Treatises on justification and regeneration

Front matter

Sstce eae

Sere eats +

OF THE —

Contents

ESSAY ON JUSTIFICATION.

Page

An Essay on the connection between the aecitiie of Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ and Holiness of Life, : . 7 . ° : : wee.

CHAP. III. Of the steps by which this pay is accomplished, : : ; . : ; 211

Sect. I. There must be a discovery of the real nature of God, Sr : A . ; ; ‘. : 214 Sect. II. There must be a discovery of the infinite glory of God, : ; : ‘ : 225 Sect. IIL. There must be a conviction of sin iva ine 236 Sect. IV. Of the degree of sorrow for sin in true penitents, 249 Sect. V. Acceptance of salvation through the cross of Christ, a 7 ‘ A 262 Sect. VI. How the Eelicver recovers peace of conscience, 273 Sect. VII. How the Christian is governed in his daily conversation, ._. t é : : : : 28]

CONCLUSION, . : : : - 298

| AN ESSAY :

CONNECTION

DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST

AND

HOLINESS OF LIFE. ~

REV. JAMES HERVEY.

Sir, Wuen Christ our Saviour was about to go to his Father, he told his disciples, ** If the world hate ‘you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of ‘the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” J am persuaded that by this he did not only intend to forewarn the twelve of the offence which that generation would take at the ignominy of the -cross, but also to intimate that the case would be the same in all ages; that his doctrine would meet with great resistance and opposition; and that the temper and character of his real disciples would be very different from the spirit that would generally prevail in the world. This hath been continually verified in experience. or as many in the highest stations, and of highest repute for wisdom in the world, did set themselves against the Gospel at its first publication, so even where there is a nominal profession of it, there is still an we opposition to its doctrines, in their simplicity and purity, by the world; that is to say, those who have most sway in it, who are the most passionate admirers of its fashions, and the most assiduous prosecutors of its honours and pleasures.

It may also be observed, that there is sometimes, perhaps even generally, a sovereignty of divine pro- _ vidence in the choice of the instruments employed in spreading the Gospel. As at first twelve illiterate fishermen were chosen, so, often since that time, the weakest and most unlikely have been pitched upon, *‘ that our faith might not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” Hence it frequently happens, that it is not only difficult to make men believe the Gospel, but even to persuade them to hear it. They are apt to despise and deride the message, because of the meanness of the messenger, or the homeliness of the terms in which it is delivered. This is particularly the case with the ‘present age. From a certain love of ease, and luxury of mind, they despise and trample upon all instructions which have not something pleasing and insinuating in their dress and form. |

You, Sir, are one of those happy few, who have been willing to consecrate the finest natural talents to the service of Christ in the Gospel, and are not ashamed of his cross. You have been able to procure attention on some subjects, from many who would hardly have given it to any other writer. This hath made me observe, with particular attention, the effect of your last performance, Theron and Aspasio, the character given to it, and the objections raised against it. And I have always found, that the most specious and plausible objection, and that most frequently made against the doctrine of justification by imputed righteousness, has been in this case, as indeed usually before, that it loosens the obligations to practice. This is what I have particularly applied myself to refute in the following Essay, because I have rarely observed it done distinctly, and at full length, in any writer. And I have addressed it to you, as a testimony of my esteem of your excellent and useful writings, as a public declaration of my espousing the same sentiments as to the terms of our acceptance with God, and my ambition-of contributing some small assistance to the support of the same glorious cause. It was also no small inducement to it, that thereby it might appear to all, that no external distinctions, or smaller differences, ought to be any hinderance to a cordial esteem and affection among the sincere servants of our common Master.

The greatest part of what follows was first delivered in two sermons, but it is now thrown into the form of an essay, lest the despised title of a sermon should offend some, and that it might the better admit of several additions, both in the body of the piece and in the notes, which could not have been so properly delivered from a pulpit. Some of these regard the philosophical principles which have of late been published among us, of which I propose, in a short time, a much fuller discussion; as there is no way in which the truths of the Gospel are . more perverted, than meby what the apostle Paul calls

.

24,

** philosophy, and vain deceit, and oppositions of science falsely so called.”

That your useful life may be prolonged, and that you may have the honour of contributing more and more to the conversion of sinners, and the edification and comfort of believers, is the earnest prayer of,

SIR, Your most obedient humble Servant,

J. W.

AN

ESSAY

JUSTIFICATION.

