Chapter 7: Imputation and Its Nature; the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ

THe first express Record of the justification of any sinner is of Abraham. Others were justified before him from the Beginning, and there is that affirmed of them, which sufficiently evidencs them so to have been. But this prerogative was reserved for the father of the Faithful, that his justification and the express way and manner of it, should be first entered on the Sacred Record. So it is Genesis 15:6. He believed in the Lord, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. was accounted unto him, or imputed unto him for righteousness. . It was counted, reckoned, imputed. And it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed unto him, but for us also unto whom it shall be imputed if we believe, Romans 4:23, 24. Wherefore the first express declaration of the nature of justification in the scripture, affirms it to be by imputation; The imputation of somewhat unto righteousness. And this done in that place and instance, which is Recorded on purpose, as the president and example of all those that shall be justified. As he was justified so are we, and no otherwise.

Under the new testament there was a necessity of a more full and clear declaration of the doctrine of it. For it is among the first and most principal parts of that Heavenly mystery of truth which was to be brought to light by the gospel. And besides there was from the first a strong and Dangerous Opposition made unto it. For this matter of justification, the doctrine of it, and what necessarily belongs thereunto, was that whereon the Jewish church broke off from God, refused Christ and the gospel, perishing in their sins; as is expressly declared, Romans 9:31, 10:3, 4. And in like manner a dislike of it, an Opposition unto it, ever was and ever will be a principle and cause of the Apostasie of any professing church, from Christ and the gospel, that falls under the power and deceit of them; as it fell out afterwards in the churches of the Galatians. But in this state the doctrine of justification was fully declared, stated, and vindicated by the apostle Paul in a peculiar manner. And he does it especially by affirming and proving that we have the righteousness whereby and wherewith we are justified by imputation; or that our justification consists in the non-Imputation of sin, and the imputation of righteousness.

But yet, although the first Recorded instance of justification, and which was so recorded, that it might be an example and represent the justification of all that should be justified unto the end of the world, is expressed by imputation, and righteousness imputed, and the doctrine of it in that great case, wherein the eternal welfare of the church of the jews, or their ruine was concerned, is so expressed by the apostle; yet is it so fallen out in our days that nothing in religion is more maligned, more reproached, more despised, then the imputation of righteousness unto us, or an imputed righteousness. A putative righteousness, the shadow of a dream, a fancy, a mummery, an imagination, say some among us. An opinion, foeda, execranda, pernitiosa, detestanda, says Socinus. And opposition ariss unto it every day from great variety of principles. For those by whom it is opposed and rejected can by no means agree what to set up in the place of it.

However, the weight and importance of this doctrine is on all hands acknowledged, whether it be true or false. It is not a dispute about Notions, Terms, and Speculations, wherein Christian Practice is little or not at all concerned, (of which nature many are needlesly contended about) but such as has an immediate influence into our whole present duty, with our eternal Welfare or Ruine. Those by whom this imputation of righteousness is rejected, do affirm that the faith and doctrine of it, do overthrow the necessity of gospel obedience, of personal righteousness, and good works, bringing in Antinomianism, and Libertinism in life. Hereon it must of necessity be destructive of salvation, in those who believe it, and conform their Practice thereunto. And those on the other hand by whom it is believed, seeing they judge it impossible that any man should be justified before God any other way, but by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, do accordingly judge, that without it none can be saved. Hence a Learned man of late concludes his discourse concerning it; Hactenus de Imputatione Justitiae Christi, sine qua nemo unquam aut salvatus est, aut salvari queat. Justificat. Paulin. cap. 8. Thus far of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, without which no man was ever saved, nor can any so be. They do not think nor judge, that all those are excluded from salvation, who cannot apprehend, or to deny the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as by them declared. But they judge that they are so, unto whom that righteousness is not really imputed; nor can they do otherwise, whil'st they make it the foundation of all their own Acceptation with God and eternal salvation. These things greatly differ. To believe the doctrine of it, or not to believe it, as thus or thus explained, is one thing; and to enjoy the thing, or not enjoy it, is another. I no way doubt, but that many men do receive more grace from God, than they understand or will own; and have a greater efficacy of it in them, than they will believe. Men may be really saved, by that grace which Doctrinally they do deny; and they may be justified by the imputation of that righteousness which in opinion they deny to be imputed. For the faith of it, is included in that general assent which they give unto the truth of the gospel, and such an Adherence unto Christ may ensue thereon, as that their mistake of the way whereby they are saved by him, shall not defraud them of a real Interest therein. And for my part, I must say, that notwithstanding all the disputes that I see and read about justification (some whereof are full of offence and scandal) I do not believe but that the authors of them, (if they be not socinians throughout, denying the whole merit and satisfaction of Christ) do really trust unto the mediation of Christ for the pardon of their sins, and Acceptance with God, and not unto their own works or obedience. Nor will I believe the contrary, until they expressly declare it. Of the objection on the other hand, concerning the danger of the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, in reference unto the necessity of holiness, and works of righteousness, we must treat afterwards.

The judgment of the reformed churches herein is known unto all, and must be confessed, unless we intend by vain cavils to encrease and perpetuate contentions. Especially the church of England is in her doctrine express as unto the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, both active and passive as it is usually distinguished. This has been of late so fully manifested out of her Authentick Writings, that is, the Articles of religion, and books of Homilies, and other Writings publickly authorized, that it is altogether needless to give any farther Demonstration of it. Those who pretend themselves to be otherwise minded, are such as I will not contend withall. For to what purpose is it to dispute with men who will deny the Sun to shine, when they cannot bear the heat of its beams. Wherefore in what I have to offer on this subject, I shall not in the least depart from the ancient doctrine of the church of England; yea I have no design but to declare and vindicate it, as God shall enable.

There are indeed sundry differences among persons Learned, Sober, and Orthodox (if that term displease not) in the way and manner of the Explication of the doctrine of justification by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, who yet all of them agree in the substance of it, in all those things wherein the grace of God, the honor of Christ, and the peace of the souls of men are principally concerned. As far as it is possible for me, I shall avoid the concerning of my self at present, in these differences. For unto what purpose is it to contend about them, whilst the substance of the doctrine it self is openly opposed and rejected? why should we debate about the order and beautifying of the Rooms in an House, whilst Fire is set unto the whole? when that is well quenched, we may return to the consideration of the best means for the disposal and use of the several parts of it.

