0 The Law, as God's Standard of Righteousness which Shows us our Wretchedness

In chapter four of “A Life of Justification Opened”, John Brown of Wamphray expounds the classic understanding of one of the functions of the Law – to show us clearly our sin and leave us with no ground for trusting in anything we have done as a means to our salvation. He heads this chapter with the subtitle, ”Justification is so contrived, in the Gospel, as man may be abased, and have no ground of boasting.”

As a means of laying down this thesis, Brown begins by talking about the Lord’s means of bringing people to a state of justification. He writes,

The Lord’s ordinary and usual method, in bringing his chosen ones into a justified state, is first to convince them of their sin and misery, by setting home the Law, and awakening their consciences… (p. 22, John Brown of Wamphray, ‘A Life of Justification Opened’)

If the Law doesn’t act to convict – then I don’t know how one can come to any true understanding of himself (and, corollary to this, of God). We see the attitude of ‘self-worth’ whenever George Barna makes his polls of the American public, and even worse, the American church-going public, embodied in such statements as ‘I’m not an evil person – I’ve never murdered anyone!’ and ‘Most people are basically good at heart – they don’t have any evil orientation’ that come out repeatedly in such studies. People with this kind of attitude truly don’t understand what is expected of them, and what standard they should truly be paying attention to.

But when a person comes face-to-face with God’s demands, he must own up to the truth… Brown writes that it is at this point that

…the man is made to renounce all his former grounds of hope, and confidence, all his former duties, good works, civility, negative holiness, and whatever else he placed his confidence in formerly; yea all his righteousness are as filthy rags, and accounted as loss and dung. So that he hath nothing within himself, as a righteousness, that he can expect to be justified by, before God… (p. 22, John Brown of Wamphray, ‘A Life of Justification Opened’)

Again, without the Law serving the function of showing us who we are before God, we are extremely apt to hold ourselves as righteous, acceptable, ‘basically good’. Quite probably, I’ve been overly generous with ‘we are extremely apt to’. More accurate might be ‘we undoubtedly will’. The Fall has twisted and ruined our self-perception in such a way to make us ready to justify ourselves based on a standard we know that we can achieve. We know that acceptance before God is something we must have (or we perish), and therefore we make up a standard that is achievable, so that our wounded consciences are eased. This, however, puts God in a place of dishonor, and removes Him from His appropriate seat of judgment and Sovereign headship over all men.

As contrasted to this man-centered approach, God's way of justification, Brown writes,

…is so contrived, and the awakened man (whom God is about to justify) is now convinced of it, that man must be abased; for he is now able to see, that he is empty and poor, and hath nothing to commend him to God, no righteousness of his own to produce; nothing within him, or without him, except the alone righteousness of Christ the Mediator and Cautioner, that can stand him in stead; nothing of his own must here come in reckoning, neither alone, nor in conjunction with the righteousness of Christ; for what is of grace, must not be of works, otherwise grace is no more grace Romans 11: 6. (pp. 22-23, John Brown of Wamphray, ‘A Life of Justification Opened’)

It seems clear that part of the reason some reject the teaching of the necessity of God’s imputing both Christ’s obedience to the precepts of the Law AS WELL as his so-called ‘passive obedience’ to the ceremonial Law of atonement is that their view of the Law’s demands on the individual is low indeed. If one believes that full obedience to God’s Law in exhaustive detail as never required of any, then one needn’t have Christ’s obedience in that sense attributed to him. One can then, in this view, pass the standard required by some sort of ‘evangelical obedience’, or by the acceptance by God of sincere intention to obey and submit as a righteousness of a sort.

This isn’t the way the Law has historically been understood by the Reformed church, as Brown expounds the doctrine here. One of the clear functions of the Law, as described by the Apostle Paul, is to drive the individual away from reliance upon self, and a sense of worthiness to a truer sense of who he is before God – one who has no claim to righteousness in himself, and no means of restoration but grace.

0 Maintaining Sound Teaching on Justification

As I dig into the treatise "A Life of Justification, Opened" by John Brown of Wamphray, I am realizing how unfortunate it is that this man's work is so little known. The entire third chapter of his work, which is given the brief summary titlem "The Doctrine of Justification should be kept pure with all diligence; and what dangerous expressions should be shunned", could very well be posted in its entireity here, it being so worthwhile.

