388 (398)
Chapter 33
The Righteousness of Christ is the Special Object of
Faith in Justification
Considering
what hath been said at some length above, concerning the imputation of the
Surety-Righteousness of Christ, in order to justification, we needed not insist
on this here; seeing if what is said touching that fundamental point hold, this
will not endure much debate. Yet because Mr. Baxter in his Apology
against Mr. Blake, § 11, is pleased to tell us that faith, which is the
justifying condition, is not terminated on the righteousness of Christ: And
that it is a mere fancy and delusion to speak of receiving a righteousness
that we may be justified constitutive thereby, in such a sense, as if the
righteousness were first to be made ours, in order of nature before our
justification, and then justification follow, because we are righteous.
389 (399)
But,
surely, this eying of, laying hold on, and leaning to the righteousness of
Christ, holds clear correspondence with the experience of the children of God,
not only at their first conversion, when delivered from under the convictions
of sin, and the terrors of the law; but even afterward, when exercised with new
assaults from Satan, objecting unto them their unworthiness, and filthiness,
and hence inferring their exclusion from the face of God: for then their main
quieting refuge is the righteousness of Christ; wherein they seek only to be
found, acknowledging in themselves, they are but sinners, and so rejecting
their own worth and holiness, as too ragged to cover the shame of their
nakedness, wherein they have the Apostle Paul going before them, Philippians 3:
8, 9, (which may also serve, for a scriptural proof and ground of the truth in
hand.) He rejects all these things, wherein once he gloried, and he did now
(even long after his conversion, while a prisoner at Rome and after all his
great labor and pains in spreading the Gospel) count all things (nothing
is here excepted) but loss (saith Paul) for the excellency of the
knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all
things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him,
not having mine own righteousness (it is not good that Mr. Baxter should
carp at writers and preachers for speaking and teaching after this manner, as
he doth, Cath. Theol.
Mor. Works §176,) which is of the law; but
that, which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God
by faith. This says clearly that in order to justification before God,
faith lays hold on a righteousness, which is of God, and which is had by the
faith of Christ.
And
this Surety-Righteousness of Christ is that which can only prove suitable unto
the case of a wakened sinner, pressed with the guilt of sin, and seeing justice
armed against him, stopping his way to life, because of his unrighteousness.
What can be more welcome unto such a sinner, than the news of a righteousness, and of having Christ to become the Lord his
righteousness, as made of God righteousness? And what can his faith grip to
more earnestly, than to this righteousness, that he may be covered therewith, and think with joy of appearing before God? How
else shall he think to be justified by God, who is just, even when the
justifier of a believing sinner. He knows, that God is righteous, and will not
acquit the guilty; and therefore he must have a righteousness, that he may be
in case to stand before the righteous God: So that he can have no peace, till
by faith he have interest in the Surety Righteousness of Jesus Christ; for he
knows, that he hath none of his own, and that there is none anywhere else to be
had.
And
further, this way doth exceedingly serve to demonstrate, upon the one hand, the
righteousness of God, who will not justify without a righteousness, or one that
hath no righteousness; and upon the other hand, it commends the riches of the
free grace and mercy of God, when the sinner sees, how free love hath provided
such an all sufficient remedy, a righteousness against which, no exception can
be made, and a righteousness, under the wings of which, he may safely hide and
shelter himself, and being covered
390 (400)
with which, he may rest confident of acceptance, and so
may with full peace of mind rest here, and rely upon it. As also it serves
exceedingly to abase man in his own eyes, and to make him forever keep a low
sail, and walk humbly before this God, and give him the glory of all.
