to be called by the same Name This is the Name whereby she shall be called The Lord our Righteousness Answ But the Context sheweth that it speaketh of the same Person and almost in the same words sc the righteous Branch of David c. And therefore learned men translate it This is the name of him who shall call her viz. The Church The Lord our Righteousness So Junius translates it also the Geneva and the Dutch Annotions and others but if it be meant of the hurch as Mr. Gataker contends it must Gataker in locum it only because the Name of Christ is put upon or as being clothed with his Righteousness the New Jerusalem the Gospel Church named Jehovah Shammah the Lord is there â—â—om his Presence in her and as God himself pleased to take upon himself the Name of â—â—s People Ps 24.6 Ezek. 48.35 This is the Generation 〈◊〉 them that seek thy Face O Jacob i. e. the â—â—â—d of Jacob. Dan. 9.24 Seventy weeks are determined â—â—on thy People and upon thy Holy City to finish the Transgression and to make an end of â—â—ins and to make reconciliation for Iniquity and 〈◊〉 bring in Everlasting Righteousness Daniel â—â—d prayed for the deliverance of the Jews â—â—d the forgiveness of their Sins and that not â—â—r the sake of their own Righteousness but â—â—ods great Mercy v. 18 19. He is answerâ—â—d that the City shall be built again and the â—eople saved by the Messiah v. 25. and that 〈◊〉 his being cut off not for himself v. 26. â—â—plying that it should be for them and that â—â—en should be brought in everlasting Righteousness whereby Israel should be justified and â—â—ved This is the Righteousness of the Mesâ—â—ah for none else is a standing and everlasting â—ighteousness Ours is mutable and subject 〈◊〉 fail Hos 6.4 Neither was our righteousness in special manner to be brought in by â—â—e Death of Christ it had been before in the Sanctified in all Ages of the Church It was a new Righteousness then to be wrought and brought in at the Death of Christ though by the Virtue of it the former Saints were saved yet it was not actually wrought and Justification by it distinctly declared till now Therefore it is all one with finishing transgression making an end of sin making reconciliation for the people which is plainly Justification to be had by this Everlasting Righteousness Rom. 5.18 19. As by the offence of one Judgment came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life All men were condemned by the offence or sin of Adam So they that believe shall be justified by the righteousness of Christ the free gift oâ— grant of life comes by the righteousness of Jesus Christ as the sentence of death came by Adams unrighteousness The 19 v. makes it clearer As by the disobedience of one many are made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous Adam did not make way by his Sin for mens condemnation he did not only render them liable to death if they should sin as he did and break the same Covenant But he brought them under the Curse and Sentence of death absolutely by and for his Sin so that all that are of his Seed are under the Judgement of Condemnation ipso facto as soon as they have a Being In like manner Christ must not only make way for mens Justification or procure them a Covenant whereby they shall be justified if they perform it as he performed the Covenant of a Mediator but he must also justifie them intitle them to life so soon as they believe in him by and for his own Righteousness and Obedience One Exception against this place hath been answered in the former Chapter Another excepteth Object The Apostle doth not say IN one mans obedience many shall be made righteous Just Evang p. 72. but BY one mans obedience as a consequent and effect of it many shall be made righteous As the effect of one mans disobedience many come to be shapen in iniquity and brought forth in a sinful condemned nature so as the effect of one mans obedience many come to be new born and brought forth in a Righteous and Saving State Answ The vanity of the exception from the word BY hath been manifested before The Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used signifieth BY or WITH which is the proper sence of the place the term IN would be more obscure And thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated Rom. 14.20 To him that eateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with offence but the Sum of this Exception is as it is largely prosecuted p. 68. c. That Adams personal disobedience is not imputed to his Posterity but he virtually containing all men in his Nature and Sinning before the Act of Propagation he did corrupt his Nature and so begat Children in a sinful mortal State But I have before proved the Imputation of his Actual Sin I now add Do Mankind derive a sinful mortal Nature from Adam by meer necessity of Nature seeing the effect must be like the cause or by virtue of Divine Constitution that his Posterity should inherit the Fruits of his Sin If by necessity of Nature as this Author seems to intimate then the Soul of Man must be ex traduce derived from the Parents else it could not be born sinful by necessity of Nature and then it must be corrupted with the Body and cannot exist without it and at best must be raised with the Body and sleep in the dust till the last day as the Socinians teach Nor would the want of original righteousness no nor positive dispositions to sin in our Nature as derived from Adam be sinful in us they be poena causa peocati the Punishment of Adams Sin and the cause of Sin in us but not peccatum our Sin no more than the natural Diseases of the Body which we derive from our Parents For that which comes by meer natural necessity cannot be a Sin But if it be by Divine Constitution then the meaning must be either that God appointed that if Adam should sin that one Sin then not only he should perish but that he should also propagate a sinful mortal Nature to all his Seed without exception and then the sin and misery of all Mankind is directly and properly the punishment of Adams personal sin only which besides the horrour of the thing that so many millions in all Ages should be made miserable both here and for ever as the punishment of another mans Sin in which they were no way concern'd is also against Gods own Law The Children shall not be put to death for the Fathers nor the Fathers for the Children but â—very man for his own sin Deut. 24.16 Or â—lse this Constitution must mean that God appointed that Adam shall stand or fall for all his â—osterity and then