He begins this chapter with the following, by way of introduction:

We come next to speak a word unto the second particular mentioned; to wit, that all, who would be found faithful ambassadors, and be accepted of the Lord, should endeavor, both in practice and in doctrine, to keep this doctrine of the grace of God pure and unmixed: and particularly guard against the giving ground, or occasion to proud nature, to cry up self, in the matter of justification, by any expression, used in the explication thereof. We see here and elsewhere, how careful Paul is in this matter, using such expression, as may most emphatically exclude man, and all his pains, and set free grace on high, that God alone may be exalted... (p. 21, John Brown of Wamphray, A Life of Justification Opened)

What follows, then, is a list of several points that express erroneous positions regarding justification, each of which is worthy of an individual chapter of exposition. Though posting the whole chapter would indeed be worthwhile, I'll simply relate the contents of this list with the comment that these weighty items MUST be considered as we consider a proper understanding of justification.

1. To say, that all works are excluded in justification; but such only as are done by the mere power and strength of nature; and not the works of grace, wrought by the Spirit.
   
2. In like manner to say, that we are not justified by the works of the Ceremonial Law; but by obedience to the Moral Law
   
3. Likewise to say, that all works are not excluded, but only outward works, which are done out of principle of fear, and not out of love and faith, and are not inward works of grace.
   
4. They were guilty of the same crime, who say, that Paul only excludes the Jewish Law: for if thereby they mean only the Ceremonial Law, it is manifest from what is said, that hereby self and man shall be much exalted, when justification is made to be by, and according to the works of the Moral Law. If they mean thereby the Judicial Law, then justification should be by the Moral Law; yea and by obedience to the Ceremonial Law, as well as by obedience to the Moral Law, quite contrary to the whole discourse of the Apostle
   
5. It is no less injurious to truth, and favorable to proud self, to sat with Socinus, that Paul only excludes perfect works, done in full conformity to the perfect Law of God; but not our imperfect works, which through grace are accepted, and accounted our righteousness
   
6. It is injurious, upon the same account, to say, that Paul only excludes such works, as are accompanied with a conceit of merit, and none else
   
7. It runs far in the same guilt, to say, that faith itself, which is our work, and considered as our act of obedience, is imputed to us for righteousness, and is that righteousness, upon which we are justified
   
8. It is of the same nature, to say, that Paul excludes the works of the Law, but not the works of the Gospel: for the same ground of pride, boasting and glorying should be laid, that would be laid, by pleading for the works of the Law
   
9. It must also be accounted dangerous, for puffing up of self, to say, that we are justified by our inherent righteousness
   
10. Nor will it much help the matter, to say, that this inherent righteousness is not the price laid down, but only the condition, or causa, sine qu a non, or the like
    
11. Neither yet will it prevent this boasting, to say, that this inherent righteousness is but a subordinate righteousness, whereby we have right unto the merits of Christ, which are the principle righteousness, answering the demands of the Law
    
12. Though faith be indeed the mean of our justification, that is, the only thing required of us, in order to our interest in Christ, and actual participation of the benefits of his redemption, and of justification in the first place, according to the Gospel method: Yet it is too favorable to proud self, to call it such a condition, as hath a far more dangerous import;... And the performers of this condition, in this case, may reflect upon their own deed, and lay their weight on it, and, it being their righteousness, may plead upon it, as their immediate ground of right, before God, unto justification, and acceptance.
    
13. It tends too much to blow up proud self, to say, that if works of obedience be not the condition of our justification, yet they may be called the condition of our second justification, or of the continuance of our justification
    
14. It is also dangerous, to say, that the work of the Law, convincing of sin, with the effects and consequences thereof, sorrow, grief, anxiety, legal repentance, &c. are either dispositions, preparations or conditions of justification, or meritorious thereof by way of congruity
    

(pp. 15-21, John Brown, A Life of Justification Opened)

As I noted above, this list of errors is worthy of much consideration, and serves to introduce some of the topics Brown undertakes in the work from which I've quoted. Stay tuned for more.