See eee

Au the works and ways of God have something in them mysterious, above the comprehension of any finite understanding. As this is the case with his works of creation and providence, there is no reason to expect it should be otherwise in the astonishing method of the redemption of the world by Jesus Christ. From this their mysterious nature, or rather from the imperfect measure and degree in which they are revealed to us, they are admirably fitted for the trial of our ingenuity, humility, and subjection. They are all of them, when seriously and impartially inquired into, holy, just,-and good; but at the same time, not beyond the cavils and objections of men of prejudiced, perverse, and corrupt minds.

The apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, among whom he had never been in person, at great length establishes the fundamental doctrine of the gospel, ‘That sinners are justified by the free grace of God, through the imputed righteousness of a Redeemer. ‘To this doctrine, men do by nature make

B AS"

the strongest opposition, and are, with the utmost difficulty, brought to receive and apply it. We may well say of it in particular, what the same apostle ‘says of the truths of God in general, that ‘ the natural man doth not receive them.” It is therefore highly necessary to prevent or remove, as far as possible, the objections that may be brought against it by the art or malice of Satan, who will, no doubt, bend the chief force of all his engines against this truth, knowing that the cordial reception of it is a sure and effectual, and indeed the only sure and effectual means, of destroying his power and influence in the heart. Accordingly we find the apostle, in the sixth chapter of the above-named Epistle, and first verse, supposes an objection made against this doc- ‘trine in the following terms: ‘‘ What shall we say then? shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” ‘To which he answers by rejecting the consequence with the utmost abhorrence, and in the strongest manner affirming it to be without any foun- ‘ dation.

From the introduction of this objection by the apostle, we may either infer that there were, even in these early days, some who branded the doctrine of redemption by the free grace of God with this odious consequence; or that he, by the inspiration of the Almighty, did foresee that there should arise, in some future periods of the Christian church, adversaries who would attempt to load it with this imputation: or that the doctrine is indeed liable, on a superficial view, to be abused to this unhappy purpose, by the deceitful hearts of men who are wedded to their lusts. It is probable that all the a7

three observations are just; and the two last render it a peculiarly proper subject for our attention and consideration at this time, and in this age.

It is well known that there are many enemies of this doctrine, of different characters and of different principles, who all agree in assaulting it with this objection—that it weakens the obligations to holiness of life, by making our justification before God depend entirely upon the righteousness and merit of another. And so far, I think, we must join with the adversaries of this doctrine, as to lay it down for a principle—that whatever belief or persuasion, by its native and genuine tendency, weakens the obligations to practice, must be false. And I will also assert, in opposition to some modern infidels, (though some may think that my cause might avail itself of the contrary opinion,) that a man’s inward principle, or the persuasion of his mind, hath a necessary and unavoidable influence upon his practice. That is to say, so far as it can be applied to practice, and so far as it is real or prevalent above its opposite; for there are many truths of a religious nature which men think they believe sometimes, but which yet their corrupt passions often make them doubt of; and these doubts are nine parts in ten of their lives observant to their minds, as a vindication of their licentious practice. In some sense, such may be said to act in contradiction to their principles; but they are principles either not really believed, or, which is the same thing, not habitually recollected; and none can expect that men will act upon a principle, though once ever so firmly believed, if it be forgotten, or at the time of action entirely out of view. So that, if

B2

/I am not able to show that justification through the \ imputed righteousness of Christ, is so far from weakening the obligations to holiness, that, on the con- | trary, the belief and reception of it, as its necessary ‘consequence, must make men greater lovers of purity and holiness, and fill them with a greater horror of sin than any other persuasion on the same subject, 1 am content to give up the cause. : I hope we may be indulged a candid hearing on. this subject,-as experience does not seem to be un-. favourable to the doctrine I am essaying to defend. Tf it appeared in fact, that its friends, upon a fair and just coe panei were more loose in their practice Pen their adversaries of any of the opposite opinions, it would be a strong prejudice against it: or rather, if. this were always the case, it would be an unquestionable evidence of its falsehood. But doth not the contrary appear on the very face of the world? Are not the persons who profess to deny their own righteousness, and hope for justification through /Christ, ordinarily the most tender and fearful of sinning themselves, and the most faithful and diligent in promoting the reformation of others? And do not all careless, profane, and sensual livers, almost to aman, profess themselves enemies to this doctrine ? I could almost appeal to any one who hath the least: experience of, or commerce with the world, whether he would expect to find, upon a strict search and inquiry, the worship of God more constantly attended ; the name of God more regularly called upon in families; children and servants more carefully instructed and more dutifully governed; a greater freedom from levity, profaneness, unchastity, pride, malice, or insincerity of conversation, amongst the friends or enemies of this doctrine? So true is this, that they commonly have the appellation of the séricter soré given them, by which is certainly understood at least an apparent strictness of life and manners.*

