or Adams person interpreted or expounded at large and may with as good propriety of speech be called Adam as the nation of the Iewes is often in the Scripture called Iacob So then it being granted 1º that the sinne of Adam was exceedingly sinfull and demeritorious 2º that his person properly taken by reason of the scantnesse or narrownesse of it was not capable of the fulnesse of that wrath which that sin deserved and which it stood best with the glory of God should be executed or poured out upon it it cannot be thought any waies unrighteous or unequall that his posteritie should be arrested also and taken into Communion with his person in the punishment inflicted to supplie that which was wanting in it That God should not be stinted or streightned in making provision for his owne glory in the punishment of sin but that he should punish till he maketh himselfe whole at least till he cometh as neere into his owne as conveniently he may there is no man can judge unequall or unjust Now then Adam who was the sinner having of his owne whereof or wherewith to make satisfaction I meane a posterity which was so fully so intirely and as I may say so identically his owne that it was as yet rather himselfe then his it cannot but be thought equall and meet that God should father seize upon these to doe himselfe right then upon the Angells or any other kind of creature that had not that neere and speciall relation to the transgressor As in the case of the sinne of Korah Dathan and Abiram and so of Achan before mentioned the personall punishment of the offenders not holding out proportion with the nature and quality of their offences there is no man but must needs conceive it more agreeable to justice that their owne families respectively and those that had the neerest relation to them should be taken to make up the exemplarinesse of the punishment till it was increased and raised to the line and levell of the offence then any other family or person that stood at a further distance from them God in a faire and reasonable construction involving Adam and his posterity in the punishment for his sinne did but involve Adam himselfe or his person only because his person and posterity when this punishment was executed were but one and the same Adam This is the third and last particular upon which the equitie of God in punishing aswell Adams posterity as his person for his sinne seemes to be grounded viz. the peculiar neerenesse and relation betweene his person and posteritie Me thinks there is a joynt intimation of all the three SECT 14 in that Scripture Rom. 5.12 Wherfore as by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and so death passed upon all men in that or rather according to the best translations and expositions in whom all men have sinned Here is first the demerit of this sin implied in that death is said to enter into the world by it There is nothing in sinne to draw death and condemnation after it but only the demerit or sinfulnesse of it as for the act it selfe whereunto this sinfullnesse cleaveth for malum semper habitat in alieno fundo as one saith evill is alwaies found with somwhat that is not evill this is directly and efficiently from God himselfe as hath bin said and therfore death is no wages due to this neither would it in case it were imputed to any man bring any guilt or condemnation upon him Secondly it being further said that death being entred into the world passed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon all men or over all men it sheweth that Adams single person was not sufficient or able to beare the fullnes of that punishment which the sinfullnesse-of his sin had deserved otherwise death doubtlesse would have stopp'd there and have gone or passed on no further Thirdly and lastly where it is added in the close as the reason why death being gotten into the world should passe directly towards men and should prevaile in speciall manner over them and that over them all without exception viz. because that in him i. Adam all men had sinned this implieth that had not men bin in the loynes of Adam who was the sinner or otherwise had no speciall or neere relation to him this death had had no more right or advantage against them then against other creatures So that now these things duly considered SECT 15 evident it is that the imputation of Adams sinne or rather of the act of Adams sinne for otherwise it is nothing to the purpose so much spoken of and urged in this case to his posteritie is not the ground or cause of the punishment that is fallen upon his posteritie for it neither is there the least little in the Scriptures founding that way but chiefly that speciall communion they had with him in his nature having then their severall beings respectively in his loynes and consequently in his sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See more of this in the Second Part. cap. 2. Sect. 11 12 13. in whom all have sinned saith Paul Therfore now the ground of that punishment or condemnation which is come upon all men is not the imputation of Adams sinne much lesse of the act of Adams sinne as before we distinguished but if any imputation be in this case it is of every mans owne sinne in Adam for it was not Adam alone that sinned but all sinned in him it is every mans owne sinne that is imputed to him and for which he is punished As Levi himselfe is said to have paied tithes in the loynes of Abraham his Father not that Abraham's paying of tithes was imputed to Levi Heb. 7.9.10 so neither is it to be said that Adams sinne is imputed to his posterity but rather that this posteritie themselves sinned in Adam and it is but every mans own sin not Adams that is imputed to him To make a bare and district imputation of the act of anothers sin the adequate and sole ground and foundation of that heavy judgement and punishment that is layed upon all men in this kind is not so much to represent God to the minds and consciences of men as a district just and severe Judge which with their interpretations may be affirmed of him as to make him so farre to take pleasure or to delight in blood and in the ruine of his creature that he will take occasion even where none is to slay and to destroy with death And of the two doubtlesse it were lesse dishonourable unto God to conceive or say of him in this case that he fell thus heavie in wrath and judgement upon the whole posterity of Adam because he would doe it or because it was his absolute will and pleasure so to doe then to pretend or conceive the bare imputation of the act of Adams sin the cause or reason of it For in the former the absolute power or Soveraigntie of
5.19 But it is no where said that the world was in Christ reconciling it selfe unto God 2. Adam by his sinne brought condemnation upon those who were in his loynes and had a naturall being in him but Christ by his obedience brought salvation unto them that had no such relation to him nor any being or subsistance in him either naturall or spirituall which is by faith but were wholly aliens and strangers from him yea and enemies to him 3. All those that are condemned by Adam had their being in him altogether at one and the same time Caine was not in Adam before Iudas nor Iudas after Caine but amongst those that are saved by Christ there is an order and difference of time in respect of their ingraffing into him some are sooner and some later in him Andronicus and Iunia Pauls Cozens were in Christ before him Rom. 16.7 4. That disobedience of Adam by which he brought condemnation upon the world was active but that obedience by which Christ brings salvation to the world is passive as hath beene already proved and may further appeare by comparing Rom. 5.19 with Phil. 2.8 c. 5. And lastly the whole weight of the Redemption and salvation of the world by Christ depended upon the merit and satisfactorinesse of that obedience of his by which it was procured and not at all upon any relation of those to him or seminall involution or comprehension in him for whom it was procured but the burthen of the condemnation comming by the transgression of Adam depended not onely or not so much upon the demerit or offensivenesse of the transgression but upon the relation of those to him who were condemned by him as having a true naturall and seminall being in him or in his loynes when he transgressed So that though the sin of Adam had bin of an inferior nature and of lesse demerit provocation in the sight of God than it was yet might Adams posteritie justly have bin involv'd in the same condemnation by it wherein now it is but if the obedience or sufferings of Christ had beene of lesse value merit acceptation or satisfaction then they were the redemption and salvation of the world could not have beene carried out or obtained by them Hence the different manner of the Scriptures speaking of the one and of the other SECT 15 is very considerable when it speakes of the Redemption or Iustification by Christ it sometimes useth an expression importing the worth merit or acceptation of Christ in his sufferings as where God is said for Christs sake to have forgiven us our sins as Eph. 4.32 But when it speaketh of the condemnation of the world by Adam it no where saith that God for Adams sake subjected the world to death and condemnation but only thus By one man sinne entred into the world and death by sin Rom. 5.12 And againe through the offence of one many are dead ver 15. Againe By one mans offence death reigned by one ver 17. with many the like still using termes and expressions which doe not necessarily import the sinne of Adam to have beene the meritorious or demeritorious cause though this be not denied but rather the instrumentall and mediating cause simply of this condemnation It is true the vertue and efficacie of the passive obedience of Christ it selfe whereby the salvation of the world is purchased is many times expressed by the fame propositions or particles of speech By and Through as Rom 5.11 By him we have received the attonement c. but there is nothing more frequent in the Scriptures then to speake that sparingly and in generall termes onely in one place which it speaketh fully and with exactnesse in another But when it useth expressions constantly of one and the same line and importance and never riseth higher there can be no ground from the Scriptures of conceiving any thing above or beyond such expressions in any subject as on the other hand when we have expressions that are richer and fuller and more distinct in any place we are not to measure or confine our apprehensions and understandings of things to those that are lower and more generall As in the case in hand the more frequent expressions are that by Christ or through Christ and so by his blood or thorough his blood c. we have Redemption or Remission of sinnes yet must we not from hence conclude that therefore Christ or his blood are barely an instrumentall cause or meanes of Redemption and have nothing of merit in them because these particles by and through usually signifie an instrumentall efficiencie and no more the reason is because the Scripture elsewhere supplieth that which is wanting in such expressions as these and represents to us that speciall and peculiar kinde of efficiencie which we call meritorious in Christ and his sufferings And had it bin simply the demerit or offensivenesse of Adams sin that had brought the judgement or condemnation upon his posterity there can hardly any reason be given why the sin of the Angels that fell should not have brought the like judgement and condemnation upon their whole creation because doubtlesse the sin of these Angels was every whit as demeritorious and full of provocation as the sinne of Adam was And therefore by the way they that use our English Translation onely had neede be admonished SECT 16 that they take the word OFFENCE as the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is five or sixe times translated in that one Chapter Rom. 5. not as commonly it is taken in an active signification or sence as if it were either simply or principally the offensivenesse of Adams sinne to God or the height of the demerit thereof that inclin'd or moved him to bring death and condemnation upon the world for it but rather in a passive which is the sence that the Originall directly leadeth unto i. for a sinfull stumbling as it were or miscarriage not out of envie malice or other sinister end or intention which are the maine aggravations of a sin and raising the offensivenesse of it to the greatest height but out of an inconsideratenesse or incogitancie which though it be no cloake for sinne yet is it a roote of the least bitternesse or provocation from whence it is lightly possible for sinne to spring And doubtlesse to speede this Conclusion as fast as wee can the consideration of that difference betweene the first and second Adam which we have in hand I meane in respect of the great disproportion betweene the demerit of the one and merit of the other is the ground and bottome of that notable and comfortable difference betweene them wherein the Apostle so triumpheth Rom. 5.15 reasoning and raising up himselfe and others after this manner but not as the offence so also is the free gift viz. in respect of an equall efficacie and power in the one to condemne and in the other to justifie and save there is a great difference betweene them in this regard For
Scriptures that are conceived to make against the opinion contended for in this Treatise according to the tenour and importance of the former grounds and distinctions 5. And lastly I shall with like brevitie close the whole businesse by propounding and answering the reasons and Arguments that seeme chiefely to lye against the Doctrine hitherto maintained CAP. II. Some Conclusions laid downe and proved for the further clearing of the Point in Question and for answering sundry of the Objections following HE for whose sinnes a plenary satisfaction hath beene made either by himselfe or another for him Conclusion 1 SECT 1 and hath beene accepted by him against whom the transgression was committed is as just and righteous as he that never sinn'd but had done all things that were requisite and meete for him to doe This is evident because there is as much justice and righteousnesse in repairing the wrongs and injuries done to any as there is in abstaining from doing wrong Hee that by his cattel or otherwise hath made spoile in his neighbours corne and hath given him full satisfaction for the spoyle done to his contentment is as good a neighbour and deales as justly and honestly with him as he that never trespassed in that kind upon him The essence and nature of Justice or righteousnesse in the sense we now speake of is this as the knowne definition gives it Suum cutque tribuere to give to every one his owne i. that which in a way of equity and right is due from us unto them Now when we have injured or damnified any man in any of his rights or things belonging to him there is nothing more due to him from us then that which is his owne i. that which is fully valuable to the injurie we have done unto him Therefore he that tenders a valuable consideration or satisfaction for an injurie done to another is just according to the height and utmost exigencie of justice and consequently as just as he that never was injurious or did wrong There is no medium or middle condition or standing beteewne a perfect absolution and freedome from all sinne and a perfect and compleate righteousnesse Conclu 2 SECT 2 but hee that is fully discharged and freed from sinne ipso facto is made perfectly and compleately righteous See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 34. And Mr. Bradshaw Iustisi p. 78. c. The reason of this is evident nothing can any way diminish or prejudice the perfection of righteousnesse but only sin as nothing can hinder perfection of light but darkenesse in one degree or other or perfection of sight but blindnes in some degree or other So that as the aire when it is free from all degrees of darkenesse must of necessitie be perfectly and fully light and a man that is in no measure or degree blinde must needs be perfectly sighted so he that is perfectly freed from all sinne whatsoever must of necessitie be compleately and perfectly righteous withall It is unpossible to conceive a man defective in any part or point of righteousnesse and yet withall to conceive him free from all sinne sinne and righteousnesse being in subjecto capaci contraria immediata as Logicians speak The Scriptures themselves stil make an immediate opposition between the two Natures or Conditions we speake of Sinne and righteousnesse never acknowledging or so much mentioning a-any third between them As by one mansdisobedience saith Paul many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous To findout a third estate betweene sina nd righteousnesse we must find out a third Adam from whom it should be derived An estate of neutrality here is such an estate or condition as the man in the Moone enjoyeth Adam Conclusion 3 SECT 3 See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 28. whilst his innocencie stood with him and till his fall by sinne was compleately righteous and an estate of justification before God yea for the truth and substance of righteousnesse as righteous as he could or should have beene if he had liv'd to this day in the most entire and absolute obedience to the Law His righteousnesse by this meanes had beene of a longer continuance but not of any greater perfection or truth Even as the second Adam the Lord Christ himselfe was as compleately and perfectly righteous from the wombe and so from his first entrance upon his publique ministery as he was at last when he suffered death And had there beene any defect or want of righteousnesse in Christ at any time from his conception to his death it must needs have beene sinfull all absence of righteousnesse necessarily including a presence of sinne as the absence of light a presence of darkenesse answerable thereunto and consequently the great worke of the salvation of the world had miscarried in his hand To say that Adam was not perfectly righteous and consequently in a justified estate or condition before God untill his fall by sin is to place him in an estate of condemnation before his sinne there being no middle or third estate betweene these two Justification and Condemnation as the Scriptures evidently imply in many passages as Rom. 5.18 Deut. 25.1 Rom. 33.34 c. in all which places with some others you shall finde an immediate opposition betweene them But especially this appeareth from Rom. 8.1.2 compared with verse 3. and 4. where you will finde Justification described by non-condemnation or freedome from the Law of sinne and death if there were a third estate or condition betweene justification and condemnation non-condemnation would not so much as necessarily imply justification much lesse be used as a clause or terme equivolant thereunto Therefore to grant that forgivenesse of sinne puts a man into the same estate and condition wherein Adam stood before his fall which is generally granted by men of opposite judgement in this controversie and nothing granted neither in this but the unqeustionable truth is to grant the Point in question and to acknowledge the truth laboured for throughout this whole Discourse Perfect remission or forgivenesse of sinnes includes the imputation or acknowledgement of the observation of the whole Law Conclu 4 SECT 4 See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 27.28 Omnia mandata factadeputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur Aug. Retra l. 1. c. 19. even as the imputation of the Law fulfilled necessarily includes the non-imputation of sinne or the forgivenesse of all sinne in case any hath beene committed For how can he be said to have all his sinnes fully forgiven who is yet look'd upon or intended to be dealt withall as one that hath transgressed either by way of omission or commission any part of the Law and he that is look'd upon as one that never transgressed any part of the Law neither by omission nor commission must needs be conceived or look'd upon as one that hath fulfilled and kept the whole Law which is nothing else but to have a perfect righteousnesse or which
is the same a perfect fulfilling of the Law imputed to him So that besides that perfect remission of sinnes which hath beene purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ for those that beleeve there is no neede of indeede no place for the imputation of any righteousnesse performed by Christ unto the Law because in that very act of remission of sinnes there is included an imputation of a perfect righteousnesse or to speake more properly and with Scripture exactnesse that act of God whereby he remitteth and pardoneth sinne is interpretatively nothing else but an impuattion of a perfect righteousnesse or of a fulfilling of the Law Compare Rom. 4. ver 6. with ver 7. and 11. Even as that act of the Physition by which he recovereth his patient from his sicknesse may with full proprietie of speech be called that act whereby he restoreth him to his health this expression were but a plaine interpretation of the other and no more nor any thing else in substance but it And so that Act by which the Sunne dispells the darkenesse may indifferently be called that act by which hee fills the Aire with light And as the Physitian doth not heale the disease by one act and recover or restore health by another act really differing from it but doth both by one and the same act healing the disease and restoring of health being but two differing names or considerations of one and the same thing In like manner God doth not heale sinne that is forgive sinne by one act and restore the life of righteousnesse that is impute righteousnesse by another act at all differing from it but in and by one and the same punctuall and precise act hee doth the one and the other forgivenesse of sinnes and imputation of righteousnesse being but two different names expressions or considerations of one and the same thing And as it is but one and the same person that is sometimes called Iesus and sometimes Christ and the person Iesus is sometimes called by the name of Christ to import and signifie that he is an annointed one and againe the person Christ is sometimes called by the name Iesus to signifie that he is a Saviour even so one and the same act of God is sometimes called forgivenesse of sinnes and sometimes an imputing of righteousnesse and the forgivenesse of sinnes is sometimes called an imputing of righteousnesse to shew and signifie that a man needs nothing to a compleate righteousnesse or justification but the forgivenesse of his sinnes and againe the imputing of righteousnesse is sometimes called the forgivenesse of sinnes to shew that God hath no other righteousnesse to conferre upon a sinner but that which stands in forgivenesse of sinnes So that these two termes or expressions imputing righteousnesse and forgiving sinne do but aide and assist one the other towards a full explication of the nature and importance of that act of God which sometimes goeth under the one name and sometimes under the other If it be here demanded SECT 5 but how can God be said to impute a righteousnesse to a man which never was nor ever had a being no righteousnesse at least of that kinde whereof we now speake having ever beene but that perfect obedience which Christ performed to the Law I answer 1. That there is as expresse and compleate a righteousnesse in the Law as ever Christ himselfe performed yea a righteousnesse more proper and appropriable to all sorts and conditions of men than that personall righteousnesse which Christ himselfe performed as was shewed at large in the former part of this Treatise And what if it be said that God in remission of sins through Christ from and out of the Law imputeth to every man that beleeveth such a righteousnesse as is proper to him This I am certaine is a thousand times more agreeable both to reason and to the Scriptures then to hold an imputation of such a righteousnesse that is of such a systeme and frame of actions which were indeed a righteousnesse to him that wrought them the Law requiring them of him but can be a righteousnesse to none other person whatsoever the Law requiring the same acts for no man is therefore just or righteous because he doth the things which the Law simply requireth but because he doth those things which the Law requireth of him in reverence to his personall condition calling and relations in every kinde A man may be as wicked and sinfull by doing that which the Law requireth of another man as by doing that which the Law prohibiteth unto all men But of this enough already But 2. To the Objection propounded I answer further that to say God cannot impute a righteousnesse which never had a being i. which never was really and actuually performed by any man is to deny that he hath power to forgive sinnes Because for givenesse of sinne is an imputation of righteousnesse as hath beene proved yea and of such a righteousnesse which as the Scripture teacheth us is without workes Rom. 4 6. Rom. 3.28 c. i. a righteousnesse not consisting or made up of any workes performed to the Law by any man and what is this but such a righteousnesse as never had a being Conclusi 5 Hee that is fully acquitted and discharged from his sinnes SECT 6 needeth no other righteousnesse to give him a right or title unto life See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 27.34 c. The Reason of this is evident also Death is the wages of sin and of sin only being due to no creature in any other respect nor upon any other terme whatsoever and therefore cannot in a way of ordinary justice be inflicted by God upon any creature but for sin Now he that is free from death and no wayes obnoxious thereunto See Mr. Bradshaw Iustific p. 79. cannot but be conceived to have a right unto life there being neither any middle condition betweene death and life wherein it is possible for a reasonable creature to subsist nor againe any capacity of life but by some right and title thereunto Adam whilst his innocency and he stood together and whilst he was free from sinne had a right and title unto life yea and had the possession and fruition of it given unto him for how could he be threatned with death Gen. 2.17 who was not actually possessed of life though he had not yet performed the Law either by himselfe or any other for him in any such sence as is contended for by some as of absolute necessitie to give a right and title unto life and if he had not a right unto life by his freedome from sinne but was to purchase this right by an actuall fulfilling of the Law it would be known what quantities of obedience to the Law hee must have paid before he had made this purchase and how long he must have obeyed and kept the Law before this right and title unto life would have accru'd unto him For had he lived a 1000.