the Debtor cannot properly be said to be the Author of the payment he paid not the Money 't was not his but the Sureties yet the Money being paid for him in his stead for his benefit by the Surety and accepted for him instead of his payment by the Creditor he is a subject of denomination and may be truly accounted a clear and solvent person and the payment imputed to him placed to his account as really and as fully as if he had paid it with his own hand and with his own money Hence some call the Righteousness of Christ the Formal Cause of our Justification Vid. Whitaker de Ecclesia p. 460 461. Synop. Leidens disput 33. Th. 21 23. and others the Matter or Material Cause both mean the same thing viz. That Christs righteousness is the very thing for which we are accepted and justified before God I will not contend about terms of Art in so great a point whereon Salvation depends yet it seemeth more logical to say In Justification man in the Matter or Subject viz. the Person justified Christs righteousness is the Form that by which he is constituted righteous or just before God Imputation Gods accepting this righteousness for him is as the Union betwixt the Matter and the Form even the Application of Christs righteousness to the person justified God the Father is the Efficient accepting or acquitting him for the sake of Christs righteousness The Promise of the Gospel is the medium whereby this righteousness is conveyed and Faith the instrument or disposition in the subject whereby it is rendred capable of receiving Christs righteousness or having it imputed to him And Justification is the Condition or State of a Man accepted with God to life eternal through the righteousness of Christ imputed to him From â—â—ence I inser that Imputation of Christs righteousness and Justification is all one and but â—â—e real Act and so Arctius defines it Justiâ—atio est imputatio justitiae alienae gratuita Lib. Probl. loc 25. faâ—â—a a Deo respectu meriti Filii Dei ad salutem â—â—ni credenti Some learned men make Justication to consist of 2 Acts. The First whereby Christs righteousness is imputed to a Sinâ—er The Second whereby his sins are forgiven and he accepted for the sake of that righteousness But this makes it more perplext that it is to impute righteousness We are righteous with the righteousness of Christ â—â—t in a Physical sence as if it were inherent or adherent to us but judicially We are accepted as righteous i. e. discharged from punishment and intituled to life for it and this 〈◊〉 to be justified We may indeed make it Formal Acts or formally distinct the one thereby Christs righteousness is placed to our account or reckoned to be done for us the â—ther whereby we are accepted or intituled 〈◊〉 life for that righteousness But it 's really â—â—e same thing to account Christs righteousâ—â— be wrought for us to satisfie and fulfill the â—aw of God and to accept us and give us â—ight to life for that righteousness God in â—s Promise proposeth life to Sinners on the account of Christs satisfaction in which when â—â—ey believe and trust there is by virtue of that Promise a Grant and Title to life made other to them and hereby righteousness is imputed to them or they are justified Thus Rom. 4 2. When the Apostle would prove Abraham was not justified by Works he saith v. 3. Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness Then to justifie or impute Christs righteousness is all one and God accounteth us righteous for this righteousness i. e. God justifieth or giveth us eternal life for Christs righteousness and frees us from condemnation Nor is Christ first given to us and then his right ousness as some speak as if we were actually interessed in Christs Person before we are his righteousness God worketh Faith in the Heart which apprehendeth the promise of liâ—â— through the righteousness of Christ and hereby we are accepted and justified and this righteousness is thus made ours or given to us and no other way Afterwards we are adopted and receive the Spirit of Sons by which Spirit we are united to Christ as to our Hear and the Fountain of Spiritual Life and the Christ is most properly given to us or wâ—â— are actually interessed in his person in whom all the Elect have some interest before on the account of Election but this was not actual and proper These things thus explained the Question betwixt us and our Opposites is plainly thâ—â— Whether God justifieth men and intituled them Life for the Righteousness which Christ wrought in fulfilling and suffering the Penalties of the Law The Affirmative is the Protestant Doctrine and now to be proved Argument 1. 1. I argue from the Parallel of Christ and Adam Christ is called the Second Adam the Second Man 1 Cor. 15.45 47. Adam was the Figure of him who was to come viz. Christ Rom. 5.14 Whence is this but in respect of the general Influence of what they did upon the rest of Markind Hence I argue As Adam's Disobedience condemned men so Christ's Obedience acquitteth and justifieth them But the very Acts of Adam's Disobedience are imputed to men to their Condemnation they are condemned for them therefore they that believe have the very righteousness of Christ imputed to them and by that are justified The Major is largely proved by the Apostle Rom. 5.12 ad finem where he sheweth That Justification and Life come into the World in like manner as Death and Condemnation did each by a common Person and by them derived upon the rest of Mankind As many were made Sinners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one Mans Obedience so by the Obedience of one many shall be made righteous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 19. They are constituted righteous and unrighteous in the same manner unrighteous by Adams disobedience righteous by the obedience of Christ But this I suppose will not be denied and he that denieth the Minor viz. That Adams disobedience is imputed to us as the immediate Cause of our Condemnation is a down right Pelagian But because iâ— this Age all the Foundations are destroyed we shall prove it from the fore-cited Text Rom. 5.12 where the Apostle affirms That by one man Sin and death entred into the World and Death passed upon all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether we translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iâ— whom all have sinned as the the Fathers did against the Palagians meaning Adam 〈◊〉 whom all his Posterity sinned or in quantum for as much as all men have sinned the Sence is all one Sin and Death came upon all men from one man i. e. Adam and therefore they were all made Sinners in him and by him But this is clearer v. 15. where it is said Many are dead by the Offence of this one man viz. Adam And v. 26. The Judgment or Sentence unto Condemnation came by one man 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 are reputed or accepted as righteous for that Righteousness alone trusted iâ— by us upon the ground of God's own Premise of accepting us in Christ anâ— Christ's Intention of doing and suffâ—â—ring all he did for us alone to the â—â—tent that our sins should be taken awâ—â— and we are made Heirs of Eternal Lâ—â— thereby Our Opposites on the other side affâ—â—â— That Christ did not obey or suffer 〈◊〉 Penalty of the Law of Works for 〈◊〉 properly that we should be justified 〈◊〉 that Obedience or Death of his Bâ—â— that God imposed on him a certain â—â—culiar Law made up partly of the Mâ—ral Law and partly of some Speâ—â— Commands to him which he fulfillâ—â—â— as a Mediatour betwixt God and Mâ—â— God thereupon might justly and perhaps would give men as moderate 〈◊〉 easie a Law by fulfilling whereof theâ— should be saved the obedience wheâ—â— to should be their Righteousness thâ—â— which should give them right to Life Against this Opinion divers Learnâ— and Pious Men wrote in the form Generation As Mr. Caple in an Aâ—pendix to his Treatise of Temptations Mr. Anth. Burgess in his Second Part of Justification Mr. Lyford his Book against Errors Mr. Blake and reverend Mr. Norton of New-England Anno 1653 in Answer to one Mr. Pinchin who denyed the Imputation of Christ's Active and Passive Obedience â—o us or that it was performed for us â—s Obedience to the Moral Law But â—hat Christ was a Mediatorial Sacrifice for us much after the same notion that 〈◊〉 now vented of his fulfilling the Law â—f a Mediatour Which Book of Mr. Norton