own doing, in order to his juftification; and therefore it cannot poffibly be, that fuch faith has any fort of works, any fort of obedience included in the nature of it, as it is a juftifying faith. It justifies only as it receives a divine gift freely offered; or, in the Apostle's language, as it believeth on him who juftifieth the ungodly. Here is no room left for any evafion. After never so many critical diftinctions are made, Him that worketh not, is Him that worketh not. He moreover fhews us, that the faith under confideration is a believing on him that justifies the ungodly; and therefore cannot include evangelical obedience in the nature of it, unless evangelical obedience and ungodliness be the fame thing.It is true, that a perfon when juftified, or when exercifing that faith through which he is justified, ceases to be in his state and habitual course ungodly; for he has a faith which not only fends him to Chrift for juftification, but for fanctification too, and which not only embraces the promise, but the precept too, and is a vital active principle of all obedi But then there is no moment of time inter◄ venes between his state of ungodliness and his juftification. He further fhews, that God imputeth righteoufnefs, for our juftification, without works ; and therefore obedience cannot be included in the nature of justifying faith as fuch, unless obedience be without works alfo.-Here likewife the expreffions are strong and plain. There is no room for fhift or cavil. When all the most plaufible pretences in the world are made to avoid the force of thefe expreffions, without works, is without works ftill.

ence.

How admirable does the pretence which I am oppofing appear, when the Apostle does with his own pen, in as strong and pointed language as can be used, obviate the pretence, reject it, and con

fute

fute it, and that too in the very context upon which it is founded.-I need therefore offer no other arguments to clear this point; it is effectually done to my hand by the Apostle himself, and his reafoning ought to take place against all objections. Could we be juftified by any fort of works or obedience, perfonally performed by us, we should have whereof to glory: And were our justification a reward given on account of any works of obedience of ours, it would be of debt, and not of grace. But both these things are inconfiftent with God's gracious difpenfation towards us. He imputeth righteousness to him that worketh not; He justifieth the ungodly: He imputeth righteousness without works; and therefore the faith which is imputed unto righteousness, does not, cannot, as fuch, include any fort of obedience in the nature of it.

I proceed now to prove to you, that the faith which is imputed to believers unto their juftification, is not their own perfonal righteousness. This will evidently appear, if you duly confider thefe following arguments.

That righteoufnefs by which a finner is juftified, is the righteousness of God. The righteousness of GOD is revealed from faith to faith, Rom. i. 17.-We are made the righteoufnefs of God in him, 2 Cor. v. 21. -The righteoufnefs of God which is by faith of Fefus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe, Rom. iii. 22. Now it cannot be true, that the righteouf nefs of God and our own inherent perfonal righteouf nefs are the fame thing.-If it be pretended, that faith is the gift of God, and as fuch it is the righteoufnefs of GOD, the anfwer is eafy. Faith, confidered in itself as a principle, is ours fubjectively, and confidered in its exercise, it is ours formally, or our own perfonal act; and in that refpect, fo far as it is any righteoufnefs at all, it is our own perfonal

T

perfonal righteousness; and therefore, as it is our own perfonal righteoufnefs, it can no more properly be faid to be the righteoufnefs of God, than our breath can be said to be the breath of God, our words to be the words of God, or our locomotion to be the motion of God. For our power to breathe, to speak, or to move, is as truly the gift of God, as our power to believe.-Besides, all pretences of this kind are utterly excluded by the quoted texts. For if faith cannot with any propriety be faid to be revealed from faith to faith; if we cannot with any propriety fay, that faith is a righteousness by faith of Jefus Chrift; then faith is not the righteousness of God, by which we are jufti. fied; and therefore we cannot be juftified by faith, as it is our own inherent perfonal righteoufnefs, and yet be justified by the righteousness of God.

Moreover, we are faid to be made righteous by the obedience of Chrift, Rom. v. 19. and to be juftified by the blood of Chrift, Rom. v. 9.-But faith, as it is our perfonal inherent righteoufnefs, is in no refpect the obedience of Chrift, or the blood of Chrift; and therefore faith, as it is our perfonal inherent righteousness, can in no refpect be that righteoufnefs by which we are juftified, or made righteous before God.

Furthermore, faith, as it is our personal inherent righteousness, is our own; but the righteousness by which we are juftified is not our own. Not having my own righteousness, Phil. iii. 9. And therefore faith, as our perfonal inherent righteoufnefs, does not justify us before God.

I will only add, if faith, as it is our inherent perfonal righteoufnefs, cannot anfwer the demands of the moral law, it cannot justify us confiftently with the perfections of the divine nature; but the former is true, and therefore the latter. If there had been

a

a law given, which could have given life, verily righte oufnefs fhould have been by the law, Gal. iii. 21. But this was impoffible in the cafe of fallen man, as being utterly inconfiftent with the divine perfections. I think no man will pretend, that our perfonal inherent righteoufnefs can anfwer the demands of the moral law. I fhall therefore only endeavour to fhew you how it is utterly inconfiftent with the divine perfections that finners fhould be juftified by any righteousness, which will not anfwer the demands of the moral law.

It cannot be agreeable to the justice of God, that we fhould be justified by any righteoufnefs, which will not answer the demands of the moral law. For which reason, God fending his own Son, in the likeness of finful flesh, and for fin condemned fin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, Rom. viii. 3, 4. It is by declaring Chrift's righteoufnefs (by which the demands of the moral law are fatisfied) that God can be juft, and yet the juftifier of him which believeth in Jefus, Rom. iii. 26. -The glorious God justly gave us the law as the rule of our obedience; jufly required our perfect conformity to it, and jufly annexed the penalties to it in cafe of difobedience. This law was founded upon, and flowed from the juftice of the divine nature. Obedience to it was required, and the penalties of it were annexed, by the rectoral justice of the great Governor of the world. And the justice of God is now the fame that it was when this law was first given; and with the fame inflexible severity requires that it be fulfilled, and not a title of it pass away, or be deftroyed. The fame juftice, which annexed the penalties, must be fatiffied for the violation of the law, in fuch manner as that the honour of a righteous judge may be fecu red, and the penalty of the law fulfilled.-Whence

it follows, that no perfonal inherent righteousness of ours whatsoever can juftify us before God, confiftent with his rectoral justice; because it cannot anfwer the demands of the moral law.

It is altogether impertinent to pretend, that Chrift has procured easier terms than obedience to the law of nature; and that our fincere obedience to the gospel is now the condition of our justification. For the queftion ftill recurs, Which way is the moral law fulfilled? Has Chrift fulfilled that for us, and in our place and ftead; or has he not? If he has, we then have a better righteoufnefs to plead for our juftification than any perfonal inherent righteousness of our own; but if he has not, the laru has ftill its full challenges upon us (penal as well as preceptive) notwithstanding any righteousness of our own, and we cannot be justified upon this bottom, confiftently with the governing justice of God.

I must further obferve, it cannot be agreeable to the holiness of God, that finners fhould be juftified by any righteoufness whatsoever, which does not fully answer the demands of the moral law. The moral law is (as it were) a copy or transcript of the holiness of God; and must therefore be a perpetualand unalterable rule of righteousness to man. There can ftrictly be no righteousness, but by a complete conformity to this law; and hence none can, confiftent with God's holiefs, be accepted by him as righteous, who have not a full conformity to this original and only rule of righteousness to plead in their favour. If therefore we can have no fuch perfect conformity to the moral law, to plead before God on account of our own perfonal inherent righteousness, or any other way, but on the account of the imputed righteousness of Christ only; then faith, as it is our own perfonal inherent righteoufnefs,

4