of that shrubbe that is apt to beare it in Summer the naturall season for such births Thus Levie as we heard is said to have beene i. to have had a being in the loynes of Abraham And this all mankinde even Adams whole posterity had a being and subsistence in Adam Now there are none of these kinds of beings and subsistences of things but have their acts and operations proportionable and proper to them the perfecter being the perfecter and lesse dependent operation Things that have an actuall and compleate being out of their causes act and worke of themselves their causes that produced them as such having no communion or fellowship with them in their actions Things that have their beings onely in their causes act and operate in and by and with these onely as having their whole dependence on them and subsistence in them yet are these acts and operations of things in their causes onely as truely theirs though not as perfectly and compleately theirs as they are the causes themselves in and by whom they were performed Thus Levie did as truely pay tythes in Abraham as Abraham himselfe did in whom he paied them otherwise wee make the Scripture lesse true in affirming the one then the other So that act of eating the forbidden fruit by Adam was as truely the act of all his posterity as his owne though not so compleately and perfectly theirs as his hee having no dependance on them or subsistence in any of them therein but they all depending on him as one in and by whom God had given them all their beings and having their subsistence in him as the naturall productive roote of all their actuall compleate beings a The Fathers generally have taught this inexistence or being of all men in Adam Fuit Adam in illo perierunt omnes Amb. in Luc. lib. 7. Adam erat nos omnes omnes eramus ille unus Adam Certum manifestumque est alia esse propria cuique peccata in quibus hi tantum peccant quorum peccata sunt aliud hoc unum in quo omnes peccaverunt quando omnes ille unus homo suerunt Aug. de Peccat Merit Remis l. 1. c. 10. In Adamo omnes peccavimus ib. c. 13. Si parvuli quod vera fides habet nasiuntur peccatoreâ— profecto eo modo quo sunt peccatores etiam pravaticatores legis illius quae in Paradise lata est agnoscuntur Aug. de Civi l. 16. c. 27. Qui non fuerit regeneratus interibit anima illa de genere ejus quia testamentum meum dissipavit quando in Adam cum omnibus etiam ipse peccavit ib. There being then a certaine and unquestionable truth in this that Adams sinne was the sinne of his posteritie as well as of his person this the Scripture affirmeth and holdeth forth unto us as one maine ground and consideration why and how the world comes to be involved in the guilt and punishment of Adams transgression 2. Adams sinne comes to relate or to have reference to his posteritie in matter of pollution and defilement and consequently of guilt and punishment by naturall descent and propagation from him Adams person the fountaine and spring-head of all his posteritie being corrupted and poysoned with him except God should have wrought miraculously and above the course of nature either by a through purging of the fountaine before any streame issued from it or by dissevering and untwisting as it were the poyson from the waters in the very point and moment of their issue and source neither of which he was any wayes bound to doe could not but send forth streames of like corruption and defilement with the fountaine it selfe This the Scripture plainely teacheth in many places Who can bring a cleane thing out of an uncleane not one Iob 14.4 God himselfe by his ordinary power cannot doe it So our Saviour Ioh. 3.6 That which is borne of the flesh corrupted and weakened by sinne is by the course of nature whereunto God himselfe hath righteously consented flesh i. a creature or thing of the same sinfull and weake nature and condition with it And to forbeare other texts of like importance this way the Apostle Rom. 5.19 expresly affirmeth that by the disobedience of one meaning Adam many were made sinners not by the imputation of the Act of his sinne to them this is neither Sunne nor Moone neither Scripture nor good Reason but by corrupting and defiling his owne person by reason whereof all that are borne of him in a way of naturall dissent and propagation must needs be borne sinners 3. And lastly death and condemnation are justly come upon the world no so much to speake properly and with the Scriptures for Adams transgression as by Adams transgression partly as this transgression of his was the sinne and transgression of the world as hath beene already said and proved partly as by meanes of this sin the world I meane all the sonnes and daughters of men that are borne into it are become personally and so compleately sinfull In this sence it is said that by the offence of one death reigned viz. over all by one Rom. 5.17 and so that death passed over all in that all had sinned ver 12. And againe that judgement came by one unto condemnation ver 16. And that all men by nature are children of wrath c. Ephes 23. If men can find any propriety in the word Imputation to signifie any of these three Considerations let the sinne of Adam be said to be imputed to his posterity I shall no wayes contradict it but for any such imputation as is pretended and pressed by many by which men should be constituted and made formally sinners before God and the sinne no wayes looked upon as theirs but onely by meanes of such imputation I neither finde the Scriptures affirming nor am otherwise able to comprehend Though justification and salvation came unto the world by Christ the second Adam Concusi 10 sect 14 as condemnation and death came by the first Adam yet are there many different considerations and circumstances betweene the comming and bringing in of salvation by the one and of condemnation by the other The Apostle himselfe gives instance in two particulars wherein they differ greatly Rom. 5.15.16 And besides these there are many others As first the sinne of Adam by which he brought condemnation upon the world was as well the act of all his posteritie as his owne in which respect they may as truely be said to have brought condemnation upon themselves as Adam but that obedience by which Christ brought salvation into the world can with no propriety of speech nor with any consistence of truth be said to have beene theirs or performed by them who are saved by it so that these cannot now be said with any more truth to have saved themselves then if they had not beene saved at all It is said indeede that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himselfe 2 Cor.
fundamentall yet do they dispose more or lesse unto apostacie and absolute unbeliefe so on the other hand a cleere and sound and comprehensive understanding of any one cariage or passage of the Gospell according to the Scriptures contributes much towards the setling and establishing of the heart and soule in a firme beliefe and confidence of the whole The truth is that the body and frame of the Gospell is so compacted so neerly related in the severall parts and passages of it one thing looking with that favourable and full aspect upon another all things set in that methodicall order of a rationall connexion and consequentiall dependance one upon another that if a man be master in his judgment of any one passage thereof he may by the light and inclination hereof rectifie his thoughts otherwise and worke himselfe on to a cleere discerning and upright understanding of other things Therefore a thorough and full explication of any one point of the Gospell is of precious consequence and use But Sixtly the weightinesse and high importance of the subject of the discourse pleads the usefulnesse and concernment of it with an high hand For what can be of a more rich and solemne concernment to a man then cleerely to see and fully and satisfyingly to understand from the Scriptures how and by what meanes and upon what termes he either is or is to be Justifyed in the sight of God Doubtlesse the prospect of the promised Land from Mount Nebo was not more satisfactory and pleasing unto Moses then a cleere beholding of the Counsell and good pleasure of God touching the justification of a sinner is to the soule and conscience of him that either hopes or desires to be justified Therefore to search and inquire into this with all possible exactnesse cannot seeme needlesse to any man that savours never so little the things of his own peace Add we Seventhly in further prosecution of the same plea that there is no veyne in all the body of the Gospell no point whatsoever in Christian Religion more tender and wherin the least variation from the truth and mind of GOD may endanger the soule then this of Justification An haires breadth of mistake in this is more to be feared then a broad error in other points The truth is that if a man be of a sound and cleere judgement in the Doctrine of Justification and shall so continue he may finde a way into life through the midst of many errors and mistakes in other Articles and arguments of Christian Religion but if he stumbles or enterfires with the counsell of God about his justification he is in danger of perishing for ever neither will the cleerest knowledge of all other mysteries relieve him Behold I Paul say unto you that if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing Gal. 5.2 A small addition we see to the Counsell of God for our justification may cause our part to be taken away out of the Booke of life If an error in other points of Religion as about election reprobation freewill discipline or the like be to be redeemed with thousands doubtlesse an error in justification is to be redeemed with thousands of thousands In so much that all possible exactnesse and diligence in pensiculation of Scriptures and reasons and arguments to lay this corner stone aright in the building of our Faith may rather seeme negligence and loosenesse then any impertinencie or superfluitie of labour And though I have no commission from Heaven to judge that opinion touching the imputation of Christs active obedience which I oppose in the ensuing Treatise to be inconsistent with the favour of God and acceptation unto life and salvation yet in the bowells of Iesus Christ I humbly and heartily and seriously beseech all those that build their comfort and peace upon that foundation seriously to consider and lay to heart these 4 things which I shall very briefly mention desiring their respective inlargments rather in the soules and consciences of those whom they so neerly concerne First that the bridg of Justification by which men must passe and be conveyed over from death unto life is very narrow as hath in effect bin said already so that an heedlesse or carelesse step may be the miscariage and losse of the precious soule for ever Secondly that to promise our selves justification and life in any other way or upon any other termes then upon the expresse word and will of God revealed is to build upon a sandy foundation and may and ought to be abhorred and trembled at by us as the first-borne of presumptions Thirdly and with neerer relation to the great businesse in hand that to seeke justification by the Law is by the determination and sentence of Scripture it selfe no lesse then an abolishing from Christ or a rendring of Christ of none effect to salvation Christ is become of none effect unto you saith Paul whosoever of you are justified by the Law that is that seek or promise unto your selves justification by the works of the Law Gal. 5.4 Fourthly and lastly that that distinction which you commonly make between the Law or workes of the Law as performed by your selves and as performed by another meaning CHRIST to salve the danger as you conceive of your being justified by the Law is but a devise of humane wisdome at the best and no where warranted much lesse necessitated unto in the Scriptures and consequently must needs be a dangerous principle or notion to hazard the everlasting estate and condition of your soules upon I have in the Discourse it selfe and that more then once demonstrated the insufficiencie and danger of this Distinction and withall shewed that the Scriptures doe no where ascribe the Justification of a sinner to the works of the Law no not as performed by Christ himselfe but only unto his death and sufferings Therefore I content my selfe heere only to mention it Eightly and lastly the usefulnesse of the Discourse will abundantly appeare in this The opening and through Discussion of that great and noble Question therein handled concerning the Active and Passive obedience of Christ in Justification hath an influence into many other great and master veynes and passages of the Gospell and tends much to the rectifying and cleering of our judgements in these The difference betweene the two Covenants the communication of Adams sinne to his Posteritie and the equity of Gods proceedings in making the world subject unto death and condemnation thereby the consideration in Faith which makes it justifying the non imputability of the works of the Law to the non-performers of them the necessitie of Christs death the righteousnesse whereby we stand formally just before God with many other particulars of sweet and precious consideration will receive much light and cleering and confirmation hereby So that to charge the Treatise with fruitlesnesse or impertinencie is an accusation framed by the same line of equitie and truth whereby Joseph was accused of incontinencie by his
to 68. CAP. 4. The non-imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense ruling in this Controversie argued from Rom. 3.21 The argument made good against an objection From p. 69. to 72. CAP. 5. The said non-imputation further prooved and established from Rom. 5.16.17 compâ—â—ed together with an objection answered The sufficiencie of the Answere attested by Galvin Musoulus Luther Melancthon Beza Zanchie Fox and Chamier From p. 73. to p. 83. CAP. 6. A further proofe for the imputation of Faith in the sense explained against the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense refused from Philip. 3.9 From p. 84. to 88. CAP. 7. Further proofes for the imputation of Faith as aforesaid from such Scriptures wherein Justification is ascribed unto Faith as Rom. 3.18 Rom. 1.5 c. with 4 objections against the cariage of these Scriptures answered From p. 88. to 92. CAP. 8. The Non-imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense first rejected cleerely argued and prooved from Gal. 3.12 being the last of our Scripture proofes From p. 93 to 98. CAP. 9. The Jmputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense challenged disproved from the incompetiblenesse of it to many if not to all beleevers without exception in respect of many particulars wanting in it which must be found in a Law-righteousnesse appropriable unto them Two objections against this argument answered From p. 98 to p. 106. CAP. 10. A second argument against the said Imputation drawne from the precise and exact proportion and fitnesse of that righteousnesse for the person of Christ alone as being the only Mediator between God and men with two objections answered From p. 107 to 117. CAP. 11. A third ground against the said Imputatison viz. the non-necessitie of it with an objection anwered the answere pleading for intirenesse of justification in remission of sinnes alone absolutely consemans with the judgement of Calvin (a) That Calvin placed Iustification simply and absolutely and not comparatively in Remission of sinnes alone see fully proved part 2. c. 7. Sect. 15. p. 213.214 of this Discourse relieved by Parâ—us in some passages which Bellarmine and some others would wrest to a contrary interpretation From p. 118. to 135. CAP. 12. A fourth demonstration against the saia Imputation viz. the dissolving or frustration of the Evangelicall Grace of Adoption with an objection Answered From p. 136. to p. 144. CAP. 13. The fift and sixt grounds against the said Imputation The former the taking away the necessitie of Repentance the latter the necessitie of Christs death with two objections against the former and as many against the latter Answered From p. 145. to 150. CAP. 14. A seaventh ground against the said Imputation viz. the taking away for givenesse of sinnes with an objection answered From p. 151. to 153. CAP. 15. Enforcing an eight Reason against the Imputation questioned viz. a manifest compliance with that dangerous error that God seeth no sinne in his people From p. 153. to 155. CAP. 16. A ninth Demonstration against the pretended Imputation viz. the confounding of the two Covenants with two objections propounded and answered From p. 154. to 157. CAP. 17. Three Arguments more managed against the already-impugned Imputation all of them drawn from the meritoriousnesse of that righteousnesse according to the professed tenets of those against whom we argue which is said to be imputed From p. 158. to 164. CAP. 18. Three further Reasons against the opinion prerejected with an objection propounded against the last of them and Answered The first drawne from the unsoundnesse of this assertion that Beleevers wrought righteousnesse in Christ The second from the non-imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in the letter and formalitie of it The last from the non-intermedling of the Ceremoniall Law with Iustification From p. 165. to 169. CAP. 19. Five further Demonstrations of the conclusion undertaken for The first drawne from the non-imputation of our sinnes to Christ in the letter or formalitie of them The second from the uncleannesse of this saying that God should looke upon us as worthy of that Iustification which we receive from him The third from the erroneousnesse of this that men are made formally sinfull by Gods act of imputing Adams sinne The fourth from the absurdity of this that there is a double formall cause of Iustification The last from the evidence of this truth that there is no necessitie of bringing in this imputation either in respect of the justice or mercy of God or for the salving or advancement of any other Attribute From p. 170. to 179. CAP. 20. Foure Reasons more to streng then the Conclusions taken into protection The first drawne from the insufficiencie of a Law righteousnesse to justifie those that have once sinn'd though personally performed The second from the non-obligation of any man to keeps the Law for his justification The third from Gods requiring only Faith of men to their justification with two objections answered The last from the imputation of Faith made unto Abraham From p. 180 to 187. CAP. 21. The last Reason propounded against the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse drawn from the Non-imputabilitie of the Law or the righteousnesse thereof with an objection answered and some things considered about the Imputation of Adams sinne Of the Second PART CAP. 1. THe method and contents of the Second Part of the Discourse p. 1 2. CAP. 2. Fourteene Conclusions laid down and prooved to give further light into the Controversie depending and to repare a way for answering the remaining objections The first is this Hee for whose sinnes a plenary satisfaction hath bin made is as just and righteous as he that never sinn'd p. 3. 2. There is no medium or middle condition between absolution from all sinne and a perfect and compleate righteousnesse p. 3.4 3 Adam till his fall by sinne was compleatly righteous and in an estate of Iustification before God p. 4.5 4. Perfect remission or forgivenesse of sinnes includes the imputation or acknowledgment of the observation of the whole Law p. 5.6.7.8 5. He that is fully acquitted and discharged of his sinnes needeth no other righteousnesse to give him a right or title unto life p. 8 9. 6 That satisfaction which Christ made for sinne and whereby he procured remission of sinnes for those that beleeve consists only in that obedience of his which is commonly called Passive and not in that subjection which he exhibited to that common Law of nature which we call Morall p. 9.10 7 If Christ had kept the Law for us that is in our stead during his life so that we might be counted perfectly righteous by the imputation thereof unto us there had bin no occasion or necessitie of his dying for us p. 10.11 8. That union and communion which Beleevers have with Christ doth no waies require or suppose any such imputation of his righteousnesse unto them as is conceived p. 11 12 13. 9. No other imputation of Adams sinne to his posteritie can be proved
