Articles Of The Faith And Order Of A Primitive Or Strict And Particular Baptist Church Of The Lord Jesus Christ, Based On The Declaration Of Faith And Practice Of John Gill, D. D., 1720<\/p>\n
We believe that the Justification of God’s elect is by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, without the consideration of any works of righteousness done by them,[1]<\/sup> and that the full and free Pardon of all their sins and transgressions, past, present, and to come, is only through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of Divine grace.[2]<\/sup><\/p>\n ——————————- ————————————————————–<\/strong><\/p>\n Note 1.\u2014Between these two, important distinctions exist, on which the reader should seek to think correctly.<\/p>\n Justification is a legal act, and proceeds from God in His character of the \u201cJudge of all.\u201d Forgiveness is a royal act, and proceeds from God in His character of King.<\/p>\n In human government the two are separable. Criminals who turn \u201cKing\u2019s evidence\u201d against their former accomplices, are often pardoned and liberated\u2014though, if tried, it is known that they would be condemned. In the government of God the two are inseparable. Those whom God, as a Judge, justifies, God, as a King, forgives.<\/p>\n In the Divine order Justification precedes pardon. God\u2019s elect are first acquitted from all legal condemnation\u2014then their sins are forgiven.<\/p>\n Note 2.\u2014It is highly important to understand that, accord\u00ading to the use of the word in Scripture, Justification must be understood forensically. It is a law term, derived from human courts of justice, and signifies (not the making of a person righteous by the infusion of grace) but the holding and declaring him to be righteous in law.<\/p>\n This is manifest from the term Justification being frequently opposed to Condemnation. (Deut. 25:1; Prov. 17:15; Rom. 5:16, 8:33,34.)<\/p>\n The force of a word is frequently to be ascertained by examining the meaning of the term to which it is opposed. Condemnation does not lie in infusing wickedness into a criminal, or in making him a wrong-doer, but in judicially pronouncing him guilty according to his transgression of the law. So, Justification does not lie in infusing righteousness into a person, but in declaring that the disclosed facts prove him to be righteous on legal grounds.<\/p>\n It is not a moral process, but a legal, judicial, or forensic act on the part of \u201cGod who justifies the ungodly.\u201d[1]<\/sup><\/p>\n Note 3.\u2014The article under consideration\u2014which is taken verbally from Dr. Gill\u2019s Declaration of Faith and Practice \u2014is in harmony with all the authoritative Protestant Confessions of Faith\u2014though some are more explicit than others. For example:<\/p>\n The Church of England declares that \u201cwe are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings.\u201d Article xi.<\/p>\n The Assembly\u2019s Catechism: \u201cJustification is an act of God\u2019s free grace, wherein He pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone.\u201d<\/p>\n The Confession of Faith: \u201cThose whom God effectually called. He also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous: not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ\u2019s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by Faith; which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.\u201d<\/p>\n In the Baptist Confession of Faith, adopted by the General Assembly, which met in London in 1689, the above is transcribed, but lines 7 to 9 are altered thus:\u2014\u201c…\u201c but by imputing Christ\u2019s active obedience unto the whole Law, and (His) passive obedience in His death, for their whole and sole righteousness, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by Faith,\u201d &c.<\/p>\n This alteration was probably made to withstand the errors of those who (like Archbishop Whately at a subsequent period) overpressed the statement that we are justified \u201cby the blood\u201d of Christ, (Rom. 5:9,) and denied that His obedience to the Law throughout His whole life had any vital relation to the Justification of His people.<\/p>\n Note 4.\u2014So important did Luther deem the doctrine of Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, that he styled it, Articulm etantis vel cadentis ecdesioe\u2014the test of a standing or a falling Church. It was mainly through its proclamation that the Reformation from Popery was effected. It is still, nevertheless, denied by many.<\/p>\n Papists and Ritualists vehemently resist it, for it is diametrically opposed to their whole system.<\/p>\n Broad Churchmen\u2014or the Rationalistic party in the National Establishment\u2014reject it, as they do the converge doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s guilt to his posterity, as paradoxical.[2]<\/sup><\/p>\n Many Arminians repudiate it, and indeed it is inconsistent with their entire theology.<\/p>\n The Friends or Quakers\u2014so far as they follow Bobert Barclay \u2014repudiate the forensic view of Justification, and contend that men are justified (or actually made righteous and holy) by following the inward light which for Christ\u2019s sake is imparted to all men. See note on page 45.