As, therefore, experience doth not hinder, or rather as it warrants us to affirm, that those who expect justification by free grace are, of all others, the most.

holy in their lives, [ propose to show that it must be so, and that this is but the native fruit, and necessary consequence of their principles. What has induced me to this attempt, is not only the calumnies of enemies, but the weakness or treachery of professed friends. These last injure the truth often in two different ways. Some speak in such a manner .as to confirm and harden enemies in their opposition to it; they use such rash and incautious expressions, as do indeed justify the objection which the apostle rejects with so great abhorrence; and, in the heat of their zeal against the self-righteous legalist, seem to state themselves as enemies, in every respect, to the law of God, which is holy, just, and good. Others,

* I am not ignorant that it is the usual refuge of those who are evidently dissolute in their own lives to allege, that there is indeed an appearance of this, but that it is no more than appearance, being all hypocrisy. It would be going out of the way to enter upon a large refutation of this slander. Therefore acknowledging that, no doubt, whatever number of hypocrites there are in the world, and there are too many, they must herd amongst, or attach themselves to the society of the best part of it; I observe, that the general charge of hypocrisy is only thrown out at a venture, is a Judging of the heart, and, by the very supposition, contrary to appearances, justified, for the most part, by a steady perseverance. Whereas, usually, the whole merit of those who bring the _aceusation, is that of being uniformly wicked, and not so much as professing what it was their indispensable duty both to have professed and practised.

on the contrary, defend it in such a manner as to destroy the doctrine itself, and give such interpretations of the word of God, as, if they were just, and known to be so, the objection would never have been made, because there would not have been so much as an occasion given to it.*

But of all the pretended Christians, one sort are worthy of the highest contempt, who, acknowledging the truth of this doctrine, call it dangerous, and are backward to teach or publish it, lest it should be abused. Would such weak, half-thinking mortals, be wiser than God? Hath he published it, and shall we throw a veil over it, to remedy the rashness of his proceeding? Do the Scriptures reveal, and are we backward to ‘¢ testify the gospel of the grace of God?” All the works of God are capable of being abused; that this may be so likewise, the apostle supposes. It is, however, not the less useful or important; only let us endeavour to vindicate it from the false charge of favouring or encouraging licentiousness of life. This I would willingly do in such a manner, as to assert while I defend it ; to maintain the doctrine itself, while I show not only its innocence, but its usefulness in practice.

The words of the inspired apostle are, ** God forbid ! how shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer

* T have often thought, that there cannot be a stronger argument that the explication commonly given by Calvinists of the passages of Scripture on this subject is just, than the apostle’s — supposition of an objection of this nature arising from it. For, if _ the explication of some others were supposed to be the obvious meaning of the text, and were substituted in its room, as all just definitions may be without inconvenience, the apostle’s words, “« What shall we say then? shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” would be quite unnatural and absurd.

therein ?” In which he affirms, that the grace of God abounding in the gospel, is so far from being an encouragement to sin, that it destroys the power of sin, and removes the inclination to it, so far as it prevails. The language is very strong, ‘* We that are dead to sin.”——It seems to put us in mind of the total effectual breach of relation between a dead man, _ and the objects with which he was formerly connected in life: they are nothing to him, nor he to them; he neither loves them, needs them, nor uses them. So, in proportion as the grace of God offered through Christ in the gospel is received and applied, sin is mortified in the heart; thus says the apostle elsewhere, “‘ God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” This, which is indeed the language of the Scripture throughout, is not merely denying the accusation, but establishing the contrary truth, the influence of this doctrine upon purity of heart and life, which we find the apostle also asserting in the middle of his — reasoning upon the point, ‘* Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” / In the. prosecution of this subject, it will be ne- X cessary, first, in a few words, to state that doctrine / against which the objection is made. It may be delivered in Scripture language, thus: * That all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God—That | every mouth must be stopped, and all the world be- / come guilty before God—Therefore, by the deeds of! | the law, there shall be no flesh justified in his sight —But we are justified freely by his grace, through | the redemption that is in Christ Jesus— Whom God has set forth as a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness, for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God— Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? nay, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the lav— Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our oa. a