because it is not very common I will transcribe the Sum of it â—s it is reduced by himself into three Particulars in the Conclusion and the â—ather because it declareth the thoughts â—f the danger of this Opinion which maâ—y would persuade us differs but in words from the Orthodox and the Difference 〈◊〉 of no great consequence and that â—â—e do not rightly understand the meaning of their Authors for whom they â—ave so great reverence Like the Phyâ—â—cian who seeing in a dissected Body â—hat all the Nerves have their Original from the Brain said he should have believed it was so indeed if Aristotle 〈◊〉 not writ that they proceed from the Heaâ—â— Mr. Norton's words are Taking Heresie for a Fundamentâ—â— Error p. 267. i. e. such as whosoever â—â—â—veth and dieth in cannot be savedâ— The Dialogue containeth three Hâ—resies The first denying the Imputation of the Sin of the Elect unâ—â— Christ and his suffering the Punishment due thereto The second denying that Christ as God-man Mediator obeyed the Law and there with that he obeyed for us as ouâ— Surety The third denying the Imputation of Christ's Obedience unto Justification destroying the very Being of a Sinner's Righteousnessâ— by taking away the Obedience oâ— Christ unto the Law and Imputation which are the Matter and Form i. e. the essential Causes of Justification and placing a Sinner's Righteousness in a fictitious Atonement or Pardon of sin such as in effect manifestly doth not only deny it self to be the Effect of but denieth yea and defieth the very Being of the Mediatorial Obedience of Christ to the Law for us With him in this his apprehension concurred divers Ministers in New-England as appears by their Letter annexed to his Book which is subscribed John Cotton Rich. Mather Zech. Simmes John Willson William Thompson And having prefaced so much concerning the nature and weight of the Controversie I commend the Book to the serious consideration of the Reader and am Thine in the VVork of the Gospel J. TROUGHTON Lutherus Redivivus OR The Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Christ's Righteousness imputed to Believers Explained and Vindicated CHAP. I. The Nature of Justification explained and that it is not a meer forgiving of Sin THE Doctrine of Justification by Free Grace and the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us hath been so abundantly defended by our Protestant Writers of every Nation and every University professing the Reformed Religion that I need say little to confirm it and especially seeing I have met with nothing in our late Authors objected against it but what hath been frequently objected against it by the Papists before and as frequently answered by our Writers The chief Work is to discover the Artifice wherewith the New Doctrine of Conditional Justification is covered and made plausible whereas it is indeed the Old Popish and Arminian Doctrine of Justification by Works as I hope I have in some measure proved in the former Part. Yet that this Treatise may be compleat and that we may not seem only distruere aliena and not at all adstruere propria I shall endeavour briefly to explain the received Doctrine of Justification and imputed Righteousness And first of the Nature of Justification Our fore cited Authors and their Friends generally affirm That the Justification of a Sinner before God is nothing else but a full Pardon of all Sins both of Omission and Commission whereby all guilt and obligation to punishment being removed Man is restored ipso facto to his former State and to all those Priviledges which by Sin he forfeited This they maintain that they may the more effectually overthrow the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness supposing that if the bare Remission of Sin doth both acquit from Punishment and restore a Right to Life or Blessedness then there needeth no positive Righteousness to be imputed to intitle to life and to make us acceptable with God This is the main drift of Mr. Hotchkis his Book about Imputation of Righteousness Great Propi p. 110. c. and is largely prosecuted by Mr. Trueman not without many confident mistakes But this Opinion overthroweth their own Doctrine of Justification upon condition of our Obedience as well as ours of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and more which I thus prove Meer Pardon of Sin is nothing else but a Discharge from the Process of the Law that a Man should not suffer the Penalties of it but enjoy quietly his former freedom and priviledges notwithstanding his Offences Now this Discharge requireth no Righteousness at all our own no more than Christs This Pardon makes a Man righteous in the Law they say i. e. The Law hath no more to do with him or to say against him he is as free from all condemnation as if he were innocent and had fulfilled the Law Hence it follows that a Man is justified without the intervening condition of his own Obedience If any positive righteousness be necessary to pardon it is not meer pardon And why may not Christ's Righteousness imputed be joyned with and be the Cause of Pardon as well as our own sincere Obedience To say a Man is justified upon the condition of Gospel Obedience which is our Inherent Righteousness and that he is justified by the bare Remission of Sins is a Contradiction Moreover these Authors do acknowledge that Christ merited the Pardon of Sin so that a Sinner is
justified or pardoned and so restored to favour for the sake of Christs Satisfaction Doth it not then follow that the Death of Christ is the Cause of Pardon then it is not meer pardon but pardon procured or merited and if Christs Death be the meritorious cause of pardon to every Believer then it is imputed or applyed to every pardoned sinner For no cause can produce its effects without Application to the Subject in whom the effect is wrought and the Application of a meritorious cause to the Subject for whom it meriteth is Imputation or accounting that what was done by that Cause was done for that Person And thus we see this Doctrine maketh more against themselves than against us But that Justification includeth more than Pardon of Sin even a positive Righteousness whereby Man is accepted to Life Eternal I shall thus evince 1. From the Notation of the Words To Pardon is only to release from the Penalty of the Law but to Justifie is to Acquit in Judgment to discharge from guilt and accusation Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect it is God that Justifieth It is confessed that to justifie an innocent person is to acquit but to justifie a Sinner they say is only to forgive him But in what Language doth the word so signifie When the King pardoneth an Offender doth any man say doth the Law ever say the King justifies him A Brother is commanded to forgive his Brother from the Heart and so Job did no doubt forgive his Friends and yet he saith God forbid I should Justifie you Job 27. v. 4. Is any Man said to justfie him whom he pardoneth Why should the Scripture besides the familiar words of Pardoning and Forgiving use another term viz. to Justifie which in its Etymology and common use signifieth to declare Righteous and yet mean no more by Justification than bare Forgiveness 'T is said A full Pardon makes a Man righteous forasmuch as he that is discharged from all Sin is accounted not to have broke the Law and not to have broke it is all one as to have fulfill'd it But this is a mistake He that forgives an Offender does