either by Scripture or sound reason then that which stands either in a communion of his posteritie with him therein or in the propagation of his nature defiled therewith unto them or in that punishment and condemnation which is come upon them by it p. 13 14 15 16. 10. Though Iustification and salvation came unto the world by Christ the second Adam as condemnation and death came by the first yet there are many different considerations betweene the coming and bringing in of salvation by the one and of condemnation by the other p. 16 17 18 19 20 21. 11. That which makes true Faith instrumentall in Iustification is nothing that is essentiall or naturall to it whether descent property or act but somewhat that is extrinsecall and purely adventitious as viz. the force and efficacie of the will good pleasure ordination and covenant of God in that behalfe p. 21 22 23 24 25 26. 12. It hath no foundation either in Scripture or reason to say that Christ by any imputation of sinne was made formally a sinner p. 26. 13. Faith doth not only if at all declare a man to be righteous or in a justified estate but is the very meanes by which Iustification or righteousnesse it obtained p. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33. 14. The sentence or curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death but this death of Christ was a ground or consideration unto God whereupon to dispense with his Law and to let fall or suspend the execution of the penaltie or curse therein threatned as concerning those that beleeve p. 33 34 35 36. CAP. 3. Seven Distinctions propounded and explained necessary for the further understanding of the businesse in question and the cleering of many difficulties incident to it As 1. Iustification is taken in a double sense either actively or passively p. 37 38 39. 2. Iustice or righteousnesse is sometimes in Scripture attributed to God and sometimes to men and in both relations hath a great diversitie and varietie of acceptions p. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45. 3. The righteousnesse or obedience of Christ is twâ—fold or of two kindes the one by Divines called Justitia personae the righteousnesse of his person the other Justitia meriti the righteousnesse of his merit 45 46 47 48 49 50. 4. The terme of Imputing or imputation will admit of nine severall acceptions or significations p. 51 52 53 54 55 56. 5. Obedience unto the morall Law may be said to be required of men in two respects either 1º by way of justification or 2º by way of sanctification p. 57 58. 6. Christ may be said to have kept the Law in reference to our justification two waies either 1º for us or 2º in our stead p. 58. 7. The justification of a sinner though it be but one and the same entire effect yet may it be ascribed unto many and those very different causes respectively according to their severall influences and differing manner of concurrence thereunto p. 59 60. CAP. 4. A delineation or survey of the intire body of Iustification in the severall causes of it according to the tenor of the Conclusions and distinctions laid downe in the two former Chapters P. 61. wherein I. are premised 4 generall rules touching the number nature and propertie of causes in the generall p. 62 63 64 65. 2. Some more particular and speciall kinds of causes comprehended under the 4 generall heads are mentioned and explained p. 65 to p. 77. 3. The causes of Iustification are inquired into As 1. The efficient causes thereof From p. 77 to 84. 2. The finall causes thereof p. 84 85. 3. The materiall cause therof from p. 85 to p. 90. 4. The formall cause thereof from p. 90 to 121. 4. A Description of Iustification raised from the former discussions in the Chapter p. 121. CAP. 5. Scriptures alledged for the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse or active obedience in Justification cleered and answered and the true sense and interpretation of them respectively established according to the judgement of the best Expositors A reason given by the way of mens confidence and impatiencie of contradiction in respect of some opinions above others p. 122 123. The Scriptures urged and answered are 1. From the Old Testament Psal 32 1 2 answered p. 124 125 126. Jer. 23 6 and 33 16. answered p. 127 128. Esa 45.24 answered p. 129 130. Esa 61 10. answered p. 130. to p. 136. where by the way 3 other Scriptures also are opened and cleered as viz. Revâ—â— 19 7 8 p. 134 and Rom. 13 14 with Gal. 3 27 p. 136. 2. From the New Testament As Rom. 3 21 answered p. 136 137. Rom. 3 31 answered p. 137 138 139. Rom. 4 6. answered p. 140 141. Rom. 5 19 answered p. 142. to 145. Rom. 8 4 answered p. 145 to p. 152. Rom. 9 31 32 answered p. 153 to 157. Rom. 10 4 answered p. 157 to 162. 1 Cor. 1 30. answered p. 162 163 164. 2 Cor. 5 21 answered p. 165 to 168. Gal. 3 10 answered p. 168. to 173. CAP 6 Six Arguments against the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse propounded and answered As 1. That such an Imputation impeacheth the truth or justice of God answered p. 175 176 177. 2. That this Imputation maketh Iustification to be by workes answered p. 178 179. 3. That such an Imputation is inconsistent with the free grace of God in Iustification answered p. 179 180 4. That this Imputation ministreth occasion of boasting unto the flesh answered p. 180 181 18â— 183. 5. That such an Jmputation supposeth Justification by somewhat that is imperfect answered p. 183 184 185. 6. That such an Imputation implieth that God should rather receive a righteousnesse from us then we from him in our Iustification answered p. 185 186. The opinion opposed in this Discourse of much more affinity with the master-veyne of Socinian Heresie and that by the verdicts of Pareus Piscator and Mr. Gataker then the opinion maintained in it p. 187 188 189. CAP. 7. The chiefe grounds and Arguments for the Imputation of Christs Active obedience in the sense hitherto opposed proposed and answered As 1. That there is no standing in judgement before God without the imputation of this righteousnesse answered p. 192 193. 2. That justification cannot be by the righteousnesse of another except this imputation be supposed answered p. 194 195. 3. That a true and reall Communion betweene Christ and those that beleeve in him cannot stand except this Imputation be granted answered p. 195 196. 4. That there can be no other reason or necessitie assign'd why Christ should fulfill the Law but only this imputation answered from p. 196 to 207. 5. That we are debtors unto the Law not only in matter of punishment for our transgression but in perfection of obedience also answered p. 208 209 210. 6. That there can be no justification without a perfect righteousnesse nor any such righteousnesse but the righteousnesse
the man faith the Law that continueth not in all things c. Therefore a man that hath not been alwaâ—es righteous can never be made righteous by the righteousnesse of the Law imputed or not imputed or howsoever it may be conceived to come upon him Thirdly and lastly I answere if a mans sins be once forgiven him he hath no need of any imputation of any further righteousnesse for his Iustification because forgivenesse of sins reacheth home and amounteth unto a full Iustification with GOD. This is plaine from the words mentioned Rom. 5 16. The guift saith Paul that is the guift of righteousnesse as it is explained in the next verse is of many offences unto Iustification that is when God hath given men their offences or debts or forgiven them for to give a debt or forgive it is all one he hath fully justified them For that righteousnesse which God is said to impute unto men through Faith is nothing else being interpreted but the forgivenesse of sins or the acquiting of them from that death and condemnation which are due unto them And this is all the Iustification the Scripture knowes or speaks of the forgivenesse of our sins or acquitting from condemnation the genuine and proper signification of which word misapprehended hath been a maine occasion of leading many out of the way of Truth in this point A man may in a manner as plainely discerne where mens feet have faild them here as sometimes where a Horse foot hath slip'd upon an ice For reading in Scriptures of the justification of sinners or of men being made just or righteous by Christ they have conceived that such a thing cannot be but by a positive and formall Law righteousnesse somewaies put upon them and there being no such righteousnesse indeed any where to be found but only the righteousnesse of Christ hence they have apprehended that this justification must needs be by this righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto them whereas that righteousnesse which we have by Christ and wherewith we are said to be justified before God by beleeving is only a negative righteousnesse not a positive it is nothing else but a non-imputation of sin which I therefore call a righteousnesse by accompt or interpretation as having the privileges but not the nature and substance of a perfect legall righteousnesse The Scripture shines with as much cleernesse and evidence of this truth SECT 3 as the Sun doth with light when he riseth in his might Rom. 4 6. compared with ver 7 8. Even as David declareth the blessednesse of the man unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works A righteousnesse without works must needs be a negative or privative righteousnesse as is fully expressed in the following verses Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes not sinne You see the imputation of righteousnesse ver 6. is here interpreted to be nothing else but a not imputing of sin And so Calvin upon Rom. 3 21. calls this a definition of the righteousnesse of Faith Beati quorum remissa sunt iniquitates that is Blessed are they whose sinnes are forgiven And not long after Paulus tradit Deum homines iustificare peccata non imputando that is Paul teacheth that God justifieth men by not imputing their sins The like description of this righteousnesse you have 2 Cor. 5. that which ver 19. he calls in God the not-imputing of our sins unto us he calls in us ver 21. a being made the righteousnesse of God in him But most plainely Act. 13.38 39. Be it knowne unto you saith Paul to the Jewes that through this man CHRIST is preached unto you forgivenesse of sins which forgivenesse of sins he immediatly calls their Iustification And by him all that beleeve are iustified from all things from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Moses You see how he expresseth the nature of this Iustification we have by Christ viz. by the way of negative or privative righteousnesse as was said not a positive All that beleeve are iustified from all things that is all sins from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses So that that Iustification which we have by Christ in the Gospel is not a Iustification with righteousnesse properly so called but a Iustification from sinne and from the guilt of sinne and condemnation due to it when Christ said to men and women in the Gospel Thy sins are forgiven thee then he justified them the forgivenesse of their sins was their Iustification This is the most usuall and proper signification of the word Iustifie both in Scriptures SECT 4 and other Authors but in the Scriptures especially not to signifie the giving or bestowing of a complete positive righteousnesse but only an acquitting or discharging and setting a man free from the guilt and penaltie due unto such things as were laied to his charge In the Scripture it is usually opposed to condemning or condemnation He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just both these are abhomination unto the Lord. Prov. 17 15. What is here mâ—ant by justifying the wicked not making them righ eous and just men by putting a morall righteousnesse upon them he that can make a wicked man righteous or just so shall be so far from being an abhomination to the Lord that hee shall shine as the starres in the Firmament for ever and ever Dan. 12.3 Therefore by justifying the wicked in this place can be nothing else meant but the making of them just in the rights and privileges of just men which are freedome from censure punishment and condemnation as appeares by the opposition in the other member of the clause and condemneth the righteous So that by justifying the wicked is nothing else meant but the not-condemning him So Rom. 8 33 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen it is God that justifyeth who shall condemne c. Where you see againe the opposition betweene being justified and condemned See likewise Rom. 5.9 Therefore by justifying is nothing else meant but acquiting from condemnation and so to be justified and to live that is to be freed from death and condemnation are made equivalent or equipollent the one to the other Gal. 3.11 And that no man is justified by the works of the Law it is evident for the iust shal live by Faith that is shal be justified by Faith for otherwise there is no strength in the argument So againe ver 21. If there had bin a Law which could have given life that is could have justified men surely righteousnesse or Iustification should have been by the Law By his knowledge faith Esay c. 53.11 shall my righteous servant iustify many for he shall beare their iniquities that â—s by bearing the punishment or condemnation due unto their sinnes he shall deliver them from punishment This opposition we speake of betweene justification and condemnation is cleere in other Scriptures as Mat
This kind of proposition is frequent in Scripture I am the resurrection saith Christ Ioh. 11.25 The meaning is not that he was properly and formally the resurrection but that he was the cause meanes or Author of the resurrection So Paul saying that Christ is our hope meaneth only that CHRIST is the ground or Author of our hope 1 Tim. 1.1 In like manner when he saith Love is the fulfilling of the Law his meaning only is that a spirituall and unfeigned affection of love is an inward principle of that nature and importance which inclineth and disposeth a man to the performance and practise of all manner of duties required in the Law Therefore to say that the Love of Christ is imputed to men for their fu filling of the Law or for their righteousnesse is ridiculous More might be added by way of answere but the strength of the Objection is small Another thing that happily some will object against the argument propounded is this SECT 4 It is not necessary that men should have all particular acts of righteousnesse qualified with all circumstances answerable to their Callings imputed unto them for their justification It is sufficient if they have a righteousnesse imputed to them which is equivalent to such a righteousnesse To this I Answere two things First they which speake such things doe not consider the severity of the letter the strict and peremptory nature of the Law The Law will not know any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any thing by way of proportion or equivalencie one thing as good as another will not serve the turne The Law must have jot for jot title for title point for point letter for letter every thing to answere in the most exact conformity to it otherwise it hath a curse in a readinesse wherewith to take vengeance on men no life or reward Secondly to impute acts of righteousnesse to a man which are proper to another Calling and wholly disagreeing from that Calling wherein God hath placed him is rather to impute sinne unto him then righteousnesse Because though such acts were righteousnesse to him that wrought them yet if I being in a different Calling should be accounted by God to have done them which is the Law of imputation I must be judged by him as one that had transgressed the bounds of my Calling consequently had sinned Neither is that reason of any value which some alledg SECT 5 to countenance an equivalencie of righteousnesse in this kind instead of a proprietie viz. that God was not punctuall and every waies circumstantiall in inslicting the Curse of the Law upon the transgression of it because they suppose that by those words wherein the Curse of the Law is expressed Thou shalt die the death Gods meaning was that he should die an eternall death literally and not by way of equivalencie Therefore God having notwithstanding inflicted this Curse by way of equivalencie and not in the letter of it why may he not impute a legall righteousnesse unto men that hath only an equivalencie with that righteousnesse which they should have performed though not an exactnesse with it according to the letter For to this I answere First that the very foundation that is layed to build this objection upon is sandy and hath nothing either in Scripture or sound reason to bottome it From the Scriptures nothing that I have read is so much as pretended that way viz that God in those words Thou shalt die the death must of necessity precisely and determinatly meane eternall death according to the letter And by what fire such a spirit as this is will be extracted or drawne out of that body of those words I doe not yet understand If we judge of his intent and meaning in those words by the event of things or manner of execution they were meant determinatly neither of eternall death according to the letter nor yet of an eternall death by way of equivalencie but indifferently of either because it was an eternall death only by way of equivalencie that was inflicted upon Christ for one part of Adam or his posterity but upon the other part which perish it is inflicted according to the letter Secondly upon deeper consideration it will happily be found to be neerer the truth to hold that in those words Thou shalt die the death God his meaning was not at lest determinatly to threaten eternall death either in one kind or other either according to the letter or by way of equivalencie but to have the word Death taken and understood by Adam in the extent of the signification as it indifferently signifieth that evill of the punishment which was represented and knowne unto him by the name of Death without limiting his thoughts to the consideration either of the shorter continuance or of the everlastingnesse of the duration of it For as Scotus well determines in this case Aeternitas non est de ratione poenae peccatis debitae sed peccatores concomitans qui non possunt ut Christus vel cum Christo cluctari 1. Eternitie is not of the nature or essence of the punishment due unto sins but it followes and falls upon sinners who cannot wrastle out as Christ did or with him So then eternity not being essentiall to that punishment or death which God threatned it is no waies necessary that it should be included especially in such a precise and determinate manner as the objection pretendeth in the significatiō of that word wherein the punishmēt is expressed But thirdly and lastly suppose the foundation be gold yet will it be found hay and stubble that is built upon it For what if God should take liberty to varie from the letter of the Curse in the execution of it should threaten eternall death literally and inslict it equivalently this no waies proveth that the creature who was bound to obey the precepts of the Law might take the like liberty to performe one thing instead of another or that God should accept any such payment from them whether made by themselves or by another for them in the nature of a legall payment Indeed having received a full satisfaction for all the transgressions of the Law he may by a second or new Covenant accept of what he pleaseth to estate men in the benefit or blessing of that satisfaction and so that which is thus accepted becomes in this respect to him that performs it and from whose hand it is accepted equivalent to a perfect and compleate legall righteousnesse because it justifieth him in respect of all benefits and privileges of a justification as well as such a righteousnesse would have done But that he should accept on any mans behalfe as a perfect legall righteousnesse the performance of such things which are not required of him neither by the first Covenant of works nor by the second of Grace hath neither correspondence or agreement with the one Covenant or with the other A man me thinks must have a rare faculty to convert any