<\/p>\n Such of the Plymouth Brethren as follow J. N. Darby, Charles Stanley, Catesby Paget, and others\u2014namely, the party sometimes called the Exclusive\u2014are opposed to it, substituting for it their incomprehensible doctrine of Justification in the risen Christ. (See Dr. Carson\u2019s trenchant work on their errors, and two Articles by Rev. G. Kogers in the \u201cSword and the Trowel\u201d for 1865, entitled, \u201cOn Plymouth Brethrenism,\u201d and \u201cOn the Righteousness of God,\u201d pages 282 and 526.<\/p>\n The opposition of the adversary, exerted through both spiritual and unspiritual men, should awaken our zeal as Strict and Particular Baptists to expound and enforce this great truth to the utmost of our powers.<\/p>\n Note 5.\u2014The excellence of the person of Christ was drawn out in acts of living obedience, which extended from the dawn of His human consciousness to His yielding His spirit to God on the cross. He thus \u201cbecame obedient (not simply \u201cin,\u201d but) unto death,\u201d (Phil. 2:8.)[3]<\/sup> His decease was the consummation and completion of the obedience of His life.[4]<\/sup> This, the continuous, unintermittent, unbroken and consistent obedience of the Son of God, constitutes His merit, or, in Scripture phraseology, Has righteousness, which is imputed to His people as the matter or meritorious ground of their justification.<\/p>\n Note 6.\u2014This Article having been framed by that great Divine, Dr. Gill, the fact that no mention is therein made of Faith is remarkable. The reader is invited to consider why.<\/p>\n The views of Strict and Particular Baptists on the relation of Faith to Justification are given in the Author\u2019s \u201cManual of Faith and Practice,\u201d page 200.<\/p>\n Faith is not the cause or condition of Justification. To tell a sinner that God will impute the righteousness of Christ to him, and justify him, if he believes, is to assert what is not true.<\/p>\n The error lies in failing to distinguish between being justified as a fact, and a knowledge of that fact on reliable testimony. The fact depends solely on divine grace; the knowledge of it is obtained through Faith.<\/p>\n Justification is a Divine and eternal act. Its reality does not depend on anything in favoured sinners, nor does any gracious emotion or action on their part affect it in the least.<\/p>\n Our Faith cannot induce God to choose us. Election was before time. Our Faith cannot induce Christ to die for us, and so provide the righteousness of our justification. He died, long since, for those whom the Father gave Him before the foundation of the world. Our Faith cannot induce God to justify us on the ground of the merit of Christ, unless this were previously imputed to us; or God\u2019s acts would depend on a creature\u2019s acts, and He would be mutable\u2014whereas He is \u201cin one mind, who can turn Him?\u201d (Job 22:13.)<\/p>\n So Faith has not the relation to Justification popularly asserted. We are, however, justified by faith as we renounce our own works as a ground of acceptance; as we cordially believe the Gospel; as we rely on the righteousness of Christ; and as we believe God\u2019s gracious assurance concerning all who do thus.[5]<\/sup><\/p>\n Note 7.\u2014Sin, to a conscious sinner, is an evil of such magnitude, that it becomes to him the question of questions, \u201cHow will God deal with it?\u201d<\/p>\n The reply of the Bible is plain. He cannot let it pass without enquiry. He cannot excuse or condone it. He cannot abate one point of His broken law, or revoke one of its curses. Pity will not affect the decision of His equity, nor will mercy mitigate the severity of His punishment. He can propose no compromise, and make no concession. Where He sees sin, He must, sooner or later, smite.<\/p>\n These solemn truths flow from the fact that God is \u201cthe Judge of all (Heb. 12:23,) and the business of a Judge is, not to show consideration for the guilty person, but to interpret and enforce the Law.<\/p>\n In speaking of God as an angry Judge, some preachers have misrepresented His character. Anger in a Judge, when acting as such, would be most reprehensible. The holy and passionless anger of God, is His indignation, as a Creator and Benefactor, toward those who have offended against His holy Laws, and repaid His goodness with acts of ingratitude and sin.<\/p>\n Far more serious is the error of those who deny that God sustains any other relation to the human race than that of a universal Father, and that He is all love to all men. A God who cannot be angry, is as monstrous a conception of Deity as a God who cannot pity. \u201c A God all mercy is a God unjust.\u201d\u2014 Young.<\/p>\n God can, however, pardon sin,\u2014freely, fully, finally, irrevocably, \u201cfor Christ\u2019s sake,\u201d (1 John 2:12.) As \u201cGod the Judge,\u201d He can pronounce His people legally guiltless, or without condemnation, (Rom. 8:1,) and as our royal Father He can be \u201cfaithful (to His covenant engagements) and just (to Himself, His law, His beloved Son, and all His accountable creatures,) while He forgives our sins, and cleanses us from all unrighteousness.\u201d 1 John 1:9.