righteousness, have peace with God by faith, through the Lord Jesus Christ: but though this will a little alter the reading of the text; yet it will not overthrow the doctrine of justification by faith, as contained therein. For if we understand our having peace with God, as importing, that peace which they have a right to, who are interestcd in Christ's righteousness, and not barely peace of conscience: then it will follow, that to have this peace by faith, is, in effect, the same as to be justified by faith; and this farther ap

pears, from the following words, by whom also we have access by faith into this grace, wherein we stand. The grace wherein we stand, is that grace which is the foundation of our justification, and not barely peace of conscience: when we are therefore said to have access by faith unto this grace, it is the same as for us to be justified by faith.

Moreover, this is not the only place in which we are said to be justified by faith; for the apostle says elsewhere, We are justified by the faith of Jesus Christ, Gal. ii. 16. or by faith in Jesus Christ, and again, the just shall live by faith, Rom. i. 17. which, agreeably to the context, must be understood of their being justified by faith; in which sense the apostle particularly explains it elsewhere, Gal. iii. 11. and in another place he speaks of the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, Rom. iii. 22. and also of a believer's waiting for the kope of righteousness by faith, Gal. v. 5. We must not therefore deny that justification is by faith; but rather explain the sense of those scriptures that establish this doctrine, agreeably. to the mind of the Holy Ghost therein.

There are various methods taken to explain the doctrine of justification by faith; particularly one that we think subversive of justification by Christ's righteousness: the other, that which is contained in the answer which we are explaining.

1. As to the former of these, namely, that which is inconsistent with the doctrine of justification by Christ's righteousness. This is maintained by those who plead for justification by works; and consequently, they say, that we are justified by faith, and all other graces; which they call the conditions of our justification in the sight of God; and indeed to be justified by faith, according to them, is little other than to be justified for faith: whether they reckon it a meritorious condition or no, they must own it to be a pleadable condition; otherwise it would have no reference to justification; and if it be taken in this sense, our justification depends as much upon it, as though it had been meritorious. This is the account which some give of justification; and to prepare the way for this opinion, they suppose, that the terms of salvation, in the gospel, which are substituted in the room of those which were required under the first covenant made with Adam, are faith, repentance and sincere obedience, instead of perfect; and that God in justifying a penitent, believing sinner, pursuant to the performance of these conditions, declares his willingness, that there should be a relaxation of that law which man was at first, obliged to obey; and accordingly, that sincerity is demanded by him instead of perfection, or substituted in the room of it; this they call the new law, or others style it a remedial law : so that instead of being justified by Christ's yielding perfect

obedience, or paying the out-standing debt, which we were obliged, by reason of the violation of the first covenant, to paywe are to be justified by our own imperfect obedience.

But that which may be objected to this method of reason, ing, is, that it is inconsistent with the holiness of the divine nature, and the glory of the justice of God, detracts from the honour of his law, and is, in effect, to maintain that we are justified without satisfaction given. For though these terms of our justification, and acceptance in the sight of God, may be falsely styled a valuable consideration; yet none will pretend to assert, that they are an infinite price; and nothing short of that (which is no other than Christ's righteousness) is sufficient to answer this end. I am sensible, that they who lay down this plan of justification, allege in defence thereof; that though these terms of acceptance are of small value in themselves; yet God, by an act of grace, reckons the payment of a small debt equivalent to that of a greater, as has been before observed. And they speak of faith and repentance as having a value set upon them by their reference to the blood of Christ *, who merited this privilege for us, that we should be justified in such a way, or upon these conditions performed: they call them indeed easier terms, or conditions, and include them all in the general word sincerity, instead of perfection. But they are nevertheless somewhat divided in their method of explaining themselves, inasmuch as some suppose these conditions to be wholly in our own power, without the aids of divine grace, as much as perfect obedience was in the power of our first parents; whereas others ascribe a little more to the grace of God, according as they explain the doctrine of effectual calling; though they do not suppose, that these conditions are altogether out of our own power; and they so far lay a foundation for the sinner's glorying herein, as that, they suppose, our right to justification and eternal life is founded on them.

I cannot but think this method of explaining the doctrine of justification to be subversive of the gospel, and that it is highly derogatory to the glory of God to assert that he can dispense with the demand of perfect obedience, and justify a person on easier terms; which is little better than what the apostle calls make void the law: this, says he, we are far from doing by faith, or by our asserting the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ's righteousness; but we rather establish it hereby: and to say that God sets such a value on our performing these conditions of the new covenant, as that they are deemed equivalent to Christ's performing perfect obedience for us, this reflects on his glory, as set forth, to be a propitiation for sin, to declare God's righteousness in the remission thereof; and da • These works they speak of as Tincta sanguine Christi. VOL. III.

tracts from the obligation which we are laid under to him, for what he did and suffered in our behalf, for our justification.

Moreover, to assert that God sets this value on our performances, pursuant to Christ's merit; or that they are highly esteemed by him, because they are tinctured with his blood; this is contrary to the design of his death, which was, not that such an estimate might be set on what is done by us; but rather, that the iniquities that attend our best performances may be forgiven; and that (though, when we have done all, we are unprofitable servants,) we may be made accepted in the Beloved; and having no justifying righteousness of our own, may be justified, and glory in that which he hath wrought out for us.

And as for the supposition, that faith, repentance, and new obedience, are not only conditions of justification, but easy to be performed: this plainly discovers, that they who maintain it, either think too lightly of man's impotency and averseness to what is good, and his alienation from the life of God, or are strangers to their own hearts, and are not duly sensible that it is God that works in his people both to will and to do, of his own good pleasure.

The only thing that I shall add, in opposition to the doctrine of justification by works, is, that whatever is the matter or ground of our justification in the sight of God, must be pleadable at his bar; for we cannot be justified without a plea, and if any plea, taken from our own works, be thought sufficient, how much soever the proud and deluded heart of man may set too great a value upon them; yet God will not reckon the plea valid, so as to discharge us from guilt, and give us a right and title to eternal life on the account thereof; which leads us to consider,

2. The method taken to explain this doctrine in the answer before us, which we think agreeable to the divine perfections, and contains a true state of the doctrine of justification by faith. We before considered justification as a forensic act, that we might understand what is meant by our sins being imputed to Christ our Head and Surety, and his righteousness imputed to us, or placed to our account. And we are now to speak of this righteousness as pleaded by, or applied to us, as the foundation of our claim to all the blessings that were purchased by it. Here we must consider a sinner as bringing in his plea, in order to his discharge; and this is twofold.

(1.) If he be charged by men, or by Satan, with crimes not committed, he pleads his own innocency; if charged with hypocrisy, he pleads his own sincerity. Thus we are to understand several expressions in scripture to this purpose; as for instance, when a charge of the like nature was brought in against