not therefore account or make him Righteous though he will not exact the Penalty of him Pardon doth suppose a Man to have been a Sinner and so it leaves him as one that hath deserv'd punishment though by favour he is exempted from it the Law still chargeth him with sin and sentenceth him to punishment though the Judge supersedeth his Sentence and will not execute the Law But it is said Great Prop. p. 121. Pardon is dissolutio obligationis ad poenam dissolveth the Obligation to punishment and when there is no obligation to punishment a man is innocent and hath right to impunity I Answer The Antecedent is untrue The Obligation to punishment ariseth from the intrinsecal Nature of the Law which being broken exacteth punishment as a due Debt The Wages of Sin is death Rom. 6.23 So that if pardon take away the obligation to punishment it maketh sin to be no sin But sin is sin though forgiven and the Sinner deserves to die although he shall not die Pardon taketh away the Ordination or Destination of a Man to Punishment that he is not appointed to die but not the Obligation that he doth not deserve to die I conclude Pardon doth not render a Man as innocent as no Transgressor and therefore 't is not all one with justifying or declaring righteous 2. From those Phrases whereby Justification is expressed Eph. 1.4 It is paraphrased thus As he hath chosen us in him that we should be holy and without blame before him in love He who is only forgiven his Sins is not accounted as holy and blameless Pardon supposeth guilt and that which some call reatum culpae the guilt of the fault remaineth after pardon viz. That such a Man hath broken the Law and by such habits or actions he hath been disobedient to the Commands Pardon only takes away reatum penoe the appointment of a Man to punishment therefore there must be something more to render men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy and blameless before God and Objects of his Love Rom 4.3 4 5. Justification is called Imputing of Righteousness And Rom. 10.5 6. Justification by Works and by Faith are opposed by the Names of the Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of Faith To justifie therefore is to reckon or to declare in judgment that a Man is righteous and as if Man had been justified by the Law of Works he had then been pronounced righteous So now he is to be justified by Faith he is to be declared righteous by the Righteousness of Faith though not of Works Therefore Justification is more than Forgiveness Object 'T is said Pardon maketh a Man Righteous as if he had not brok'n the Law Answ Ans w. This hath been answer'd before I am sure we should take it very ill if one that hath greatly offended us and received his life and all from our Mercy should plead that he is as good as an innocent or righteous person because he is exempted from the Punishment he deserved Object A person of quality argues thus If pardon be not a Sinners Righteousness and maketh him not righteous then a man may be pardoned and be unrighteous still in the eye of the Law which he thinketh absurd Justific Evangelical p. 18. or else there must be a medium betwixt being righteous and unrighteous which he thinketh impossible Answ Both parts of the disjunction are untrue the first that he that is pardoned is not unrighteous still for if by favour punishment be remitted and no satisfaction be made to the Law then the Law remains broken still and he is a Sinner still though forgiven For it is not the Law that pardoneth if that might take effect it would condemn but the Law-Giver by his own Prerogative which pardon is not therefore looked upon as the fulfilling or the Righteousness of the Law But if as in our case the Law was satisfied and by reason of that satisfaction man is pardoned as this worthy Author acknowledgeth a little before then that satisfaction of the Law repaireth the Breach of it and so there is the real righteousness of the Law first imputed to a Man and then by reason thereof he is pardoned i.e. acquitted from punishment to which he was obnoxious before And thus here is a fair Contradiction that a Man is justified by a righteousness satisfactory to the Law yet barely pardoned The second part of the Disjunction That there is no medium betwixt being righteous and unrighteous is also untrue we speak of a declarative Righteousness Now it is apparent that there is a Middle betwixt being justified and being condemned viz. Medium negationis or rather privationis Adam before he fell was not condemned having not yet sinned nor was he justified having not finished
oâ— that he was accounted to have sinned to have been the Author or any way the Cause of our sins or that God lookt upon him as such These things we account blasphemous but we mean that Jesus Christ in all he did and suffered did intend to satisfie the Law of God which Man should have kept and particularly in his Sufferings did intend and actually bare the punishment due to our sins to satisfie the Law thereby and that the Father in imposing this Obedience and in inflicting these Sufferings upon Christ did intend that his Law which man had broken should be satisfied thereby and that Christ should bear the Punishment of our Sins and further that God did accept of these Sufferings of Christ as a satisfaction for our Sins and did look upon his Justice as executed and satisfied in him Thus our sins are said to be imputed to Christ because he was truly and in the Fathers and in his own intentions punished for them He was not reckoned an Offendor but he was reckoned and dealt with as he who had undertaken to bear the Punishment due to Offenders Many labour to make this Position odious by misrepresenting it and putting it into harsh and unscriptural terms But the Question is plainly this Whether the Sufferings of Christ were truly and intentionally the Punishment of the Sins of Man laid upon him whether Christ was properly punished for their Sins And this the Scripture abundantly and expresly affirmeth Isaiah 53.4 He hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows Yet more plainly v. 5. He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed v. 6. We have gone astray c. and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all v. 8. For the transgression of my people was he stricken v. 10. His Soul was made an offering for sin v. 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous Servant justifie many And the means whereby he cometh to justifie them is because he shall bear their iniquities v. 12. He bore the sin of many Can any thing be more express If Christ was wounded bruised stricken offered as a Sacrifice for sin then he was properly punisht for sin and though the other terms bearing of sin carrying our griefs c. may have a larger interpretation yet being joyned with those other more express and significant words they are to be taken in the same sence Galat. 3.13 He was made a Curse for us c. The Curse is the Punishment of Sin laid upon a person in pursuance of the Sentence of the Law Christ then was punisht the Sentence of the Law executed upon him with intention to satisfie the Law 2 Corinth 5.21 He was made Sin for us Our Authors paraphrase this He was made a Sacrifice for Sin the Sin-offering being sometimes in Hebrew called Sin And the Interpretation is not much amiss but the Sacrifice for sin died for the Sinner and did typically bear the punishment of his Sin Therefore Christ the Antitype did really undergo the punishment of Sin It is to be observed that our Lord was put to death without the City on purpose to answer the Type of the Sin offering in special above the rest of the Sacrifices which was to be carried out and burnt without the Camp Lev. 6.3 Heb. 13.11 12. 