Popish Objection closes with another interpretation of the Words but there 's no necessity for that as I conceive In short as was said in the handling of the foregoing Verse we are for inherent righteousness as well as our Opposers though they are pleased very freely to * Becanus Opuse de Justif Calvinist c. 2. Costeri Enchir. c. 6. p. 220. Campian Rat. 8. Against which Calumny vide Chamier tom 3. lib. 1. cap. 2. calumniate us as if we denied the Thing because we deny it to be the Cause or Ground of Justification We are for infallibilis nexus an inseparable connexion betwixt Justification and Sanctification where there is the blood there is the water also for Christ came by both 1 Joh. 5.6 We further hold that Regeneration Habitual and Actual Righteousness are the indispensible Conditions of eternal life and absolutely necessary thereunto Nay some worthy * Pareus in Respons ad Dub. 2. pag. 773. With some eminent Divines of our own Divines go so far as to make them Causa sine quâ non even with respect to Justification But all this is nothing unless we make them the proper formal cause of Justification which we cannot do that being a thing so diametrically opposite to Gospel-revelation This block being removed out of my way now I proceed The Law of the Spirit of Life c. In the Former Verse you had contrary Principles Flesh and Spirit in this you have contrary Laws here is Law in opposition to Law the Law of the Spirit set against the Law of Sin the Law of the Spirit of Life against the Law of Death the Law of Sin inslaving us against the Law of the Spirit freeing us from that slavery In the Words something is imply'd and something is express'd That which is imply'd is this That all Men the very best of them for a time viz. till they be converted are under the Law of Sin and Death That which is express'd is this that Believers by the Law of the Spirit of Life are made free from the Law of Sin and Death The Opening of these things will be my present business for I cannot well pitch upon the Doctrinal Observations till I have cleared up the Sense of the Words and the Apostles main Scope and design in them The Words summ'd up under three General Heads First General Opened viz. the Gracious Deliverance In order to which I will reduce the whole Matter contained in them to these Three Heads A Gracious Deliverance the Subject the Author or Efficient of that Deliverance 1. Here 's a gracious Deliverance hath made me free from the Law of Sin and Death As to the First of these if you consider them as distinct the being made free from the Law of Sin for the better understanding thereof I desire you to take notice of the following Particulars 1. That by Sin the Apostle chiefly aims at the Root Sin the Sin of Nature or the sinful depraved Nature which is in falt'n Man 'T is the same with the Flesh spoken of before as also with the indwelling Sin the Law in the members c. in the foregoing Chapter This is that Sin which hath the greatest power in and over the Soul Particular and Actual Sins do but derive their power from this all that dominion and strength which they have is but delegated the Supream Sovereign Original dominion of Sin is seated in the corrupt Nature there chiefly is that Law of Sin which Believers are freed from yet in subordination to this the power of particular sins and deliverance from that is here also to be taken in 2. The Apostle doth not say that Believers are simply and absolutely made free from Sin onely that they are made free from the Law of Sin There 's a * Non sunt idem Peccatum Lex peccati Peccatum est vitium inhabitans in Carne Lex Peccati dominium peccati quod in Carne non regenitorum plenè exercet Ab hoc peccati inhabitantis dominio efficacia Spiritus regenerantis liberat fideles fraenando illud non vero penit ùs tollendo Pareus Attendendum quod non dicit Non enim Gratia hominem impeccabilem reddit sed fomitis vim minuit c. Corn. Muss Nos it a à morte peccato liberati fumus ut tamen horum malorum non parum adhuc supersit Pet. Mart. great difference betwixt Sin and the Law of Sin a total freedome from the Former none have in this life no not they who are most under the Law of the Spirit The dearest of Gods Children must wait for that till they come to Heaven the onely place and State of Perfection there they shall be perfectly compleatly freed from sin yea from the very Being of it but here the utmost that they can arrive at is to be freed from its power in Regeneration and from its guilt in Justification The Text therefore doth not speak of absolute freedom from Sin for that being unattainable here below is yet to come and so it falls under the glorious liberty of the Sons of God mentioned Verse 21 but the being made free in the Text is spoken of as a thing that is past hath made me free c. and therefore it must be limited to freedom from the Law of Sin onely 3. There is in this life a Twofold Freedom from Sin the One respects its Guilt the Other its Power 'T is a Law in both respects in reference to Guilt as it binds the Creature over to answer at Gods Barr for what he hath done and makes him obnoxious to punnishment in reference to Power as it rules commands and exercises a strange kind of Tyranny and Dominion over the Sinner Now Believers are freed from Sin in both of these respects namely as was said but just now in Justification from the guilt in Regeneration from the power of it But here a Question must be resolved viz. Which doth the Apostle here speak of which of these two parts of the Saints Freedome from Sin is here primarily and principally intended For Answer to which Divines do somewhat differ about it (a) Non damnatur nisi qui Concupiscentiae Carnis consentit ad malum Lex enim Spiritus vitae in Christo Jesu liberavit te à Lege peccati mortis ne scil consensionem tuam concupiscentia Carnis sibi vindicet August contra duas Pelag. Ep. lib. 1. cap. 10. Liberavit quomodo nisi quia ejus reatum peccatorum omnium remissione dissolvit Lex Spiritus vitae in Chrislo ut quamvis adhuc maneret in peccatum tamen non imputetur Idem de Nup. Concup lib. 1. cap. 32. Austine took in Both and therefore he sometimes opens it by the One sometimes by the Other Amongst Modern Expositors (b) A jure peceati i. e. à reatn c. Pet. Martyr Liberatio haec non est Regeneratio quâ liberamur ex parte à peccato inhaerente sed est