There are two grand Parties by whom the doctrine of justification by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is opposed, namely, the papists and the socinians. But they proceed on different principles, and unto different ends. The design of the one is to exalt their own merits, of the other to destroy the merit of Christ. But besides these who trade in company, we have many Interlopers, who coming in on their hand, do make bold to borrow from both, as they see occasion. We shall have to do with them all in our progress; not with the persons of any, nor the way and manner of their expressing themselves, but the Opinions of all of them so far as they are opposite unto the truth. For it is that which wise men despise and good men bewail, to see persons pretending unto religion and piety, to cavil at Expressions, to contend about words, to endeavour the fastening of Opinions on men which they own not, and thereon mutually to revile one another, publishing all to the world, as some great atchievement or victory. This is not the way to teach them truths of the gospel, nor to promote the Edification of church. But in general, the Importance of the cause to be pleaded, the Greatness of the opposition that is made unto the truth, and the high concernment of the souls of believers, to be rightly instructed in it, do call for a renewed declaration and Vindication of it. And what I shall attempt unto this purpose, I do it under this perswasion, that the life and continuance of any church on the one hand, and its Apostasie or Ruine on the other, do depend in an eminent manner on the Preservation or rejection of the truth in this Article of religion; (and I shall add) as it has been professed, received, and believed in the church of England in former days.

The first thing we are to consider is the meaning of these words to Impute and imputation. For from a mere plain declaration hereof, it will appear that sundry things charged on a supposition of the imputation we plead for, are vain and groundless, or the Charge it self is so.

The word first used to this purpose, signifies to think, to esteem, to judge, or to refer a thing or matter unto any; to impute, or to be imputed for Good or Evil. See Levit. 7:18. chap. 17:4. And Psalm 106:31. and it was counted, reckoned, imputed unto him for righteousness. To judge or esteem this or that Good or Evil, to belong unto him, to be his. The Lxx. express it by and ; as do the writers of the New testament also. And these are rendred by reputare, imputare, acceptum ferre, tribuere, assignare, ascribere. But there is a different signification among these words; In particular, to be reputed righteous, and to have righteousness imputed, differ, as cause and effect. For that any may be reputed righteous, that is, be judged or esteemed so to be, there must be a real foundation of that Reputation, or it is a mistake, and not a right judgment; as a man may be reputed to be wise, who is a fool, or reputed to be rich, who is a beggar. Wherefore he that is reputed righteous, must either have a righteousness of his own, or another antecedently imputed unto him, as the foundation of that Reputation. Wherefore to impute righteousness unto one that has none of his own, is not to repute him to be righteous, who is indeed Unrighteous, but it is to communicate a righteousness unto him, that he may rightly and justly be esteemed, judged, or reputed righteous.

Imputare, is a word that the Latine Tongue owns in the sense wherein it is used by Divines. Optime de pessimis meruisti, ad quos pervenerit incorrupta rerum fides, magno Authori suo imputata. Senec. ad Mart. And Plin. lib. 18. cap. 1. In his Apology for the earth our common Parent, nostris eam criminibus urgemus, culpamque nostram illi imputamus.

In their sense, to impute any thing unto another, is if it be evil, to charge it on him, to burden him with it; so says Pliny, we impute our own faults to the earth, or charge them upon it. If it be Good, it is to ascribe it unto him as his own, whether originally it were so or no; magno Authori imputata. Vasquez, in Thom. 22. Tom. 2. Disp. 132. attempts the sense of the word, but confounds it with reputare. Imputare aut reputare quidquam alicui, est idem atque inter ea quae sunt ipsius, & ad eum pertinent, connumerare & recensere. This is reputare properly, imputare includes an Acts antecedent unto this accounting or esteeming a thing to belong unto any person.

But whereas that may be imputed unto us which is really our own antecedently unto that imputation, the word must needs have a double sense, as it has in the instances given out of Latine authors now mentioned. And,

1. To Impute unto us that which was really ours, antecedently unto that imputation, includes two things in it. (1) An acknowledgment or judgment, that the thing so imputed is really and truly ours, or in us. He that Imputes wisdom or Learning unto any man, does in the first place acknowledge him to be Wise or Learned. (2) A dealing with them according unto it, whether it be Good or Evil. So when upon a trial a man is acquitted because he is found righteous; first he is judged and esteemed righteous, and then dealt with as a righteous person; his righteousness is imputed unto him. See this exemplified, Genesis 30:33.

2. To Impute unto us that which is not our own antecedently unto that imputation, includes also in it two things. (1) A Grant or Donation of the thing it self unto us to be ours, on some just ground and Foundation. For a thing must be made ours, before we can justly be dealt withall according unto what is required on the Account of it. (2) A will of dealing with us, or an actual dealing with us according unto that which is so made ours. For in this matter whereof we treat, the most Holy and righteous God does not justify any, that is, absolve them from sin, pronounce them righteous, and thereon grant unto them right and title unto Eternal life, but upon the interveniency of a true and compleat righteousness, truly and compleatly made the righteousness of them that are to be justified, in order of nature antecedently unto their justification. But these things will be yet made more clear by instances, and it is necessary they should be so.

1. There is an imputation unto us of that which is really our own, inherent in us, performed by us, antecedently unto that imputation, and this whether it be Evil or Good. The rule and nature hereof is given and expressed, Ezekiel 18:20. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, the Wickedness of the Wicked shall be upon him. instances we have of both sorts. (1) In the imputation of sin, when the person guilty of it, is so judged and reckoned a sinner, as to be dealt withall accordingly. This imputation Shimei deprecated, 2 Samuel 19:19. He said unto the king, Let not my Lord impute iniquity unto me, ( the word used in the expression of the imputation of righteousness. Genesis 15:6.) neither do you remember what your Servant did perversely; For your Servant does know that I have sinned. He was Guilty, and acknowledged his Guilt, but deprecates the imputation of it, in such a sentence concerning him, as his sin deserved. So Stephen deprecated the imputation of sin unto them that stoned him, whereof they were really guilty, Acts 7:60. Lay not this sin to their charge; impute it not unto them. As on the other side Zechariah the Son of Jehojada, who died in the same cause, and the same kind of death with Stephen, prayed that the sin of those which slew him might be charged on them, 2 Chron. 24:22. Wherefore to impute sin, is to lay it unto the charge of any, and to deal with them according unto its desert.

To impute that which is Good unto any, is to judge and acknowledge it so to be theirs, and thereon to deal with them in whom it is, according unto its respect unto the law of God. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him. So Jacob provided that his righteousness should answer for him, Genesis 30:33. And we have an instance of it in Gods dealing with men, Psalm 106:31. Then stood up Phineas and executed judgment, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Notwithstanding it seemed that he had not sufficient warrant for what he did, yet God that knew his heart, and what Guidance of his own spirit he was under, approved his fact as righteous, and gave him a reward testifying that Approbation.

Concerning this imputation it must be observed, that whatever is our own antecedently thereunto, which is an Acts of God thereon, can never be imputed unto us for any thing more or less than what it is really in it self. For this imputation consists of two parts, or two things concur thereunto. (1) A judgment of the thing to be ours, to be in us, or to belong unto us. (2) A will of dealing with us, or an actual dealing with us according unto it. Wherefore in the imputation of any thing unto us, which is ours, God esteems it not to be other than it is. He does not esteem that to be a perfect righteousness which is imperfect; so to do might argue either a mistake of the thing judged on, or perverseness in the judgment it self upon it. Wherefore if, as some say, our own faith and obedience are imputed unto us for righteousness, seeing they are imperfect they must be imputed unto us for an imperfect righteousness, and not for that which is perfect. For that judgment of God which is according unto truth, is in this imputation. And the imputation of an imperfect righteousness unto us, esteeming it only as such, will stand us in little stead in this matter. And the Acceptilation which some plead, (traducing a fiction in humane laws, to interpret the mystery of the gospel) does not only overthrow all imputation, but the satisfaction and merit of Christ also. And it must be observed, that this imputation is a mere Acts of justice, without any mixture of grace, as the apostle declares, Romans 11:6. For it consists of these two parts. (1) An acknowledging and judging that to be in us which is truly so. (2) A will of dealing with us according unto it; both which are Acts of justice.