forgivenesse of a mans own sins and imputation of Christs righteousnesse if it should be true yet is it no wayes necessary neither is it any waies apparent that these are parts of the same whole of one and the same iustification neither is there any thing expresly delivered in any part of the Scripture to establish it Therfore it is no wayes probable even in these respects that when Paul placeth a mans righteousnesse before God in the forgivenesse of his sinnes that he should doe it by the figure Synecdoche onely mentioning one part and implying another Againe SECT 8 2. if forgivenesse of sins be but a part and the worser halfe of our iustification then when the Scripture saith We are iustified by his blood as Rom 5.9 the interpretation must be we are justified by halfe through his blood but the better of our iustification must come another way For by his blood or death we cannot have his active righteousnesse imputed to us So where it is said againe vers 16. that the guift viz. of righteousnesse by Christ is of many offences unto iustification if the guift of many offences iâ— the forgivenesse of a mans sins will not amount to a iustification without the imputation of a legall righteousnesse joyned with it we must give a checke to Pauls pen as the High Priests did unto Pilate Joh. 16.21 Write not the King of the Iewes but that he said I am the King of the Jewes So must we say unto Paul doe not write that the guift is of many offences unto Iustification but the guift is of many offences and of many acts of righteousnesse too imputed to Iustification Pauls pen had made more hast then good speed as we say to come at Iustification before its time And thus we must draw blood instead of milke out of many other Scriptures besides these to nourish that opinion of the imputation of a formall righteousnesse for Iustification if you meane to keep it alive for the sincere milk of the word will not nourish it Thirdly that forgivenesse of sinnes is a mans entire and compleat Iustification and that there is no such further piece or part of it as is pretended concerning the imputation of Christs righteousnesse will appeare from hence because that end for which this imputed righteousnesse of Christ is thus brought into the businesse of iustification viz. to be the right or title of the iustified to their heavenly inheritance is otherwise supplyed by the wisdome and counsell of God and that in a way more Euangelicall and of more sweetnesse and deernesse to the children of God viz. by the grace of adoption or Son-ship as we shall further shew God willing in the reason following Fourthly SECT 9 if men will have the active righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto them for one part of their iustification by it selfe and the passive obedience or death of Christ for another part by it selfe and so separate and divide the benefit of his active obedience from that which we have by his passive in Iustification this is a method or course to destroy and lose both the benefit of the one and of the other For if men substract the righteousnesse of his life upon a conceit that that will doe them service alone which it will not doe as we shall see afterwards then must they want it in his death or in his blood and so that wil be ineffectuall too If it had bin possible under the Law for a man to have separated those qualifications which God required in the Beast for sacrifice as viz. the Sex the soundnesse spotlessenesse c. from the Beast it selfe neither would these qualifications separated from the sacrifice have bin of any use to the man neither would the Beast without these have made a sacrifice of acceptation So neither will the active obedience of Christ profit men if they separate it from the passive Joh. 12.24 neither will the passive it selfe be found it selfe In the cleansing of the Leâ—e the blood of the flame Syarrow was to â—e joyned and mixed with pure water in an â—â— then vessell and the person cleansed to be sprinkled with â—â—th Lev. 14.4.5.6 that is an attonement or expiation for sinne according to the will and purpose of God except we bring in the active to it For as it is most true which the Apostle affirmes Heb. 9 22. Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sinnes so is it as true that without shedding of righteous blood there is no remission neither And howsoever the personall union of the humane nature with the Godhead in the person of Christ was the great qualification requisite in his person to make the sacrifice of himselfe compleatly satisfactory for the sinne of the world yet was it as God willing we shall hereafter demonstrate more at large but a remote qualification in this respect there being a necessity not onely in respect of the decree and purpose of God but of other ends and conveniences also that this qualification we now speake of the fullfilling of the Law should intervene and come between that union and his sacrifice In the mean time whilest I would not have the active obedience of Christ separated from the passive nor againe the passive from the active in respect of this common and joynt effect of forgivenesse of sins or justification ariseing from a concurrence of them both yet would I not have Christ in his mystery tumbled up together on a heap for this would be to deface the beauty and excellencie of that wisdome which shines forth gloriously in the face thereof I would have every thing that Christ was and every thing that Christ did and every thing that Christ suffered to be distinguished not only in themselves but also in their proper and immediate effects respectively ariseing and flowing from them severally A pluralitie of causes may meet together in one and the same effect and yet the diversitie and difference of their severall operations and influences contributing towards the raiseing and produceing of such an effect may easily be distinguished and apprehended The goodnesse of the soyle the labour of the Oxe the Plough the seed that is sowne the Husbandmans paines in ploughing in sowing his skill in both the raine given from heaven to water that which is sowne all these and such like meet together in one joynt and common effect at the time of Harvest viz. the Husbandmans benefit or increase Yet is there scarce any man so much a stranger to the method and principles of Husbandry but can assigne to every one of these causes their proper and speciall effect though all meeting together in that great and common effect we speake of the soyle is for one purpose the Oxe for another the Plough for a third c. So is it true that all that Christ was and all that he did and all that he suffered meet together in that great and common effect the salvation of them that beleeve
Earth divisim conjunctim as we 〈◊〉 upon such termes that no mans comsort or benefit by it is at all impaired or diminished because there are so many thousand thousands in the world that are partakers of the same benefit and comfort with them But every mans enjoyment and possession hereof is as full and entire to him as if the Sun shined to him alone and there were no other to divide the comfort with him Doubtlesse if this propertie were to be found in any mans Earthly estate or inheritance that it would goe as far and hold out as good measure amongst many as among few or as given but to one though a man had never so many Children yet this consequence would hold good if Sons then heires he would bestow his whole estate aswell upon his last-borne as his first But because there is a defect or imperfection this way in earthly inheritances therefore it followes not with men if Sonnes then heires but with God it doth because such imperfection hath no place in his heavenly inheritance But howsoever whether the streÌ„gth of the Apostles inference in these places rests either in this or in the former consideration or in any other evideÌ„t it is that the grace or guift of Adoption is given by God unto beleevers for an Euangelicall capacitie right or title to the Kingdome of Heaven And therefore whatsoever opinion or notion riseth up to magnifie it selfe against it by dissolving and frustrateing the use end and intention of it is certainly Anti-euangellicall and not to be received though an Angell from Heaven should bring it This for the major Proposition in the syllogisme rather by way of explication then confirmation for being rightly understood it cannot lightly be denied The Assumption followeth But such an imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ as is contended for SECT 2 dissolves the end and use of Adoption This is evident from the expresse declaration or interpretation which themselves make of their imputation who are the abettors and maintainers of it For wherefore is this imputation of Christs righteousnesse introduced into the businesse of Iustification The introducers generally make but one mouth amongst them and say that the righteousnesse of Christ must be imputed unto us that so we may have a right and title to life or to Heaven according to the tenor of the Covenant Hoc fac et vive do this and live For by remission of sinnes say they and truely a man is only delivered from death and condemnation due unto sinne but there accrues or growes no right or title to the Kingdome of Heaven from remission of sinnes unto any man And so apprehending nothing else within reach in or about a beleever meet or fit to make a plea or title of thereunto they have compelled the righteousnesse of Christ to take this honour and office upon it in a way of imputation Neither indeed is it easy to conjecture or conceive what other service this righteousnesse of Christ imputed should doe in justification or for what other end or purpose it should be introduced upon such termes and in such a way then to qualifie men with a capacity for Heaven Now then this being the direct and proper end use office purpose and intent of Adoption to invest a beleever with a capapacity for Heaven as hath been demonstrated from the Scriptures it evidently followes that whosoever shall offer or attempt to set any thing else upon this Throne seekes to dissolve and make frustrate the counsell and purpose of God concerning the grace of Adoption in tâ—â—s behalfe To bring in any other right or title to salvation besides that Adoption of Sonnes which we have in Christ is to depresse or put downe the wisdome of God and to exalt another instead of it If it be heere objected and said that both may stand together imputation of a perfect righteousnesse from Christ and Adoption both why may they not together make a twofold coard a stronger and more effectuall title then either alone To this I answere No they will not twist or winde or worke together not so much because of the diversitie and contrariety of their natures as the clay and yron would not worke and mix together in Nebuchadnezzars image though this might be a sufficient consideration I conceive to build a negative answere upon Legalls and Euangellicalls will not joyne or combine to make a title to Heaven but chiefly because either of them aswell the one as the other is a compleate and intire title within it selfe Perfect righteousnesse is a perfect and compleate title alone so is Adoption or Son-ship as perfect and compleate a title alone as it As to be the first borne or heire to an earthly inheritance gives as direct and full a right or title to the enjoyment of it as the lawfullest purchase can do Now it is certaine that God never ordeynes a plurality of meanes for one and the same end or purpose when one meanes is entire and every waies sufficient for it neither in the world naturall nor in the world Spirituall as the Gospell may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Nature makes one for one was the old axiome in Metaphysiques But especially in the Gospell you shall finde it generally so that God allowes and seales still but one means for one purpose I meane but one adaequate meanes in one kind or in the same relation to the effect and accordingly upon the bringing in or position of a second meanes for the same end or purpose complaines presently of the abrogateing or making voyd the other You shall observe many such passages and reasonings in the Gospell as these If they which are of the Law be heires Faith is made voyd and the promise made of none effect Rom. 4.14 So againe Jf the inheritance be of the Law it is no more by promise Gal. 3.18 ver 21. Jf there had bin a Law that could have given life surely righteousnesse should have bin by the Law Surely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily certainly God would not have gone further then this Law in procureing life unto any if there had bin but a possibilitie in the Law to have done it But I desire to insist a little upon that place SECT 4 Gal. 2.21 and upon occasion of the passage to reason the point a little further I do not saith Paul abrogate the grace of God for if righteousnesse be by the Law surely Christ hath died in vaine A man with his first thoughts may thinke the inference somewhat strange and that Paul should be too weake and contemptible in his premises to be so sore and strong in his Conclusion For thus a man might counter-argue with him How doth it necessarily follow that if righteousnesse or justification were by the Law that Christs death must presently be in vaine What if there were more meanes of justification then one more doers open into life then one one by Christ another by the Law were there
be imputed to us For certainly this righteousnesse of his life was as capable of such an imputation before and with out his death as after or with it For what defect or impediment can be conceived that should hinder it Adams sin according to the principles of that opinion against which we argue was capable of imputation as soone as â—t was committed and why should the righteousnesse of Christ require any further qualification or recommendation to put it off upon the like terms but onely the working and performance of it If it be yet said but the persons of men had not bin capable of this imputation without the death of Christ therfore there was a necessity of this death of his in this respect To this I Answer True indeed the persons of men are not capable of this imputation without the death of Christ but neither are they made the more capable by it But if this righteousnesse of Christ we speake of were in it selfe imputable in the sense contended for why should not the persons of men be capable of the imputation thereof in the midst of their sins aswell as Christ was capable of the imputation of their sins in the midst of his righteousnesse Especially considering that as it appeares from Rom. 5.14 the grace and guift of God which is by Iesus Christ saveth by a stronger and higher hand then sin condemneth CAP. XIV Opening a Seventh ground against the pre-refused Imputation viz. the taking away of forgivenesse of Sinnes THat opinion which makes and constitutes men perfectly and compleatly righteous with allegall righteousnesse as righteous as Christ himselfe though it be but quoad veritatem SECT 1 non quoad modum as some of that way think to distinguish themselves safe yet it comes to the same in this respect leaves no place for forgivenesse or remission of sinnes in persons so made righteous it evacuates that high and soveraigne power of God at least in the use and exercise of it towards those that beleeve whereby he forgiveth sins God we know forgave Christ no sinne why because he was perfectly righteous and in him was no sinne as Iohn speaketh 1 Iohn 5.3 Therefore if men be righteous with the same righteousnesse wherewith Christ was righteous as compleatly righteous as he they have no more sin to be pardoned then he had If it be said that God first gives remission of sinnes unto men and then imputes this perfect righteousnesse unto them To this exception answere hath bin made already Cap. 5. Sect. 2. To that which is there delivered I adde that Christ hath taught us to pray for forgivenesse of sinnes even after this imputation of righteousnesse if any such thing were except we will say that he fram'd that patterne of Prayer usually called the Lords Prayer onely for the use of infidels and unbeleevers Now to aske forgivenesse of sinnes of God and yet to conceit our selves as righteous as Christ was is rather to mock then to worship him whom we pray unto If it be here objected as the like objection was made against the fift ground SECT 2 in the former Chapter that this inconvenience sits as close to the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse as to the Imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ for that purpose For if faith be imputed for or instead of the righteousnesse of the Law must it not derive a righteousnesse upon the person to whom such imputation is made as perfect and compleat as the righteousnesse of the Law it selfe and consequently as the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe How then doth that opinion leave any other place for remission of sinnes in those that beleeve then that which standeth for the Imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ Are they not both under the same condemnation this way Not to repeat what was so lately delivered in full for satisfaction and Answere to this Objection I yet further adde ex abundanti that when Faith is said to be imputed for righteousnesse in justification instead of the righteousnesse of the Law it is evidently implyed that it is not the righteousnesse of the Law it selfe that is imputed for righteousnesse but another thing Faith by name instead of it Now any other righteousnesse or any other thing imputed for righteousnesse besides the righteousnesse of the Law will apparently beare a consistencie of sinne with it and so leave a place for forgivenesse of sins but the righteousnesse of the Law excluding the former cannot give entertainment to the latter When a perfect sanctification is imputed to a Man for his justification that Man can be no more reputed or thought to have sinne in him then to be obnoxious to death and condemnation which is most opposite to justification But when that which either is no sanctification or at most but an imperfect sanctification is imputed for righteousnesse in a mans justification there may be as full a justification as perfect a deliverance from death and condemnation as in the former case and yet place left in the person so justified for an inherencie of sin and consequently for the forgivenesse of it CAP. XV. Enforceing an Eight Reason against the Imputation questioned viz. a manifest compliance with that dangerous errour That God seeth no sinne in his people WHat communion hath light with darknesse saith the Apostle and what concord hath Christ with Belial 2 Cor. 6.14 15. SECT 1 If this Imputation of Christs righteousnesse which we oppose were from Christ doubtlesse it would have no intelligence or compliance with any opinion so opposite to him and his truth as this That God seeth no sinne in his people The opinion it selfe is an error so grosse and like the darknesse of Egypt that it is even palpable and may be felt Therefore we will not spend time in arraigning it as guilty which is already so generally condemned But that the opinion against which the face of this discourse is set is of the same confederacie with this and gives the right hand of fellowship to it nay leades and caries men directly into it will cleerely appeare by this Demonstration Whosoever is perfectly righteous or as righteous as Christ is in him God can see no sinne But every beleever saith this opinion which we impugne is as perfectly and compleatly righteous as Christ himselfe is Therefore in such God can see no sinne You see in this Syllogisme how the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense contended for by many brings in that error with a high hand and therefore is to be cut off from the Sanctuary of God And those that will hold and maintaine such an imputation and yet crie out upon and condemne the opinion of Gods not seeing sin in his Children are in a spirituall or morall sense like those Idolaters of old that caused their owne Children to passe through the fire Ismael was not the more naturall and genuine fruite of Hagars wombe that bare him then this conclusion oâ— tenet that God seeth no sinne in