suo qui Spiritualem Legis partem absolvit Erasm Subaudiendum verbum praestitit aut aliquid simile Estius Omninó videtur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut simile Piscat Ut huic malo fuccurreretur tale quid enim necessario intelligendum est Staplet Antid p. 626. Sanè conjunctio Et postulare videtur ut aliquid subaudiatur ut sensus sit perfecit id Deus quod Lex efficere non poterat Justin Subaudiendum videtur praestitit aut aliquid hujusmodi Bucer To the same purpose Salmer tom 13. p. 531. Catharin Vorst Muscul Heming c. Some would have a Word inserted as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fecit praestitit thus What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh God did he sending his own Son c. They conceive with the addition of this one Word the sence would be more clear and the words would run much more smooth but †Hoc supplementum non est necessarium Tolet. c. Sed non est opus et Socinus Haereticus illud ad suam blasphemiam trahit Pareus Mihi videtur aliter contextus optime fluere Calv. Others will not admit of this addition * Unâ tantùm Conjunctione expunctâ nullo praeterea opus est supplemento Soto with divers others Some again would have the Conjunctive particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and and for sin c. to be expung'd apprehending that it makes the Words to be more obscure They would have us read them thus what the Law c. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh for sin condemned sin in the flesh But this too is not approved of for †Copula 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmum decèpit ut insereret verbum praestitit egó veró amplificandi causâ positam suisse sentio Calv. Calvin lays a great stress upon that particle as heightning the matter spoken of and for sin 't is as much as Yea or Even for sin condemned sin c. 'T is not a Pleonasm or superfluous word but 't is particula intensiva to show the greatness and strangeness of the thing spoken of 'T is not omitted by any of the Greek Scholiasts and I see no reason why we should put it out Tolet would solve all 1st by adding some illative word as ideò igitur c. 2dly by turning the Participle sending into the Verb sent of which hereafter Take the Words in the gross as I am now considering of them I think our Translators render them very well and there will be no necessity either to add to them or to take from them Only 't is necessary that you make this Variation or Addition whereas 't is said and for sin condemned sin reade and by a Sin-offering or Sacrifice for Sin condemned Sin And so they will run thus For what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh God sending or sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and by a Sacrifice for Sin condemned Sin in the flesh That the righteousness c. There are great difficulties in their several branches and parts but they shall be opened as I go over them in their order The Words divided into Five Parts If you take them in pieces you have these Five things in them 1. 'T is here imply'd That something was to be done in order to the Recovery Justification Salvation of the lost Sinner 2. Here 's an express assertion of the weakness inability of the Law to do what was to be done with the true cause of that inability of the Law What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh 3. The Way and Method which the wise and gracious God took upon this that He might effectually do that which the Law could not de He sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh 4. The double Effect produced by this or the double End and design of God in this sending of his Son for sin he condemned sin in the flesh That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled 5. The description of the persons who have an interest in all this Grace who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit We have in the whole a Complication of the several Causes of the Sinner's Justification and Redemption Here 's a Complication of the Causes of the Sinners Justification and Salvation Here 's the Deficient Cause the Law Here 's the Principal Efficient Cause God the Father here 's the Subordinate Agent I mean with respect to the Father or the Meritorious Cause Christ the Son the Formal and also the Material Cause for sin condemning sin in the flesh the Final Cause the Finis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled and the Finis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in us who walk not after the flesh but c. Here I bring in the Words for sin condemned sin under another Head of Causes than that laid down but now in the division of the words but that I may do well enough because they will bear diverse causal respects I begin with the Causa deficiens which comes in also as the Procatartick or impulsiue Cause as that which moved God to send his Son viz. the weakness and impotency of the Law to help the lost Sinner The first Branch of the Words pitch'd upon Four things observed in it For what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh Here observe 1. The thing spoken of the Law 2. That which is asserted concerning this Law it could not do 3. The ground or reason of this its inability to do in that it was weak 4. The assignation of the true Cause of its weakness viz. the flesh in that it was weak through the flesh it could not do because it was weak and it was weak because of the Flesh I will a little insist upon the Literal Explication of this Branch and then come to the matter contained in it The literal explication of the Words For what the Law could not do In the Greek 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if you render word for word runs thus For the impossible of the Law or the invalid of the Law so * Quod invalidum erat Legis De Resur carnis Cap. 46. Tertullian renders it The Sense and meaning of the expression is plain enough our Translation gives us that very well What the Law could not do but the form and manner of it in the Original especially when 't is turn'd into our language is somewhat harsh and unusual Interpreters for the opening of the Phrase and the cleering up of the connexion of the matter do several wayes Comment upon the Words Some bring in this first Paragraph under a Parenthesis but that signifies but little one way or another * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impotentiâ Legis existente Beza