The imputation unto us of that which is not our own, antecedently unto that imputation, at least not in the same manner as it is afterwards, is various also, as unto the grounds and causes that it proceeds upon. Only it must be observed, that no imputation of this kind, is to account them, unto whom any thing is imputed, to have done the things themselves which are imputed unto them. That were not to impute but to err in judgment, and indeed utterly to overthrow the whole nature of Gracious imputation. But it is to make that to be ours by imputation, which was not ours before, unto all ends and purposes whereunto it would have served, if [〈1 page duplicate〉][〈1 page duplicate〉] it had been our own, without any such imputation.

It is therefore a manifest mistake of their own which some make the ground of a Charge on the doctrine of imputation. For the say, if our sins were imputed unto Christ, then must he be esteemed to have done what we have done amiss, and so be the greatest sinner that ever was; and on the other side, if his righteousness be imputed unto us, then are we esteemed to have done what he did, and so to stand in no need of the pardon of sin. But this is contrary unto the nature of imputation, which proceeds on no such judgment, but on the contrary, that we our selves have done nothing of what is imputed unto us; nor Christ any thing of what was imputed unto him.

To declare more distinctly the nature of this imputation, I shall consider the several kinds of it, or rather the several grounds whence it proceeds. For this imputation unto us, of what is not our own antecedent unto that imputation, may be either, (1) Ex justitia, or (2) Ex voluntaria sponsione, or (3) Ex injuria, or (4) Ex gratia; all which shall be exemplified. I do not place them thus distinctly, as if they might not some of them concur in the same imputation, which I shall manifest that they do. But I shall refer the several kinds of imputation, unto that which is the next cause of every one.

1. Things that are not our own originally, personally, inherently, may yet be imputed unto us ex justitia, by the rule of righteousness. And this may be done upon a double relation unto those whose they are; (1) Foederal, (2) Natural. (1) Things done by one may be imputed unto others, propter relationem foederalem, because of a covenant relation between them. So the sin of Adam was, and is imputed unto all his Posterity, as we shall afterwards more fully declare And the ground hereof is, that we stood all in the same covenant with him, who was our head and Representative therein. The corruption and Depravation of nature which we derive from Adam is imputed unto us, with the first kind of imputation, namely, of that which is ours antecedently unto that imputation. But his actual sin is imputed unto us, as that which becomes ours by that imputation, which before it was not. Hence says Bellarmine himself; Peccatum Adami ita posteris omnibus imputatur, ac si omnes idem peccatum patravissent. De Amiss. Grat. lib. 4. cap. 10. The sin of Adam is so imputed unto all his Posterity, as if they had all committed the same sin. And he gives us herein the true nature of imputation, which he fiercely disputes against in his books of justification. For the imputation of that sin unto us, as if we had committed it, which he acknowledgs, includes both a Transcription of that sin unto us, and a dealing with us, as if we had committed it; which is the doctrine of the apostle Romans 5.

2. There is an imputation of sin unto others, ex justitia propter Relationem naturalem, on the account of a natural relation between them, and those who had actually contracted the Guilt of it. But this is so only with respect unto some outward Temporary effects of it. So God speaks concerning the Children of the Rebellious israelites in the Wilderness. Your Children shall wander in the Wilderness Forty years, and bear your Whoredoms, Numb. 14:33. Your sin shall be so far imputed unto your Children, because of their relation unto you, and your Interest in them, as that they shall suffer for them in an afflictive condition in the Wilderness. And this was just, because of the relation between them; as the same procedure of Divine justice is frequently declared in other places of the scripture. So where there is a due foundation of it, imputation is an Acts of justice.

2. imputation may justly ensue, ex voluntaria sponsione; when one freely and willingly undertakes to answer for another. An illustrious instance hereof we have in that passage of the apostle unto Philemon, in the behalf of Onesimus; verse 18. If he have wronged the, or oweth you ought, , impute it unto me, put it on my account. He supposs that Philemon might have a double action against Onesimus. (1) Injuriarum, of wrongs; , if he has dealt unjustly with the or by the, if he has so wronged the as to render himself obnoxious unto punishment; (2) Damni, or of loss; , if he oweth you ought, be a debtor unto the, which made him liable to payment or restitution. In this state the apostle interposs himself by a voluntary sponsion, to undertake for Onesimus. I Paul have written it with my own hand I Paul will answer for the whole. And this he did by the Transcription of both the debts of Onesimus unto himself; For the crime was of that nature as might be taken away by compurgation, being not Capital. And the imputation of them unto him, was made just by his voluntary undertaking of them. Account me, says he, the person that has done these things; and I will make satisfaction, so that nothing be charged on Onesimus. So Judah voluntarily undertook unto Jacob, for the safety of Benjamin, and obliged himself unto perpetual Guilt in case of failure; Genesis 43:9. I will be surety for him, of my hand shalt you require him, if I bring him not unto the, and set him before you, I will sin, or be a sinner before you always; be guilty and as we say, bear the blame. So he expresss himself again unto Joseph, Chap. 44:32. It seems this is the nature and office of a Surety; what he undertaks for, is justly to be required at his hand, as if he had been originally and personally concerned in it. And this voluntary sponsion was one ground of the imputation of our sin unto Christ. He took on him the person of the whole church that had sinned, to answer for what they had done against God and the law. Hence that imputation was fundamentaliter ex compacto, ex voluntaria sponsione, it had its foundation in his voluntary undertaking. But on supposition hereof; it was actually ex justitia, it being righteous that he should answer for, and make good what he had so undertaken, the glory of Gods righteousness and holiness being greatly concerned herein.

3. There is an imputation, ex injuria; when that is laid unto the charge of any, whereof he is not Guilty: So Bathsheba says unto David; it shall come to pass that when my Lord the king shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my Son Solomon shall be sinners; 1 kings 1:21. shall be dealt with as Offenders, as guilty persons, have sin imputed unto us, on one pretence or other unto our Destruction. We shall be sinners; be esteemed so, and be dealt withal accordingly. And we may see that in the Phrase of the scripture the Denomination of sinners, follows the imputation, as well as the inhesion of sin; which will give light unto that place of the apostle, he was made sin for us, 2 Corinthians 5:21. This kind of imputation has no place in the judgment of God. It is far from him, that the righteous should be as the Wicked.