The doctrine asserted in the above, and other passages of Scripture, may be thus paraphrased: That every intelligent creature is under an unchangeable and unalienable obligation, perfectly to obey the whole law of God: that all men proceeding from Adam by ordinary generation, are the children of polluted parents, alienated in heart from God, transgressors of his holy law, inexcusable in this transgression, and therefore exposed to the dreadful consequences of his displeasure ; that it was not agreeable to the dictates of his wisdom, holiness, and justice, to forgive their sins without an atonement or satisfaction; and therefore he raised up for them a Saviour, Jesus Christ, who, as the second Adam, perfectly fulfilled the whole law, and offered himself up a sacrifice upon the cross in their stead: that this his righteousness is imputed to them, as the sole foundation of their justification in the sight of a holy God, and their reception into his favour: that the means of their being interested in this salvation, is a deep humiliation of mind, confession of guilt and wretchedness, denial of themselves, and acceptance of pardon and peace through Christ Jesus, which they neither have contributed to the procuring, nor can contribute to the continuance of, by their own merit, but expect the renovation of their natures, to be inclined and enabled to keep the commandments of God as the work of the Spirit, and a part of the purchase of their Redeemer.*

This short account of the doctrine of the ‘ap tation of Christ’s righteousness, will be further illustrated and explained in the progress of this discourse, intended to show, that in those who do cordially embrace it, the obligations to holiness are not weakened, but strengthened and comfirmed. For this purpose be pleased to attend to the following observations; in all of which I desire it may be remembered, even where not expressly mentioned, opposition is intended between the principles and views of a believer in Christ, who rests his hope on his imputed righteousness, and those who act on any contrary principle.

= —

* The intelligent reader will probably perceive, that I have ex-. pressed the above doctrine in such general terms, as not distinctly to take a part in the differences that are to be found among some authors, as to the way of explaining it, and particularly as to the nature of faith. The reason of my doing so is, that I would wiilingly rather reconcile, than widen these differences ; and because it is my firm persuasion, that however some think it justest, or wisest, or safest, to express themselves one way, and some another, yet all who have a deep and real conviction, that they are by nature in a lost state, and under the wrath-of God, and that there is no salvation in any other but in Christ, are, if they understood one another at bottom, or at least in all things any way material, en-’ tirely of the same opinion. Accordingly the reader will, I hope, find that the reasoning in the following pages et easily be applied by them all without exception.

B3

34:

In the first place, he who expects justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, hath the clearest and strongest conviction of the obligation of the holy law of God upon every reasonable creature, and of its extent and purity. This will appear very evidently, if we consider what it is that brings any person to a belief or relish of this doctrine. It must be a sense of sin, and fear of deserved wrath. Let us search out the cause by tracing the effects. Whence arises the fear of wrath, or apprehension of God’s displeasure? Only from a conviction of guilt. And what can produce a conviction of guilt, but a sense of obligation? ‘This is manifestly the doctrine of Scripture, which teaches us, that ‘ by the law is the knowledge of sin,”’—-and that ‘the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.” ‘Those who have none at all, or a very imperfect sense of the obligation of the divine law, will never have the least esteem of the righteousness of Christ, which atones for their transgression of it; it must appear to them to be foolishness: whereas those who have a strong conviction of the justice of the demand of the law, both esteem and use the plea of their Saviour’s merit. Such also have a strong sense of the extent and purity of the law of God, as well as its obligation in general. Whilst others consider nothing as sin, but the grossest and most notorious crimes, they are deeply sensible of the alienation of their hearts from God, whom they are bound supremely to love, and to whose glory they are obliged to be habitually and universally subservient.