maledictione carni suae interim securè indulgens Ut ergo frustra blanditur c. Calvin Non satis est Christum ore profiteri oportet Fide per opera esfioaci Christo ahhaerere quod fit non Carnis sed Spiritus ductum sequendo in vitâ Observa secundò quòd connexam esse docet Justificationis Sanctificationis Gratiam adeò ut divelli nequeant ut frustra de priore glorietur qui posteriorem non habeat Qui igitur habâ—nas laxant carni testantur se in Christo non esse c. Hinc refutatur trita Papistarum Calumnia c. Atqui docemus cum Apostolo non esse in Christo nisi qui secundum Spiritum ambulant qui carni indulgent eos inanem Fidem profiteri c. Pareus Sunt cohaerentes quidem c. Beza this very place say that which might be enough to all ingenuous men to obviate these Calumnies But let this pass Give me leave onely in the General to vindicate our Faith in this matter and to shew that what we believe herein is not at all repugnant to this or to any other Scripture For do we hold that Believers are exempted from condemnation and shall most certainly be sav'd upon their being in Christ though they live a sinful carnal wicked life how often have our Opposers been told that we detest and abhor such an Opinion We say indeed that sanctification holiness or walking after the Spirit are not the meritorious causes of Non-condemnation that honour we give to the alone merits of our Saviour yet withall we say that whoever hath an interest in such blessedness he is a sanctified person and he must and shall live an holy life Is not this enough as much as what the Word will bear us out in Can we not be for Walking after the Spirit unless we make it to be a Cause of our justification or can we not hold imputed righteousness but we must deny inherent righteousness are these two inconsistent Our Adversaries asperse us as if we denied the latter which we do not but what may we say of them who do most certainly deny the former To go on Do not we set inherent righteousness as high as they bate but perfection and merit the First of which would make it impossible in this life as the Other would derogate from the freeness of God's grace and the fullness of Christ's merit And we appeal to the world do our Censurers with their principles live more holily than Protestants with theirs we wish we could see it Nay take the whole model and platform of their Doctrine and of ours and let the would judge which doth most tend to the * See Dr. Stillingslees of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome Chap. 3. p. 178. promoting of a strict and holy conversation Indeed if we give way to the flesh and walk after the flesh we are to be blamed for our practices but the principles of our Religion are strict holy and good In short we are for the same things which They contend for and that too in the highest measures and degrees so far as the infirmities of the present state will admit of but not upon the same grounds We are for the spiritual life as the fruit and evidence of the Vnion and as always attending the person who is in Christ and shall not be condemned but we dare not make it to be the meritorious ground or to have any causal influence upon the one or the other If this will not satisfie let our revilers revile on 3. There are but Iew who are in Christ 3. If this be the way and course of such who are in Christ that they walk not after the flesh but after the spirit it informs us then that there are but few who are in Christ or who have any interest in the Mystical Vnion I would not streighten or narrow the Grace of God or the happiness of the Creature further than the word it self doth but on the other hand I must not make them wider than that doth The most it is to be feared are out of Christ because the most do walk after the flesh 't is but here and there some few who walk after the spirit Instead of walking not after the flesh but after the spirit the generality of men walk after the flesh and not after the spirit they are in the flesh there 's their state and they walk after the flesh there 's their course O that this was not as evident as the light of the noon day This Flesh as you have heard is either the corrupt Nature in the general or more particularly 't is the corrupt Nature venting it self in and about fleshly and sensual things now in both respects how do fleshly Walkers abound As to the First what an unholy sinful life do the most live how doth the depraved Nature break forth and show it self in their whole course this is that which acts them all along by which they steer and order their conversation And as to the Second look upon the greatest number of men how sensual are they they lie tumbling and wallowing in the mire of Lust are even immers'd and swallowed up in fleshly things minding nothing so much as the pleasing of the flesh Go to them at their Tables there 's gluttony excess in eating and drinking they pamper the body whilst they starve the soul Mind them in their pursuits 't is some fleshly good they mainly drive at some fleshly interest by which they steer their course what do they most consult but the Fleshes ease and interest O that 's the thing which they make provision for that they may fulfil the lusts thereof which the Apostle so expresly forbids Rom. 13.14 their forecasts projects contrivances are for the Flesh yea all their thoughts are imployed as so many caterers or purveyours for their sensual lusts is not this walking after the flesh and is not this more or less the Walk of the most Alas as to that walking after the spirit which hath been opened how few are there that know any thing of it the generality are wholly strangers to it understanding the Angelical life in Heaven as well as the spiritual holy life of Saints here upon earth you can scarce make them believe that there is such a life so far are they from the living of it Thus 't is with the multitude and is not this then too clear an evidence too full a demonstration of the paucity of such as are in Christ O that we could bewail and lament it what more plain than that such who are in Christ do walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit and what more plain too than that the body of men do walk after the Flesh and not after the Spirit Sirs let us not flatter and think too well of our selves * Ut eos omnes intelligamus esse exclusos qui Fidem Evangelium jactitant cum interim volutentur in