<\/p>\n The blood of Christ is the only power in the moral government of God which can sever sin from the person of a sinner. This it does for all for whom He died, \u201cputting their sin away,\u201d (2 Sam. 12:13, Heb. 9:26;) \u201cpurging\u201d them, (Heb. 10:2:) \u201ccleansing\u201d them, (1 John 1:7) making them as \u201cwhite as wool,\u201d and \u201cwhiter than snow,\u201d (Psa. 51:7, Isa. 1:18.) It has thus afforded so perfect an outflow to God\u2019s race, that He is \u201cmerciful to their unrighteousness,\u201d while He has so completely banished their transgressions from His penal mind, \u201cthat He remembers their sins no more.\u201d<\/p>\n The conduct of God in relation to the sins of His people is variously called absolution, forgiveness, pardon and remission. \u201cAbsolution\u201d is not a Scriptural word. \u201cForgiveness\u201d and \u201cpardon\u201d are both employed in the English Version of the Old Testament\u2014apparently interchangeably\u2014while in the New Testament, the word \u201cpardon\u201d is never found, the term \u201cremission\u201d taking its place. It may help young Bible students to know that the word \u201cremission\u201d in the New Testament, in every case but one, stands for the Greek word apheeis,\u2014else\u00ad where translated \u201cforgiveness,\u201d which is its true meaning.<\/p>\n The exception is Rom. 3:25, where the word is paresis, (a passing by or pretermission) which is employed to designate the action of God\u2019s grace to Old Testament believers, whom He forgave and took to heaven, though Christ had not then actually made expiation for sin by dying for His people. See A Manual of Faith and Practice, page 63.<\/p>\n Note 8.\u2014In forgiving His people their sins, God deals immediately with them, without the intervention or interpolation of any other being. Christ, as Priest, receives their confession: God, as their royal Father, pardons them.<\/p>\n The function of a human Priest, into whose ears the confession of sin should be spoken, and who has authority to declare on what terms God will dispense pardons, is not only unscriptural, but opposed to the whole tenor of the Gospel. \u201cThere is (but) one Mediator between God and men,\u201d but no Mediator between Christ and the sinner. We \u201chave to do\u201d with Him only (Heb. 4:13.)[6]<\/sup> The notion, in question however, represents that there are many men\u2014whether in or out of the Church of Rome, who have power to act as priests, and thus fill an office that pertains only to Christ. Men who intrude themselves in \u201cthe new and living way,\u201d which He hath opened up for all who feel the burden of sin, are enemies to God and to the souls of men, and should be withstood as such.<\/p>\n Note 9.\u2014In the nature of things, it is impossible to forgive the innocent. Pardon can be extended only to those who have done wrong.<\/p>\n Moreover, those only can be forgiven who admit that they have offended. While a man contends that he has committed nothing that calls for forgiveness, we (though ourselves knowing the wrong that he has done) may pity his ignorance, or regret his obstinacy, but we cannot pardon him. As long as he continues to deny the commission of what offends us, or justifies wrong as right, he is not in the state in which it is alone possible for him to be forgiven.<\/p>\n This is true, not only between man and man, but also between God and man. Divine pardon presupposes human sin. God wills to pardon many who are now impenitent, (Jer. 1:20,) but His gracious purpose can take effect only when these are brought to confess sin and sue for forgiveness as sinners.<\/p>\n To this the Scriptures testify. If we consult a Concordance for the occurrences of the words \u201cacknowledge,\u201d \u201cconfess,\u201d \u201crepentance,\u201d &c., we shall clearly see the inseparable connection between penitence and pardon. The children of Israel were repeatedly forgiven when they confessed their sins. The inhabitants of Nineveh were temporarily pardoned when they repented at the preaching of Jonah. The same principle is exemplified in relation to God’s forgiveness of His people\u2019s sins. \u201cLet the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts,” and \u201cGod will abundantly pardon.\u201d (Is. 55:7.) \u201cHe that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but he that confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy,\u201d (Prov. 28:13.) \u201cIf we confess our sins,\u201d God \u201cis faithful and just to forgive us our sins,\u201d (1 John 1:9.) Hence David spoke for all God\u2019s people in all time, in his memorable words, \u201cI will declare mine iniquity: I will be sorry for my sin.\u201d \u201cI said, I will confess my transgression unto the Lord, and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin,\u201d (Psa. 32 and 38:18.)<\/p>\n None, therefore, become partakers of Divine forgiveness apart from penitence and the confession of their sins to God. Care must, however, be taken not to represent these as conditions imposed on men, without which the benevolence of God cannot express itself in acts of pardon. The idea is contrary to the freeness of His grace and His declared readiness to forgive, (Psa. 86:5.) Nothing that sinners feel, or say, or do, affects His determination to show them mercy. (Rom. 9:15,18.)