1 Peter 2.24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own Body on the Tree by whose stripes ye were healed Here it is exprest that Christ in his own person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bore our sins upon the Cross in his own Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore his Sufferings upon the Cross were the punishment for our sins Our Opposites interpret this to be spoken figuratively Trueman â— â—rop p. 89. The Sufferings of Christ were not properly an Execution of the Law though they may figuratively be so called but a satisfaction to Justice that the Law-threat might no be executed They mean That Christ's Sufferings were for sin i. e. to take away Sin by bringing in a Covenant of Grace and possibility of Pardon but not that he satisfied offended Justice by bearing the Punishment of Sin in his own person Now this is not to die for sin at all nor to bare sin be wounded for it or stricken for it but only to suffer by occasion of sin as sin was the occasion that Christ suffered to bring in a way of Pardon and so as Christ's Righteousness is not the cause of our Justification but the occasion of it that which made some way for it as we have proved above so also by this Doctrine our sins were not the cause had no proper influence upon the death of Christ but were an accidental occasion of it because if we had not sinned he had not died to bring in a Covenant of Grace and pardon What can be spoken full and clear enough if these plain Scriptures may be so easily waved The same Author saith p. 86. That Christ's death was a Satisfaction to Justice that God might be Just if he should pardon not an Execution of the Law but a satisfaction to Justice that the Law might not be executed I answer The Justice of God is twofold Absolute and Essential which is the infinite Holiness of his Nature whereby he can do nothing but what is becoming himself or limited and ordinate which is a voluntary Obligation which God hath laid upon himself to proceed in his dealing with Creatures according to the Law which he hath prescribed them I demand which of these Christ satisfied not the first any further than as it is included in the second viz. as it is becoming God's infinite and essential Holiness to proceed with his Creatures according to his own Laws when he hath given them Laws to act by For this Author and his Friends do not deny that Essential Justice might have been content to have pardoned and restored Adam and us in him without the death of Christ it must therefore be limited and ordinate Justice which Christ satisfied Now by this Justice God is obliged to proceed according to his own Law to see his Law fulfilled and executed and that it attain the end for which it was made therefore there is no satisfying of this Justice but by having the Law executed To talk of satisfying Justice of which the Law is the Rule without executing the Law yea that the Law might not be executed but taken out of the way is by fair consequence a Contradiction Argument 7. 7ly I argue Either Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us we are justified immediately by believing in it or Christ only purchased a Law of Grace by fulfilling whereof we should be justified There is no medium betwixt these two in the Question about Imputation but the latter is false therefore the former is true This is that our Opposites contend for That Christ only purchased that we should be saved
that Book which is misrepresented Chap. 22. he proposeth the Question de Just habit actual Whether we are justified by the Obedience or Righteousness of Christ imputed to us and that be the formal cause of Justification Where he explaineth the Nature of Justification of Imputation the Righteousness of Christ and the Formal Cause of Justification in the same terms as we do and without any difference in sence He gives us the Sum in these words p. 313. Vno verbo utcunque Deus sanctificatos nos reputat at que inchoatè justos per impressam inhaerentem qualitatem justitiae tamen justificatos i.e. à peccatis absolutos ad vitam aeternam acceptatos per propter justitiam Mediatoris nobis ab ipso Deo donatam hac side spiritúque applicatam i.e. Though God reputeth us inchoatively righteous or holy by the habit of holiness wrought in us yet he accounts us justified acquitted from sin and accepted to life by and for the Righteousness of Christ given to us by God and applyed by his Spirit and our Faith Then he layers down two Propositions opposite to the Papists which he pursueth to the 30th Chapter The one excludeth Works as the Papists maintain them the other affirmeth that the most perfect Obedience of Jesus Christ dwelling in us and uniting himself to us is the formal cause of our Justification for as much as it is made ours by Faith and by the Gift of God Prop. 1. Christi Mediatoris in nobis habitantis atque per spiritum sese nobis unientis perfectissima obedientia Ibid. est formalis causa justificationis nostrae utpote quae ex donatione Pei applicatione fidei fit nostra Observe he doth not say Christ's righteousness doth in some sence justifie us or is ours for or in some effects but he saith we are justified for that very righteousness or obedience of Christ this is the form whereby we are made righteous or justified in opposition to our own Holiness and that because it is our righteousness from Gods Gift from our Union to Christ and Faith in him and then he lays down the contrary Position of the Papists to be refuted and answereth their Calumnies against our Doctrine of Imputation which are much the same that are scattered in our late Authors The Proposition is Thesis 2. Papistarum Mediatoris obedientia sive justitia non donatur aut applicatur credentibus vice aut per modum causae formalis Ibid. cujus virtute fiducia stant justificati aut Deo ad aeternam vitam acceptati The Bishop goes on and Chap. 24. answereth 11 Arguments of Bellarmin against Imputation mostly the same with those alledged Chap. 4th Chap. 25. ut supra he answereth Bellarmins Citations out of the Fathers against the same Doctrine Chap. 27. He further explaineth the Nature of Imputation and what we mean by a Formal Cause just as we do Chap. 28. He proveth that Christ's Righteousness is imputed as that very Righteousness which justifieth us which he doth by 11 Arguments and by all the same Scriptures out of the New Testament which have been cited above Chap. 3. and by some others all in the same sence which we take them Chap. 29. He alledgeth the Fathers for our Doctrine Chap. 30. He refuteth the Papists slanders in saying that this Doctrine taketh away the necessity of good works where he hath this memorable passage concerning the difference of the two Covenants Lex in conditione operum vitam habet ipsam vim formam icti faederis p. 396. at Evangelium in Mediatoris sanguine fide apprehenso collocat ipsam vim formam operum autem conditionem annectit ut subservientem huic faederi Evangelico non ut continentem aut constituentem ipsum faedus i. e. the Covenant of Works includeth Works in the very form of it as the conditions of that Govenant but the Gospel placeth the form and force of the Covenant in Faith in the Bloud of Christ but that it subjoyneth works as a subservient condition not as containing any part of the Covenant Can any thing be more contrary to the Doctrine we oppose that the Gospel is a Covenant of sincere Obedience and that Obedience is the condition of the new Covenant whereby we must be justified In all this here is not a word favouring this new Opinion Chap. 31. There is something which may bare a colour of some approbation of this Doctrine but it is but a colour He saith that Works are in some sort necessary to Justification and Salvation but that the term necessary ought not to be used in Disputes with Papists or in Discourses to the People lest they ascribe too much to them Concl. 