GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 65
then are they of no use unto our salvation. 8. That it is ridiculous to think that where there is no sin, there is not all the righteousness that can be required. 9. That righteousness imputed is only a, pu- tative or imaginary righteousness, etc.
Now, although all these and the like objections, however subtilely managed (as Socmus boasts that he had used more than ordinary subtilty in this cause, — " In quo, si subtilius aliquanto quam opus esse videretur, qusedam a nobis disputata sunt,'' De Servat., par. iv., cap. 4.), are capable of plain and clear solutions, and we shall avoid the examination of none of them; yet at present I shall only say, that all the shades which they cast on the minds of men do vanish and disappear before the light of express Scripture testimonies, and the exjDerience of them that do believe, where there is a due compre- hension of the mystery of grace in any tolerable measure.
Seventhly. There are some common prejudices, that are usually pleaded against the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; which, because they will not orderly fall under a particu- lar consideration in our progress, may be briefly examined in these general previous considerations: —
1. It is usually urged against it, that this imputation of the right- eousness of Christ is nowhere mentioned expressly in the Scripture. This is the first objection of Bellarmine against it. " Hactenus,'^ saith he, " nullum omnino locum invenire potuerunt, ubi legeretur Christijustitiam nobis imputari ad justitiam; vel nos justos esse per Christi justitiam nobis imputatam," De Justificat., lib. ii. cap. 7; — an objection, doubtless, unreasonably and immodestly urged by men of this persuasion; for not only do they make profession of their whole faith, or their belief of all things in matters of religion, in teiTQS and expressions nowhere used in the Scripture, but believe many things also, as they say, with faith divine, not at all revealed or contained in the Scripture, but drained by them out of the tradi- tions of the church. I do not, therefore, understand how such per- sons can modestly manage this- as an objection against any doctrine, that the terms wherein some do express it are not /sjjrwg, — found in the Scripture just in that order of one word after another as by them they are used ; for this rule may be much enlarged, and yet be kept strait enough to exclude the principal concerns of their church out of the confines of Christianity. Nor can I apprehend much more equity in others, who reflect with severity on this expression of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as unscriptural, as if those who make use thereof were criminal in no small degree, when them- selves, immediately in the declaration of their own judgment, make use of such terms, distinctions, and expressions, as are so far from being in the Scripture, as that it is odds they had never been in the
56 ON JUSTIFICATION.
world, liad they escaped Aristotle's mint, or that of the schools de- riving from him.
And thus, although a sufficient answer hath frequently enough (if any thing can be so) been returned unto this objection in Bellarmine, yet hath one of late amongst ourselves made the translation of it into English to be the substance of the first chapter of a book about jus- tification ; though he needed not to have given such an early intima- tion unto whom he is beholding for the greatest part of his ensuing discourse, unless it be what is taken up in despiteful revilings of other men. For take from him what is not his o-wn, on the one hand, and impertinent cavils at the words and expressions of other men, with forged imputations on some of tliem, on the other, and his whole book will disappear. But yet, although he affirms that none of the Protestant writers, who speak of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us (which were all of them, without exception, until of late), have precisely kept to the form of wholesome words, but have rather swerved and varied from the language of the Scripture ; yet he will excuse them from open error, if they intend no more thereby but that we are made partakers of the benefits of the righteousness of Christ. But if they intend that the righteousness of Christ itself is imputed unto us (that is, so as to be our righteousness before God, whereon we are pardoned and accepted with him, or do receive the forgiveness of sins, and a right to the heavenly inheritance), then are they guilty of that error which makes us to be esteemed to do our- selves what Christ did ; and so on the other side, Christ to have done what Ave do and did, chap. 2, 3. But these things are not so. For, if we are esteemed to have done any thing in our own persons, it cannot be imputed unto us as done for us by another; as it will ap- pear when we shall treat of these things afterward. But the great and holy persons intended, are as little concerned in the accusations or apologies of some writers, as those writers seem to be acquainted with that learning, wisdom, and judgment, wherein they did excel, and the characters whereof are so eminently conspicuous in all their writings.