4. There is an imputation, ex mera Gratia, of mere grace and favor. And this is, when that which antecedently unto this imputation was no way ours, not inherent in us, not performed by us, which we had no right nor title unto, is granted unto us, made ours, so as that we are judged of, and dealt with according unto it. This is that imputation in both branches of it, Negative in the non-Imputation of sin, and positive in the imputation of righteousness, which the apostle so vehemently pleads for, and so frequently asserts, Romans 4. For he both affirms the thing it self, and declares that it is of mere grace, without respect unto any thing within our selves. And if this kind of imputation cannot be fully exemplified in any other instance, but this alone, whereof we treat, it is because the foundation of it in the mediation of Christ is singular, and that which there is nothing to parallel in any other case among men.

From what has been discoursed concerning the nature and grounds of imputation, sundry things are made evident which contribute 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 imputation of the righteousness of faith without works. For the imputation of works unto us, be they what they will, be it faith it self 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 which is by faith, is the imputation of that which is made ours by vertue of that imputation. And these two imputation 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 other is a communication of that unto us, which before was not ours. And no man can make sense of the apostles 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 it self as a work, and all the obedience of faith, is ex justitia, and not ex gratia: of right and not of grace. However the bestowing 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 shewed, 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 Acts of justice, as it appears in the description given of that imputation. But the imputation of righteousness mentioned by the apostle is as unto us ex mera Gratia, of mere grace, as he fully declares, . 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, Romans 11:6. 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 works is no more works. For instance, if faith it self 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 what it is. For the ascription of any thing unto us for what it is not, is no imputation but mistake. But this is an imputation ex justitia, of works; and so that which is of mere grace, can have no place, by the apostles rule. So the imputation unto us of what is in us, is exclusive of grace, in the apostles 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 pretence of them. In the one way the foundation of imputation is in our selves, in the other it is in another, which are irreconcileable.

3. Herein both these kinds of imputation do agree. Namely, in that whatever is imputed unto us, it is imputed for what it is, and not for what it is not. If it be a perfect righteousness that is imputed unto us, so it is esteemed and judged to be, and accordingly are we to be dealt withall, even as those who have a perfect righteousness. And if that which is imputed as righteousness unto us be imperfect, or imperfectly so, then as such must it be judged when it is imputed; and we must be dealt withall as those which have such an imperfect righteousness, and no otherwise. And therefore whereas our inherent righteousness is imperfect, (they are to be pityed or despised, not to be contended withall, 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 cannot or will not understand) is manifest, and that both negatively and positively. For (1) negatively; (1) 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 has 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 clamour of the papists and others are mere effects of Ignorance or Malice, wherein they cry out ad ravim, that we affirm God to esteem them to be righteous, who are wicked, 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. (2) It is not a naked Pronunciation or declaration of any one to be righteous, without a just and sufficient foundation for the judgment of God declared therein. God declares no man to be righteous but he who is so; the whole question being, how he comes so to be. (3) It is not the Transmission or 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 righteousness 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.

Wherefore (2) Positively; This imputation is an Acts of God ex mera Gratia, of his mere love and grace, whereby on the consideration of the mediation of Christ, he makes an effectual Grant and Donation of a true, real, perfect righteousness, even that of Christ himself unto all that do believe, and accounting it as theirs, on his own gracious act, both absolves them from sin, and grants them right and title unto Eternal life. Hence,

4. In this imputation, the thing it self is first imputed unto us, and not any of the effects of it, but they are made ours by virtue of that imputation. To say that the righteousness of Christ, that is, his obedience and sufferings are imputed unto us only as unto their effects, is to say that we have the benefit of them, and no more; but imputation it self is denied. So say the socinians, but they knew well enough, and ingenuously grant, that they overthrow all true real imputation thereby. Nec enim ut per Christi justitiam justificemur, opus est ut illius Justitia, nostra fiat justitia; sed sufficit ut Christi justitia sit causa nostrae Justificationis; & hactenus possumus tibi concedere, Christi justitiam esse nostram justitiam, quatenus nostrum in bonum justitiamque redundat; verum tu proprie nostram, id est, nobis attributam ascriptamque intelligis, says Schlictingius; Disp. pro Socin. ad Meisner. pag. 250. And it is not pleasing to see some among our selves with so great confidence take up the sense and words of these men in their Disputations against the protestant doctrine in this cause, that is, the doctrine of the church of England.

That the righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us, as unto its effects, has this sound sense in it; namely, that the effects of it are made ours, by reason of that imputation. It is so imputed, so reckoned unto us of God, as that he really communicates all the effects of it unto us. But to say the righteousness of Christ is not imputed unto us, only its effects are so, is really to overthrow all imputation. For (as we shall see) the effects of the righteousness of Christ cannot be said properly to be imputed unto us; and if his righteousness it self be not so, imputation has no place herein, nor can it be understood why the apostle should so frequently assert it as he does, Romans 4. And therefore the socinians who expressly oppose the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, and plead for a participation of its effects or benefits only, do wisely deny any such kind of righteousness of Christ, namely, of satisfaction and merit, (or that the righteousness of Christ as wrought by him, was either satisfactory or meritorious) as alone may be imputed unto us. For it will readily be granted, that what alone they allow the righteousness of Christ to consist in, cannot be imputed unto us, whatever benefit we may have by it. But I do not understand how those who grant the righteousness of Christ to consist principally in his satisfaction for us or in our stead, can conceive of an imputation of the effects thereof unto us, without an imputation of the thing it self. Seeing it is for that as made ours, that we partake of the benefits of it. But from the description of imputation and the instances of it, it appears that there can be no imputation of any thing, unless the thing it self be imputed, nor any participation of the effects of any thing, but what is grounded on the imputation of the thing it self. Wherefore in our particular case, no imputation of the righteousness of Christ is allowed, unless we grant it self to be imputed; nor can we have any participation of the effects of it, but on the supposition and foundation of that imputation. The impertinent Cavils that some of late have collected from the papists and socinians, that if it be so, then are we as righteous as Christ himself, that we have redeemed the world, and satisfied for the sins of others, that the pardon of sin is impossible, and Personal righteousness needless, shall afterwards be spoken unto, so far as they deserve.

All that we now aim to demonstrate, is only, that either the righteousness of Christ it self is imputed unto us, or there is no imputation in the matter of our justification, which whether there be or no, is another question afterwards to be spoken unto. For as was said, the effects of the righteousness of Christ, cannot be said properly to be imputed untous. For instance, pardon of sin is a great effect of the righteousness of Christ. Our sins are pardoned on the account thereof. God for Christs sake forgivs us all our sins. But the pardon of sin cannot be said to be imputed unto us, nor is so. adoption, justification, peace with God, all grace and glory, are effects of the righteousness of Christ. But that these things are not imputed unto us, nor can be so, is evident from their nature: But we are made Partakers of them all, upon the account of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us, and no otherwise.

