taining and if, on the other hand, we understand faith, for the object of faith, viz. what was wrought out by Christ, which faith is conversant about, and conclude, (as I conceive we ought to do,) that this, is imputed for righteousness, this is suppo sed, by some, to deviate too much from the common sense of words, to be allowed of: but if there be such a figurative way of speaking used in other scriptures, why may we not suppose that it is used in this text under our present consideration? If other graces are sometimes taken for the object thereof, why may not faith be taken, by a metonymy, for its object? Thus the apostle calls those whom he writes to, his joy, that is, the object, or matter thereof, Phil. iv. 1. And in the book of Canticles, the church calls Christ her love, Cant. iv. 8. that is, the object thereof. And elsewhere, hope is plainly taken for the object of it, when the apostle says, Hope that is seen, is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? Rom. viii. 24. By which he plainly intends, that whatever is the object of hope, cannot be in our present possession: and Christ is farther styled, The blessed hope, Tit. ii. 13. that is, the person whose appearance we hope for. And Jacob speaks of God as the fear of his father Isaac, Gen. xxxi. 53. that is, the person whom he worshipped with reverential fear; in all which cases the phraseology is equally difficult with that of the text, under our present consideration. Thus concerning Christ's righteousnesss, as wrought out for us, and applied by faith; which is the foundation of all our peace and comfort, both in life and death; and therefore cannot but be reckoned a doctrine of the highest importance: we shall now consider some things that may be inferred from it. And,

[1.] From what has been said concerning justification, as founded in Christ's suretyship-righteousness, wrought out for us, by what was done and suffered by him, in his human nature; and the infinite value thereof, as depending on the glory of the divine nature, to which it is united, we cannot but infer the absurdity of two contrary opinions, namely, that of those who have asserted, that we are justified by the essential righteousness of Christ as God; and that of others, who pretend, that because all mediatorial acts are performed by Christ only as man: therefore the infinite dignity of the divine nature, has no reference to their being satisfactory to divine justice. This is what they mean when they say, that we are justified by This opinion was propagated soon after the reformation, by Andr. Osiander, who lived a little before the middle of the sixteenth century.

father or pattern of faith, his faith must have been of the same kind. There could have been little propriety in giving a faith of any other kind as a pattern to those who are to believe in Christ that they may be "justified by his blood."

Christ's righteousness as man, in opposition to our being jus tified by his essential righteousness as God *: whereas, I think, the truth lies in a medium between both these extremes; on the one hand we must suppose, that Christ's engagement to become a surety for us, and so stand in our room and stead, and thereby to pay the debt which we had contracted to the justice of God, could not be done in any other than the human nature; for the divine nature is not capable of being under a law, or fulfilling it, or, in any instance, of obeying, or suffering; and therefore, we cannot be justified by Christ's essential righteousness, as God; and, on the other hand, what Christ did and suffered as man, would not have been sufficient for our justification, had it not had an infinite value put upon it, ari. sing from the union of the nature that suffered with the divine nature, which is agreeable to the apostle's expression, when he says, God purchased the church with his own blood, Acts,

xx. 28.

[2.] From what has been said, concerning the fruits and effects of justification, as by virtue hereof our sins are pardoned, and we made accepted in the beloved, we infer; that it is not only an unscriptural way of speaking, but has a tendency to overthrow the doctrine we have been maintaining, to assert, as some do, that God is only rendered reconcileable by what was done and suffered by Christ. This seems to be maintained by those who treat on this subject, with a different view. Some speak of God's being rendered reconcileable by Christ's righte ousness that they might make way for what they have farther to advance, namely, that God's being reconciled to a sinner, is the result of his own repentance, or the amendment of his life, whereby he makes his peace with him; which is to make repentance or reformation the matter of our justification, and substitute it in the room of Christ's righteousness: therefore, they who speak of God's being made reconcileable in this sense, by his blood, are so far from giving a true account of the doc trine of justification, that, in reality, they overthrow it.

But there are others, who speak of God's being reconcilea ble as the consequence of Christ's satisfaction, that they might not be thought to assert that God is actually reconciled by the blood of Christ, to those who are in an unconverted state, which is inconsistent therewith; therefore they use this mode of expression, lest they should be thought to give countenance to the doctrine of actual justification before faith; but certainly we are under no necessity of advancing one absurdity to avoid an

* This opinion was propagated soon after by Stancarus, in opposition to Osian der, whom Du Pin reckons amongst the Socinians, or, at least, that after he had advanced this notion, he denied the doctrine of the Trinity. [See Du Pin's eccl. hist. sixteenth century, book iv. chap. 6.]

other: therefore, let it be here considered, that the scripture speaks expressly of God's being reconciled by the death of Christ; and accordingly he is said to have brought him again from the dead, as a God of peace, Heb. xiii. 20. And elsewhere, he speaks of God's having reconciled us to himself by Fesus Christ, 2 Cor. v. 18. and not becoming reconcilable to us. Again, When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved, Rom. v. 10. that is, shall obtain the saving effects of this reconciliation by his life. And again, Having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself: and you that were sometimes alienated, and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled, in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable, and unreprovable in his sight, Col. i. 21, 22. Where he des cribes those who were reconciled as once enemies, and speaks of this privilege as being procured by the death of Christ, and of holiness here, and salvation hereafter, as the consequence of it; therefore it is such a reconciliation as is contained in our justification.