2 3. And in the 4th he saith No works are necessary neither Legal nor Evangelical p. 402. as a Meritorious Cause but conditions of the Covenant are a meritorious cause Nulla opera bona sunt renatis ad salutem aut justificationem necessaria si per necessaria intelligamus sub ratione causae meritoriae necessaria dico nulla ut excludam non solummodò opera legalia sed etiam opera inchoatae justificationis And then Concl. 5th he saith Bona quaedam opera sunt necessaria ad justificationem p. 403. ut conditiones concurrentes vel praecursoriae ut dolere de peccato detestari peccatum consimilia i. e. Some good works are necessary to Justification though not as efficient and meritorious causes yet as previous or concomitant conditions such as sorrow for sin humiliation begging of mercy hoping in it and the like But by this he meaneth not that these dispositions have any direct influence on Justification it self but that they fit the Justified Person to use and improve his Justification This we all acknowledge that ordinarily in persons that can use their reason there are such ministerial preparations both for conversion and justification and yet they are the causes of neither Nor doth this hinder but that God may extraordinarily sometimes work Grace infuse Faith and justifie men without such previous dispositions The reason following shews this was the Bishop's sence For God saith he doth not justifie Stocks and Beasts but Men and those humble contrite and tractable to his Word and Spirit Ibid. Divina enim misericordia non justificat stipites h. e. nihil agentes neque equos mulos h. e. recalcitantes libidinibus suis obstinatè adhaerescentes sed homines eosdémque compunctos contritos ac verbi spiritúsque divini ductum sequentes vid. plura To make it more plain he adds When we say things are necessary it doth not presently follow that they are necessary as causes but for orders sake Not andum quandò dicimus aliquid necessarium ad hoc vel illud obtinendum p. 404. ex ipsa vi verborum non ninuitur necessitas causalitatis sed ordinis Ibid. Concl. 6th he saith further Good works are necessary to
integrum intire freedom to do what he pleased then Christ did as freely offer his Obedience to the Father to do what he pleased with it or upon it and certainly this is not to merit Thus Slatius declar apert Jesus Christus per passionem mortem suam nihil meritus est nec solvit pro nostris peccatis veluti vas pro debitore qui non est solvendo If they say that he took away the Covenant of Works and the necessity which God was under to condemn men and this might be the Effect of his Merit this is not true By this Opinion Christ did not take away the Covenant of Works nor the Sentence of it For then man must have been discharged without any further Covenant or Terms which is the thing they oppose They must say Christ offered himself to his Father in such manner that he might take occasion from it if he thought it justly to lay aside his Obligation to Punish by the Law of Works and proceed to terms of Grace but not that he must do either and so Christ merited nothing at all of his Father 2ly It followeth from this Doctrine That Christ's Obedience and Death were not properly satisfactory to Divine Justice The say That by Christ's Death God's Justice wâ— satisfied the obstacle of Justice was removed But how God's Justice in this case is nothing else but his Will or voluntary Obligation of himself to deal with men according to his Law To satisfie God's Justice is to satisfied his Law and to satisfie the Law is to fulfill 〈◊〉 by obedience to it or suffering the penalty 〈◊〉 it or both But they will not allow That Christ properly satisfied the Law of God Mr. Trueman saith Ibid. p. 89. His death was not proper Payment at all And if Christ did properly satisfie the Law then those for whom be did it must be hereupon discharged without any further conditions to be required or 〈◊〉 be performed of them But if Christ satisfied not the Law how could he satisfie Divine Justice which hath the Law for its Rule 〈◊〉 is tied to it It was of Divine prerogative or infinite Soveraignty that God did accept of Christ to fulfill the Law for man to whâ—â— it was given and who only was obliged by 〈◊〉 But when the Law-makers Prerogative 〈◊〉 accepted of the Surety and of his underâ—â—king for the Sinner then he himself was mâ—â—â— under the Law and satisfied Justice by satisfying the Law but if he satisfied not the Law then his Obedience was not performed as Obedience to the preceptive part of the Law or his sufferings indured as subjection to the unitive part of it and so neither of them â—ere exacted in a way of Justice or performed as submission to Justice either preceptive or punitive and so Justice could no â—ay be satisfied by his Obedience Moreover 〈◊〉 after all the Obedience of Christ God was â—ree to save or not to save men then he was â—ree either to give them new conditions of Life â—r to proceed to destroy them according to â—he sentence and curse of the Law of Works and is it possible that Gods Justice should have received real satisfaction from an infinite Price and Person and yet the Persons for whom satisfaction was made not be discharged but Justice still be left in full force to take vengeance if the Judge pleased Surely among men if Justice be satisfied either by the guilty person or by his Surety by the Judge's consent even Justice it self must acquit and discharge the party concerned The truth is By this Doctrine there was no satisfaction made to Divine Justice by Christ's Obedience and therefore the Sinner hath no discharge procured but the whole transaction of the business of Man's Redemption betwixt the Father and the Son was but a point of honour or a kind of generosity if we may so speak As if a young generous Prince should perform some noble and difficult exploits for the honour of his Father and the Father again should pardon some condemned Rebels and restore them to his Favour hereupon not as being any way obliged to it but as an act of a Noble and generous mind and to express some honour and requital to his Son Thus Slatiâ—â— Epist ad N. Martin An Christus pro nobâ— satisfecit Respondeo Nos negare i. e. Did Christ satisfie for sin We deny it And he gives five reasons the last whereof is The God could neither punish for sin nor require Faith as a condition in order to Salvation 3ly It followeth also that Christ's Death was no Ransom Redemption or Price for Sinners For if God after the death of Christ was still free to save or not to save Sinners then this death had properly bought or purchased nothing of him A ransom or price is not a valuable consideration only for a thing worth it or equal in value to it but it must also be paid with the Compact or Agreement