2

which does not differ much from the words of the learned person, in the writings of those, whose unhappy names and heretical principles, I from my very heart believe are detesta

ble to him.

LI. 2dly. When the discourse is about the relation which faith beara to justification, the learned person does not seera with sufficient caution to repeat so often the act of believing. For it is well known that the reformed churches condemned Arminius and his followers, for saying that faith comes to be considered in the matter of justification as a work or act of ours: whereas the Dutch confession speaks far more accurately; namely, that faith is here instead of an instrument, whereby we are joined together with Christ in a partnership or communion of all his benefits. I' am well aware, that this is not very agreeable to the learned person, who maintains, that faith can be said to be the instrument of justification no other way but as it is a kind of condition, prerequisite on our part thereto. But when the Remonstrant apologists, in order to be relieved from that troublesome expression of our confessions, by their softening interpretations wrote, that faith is therefore said to be the in strument of justification," as it is a work performed by us according to the command, and by the grace of God. For, a condition, so far as it is performed, may in some measure be said to become a mean or instrument, whereby we obtain the thing promised on such a condition," Apolog. p. 112. a. The Reformed protested, that they were displeased with this explication. They deny not, that our master, Christ himself says, John vi. 29. that faith is a work: neither do they refuse that in the matter of justification, the apprehending and re ceiving Christ is an act of faith and that faith ought to be so far considered as active. Yet they deny, that faith justi fies as it is an act prescribed by God (for thus it would stand in the same relation with the other works enjoined by the law) but they affirm, that we are justified by that act, as by it we apprehend Christ, are united to him, and embrace his righteousness. Which they usually explain by this simili tude; a beggar's stretching forth his hand, by which, at the command of a rich man, he receives the free gift of his charity, is the act of the beggar prescribed by the rich; but it does not enrich the beggar, as it is an act, but as by this means he applies the gift to himself, and appropriates, or makes it his own. These things are too evident to be ob scured by any quibbles or subtleties whatever.

LII. 3dly. Nor do I think it an accurate way of speaking,

in good works that acts of love and holiness are required, as fruits of faith, as testimonies of Christ dwelling in us, as marks of our regeneration, as what go before salvation, and without which there can be no full assurance of it. But that those acts of love, holiness, and conversion, concur with faith to justification, and are included in justifying faith, as such, is a strange way of speaking to reformed ears, nor agreeable to scripture, which always, in the matter of justification, sets faith in opposition to all works whatever.s

LIV. 5thly. Some time ago I read in Socinus, before the sentiments of this celebrated person came to hand, the same exception which he makes, that, by the works which Paul excludes from justification, is understood the perfect observance of the law, such as the legal covenant requires. For thus he says de servat. P. 4. c. 11. " the works to which faith is op posed are not every kind of works, nor taken and considered in every light, but, as we have observed elsewhere, these works denote an absolute and perpetual observance and performance of the divine law, through the whole course of life.". But our divines openly declared against this exposition; who contend that all works, however considered, are opposed to faith. The apostle's words are plain, he that worketh not, but believeth, and his mind or intention, as Lubbertus has learnedly observed, is to be considered from the state of the controversy, then in debate. But the state of the controversy was not, whether a man could be justified by a perfect observance of the law, if there was any one who could keep it perfectly? Which none in his senses will deny or whether there are many, who, since Adam's first sin, have, for the whole of their life, done nothing amiss, but have attained to every perfection both of parts, de grees and perseverance? Which none in his right mind will affirm. But the matter in question was, whether the Jews could be justified by that observance of the law which they were able to perform. They certainly thought that they could be justified if they only observed the moral law to the utmost of their power, and gave these satisfactions for their failings which the ceremonial law had prescribed. But the apostle denies this, resting his argument on that maxim, that the righteousness which can be valid at God's tribunal, must be perfect in all its parts: but since none can pretend to any such works, he concludes, that no works, of what kind soever, can contribute any thing to obtain justification. The apostle, doubtless, excludes those works in which they commonly trusted, who endeavoured to establish their own righteousness. But it is not credible, that any of them could say, that he kept himself pure, through the

whole course of his life from every even the least stain of sin. These things are evident.wor

