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
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
kinds or Species of them there were the Burnt-offerings about which Rules are set down Lev. 1. Meat-offerings of which Levit. 2. Peace-offerings Levit. 3. the Sin-offering Levit. 4. the Trespass-offering Levit. 5. and 6. * Philo Jud. de Vict. p. 648. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some reduce all to three the Burnt-offering the Peace-offering the Sin-offering †Joseph Ant. l. 3. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Some to two the Holoucast and the Thank-offering but of such different apprehensions there 's no end Now though these Sacrifices were thus diversify'd amongst themselves yet the most if not all of them agreed in this that they were in their Vse End and Effects of an expiatory nature I say all for unquestionably it belong'd not only to the Sacrifices us'd at the anniversary Expiation nor only to the Sin-offering and Trespass-offering to expiate sin but all the rest more or or less were designed for this end and accordingly did produce this effect Agreeably to which Christ the true and great Sacrifice in the offering up of himself to God did truly properly expiate sin for if they did so he then much more because they in their expiation were types of him in his expiation now whatever is in the type must needs be in the thing typified as also because their expiation was done in the strength and virtue of Christs Sacrifice now surely that which gives expiatory virtue to other things must needs have such virtue in it self Four things propounded for the opening proving of Christ's being an Expiatory Socrifice For the better opening and proving of Christ's being an expiatory Sacrifice by making a collation or parallel between him and the expiatory Sacrifices under the Law there are these Four things which I shall endeavour to make good 1. That in those expiatory Sacrifices whatever was laid upon them is was for the sin of the People as the impulsive and meritorious Cause thereof and that so it was with Christ in his Sufferings 2. That those Sacrifices were substituted in the place and stead of the Offenders themselves bearing their punishment and that so it was with Christ in reference to Sinners 3. That those Sacrifices were to be offered up killed slain consumed and in that way they became expiatory and that so it was with Christ 4. That by those Sacrifices God was actually atoned and propitiated the expiation and remission of Sin procured and that so it was by Christ These things being cleared and proved it will be evident that Christ was a true expiatory Sacrifice I 'le go over them as briefly as the nature of the thing will admit of Of the First whatever befel the Expiatory Sacrifices was for the Peoples Sin and so it was with Christ in his Sufferings 1. First I say in those expiatory Sacrifices whatever was laid upon them it was for the Sin of the people as the impulsive and meritorious Cause thereof For wherefore were the poor innocent Beasts and living Creatures killed and slain as they were what had they done that so many of them must be put to death from day to day did God delight in making his Temple a slaughter-house was it his pleasure to have it thus that he might shew his dominion and soveraignty over the Creature surely that was not the great thing which he design'd therein he had other ways which might seem more suitable to his goodness and pity to his Creatures wherein he might have made known his dominion over them And besides if this was the thing only aimed at why must the people lay their hands upon the Cattel when they were sacrificed why must they confess their sins over them as you 'l see under the next Head they were to do these rites evidently declare that God did not here proceed in the way of absolute dominion but that there was sin in the case as the procuring Cause of all this and if so they having no sin of their own for which they could thus suffer their suffering must be resolved into the sin of the people as that which brought it upon them So it was with Christ our Sacrifice his Sufferings were exceeding sharp his precious life was taken from him he dy'd upon the Cross indured hard usage indeed whence did all this befal him was there not some special Cause why it should be thus with God's own Son yes what was that why Sin Sin was that cause but whose sin not his own for he was perfectly free from all sin he knew no sin 2 Cor. 5.21 he was holy harmless undefiled separate from Sinners Heb. 7.26 a Lamb without blemish and without spot 1 Pet. 1.19 it must be our sin then that was the meritorious Cause of all Christ's sufferings Dan. 9.26 After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off but not for himself Isa 53.4 5 6. Surely he hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows yet we did esteem him stricken smitten of God and afflicted But 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 All we like sheep have gone astray we have turned every one to his own way and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all Rom. 3.25 Who was delivered for our offences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and raised again for our justification 't is the same Preposition in both branches but its sense is different which difference rises from the different nature of the matter spoken of for when 't is joyned with sins or offences it imports that they were the meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings but when 't is joyn'd with Christ's resurrection and the Sinners justification there its signification and import is final yet too in such a sense the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken meritoriously in the latter as well as in the former branch * De Servat p. 3. c. 7. p. 3. c. 7. SOCINVS tells us that this with some other parallel expressions only notes our sins to be the occasion but not the impulsive Cause of Christ's Sufferings as also that the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is both here and else where alwayes taken in a final never in any meritorious sense But most * Ubi est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum Accusativo quae apud Graecae Linguae Authores Sacros Profanos usitatissima est nota Causae impulsivae Ut cum dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter haec venit ira Dei in filios contumaciae Eph. 5.6 Grot. de Sat. Christi c. 1. in Rom. 4.25 untruly for 't is said Eph. 5.6 because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for these things as those which merit and bring down the Wrath of God upon Sinners But I will not stay upon the refuting of the usual Cavils and false assertions about this