Thus much may suffice to be spoken of the nature of imputation of the righteousness of Christ, the grounds, reasons, and causes whereof, we shall in the next place inquire into. And I doubt not but we shall find in our inquiry, that it is no such figment, as some Ignorant of these things do imagine, but on the contrary, an Important truth immixed with the most fundamental principles of the mystery of the gospel, and inseparable from the grace of God in Christ Jesus.

The first explicit record of the justification of a sinner is that of Abraham. Others were justified before him from the beginning, and enough is said about them to make clear that they were. But it was reserved for the father of the faithful that his justification — and the express way and manner of it — should be the first to be entered in the sacred record. This is in Genesis 15:6: "He believed in the Lord, and it was counted to him as righteousness." It was counted, reckoned, imputed. And it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us, to whom it will be imputed if we believe (Romans 4:23-24). Therefore, the first explicit declaration of the nature of justification in Scripture affirms that it is by imputation — the imputation of something to righteousness. And this was done in the very instance that was recorded as the pattern and example for all who would ever be justified. As Abraham was justified, so are we — and in no other way.

Under the New Testament, a fuller and clearer declaration of this doctrine became necessary. It is among the first and most important parts of that heavenly mystery of truth that the gospel was to bring to light. Moreover, there was from the beginning a powerful and dangerous opposition to it. This very matter of justification — its doctrine and everything that necessarily belongs to it — was what caused the Jewish church to break from God, to reject Christ and the gospel, and to perish in their sins, as Paul explicitly declares (Romans 9:31; 10:3-4). In the same way, a dislike of and opposition to this doctrine has always been and always will be a root cause of apostasy in any professing church that falls under the power and deception of those who oppose it — as happened afterward in the churches of Galatia. But in this situation the doctrine of justification was fully declared, set forth, and defended by the apostle Paul in a distinctive way. He does so especially by affirming and proving that the righteousness by which and with which we are justified comes to us by imputation — that is, our justification consists in the non-imputation of sin and the imputation of righteousness.

Yet, although the first recorded instance of justification — recorded precisely so that it might serve as the pattern for the justification of all who would be justified to the end of the world — is expressed in terms of imputation and imputed righteousness, and although the apostle expresses the doctrine in exactly the same way in the great crisis where the eternal salvation or ruin of the Jewish church was at stake, it has come about in our day that nothing in religion is more resented, more mocked, and more despised than the imputation of righteousness to us — an imputed righteousness. Some among us call it a fictitious righteousness, the shadow of a dream, a fantasy, a farce, an imagination. Socinus calls it an opinion that is shameful, execrable, destructive, and detestable. Opposition to it rises every day from a wide variety of sources. And those who oppose and reject it cannot by any means agree on what to put in its place.

Nevertheless, the weight and importance of this doctrine is acknowledged by all sides, whether they believe it to be true or false. This is not a dispute about abstract notions, terms, and speculations that have little or no bearing on Christian practice — of which many are needlessly debated. It is a doctrine that has an immediate bearing on our whole present duty and on our eternal welfare or ruin. Those who reject the imputation of righteousness claim that this faith and doctrine undermines the necessity of gospel obedience, personal righteousness, and good works, and opens the door to antinomianism and moral license. On that view, believing this doctrine and living consistently with it must be destructive of salvation. On the other side, those who believe it judge it impossible that any person should be justified before God except through the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and accordingly judge that without it no one can be saved. A learned man recently concluded his discussion with this: "Thus far of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, without which no one was ever saved, nor can anyone ever be saved" (Justificatio Paulina, cap. 8). Those who hold this view do not think that everyone who fails to grasp or who denies the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness — as they explain it — is thereby excluded from salvation. But they do judge that those to whom that righteousness is not truly imputed are excluded — and they cannot think otherwise, since they make it the foundation of their own acceptance with God and eternal salvation. These are very different things. To believe the doctrine or not believe it, as explained in this way or that, is one thing; to actually possess the reality it describes, or not possess it, is another. I have no doubt that many receive more grace from God than they understand or are willing to acknowledge, and that its work in them is greater than they believe. People may be truly saved by a grace they doctrinally deny, and they may be justified by the imputation of a righteousness they in theory deny is imputed. For faith in it is included in the general assent they give to the truth of the gospel, and an adherence to Christ may follow from that such that their mistaken understanding of how they are saved by Him will not deprive them of a genuine share in it. For my part, I must say that despite all the disputes about justification I read and encounter — some of which are deeply offensive and scandalous — I do not believe that their authors (if they are not outright Socinians who deny the whole merit and satisfaction of Christ) actually trust in their own works or obedience for the pardon of their sins and acceptance with God rather than in the mediation of Christ. Nor will I believe the contrary unless they state it plainly. As for the objection on the other side — concerning the supposed danger of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness for the necessity of holiness and good works — that must be addressed later.

The position of the Reformed churches on this matter is well known to all, and must be acknowledged honestly rather than perpetuated in futile disputes. The Church of England in particular is explicit in its doctrine concerning the imputation of the righteousness of Christ — both His active and passive obedience, as they are commonly distinguished. This has recently been so thoroughly demonstrated from the church's authoritative writings — the Articles of Religion, the Books of Homilies, and other publicly authorized writings — that any further proof is unnecessary. Those who pretend to hold a different view are not worth contending with. There is no point in arguing with people who deny that the sun is shining while they cannot bear the heat of its rays. Whatever I offer on this subject, I will not depart in the slightest from the ancient doctrine of the Church of England. Indeed, my only aim is to declare and defend it, as God enables me.

There are certainly various differences among learned, careful, and orthodox thinkers — if that term gives no offense — in how they explain the doctrine of justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Yet they all agree on its substance in every point where the grace of God, the honor of Christ, and the peace of human souls are most at stake. As far as possible, I will avoid getting drawn into those differences at present. What is the point of arguing about them when the substance of the doctrine itself is openly attacked and rejected? Why debate the arrangement and decoration of the rooms of a house while the whole building is on fire? When the fire is put out, we can return to discussing the best use of each room.

There are two main parties that oppose the doctrine of justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness: the Roman Catholics and the Socinians. They proceed from different principles and toward different ends. The aim of the one is to exalt their own merits; the aim of the other is to destroy the merit of Christ. But beyond these two camps, there are many independent voices who borrow from both as they see fit. We will have to deal with all of them in the course of this discussion — not attacking persons or the way they express themselves, but engaging with their views insofar as those views oppose the truth. It is something that wise people despise and good people lament: to see those who claim to be religious and pious picking at expressions, arguing about words, trying to pin on others views they do not hold, and then publicly vilifying each other as if it were some great achievement or victory. This is not how the truths of the gospel are taught, nor how the church is built up. But the importance of the cause to be defended, the strength of the opposition to the truth, and the deep concern for the souls of believers to be rightly instructed in it all call for a fresh declaration and defense of this doctrine. Whatever I attempt in this direction, I do so with this conviction: the life and continuance of any church on one side, and its apostasy and ruin on the other, depend in a significant way on whether this article of religion is preserved or rejected — and, I will add, as it has been professed, received, and believed in the Church of England in former days.