his Children is of that opinion which mainteyneth men to be compleatly righteous by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the letter and formality of it But as sometimes it comes to passe that a man falling into love with a woman that hath a great charge of Children hanging upon her having maried the mother would willingly wrangle or beate the Children out of dores and turne them off to begg so it is often seene that when men have unadvisedly imbraced an opinion seeming in their eye a beautifull and lovely truth and did not at first before they were wedded to it apprehend and consider what rugged and harsh consequences it had attending upon it they shift and turne and winde themselves about every way to quit themselves of that dishonourable charge wherewith they finde themselves by reason of their opinion encumbred withall But how men that will owne an imputation of a perfect righteousnesse can with any tollerable appearance of reason shift off from themselves the opinion of Gods not seeing sin in those that are cloathed with it is I confesse beyond the line of my apprehension If God could see no sinne in Christ because he was perfectly and compleatly righteous how he should see it in any that are as compleatly and perfectly righteous as he and that with the same righteousnesse wherwith he was righteous is a riddle that cannot be made out but by him that plougheth with a better heyfer then yet I have met with any CAP. XVI Propounding a ninth Demonstration against the pretended imputation viz. the confounding of the two Covenants IT is true SECT 1 many that hold the way of imputation are nothing ashamed nor afraide of this consequent the confounding of the two testaments or covenants of God with men that of the works with that of grace and vice versa that of grace with that of works These conceive that God never made more covenants then one with man and that the Gospell is nothing else but a gracious aide or reliefe from God to helpe man out with the performance of the first Covenant of works so that that life and salvation which is said to come by Christ shall in no other sense be said to come by him but only as he fulfilled that Law of works for man which men themselves were not able to fulfill and by imputation as by a deed of guift makes over that his perfect obedience and fulfilling of the Law to those that beleeve so that they in the right of this perfect obedience thus made theirs by imputation shall come to inherit life and salvation according to the strict and rigid tenor of the Covenant of works Doe this and live But as far as I am able to conceive men may aswell say there was no second Adam really differing from the first as no second Covenant differing really from the first and that mount Sina in Arabia is the same mountaine with mount Sion in Judaea and that the Spirit of bondage is the same with the Spirit of Adoption and that Isaak and Ishmael were but the same Child If the second Covenant of Grace were implicitly and tacitly conteyned in the first then the meaning of the first Covenant conceived in those words Doe this and live must be thus Doe this either by thy selfe or by another thy surety and live There is no other way to reconcile them or to reduce them into one and the same Covenant If this were Gods meaning in the first Covenant that keeping the Law either by a man himselfe in person or by another should equally serve the turne and a man should live by either then 1º it must follow that a Mediator was promised before the fall for this Covenant was struck with man in Innocencie 2º that Adam either understood not his Covenant that was made with him or else knew of a surety and redeemer before his fall at least as being in a readinesse for him in case he should fall 3 if keeping the Law either by a mans selfe or by another were in Gods meaning in that Covenant a sufficient meanes of life then any other surety any other Mediator would have made the reconciliation aswell as he that was God and man For God might have created a meere man with abilities to have kept the Law as fully as Adam or any of his posterity was bound to doe 4 and lastly if the fulfilling of the Law by any surety whatsoever were a sufficient meanes of life unto Adam and his then was the death of Christ no waies necessary because Christ had perfectly kept and fulfilled the Law before his death Againe 2 SECT 2 If the first and second Covenant were in substance the same then must the conditions or teâ—ms of agreement in both be the same For the conditions or terms of agreement in a Covenant are as formall and essentiall a part of a Covenant as any other thing belonging to it Though there be the same parties Covenanting and the same things Covenanted for or about yet if there be new articles of agreement it is really a new bargaine and another Covenant Now if the conditions or terms of agreement be the same in both those Covenants then to DOE THIS and TO BELEEVE Faith and works are really the same whereas the Scripture from place to place makes the most irreconcileable opposition betweene them But it may be there are some that are more shie of this consequence that stick not to hold the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense opposed and yet demuire upon an identitie of the two Covenants they doe not conceive this to be the fruite of that wombe Wherefore to prove that the mother hath no wrong at all in having this dead child layed by her side for her owne I thus reason Where the parties covenanting are the same and the things covenanted for the same and the conditions or agreement the same there the Covenants are every waies the same But if the righteousnesse of the Law imputed to us be the agreement or condition of the Now Covenant all the three persons things conditions are the same Therefore the two Covenants first and second the old and the new are every waies the same because as concerning the other two the parties Covenanting and the things covenanted for it is agreed on both sides that they are the same If it be Objected and said That the righteousnesse of the Law imputed from another and personally wrought by a mans selse are two deffering conditions therfore it doth not follow that the Covenants should be the same To this I Answere that the substance of the agreement will still be found the same notwithstanding the works or righteousnesse of the Law are the same by whomsoever wrought If Adam had fulfilled the Law as Christ did he had bin justified by the same righteousnesse wherewith Christ himselfe was righteous If it be yet said that Imputation in the second Covenant which was not in the first makes a reall difference
became him to fulfill all righteousnesse aswell ceremoniall as Morall Mat 3.15 So then if men should be justified onely by the Morall righteousnesse of Christ imputed it would follow that we should be justified before God with an incomplete and half-righteousnesse Therfore if the Ceremoniall righteousnesse of Christ be not in the letter of it imputed unto us for righteousnesse in our Justification neither can his Morall righteousnesse make matter of any such imputation CAP. XIX Propounding Five further demonstrations of the Conclusion undertaken for THe Conclusion undertaken in this discourse SECT 1 hath many Friends as you see and those made of reason and Logique and not of Rhetorique and affection to speake for it There is I conceive the better ground of hope that it will be found a truth after all contradiction If your perswasion this way be not yet as fully grown as mine I desire you goe along with me to that which remaineth sometimes the rere may doe better service then the front Argum. 16 If the righteousnesse of Christ in the letter and formality of it be imputed for righteousnesse unto us in our just â—fication then are our sinnes imputed to Christ after the same manner viz. in the letter and formality of them in his death or condemnation This consequence is blamelesse because there is the same reason of the imputation of our sins to Christ that is of the imputation of his righteousnesse to us at least such is the confession generall of those that are pleased with opposite thoughts in this question as was formerly signified But that our sinnes are not imputed to Christ in any such manner viz. in the letter and formality of them I thus demonstrate If the sins of men be imputed to Christ in the letter and formality of them then God looks upon him and reputes him in his sufferings as one that truly and really had provoked him and sin'd against him Even as our adversaries are wont frequently to expresse themselves concerning beleevers by reason of that righteousnesse which they say is imputed tot hem viz. that God looks upon them and considers them as having really and truly fulfilled the Law But God doth not looke upon Christ in his sufferings or reputâ— him as one that had truly and really sinned against him Therefore our sins are not imputed unto him after any such manner in his sufferings The truth of the Assumption I thus make manifest If God looks upon Christ in his death as one that had truly sin'd against him then he looks upon him as one having deserved the death he suffers The reason of the consequence is apparent because as to sin and to deserve death are termini convertibles expressions of the same importance so to look upon a man as a sinner and as one that hath deserved death are but the same looke But that God doth not looke upon Christ in his sufferings as one that had deserved that things he suffers is evident First because as Christ offered himselfe without spot unto God so God looked upon him in that his offering Otherwise if he had overlooked that spotlessenesse of his and imputed sin unto him in stead thereof What had this bin but to have put darknesse for light and call good evill which to affirme or once to conceive of God may be called the firstâ—orne of a blaspemous ignorance Secondly if God looked upon Christ as haveing deserved death SECT 2 his death could not have bin accepted as satisfactory for others For as he that hath deserved death cannot by his death deserve the sparing of others from death who have deserved it aswell as he because such a mans death only answers his own personall demerit or sin as he that oweth a certaine summe of money cannot by the payment therof discharge any mans debt but his own So neither can the reputing of any man to have deserved death be made consistent with a reputeing of such a mans death to be expiatorie or satisfactory for the taking of the guilt of death from others except we suppose him that reputeth in this case to be either unable to discerne or apprehend or else fully able to reconcile and compose the broadest contradictions Thirdly and lastly if God look'd upon him in his death as deserving to die then did Christ suffer death not for our sins as they are ours but as they were his by imputation Whereas the Scriptures every where testifie of his suffering death for our sins but never for any sinne of his own no more by imputation then by inhesion And the truth is looke in what sence our sins may be said to have bin imputed to him in the same sence they may be said to have bin inherent in him yea the inherencie of them in their punishment upon him wherein they stuck close to him indeed is all the imputation the Scriptures know or speake of He laide upon him the iniquity of us all Esa 53.6 viz. in the punishment due to it and deserved by it So againe Who himselfe bare our sins in his own body c. 1 Pet. 2.24 that is the punishment of our sins as we shall have occasion to shew further God willing in the second part of this discourse Let this reason also be laid into the ballance Argum. 17 SECT 3 and taken into consideration with the former If the righteousnesse of Christ be in the letter and formality of it imputed unto us in our justification then doth God looke upon us as worthy of that justification which we receive from him But this is an uncleane saying therfore the former out of which it is brought is uncleane also The consequence in the major Proposition is like Mount Sion and cannot be moved For if God reputes me to have kept the Law as perfectly as Christ did he must conceive of me as worthy of my justification For as the fulfilling of the Law and deserving justification are but the same Rom. 4.4 So the reputeing of a man to have done the one is the reputeing of him to have deserved the other The reason of the minor Proposition if it be not reason enough it selfe viz. that God doth not looke upon us as worthy that Iustification which we receive is this because then God should shew us no grace or favour at all in our Justification Rom 4.4 with Rom. 11.6 but if any favour be shewed it is only in this that he reputeth us worthy to be Iustified or puts a worthinesse upon us for Iustification Whereas the Scripture expresly affirmeth that God justifieth not the worthy but the ungodly that is the unworthy Rom. 4.5 Against the foresaid imputation Argum. 18 SECT 4 I yet oppose this briefe Demonstration If men be formally just by Gods act imputing Christs righteousnesse unto them then doe men become formally sinfull by the like act of God imputeing Adams sinne unto them for no reason can be given of any difference But men are not made formally sinfull by Gods act of
wants a literal or legall righteousnesse upon him especially supposing he hath another righteousnesse holding any analogie or proportion thereunto as he may account any mans uncircumcission circumcission Rom 2.26 Or call the un-circumcised Gentiles the circumcision Philip. 3.3 O◠pronounce and call Iohn Baptist Elias Mat. 11.14 Or call the two witnesses two O live Trees and two Candle-sticks Revel 11.4 besides other instances in Scripture of like interpretation without number Now as Christ spake as truly when he called John Elias as he should have done if he had called him only Iohn and the Holy Ghost spake as truly when he called those that beleeve though uncircumcised in the flesh the circumcision as if he called them the uncircumcision or as if they had bin literally circumcised So may God with as much righteousnesse and truth pronounce and call or account a man righteous that is not strictly properly or literally such if he hath any qualification upon him that any way answereth or holds proportion in any point with such a righteousnesse as he should doe in case this man had this legall righteousnesse as he should doe in case this man had this legall righteousnesse upon him in the absolutest perfection of the letter For as in those and such like Scripture instances the ground of the communication of the Name is only some particular agreement betweene either the persons or things not an universall concent or identitie in all things So when God pronounceth or accounteth a man righteous it is not necessarie that he should be literally properly morally and every way RIGHTEOUS it is sufficient to beare out the justice and truth of God in giving either the Name or esteeme of a righteous man unto him if his person be under any such relation or condition Idemsunt habere temissionem peccarorum et esse justum Vrsinus Cat. part 2 Qu. 56. Sect. 1. Idem sunt justificatio et remssio peccatorum ibid. Q. 60. Sect. 3. as belongeth to a legall righteoussesse or which a legall RIGHTEOUSNESSE would cast upon him Now one especiall privilege or benefit we know belonging to a perfect legall righteousnesse is to free the person in whom it is found from death and condemnation Doe this and thou shalt live and he that hath his sinnes forgiven him is partaker with him in the fullnesse of this privilege is as free from condemnation as he and may with truth and proprietie of speech enough in this respect be either called or accounted a righteous man Thirdly and lastly answere might be made in few words that forgivenesse of sinnes is a true yea a compleate righteousnesse in the kind though it be not a through conformity with the morall Law Remission of sins is a passive righteousnesse as absolute perfect in the kind of it as any active righteousnes which consists in an entire observation of some Law And for him that hath once sinned or ever failed in the observation of the Law there is no other righteousnesse appliable unto him or whereof he is capable but only this passive righteousnesse of forgivenesse of sinnes Which for all other ends purposes advantages privileges whatsoever is as effectuall to him that is invested with it as the active righteousnesse it selfe could be except only for selfe-boasting and glorying in the flesh which is a privilege if it must needs be so called altogether inconsistent with and numeet for the lapsed weake and sinfull condition of man So that God when he hath forgiven any man his sinnes may with abundance both of justice and truth pronounce and call him a righteous man though he be as far from that legall righteousnesse as the East is from the West CAP. XX. Conteyning the 21 22 23 and 24 Reasons to prove the imputation of Faith and the non-imputation of the righteousnesse of CHRIST TRuth may have many Reasons for her SECT 1 though many times she hath but few friends But Reasons give them time will make friends and the usurpation of error will cease from the judgements and understandings of men when her nakednesse and filthinesse shall be discovered But they shall proceed no further saith Paul of men that resist the truth 2 Tim. 3.8.9 and gives this signe or reason of their period approching for their follie shall be manifest unto all them c. Men that either are or would be esteemed wise will owne nothing that is foolish when the follie thereof is made manifest unto them Now as some things are more visible and easier to be seene or discerned then other for the manifestation whereof a lesser light is sufficient whereas things lesse perceptible require an advantage of light more condensed and fortified to make a cleere and distinct representation of themselves to the sight so are some truths in Religion better prepared and fitted for the understandings and judgments of men in themselves and consequently the errors opposite to them have a more pregnant inconsistencie with reason and for the discoverie of such both errors and truths a weaker and fainter light of argumentation is for the most part sufficient but againe there are other truths whose scituation lyeth at a greater distance from those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common principles of reason or that have a more subtile and lesse perceptible connexion with them and for the manifestation of these together with their opposite errors to the judgments and consciences of men many times the most strongest and cleerest and-most multiplied light of discourse and argumentation is found lesse then enough Therefore let us yet contend with some further demonstrations to bring the conclusion laboured for into a cleere and perfect light that it may be no charge or trouble at all to the minds and thoughts of men to receive it That which having bin done in our owne persons Argum. 