This conviction of the obligation of the divine law, so essentially connected with, or rather so necessarily previous to an acceptance of the imputed righteousness of Christ, is evidently founded upon the relation of man to God, as a creature to his Creator. This relation then continues, and must continue, unchangeable; therefore the obligation founded upon it must be unalienable ; and all those who have once been sensible of it, must continue to be so, unless we suppose them blinded to the knowledge of God as Creator, by the discovery of his mercy in Christ the Redeemer. But this is absurd: for the subsequent relation of a sinner to God, as forgiven and reconciled through Christ, never can take away, nay, never can alter his natural relation as a creature, nor the obligation founded on it. Neither can it be conceived as consistent with the perfections of God to abate the demands of his law; that is to say, a perfect conformity to his holy will.* Every, the least, deviation from it, by transgression or neglect of duty, must still be evil in itself, and must still be seen, and esteemed to be so by the God of truth, who cannot lie. Now, is there any thing in the gospel that hath the least tendency to lessen the sense of this obligation, after it hath been once discovered? Very far from it: on the contrary, all that Christ hath done for the salvation of sinners, as its immediate consequence, magnifies the law, and makes it honourable.

* Since mention has been made of perfect conformity to tie will of God, or perfect obedience to his law, as the duty of man, which is indeed the foundation of this whole doctrine, I think it necessary to observe, that some deny this to be properly required of man as his, duty in the present fallen state, because he is not able to perform it. But such do not seem to attend either to the meaning of perfect obedience, or to the nature or cause of this inability. Perfect obedience is obedience by any creature, to the

“omcereren =:

Perhaps it may be thought that the releasing a sinner from the sanction of the law, or the punishment incurred by pardon purchased and bestowed, has this effect; and here it is, to be sure, that men, by their partial views, are apt to suppose the othe tion lies.

But let us only reflect, that the obligation to duty, and obedience to the Creator, hath eels seen bya believer in the strongest light, and must continue to be sensible. Will he then be induced to act in the face of a perceived obligation, by an instance of unspeakable mercy? Is this reasonable to suppose ? or rather, is it not self-contradictory and absurd? It is so far from being true, that this mercy disposes to obedience, as a peculiar and additional motive, as I shall afterwards show more fully in its proper place. In the mean time, it is self-evident, that it can be utmost extent of his natural powers. Hyen in a state of innocence, the holy dispositions of Adam would not have been equal in strength and activity to those of creatures of a higher rank : but surely to love God, who is infinitely amiable, with all the heart, and above all, to consecrate all his powers and faculties, without exception, and without intermission, to God’s service, must be undeniably the duty of every intelligent creature. And what sort of inability are we under to pay this? Our natural faculties are surely as fit for the service of God as fer any baser purpose: the inability is only moral, and lies wholly in the aversion of our hearts from such employment. Does this then take away the guilt ? Must God relax his law because we are not willing to obey it? Consult even modern philosophers; and such of them as allow there is any such thing as vice, will tell you that it lies in evil or misplaced affections. Will, then, that which is ill in itself excuse its fruits in any degree from guilt or blame? ‘The truth is, notwithstanding the loud charge of licentiousness upon the truths of the gospel, there is no other system that ever I perused, which preserves the obligation of the law of God in its strength: the most part of them, when thoroughly examined, just amount to this, that men are bound, and that it is RIGHT, and MEET, and rit, that they should be as good and as holy as they themselves incline.

ae F no hinderance. What leads us into error in this matter, is what happens sometimes in human affairs. In a human government, mercy, or a promise of impunity for past crimes, may enable, though even in that case not incline, a rebellious traitor to renew his wickedness. But this is a most unjust and partial view of the case, in which the very circumstance is wanting upon which the chief stress ought to be laid. Human laws reach only outward actions, because human knowledge is so imperfect that it cannot discover the disposition of the heart: and as all professions are not sincere, so kindness is often bestowed on improper objects. ‘This kindness, however, though it may discover the impropriety, cannot cause it.

But make the similitude idonagaled, and see how it will lead us to determine. Suppose one who hath been in rebellion, deeply and inwardly convinced of the evil of rebellion, and his obligation to submission; suppose his conviction so strong, that he confesseth the justness of the sentence condemning him to die, which is very consistent with a desire of life: will a pardon offered or intimated to such a person make him disloyal? Is this its natural, nay, is it its possible effect? If it could be supposed to have any such consequence at all, it could only be in this distant way, that pardon seems to lessen the sense of a judge’s displeasure at the crime. But even this can have no place here, because sufficient care is taken to prevent any such abuse of it, by the substitution and vicarious sufferings of a Mediator.