<\/p>\n He is prepared to pardon them, when they are prepared to receive pardon, (Psa. 86:5,) and this preparation is the result of a work of His grace within them, (Prov. 16:1.) The Holy Ghost breaks their hearts, and renders their spirits contrite\u2014and God accepts these as sacrifices, (Psa. 34:18 and 51:17.) Christ is \u201cexalted to give repentance unto Israel, and (following this, in the admirable sequence of the Divine order) forgiveness of (their) sins.\u201d[7]<\/sup> See A Manual of Faith and Practice, pages 63, 170\u2014182.<\/p>\n Note 10.\u2014Up to this point the views of Strict and Particular Baptists on the Forgiveness of Sins accord with those of the majority of evangelical Christians. From these we diverge in insisting that an absolute assurance of pardon is obtainable only through the direct and immediate witness of the Holy Spirit to the minds of forgiven sinners. We indeed know on the authority of the letter of the promise that all who repent or steadfastly purpose to forsake sin, (Prov. 28:13,) and rely on Christ\u2019s finished work, as the ground of their acceptance (Luke 24:47) will be forgiven all trespasses. We, however, contend that the Gospel presents a further and richer blessing\u2014a positive, personal, Divine and immediate assurance that such is the case.<\/p>\n This is the witness of the Holy Spirit \u201cwith our spirit, (Rom. 8:16,) that we are the\u201d heaven-born, accepted, and pardoned \u201cchildren of God.\u201d To receive this, is to be \u201csealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, (Eph. 1:13)\u2014to enjoy His presence and operations in the heart in suoh a measure that He becomes the \u201cearnest of our inheritance,\u201d (2 Cor. 1:22,) the Assurer and the assurance that we have been \u201cjustified from all things,” (Acts 13:39,) and are \u201cforgiven all trespasses.\u201d (Col. 2:13.)<\/p>\n On this, almost all popular religious books are silent. Sinners are told to trust in Jesus\u2014are promised Justification and pardon if they believe\u2014and assured that they ought to desire nothing further than God\u2019s words, as they stand on the Bible, to give them confidence as to their eternal safety.<\/p>\n It is freely granted that gracious Divine declarations concerning those that \u201cconfess\u201d and \u201cforsake\u201d their sins, and come in penitence and faith to Christ, and rely solely on His merit, are most precious. Trembling sinners should take God at His word\u2014and solid comfort is to be derived from comparing the condition of one\u2019s own stricken and sorrowful spirit with the Scriptural descriptions of those to whom the mercy of God will be extended. The broken-hearted sinner, however, wants more than this. He sighs, \u201cWhen wilt Thou comfort me?\u201d He longs not only for a broken heart, and a contrite spirit, but for a \u201cpurged\u201d conscience, and the Divine assur\u00ad ance of peace with God within his soul.<\/p>\n The witness of the Spirit to our Justification and pardon is God\u2019s gracious response to this yearning of the quickened and quivering hearts of His people.<\/p>\n So much is this gracious truth overlooked in the professing Church that testimony to it may be almost regarded as a distinguishing doctrine of the Strict and Particular Baptists and the Calvinistic Independents.[8]<\/sup><\/p>\n ——————————-
\n[1] Ps 71:16; Is 45:24; Dan 9:24; Rom 3:24-26; 5:19; 8:30
\n[2] 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:8,9; Tit 3:5; Ps 32:1; Rom 4:6,7; Is 38:17; Hosea 14:4; Mic 7:19; Lk 7:42; Acts 13:38,39; Rom 3:25; 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 1:7; 4:32; Col 2:13; Heb 10:17,18; 1 Jn 1:7,9; 2:12; Rev 1:5<\/p>\nAnnotations:<\/h3>\n
Justification a Legal or Forensic Term.<\/h4>\n
Justification by the Imputation of the Bighteousness of Christ.<\/h4>\n
Imputed Righteousness\u2014by whom denied.<\/h4>\n
The Righteousness of Christ.<\/h4>\n
The Relation of Faith to Justification.<\/h4>\n
Divine Forgiveness.<\/h4>\n
God alone the Forgiver of Sin.<\/h4>\n
Contrition and Confession precede Pardon.<\/h4>\n
The Spirit\u2019s Witness to God\u2019s Forgiveness.<\/h4>\n
\n[1] The derivation of words occasionally helps to a correct definition of their meaning, but it is often misleading. The verb \u201cjustify\u201d is derived from the Latinjmtifico, which is formed from Justus, just or righteous, and facio, I make. It does not, however, follow that the meaning of \u201cjustify\u201d is to make righteousness. This is by no means unimportant, as Romish divines have insisted on interpreting the word in accordance with its derivation, and have erected on this foundation their erroneous fabric of Justification by infused righteousness. Let the Protestant reader remember the needful distinction\u2014Justification by Imputation. Sanctification by Infusion. Bobert Barclay in his Apology\u2014the acknowledged text-book of the views of the Friends or Quakers\u2014also bases his refutation of the doctrine of Justification by the imputation of the merits of Christ on the derivation of the verb \u201cjustify.\u201d Pro\u00ad position vii., paragraph 7.