Hence
this righteousness is called the righteousness of faith, or of Christ believed
in, and laid hold on, Romans 4: 13, and the righteousness of God, which is
by faith of Jesus Christ, Romans 3: 22, Philippians 3: 9, and a righteousness through the faith of Christ, ibid. All
these and the like expressions do manifestly say, that faith lays hold on a righteousness, even on the righteousness of God. And this
righteousness is said to be unto all, and upon all that believe, Romans 3:
22, ei)j
pa/ntaj kai\ e)pi pa/ntaj, and imputed, or reckoned upon
their score, Romans 4: 24. Mr. Baxter in the forecited book, Cath. Theol. § 131,
says that the meaning Romans 4: 24 is no more, but that God reputes, or
judges us righteous. But how can he repute us righteous, unless we have a righteousness, either of our own, or from some other: of
ourselves we have not a righteousness, unless he accounts believing all our
righteousness, against which we have said enough above; and the very words of
the text will not admit of this gloss, as was also shown above. If it be the
righteousness of Christ, who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised
again for our justification, verse 25, then it is a fit object for faith to lay
hold on, it being Christ’s Surety Righteousness, or the righteousness, which he
performed and wrought out, when he was delivered for our offenses; and which
was publicly declared to be accepted, when he was raised again for our
justification. And regardless of whatever Mr. Baxter thinks, this is and must
be so far made our own, through the gracious imputation of God, that the
righteous God, whose judgment is according to truth, may pronounce us righteous,
and accept us as such. But Mr. Baxter says, Imputing
righteousness to us, is a consequent act (after faith) of God as judge, and not
an antecedent donation. Yet it is such a consequent act of God, as
necessarily presupposes God’s free antecedent donation. For it is God reckoning
that righteousness upon the believer’s score, in order to the justifying of him
thereupon; and because this righteousness must be given, we not having it of
ourselves, there must be a free donation antecedent, and this is the ground for
faith’s accepting thereof, and receiving of it. And he himself says immediately
before this, that God, giving us all the effects, or salvation merited, in
itself properly, is said also not unfitly to give us the merit or
righteousness, which procured them, that is, as it was paid to God for us, to
procure them. And if so, why doth he inveigh so much, in the foregoing
pages, against the orthodox doctrine of imputation; seeing he must know that
they do not say that God doth give us the very habits of holiness (as he
speaks there) which were in Christ, nor the transient acts which he
performed, nor the very sufferings which he underwent, nor the relation
of righteousness satisfactory and meritorious, as it was that numerical
relation, which immediately resulted from Christ’s own habits, acts and
sufferings. They dream of no such translation of accidents, but only say that
seeing (as Mr. Baxter here and elsewhere says) this satisfactory righteousness
was paid to God for them,
391 (401)
and accepted of God, as a complete and satisfactory
righteousness, they by faith coming to be united unto Christ (according to the
way and method which the Lord hath wisely condescended upon) have an interest
in that satisfactory righteousness, as legally made over unto them, and
therefore have the benefits purchased thereby; as when a stranger, who was not
under the obligation, comes to pay the debt of a debtor lying in prison, the
payment must in law sense be made, and accounted the debtors, or put upon his
score, and received upon his account, ere he can therefore be relieved out of
prison.
But in
the fore-cited place against Mr. Blake, he makes this righteousness and
remission all one thing: and indeed if it were so, it
could not belong to the object of faith, otherwise, than as an end, intended to
be obtained thereby. But to us remission is a benefit purchased by this
righteousness, and follows upon our having interest therein through faith,
according to the appointment of God: a pardoned man, as such, is not a
righteous man. But he tells us there that our divines of the Assembly do
perfectly define justifying faith to be a receiving and resting upon Christ
alone for salvation, as he is offered in the Gospel. It is of dangerous
consequence to define justifying faith to be the receiving of justification, or
righteousness. Answer: Here we have justification and righteousness made
one and the same, which with me, differ as cause and effect; our divines of the
Assembly give a more full definition or description of justifying faith in the
Larger Catechism, and there tell us, that thereby the convinced sinner receives
and rests upon Christ, and (N.B.) his righteousness therein (i.e. in
the Gospel) held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and
accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation. And
if Mr. Baxter would say so much, as is here, this debate would be at an end,
and yet I find not this among his exceptions against the Catechism, in his Confession.
And when our divines mention this receiving and resting upon Christ’s
righteousness, they make not justifying faith to be a receiving of
justification; but the one the cause of the other: And he adds a little
thereafter, (which is considerable to our present purpose) that receptio Ethica activa of justification, or of righteousness (for
they are both one thing with him) goes before justification, as a small and
secondary part of condition, it being the accepting of Christ himself, that is
the main condition: And we never spoke of receiving by faith of Christ’s
Righteousness, as exclusive of receiving Christ himself. He next tells us that Christ’s
satisfaction or redemption (solvendo pretium)
and merit, cannot properly be received by us; for they are not in themselves
given to us. We grant the price was paid to God, but it being paid to God
for us, it may be imputed to us, and reckoned upon our score; and we may that
way receive it by faith, and lean our soul upon it, to the end, that the fruit
of it may be given to us. And likewise he grants ibid. that justifying faith
doth as necessarily respect Christ’s satisfaction and merit, as it doth our
justification thereby procured. If he will grant that that justifying faith
respects Christ’s satisfaction and merit, as the cause, in which we are to have
an interest, and under which we must refuge ourselves, and upon the account of
which we are to be
392 (402)
accepted of God, and accounted righteous in his sight, all is
granted that I desire.