that the thing bought or ransomed shall for that price become the Buyers and the property be transferred to him and no longer remain in the Seller If then Christ propetly bought us ransomed us c. then our Salvation became his de jure he had a right to it upon his death and it could no longer remain in the free power of God to grant or not to grant it But if there were no compact that life should be granted to Sinners if Christ would die for them if to give Life was still in God's absolute disposal then his obedience is no ransom nor was he a Redeemer he did not purchase his Church with his own Bloud nor was that Bloud a Price of their Redemption 4ly It followeth that Christ did not at all die for sin The Prophet saith He was wounded and bruised for our iniquities yea his Soul â—us made an Offering for Sin Isa 53.5 10. But if Christ did not take away sin and procure pardon but left God still free to pardon or â—ot then he did not die for sin sin was not â—he meritorious cause of his Death nor was â—he pardon of sin the immediate end of his Death but only to free the Father from the necessity of condemning Sinners Sin could be â—t the most but a remote occasion or causa â—ne qua non of the death of Christ if that had not been God would not have been bound up from the exercise of his natural goodness and â—o there would have been no occasion of Christ â—o die to remove that obstacle out of the way And yet it is not easie to imagine what these â—en mean by the obstacle of God's Justice which hindred his Mercy to Sinners which was removed by Christ's Obedience For â—oth they and their Friends the Arminians â—eem generally to grant That God of his infinite Sovereignty might have pardoned sin without satisfaction so that his absolute Justice 〈◊〉 as not an obstacle to his Mercy and for his Law and that Justice which respecteth it
so often repeating his Promises with all manner of confirmations protestations seals oaths examples of the greatest Sinner being forgiven 1 Tim. 1.16 17. Lastly There is no reason why God may not pardon a Sinner and promise him eternal life without interposing the conditions of his obedience so long as he immediately reveals to him That this eternal life consisteth in the love and enjoyment of himself and that holiness of heart and life shall and must be the way to it and doth immediately make the heart of the humbled sinner 〈◊〉 agree to it doth not God sufficiently provide for the Honour of his Holiness in this as in the very act of justifying he did chiefly respect the Honour of his Free Grace Argument 10. The condemning unbelief p. 38. which is the privation of the Faith by which we are justified is the non-believing in Christ as King Priest and Prophet Ergò The Faith by which we are justified is the believing in him as King Priest and Prophet Answ If the word only be put in as it ought viz. That the only condemning unbelief is the non-believing in Christ as King Priest and Prophet I deny the Antecedent But if only be not added the consequence is apparently false viz. This unbelief is one cause of condemnation therefore the contrary Faith is the sole cause of Salvation I suppose this will be admitted for the Scope of what follows is to shew that such a Faith is the only condition of Justification and then the opposite unbelief must be the only sin that damns without remedy that bars all Justification I say therefore directly to the Argument Non-believing in Christ as King Priest and Prophet as it is here taken for subjection to the whole Law of Christ or obedience to him is not the onely damning sin final despair of the Mercy of God in Christ will as certainly damn as final disobedience to Christ and contempt of him yea though there be a willingness to obey if they could have any hope of Mercy but despair is not the oppoâ—â—â—â— of obedience or of faith in Christ as King Priest and Prophet therefore that is not the only unbelief that damns Again If disobedience to Christ be the only damning sin then obedience is the only saving condition then a Socinian that obeys the Gospel Precepts and acknowledgeth Christ to be the Messiah King and Prophet of his Church may and must be saved though he deny his Priesthood and trust not at all in his Bloud For obedience respects not Christ's Priesthood at all though that be here mentioned for a shew Christ as a Priest reconciles us to God and intercedes for us the onely Grace that respects this is Faith or a trust in it for reconciliation and acceptance If therefore obedience be the only saving condition then that will save without a trust in the Bloud of Christ If it be said they make Faith and Obedience both to be the entire condition I answer Their Faith is nothing but Obedience as hath been abundantly proved and is largely insisted on under this Argument particularly from Joh. 3.36 where he that believeth not is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is sometimes rendred Disobedient hence it is in ferred That the only unbelief is disobedience and the only Faith is Obedience to the Gospel Nor is it possible to joyn Faith and Obedience in the justifying a Sinner in the usual acception of Faith for to trust in meer Mercy for reconciliation and life and to obey precepts that we may have life are things toto genere opposite utterly inconsistent nor can there be a trust in the Promise of Life in their Opinion till a man hath obeyed in some measure because the Promise is made to Obedience So trust in the Promise must follow the condition not be a part of it And thus much for these Arguments to all which I oppose this one Justification is the acquitting of a sinner from sin and guilt and the entitling him to life eternal But this is purchased fully and onely by the Obedience and Bloud of Christ the shedding and offering whereof is his Priestly Office only therefore Christ justifyeth onely as a Priest And Faith apprehending Justification must respect only the Priesthood of Christ I prove the Minor The Bloud of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin 1 Joh. 1.7 He loved and washed us from our sins in his own Bloud Rev. 1.5 When he had by himself purged our sins i. e. by the offering of himself he set down at the Right Hand of the Majesty in the Heaven Heb. 1.3 And the Apostle proves largely That Christ as a Highpriest offering his own Bloud in the Tabernacle of his own Body hath obtained eternal redemption for us that by this one offering he hath brought in remission of sins and for ever perfected them that are sanctified sprinkled with his Bloud as all things under the Law were cleansed by the sprinkling of bloud from Heb. 9.11 to ch 10. v. 18. And in this Christ was a more excellent Sacrifice than those under the Law that they did but typifye pardon and cleansing but his Sacrifice doth really cleanse the Conscience they cleansed from ceremonial pollutions as touching dead bodies c. and restored men to the Congregation but his Bloud cleanseth from dead works our own sins and maketh us really accepted that we may serve the living God Heb. 19.13 14. Now the Levitical Priests were Teachers and Rulers of the People some were Prophets as Jeremiah and Ezekiel some were Kings also as the Macchabees but they took away the sins of the People and reconciled them to God only as Priests by offering up Sacrifices for them so also Christ though he be a Prophet and King yet he maketh reconciliation for Sinners only as a Priest by offering himself in sacrifice to God for them Now the reason of the consequence is Faith that it obtain Justification must look to Christ under that notion or in that way only by which he hath purchased Justification therefore it must look to him only as a Priest or which is all one trust in the Promise of Reconciliation through the satisfaction and death of Christ and thus the Apostle concludes from the same Premises Heb. 10.19 20 21 22. Having therefore boldness to enter into the Holiest by the bloud of Jesus by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for us through the vail that is to say his flesh and having a High-priest over the House of God let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of Faith having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water It is Faith in this High-Priest by which we draw nigh to God with boldness confidence of acceptance and then that makes us devote our selves sincerely to his Service FINIS
