Nor doth this doctrine hinder or forestal the doctrine of regeneration or conversion; nay, it lays a foundation for it; for by this doctrine we gather assurance that Christ will have his own; for if already they live in their head, what is that but a pledge that they shall live in their persons with him? and, consequently, that to that end they shall, in the times allotted for that end, be called to a state of faith, which God has ordained shall precede and go before their personal enjoyment of glory. Nor doth this hinder their partaking of the symbol of regeneration,[8] and of their other privileges to which they are called in the day of grace; yea, it lays a foundation for all these things; for if I am dead with Christ, let me be like one dead with him, even to all things to which Christ died when he hanged on the tree; and then he died to sin, to the law, and to the rudiments of this world (Rom 6:10, 7:4; Col 2:20). And if I be risen with Christ, let me live, like one born from the dead, in newness of life, and having my mind and affections on the things where Christ now sitteth on the right hand of God. And indeed he professes in vain that talketh of these things, and careth not to have them also answered in himself. This was the apostle’s way, namely, to covet to ‘know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death’ (Phil 3:10). And when we are thus, that thing is true both in him and us. Then as is the heavenly, such are they that are heavenly; for he that saith he is in him, and by being in him, a partaker of these privileges by him, ‘ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked’ (1 Cor 15:48; 1 John 2:6).
But to pass this digression, and to come to my argument, namely, that men are justified from the curse of the law, before God, while sinners in themselves; this is evident by what hath already been said; for if the justification of their persons is by, in, and through Christ; then it is not by, in, and through their own doings. Nor was Christ engaged in this work but of necessity, even because else there had not been salvation for the elect. ‘O my father,’ saith he, ‘if it be possible, let this cup pass from me’ (Matt 26:39). If what be possible? Why, that my elect may be saved, and I not spill my blood. Wherefore he saith again, Christ ought to suffer (Luke 24:26). ‘Christ must needs have suffered,’ for ‘without shedding of blood is no remission’ of sin (Acts 17:3; Heb 9:22).[9]
[Proofs of the first position.]
SECOND. We will now come to the present state and condition of those that are justified; I mean with respect to their own qualifications, and so prove the truth of this our great position. And this I will do, by giving of you plain texts that discover it, and that consequently prove our point. And after that, by giving of you reasons drawn from the texts.
First. ‘Speak not thou in thine heart,’ no, not in thine heart, ‘after that the Lord thy God hath cast them out [thine enemies] before thee, saying, For my righteousness—do I possess this land.—Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land.—Understand, therefore, that the Lord thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiff-necked people’ (Deut 9:4-6).
In these words, very pat for our purpose, two things are worthy our consideration. 1. The people here spoken to were the people of God; and so by God himself are they here twice acknowledged to be—‘The Lord thy God, the Lord thy God.’ So then, the righteousness here intended is not the righteousness that is in the world, but that which the people of God perform. 2. The righteousness here intended is not some, but all, and every whit of that the church performs to God: Say not in thine heart, after the Lord hath brought thee in, It was for my righteousness. No, all thy righteousness, from Egypt to Canaan, will not purchase Canaan for thee.
That this is true is evident, because it is thrice rejected—Not for thy righteousness—not for thy righteousness—not for thy righteousness, dost thou possess the land. Now, if the righteousness of the people of God of old could not merit for them Canaan, which was but a type of heaven, how can the righteousness of the world now obtain heaven itself? I say again, if godly men, as these were, could not by their works purchase the type of heaven, then must the ungodly be justified, if ever they be justified from the curse and sentence of the law, while sinners in themselves. The argument is clear; for if good men, by what they do, cannot merit the less, bad men, by what they do, cannot merit more.
Second. ‘Remember me, O my God, concerning this; and wipe not out my good deeds that I have done’ (Neh 13:14).
These words were spoken by holy Nehemiah, and that at the end of all the good that we read he did in the world. Also, the deeds here spoken of were deeds done for God, for his people, for his house, and for the offices thereof. Yet godly Nehemiah durst not stand before God in these, nor yet suffer them to stand to his judgment by the law; but prays to God to be merciful both to him and them, and to spare him ‘according to the greatness of his mercy’ (v 22).
God blots out no good but for the sake of sin;[10] and forasmuch as this man prays God would not blot out his, it is evident that he was conscious to himself that in his good works were sin. Now, I say, if a good man’s works are in danger of being overthrown because there is in them a tang of sin, how can bad men think to stand just before God in their works, which are in all parts full of sin? Yea, if the works of a sanctified man are blameworthy, how shall the works of a bad man set him clear in the eyes of Divine justice?