SERMON V. The true chriftian Doctrine of the ROM. iii. 26. That he might be just; and the juftifier of him which believeth in Jefus. HE whole verfe runs thus, To declare, S ER M. Tfay, are. I at this time his righteousness, &c. V. I have already fhewn the context and fcope of this whole paffage in the latter end of my last discourse, I fhall only obferve here, that the word juft is to be taken in the proper and natural fenfe of the word, and not for meek or merciful. Dr. Whitby obferves (in locum) that the word dixatos is used about eighty times in the New Testament, and not once in the fenfe of clemency and mercy, which hath occafioned a wrong interpretation of this place. The only inftance Dr. Hammond gives to the contrary is, Matth. i. 19. Jofeph being a just man and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily; where, fays Dr. Light foot, SER M. foot, men torment the word dinamos to make it V. fignify clement and merciful, when it bears clearly the ordinary sense; thus, Jofeph being a just man, would not cohabit with an adultrefs, and yet being not willing to make her a publick example he was minded to put her away privily. This being premised, the whole paffage is clear, and will bear no other fenfe than what the words plainly exprefs. The queftion in this chapter is, whether we are to be juftified by the works of the law, or by faith in Chrift? Not by works, for ver. 19, 20. All the world are become guilty be fore God, and there shall no flesh be justified in his fight. Ver. 23. For all have finned, and fo come fhort of the glory of God. The plain import of which expreffions is this, that fince all men have tranfgreffed the law of God, and become guilty, therefore they are neceffarily condemned; there is no way of being juftified by the law but by keeping the whole law, which none of the race of Adam hath done, and therefore no man can be faved that way. Why can no man be faved that way ? Because he is a finner, and guilty before God. Is not the answer eafy upon the Socinian principle? Cannot God forgive those transgreffions of the law? Hath not God goodness and power enough to forgive fin? No, they are concluded here as furely and certainly condemned as they are guilty; and there is no poffibility of their being juftified under that 4 confidera confideration. How then can he be justified? SER M` ver 24. He is juftified freely, (i. e.) without V. intire obedience, through the redemption that is in Jefus Chrift: Well, what is this redemption? It immediately follows, ver. 25. whom God hath fet forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. The blood of Chrift is a propitiation or fatisfaction for those fins, and we are to be juftified by our believing that it was fo, and by our dependance upon it. Then follows the reafon of this difpenfation of God's juftifying finners by the blood of Chrift, εις ένδειξιν δικαιοσύνης, for a demonftration of his juftice; that in the forgiveness of fin he might be just himself, and the juflifier of him that believeth in Jefus; believes what of him? What is here affirmed, that he is juftified by that propitiation or fatisfaction made to the juftice of God by fhedding of that blood. The fum of all is this, there are but two ways, fays the Apoftle, of a finner's being justified; either by a perfect intire obedience, which no man can plead for himself; or by a propitiation, (i. e.) a satisfaction to the juftice of God, in order to preferve his attributes inviolable; it is for a demonftration of his juftice, which without fuch a propitiation could not be reconciled to a finner; from whence we fee plainly, that the two parts of this fentence are oppofed, and not confequent the one to the other, as Crellius would have it; (Refp. ad Grot. cap. 1. p. 41.) fo that the full fenfe runs thus, That he might be just VOL. I. H bimfelf, SER M.bimfelf, and yet at the fame time a justifier of V. him that believes in Fefus. གདག From hence I think it is very manifeft that there is fuch a doctrine, as the propitiation or fatisfaction made by the blood of Christ, revealed to us in fcripture; and the substance of it is not to be denied; we all we all agree that a propitiation and atonement was made, however men differ about the manner of it. Now from what hath been faid upon this point, that tedious and intricate part of this controverfy, whether there be an abfolute neceffity of fome atonement or fatisfaction to the justice of God for fin? is quite cut off, or at leaft feparated from the doctrine of fatisfaction. For how is my faith of this doctrine concerned, whether we are able to determine that queftion or no? Our belief of it is founded upon the divine revelation, and not upon any clear, conceptions we can have of the nature of the thing, or any rational deductions that we are capable of. It is revealed to us, that there hath been fuch an atonement or propitiation made; why muft we disbelieve this? Unless we can fearch nicely fo far into the nature of God, as to fee what there is in him that makes it abfolutely neceffary. Suppofe it utterly impoffible for the reason of man to demonftrate this queftion; namely, whether it was made to the justice of God?' as in truth it is, because we know not the true nature of God; we are ignorant what justice is in him, and what fatisfaction or atonement is any way dro-SER M. V in respect of him: Shall this gate from the truth of the revelation, or V. weaken our faith of it? He that was beft acquainted with his own nature and attributes hath revealed to us, that fuch a propitiation or fatisfaction was made; in which we are to acquiefce, without examining into what is impoffible to folve; namely, how far this was neceffary to the nature of God, as he is? of which we are utterly ignorant. Men argue backward when they proceed thus, the nature and attributes of God require an atonement or fatisfaction, ergò, it was made to something in him; this is arguing from fomething unknown, to infer fomething known by revelation. The true way of proceeding is this, it is revealed to us in fcripture, that the blood of Chrift is a propitiation or atonement, ergò the juftice of God, (i. e.) fomething in his nature required it; this is drawing an inference from what is known by revelation, to fomething that we are not now capable of knowing even by revelation, no more than we are capable of comprehending all that is in the nature of God. Could they ever have found out by reafon, that Chrift must have suffered for the falvation of man, and be a propitiation for their fins? much less are they capable of feeing through the reasons of this, and what it is in the nature of God, and the fins of men, that made it neceffary: And is it not an odd way of proceeding, because they cannot decide all the niceties H 2 |