and who is in Christ Jesus He doth not say There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus (b) Non dicit quia non secundum carnem ambulamus sed qui non secundum c. ne faciat in hâc justificationis causâ primum esse quod secundarium est c. Muscul in Rom. Cap. 8. V. 4. p. 124. because they walk not after the Flesh c. but to them who walk not after the Flesh c. so that this is meerly descriptive of the person The heavenly and spiritual life is not the (c) Non propter novam aliquam qualitatem quam in nobis operata est gratia Spiritus Sancti extra condemnationem sumus sed propter solam gratiam Dei quam fide Christi apprehendimus Muscul Non causa justificationis sed conditio nota justificatorum Pareus See more Dub. 2. p. 773. Cause of Justification only 't is the note or evidence of justified persons And as to the union with Christ the fruits of the Spirit and the effects of grace and sanctification begun in us these do not unite us unto Christ onely they (a) Fructus Spiritus sive sanctificationis in nobis inchoatae effecta nos non inserunt Christo sed nos ei insitos esse declarant Beza declare us to be so united they are Evidences not Causes Wherever there is justification and the mystical union there is sanctification and holiness yet the latter is not the ground of the former as wherever life is there is sense and motion yet these are not the cause but onely the sign evidence and consequent of life There 's a vast (b) Sunt cohaerentes quidem sed diversae questiones quâ re eximamur omni condemnationi c. quinam in Christo eximuntur condemnationi ii videlicet qui se in Christo esse ex regenerationis fructibus ostendunt Beza difference betwixt who is justified and why or upon what grounds he is justified The holy walker is the justified person but he is not justified because of the holiness of his walking No this causal influence upon justification is wholly founded upon the merits of Christ applied by Faith This is the Protestant-Doctrine to which I shall have occasion from these two first Verses to speak more than once 4. The description is laid down not in the Negative only but in the Affirmative also 't is not only who walk not after the Flesh but 't is also who walk after the Spirit In order to the participation and evidence of the grace of the Gospel 't is not enough (c) Non sat est non ambulare secundum Carnem abstineré á malis non peccare sed oportet secundum Spiritum ambulare benè â—agere Qui enim non benè agit hoc saltem malum committit quod bonum omittit Corn. Mussus Ut intelligamus non sufficere ad evitandam omnem damnationem abstinere á Carnalibus sed oportere proficere in Spiritualibus Cajet not to be evil or not to do evil but there must be being good and doing good Meer Negatives will never justifie or save for a man may go so far upon bare restraing grace and besides God requires a great deal more As when the repentance is right there is not only a ceasing to do evil but there is also a learning to do well Isa 1.16 Psal 34.14 Depart from evil and do good So when the walking is right and evidential of Gospel-mercy there is in it both the absence of Sin and also the presence of Vertue and Grace A Religion made up of Nots is but an half-religion To be magis extra vitia quam cum virtutibus as the (d) Tacit. Hist Lib. 1. p. 323. ex Edit Lips Historian describes Galba rather free from vice than vertuous in the positive fruits and effects of vertue this is not sufficient 't is to be as a cake that is bak'd but on one side as the Metaphor is Hos 7.8 The first is well but the last is (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist Eth. l. 4. c. 1. better as the Philosopher tells us The Gospel doth not only teach us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts but also to live soberly righteously godly in this present world T it 2.12 And it threatens not only those who bring forth evil fruit but also those who do not bring forth good fruit Matth. 3.10 'T is an expression of Theophylact upon the Words (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theop. Meer abstinence from Vice doth not crown but there must be also the participation of Virtue and of that which is Spiritual And (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Vers 4. hujus Capitis Chrysostome upon the fourth Verse speaks to the same purpose You have in the description of the Text therefore the negative and the positive part of holiness and these two must go together for holiness is made up of both 1 Pet. 1.14 15. As obedient children not fashioning your selves according to the former lusts in your ignorance there 's the negative part But as he which hath called you is holy so be ye holy in all manner of conversation there 's the positive part As some read the Words this head cannot be grounded upon them for they onely put in the Negative not walking after the Flesh leaving out the Affirmative but after the Spirit So the Syriack so the Vulgar and the Expositors who follow it But generally the Greek Copies have it and the Syriack too brings it in v. 4 and why not here as well as there 'T is not put in onely as a (h) Non est dubium rectissimè tanquam interpretationem addi secundum Spiritum Qui enim non ambulat secundum Carnem necesse est ut ambulet secundum Spiritum medium enim in vitâ humanâ nullum est Contz in cap. 8. ad Rom. Quâ—â— true interpretation but 't is a part of the Text it self 5. The Apostle here brings in two Walkings and he supposes them to be contrary for he sets them in opposition one to the other who walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit implying a contrariety betwixt these two walkings And so indeed there is the Flesh and Spirit are two contrary principles and therefore the Walkings which proceed from these contrary principles must needs be contrary too They are so contrary that they are incompatible and inconsistent in the same subject there may be Flesh and Spirit in the same person but there cannot be walking after both in the same person Therefore saith the Apostle Gal. 5.16 Walk in the spirit and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh as if he had said he that doth the one cannot do the other too He goes on v. 17. The flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh and these two are contrary Contrary as to their Natures their Originals and which suits best with the scope of