sets down the Way and Manner how this Non condemnation is carried on That is done two ways partly by the Spirit of Christ partly by the Merit of Christ In order to the Sinners Justification and Salvation two things are necessary 1. he must be freed from the tyranny usurpation and dominion of sin 2. he must be freed too from the guilt of Sin and the Justice of God must be satisfied Now saith the Apostle Both of these are accordingly done the Former by the Spirit of Christ which is spoken to in this Second Verse the Latter by the Merit or Satisfactory Obedience of Christ in his own Person which is spoken to in the Third and Fourth Verses Thus the Apostle clears up the way and method of God in the bringing about of the Non-condemnation of Believers and this in the double reference which the Words will bear with respect to the Priviledge 2. Then Secondly they way refer too to the Character or Description who walk not after c. It might be ask'd How doth the truth of this appear viz. that persons in Christ do thus walk or rather How comes it about that Such do arrive at this spiritual course The Apostle answers The Law of the Spirit of Life hath freed Such from the Law of Sin q. d. I have spoken of the holy and heavenly course of Believers and do not wonder at it you may believe me in what I have asserted for the mighty power of the Spirit of God having subdued Sin and broke its strength and dominion in these persons upon this they are brought to holy walking or therefore they do so walk In this reference several * Lex spiritus vitae quae pertinet ad gratiam liberat à lege peccati mortis facit ut non concupiscamus impleamus jussa legis c. August Octoginr Quaest p. 575. t. 4. Verius certius est quod hoc versiculo rationem reddere Apostolus voluerit non illorum verborum nihil nunc damnationis sed cur hanc quasi conditionem illis verbis adjecerit iis qui non secundum carnem ambulant Stapl. Antidot p. 625. The Apostle proves the Spiritual walking à causa procreante quae est Spiritus Sanctus Piscat He gives a reason why the true members of Christ do walk according to the Spirit Deod Expositers carry the Words but this for their Connexion Some Divines make them to be in part Proleptical as if the Apostle foreseeing some Objections which might be made against what he had laid down did here design to prevent and anticipate those Objections For as to both the forementioned Things doubts and discouragements might arise in some who were in Christ They might object thus Blessed Paul thou saist there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ but how can this be what so much Sin and Guilt and yet no Condemnation can we who are nothing but a very mass of Sin be thus safe and secure as to our eternal state O this we scarce know how to believe And again thou speakest of Walking not after the Flesh but after the Spirit alas who do thus walk when we have so much of Flesh in us and that doth so often draw us to carnal acts c. how is this qualification practicable To obviate this double Objection or Discouragement the Apostle brings in these Words in which he renders both the Priviledge and the Property of persons interested in it real and credible viz by their being freed from the Law of Sin and Death through the Law of the Spirit 'T is as if he had said 't is too true that even such who are in Christ will have Sin in them and sin will too often be committed by them yet for all this I say that such shall not be condemned why because they are freed from the Law of Sin and so consequently from the Law of Death Sin I grant is in them but 't is not a Law in them or to them it still keeps its residence in them but its reign its commanding power is gone now where it is not commanding it shall not be condemning So then this notwithstanding the foundation of a Believers Safety and Comfort stands firm and unshaken And for the Other discouragement here is a kind of tacit and implicit Concession that the people of God are Flesh as well as Spirit and that as to some particular acts through infirmity they may follow the guidance and motions of the Flesh but yet they are not under the Law and command of the Flesh why because they are freed from the Law of Sin there is another Law which hath thrust out that Law of Sin viz. the Law of the Spirit Indeed time was when they were at the beck and command of the Flesh when they walked after it but the Law of the Spirit having taken hold of them now for the main they do not they cannot walk after the Flesh The force of the is Particle FOR opened I come more strictly and narrowly to look into the Words For the Law of the Spirit of Life c. 'T is a Scripture that either is dark in it self or else 't is made so by the various and different interpretations put upon it Which before I can well speak to the first word For must be a little considered and the rather because 't is made use of and insisted upon in some matters of Controversie That which unites Verse and Verse divides party and party this little Word is made to bear its part in some sharp Contests and though to us at the first view it may seem but inconsiderable yet 't is not so to the ROMANISTS who in their arguings against PROTESTANTS make no small use of it They tell us that 't is here to be taken * Subscribit causam praedictae liberationis Soto Apostolus hanc libertatem à lege peccati per Spiritum Dei ponit ut causam ejus quod prius dixerat Stapl. Antid p. 625. With many Others causally as containing in it the Ground of Justification that it points to inherent Righteousness as the Cause of the Non-condemnation before spoken of and by this they attempt to prove that the Believer is not justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ but by his own personal inherent righteousness For say they the Apostle having said that there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ he proves it from inherent righteousness as the proper and formal cause of it there is no Condemnation For the Law of the Spirit c. And that the Argument may be the more pressing and concluding to us PROTESTANTS they urge that Calvin and Beza themselves do make this Law of the Spirit of Life to point to grace regeneration inherent righteousness To whom I reply 1. That 't is not safe either for Them or Vs in matters of great moment to lay too great a stress upon little Words which onely joyn Verse and Verse