LV. But I would not have it wrested to the worst sense, in that I have in some things compared the opinion of this celebrated person with that of Socinus and the Remonstrants. It was not with the view to rank a man, in other respects ortho dox, and usefully employed in the service of the church of God, with those perverters of our faith. This of all things is farthest from my mind and manner: but my design was only to warn those under my care, and who may reap benefit by the very learned labours of this person, with considerable increase of knowledge, against these and the like expressions; in which, through a disgust for controversy, and a too eager desire of laying disputes aside, he seems to yield rather too much to our adversaries. Peace indeed is to be pursued, but by no means at the expense of truth.

LVI. The genuine opinion of the reformed is this: that faith justifies, as it is the bond of our strictest union with Christ, by which all things that are Christ's become also ours, as we explained & XXXI. Or, which is the same thing, as it is the acceptance of the gift offered, rendering the donation firm and irrevocable. And this is what the apostle intended when he wrote Rom. iv. 5. that faith is counted for righteousness, that is, faith is judged to be that with which the right of demanding the reward is connected; a way of speaking borrowed from mer chants: thus in the book of God's accompts is set down what he hath given to us, and what we are indebted to him. But when in the other page, our complete obedience, and the payment of the debt could not be inserted, what then is written there, viz. to balance the account? In the first place, our right. eousness or the righteousness of Christ wrought out for us: then our faith by which we receive that righteousness offered to us, and present it to God as ours, sker iphonedov.

LVII: It is, moreover, to be observed, that justification, if we take in whatever can be comprised under that name, con sists of various articles, or periods, which we will describe in the most pointed manner we can. And first, God's sentence

The author does not here mean, that faith, as an act of ours, justifies; for he has sufficiently explained himself on that head; he only mentions faith here as the instrument by which we lay hold on Christ's righteousness whereby our debt, both of duty and punishment, is fully paid. *'.

+ The word articulus is of various significations; but it is plain from the sequel, that the author here uses it, for a moment or period, so that he here gives us very distinct account of the Time of justification.

of absolution regards either all the elect in general collected into one mystical body; or relates to each in particular. I observe two articles with respect to that general sentence: the first of which commenced immediately upon the fall; when Christ, having entered into suretiship engagements for elect sinners, obtained by his covenant, which the Father was assured he would most faithfully perform, that Satan should be condemnned in the serpent, his right over man, which he acquired by wicked arts, be made void as to the elect; and the elect, on the other hand, who are comprehended under the seed of the woman, be declared, in' Christ their head, no longer friends or subjects, but enemies and conquerors of the devil. For, all these things are contained in the first gospel promise; which presupposes that suretiship of Christ, whereby he took upon himself all the sins of the elect, and on account of which God declared, he never intended to exact them from any of his chosen; because, on admitting a Surety, the principal debtor is freed from all obligation to make satisfaction. And this is the first effect of Christ's suretiship, the declaration of that counsel of God, by which he had purposed to justify the ungodly; and not to impute sin to those who are inserted as heirs in the testament.

LVIII. The other article of this general justification relates to the time in which God declared that full satisfaction was made to his justice by a dying Christ. Of which Paul treats 2 Cor. v. 19. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." He, together and at once reconciled to himself the whole world of his elect; and declared that he would not impute their trespasses to any of them, on account of the perfect satisfaction of Christ. For, when he raised Christ from the dead, he gave him a discharge, in testimony that the payment was made; and when he rent the vail of the temple, he also tore the hand writing consisting in ordinances, which, till that time, loudly proclaimed that payment was not yet made. But who can doubt, that a creditor, tearing the hand writing or bond, and giving a discharge to the Surety, declares, he will not, and even in law cannot, demand any satisfaction of the principal debtor?

LIX. But justification is not confined to these bounds. Besides that general declaration of God, there is also another, applied to every believer in particular. And this again has its distinct articles. The first is, when the elect person, who is redeemed, regenerated and united to Christ by a living faith, is declared to have now actually passed from a state of condemnation and wrath, to a state of grace or favour. For, the elect sinner, though redeemed by Christ, and so far reconciled to

T