\n[2] See No. VI. of Essays on the Writings of the Apostle Paul by Archbishop Whately. This, like everything from this great author\u2019s pen, is most clear and cogent. Young ministers are earnestly recommended to read and refute it.
\n[3] Contrast 1 Pet. ii. 24, which teaches that He was the sin-bearer on the cross only, \u201cWho Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree.\u201d
\n[4] The older Divines were wont to style the acts of Christ\u2019s holy life, collectively considered, His active obedience, and His submission to God\u2019s will in His suffering and death His passive obedience. This is useful, provided we remember that His active and passive obedience constitute His one righteousness. Rom. 5:18. The two may (and should) be distinguished, but should never be divided. The once favourite phrase, Christ\u2019s \u201cjustifying life and atoning death\u201d lacks scriptural authority.
\n[5] The truth that Justification, as a fact, is independent of Faith as its cause or condition has an important bearing on the question of the salvation of children dying in infancy. That these are, by nature, sinners, has been demonstrated. Hence they cannot be received into heaven on the ground of their legal innocence. They cannot repent, and believe, and so be justified; for Repentance and Faith (though spiritual acts) are im\u00ad possible without some measure of developed intelligence. Either, therefore, they are saved without being justified\u2014or there are two methods of Justification\u2014one of which Faith is an essential condition; another in which Faith has absolutely no place. Christians who contend that Faith is necessary to the being of salvation, are intreated to clear up the difficulty, or to abandon their error.
\n[6] James 5:16, does not enjoin auricular Confession to a Priest. \u201cConfess, therefore, [your] transgressions (or offences) to one another,\u201d\u2014not to the \u201celders\u201d officially summoned to the sick man. Verse 14. The duty enjoined is a humble acknowledg\u00ad ment of injuries committed on others, whose pardon should be sought \u201cfor Christ\u2019s sake,\u201d Col. 3:13.
\n[7] Thus Joseph Hart, in his fine hymn, while bidding the sinner \u201ccome\u201d and \u201cbuy\u201d true belief and true repentance of Jesus Christ, \u201cwithout money,\u201d insists that these are bestowed in pure gratuitous favour. The required fitness is given. \u201c\u2019Tis the Spirit\u2019s rising beam.\u201d
\n[8] See the Author\u2019s Manual of Faith and Practice, (pages 308-317,) in which the nature of Assurance, as distinguished from Faith, and the difference between Inferential Assurance (or confidence based on a comparison of our own character and condition with inspired descriptions of the experiences of heaven-born persons) and Direct Assurance (or that which arises from the testimony of the Holy Spirit in our hearts) are fully discussed. The subject is finely exemplified by comparing 2 Sam. 12:13, with Psa. 51 David said, \u201cI have sinned against the Lord.\u201d Nathan replied, \u201cThe Lord also hath put away thy sin.\u201d Thus David received an assurance from the lips of an inspired man that his sin was forgiven. This, however, did not satisfy his troubled conscience, and Psa. 51 records the prayer which he offered, after his interview with Nathan, for a direct assurance from God Himself that his transgression was pardoned. A parallel may be drawn between his experience and ours. Nathan\u2019s words correspond with the letter of the gracious promises which assure penitent sinners of Divine forgiveness. The favour sought in Psa. 51 corresponds with the direct and personal testimony of the Spirit that they are pardoned.<\/p>\n