And that the gospel requires all these thmgs entirely and equally, as the condition of our justification before God, and so antecedently thereunto, is not yet proved, nor ever will be. It is hence concluded that " this is our righteousness, according unto the evangelical law which requires it ; by this we are made righteous, — that is, not guilty of the non-performance of the condition required in that law." And these things are said to be very plain ! So, no doubt, they seemed unto the author ; unto us they are intricate and perplexed. However, I wholly deny that our faith, obedience, and righteousness, considered as ours, as "\NT0Ught by us, although they are all accepted with God
2S4 ON JUSTIFICATION.
through Jesus Christ, according to the grace declared in the gospel, do perfectly answer the commands of the gospel requiring them of us, as to matter, manner, and degree ; and [assert] that therefore it is utterly impossible that they should be the cause or condition of our justifica- tion before God. Yet in the explanation of these things, it is added by the same author, that " our maimed and imperfect righteousness is accepted unto salvation, as if it were every way absolute and per- fect ; for that so it should be, Christ hath merited by his most perfect righteousness." But it is justification, and not salvation, that alone we discourse about; and that the works of obedience or righteousness have another respect unto salvation than they have unto justification, is too plainly and too often expressed in the Scripture to be modestly denied. And if this weak and imperfect righteousness of ours be esteemed and accepted as every way perfect before God, then either it is because God judgeth it to be perfect, and so declares us to be most just, and justified thereon in his sight; or he judgeth it not to be complete and perfect, yet declareth us to be perfectly righteous in his sight thereby. Neither of these, I suppose, can well be granted. It will therefore be said, it is neither of them ; but " Christ hath obtained, by his complete and most perfect righteousness and obedi- ence, that this lame and imperfect/iighteousness of ours should be accepted as every way perfect." //^nd if it be so, it may be some "svill think it best not to go about by this weak, halt, and imperfect righteousness, but, as unto their justification, betake themselves im- mediately unto the most perfect righteousness of Christ ; which I am sure the Scripture encourages them unto. And they will be ready to think that the righteousness which cannot justify itself, but must be obliged unto grace and pardon through the merits of Christ, will never be able to justify them. But what will ensue on this explana- tion of the acceptance of our imperfect righteousness unto justifica- tion, upon the merit of Christ ? This only, so far as I can discern, that Christ hath merited and procured, either that God should judge that to be perfect which is imperfect, and declare us perfectly right- eous when we are not so; or that he should judge the righteousness still to be imperfect, as it is, but declare us to be perfectly righteous with and by this imperfect righteousness. These are the plain paths that men walk in who cannot deny but that there is a righteousness required unto our justification, or that we may be declared righteous before God, in the sight of God, according unto the judgment of God; yet, denying the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us, will allow of no other righteousness unto this end but that which is so weak and imperfect as that no man can justify it in his own con- science, nor, without a frenzy of pride, can think or imagine himself perfectly righteous thereby.
IMPUTATION PROVED. 235
And whereas it is added, that " he is blind who sees not that this righteousness of ours is subordinate unto the righteousness of Christ," I must acknowledge myself otherwise minded, notwithstanding the severity of this censure. It seems to me that the righteousness of Christ is subordinate unto this righteousness of our own, as here it is stated, and not the contrary: for the end of all is our acceptance with God as righteous; but according unto these thoughts, it is our own righteousnesses whereon we are immediately accepted with God as righteous. Only Christ hath deserved by his righteousness that our righteousness may be so accepted ; and is therefore, as unto the end of our justification before God, subordinate thereunto.
But to return from this digression, and to proceed unto our argu- ment. This personal, inherent righteousness which, according to the Scripture, we allow in believers, is not that whereby or wherewith we are justified before God ; for it is not perfect, nor perfectly an- swereth any rule of obedience that is given unto us : and so cannot be our righteousness before God unto our justification. Wherefore, we must be justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed imto us, or be justified without respect unto any righteousness, or not be justified at all. And a threefold imperfection doth accompany it:—
1. As to the principle of it, as it is habitually resident in us ; for, — (1.) There is a contrary iwinciple of sin abiding with it in the same subject, whilst we are in this world. For contrary qualities may be in the same subject, whilst neither of them is in the highest degree. So it is in this case, Gal. v. 17, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." (2.) None of the faculties of our souls are perfectly renewed whilst we are in this world. " The inward man is renewed day by day," 2 Cor. iv. 16; and we are always to be purging ourselves from all pollution of flesh and spirit, 2 Cor. vii. ], And hereunto belongs whatever is spoken in the Scripture, whatever believers find in them- selves by experience, of the remainders of indwelling sin, in the dark- ness of our minds ; whence at best we know but in part, and through ignorance are ready to Avander out of the way, Heb. v. 2, in the de- ceitfulness of the heart and disorder of affections. I understand not how any one can thmk of pleading his own righteousness in the sight of God, or suppose that he can be justified by it, upon this single account, of the imperfection of its inherent habit or principle. Such notions arise from the ignorance of God and ourselves, or the want of a due consideration of the one and the other. Neither can I apprehend how a thousand distinctions can safely introduce it into any consideration in our justification before God. He that can