Twenty sermons preached at Oxford before His Majesty, and elsewhere

Now, how could this assumption hold, if imputation of righteousness, and remission of sins were two distinct acts? for, not imputing righteousness, is, not to bring in a light which keeps out darkness. But observe, the Apostle to the Colossians and Ephesians, makes this forgiveness of sins the whole work, nay, foundation of our redemption. But here remember, I deny not the imputation of righteousness; for that is the foundation of the other; here is the point. How is Christ's righteousness imputed to me? that positive thing, which expels the other? Not so, as if Christ's righteousness were in me subjectively; for it was wrought by his passion as well as his action. The Apostle calls it faith in his blood; by faith in Christ, Christ's passive obedience is imputed to me. What do you think the meaning is, that God doth esteem me, as if I had hanged on the Cross, and as if I had my side pierced? No, that would not stead me, or do me any good; that which was meritorious and singular in him, did reach to us: So that the meaning is this, as it is in the Articles of the Church of England, That we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works and deservings; that is, for the merits of Jesus Christ, God is well pleased with the obedience of his Son, both active and passive: He is so far satisfied, as that he takes us to be in that state for his sake, as if we had fulfilled all his Laws, and never broken them at any time, and as if we owed him not a farthing: This is imputative righteousness, however the Papists may scoff at it. And this kind of justification must of necessity be by imputation: Why? because, when a man hath committed a sin, it cannot be undone again: God, by his absolute power, cannot make a thing done, undone; for it implies a contradiction. The act past cannot be revoked, nor the nature thereof changed; murder will be murder still, &c. How then can I be justified, the sin being past, and the nature of it still remaining? I say, how can I be justified in the first sense any other way than by imputation? It is said in 2 Cor. 5.19. God was, in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, &c. This kind of justification, which consists in remission of sins, cannot be imputative; sin cannot be changed, nor the thing done, undone.

Now, how could this assumption hold, if imputation of righteousness, and remission of sins were two distinct acts? for, not imputing righteousness, is, not to bring in a light which keeps out darkness. But observe, the Apostle to the Colossians and Ephesians, makes this forgiveness of sins the whole work, nay, foundation of our redemption. But here remember, I deny not the imputation of righteousness; for that is the foundation of the other; here is the point. How is Christ's righteousness imputed to me? that positive thing, which expels the other? Not so, as if Christ's righteousness were in me subjectively; for it was wrought by his passion as well as his action. The Apostle calls it faith in his blood; by faith in Christ, Christ's passive obedience is imputed to me. What do you think the meaning is, that God doth esteem me, as if I had hanged on the Cross, and as if I had my side pierced? No, that would not stead me, or do me any good; that which was meritorious and singular in him, did reach to us: So that the meaning is this, as it is in the Articles of the Church of England, That we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works and deservings; that is, for the merits of Jesus Christ, God is well pleased with the obedience of his Son, both active and passive: He is so far satisfied, as that he takes us to be in that state for his sake, as if we had fulfilled all his Laws, and never broken them at any time, and as if we owed him not a farthing: This is imputative righteousness, however the Papists may scoff at it. And this kind of justification must of necessity be by imputation: Why? because, when a man hath committed a sin, it cannot be undone again: God, by his absolute power, cannot make a thing done, undone; for it implies a contradiction. The act past cannot be revoked, nor the nature thereof changed; murther will be murther still, &c. How then can I be justified, the sin being past, and the nature of it still remaining? I say, how can I be justified in the first sense any other way than by imputation? It is said in