his Obedience or Disobedience must be imputed to them and be Cause â—f their life or death even the immediate Cause Object Some say this Obedience of Christ is only is Sufferings according as he is said to be obedient to the death Phil. 2.6 and to have â—â—me to do the Will of God in offering up his â—wn Body Heb. 10. v. 6. to the 11th Answ 1. This maketh nothing against our main posiâ—â—on viz. That the Righteousness of Christ is â—â—puted to us and we justified by it For â—hether it be his Death only or his Life and â—eath both for which we are accepted and â—stified it is all one in this Question so long 〈◊〉 imputation of that Righteousness to us be â—e way whereby it justifies us And if they â—ean that his Sufferings are his only obedience here mentioned to make us righteous by â—â—ocuring a Covenant of Grace to be fulfilled â—â— us then they might as well have said His â—â—tive Obedience without his Sufferings doth â—â—ake us righteous For the Text leads to â—â—e no more than the other And Mr. Trueâ—â—an when he had disputed against the Imputation of Christs Active Obedience and for the Passive only and yet that must be only to procure a Law of Grace afterwards fairly grants That in this sence viz. of procuring the Covenant of Grace both Active and Passive may be said to be imputed to us 2ly But the words will not bear this sence Adam's Actual disobedience made us formally Sinners and guilty of death So the Obedience i. e. the Sufferings of Christ procureth right to life for us Thus they must run but when is the Parallel The Sufferings of Christ can not be said to make us righteous formally aâ— this Author tells Sufferings are not righteousness much less suffering the Penaltys oâ— the Law for the breach of it but Christ suffered the Curse of the Law for our sin against it his Sufferings delivered us from the Curse oâ— the Law it having been born by him but could not make us righteous according to thâ— Law that we should obtain the reward 〈◊〉 Life It is true Christ was obedient in his Sufferings and did the Will of his Father in offering himself if they had not been voluntary and obediential they could not have been meritorious but that his Sufferings as suffering of the Penalty of the Law are his only Obedience that justifies us or that he performeâ— no other obedience for us doth not folloâ— at all 1 Cor. 1.30 Christ is made unto us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption that he that glorieth may glory in the Lord. Here is exprest that God hath made Christ our righteousness sc by giving him to satisfie the Law for us and accepting us for his righteousness And here we may observe that the Apostle purposely proveth against the despisers of Christ the Greeks who boasted of their own Wisdom and the Jews who trusted in their own Works v. 22 23. that Believers have all in Christ v. 24. and that they are in themselves weak foolish nothing v. 25.28 29. all their excellency is in and from Christ and therefore their righteousness and Justification as well as their Sanstification Farther observe that Righteousness here is distinguished from Wisdom and Sanctification and therefore must mean that Christ is our justifying Righteousness or that we are justified by Christ as our righteousness â—f we were to be justified by our habitual and â—ctual holiness as the Condition of the Gospel â—hen righteousness and sanctification are all â—ne Lastly The Apostle saith we have all these â—n Christ that he that glorieth may glory in the Lord We may glory in Christ in that we â—ave all grace from him but how shall we glory in him as to our Justification if we be not justified by his Righteousness but by our own though wrought by the help of his grace even as Adam if he had kept the Law of Works would have been justified by his own righteousness and might have gloried in himself that he had done his duty though it was by the power of the grace and assistance of God 2 Cor. 5.21 Christ was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him Here righteousness by a usual Hebraism is put for righteous we are made the righteous of God i. e. before God or acceptable with him in Christ by or through Christ as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Dative case is often used and how are we made righteous by Christ even by his being made sin for us as he satisfied for our sin so by that satisfaction are we made righteous as he that knew no sin was sacrificed punished for our sins so we that had no righteousness are made righteous by him and this must be by imputation Thus B Vsher out of Claud. and Sedul in locum That this righteousness therefore is not ours nor in us but in Christ in whom we are considered as Members in the Head Non nostra non in nobis sed in Christo quasi Membra in Capite Rel. Just p. 15. Object Against these two Scriptures it is excepted that in the former it is only said that Christ is made our righteousness Hotchkis p. 191. not that his obedience is imputed to us for righteousness Answ Christ cannot be made our Righteousness any other way than by imputing his perfect Obedience to us and therefore the Scripture in saying the one in words sayeth the other also in sence Object To the latter place 't is said That it saith only that we are made righteous by Christ being made a Sin Offering for us not by imputing his Obedience to us Answ If Christ was made a Sacrifice for our Sins then our Sins were so imputed to him as that he was punished for them and if this make us righteous then his bearing the Punishment of Sin is imputed to us and so his Righteousness is imputed Phil. 3.8 9. That I may win Christ and be found in him not having my own Righteousness which is of the Law but that which is through the Faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by Faith The Apostle in this place exhorteth to rejoyce in the Lord i. e. Christ v. 1. and to beware of Judaising Christians who joyned the Works of the Law with Christ v. 2. saying That true Believers are the true Circumcision the true people of God even they who rejoyce in Christ and have no confidence in the Flesh i. e. their own Works v. 3. And then reckoning up what he had to alledge for himself from the observation of the Ceremonial and Moral Law v. 4 5 6. he saith That he counted all this loss for Christ v. 7. and not only what might be alledged from observing the Law but whatever else might be thought excellent or a ground of self-confidence and rejoycing v. 8. Yea doubtless and I count all things but loss for the