21 SECT 2 could not have bin our Iustification nor any part of the righteousnesse by which we could have bin justified cannot be made our justification nor any part of it by imputation from another But the righteousnesse of the Law pretended to be imputed from Christ in justification had it been wrought by our selves in our owne persons could not have been our iustification nor any part of that righteousnesse by which we were to be justified Therefore this righteousnesse of Christ cannot be made our justification nor any part of it by imputation from him The major I conceive hath more reason in it then to be denyed If a personall fulfilling of the Law could have bin no justification nor part of justification to us certainly an imputative fulfilling of it could not have bin either The imputation of a thing from another cannot adde any strength or vertue to it above a personall acting or working yea the nature and intent of imputation in the sense we now speake of it is only to supplie the defect of personall performance therefore it cannot exceed it For the minor that the righteousnesse of the Law which was performed by
of it beyond the person of the fulfiller Some indeed conceive that Adams standing in obedience to the Law had bin the standing and perpetuall confirmation in grace of all his posterity If this opinion could be made to appeare any thing more then conjecturall Divinitie I grant that then in respect of the intent and purpose of God the righteousnesse of the Law had been as imputable as the transgression of it but this will not prove it such in the nature of it but only by way of Covenant and so the consequence in the proposition will still languish and be infirme But though I can be confident with Paul to call Christ the last Adam 1 Cor. 15.45 Yet I am somwhat tender to call Adam the first Christ To say that Adam by his righteousnesse should have merited the justification of himselfe and all his posterity is I take it to make him somwhat more then a figure of him that was to come But to say that by his transgression he merited the condemnation both of himselfe and posterity is no such hard saying I conceive in the cares of any man Therefore however the righteousnesse of the Law is not as imputable as the transgression of it Secondly whereas demand was made SECT 3 by way of absolute confirmation of that former proposition what should make any such difference betweene the obedience of the Law and the transgression of the Law that the former should not be as imputable as the latter the obedience as the transgression I answere there may be this conceived as a ground of difference betweene them in that respect Sinne or disobedience to a Law is ever greater in ratione demeriti in way of demerit or desert of punishment then obedience or subjection to a Law is in ratione meriti in deserving a reward One that takes a purse or murders a man by the high way side deserveth to receive more in punishment then a thousand deserve in reward that suffer men to travaile peaceably by them Though he that dishonestly refuseth to pay a debt where it is due may deservedly be cast into prison yet it doth not follow that he that keeps touch and payeth at his day deserves to be exalted to a Throne So might Adam by his transgression of the Law merit death and condemnation to himselfe and posterity and yet not have merited life and salvation to both by his obedience The reason of which difference is evident because if he had obeyed and kept the Law he had only done that which was his duty to doe and this by our Saviours rule Luk 17.10 makes but an unprofitable servant i. I conceive is no ground to demand or challenge any great matters at his masters hand except it be by Covenant or promise from him Adams obedience to the Law was a debt due unto God from him severall waies and in sundry respects or considerations First God was his soveraigne Lord and had absolut power over him to command him what service or obedience he pleased Secondly he was his maker and Creator and had given him his being and in this respect had full right and title to imploy him as he pleased Thirdly God had bin liberall and exceeding bountifull unto him many waies he created him in his owne image and likenesse furnished him with principles of righteousnesse made him Lord over the works of his hand placed him in a Paradise of all delight and contentment In all these respects Adam was a debtor yea and more then a debtor unto God of that obedience unto his Law which he required of him Now the greater debtor Adam was unto God the more and greater bands and ingagements were upon him to make good that obedience which God required of him to his Law the lesse meritorious had this obedience bin in case Adam had stood and performed it and the more demeritorious also was his transgression and disobedience Therefore that consequence in the major proposition of the objection If the transgression of the Law be imputable then is the obedience imputable also is so farre from being legitimate and solid that the imputablenesse of the transgression of it rather overthroweth the imputablenesse of the obedience of it then any waies proveth or establisheth it For the more imputable that is punishable the transgression of it is the lesse imputable that is rewardable is the obedience of it So that you see now we have touch'd the hollow of the right thigh of the Objection how it halts right downe upon it And you see withall how we might fairely and honestly discharge our selves from having any thing more to doe with the Minor Proposition or with the instance of the imputation of Adam's sin which was insisted upon for the proofe of it because if either Proposition be disabled the glory of the whole Argument is layed in the dust Notwithstanding because the imputation of Adams sinne to his posteritie as it is ordinarily phrased is conceived to be a master veyne in this Controversie and is frequently produced to prove the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by way of analogie or proportion I shall be willing to lay downe with as much brevitie and plainenesse as I can how and in what sense onely either the Scriptures themselves or sound reason will countenance the notion of that imputation The issue will be that neither the one nor the other will be found either to owne or favour any other imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity then we have hitherto granted of Christs righteousnesse to those that beleeve The righteousnesse of Christ is imputed i. is made over or given to those that beleeve not in the letter or formality of it as hath bin often said but in blessings priviledges and benefits purchased of God by the merit or mediation of it So the sinne of Adam is imputed to his posterity not in the letter and formality of it which is the imputation commonly urged but in the demerit of it i. in the curse or punishment due to it which is the imputation commonly urged but in the demerit of it i. in the curse or punishment due to it or deserved by it Therfore as concerning this imputation of Adams sin I answere First the Scripture no where affirms either the imputation of Adams sin to his posterity or of the righteousnesse of Christ to those that beleeve neither is the phrase or manner of such speaking any waies agreeable to the Dialect or language of the Holy Ghost For still in the Scriptures whersoever the word or term of IMPUTING is used it is only applyed unto or spoken of somthing of the same persons to whom the imputation is said to be made and never to my remembrance to or of any thing of anothers Rom. 4.3 Abraham beleeved God and it was IMPUTED to him for righteousnesse i. his own beleeving was imputed to him not another mans So verse 5. But to him that worketh not but beleeveth His Faith is IMPUTED to him for
if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. q.d. If the sinne of Adam being but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an inconsiderate stumbling or a sinne proceeding from incogitancie and Adam hmselfe but one hath yet beene able to involve many i. his whole posteritie all that shall be borne of him in death and condemnation much more must it needs be conceived that the grace i. the gracious intent purpose of God towards men and the gift by that grace viz. of righteousnes justification by such a man as Iesus Christ is who is both God and man should abound unto many i. justifie and save with farre greater efficacie power and authority and as it were with an higher hand all those that by spirituall regeneration and a true faith shall descend from him The strēngth of of the Apostles reasoning and inference in this passage Scripture lyeth in this The salvation of the world faith he must needs proceede with farre higher hand by Christ then the condemnation of it did or doth by Adam Because 1. The foundation and ground worke of the one was the free and gracious intent and purpose of God which is a stronger and more active and lively principle or spring to set all the wheeles and worke on going that depend upon it then a permissive decree onely which as seemeth here intimated and imployed is the maine foundation the other viz. the condemnation of the world by Adam had in respect of God This permissive decree though it be as cleare as the other in respect of the event and comming to passe of such things as are comprehended in it yet is the motion of it but slow and heavie in comparison of the other Gods permissive decrees are chiefely executed by second meanes or by occasion of his withdrawing himselfe and leaving the creature to it selfe but his gracious decrees have his heart and soule and strength and might in their execution And secondly that which is the more proper and immediate cause of the difference here laid downe by the Apostle the condemnation of the world as touching matter of provocation and offence given unto God proceeds onely in the demerit and strength 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one inconsiderate act of sinne and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from one onely meere man whereas the salvation of the world advanceth in the strength of such a righteousnesse attonement or justification as was procured indeed by one man but this one man was Jesus Christ who is valuable with thousand thousands of men and ten thousand times ten thousand thousands So that what he hath purposely and with all his might done for the justification and salvation of the world must needs be of an incomparable farre greater efficacie to carry these before it then the stumbling or unadvised sinne of one poore meere and meane man in comparison can be to procure the condemnation of it Onely I desire that it should be here considered and remembered that there is nothing said in all this Conclusion any wayes to extenuate either the demerit or guilt of Adams sinne beneath their just proportions and degrees but onely to shew that there is a great excesse of merit in the obedience of Christ above the rate and proportion of demerit in the disobedience of Adam There being these and other differences betweene Adam in his condemning the world and Christ in his Act or Worke in saving it it is evident that all such arguments or reasonings which are drawne from specialites and particularities of agreement betweene them are invalid and insufficient except they have some other foundation to beare them That which makes a true and lively Faith instrumentall in Justification Conclusi 11 SECT 17 is nothing that is essentiall or naturall to it whether descent propertie or act but somewhat that is extrinsecall and purely adventitious viz. the force and efficacie of that will good pleasure ordination covenant and appointment of God in that behalfe As it was neither the stature nor comelinesse of Aarons person nor his descent from Levie nor his grace nor his wisedome nor his knowledge nor any service formerly done by him either unto God or his Church nor any thing that in any proprietie of speech could be called his that made him an high Priest but Gods calling him unto and investing him with that honour and function he might have beene all that hee was otherwise and might have done all that hee did otherwise and yet without this anointing and appointment from God another might have beene high Priest and not he So might Faith have beene Faith both in the Originall and descent of it from the Spirit of God as likewise in all that native beautie and excellencie that belongs to it yea and put forth all those acts which otherwise it puts forth as to bring men to Christ to lay hold of Christ c. and yet never have attained the honour that is now put upon it never have beene instrumentall in Justification And as the same anointing or calling from God which were confer'd upon Aaron would have made any other man Priest though of another Tribe though lesse gracefull of person of meaner gifts and abilities every-wayes than Aaron was had they beene conferred upon him so had any other grace as love patience temperance or the like the force and power of the same covenant or ordination from God to assist them it cannot be conceived but that any of these would justifie as effectually as faith it selfe now doth Therefore it is unquestionably evident that Faith doth not justifie as it relates to Christ or as it apprehends him or redemption by him or the like because all these and such like properties or acts as these are essentiall and naturall unto Faith I meane to such a Faith as we speake of and that Faith which hath not or doth not all this is no true lively or effectuall Faith or instrumentall in justification Wherefore if Faith should justifie in regard or by vertue of any of these it should justifie by it selfe or by some dignity quality or act that is proper to it or inherent in it Hence it is that Scripture still suspends the justifying power or propertie of Faith upon the will free grace and good pleasure of God but never upon any act or qualitie proper to it selfe This is the will of him that sent me saith our Saviour Ioh. 6.40 that every man that seeth the Sonne and beleeveth in him should have everlasting life c. clearely implying 1. That it is not any seeing of Christ either corporally or spiritually nor any beleeving in him that could carry eternall life had it not the efficacie of the will of God to strengthen it thereunto And 2 that had this Will of God fallen in conjunction with any other grace or act of
contrary to truth to judge the person in an estate of condemnation though he may be comming on in a way towards justification As men that never come to be justified but perish in their sinnes everlastingly are said to be partakers of the holy Ghost Heb 6.4 that is may have many great and excellent workings of the holy Ghost within them and upon them so may men to whom the grace of justification and salvation upon it is intended by God have the like workings of the Spirit upon them for a time and yet have no worke at all upon them truely saving i. which hath an essentiall and necessary connexion with salvation And till some such worke as this is wrought though the Spirit of God be in them yet are they under condemnation and dying in their present condition without somefurther worke of grace should certainely perish Now though there may be many workings of the Spirit of God in men before they beleeve which may be called Saving in regard of their issue and event yet is there none formally saving that is that hath salvation promised unto it till Faith it selfe be wrought The first touch of any worke upon the soule that is either truly sanctifying or necessarily saving is that whereby the soule is inabled to touch upon Christ for its justification neither is the habit of Faith first planted in the soule by the holy Ghost and afterwards the soule enabled by it 'to exercise and put forth an act of beleeving whereby it is justified but as the common and more probable opinion is that fruit-bearing trees were at first created with ripe fruits upon them so doth God at first create both the habit and act of faith in the soule in the same moment of time and not the one before the other So that the first act of beleeving whereby the creature is primarily justified is not rais'd out of any pre-existent habit or grace of Faith as all after acts of beleeving are but is as immediately the product or effect of the power of God as the habit of Faith it selfe is even as the fruits which according to the opinion mentioned were created with and upon their trees did not grow out of these trees nor were produced in a naturall way by them as all after fruits growing upon them were but were as proper and immediate effects of the creative power of God as the trees themselves So we see at last that the conclusion laid downe is no waies prejudic'd nor shaken by either of these objections Conclu 14 SECT 25 The sentence or curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death but this death of Christ was a ground or consideration unto God whereupon to dispence with his Law and to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty or curse therein threatned This is evident because the threatning and curse of the Law was not at all bent or intended against the innocent or righteous but against transgressors onely Therefore God in inflicting death upon Christ being innocent righteous did not follow the purport or intent of the Law If he had inflicted death upon