But his
following exceptions are founded upon a manifest mistake of his own, taking
this righteousness, whereof we speak, and justification, for one and the same
thing: For he says, to say therefore, that the justifying act of faith, is
only the receiving of Christ’s righteousness, or of justification, is to
exclude the receiving of Christ himself, any way, even to exclude him as
satisfier from the justifying act: and to exclude from that act his redemption
by bloodshed, satisfaction and merit. The mistake here is palpable: for we
look on righteousness, which faith receives, as the cause, and on justification
as the effect. When this righteousness of Christ, the causa procatarctica of our justification, is received by
faith, it is impossible, but Christ himself must be received as a satisfier:
his redemption, bloodshed, satisfaction and merit, cannot be excluded; for
therein was the righteousness, which faith lays hold upon, in order to
justification. He adds for confirmation, for if it be only the receiving of
righteousness, that is the justifying act, then it is neither the receiving of
Christ himself, nor yet the acknowledgment of his satisfaction and redemption
by his blood. But this is nothing but what was said, repeated again.
Neither do we say, that the justifying act of faith, as it is called, is a
receiving of Christ’s righteousness, as distinct from himself: nor is it
imaginable, how Christ’s righteousness can be received, without acknowledgment
of his satisfaction, and of the redemption by his blood.
How he
can say, that Christ’s righteousness and our justification, are but one and the
same thing, I do not understand, when he himself says, Cath.
Theol. of Moral Works, sect 13, n. 208, that our
first constitutive justification (which is what we are here speaking of, to
wit, that by which a soul is brought from an unrighteous to a righteous state,
as he speaks, n. 207) is in its nature a right to impunity and to life, or
glory. Now surely, this relation, or relative state is one thing, and the
righteousness of Christ, the ground and meritorious cause thereof is a far
other thing. And when he says, Apology against Mr. Eyre § 4, that he
is well content to call Christ’s righteousness of satisfaction the matter of
ours, and that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, taken for
donation, is the form of constitutive justification, and that sentential
adjudication of Christ’s righteousness to us, is the form of our sentential
justification.
That faith in order to justification doth in a special
manner, eye the righteousness of Christ, is clear from Isaiah 45: 24, 25, Surely
shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness; and then follows, In
the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified. This truth is also
clearly held forth, when faith in the matter of justification is called faith
in Christ’s blood, Romans 3: 25. For when faith lays hold on the blood of
Christ, it cannot but lay hold on his Surety righteousness, whom God set forth
to be a propitiation; and in and through whom there was a redemption wrought,
verse 24, for this blood was the redemption money, the price paid, in order to
redemption, I Peter 1: 18, 19. And the blessedness of justification is through
the imputation of righteousness, without our works, Romans 4: 6, and therefore
faith, in order to
393 (403)
the obtaining of this blessedness, must eye and rely
upon this righteousness which is the righteousness of him, who was delivered
for our offenses and was raised for our justification, verse 25, where we may
also observe a manifest difference betwixt this righteousness, (which consists
in his being delivered for our offenses) and our justification; the one being
the cause (as was said) and the other the effect.
Moreover,
this same truth is clear from Romans 5: 17, where we read of the receiving
of the gift of righteousness, which is by faith, and that in order to a
reigning in life by one Jesus Christ: where also we see a difference put
betwixt this gift of righteousness and reigning in life; which is also more
clear in the following verse 18, Even so by the righteousness of the one,
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life: this righteous
one, to wit, one Jesus Christ, is the cause, and the justification of
life, is the effect: And further this difference is again held forth in
verses 19 – 21. Our being made righteous is different from the obedience of one
Christ Jesus; and by the imputation of this obedience to us, do we become
righteous, as our being made sinners is different from Adam’s act of
disobedience; and we are made sinners by the imputation of it to us. And as sin
and death are different, when it is said, that sin hath reigned unto death;
so eternal life is different from righteousness when it is said, so might
grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life.
We need
say no more of this, seeing it clearly follows, from what was formerly at
length confirmed; to wit, that justification is by the righteousness of Christ
imputed.