together unless that which we build upon them or infer from them do agree with other Scriptures where the Thing is fully and professedly handled I dare not undervalue the least the meanest particle in God's Word yet I would be loath to bottom a fundamental Article of Faith upon such a particle especially when it admits of various senses as this here doth if it hath not the current of the Word to back it For our Opinion of Justification by the alone righteousness of Christ imputed to the Sinner and laid hold on by Faith we ground it upon several full and entire Discourses where our Apostle doth professedly handle that Argument proving Justification to be according to what we hold But our Adversaries to prove their justification by inherent righteousness very often I do not say always catch at some little single word and that they make the foundation which they build this Opinion upon In short against this For in the Text I mean too onely as they pervert it for in truth they have not so much as even this little Word to favour them we set the whole third fourth fifth Chapter of this Epistle to the Romans where the Apostle in a full discourse upon it doth plainly lay Justification upon imputed not upon inherent righteousness and which of us now do build upon the surest and safest bottom 2. What if this particle supposing it to be Causal doth point to the description of the persons and not to the priviledge some of their own * Stapl. ut prius Tolet. Causam exponit cur qui sunt in Christo non secundum carnem ambulant Authors do carry it so where then is the strength of their Argument from it to prove the fonmal Cause of No Condemnation All that then can be deduced from the Words is this that Grace in the heart is the Cause of an holy life that men upon regeneration are delivered from the Law of Sin and therefore they walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit what is this against us And with respect to their Glosses who questions or denies inherent righteousness or that that doth free from sin provided you take it with a double limitation 1. that the freeing from Sin upon regeneration be understood of the taking away its power 2. that it be not carried so far as quite to justle out imputed righteousness or set so high as to have that attributed to it which is onely proper to Christs righteousness Our * Si Spiritus vitae vivificans Sanctificans c. Ergo liberati sumus à Lege peccati mortis Regeneratione Sanctificatione non solâ Justitiae imputatione Gratia ergo inhaerens est quae liberat à peccato Contz Quaest 1. in Vers 2. cap. 8. ad Rom. Torsit hic locus tà m Calvinum quam Bezam quia inhaerentem Justitiam per veram peccati victoriam luculentèr probat imputativam subvertit Stapl. Antidot p. 625. Adversaries misrepresent our Opinions and trouble themselves in a great measure to prove that which we never deny and then asperse us as though we did deny it 3. 'T is one thing to be the Proof of a thing another thing to be the Cause of that thing Regeneration indeed proves Justification for every regenerate person is a justified person but 't is not the cause of justification for the person is not therefore justified because he is regenerated but because Christ's righteousness by Faith is made over to him 'T is one thing to say therefore a man lives because he hath sense and moves and another thing to say therefore a man lives because he hath a living Soul in him the Sense and motion prove the life but 't is the living Soul which is the cause of life So here the Believer shall not be condemned because the Law of the Spirit of Life c. this evinces the certainty of the thing but 't is not the proper Cause of it So that the For in the Text is onely Nota probationis but not causalitatis and so 't is used up and down in the Gospel in very many places 4. 'T is very true that (a) Legem Spiritus impropriè vocat Dei Spiritum qui animas nostras Christi sanguine aspergit non tantum ut à peccati labe emundet quoad reatum sed ut in veram pietatem sanctificet Calvin Calvin in part doth interpret the Words of regeneration and inherent righteousness but then foreseeing the Objection that would be made upon it he explains himself about it and saith (b) Siquis excipiat veniam ergo quâ sepeliuntur nostra delicta pendete à regeneratione facilis est solutio Non assignari causam à Paulo sed modum tradi duntaxae quo solvimur à reatu Calvin If any shall reply that then pardon or justification doth depend upon regeneration the Answer says he is obvious Paul doth not set down the Cause wherefore we are absolved from Guilt onely the Manner wherein this is done He adds further (c) Perinde valet haec sententia ac si dixisset Paulus Regenerationis Gratiam ab imputatione Justitiae nunquam disjungi 'T is as much as if the Apostle had said that regeneration is never separated or parted from the imputation of Christs righteousness So that he doth not argue for Non-condemnation or Justification from inherent righteousness as the proper Cause of it but onely as these two always go together and as this is the order and method of God wherein he justifies And 't is true too that * Legem Spiritus Vitae nec pro lege fidei c. sed pro ejus efficaciâ per quam peccatum i. e. corruptio ipsaque adeo mors sensìm aboletur ut docet infra V. 10. 11. denique pro Regenerationis gratiâ accipio cui opponitur carnis i. e. Naturae nostrae corruptio Beza Beza doth take in here under the Law of the Spirit Regeneration and Sanctification but then 't is very well known what he makes to be the Law of the Spirit of Life principally viz. the Sanctity and Holiness of Christ's humane Nature which he saith being imputed to the Believer he is thereupon justified * In his verbis Calvinum Orthodoxae Augustinianae expositioni conformitè dicere quis dubitaverit sed audiantur reliqua impostoris technae ac fraudes apparebunt Stapl. ubi supra Quam Legem Spiritus cum probè intellexissent recentiores Haeretici perperam transferunt non ad Gratiam justis inhaerâ—ntem sed ad externam Christi justitiam quam robis quodaminodo affingi volunt imputari Justin And now Calvin and Beza have lost all their credit So long as they expounded the Words of inherent righteousness they were very sound and orthodox but now they thus explain themselves no Censures are severe enough for them now if Stapleton may be believed they are not adulteratores sed carnifices Verbi Dei I know Pareus to avoid the