all the transgressors of the Law this had bin a direct execution of the Law because this was that which the Law threatned and intended But God in spareing and forbearing the transgressors who according to the tenor of the Law should have bin punished manifestly dispenceth with the Law and doth not execute it As when Zaleucus the Locrian Lawgiver caused one of his owne eyes to be put out that one of his Sons eyes might be spared who according both to the Letter and intent of the Law should have lost both he did not precisely execute the Law but gave a sufficient account or consideration why it should for that time be dispenced with and not put into execution In this sense indeed Christ may be said to have undergone or suffered the penalty or curse of the Law 1º it was the curse or penalty of the Law as now hanging over the head of the world and ready to be executed upon all men for sinne that occasioned his suffering of those things which he endured Had not the curse of the Law either bin at all or not incurr'd by man doubtlesse Christ had not suffered at all Againe 2º and somewhat more properly Christ may be said to have suffered the curse of the Law because the things which he suffered were of the same nature and kind at least in part with those things which God intended by the curse of the Law against transgressors namely death But if by the curse of the Law we understand either that intire systeme and historicall body as it were of penalties and evills which the Law it selfe intends in the terme or else include and take in the intent of the Law as touching the quality of the persons upon whom it was to be executed in neither of these senses did Christ suffer the curse of the Law neither ever hath it nor ever shall be suffered by any transgressor of the Law that shall beleeve in him So that God required the death and sufferings of Christ not that the Law properly either in the letter or intention of it might be executed but on the contrary that it might not be executed I meane upon those who being otherwise obnoxious unto it should beleeve Neither did God require the death and sufferings of Christ as a valuable consideration whereon to dispence with his Law towards those that beleeve SECT 26 more if so much in a way of satisfaction to his justice then to his wisdome For doubtlesse God might with asmuch justice as wisdome if not much more have passed by the transgression of his Law without consideration or satisfaction For him that hath a lawfull authority and power either to impose a Law or not in case he shall impose it it rather concern's in point of wisdome and discretion not to see his Law despised and trampled upon without satissaction then in point of justice No man will say that in case a man hath bin injured and wrong'd that therefore he is absolutly bound in Justice to seeke satisfaction though he be never so eminent in the grace and practise of Justice but in many cases of injuries susteyned a man may be bound in point of wisdome and discretion to seeke satisfaction in one kind or other Austin of old and D. Twist of late besides many other Orthodox learned Divines a See Mr. Gataker Defence of Mr. Wotton p. 59.60 hold that God if it had pleased him might have pardoned Adams transgression without the atonement made by the death of Christ Therfore according to the opinion of these men it had bin no waies contrary to the Justice of God nor derogatory to the glory of it if he had freely pardoned it without any consideration or attonement Only it is true his requiring that full satisfaction which hath now bin made by Christ is very sutable
i. the Author and procurer of all these respectively Sixtly by a metonymy of the cause for the effect or of the antecedent for the consequent a common dialect also in Scriptures aswell the benefits and rewards of a mans righteousnesse in the first and third acception of the word as the blessings and privileges which accompany that righteousnesse which we have by the merits of Christ in our Iustification are sometimes expressed by the terme righteousnesse Thus Iob 33.26 God will render unto man his righteousnesse i. will recompence and reward every mans uprightnesse and integrity with sutable blessings and expressions of his love So Psal 112.9 His righteousnesse remaineth for ever i. the praise and other rewards of his righteousnesse shall be durable and lasting So Gal. 5.5 We through the Spirit waite for the hope of the righteousnesse of Faith i. for the great and royall privileges promised by God and accordingly hoped for by us to that Iustification which is by Faith in Iesus Christ See the first Chapter of the former part of this discourse Sect. 4. p. 12. c. Seventhly the word righteousnesse in some construction of words with it hath no precise or proper signification distinct and apart from the word with which it is joyned but together with that word makes a sense or signification of one and the same thing Thus in the phrase of imputing righteousnesse Rom. 4.6.11 c. the word imputing See impedit ira c. p. 43. doth not signifie one thing and righteousnesse another but together they signifie one and the same act of God which we call free iustifying So that to impute righteousnesse is nothing else but freely to iustifie and righteousnesse imputed free iustification passive It is thâ—â— in many idio m's and proprieties of languages In that Hebrew phrase of covering the feet Iudg. 3.24 1 Sam. 24.3 Neither of the words are to be taken in any proper or peculiar signification but together they signifie one and the same thing and that differing from the proper signification of either of the words Many other instances might be given in severall phrases or formes of speech the true sense and meaning whereof is not to be gathered from the proper signification which the words have severally in other constructions but from the concurrence and joynt aspect of them in that phrase Thus the Scripture phrase of going in to a woman is not to be interpreted according to the significations of the words in other sentences or constructions of speech but according to the importance which they still joyntly have when they are found together Eightly and lastly the word righteousnesse according to the propriety of the Hebrew stongue which often useth abstracts for concretes signifieth sometimes a Society or company of righteous or iustifiedones sometimes of just or upright ones In the former sense you have it 2 Cor. 5.21 That we should be made the righteousnesse of God in him i. a company of righteous or iustified persons made such by God through Iesus Christ In the latter sense you have it Esa 60.17 where God promiseth to his Church and people to make their exactors righteousnesse i. a generation or company of men that should deale righteously and fairely with them In this dialect of speech poverty for so it is in the originall is put for a company of poore men 2 Kings 24.14 So Captivity for a company of Captives 2 Chr. 28.5 Deut. 21.10 and in sundry other places So againe circumcision for circumcised Phil. 3.3 election for elected Rom. 11.7 with the like So that aswell in studying as arguing the Question in hand great care must be had that we be not intangled and lose our selves in this multiplicitie of significations of this word righteousnesse which is a word almost of continuall use and occurrence in the businesse of Iustification and yet of such an ambiguous and different signification and importance Distincti 3 See sect 4. See Pareus De Iusti Christi Active et Passive p. 180. D. Prideaux Lect. 5. de Iustifi p. 162. Mr. Eradshaw Iustifica p. 68 69. c. Mr. Forbez Iustificate 25. p. 111 112 c that without much heedfulnesse it may occasion much stumbling and miscariage in our understanding The righteousnesse or obedience of Christ is twofold oâ— of two kindes the one Divines call Iustitia personae the righteousnesse of his person the other Iustitia meriti the righteousnesse of his merit The terms of Active and Passive wherein this Distinction is commonly conceived are not altogether so proper because even in that obedience which we call Passive Christ was in some sort active as willingly and freely submitting himselfe unto it Notwithstanding the Distinction might passe well enough in these termes Obedientia Christi duplex â—st altera quam vi legus communu qua creatura rationalus verus homo cum esset altera quam vi legude mediatione peculiarus sive pacti de redemptionis negotio initi quam neris humani Mediator et Redemptor Dro Patri debuâ—t et exhibuit Gataker against Gomarus p. 4. See further p. 15. 〈◊〉 p. 25. ibid. The righteousnesse of his person is that whereby he iustifyeth himselfe only or is himselfe righteous the righteonsnesse of his merit is that whereby he iustifyeth others The former consisteth partly of that integrity of nature which was in him partly of that obedience which he performed to the morall Law or that Law which is generally imposed upon all men The latter of that obedience or subjection which he performed to that peculiar Law of Mediator-ship which was imposed upon him alone and never upon any man besides For it is evident that Christ both did and suffered many things not simply as he was man but as he was Mediator especially his voluntary submission of himselfe unto death for the ransome and attonement of the world was the fulfilling of the great commandement in the peculiar Law of Mediator-ship being no waies bound by any precept in the Morall Law thereunto If Christ had been bound as man or by the Morall Law to die for the sinnes of men his death had bin ineffectuall for others For certaine it is that no man dischargeth another mans debt Qui obedientiae activae aut sanctitati nativae meritum justitla ascribunt morrem Christi sine dubie innnem reddunt Pareus De Iustic Christi Activ and Pass p. 181.182 c. by paying his owne and our Saviour himselfe injoyneth his Disciples when they should doe only that which was commanded them though they should do this to the uttermost yet to say that they were unprofitable Servants they had done but that which was their duty to doe Luk 17.10 Besides hee that maintaineth that Christ was bound by the moral Law to die for the sinnes of men saith in effect that if he had not died he had bin a sinner and deserved to have bin punished himselfe and so extenuateth and abaseth to the dust the
infinitenesse of that grace which the Lord Iesus Christ manifested unto the world by his dying for it If it be objected and said SECT 5 that other men are bound to lay downe their lives for the truth when they are call'd thereunto and so for one another 1 John 3.16 and this must needs be by the Morall Law therefore Christ stood bound by the same Law to doe the like To this I answere 1º that men considered simply as men and not as sinners or as men that have sinned were not bound by any Law whatsoever to lay downe their lives at all nor upon any occasion whatsoever because God by promise had setled the inheritance and possession of life upon innocencie and integrity for ever Therefore as the Apostle reasons in another case Gal. 3 21. Is the Law then against the promises of God God forbid So is it to be conceived in this case that the promise of God being d ee this and thou shalt live there was no Law that should contradict it that is that should enjoyne a man being innocent and doing all things required in the Law to die or part with his life upon any termes whatsoever Therefore secondly that obligation or commandement which now lieth upon men to part with their lives either for witnessing the truth or upon any other occasion was not originally any branch of the Morall Law but partly by reason of the interveening of sinne but especially by reason of the great benefit of the redemption of the world from sinne by Iesus Christ it is now a superadded duty amongst many others somewaies reducible to the Morall Law but not properly or directly conteyned in it And thus the Scripture it selfe plainely determineth For speaking of this duty of laying downe a mans life in case the spirituall yea or perhaps the temporall rall necessity of some men doe require it and doubtlesse there is the same reason of all other cases in this kind it grounds the equity and obligement of it upon the grace and benefit of Redemption by the death of Iesus Christ Hereby have we perceived love that he layd downe his life for us THEREFORE wee ought also to lay downe our lives for our Brethren 1 Joh. 3.16 So that in the third place Iesus Christ being universally free from sinne in and from the first instant of his conception to his death and having none nor any need of any to die for his redemption could have no tie or obligation upon him from the Morall Law to lay downe his life upon any occasion whatsoever in asmuch as this Law in the first institution and imposure of it requireth death of no man upon no occasion but for sinne neither did it then require this by any way or duty but of threatning neither doth it now require it of any man but upon the supposall of sinne and that great deliverance from sinne brought into the world by another Iesus Christ Fourthly and lastly I answere yet further that no man hath ever any calling from God by vertue of the Morall Law as now it stands with all the additions and improvements of it to lay downe his life either for witnessing the truth or for the benefit of the Brethren or for any other possible end or purpose when that end whatsoever it be for which this laying downe a mans life seemes to be required may be aswell that is as Lawfully and as sufficiently provided for in another way For certainly neither doth the Morall Law nor God himselfe by vertue of any commandement in this Law require of men at any time to die like fooles and what is it but to die like a foole when a man shall give his life for that which might aswell and as effectually bee procured by him in another way If therefore it be conceived that Christ might be called God by vertue of the Morall Law to lay downe his life for witnessing or sealing the truth I answere that Christ could have as sufficiently provided for the honour and advancement of Truth another way as by his death viz. by the inward illumination and conviction of the judgementsand consciences of meâ— by his spirit Therefore he had no call by the Morall Law to die for this end If it be yet objected but the salvation of men his Brethren could not be provided for by him in any other way but by his death only Therefore in this regard and for this end he might be bound by the Morall Law to die To this I answere as before in part that the Morall Law considered as simply morall i. as requiring only those duties of a man which were required of him in his estate of innocencie threateneth all sinners without exception with death without giving the least intimation or hope of any to die for them so farre is it from imposing it by way of duty upon any man whatsoever to die for them Therefore whatsoever may now be conceived to be imposed upon any man by way of duty in this kind doth not arise from the originall and native morality of the Law but from that alteration and change which the grace of redemption by Iesus Christ hath made in the estate and condition of men by reason whereof many generall principles and impressions of the preceptive or directive part of the Law are improved and extended to many dâ—tâ—es which were not at first comprehended or intended in them From all which duties it is evident that the Lord Christ considered simply as a man or as an innocent and sinlesse man or as having his condition no waies altered or made better by any Redemption by any another SECT 6 was absolutely and universally exempt and free Thus at last we have I conceive sufficiently cleered and established both the truth and necessity of the distinction last propounded viz. of the righteousnesse of Christ into that which is commonly called Active wherein his personall integrity and holinesse is absolved and made perfect and that which is called Passive which is the righteousnesse of another Law differing from that which is called Morall and was performed by him meerely in relation to the justification or righteous-making of others The truth and necessity of the distinction might be further evicted from the Scriptures as from these and such like Esa 53.11 2 Cor. 5.21 Heb. 7.26 Heb. 9.14 1 Pet. 3.18 c. By all which passages it is evident that Christ doth not justify others by the morall righteousnesse of his person whereby himselfe was made righteous but by that other righteousnesse which we may call mediatorie satisfactorie passive or meritorious and yet with all that this righteousnesse it selfe could have done nothing this way but upon presupposall of and inconsistence with the other as will hereafter further appeare But because this hath bin sufficiently performed by others (a) Pareus de Iustic Christi Act. et Pass P. 181. and the distinction it selfe is granted and acknowledged by the learnedest (b) Bish Davenant De
