From what hath been discoursed concerning the nature and grounds of imputatio7i, sundry things are made evident, which con- tribute much light unto the truth which we plead for, at least unto the right understanding and stating of the matter under debate. As, —
1. The difference is plain between the imputation of any works of our own unto us, and the imjnitation of the righteousness of faith without works. For the imputation of works unto us, be they what they will, be it faith itself as a work of obedience in us, is the imputation of that which was ours before such imputation; but the imputation of the righteousness of faith, or the righteousness of God
1 72 ON JUSTIFICATION.
whicli is by faith, is the imputation of that which is made ours hy Adrtue of that imputation. And these two imputations differ in their whole kind. The one is a judging of that to be in us which indeed is so, and is ours before that judgment be passed concerning it ; the oth©r- isa communication of that unto us which, before was not ours. And no man can make sense of the apostle's discourse, — that is, he cannot understand any thing of it, — if he acknowledge not that the righteousness he treats of is made ours by imputation, and was not ours antecedently thereunto.
2. The imputation of works, of what sort soever they be, of faith itself as a work, and all the obedience of faith, is " ex justitia," and not " ex gratia," — of right, and not of grace. However the bestow- ing of faith on us, and the working of obedience in us, may -be of grace, yet the imputation of them unto us, as in us, and as ours, is an act of justice; for this imputation, as was showed, is nothing but a judgment that such and such things are in us, or are ours, which truly and really are so, with a treating of us according unto them. This is an act of justice, as it appears in the description given of that imputation ; but the imjnitation of righteousness, mentioned by the apostle, is as unto us " ex mera gratia," of mere grace, as he fully declares, — dcuptav rfi %a^/r/ ahrov. And, moreover, he declares that these two sorts of imputation are inconsistent and not capable of any composition, so that any thing should be partly of the one, and partly of the other, Rom. xi. 6, " If by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace: but if it be of works, then it is no more grace ; otherwise work is no more work." For instance, ii faith itself as a work of ours be imputed unto us, it being ours antecedently unto that imputation, it is but an acknowledgment of it to be in us and ours, with an ascription of it unto us for wliat it is; for the ascription of any thing unto us for what it is not, is not imputation, but mistake. But this is an imputation " ex justitia," of Avorks; and so that which is of mere grace can have no place, by the apostle's rule. So the imputation unto us of what is in us is exclusive of grace, in the apostle's sense. And on the other hand, if the righteousness of Christ be imputed unto us, it must be " ex mera gratia," of mere grace; for that is imputed unto us which was not ours antecedently unto that imputation, and so is communicated unto us thereby. And here is no place for works, nor for any pre- tence of them. In the one way, the foundation of imputation is in ourselves ; in the other, it is in another : Avhich are in-econcilable.
3. Herein both these kinds of iniputation do agree, — namely, in that whatever is imputed mito us, it is imputed for wJtat it is, and not for what it is not. If it be a perfect righteousness that is im- puted unto us, so it is esteemed and judged to be; and accordingly
IMPUTATION, AND THE NATURE OF IT. 1 73
are we to be dealt withal, even as those who have a perfect righteous- ness: and if that which is imputed as righteousness unto us be im- perfect, or imperfectly so, then as such must it be judged when it is imputed; and we must be dealt withal as those which have such an imperfect righteousness, and no otherwise. And therefore, whereas our inherent righteousness is imperfect (they are to be pitied or de- spised, not to be contended withal, that are otherwise minded), if that be imputed unto us, we cannot be accepted on the account thereof as perfectly righteous, without an error in judgment.
4. Hence the true nature of that imputation which we plead for (which so many can not or will not understand) is manifest, and that hoth. negatively a.nd positively ; for, — (1.) Negatively. First, It is not a judging or esteeming of them to be righteous who truly and really are not so. Such a judgment is not reducible unto any of the grounds of imputation before mentioned. It hath the nature of that which is '* ex injuria," or a false charge, only it differs materially from it ; for that respects evil, this that which is good. And therefore the clamours of the Papists and others are mere effects of ignorance or malice, wherein they cry out " ad ravim," [till they are hoarse,] that we affirm God to esteem them to he righteous who a,re luicJced, sinful, and polluted. But this falls heavily on them who maintain that we are justified before God by our own inherent righteousness: for then a man is judged righteous who indeed is not so ; for he who is not perfectly righteous cannot be righteous in the sight of God unto justification. Secondly, It is not a naked pronunciation or declaration of any one to be righteous, Avithout a just and sufficient foundation for the judgment of God declared therein. God declares no man to be righteous but him who is so ; the whole question being how he comes so to be. Thirdly, It is liot the transmission ov transfusion of the righteousness of another into them that are to be justified, that they should become perfectly and inherently righteous thereby; for it is impossible that the right- eousness of one should be transfused into another, to become his subjectively and inherently: but it is a great mistake, on the other hand, to say that therefore the righteousness of one can no way be made the righteousness of another; which is to deny all imputation.