But though this appears very agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost, in scripture, yet it must be understood in consistency with those other scriptures, that represent persons in an unconverted state, as children of wrath, Eph. ii. 3. and being hateful, Tit. iii. 3. that is, not only deserving to be hated by God, but actually hated, as appears by the many threatnings that are denounced against them, and their being in a condemned state, that we may not give countenance to the doctrine of some, who, not distinguishing between God's secret and revealed will, maintain that we are not only virtually, but actually justified before we believe; as though we had a right to claim Christ's righteousness before we have any ground to conclude, that it was wrought out for us: but what has been already suggested concerning justification by faith, will, I think, sufficiently remove this difficulty.

The only thing that remains to be explained is; how God may be said to be reconciled by the blood of Christ, to a person who is in an unconverted state, and as such, represented as a child of wrath? for the understanding of which, let us consider, that so long as a person is an unbeliever, he has no ground to conclude, according to the tenor of God's revealed will, that he is reconciled to him, or that he is any other than a child of wrath. Nevertheless, when we speak of God's being reconciled to his elect, according to the tenor of his secret will, before they believe, that is in effect to say, that justification, as it is an immanent act in God, is antecedent to faith, which is a certain truth, inasmuch as faith is a fruit and con

sequence thereof: whereas, God does not declare that he is reconciled to us, or give us ground to conclude it; whereby we appear no longer to be children of wrath, till we believe. If this be duly considered, we have no reason to assert, that God is reconcileable, rather than reconciled by the death of Christ, lest we should be thought to maintain the doctrine of justification, or deliverance from wrath, as a declared act, before we believe. And to this we may add, that God was reconcileable to his elect, that is, willing to be reconciled to them before Christ died for them; otherwise he would never have sent him into the world to make reconciliation for the sins of his people: he was reconcileable, and therefore designed to turn from the fierceness of his wrath; and in order thereunto, he ap-. pointed Christ to make satisfaction for sin, and procure peace for them.

[3.] There is not the least inconsistency between those scriptures which speak of justification as being an act of God's free grace, and others, which speak of it as being, by faith, founded on Christ's righteousness; or between God's pardoning sin freely, without regard to any thing done by us to procure it; and yet insisting on, and receiving a full satisfaction, as the meritorious and procuring cause of it. This is sometimes objected against what we have advanced in explaining the doctrine of justification, as being, in some respects, an act of justice, and in others, of grace; as though it were inconsistent with itself, and our method of explaining it were liable to an absurdity, which is contrary to reason; as though two contradictory propositions could be both true; namely, that justification should be an act of the strictest justice, without any abatement of the debt demanded, and yet of free grace, without insisting on the payment of the debt: but this seeming contradiction may be easily reconciled, if we consider that the debt was not paid by us in our own persons; which had it been done, it would have been inconsistent with forgiveness's being an act of grace; but by our surety, and in that respect there was no abatement of the debt, nor did he receive a discharge by an act of grace, but was justified as our head or surety, by his own righteousness, or works performed by him; whereas, we are justified by his suretyship-righteousness, without works performed by us; and this surety was provided for us; as has been before observed; and therefore, when we speak of justification, as being an act of grace, we distinguish between the justification of our surety, after he had given full satisfaction for the debt which we had contracted; and this payment's being placed to our account by God's gracious imputation thereof to us, and our obtaining forgiveness as the result thereof, which can be no other than an act of the highest grace.

[4.] From what has been said concerning justification by faith, we infer, the method, order and time, in which God justifies his people. There are some who not only speak of justi fication before faith, but from eternity; and consider it as an immanent act in God in the same sense as election is said to be. I will not deny eternal justification, provided it be considered as contained in God's secret will, and not made the rule by which we are to determine ourselves to be in a justified state, and as such to have a right and title to eternal life, before it is revealed or apprehended by faith: if we take it in this sense, it is beyond dispute, that justification is not by faith; but inasmuch as the most known, yea, the only sense in which justification is spoken of, as applied to particular persons, is, that it is by faith: therefore, we must suppose,

1st, That it is a declared act. That which is hid in God, and not declared, cannot be said to be applied; and that which is not applied, cannot be the rule by which particular persons may judge of their state. Thus, if we speak of eternal election, and say, That God has peremptorily determined the state of those that shall be saved, that they she not perish; this is nothing to particular persons, unless they have ground to conclude themselves elected. So if we say that God has, from all eternity, given his elect into Christ's hands; that he has undertaken before the foundation of the world, to redeem them; and that, pursuant hereunto, God promised that he would give eternal life unto them; or, if we consider Christ as having fulfilled what he undertook from all eternity, finished transgression, brought in everlasting righteousness, and fully paid the debt which he undertook; consider him as being discharged, and receiving an acquittance, when raised from the dead; and all this as done in the name of the elect, as their head and representative; and if you farther consider them, as it is often expressed, as virtually justified in him; all this is nothing to them, with respect to their peace and comfort; they have no more a right to claim an interest in this privilege or relation, than if he had not paid a price for them. Therefore, we suppose that justification, as it is the foundation of our claim to eternal life, is a declared act.

2d. If justification be a declared act, there must be some method which God uses, whereby he declares, or makes it known. Now it is certain, that he, no where in scripture, tells an unbeliever that he has an interest in Christ's righteousness, or that his sins are pardoned, or gives him any warrant to take comfort from any such conclusion; but, on the other hand, such an one has no ground to conclude any other, concerning himself, but that he is a child of wrath; for he is to judge of things according to the tenor of God's revealed will. Christ's