The first thing to consider is the meaning of the words "to impute" and "imputation." A plain explanation of these terms will show that many objections raised against the kind of imputation we are affirming are either empty and groundless — or that the objection itself is.

The Hebrew word used for this concept means to think, to esteem, to judge, or to assign a thing or matter to someone — to impute, or to be imputed, for good or ill (see Leviticus 7:18; 17:4; and Psalm 106:31: "it was counted, reckoned, imputed to him as righteousness"). It means to judge or esteem that this or that good or evil belongs to a person, that it is theirs. The Septuagint renders it with the Greek terms logizomai and ellogeo, as do the New Testament writers as well. These are rendered in Latin as reputare, imputare, acceptum ferre, tribuere, assignare, ascribere. But there is a difference between these terms: in particular, being reputed righteous and having righteousness imputed differ as cause and effect. For a person to be reputed righteous — that is, to be judged or considered righteous — there must be a real basis for that reputation, or it is simply a mistake and not a sound judgment, just as a fool might be reputed wise, or a beggar reputed wealthy. Therefore, for a person to be reputed righteous, they must either have a righteousness of their own or have one imputed to them as the prior basis for that reputation. To impute righteousness to someone who has none of their own is therefore not to consider an unrighteous person as righteous while they remain unrighteous — it is to communicate a righteousness to them so that they may rightly and justly be considered, judged, and reputed righteous.

Imputare is a word the Latin language uses in the same sense that theologians employ. Seneca writes in his letter to Marcia: "You have deserved the best of the worst, to whom uncorrupted knowledge of things has come, credited to its great author." And Pliny writes in his defense of our common parent the earth (Natural History, lib. 18, cap. 1): "We burden her with our crimes and impute our own faults to her."

In their usage, to impute something to another means — if it is evil — to charge it to them, to lay it on them; as Pliny says, we impute our own faults to the earth, that is, we charge them to it. If it is good, it means to ascribe it to someone as their own, whether it was originally so or not — "credited to its great author." Vasquez attempts to explain the term (In Thomam, 22, Tom. 2, Disp. 132) but confuses it with reputare: "To impute or reckon something to someone is the same as to number and count it among those things that are his and belong to him." But this is what reputare properly means; imputare includes a prior act before this accounting — the act of reckoning the thing as belonging to that person.

Since what can be imputed to us may in some cases be truly our own prior to that imputation, the word must have two distinct meanings, as the examples from Latin authors just cited demonstrate.

1. To impute to us what is truly our own — already inherent in us or performed by us — prior to that imputation involves two things. First, an acknowledgment or judgment that the thing imputed is truly and really ours, or present in us. When someone imputes wisdom or learning to a man, the first step is to acknowledge that he is wise or learned. Second, treating that person accordingly — whether the thing imputed is good or evil. So when a person is acquitted at trial because he is found righteous, he is first judged and considered righteous, and then treated as a righteous person — his righteousness is imputed to him. See this illustrated in Genesis 30:33.

2. To impute to us what is not our own prior to that imputation also involves two things. First, a grant or donation of the thing itself to us — making it ours — on some just ground and basis. For something must be made ours before we can rightly be treated according to what it requires. Second, a will to deal with us, or an actual dealing with us, according to what has thus been made ours. For in this matter, the holy and righteous God does not justify anyone — that is, absolve them from sin, declare them righteous, and grant them a right and title to eternal life — except on the basis of a true and complete righteousness being truly and completely made the righteousness of those to be justified, in the order of nature prior to their justification. These points will be made still clearer by the examples that follow, as they need to be.

1. There is an imputation to us of what is truly our own — inherent in us and performed by us — prior to that imputation, and this applies whether it is evil or good. The rule and nature of this is expressed in Ezekiel 18:20: "The righteousness of the righteous person will be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be on him." We have examples of both kinds. First, in the imputation of sin, when the person guilty of it is judged and reckoned a sinner and dealt with accordingly. Shimei sought to prevent this kind of imputation (2 Samuel 19:19): "He said to the king, 'Let not my lord impute iniquity to me'" — using the very same word employed in the expression of the imputation of righteousness in Genesis 15:6 — "'nor remember what your servant did wrong; for your servant knows that I have sinned.'" He was guilty and acknowledged his guilt, but sought to prevent the imputation of it in a sentence that his sin deserved. Similarly, Stephen asked that the sin of those who stoned him — of which they were truly guilty — not be imputed to them (Acts 7:60): "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." On the other side, Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, who died in the same cause and the same manner as Stephen, prayed that the sin of those who killed him would be charged to them (2 Chronicles 24:22). Therefore, to impute sin means to charge it to someone and to deal with them according to what it deserves.

To impute what is good to a person is to judge and acknowledge it as truly theirs, and then to treat them — in whom it exists — according to how it stands in relation to the law of God. "The righteousness of the righteous will be on him." Jacob arranged for his righteousness to answer for him in Genesis 30:33. And we have an example of God doing this in Psalm 106:31: "Then Phinehas stood up and executed judgment, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Although it might have seemed that he lacked sufficient warrant for what he did, God — who knew his heart and the guidance of His own Spirit working in him — approved his act as righteous and rewarded him in a way that testified to that approval.

Regarding this kind of imputation, it must be observed that whatever is ours prior to the imputation — which is an act of God responding to it — can never be imputed to us for anything more or less than what it actually is in itself. For this imputation consists of two parts: first, a judgment that the thing is ours, in us, or belonging to us; and second, a will to deal with us, or an actual dealing with us, according to it. Therefore, in imputing to us what is ours, God does not treat it as something other than it is. He does not regard an imperfect righteousness as if it were perfect — to do so would indicate either a mistaken assessment of the thing being judged, or a perversity in the judgment itself. So if, as some claim, our own faith and obedience are imputed to us as righteousness, then since they are imperfect they can only be imputed to us as an imperfect righteousness, not as a perfect one. For God's judgment is according to truth, and that is what is involved in this imputation. And the imputation of an imperfect righteousness — valued only as such — will be of little use to us in this matter. The legal fiction of acceptilation that some propose — borrowing a device from human law to explain the mystery of the gospel — not only overturns all imputation but also the satisfaction and merit of Christ. It must also be observed that this kind of imputation is a pure act of justice, with no mixture of grace, as the apostle declares in Romans 11:6. For it consists of these two parts: first, acknowledging and judging that something truly exists in us; and second, a will to deal with us accordingly — both of which are acts of justice.

The imputation to us of what is not our own prior to that imputation — at least not in the same way it is afterwards — takes various forms depending on the grounds and causes from which it proceeds. It must be observed that no imputation of this kind means accounting those to whom something is imputed as having personally done the very things being imputed to them. That would not be imputation but a mistake in judgment — and it would utterly overthrow the whole nature of gracious imputation. Rather, it is to make something ours by imputation — something that was not previously ours — so that it serves all the purposes it would have served had it been our own without any such imputation.

