II. The second part of the objection or charge against the impu- tation of the obedience of Christ unto us is, " That it is useless unto the persons that are to be justified; for whereas they have in their justification the pardon of all their sins, they are thereby righteous, and have a right or title unto life and blessedness; for he who is so pardoned as not to be esteemed giiilty of any sin of omission or com- mission wants nothing that is requisite thereunto ; for he is supposed to have done all that he ought, and to have omitted nothing required of him in a way of duty. Hereby he becomes not unrighteous ; and to be not unrighteous is the same as to be righteous ; as he that is not dead is alive. Neither is there, nor can there be, any middle state between death and life. Wherefore, those who have all their sins forgiven have the blessedness of justification; and there is neither need nor use of any farther imputation of righteousness unto them." And sundry other things of the same nature are urged unto the same
THE IMPUTATION OF CHKIST's OBEDIENCE. 2b'3
purpose, which will be all of them either obviated in the ensuing discourse, or answered elsewhere.
Ans. This cause is of more importance, and more evidently stated in the Scriptures, than to be turned into such niceties, which have more of 2^^^ilosophical suhtilty than theological solidity in them. This exception, therefore, might be dismissed without farther answer than what is given us in the known rule, that a truth well established and confirmed is not to be questioned, much less relinquished, on every entangling sophism, though it should appear insoluble ; but, as we shall see, there is no such difficulty in these arguings but what may easily be discussed. And because the matter of the plea con- tained in them is made use of by sundry learned persons, who yet agree with us in the substance of the doctrine of justification, — namely, that it is by faith alone, without works, through the imputa- tion of the merit and satisfaction of Christ, — I shall, as briefly as I can, discover the mistakes that it proceeds upon.
1. It includes a supposition, that he tuho is pardoned his sins of omission and commission, is esteemed to have done all that is re- quired of him, and to have committed nothing that is forbidden; for, without this supposition, the bare pardon of sin will neither make^ constitute, nor denominate any man righteous. But this is far other- wise, nor is any such thing included in the nature of pardon : for, in the pardon of sin, neither God nor man doth judge that he who hath sinned hath not sinned ; which must be done, if he who is pardoned be esteemed to have done all that he ought, and to have done no- thing that he ought not to do. If a man be brought on his trial for any evil act, and, being legally convicted thereof, is discharged by sove- reign pardon, it is true that, in the eye of the law, he is looked upon as an innocent man, as unto the punishment that was due unto him; but no man thinks that he is made righteous thereby, or is esteemed not to have done that which really he hath done, and whereof he was convicted. Joab, and Abiathar the priest, were at the same time guilty of the same crime. Solomon gives order that Joab be put to death for his crime; but unto Abiathar he gives a pardon. Did he thereby make, declare, or constitute him righteous? Himself expresseth the contrary, affirming him to be unrighteous and guilty, only he remitted the punishment of his fault, 1 Kings ii. 26. Where- fore, the pardon of sin dischargeth the guilty person from being liable or obnoxious unto anger, wrath, or punishment due unto his sin; but it doth not suppose, nor infer in the least, that he is thereby, or ought thereon, to be esteemed or adjudged to have done no evil, and to have fulfilled all righteousness. Some saj^, pardon gives a righteousness of innocency, but, not of obedience. But it cannot give a righteous- ness of innocency absolutely, such as Adam had ; for he had actually
264 ON JUSTIFICATION.
done no evil. It only removetli guilt, whicli is the respect of sin unto punishment, ensuing on the sanction of the law. And this supposition, which is an evident mistake, animates this whole ob- jection.
The like may be said of what is in like manner supposed, — namely, that not to be unrighteous, which a man is on the pardon of sin, is the same mth being righteous. For if not to be unrighteous be taken pr-ivatively, it is the same with being just or righteous: for it supposeth that he who is so hath done all the duty that is required of him that he may be righteous. But not to be unrighteous nega- tively, as the expression is here used, it doth not do so : for, at best, it su^Dposeth no more but that a man as yet hath done nothing actually against the rule of righteousness. Now this may be when yet he hath performed none of the duties that are required of him to constitute him righteous, because the times and occasions of them are not yet. And so it was with Adam in the state of innocency; which is the height of what can be attained by the complete pardon of sin.