so it was sufficient but besides this the preceptive part of the Law was to be fulfilled the condition of life was to be performed the Sinner was to be made positively righteous Heaven was to be merited now as to these abstractly from the active obedience of Christ the passive was not sufficient Upon his dying Believers shall not die or be damned or be look'd upon as guilty but for their being righteous and entitled to eternal life Christ must actively fulfil the Law for the promise of life is annexed to doing Do this and live Levit. 18.5 Rom. 10.5 There needs no more saith * Blake on the Covenant c. 12. p. 77. a Reverend Person than innocency not to die and when guilt is taken away we stand as innocent no crime then can be charged upon us But to reign in life as the Apostle speaks to inherit a crown there further is expected which we not reaching Christ's active obedience supplied to us not adding to ours but being in it-self compleat is accounted ours and imputed to us Obj. But 't is said 4. Object the Law requires no more than either doing or suffering if one of these be done 't is enough both of them the Law neither doth nor can demand Wherefore if we suffered in Christ and that be reckoned to us it is not required that we should also obey in Christ Answ The truth of the Antecedent is not only questioned but flatly deny'd Answ and the contrary thereunto is proved viz. * See Advers inter Piscat Lucium p. 1. sect 4. Polan in Dan. p. 191 c. Turret de Sat. par 8. pag. 271 c. Bodius in Eph. p. 805. That in statu lapso the Laws obligation is not disjunctive ad alterutrum either to do or suffer but 't is conjunctive or copulative ad utrumque both to do and suffer Indeed say they of this Opinion if man had continued in the state of innocency one of these had been enough namely the active obeying of the Law for he being then without sin could not lie under any obligation to suffer But he being faln stands oblig'd to both to obey as he is a Creature to suffer as he is an Offender So that it was not enough for Christ in suffering to answer the one obligation but he must also by doing answer the other also In the Laws of men one of these is enough but in the Laws of God there being a vast disparity 'twixt the Creatures subjection to him and to men it is not so And as I apprehend it they who differ in this point do too much run themselves upon that absurdity which they would fasten upon those from whom they differ for whereas they charge the Opinion of these that it acquits us from all obeying on our part this principle which they maintain seems to do it much more for it either obeying or suffering be as much as the Law requires then Christ having suffered the utmost of the Laws penalty we are not under any obligation to obey too Obj. It having been said 5. Object that Christ's passive Obedience was necessary to free from guilt and eternal death and his active necessary for righteousness and eternal life against this 't is objected that it supposes a medium betwixt being freed from guilt and being made righteous and so betwixt being freed from eternal death and the having of eternal life which is a great mistake For these are such Contraries as do admit of no meâ—â—â—m between them and therefore upon the negation of the one the affirmation of the other in a fit Subject must needs follow and so vice versâ As if it be not night it is day if it be not darkness it is light if it be not crookedness it is streightness c. So here if it be not guilt it is righteousness and if it be not eternal death it is eternal life these being Contraries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore they who grant freedom from guilt and Hell upon Christ's death and yet assert the necessity of the obedience of his life for righteousness and Heaven build upon a false hypothesis Answ To this 't is answered Answ what is here alledged holds true in Natural and Physical Contraries but not in Moral or Law-contraries The Malefactor upon his Princes or the Judges Pardon is acquitted from his guilt and with respect to that he is innocent but yet he cannot upon this be look'd upon as being righteous or as having done what the Law required of him so 't is in that which I am upon 'T is one thing for the Sinner not to be unjust and another thing for him to be just upon the non-imputation of Sin he is the former but the latter he cannot be without a positive righteousness Not to be judg'd as a transgressor of the Law and to be judg'd as a fulfiller of the Law are two distinct things And so as to the other although there be no medium 'twixt natural life and death so that upon the negation of the one there is alwayes the position of the other yet between eternal life and eternal death there is a medium For we may suppose a person to be freed from the one and yet not presently admitted into the other he may be saved from Hell and yet not be taken up to Heaven for he may be annihilated or continued in some state of happiness here below this notwithstanding I only speak of the possibility of the thing not asserting that ever de facto it is so The Traytor may be freed from death and yet not restored to all those high dignities and priviledges which he had before and why not so here 'T is true whoever is freed from Hell is admitted into Heaven but this is not necessary from the nature of the thing as though there might not be a status intermedius but only from the will and ordination of God The necessity therefore of the imputation of Christ's active obedience for righteousness and life is not weakened or null'd by this objection Obj. To put more strength into it 't is further urg'd 6. Object that the Opinion argued against makes Justification to consist of different parts viz. remission of Sin and imputation of righteousness also it makes these different parts to proceed from different Causes as the remission of Sin from Christ's bearing the penalty of the Law and the imputation of righteousness from his fulfilling the precepts of the Law Whereas say some the whole nature of Justification lies in the remission of sin to be pardoned and to be made righteous are in Scripture terms equipollent and synonimous And say others all in Justification is but one act proceeding from one and the same cause that very act which makes the Sinner not guilty makes him also at the same time to be righteous as that which takes away crookedness at the same time makes streight that which expels darkness at the same