It is therefore a clear misunderstanding — one that some use as a basis for attacking the doctrine of imputation. They say: if our sins were imputed to Christ, then He must be regarded as having done what we did wrong, making Him the greatest sinner who ever lived. And on the other side, if His righteousness is imputed to us, then we must be regarded as having done what He did, and therefore as standing in no need of the pardon of sin. But this is contrary to the nature of imputation, which rests on no such judgment. The whole point is the opposite: we ourselves did nothing of what is imputed to us, and Christ did nothing of what was imputed to Him.

To explain more precisely the nature of this imputation, I will consider its various kinds — or rather, the various grounds from which it proceeds. The imputation to us of what is not our own prior to that imputation may arise from one of four grounds: (1) from justice (ex justitia); (2) from a voluntary undertaking (ex voluntaria sponsione); (3) from wrongful charging (ex injuria); or (4) from grace (ex gratia). Each of these will be illustrated in what follows. I distinguish them this way not as if they could never overlap in the same imputation — I will show that they can — but to trace each kind of imputation to its nearest cause.

1. Things that are not originally, personally, or inherently ours may still be justly imputed to us by the rule of righteousness (ex justitia). This may happen on the basis of one of two relations to those who originally did those things: first, a covenant relation; or second, a natural relation. First, what one person does may be imputed to others because of a covenant relationship between them. This is how Adam's sin was — and is — imputed to all his descendants, as will be explained more fully later. The basis is that we all stood in the same covenant as Adam, who was our head and representative in it. The corruption of nature that we inherit from Adam is imputed to us by the first kind of imputation — that of what is truly ours prior to the imputation. But his actual sin is imputed to us as something that becomes ours through the imputation, which it was not before. Even Bellarmine himself acknowledges this: "Adam's sin is imputed to all his posterity as though they had all committed the same sin" (De Amissione Gratiae, lib. 4, cap. 10). In saying this he actually gives us the true nature of imputation — the very thing he fiercely disputes against in his writings on justification. For the imputation of that sin to us as if we had committed it, which he acknowledges, includes both the transfer of that sin to us and the treatment of us as if we had committed it — which is exactly the doctrine of the apostle in Romans 5.

2. There is also an imputation of sin to others by justice on account of a natural relationship between them and those who actually incurred the guilt. But this applies only to some outward and temporary consequences of it. God speaks of this concerning the children of the rebellious Israelites in the wilderness: "Your children will be wanderers in the wilderness for forty years and will suffer for your unfaithfulness" (Numbers 14:33). Your sin will be charged to your children to this extent, because of their natural relation to you and your part in them: they will bear the consequences of it in a life of hardship in the wilderness. This was just, given the relation between them, and the same principle of divine justice appears frequently in other passages of Scripture. Thus, where there is a proper basis for it, imputation is an act of justice.

2. Imputation may also justly arise from a voluntary undertaking (ex voluntaria sponsione) — when someone freely and willingly takes on responsibility for another. A clear example of this is Paul's statement to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus (verse 18): "But if he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account." Paul assumed that Philemon might have two kinds of claims against Onesimus: first, a claim for wrong done — if Onesimus had acted unjustly toward him in a way that made him liable to punishment; and second, a claim for loss or debt — if Onesimus owed him anything, making him liable to payment or restitution. Paul stepped forward with a voluntary pledge on Onesimus's behalf: "I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand; I will repay it." He did this by transferring both debts of Onesimus to himself — for the offense was of a kind that could be answered for by a substitute, not being a capital crime. The imputation of those debts to Paul was made just by his voluntary undertaking of them. "Charge me as the one responsible," he says, "and I will make it good, so that nothing is charged against Onesimus." Similarly, Judah voluntarily pledged to Jacob for Benjamin's safety and bound himself to perpetual guilt if he failed: "I will be a guarantee for him; you may hold me responsible for him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him before you, let me bear the blame before you forever" (Genesis 43:9). He expressed the same thing again to Joseph (Genesis 44:32). This is the nature and role of a surety: what he undertakes for can justly be required of him as if he had been personally and originally responsible for it. This voluntary undertaking was one of the grounds for the imputation of our sin to Christ. He took upon Himself the position of the whole church that had sinned, in order to answer for what they had done against God and the law. That imputation was therefore grounded in a covenant agreement and a voluntary undertaking (ex compacto, ex voluntaria sponsione). But given that undertaking, the imputation became an act of justice as well — for it was right that He should answer for and make good what He had voluntarily taken on, the glory of God's righteousness and holiness being deeply at stake.

3. There is an imputation by wrongful charging (ex injuria) — when a charge is laid against someone who is not guilty of it. Bathsheba says to David: "It will come about, when my lord the king sleeps with his fathers, that my son Solomon and I will be treated as offenders" (1 Kings 1:21) — dealt with as guilty persons, having sin imputed to us on some pretext and to our destruction. "We will be treated as sinners" — regarded as such and dealt with accordingly. We can see in scriptural usage that the designation of "sinner" follows imputation just as much as it follows the actual presence of sin in a person — which sheds light on the apostle's statement that Christ "was made sin for us" (2 Corinthians 5:21). This kind of imputation has no place in God's judgment. It is far from Him to treat the righteous as the wicked.

4. There is an imputation of pure grace and favor (ex mera gratia). This is when something that was in no way ours prior to the imputation — not inherent in us, not performed by us, something we had no right or title to — is granted to us and made ours, so that we are judged and treated according to it. This is precisely the imputation the apostle so vigorously defends and repeatedly asserts in Romans 4, in both its forms: negative, in the non-imputation of sin; and positive, in the imputation of righteousness. He both affirms the thing itself and declares that it is of pure grace, without any reference to anything within ourselves. If this kind of imputation cannot be fully illustrated by any other example but this one — the mediation of Christ — it is because the foundation of it in that mediation is unique, with nothing comparable to it in any other situation among human beings.

From what has been discussed about the nature and grounds of imputation, several things become clear that shed much light on the truth we are affirming — or at least on the right understanding and framing of the question under debate.

1. The difference is clear between the imputation of any of our own works to us, and the imputation of the righteousness of faith apart from works. The imputation of our own works to us — whatever they may be, including faith itself as an act of obedience in us — is the imputation of what was already ours before the imputation. But the imputation of the righteousness of faith, or the righteousness of God that comes through faith, is the imputation of what is made ours by virtue of that imputation. These two kinds of imputation differ in their entire nature. The first is a judgment that something is in us which is indeed already in us and ours before that judgment is passed; the second is a communication to us of something that was not ours before. No one can make sense of the apostle's argument — that is, understand anything of it — unless they acknowledge that the righteousness he is discussing is made ours by imputation, and was not ours prior to it.

