The real Christian, or, A treatise of effectual calling wherein the work of God…

Secondly, From union with the Person, we come to communion with his Benefits, or to his Offices: Consider first his Priesthood, or those benefits which make our Relative change.

First, What sayest thou to imputed Righteousness, to the blood of Atonement, to Christ our High-priest and Sacrifice, to him who knew no sin, yet was made sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him? As for the real Christian these are glorious things in his eye, these the Gospel truths and tidings, which cause such amazement in the thoughts of a sound Believer, while he meditates upon them, how such a one as he should stand at the Bar of God, and be acquitted, yea, pronounced just and righteous, by a Holy and Just God; that such a one as knew no righteousness, but was all in sin, should be made the righteousness of God in him, that he who knows what enmity lieth naturally in his heart against God, and knows how infinitely God hates sin, and how terrible his wrath is, and will be against sin, should now have God his Friend and Father, and Christ a High-Priest to be always pleading his cause, then thoughts fill the heart with admiration and astonishment, a pardoned, justified, reconciled estate; What tongue of man or Angel can speak the blessedness of it? If Castellio can flout at imputed righteousness, yet he might have learned to write truth: Where did he ever read any of our Divines, who maintain, yea, must ⟨p. 254⟩and will exalt imputed (not putative, as he scoffingly calls it) righteousness? Interpret that Text, 1 Cor. 6.9, 11. as he glosseth, and imputes to us, thus, Neither fornicators, nor adulterers, ¹nor effeminate, &c. but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, &c. that is, saith he, God doth not impute these sins though they abide in you still; you are fornicators as before, you are adulterers as before, but these sins are not imputed to you; We abhor his putative Comment. Where did he ever read a Divine of ours [I presume he aims at Calvin, who takes washing for justification in that Text; but he might have read Calvin there saying, Sanctificat vitiosam naturam spiritu suo, reformando, ita sanctificatio ad regenerationem pertinet: Calvin's Comment is quite cross to what he puts upon him] that took sanctified for non-imputing of sins? Why did not he there tell us the difference between sanctified and justified in the Text, if justification be only to make just, as he contends? They were such, but they are justified, so the Lord doth not impute the guilt of their sins.