nobis factus est sub lege ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret idcirco utraque pars obedientiae Christi i. e. tota ejus obedientia nostra facta est cessitque in salutem nostram Zanch. in Phil. c. 2.8 p. 115. See Calvin Instit l. 2. c. 16. sect 5. This way goes Junius in thes de Justif Polanus in Syntag. l. 6. c. 36. in Comment in Dan. p. 186. c. Brocmand de Servat Jesu Christo Art 16. Sect. 12. Qu. 4. Gomarus de Justif against Kargius Rivet against Camero Lutius against Piscator and Gataker Downeham of Justif l. 1. c. 4. p. 24. c. Burgesse of Justif 2. part Serm. 34. p. 338. Divines of great note and that not only by some of them by the by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also by others who do largely insist upon the proof and making of it good against those who think otherwise The Reasons upon which they ground this Opinion are such as these 1. Arg. for the imputation of Christ's active Obedience 1. As the disobedience of the first Adam in which he brake the Law is imputed to men upon which they become guilty so the Obedience of Christ the second Adam even that in which he kept the Law must be imputed also to them that thereby they may be made righteous For their guilt and righteousness must not only be convey'd in the same way or manner viz. by imputation but these being opposites must proceed from like opposite Causes and therefore if their guilt arises from Adams breach of the Law which is imputed to them answerably their righteousness must arise from Christ's Obedience to the Law which therefore must also be imputed to them So the Apostle draws the parallel or comparison Rom. 5.19 As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Where observe 1. He speak of Christ's Obedience in the general by the obedience of one c. wherefore to limit this to one branch of his Obedience his passive obedience as though by it alone Sinners were made righteous is neither safe nor warrantable 2. If we will proceed in that way so as to single out this or that part of Christ's Obedience and ascribe righteousness to it then the Antithesis will carry it for his active rather than for his passive Obedience for that being the Obedience which stands in direct opposition to Adams disobedience it must by the rules of Opposition most properly here be understood 3. The Apostle makes the imputation of both to run parallel according to the acts and effects which are proper to each As by the disobedience of one many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous So that as the one act is imputed for guilt so the other is imputed for righteousness and as in the one person he being a publick person and Head we broke the Law so in the other he being a publick person and Head too we perform the Law If it be said that Adams disobedience did not lie in the transgression of the Moral Law but only of that particular positive Law which God gave him of not eating of the tree of knowledge and so that Christ's Obedience did not lie in the keeping of the Moral Law but in his obeying of that positive Law which God laid upon him namely of laying down his life which if so then the Text proves nothing of that for which 't is alledged but rather the quite contrary I answer though 't is very true that in Adams disobedience immediately and proximately there was only the transgressing of that positive Law yet in the transgressing thereof there was virtually and collaterally the breach of the whole Moral Law all this Law being * In hâc lege Adae datâ omnia praecepta condita recognoscimus quae posteà pullulaverunt data per Mosen c. Igitur hâc generali primordiali Dei Lege omnia praecepta Legis posterioris specialiter indita fuisse cognoscimus quae suis temporibus edita germinaverunt Tertull. adv Jud. c. 2. summ'd up in and guarded by that Lex primordialis as Tertullian calls it The Argument then from the comparison holds good as Adam violating the Moral Law his active disobedience is imputed for guilt so our Lord Jesus obeying the Moral Law his active obedience thereunto is imputed for righteousness which is the thing to be proved 2. That Obedience of Christ must be imputed without the imputation of which the righteousness of the Law is not 2. Arg. or could not be fulfilled in believers this cannot be deny'd for 't is brought in here expresly as the end of God's sending his Son that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us Now I assume but without the imputation of Christ's active Obedience the Laws righteousness is not and could not be fulfilled in believers ergo This I prove from what hath been already said the Laws righteousness consists in two things 1. in its requiring perfect conformity to its Commands 2. in its demanding Satisfaction or the undergoing of its penalty upon the violation of it This being so how can the Laws righteousness be fulfilled in Saints either by the active or by the passive Obedience of Christ apart and alone put them both together and the thing is done there is that in both which is fully adaequate to the Laws demands but divide them and it is not so The passive Obedience satisfies as to the Laws penalty and secures from the Laws curse but where 's our performing of the Duty which the Law requires if the active Obedience be not imputed also And 't is conceived that this righteousness of the Law doth mainly and primarily refer to the preceptive and mandatory part of the Law and but secondarily to the penal and minatory part of the Law For in all Laws Civil or Sacred that which is first intended in them is active Obedience the bearing the penalty is annexed but to further and secure that so that he who only bears the penalty doth not answer the first end and the main intention of the Law Whence I infer since the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in believers as the Apostle here saith it is that therefore the commanding part of the Law must be fulfilled in them that being the main branch of its righteousness and that which is principally designed by it but that cannot be unless the active Obedience of Christ be imputed to them This Argument with submission to better judgments is to me of great weight And I desire the words may be well observed 't is not said that the righteousness of the Law might be endured suffered or undergone by us as if it did relate to the penalty of the Law but that the righteousness of the Law might be filfilled in us which surely most properly must relate to the doing part of the Law doth he