2. The imputation of works — of whatever kind, including faith itself as a work, and the whole obedience of faith — is by justice (ex justitia), not by grace. However much the granting of faith to us and the working of obedience in us may be of grace, the imputation of those things to us — as being in us and ours — is an act of justice. For this imputation, as was shown, is nothing other than a judgment that such and such things are in us or belong to us — which they truly and really are — together with treating us according to them. This is an act of justice, as the description of this kind of imputation makes plain. But the imputation of righteousness of which the apostle speaks is, with respect to us, of pure grace (ex mera gratia), as he fully declares. Moreover, he declares that these two kinds of imputation are incompatible and cannot be mixed together, as if something could be partly one and partly the other (Romans 11:6): "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace; but if it is on the basis of works, it is no longer grace, otherwise work is no longer work." For example: if faith itself, as our work, is imputed to us, then — since it was already ours before that imputation — the imputation is merely an acknowledgment that it is in us and ours, with an accounting of it for what it is. To account something to us for what it is not would not be imputation but error. This is an imputation by justice, of works — and therefore, by the apostle's rule, that which is of pure grace can have no place alongside it. So the imputation to us of what is in us is exclusive of grace, in the apostle's sense. On the other hand, if the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, it must be of pure grace — because what is imputed was not ours before the imputation, and it is communicated to us by means of it. Here there is no place for works, or any appeal to them. In the one case the foundation of imputation is in ourselves; in the other it is in another — and these are irreconcilable.

3. In this one thing both kinds of imputation agree: whatever is imputed to us is imputed for what it actually is, not for what it is not. If what is imputed to us is a perfect righteousness, it is regarded and judged as such, and we are to be treated accordingly — as those who have a perfect righteousness. And if what is imputed as righteousness to us is imperfect, or imperfect in some degree, then it must be judged as such when it is imputed; and we must be treated as those who have such an imperfect righteousness — not as having more. Therefore, since our inherent righteousness is imperfect — and those who think otherwise deserve pity or dismissal, not argument — if that is what is imputed to us, we cannot be accepted on its account as perfectly righteous without an error in judgment.

4. From all this, the true nature of the imputation we are affirming becomes clear — both negatively and positively — though so many either cannot or will not understand it. Negatively, first: it is not a judging or considering of those to be righteous who truly and really are not so. Such a judgment cannot be traced to any of the grounds of imputation described above. It would have the character of wrongful charging (ex injuria) — a false charge — except that it differs in direction: the false charge is about evil, while this claim is about good. So the outcry of the Roman Catholics and others — who shout themselves hoarse insisting that we claim God regards the wicked, sinful, and polluted as righteous — is nothing but ignorance or spite. In fact, this charge falls heavily on those who argue that we are justified before God by our own inherent righteousness; for then a person is judged righteous who is in fact not so. The one who is not perfectly righteous cannot be righteous in God's sight with respect to justification. Second, negatively: it is not a bare declaration or announcement that someone is righteous without a just and sufficient foundation for the judgment of God expressed in it. God declares no one righteous except the one who is righteous — the whole question being how that person came to be so. Third, negatively: it is not the transfer or infusion of another's righteousness into those to be justified, so that they become perfectly and inherently righteous thereby. It is impossible for the righteousness of one person to be infused into another so as to become subjectively and inherently theirs. But it is a serious mistake to conclude from this that the righteousness of one person can therefore in no way be made the righteousness of another — for that would be to deny all imputation.

Positively, then: this imputation is an act of God of pure grace and love, by which — on account of the mediation of Christ — He effectively grants and donates a true, real, perfect righteousness, even the righteousness of Christ Himself, to all who believe. Accounting it as theirs by His own gracious act, He both absolves them from sin and grants them a right and title to eternal life.

4. In this imputation, the thing itself is first imputed to us — its effects are not imputed to us independently, but become ours by virtue of that imputation. To say that Christ's righteousness — His obedience and sufferings — is imputed to us only as to its effects is to say that we receive the benefit of them, and nothing more; but imputation itself is thereby denied. This is precisely what the Socinians say, and they honestly acknowledge that they thereby overthrow all true and real imputation. Schlichtingius writes in his disputation for Socinus against Meisner: "For in order for us to be justified through the righteousness of Christ, it is not necessary that His righteousness become our righteousness; it is enough that Christ's righteousness is the cause of our justification. And to this extent we can grant you that Christ's righteousness is our righteousness — insofar as it overflows to our benefit and righteousness. But you mean it is properly ours, that is, attributed and ascribed to us" (Disputatio pro Socino ad Meisnerum, p. 250). It is not pleasant to see some among ourselves so confidently adopting the very language and reasoning of these men in their disputes against the Protestant doctrine — that is, the doctrine of the Church of England — on this matter.

To say that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as to its effects does have a sound meaning: the effects of it are made ours by reason of that imputation. It is so imputed and credited to us by God that He truly communicates all its effects to us. But to say that Christ's righteousness is not itself imputed to us — only its effects are — actually destroys all imputation. For the effects of Christ's righteousness cannot properly be said to be imputed to us; and if His righteousness itself is not imputed, then imputation has no place here at all, and it becomes impossible to understand why the apostle asserts it so repeatedly in Romans 4. This is precisely why the Socinians — who explicitly oppose the imputation of Christ's righteousness and argue only for participation in its effects or benefits — wisely deny that Christ's righteousness consists in satisfaction and merit at all. For what they allow Christ's righteousness to consist in plainly cannot be imputed to us, whatever benefit we may receive from it. But I cannot understand how those who grant that Christ's righteousness consists principally in His satisfaction for us and in our place can conceive of an imputation of its effects to us without an imputation of the thing itself. For it is because that righteousness is made ours that we partake of its benefits. From the description of imputation and its examples, it is clear that nothing can be imputed unless the thing itself is imputed, and that no participation in the effects of anything is possible apart from an imputation of the thing itself as the foundation. Therefore in this matter, no imputation of Christ's righteousness exists unless the righteousness itself is imputed; and we can have no participation in its effects except on the basis and foundation of that imputation. The pointless objections that some have recently collected from Roman Catholic and Socinian sources — that if this is so, we are as righteous as Christ Himself, that we have redeemed the world and paid for the sins of others, that the pardon of sin is impossible, and personal righteousness unnecessary — will be addressed later, as much as they deserve.

All we are demonstrating at this point is simply this: either the righteousness of Christ itself is imputed to us, or there is no imputation in our justification at all. Whether there is such an imputation is a question to be addressed separately afterward. As was said, the effects of Christ's righteousness cannot properly be said to be imputed to us. For example, the pardon of sin is a great effect of Christ's righteousness — our sins are pardoned on account of it, and God for Christ's sake forgives us all our sins. But the pardon of sin itself cannot be said to be imputed to us, nor is it. Adoption, justification, peace with God, all grace and glory — these are effects of Christ's righteousness. But that these things are not imputed to us, nor can be, is evident from their very nature. We become partakers of all of them on account of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us — and in no other way.

This is sufficient to have said about the nature of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. The grounds, reasons, and causes of it will be examined next. I have no doubt that our inquiry will show it to be no fiction — as those ignorant of these matters imagine — but on the contrary, an important truth woven into the most foundational principles of the mystery of the gospel, and inseparable from the grace of God in Christ Jesus.