0 The Root Cause of Errors Concerning Justification

John Brown begins in earnest in chapter 2 of his work, "A Life of Justification Opened," to explain the doctrine of justification by first training his sights on the root cause of doctrinal error concerning justification. In this chapter, his aim is to remind us of the fact that the true Gospel of a fully gracious justification runs counter to the natural tendency of man to want to lift himself up. We want to 'play a part' and contribute something, according to our nature. He notes that

...there is a corrupt bias in the heart of men by nature, and a strong inclination, to reject the Gospel doctrine of free justification, through faith in Christ; and to ascribe too much to themselves, in that affair: as if they would hold the life of justification, not purely of the free grace and rich mercy of God, through Jesus Christ; but of themselves, either in whole, or in part, in one measure, or another. (p. 9, John Brown of Wamphray, "A Life of Justification Opened")

We value our own contributions too much, and do not readily lay aside claims to our own self-help. Particularly, I think, in the times in which we live, to submit to a salvation wholly of another's doing is too detrimental to self-esteem. But this Gospel is exactly that which must be proclaimed, Brown argues - it must be presented so that it is clear that

in very deed, free Gospel justification is so contrived and ordered as that none have any real ground of boasting, or of glorying in themselves, or of ascribing any part of the glory thereof unto themselves, as if they, by their deeds or works, did contribute anything to the procuring thereof. (p. 9, John Brown of Wamphray, "A Life of Justification Opened")

In this section, and in the treatise in general, Brown addresses not simply justification by works in its rawest and most crass form, but in the many forms that justification by some partial contribution on our behalf that have arisen in the church, and exist today. It is the subtler errors that we should be most concerned about - the subtler ways in which we corrupt true doctrine of wholly gracious justification and subtitute a poor replacement that enables us to contribute just a little bit to our salvation. Brown writes:

This is most manifest from the many errors and false opinions, that are vented, owned and maintained, with so much violence and corrupt zeal, and all to cry up self, in less, or in more; and to cry down grace. Hence so many do plead, with great confidence, for an interest of our works, in our justification; such as Papists, (who quite mistake the nature of true justification) Socinians, Arminians, and others, who side with these in less, or in more, and will plead for a justification by our inherent righteousness, or works of righteousness, which we do. Others, that will not plead for such an early interest of our works, in this matter, will plead for faith, as our Gospel righteousness; and affirm, that the very act of our obedience in us, is imputed for a righteousness to us, and is accounted such by God; and so, hath the same place in the New Covenant, that complete and perfect obedience had in the Old Covenant of works, made with Adam; which, as shall hereafter appear, drives us upon the same rock. (p. 10, John Brown of Wamphray, "A Life of Justification Opened")

If not simply works as such, there are those in Brown's day who would argue for acceptance as righteousness our 'evangelical obedience' or our faith itself, as though that could serve as the ground for our being accounted righteous. All of these are erroneous, and give man glory and reason for boasting (even in the seemingly humble case of a man offering his faith as the sacrifice on the basis of which he is decalred 'righteous' by God) as Brown will show in the coming chapters of this treatise. If justification is not a declaration of righteousness that is grounded WHOLLY outside ourselves, then we have fallen prey to the sinful tendency to find some ground for acceptance within us - and have corrupted the truth of the Gospel.

0 No Justification but by An Imputed Righteousness

In the introduction to his treatise, "A Life of Justification Opened", John Brown of Wamphray notes that in his day there were, from several quarters, attacks being made on the Reformed doctrine of Sola Fide - the doctrine of Justification, namely Justification by Faith Alone. In this work, in which he mounts a powerful defense of the doctrine against some of those attacks, he focuses our attention on Galatians 3:11, and writes:

The Apostle (that we may in short clear the words, upon which we are to ground our discourse) in this verse eleven, after other arguments, formerly adduced to prove the thesis, which he laid down Chapter 2, verse 16, to wit, that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; he brings another argument from Scripture, after he had again repeated the one half of the grand thesis, by which the other is sufficiently understood, and more emphatically included in the probation, or testimony of Scripture adduced, saying,

Galatians 3:11 But that no man is Justified by the Law, in the sight of God, is evident; for the just shall live by faith.

He doth not explain what is meant by that word, Justified; but presupposes that there was no doubt, concerning the true meaning thereof, among those, with whom he had to do, in this dispute: as indeed none, that consider what is the constant use thereof, in the Old Testament, (well known to the Jewish Teachers) yea and in the New Testament also, can doubt of its true import, supposing that it signifies an inward renovation, or infusion of holiness; and so make it the same with Sanctification. But as no man, acquainted with the Scriptures, and with what is said of justification in them, can be ignorant of its right meaning; so every man, exercised with the sense of his own natural condition, and of the curse of the Law, under which he feels himself lying, according to what is here said, in the foregoing verse, readily understands, what it is to be justified and freed from that curse and sentence of condemnation; and so made free from the wrath that he is liable unto, because of the broken law of God: so that we need say no more of it here. (pp. 5-6, John Brown of Wamphray, A Life of Justification Opened)

Justification, Brown says, is simply that state of a person who is accepted before God as righteous. There is, in his mind, little dispute about the definition of that term - nor should there be. The Shorter Catechism defines justification as

an act of God’s 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.(Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q.33)

It is the last phrase in the answer to WSC33 - "the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone" that was being contested in Brown's day, and would be the subject of his treatise.