time introduces light the putting on of the garment and the removal of the nakedness are but one and the same thing and done together Answ Many things are here mentioned which cannot so distinctly be spoken to in the answering of an Objection Answ What place remission of sin hath in Justification whether of being the form of it or but an integral part or only an effect and Consequent is a thing that Divines are not very well agreed about whether the whole of Justification doth lie in remission is a point wherein also they differ But I must not at present engage in these debates I will defer the discussing of them till I come to open the Doctrine Doctrine of Justification which the 30 Verse of this Chapter will lead me to I shall now only suggest what is proper for the answering of the Objection before us And 1. what if the Opinion argued against doth make remission of sin and imputed righteousness to be different parts of Justification they both as * See Burg. of Justif 2 part Serm. 27. integral parts concurring to the compleating and perfecting of it I say what if it so doth is it the worse for that is this a novel tenent or that which but few or none do own have not several with great solidity and judgment defended it as to any error in it or any absurdities that will follow upon it I must confess I do not as yet understand either the one or the other A difference of parts in Sanctification is commonly granted viz. mortification and vivification the abolition of the power of sin and the implantation of the divine Nature the putting off the old man and the putting on the new man Eph. 4.22 now why may not Justification have its parts as well as Sanctification If the Believers righteousness doth lie in the fulfilling of the Law and there be different parts in that Law its commanding and its punishing part then that righteousness which results from the fulfilling of it must admit of different parts too So that remission of sin is one part that being grounded upon the satisfying of one part of the Law and imputation of righteousness is another part that being grounded upon the satisfying of the other part of the Law The Scripture speaks of these not as one and the same but as distinct Rom. 4.25 Who was delivered for our offences there 's remission and was raised again for our justification or righteousness there 's the other part how the latter is attributed to Christ's resurrection is not my business now to enquire I only cite the words as holding forth a distinction betwixt remission and righteousness So Rom. 5.9 compar'd with Rom. 5.19 And Dan. 9.24 to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness here are the two parts of Justification set forth as different and distinct 'T is true the Apostle Rom. 4.6 7 8. speaking of the Sinners righteousness instances only in the forgiveness or non-imputation of sin but he doth not do it as if that was the all in that righteousness but 1. because that being one eminent part thereof he puts it for the whole 2. because that remission of sin and the imputation of a positive righteousness being never parted in naming the one he included the other not as if they were one and the same in their nature but because they are never separated in the â—ubject I cannot yet be convinc'd but that the removal of Sins guilt and the introducing of a positive righteousness are things of a different nature and carry distinct notions in them for besides what hath been already said though in God's dealing with fal'n Sinners they are never parted yet as they are considered in themselves they may be parted Amongst us sometimes sin is remitted when yet the offender is not justified as we see in the case of Joseph's Brethren Shimei Abiathar c. and 't is possible for a person to be justified though he hath no sin to be remitted as it would have been with Adam had he stood he was then capable of Justification but not of remission now this their separableness evinces a difference or distinction betwixt them To object therefore against the imputation of Christ's active Obedience as well as of his passive one being suppos'd to free us from guilt the other to make us righteous that this would infer two different parts of justification this is so far from being an Objection that 't is but a plain asserting of what is so indeed 2. Whereas 't is said that this doth also make different causes of Justification I say as before what if it doth Provided that by those ye understand only the different grounds or matter of Justification according to its different parts that is as Christ dy'd and shed his blood there 's the ground of the Sinners discharge from guilt that which is imputed to him in order to that effect then as he in all things actively conformed to the Law there 's the ground of the Sinners positive righteousness or that which is imputed to him in order to that effect Such a multiplication of Causes which are not so of a diverse nature but that they do unite and concur in some one as the general Cause as these do in Christ's righteousness or Obedience carries in it nothing repugnant to Scripture or Reason This righteousness of Christ is the one only material Cause of the Sinners righteousness but that dividing it-self into his active and passive righteousness accordingly the Causes of the Sinners righteousness are diversified 3. The allusions brought against the Truth in question seem to fasten some absurdity upon it For they tend to this that for any to say upon one act sin is remitted and upon another the person is made righteous 't is as if one should say that by one act the crookedness of a thing is removed and that by another 't is made streight and so as to light and darkness To which I reply I except against these similitudes as not suiting with the thing in hand they are proper for things of another nature not for that which we are upon for that being a Law-act is not to be judg'd of by things of a physical nature Suppose the effects mention'd are produc'd by one and the same act yet they are not so pertinently alledg'd because what we are speaking of falls under another consideration We are not concern'd about crookedness and streightness but about guilt and righteousness all allusions which suit not with these as things of a legal nature are insignificative Will they say that that which frees the Offender from guilt when he stands arraign'd before the Judge doth also make him a true and exact keeper of the Law that at the same time and by the same sentence wherein he is acquitted from the violation of the Law that he is also thereupon to be look'd upon as a person that hath really kept the Law such an