If no man can stand a trial before God upon his oiun obedience, so as to be justified before him, because of his own personal iniqui- ties; and if our only plea in thai, case be the righteousness of God, the rigliteousness of God only, and not our oiun; then is there nojjer- sonal, inherent righteousness in any believers whereon they may be justified; — which is that which is to be proved.
The same is again asserted by the same person, and that more plainly and directly, Ps. cxliii. 2, "Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." This tes- timony is the more to be considered, because as it is derived from the law, Exod. xxxiv. 7, so it is transferred into the gospel, and twice urged by the apostle unto the same purpose, Rom. iii. 20; Gal. ii. 16.
VOL. V. 15
226 ON JUSTIFICATION.
The person who insists on this plea with God professeth himself to be his servant: " Enter not into judgment with thy servant;" that is, one that loved him, feared him, yielded all sincere obedience. He was not a hypocrite, not an unbeliever, not an unregenerate per- son, who had performed no works but such as were legal, such as the law required, and such as were done in the strength of the law only ; such works as all will acknowledge to be excluded from our justifica- tion, and which, as many judge, are only those which are so excluded. David it Avas, who was not only converted, a true believer, had the Spirit of God, and the aids of special grace in his obedience, but had this testimony unto his sincerity, that he was " a man after God's own heart." And this witness had he in his own conscience of his integrity, uprightness, and personal righteousness, so as that he fre- quently avows them, appeals unto God concerning the truth of them, and pleads them as a ground of judgment between him and his ad- versaries. We have, therefore, a case stated in the instance of a sin- cere and eminent believer, who excelled most in inherent, personal righteousness.
This person, under these circumstances, thus testified unto both by God and in his own conscience, as unto the sincerity, yea, as unto the eminency, of his obedience, considers how he may " stand before God," and " be justified in his sight." Why doth he not now plead his own merits; and that, if not " ex condigno," yet at least " ex congruo," he deserved to be acquitted and justified ? But he left this plea for that generation of men that were to come after, who would justify themselves and despise others. But suppose he had no such confidence in the merit of his works as some have now attained unto, yet why doth he not freely enter into judgment with God, put it unto the trial whether he should be justified or no, by pleading that he had fulfilled the condition of the new covenant, that ever- lasting covenant which God made with him, ordered in all things, and sure? for upon a supposition of the procurement of that cove- nant and the terms of it by Christ (for I suppose the virtue of that purchase he made of it is allowed to extend unto the Old Testament), this was all that was required of him. Is it not to be feared that he was one of them who see no necessity, or leave none, of personal ho- liness and righteousness, seeing he makes no mention of it, now it should stand him in the greatest stead? At least he might plead his faith, as his own duty and luork, to be imputed unto him for right- eousness. But whatever the reason be, he waives them all, and abso- lutely deprecates a trial upon them. " Come not," saitli he, " O Lord, into judgment with thy servant ;" as it is promised that he who believes should " not come into judgment," John v. 24.
And if this holy person renounce the whole consideration of all
IMPUTATION PROVED. 227
his personal, inherent righteousness, in every kind, and will not insist upon it under any pretence, in any place, as unto any use in his jus- tification before God, we may safely conclude there is no such right- eousness in any, whereby they may be justified. And if men would but leave those shades and coverts under which they hide themselves in their disputations, — if they would forego those pretences and dis- tinctions wherewith they delude themselves and others, and tell us plainly ivhat 'plea they dare make in the j^'^esence of God from their own righteousness and obedience, that they may be justified before him, — we should better understand their minds than now we do. There is one, I confess, who speaks with some confidence unto this purpose, and that is Vasquez the Jesuit, in 1, 2, disp. 204, cap. 4, " Inhserens justitia ita reddit animam justam et sanctam, ac proinde filiam Dei, ut hoc ipso reddat earn heredem, et dignam eeterna gloria; imo ipse Deus efficere non potest ut hujusmodi Justus dignus non sit eeterna beatitudine." Is it not sad, that David should discover so much ignorance of the worth of his inherent righteousness, and dis- cover so much pusillanimity with respect unto his trial before God, whereas God himself could not otherwise order it, but that he was, and must be, " worthy of eternal blessedness ? "