Brown's contention in this treatise will be that justification is apart from anything in the believer, or anything done by the believer; all works - of every kind - are rejected as any ground whatsoever for our being declared righteous in God's sight. Some in Brown's day, as in ours, insist that the reference made in Galatians 2:16, wherein Paul writes that none shall be justified by works of the Law, is a reference to works of the Ceremonial Law only - and that other works of righteousness are a proper ground for our being declared just. Brown addresses this in the introduction, writing:

But what Law is this, by which, he denies, that any can be justified? The aforementioned expressions do sufficiently clear, what Law he means, even all that Law, that was the rule of righteousness, and was prescribed of God as such; and not the Ceremonial Law only. (p. 7, John Brown of Wamphray, A Life of Justification Opened)

As Brown will spend much of his treatise describing, it is imputation alone - and imputation of the perfect righteousness of Christ alone is the determining factor. Brown's teaching is that perfect, spotless righteousness must be ours if we are to be declared just. Near the end of his introduction, Brown sums up the nature and content of the Gospel:

Where we see, that this Scripture confirms the whole nature and contents of the Gospel, that is, that the righteousness of God, i.e. the righteousness, which only will stand in God’s court, and be accepted of him, in order to the justifying of sinners; and which is the righteousness of one, who is God, is revealed from faith to faith; that is to say, is held forth to be embraced by sinners through faith, first and last; and this righteousness, thus embraced and laid hold on by faith, is the only ground of the life of justification: so that believers their living by faith, their faith lays hold on the righteousness of God, revealed in the Gospel, as the only ground of their life. (p.7, John Brown of Wamphray, A Life of Justification Opened)

On what ground do we stand? If it is the ground of anything in us - any work, any "goodness", anything in ourselves - if our eternal state is dependent on us in any way whatsoever, then we are lost. The only ground is the perfect righteousness of Christ - a sure and solid ground upon which our hope must be founded if it is to be sure.

0 The Error of Mingling of Works and Grace

Melchior Leydecker, a theologian at Utrecht, wrote the preface to John Brown's "Life of Justification Opened". I am very much looking forward to studying Brown's work on justification, and will share my thoughts as I read here under the label "John Brown of Wamphray".

But what great iniquity is it now to neglect this grace, and, leaving the principles of Protestant religion, to rely upon, and trust to our own works for salvation? My brethren, how think ye to mingle the Law with the Gospel? the righteousness of Christ with your own? your faith, depending alone upon your Savior, with your works? What will ye say, when you will die, and this weighty case of conscience comes to be resolved, how shall my poor, guilty and sinful soul be justified before a righteous God? How can ye thus prepare the way to return, and lead your followers back again unto Babylon? What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? or what communion hath light with darkness?

This is it, then - and the root of the conflict that Brown will explore in the book to whose preface Leydecker contributed these words. Brown sees in the doctrinal struggles over justification in his day a fight for the core of the Gospel - whether a sinner will be justified by means of the gracious imputation of the substitute's perfect righteousness, or by a justification grounded upon something in or done by the sinner, without reference to that perfect righteousness. Leydecker very clearly and directly brings us to the main point. The question centers on what God declares to be righteous, and in what way that righteousness is accounted to the sinner. Leydecker compares mingling works with faith with a return to Babylon - with a return to the Romanist error from which the Reformed church had escaped. It is no idle conflict, but a dispute of greatest moment. Hope resting on ANYTHING but Christ's righteousness alone is a false hope.

Leydecker closes his preface with these words, commending the work, and its author to us as readers, for the good end edification of our souls. I pray together with Leydecker that Brown's work might be useful to this end.

For I must give testimony to the Reverend and Learned Author of this work, that he wisely expounds the mysteries of justification according to the Doctrine of the Gospel, and the principles of the Reformed Churches: that he confirms the expounded Doctrine with efficacious arguments able to stop the mouths of all adversaries; that he prudently dissolves all their oppositions; that he shows himself a true Christian Minister, and a Scribe well instructed by the Holy Spirit unto the Kingdom of God. And therefore this excellent book was worthy to be printed, to be esteemed and loved among the best Treatises upon this great and weighty Doctrine of Justification. I need say no more, the work will speak for itself, and the judicious reader’s own experience will testify that it is written in the demonstration of the Spirit and Power, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness and consolation of penitent souls. I pray the God of all grace, that he would give the readers the spirit of wisdom and of a sound mind, that having the eyes of their understand enlightened, they may know what are the great mysteries of redemption, and may be sound in the Faith in order to this fundamental point of Justification here expounded and vindicated, with this full persuasion of mind that the Reformed profession is the true way of Salvation, able to save a sinner eternally, according to the Covenant of Grace revealed in the Gospel.