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
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
liv'd to see this and yet shall we doubt of the thing surely that would be sad The Ratriarchs and they who lived under the Law had but some dimmer discoveries of it here and there an obscure promise and that was all to them for a long time this was reveal'd but in types and shadows And it was too a great way off from them yet they saw the promises afar off and were persuaded of them as the Apostle tells us Heb. 11.13 and now when Christ is come when the thing is done shall we be doubting and questioning in our selves about it when our light is so clear shall our faith yet be weak Our Lord 's coming in Flesh to redeem Man was that great thing held forth in the Scriptures of the Old-Testament and they are full of it observe that passage Heb. 10.5 5 6 7. Wherefore when he cometh into the world be saith Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not but a body hast thou prepared me in burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure Then said I Lo I come in the Volume of the Book it is written of me to do thy will O God what doth Christ mean by the volume of the book I answer the whole body of the Old-Testament-Scriptures this was not written only in this or that particular Text but you have it all along interwoven into the body of those Scriptures now when the whole stream and current of the Scripture runs to this very thing shall we yet give but a languid assent about it Especially when we have the New-Testament-revelation superadded to the former the New Testament I say which gives us so full an account as to matter of fact in reference to the Conception Nativity Life Death of Christ which shews us how this and that Prophesie pointing to his Incarnation was fulfill'd which asserts it over and over again telling us expresly that the Word was made Flesh God was manifested in the Flesh c. shall we notwithstanding all this yet stagger in our faith about the truth of Christ's being sent in flesh O believe it and believe it steadily so as to look upon it as a thing without controversie Satan hath all along more or less made his assaults upon Christians in this as well as in other matters and no question he 'l do the same to you if it be possible to undermine and hinder your firm assent to it but let him not prevail Firmly to adhere to Christ as sent in flesh 2. But under this branch of Exhortation I am to urge not only firmness of assent but also firmness of adherence I mean this you must believe that Christ was sent in flesh so as to cleave and stick to him as sent in Flesh There are some amongst us whom therefore I cannot but look upon as most sadly deluded and most dangerously erring in the very Fundamentals of the Christian Religion who make little of a Christ in this notion they are all for a Christ within them but as to a Christ without them or a Christ in flesh as born of the Virgin Mary crucify'd at Jerusalem c. I say a Christ thus stated they decry and disregard O that from what I have heard and read I had not too just occasion for this charge T is highly necessary therefore that I should say something to antidote you against this venome that under the pretence of a Christ within you do not lose or overlook a Christ without In a sober sense we are for a Christ within as much as any viz. as he is formed in the Soul at the new birth Gal. 4.19 as he is united to and dwells in believers Col. 1.27 Rom. 8.10 but yet 't is a Christ without as incarnate whom we rely upon for life and salvation as he is so considered we eye him in the great acts of faith and ground all our hope and confidence upon him I have * p. 310. before told you that a Christ as formed in the heart is necessary to justification and salvation for he saves none but those who have this inward work but yet 't is a Christ as formed in the Virgins womb and as dying upon the Cross who is the proper efficient meritorious procuring Cause of Justification and Salvation These two must by no means be parted yet their efficiency or causal influence upon Sinners good is very different for by the one mercy is procur'd by the other 't is only apply'd the impetration is by the Christ without the application only is by the Christ within And therefore though you are to put an high value upon the latter and to endeavour to make sure of it as the way and condition of receiving benefit by Christ yet you are to know that 't is the former by which all is merited and therefore there the great stress of your Faith must lie 't is a Christ as taking flesh and dying in flesh that you must stick unto Matth. 1.21 She shall bring forth a Son and thou shalt call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins Christ the Son of Mary was to save 1 Tim. 1.15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners c. the Apostle layes the meriting of Salvation upon a Christ without as coming into the world and not as coming into the heart he who died upon the Cross was slain suffer'd at Jerusalem hee 's the person whom God hath exalted to be Prince and Saviour Acts 5.30 31. The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus whom ye slew and hanged on a tree him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins surely where persons have not forfeited the very principles of Christianity this is a thing which needs no proof Indeed Christ in the Spirit will very little profit those who disregard him in the flesh But no more of this Paul hath a passage which I would a little open 2 Cor. 5.16 Henceforth saith he know we no man after the flesh yea though we have known Christ after the flesh yet now henceforth know we him no more how know Christ no more after the flesh what doth he mean by this did he cast off all respects to him all relyance upon him as considered in his Flesh O no! all that he aims at is this he knew Christ no more after the flesh that is so as to have any further converse with him in a fleshly way he did not expect again to eat and drink with him as sometimes the Apostles had done all that external converse was now at an end Or he means that he did not look for any fleshly advantages by him as worldly honor preferment riches c. Or again that he did not know him as in the state of his former abasement and humiliation so the word flesh is sometimes taken more restrainedly
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
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