1 John Brown of Wamphray on the Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience

I was reading yesterday afternoon an article in the 3rd volume of the Confessional Presbyterian Journal - a most excellent publication that is worth far more than its subscription price of just $18 per annum. See this link for a fantastic deal if you've never subscribed... $50 for all four annual issues, 2004-2008. If you are a student of historical theology, either vocationally or avocationally, you will find a bountiful harvest of sound Reformed/Presbyterian thought in this valuable journal.

As I was reading the above-mentioned article which dealt with differences in the doctrine of justification as taught by the eminent Puritan, John Brown of Wamphray, and the more well-known Richard Baxter. I thought to seek out the primary work of Brown's that the article deals with, namely, his treatise, entitled "The Life of Justification Opened". It's a wonder this hasn't been reprinted in 300 years, but these things happen, unfortunately. I've only found an electronic copy of the work - but that is far better than not having the work in any form at all - the link to that work is here.

At any rate, in glancing through this masterful work, it appears to be a truly foundational treatise on the doctrine of justification as understood by the Puritans of the 17th century. In addition to all the other reading I've got on my gradually lengthening list, I can't see putting this one down. So if I might tarnish an old chestnut with my own alteration, "Lego, ergo blog."

One choice passage I leave you with here, wherein Brown clearly states his position regarding the imputation of ALL of Christ's righteousness:

Secondly, Romans 3:31, Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid: yea we establish the Law. Where the Apostle, preoccupying an objection, asserts; that through justification by faith, he did not make void the Law, but rather did establish it; the ground whereof is this, that by the Gospel way of justification, the Law gets full satisfaction, in all points, because Christ not only satisfied for the penalty thereof, which we were guilty of, and did lie under; but did also yield a perfect obedience thereunto; that so He might make up a full and complete surety-righteousness, by the imputation of which unto his own, or the Lord’s reckoning it upon their score, when they receive it by faith, they may be justified. And thus, though sinners, who have broken the Law, and so have forfeited the reward, promised to such as observe it in all points, and are come under the Curse, threatened to transgressors, be not only freed from the Curse, but receive the rich recompense of reward; yet the Law is not made null and void, but is rather established and confirmed in its full force, both as to its commands and sanction. (p. 68, pagination of the online version)

Later, he adds the following important paragraphs:

The Apostle speaks of a righteousness, and of a righteousness imputed, and all righteousness must consist in obedience to the Law, and in full conformity thereto: and seeing it is said to be imputed, and not by our works, it must of necessity follow, that the Apostle is to be understood, as speaking of the surety righteousness of Christ. And if the righteousness of Christ, who gave perfect obedience to the Law, and was constituted Mediator and Surety by the Father, and as such did give full satisfaction both in obeying the Law, and in paying the penalty, be not such an obedience to the Law, as will serve every believer’s turn, where else will the believer find a more adequate righteousness? Shall we think, that his act of faith, which is but one act of obedience to the Law, or an act of obedience to one command of the Law, hath a more perfect and absolute agreeableness to every man’s condition respectively, than the perfect obedience and righteousness of Christ! Let such believe this, as can. (pp. 70-71, pagination of online version)

and

That imputation of righteousness and pardon of sins do inseparably go together,is true; and that the one proves the other, is also clear from these words. But it is not proved, nor can it be proved, that imputed righteousness and remission of sins are the same; seeing it is obvious enough, that righteousness is one thing, and pardon of sins is another distinct thing. No man will say, that a pardoned thief is a righteous man; for that were as much as to say, He was never a thief. It is true, by pardon he is no more obnoxious to the penalty; the obligation to undergo that being now taken away: yet that will not evince that he is a righteous man: and there is still a difference between him, and one that never was chargeable with that guilt: this man, as to this, is indeed a righteous man, but not the other. (p. 71, pagination of the online version)

This is classic imputation - of Christ's passive, and of Christ's active righteousness as delineated by the Reformers. Look here for more discussion of this important doctrine as I make my way through this wonderful treatise in the weeks and months to come.