description of this cause given of Iustification is God himselfe Father Son and Holy Ghost considered is one and the same simple and intire essence though this act of justification as that of creation and some others besides is in special manner appropriated to the first person of the three the Father as other acts are to the other two persons Redemption to the Son Sanctification to the Holy Ghost c. in both which notwithstanding all the three persons being but one and the same intâ—re and undivided essence must needs be interesâ—ed Thus Rom. 8.33 where it is said that it is God that justifieth it is meant by way of appropriation of God the Father because there is mention made of Christ the second person immediately it is Christ that is dead c. Now that God is that kinde of cause of Iustification which hath bin attributed to him and no other is evident from the description of this cause formerly layd downe Sect. 4. of this Chapter For 1º that he is a cause of Iustification is the consent of all men without exception besides the Scripture lately cited Rom. 8. is full and pregnant this way It is God that justifieth 2º that he is neither the matter nor the forme of Iustification is sufficiently evident of it selfe neither did ever any man affirme either the one or the other of him and besides we shall cleere this further when we come to inquire after these causes 3º that he is not the end or finall cause of Iustification appeares from that property or condition of this cause mentioned Sect. 3. viz that it is to be atteyned or receive it's being by meanes of that thing whereof it is the end which cannot be verified of God or his being in respect of Iustification inasmuch as these no way depend upon it This likewise will further appeare when we come to lay downe the finall cause Therefore 4º and lastly he must of necessity be the efficient cause of Iustification there being no fift kinde of cause whereunto he should be reduced Secondly SECT 10 that he is the principall efficient cause and not instrumentall is evident also because he is not assum'd acted or made use of by any other in or about the justification of a sinner but himselfe projecteth the whole frame and cariage of all things yea and manageth and maketh use of all things instrumentally concurring or belonging thereunto It is God that justifieth the Gentiles by or through Faith Gal. 3.8 so Rom. 3.30 c. God maketh use of Faith and so of his word and of the Ministers of his word to produce Faith in the hearts of men and consequently to justifie them but none of these can be said to act or make use of God in or about this great effect Thirdly that he is the Naturall efficient cause of Iustification according to the notion and description of this cause given Sect. 5. is evident because in the exercising or putting forth this act of Iustification he acteth and worketh out of that authority and power which are essentiall and connaturall to him and not out of any superadded or acquired principle of art or otherwise whereof he is wholly uncapable It is true he is moved to the exercise of this act of â—ustifying men by somewhat that is extrinsecall and not essentiall to him viz. the intercession of the death and sufferings of Christ yet the act it selfe in the exercise of it proceeds by vertue of that authority and power which are estentiall to him as hath bin said No creature can be said to justifie or forgive any man his sinnes no not by Christ but God alone Who can forgive sinnes but God onely Mar. 2.7 Fourthly SECT 11 the Morall or internall impulsive cause of Iustification as it is an act of God is that infinite love goodnesse mercy sweetnesse and graciousnesse in God himselfe towards his poore creature Man looked upon as miserable and lying under condemnation for sinne This was the moving and procuring cause of the guift of Christ and his death and sufferings from him and consequently of that justification which is procured and purchased by Christ and his sufferings So God loved the world that hee gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever beleeveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life viz by Iustification through him Ioh. 3.16 Fiftly the externall Morall or impulsive efficient cause of this act of God is the Lord Iesus Christ himselfe in or through his death and sufferings or which is the same the death and sufferings of Iesus Christ God looking upon Christ as such and so great a sufferer for the sinnes of men is thereby strengthened and provoked to deliver those that beleeve in him from their sinnes and that condemnation which is due unto them i. to justifie them The Scripture is cleere in laying downe this cause Even as God for Christs sake freely forgave you viz. your sinnes i. justified you Ephe. 4.32 Those words for Christs sake are a plaine and perfect character of that kinde of cause we now speake of This with the former i. both internall and externall impussive or moving causes are joyn'd together Rom. 3.24 And are justified freely by his grace here is the inward impulsive cause of Justification through the Redemption that is in Christ Iesus viz. by meanes of his death and sufferings here is the outward moving cause we speake of Neither can the Death and sufferings of Christ with any shew of reason or with any tolerable construction or congruitie of speaking be referred to any other cause in the businesse of justification but the impulsive only He that would make Christ the instrumentall cause of Iustification (a) Mr. Walker Socinian discovered c. p. 138. discovers himselfe to be no great Gamaliel in this learning and had need thrust his Faith out of doores as he doth in many places and not suffer it to have any thing at all to doe about his Iustification least his Christ and his Faith should be corrivalls and contend for preheminence therein And yet more repugnant to reason is it to make either Christ himselfe or any righteousnesse of his whatsoever either the matter or materiall cause of Justification which yet the Socinian Discoverer doth (b) Ibid. p. 139 or the forme or formall cause thereof which is done by some others But that is a streyne of unreasonablenesse above all the rest to make either Christ or his righteousnesse both the formall and materiall cause too of this great act of God we speake of the Justification of a sinner these causes being of so opposite a nature and different consideration as hath bin described and yet even this conceit also hath found enterteynment with some To this kinde of cause we now speake of must be reduced also the active or personall righteousnesse of Christ as farre as it hath any influence into or any waies operates towards the justificatioÌ„ of a siner For though it be not satisfactory
must needs be the formall cause thereof otherwise it must be said either a man is formally just by some righteousnesse of his own or which he hath not received from God or else that he is not made righteous in or by his Iustification but afterwards The minor is the assertion of the Holy Ghost almost in terminis Rom. 4. For that which ver 6. is called Gods imputing righteousnesse ver 7. is interpreted to be his forgiving iniquities and covering sinne Seventhly If remission of sinnes reacheth home unto and be given unto men by God for their Iustification then is it the formall cause thereof This is evident because by the formall cause of Iustification we meane nothing else as hath bin often said but Iustification passive or that guift which by God is given unto men and by them received accordingly in and by that act of his whereby he iustifieth them So that if remission of sinnes be that which is given unto sinners by God for or unto their Iustification it must of necessitie be conceived to be the formall cause thereof Therefore I assume but remission of sinnes is given by God unto men for their Iustification and reacheth home unto it Therefore it must needs be the formall cause thereof This latter proposition againe is in effect and well nigh in terms nothing but what the Holy Ghost himselfe affirmeth Rom. 5.16 And not as it was by one that sinned so is the guift for the iudgment was by one unto condemnation but the free guift is of many offences unto Justification that is God by the free guift that is by the free forgivenesse of mens sinnes doth fully justify them The free guift of offences or the forgivenesse of sins could not be said to be unto Iustification except a man were fully and entirely justifyed thereby Lastly if remission of sinnes and the non-imputing of sinne to those that have sinned be expressions of one and the same importance and signifie the same privilege estate or condition of a person iustified then is remission of sinnes the formall cause of Iustification The strength of this consequence lieth in this that the Holy Ghost describeth or interpreteth the righteousnesse which God imputeth in Iustification by the non-imputation of sinne This is evident by comparing Rom. 4.6 with ver 8. And it was prooâ—ed before in the sixt argument that the righteousnesse imputed by God in Iustification must of necessity be the formall cause thereof Therefore it undeniably followes that if remission of sinnes and the non-imputing of sinne be expressions of one and the same condition that remission of sinnes is the formall cause of Iustification Now that the importance of these two expressions is but one and the same is apparant enough without proofe For what doth God more or otherwise in remitting sinne then he doth in not imputing it or what doth he more or otherwise in the not-imputing of sinne then he doth in remitting it Not to impute sinne to him that hath sinned can implie nothing else but not to charge the demerit or guilt thereof upon him and what doth remission of sinnes import either more or lesse And hence doubtlesse it is that David sets the same Crowne of the same blessednesse upon the head of the one and the other Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven whose sinne is covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquitie c. Psal 32.1.2 Rom. 4.7.8 Much might be further argued both from the Scriptures and otherwise SECT 34 for the cleering and countenancing of this opinion which placeth formall justification in Remission of sinnes but inasmuch as this tasque hath bin learnedly and throughly performed by another (a) Mr. Wotton De Reconciltat Part 1 lib. 2. c. 3.4.5.6.7.8 though in another languag and to ease the present discourse of length and tediousnesse what we may without any sensible de râ—ment to the cause undertaken I forbeare And the rather because whatsoever I am able to conceive may possibly with any colour or pretext of reason be objected against the opinion hath for the most part bin already answered or cleered or else will be found answered in the two following Chapters As First Object 1 That Remission of sinnes is no true or compleate righteousnesse ou shall finde satisfaction touching this in the second Chap. of this latter part in the 4 Conclusion Sect. 4. Secondly Object 2 That the righteousnesse of Christ is to be joyned with remission of sinnes to make the compleate forme of Iustification See this cleered at large Cap. 11. of the first part Thirdly Object 3 That Remission of sinnes is the consequent or effect of Iustification and therefore not the formall cause See whereof to make a sufficient answere to this Sect. 8. and Sect. 29. of this Chapter where it is fully prooved that the formall cause of Iustification must needs be the consequent of Iustification that is of that act of God whereby he justifieth Fourthly that the righteousnesse of Christ imputed is this formall cause Object 4 you shall finde this counter-argued Sect. 23 24 25 26 27. of this Chapter Fiftly Object 5 that the imputation of this righteousnesse is the formall cause The inconsistencie of this with the truth is evicted Sect. 22. of this Chapter Sixtly Object 6 That the communion that is betweene Christ and beleevers is this formall cause How little communion this hath with the truth hath bin shewed at large Section 18 19 20 21. of this Chapter Seventhly That Iustification may be Object 7 where there is no remission of sinnes and remission of sinnes where there is no justification See the opinion set cleere of this objection in the latter end of Sect. 1. of the 3 Chap. of this second part as also Sect. 29. of this present Chapter What further may be objected I doe not for the present apprehend but ready and willing I am to take any thing into a serious and unpartiall consideration that shall be tendred unto me as matter of further question or difficultie in the businesse In the meane time out of all that which hath bin reasoned at large in this Chapter concerning justification and the severall causes thereof some such description of it as this may be framed wherein the attentive Reader may observe either all or the greatest part of the causes insisted upon briefly comprehended Justification is an act of God whereby having out of his owne unspeakable free grace and goodnesse towards poore miserable sinners given his only begotten Sonne Jesus Christ to make attonement or satisfaction for them by his death in consideration of this attonement freely pardoneth and remitteth the sinnes of all those that beleeve in him through Jesus Christ preached or otherwise revealed by the Holy Ghost unto them CAP. V. VVhere in the Scriptures alledged for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse or active obedience in Justification are cleered and answered and the true sense and interpretation of them respectively established according to
dissolved and taken away by the imputation of his death or passive obedience and this before the imputation of the active obedience be made unto us See for this cap. 5. Sect. 2. of the first part of this Discourse Now that which is wholly dissolv'd and taken away needs no further covering in respect of God nor indeed is capable of any 4. The righteousnes or active obedience of Christ is so farre from being a covering of sinne that it is rather a means of the discovery of it and by the light and absolute purity and perfection thereof sets off sinne with the greater sinfullnesse even as the Law it selfe doth Therfore 5. and lastly if it be conceiv'd necessary to place any emphaticall difference in this expression of covering of sinnes from the other two of forgivenes of sin and not imputing sinne I conceive it most agreeable to Scripture notion to assigne this peculiarity of importance to it that by covering of sinne is meant Gods gracious expressing himselfe to a man that hath sin'd especially in a way of outward prosperity and peace It is most probable that by covering of sinne somwhat should be meant which is contrary to that which the Scripture expresseth by a discoverie of sinne Now it is evident from these and many like places more Ezek. 16.57 Ezek. 23.10.29 Job 20.27 Esa 57.12 c. that by discovering of sinne is meant the executing of judgements or inflicting of punishments upon sinners answerable to their sinnes which may wel be called a discovering of sin and wickednes because neither the sinners themselves nor yet others are ordinarily capable of any knowledge or apprehension to purpose of the demerit and vilenesse of sinne but by meanes of the severity of God expressing it selfe in visible judgements upon those that have sinned Therfore by covering of sinne both here and elsewhere is meant nothing else doubtlesse but Gods expressing of himselfe to persons that have sinn'd upon their Repentance in waies of Grace favour and love as if they had not sinned nor provoked him To this purpose when he shews any outward favour or countenance to men as by protecting them from dangers or delivering them out of trouble or the like he is said to justifie them Iustifying the righteous to give him or by giving him according to his righteousnes 1 King 8.32 compare herewith 2 Chron. 6.23 So that here is no shelter or covering for the Doctrine of Imputation in this Scripture Againe SECT 3 those parallell Scriptures Ier. 23.6 and 33.16 are alledged And this is his Name whereby he shall be called the Lord our righteousnesse I answere that neither is there any colour in these words for the pretended imputation Ier. 23.6 and c. 33.16 cleered For First it is not here said that the righteousnesse of the Lord shall be our righteousnesse nor that the righteousnesse of the Lord shall be imputed to us for righteousnesse no here is altum silentium profound silence as concerning any imputation Secondly it is wholly repugnant both to the Grammaticall and Rhetoricall importance of the expression and words as likewise disagreeing from the Scripture phrase and manner of speaking in the like cases to put such a sense or interpretation upon them as this Christ is our righteousnesse by imputation Christ can in no tolerable construction of speech be said to be imputed to us the imputation of a person was never heard of therefore cannot be said to be imputed to us for our righteousnesse But Thirdly and lastly the plaine and direct meaning of the place is this This is his Name whereby he shall be called The Lord our righteousnesse that is He shall be generally acknowledged and celebrated by his people the Jewes for the Prophet speak's particularly of these as is evident in the context as the Greate Author and procurer of that righteousnesse or justification in the sight of God for righteousnesse is very usually put for justification as was noted cap. 3. Sect. 3. of this second part upon which abundance of outward glory peace and prosperitie should be cast upon them This interpretation is agreable to the Scripture phrase and manner of speaking in the like cases For First the attributing or imposition of a Name upon either thing or person often notes the quality or property in either or some benefit redounding from either answerable thereunto (a) Schema est propheticuÌ„ quo nominu quasi peoprij impositione rei aut personae de qua agitur qualitas aut fatum indicetur Med. â— Apocalyps p. 84. Solet Scriptura dicererem quampiam vel personam hoc vel illo nomine vocatum iri non quod habitura sit illud nomen aut tali nomine vulgo appellanda sit sed quod vere ac plane habitura sit rem talâ— nomine significatam Perer. in Gen. p. 848. Sect. 30. His name shall be called wonderfull Counsellor c. Esa 9.6 that is he shall be acknowledged and looked upon by men as an actor and doer of things very strange and excellent as one that is able and ready to give the best advice and counsell to those that shall repaire unto him in difficult cases c. See of like importance and expression Ezek. 48.35 Mat. 1.21.23 Apoc. 8.10 with many others Secondly There is no phrase or expression more familiar in Scriptures quà m effectum praedicare de cansa in resto that is then to attribute an effect to its cause or Author by a verb substantive only or to affirme the effect of the cause directly Thus Christ is said to be our hope 1 Tim. 1.1 To be our life Col. 3.4 To be the resurrection Joh. 11.25 To be our peace Ephes 2.14 To be the glorie of his people Luk 2.32 with many the like meaning that he is Author purchaser or Procurer of all these So when he is said to be our righteousnesse there can no other construction be made of it but this that he is the Author or procurer of our righteousnesse Calvin is expresse for this interpretation of this passage All these expressions saith hee (b) Omnes istâ—â— locutiones peraeque valent justificari nos Dei gratia Christum esse justitiam nostram justitiam morte ac resurrectione Christi nobu acquisitam Calvin in Gal. 3.6 carrie the same sense and meaning that we are iustified by the grace of God that Christ is our righteousnesse that righteousnesse is procured for us by the death and resurrection of Christ c. See more of this interpretation before Cap. 3. Sect. 2. Thirdly and lastly that by righteousnesse in this place is meant that Iustification which stands in remission of sinnes and that by Christs being called the Lord their righteousnesse is only meant that through him God would be reconciled to them and pacified with them as concerning all their provocations appeares from the like tenor of other Scripture passages For usually when God promiseth deliverance and outward prosperity to this people after long and sore
obedience of one shal many be made righteous Hence it is argued that as by the imputation of Adams disobedience men are made formally sinners in like manner by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse men are made formally righteous To this I answere First that somewhat hath bin already delivered in this Discourse touching the sense and meaning of this Scripture as likewise touching the includencie and insufficiencie of this argument See Part 1. c. 21. Sect. 2.3 c. Secondly it is not here said that by the imputation of Adams disobedience men are made formally sinners but simply sinners that is either obnoxious to death and condemnation as Bishop Davenant (c) Certum est illam ipsamactualem inobedientiam nobis imputari ita ut per eam stemus damnati c. Bish Daven de Iusti Act. c. p. 363. with some others interpret and as the word sinner is often used in Scriptures d 1 Kin. 1.21 Pro. 6.29 Psal 109.7 c. or else sinners by propagation not imputation as Augustine e Proinde Apostolus cum illud peccatum ac mortem commemoraret quae ab uno in omnes propagatione transissent eum Principemposuit à quo propagatio generis humani sumpsit exordium August de Peccat Mer. Rem l. 1. c. 9. vi etiam c. 13. c. c. 15. Apostolus opponit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adami non ut actionem actioni sed ut satisfactionem culpae ut remedium morbo Pareus de Iustic Christi Act â—et Pass p. 173. of old and Peter Martyr and Musculus of late with divers others as may be seene at large in their Commentaries upon this Scripture So that according to either of these interpretations of the word sinners here is neither little nor much for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse so much urged and contended for Thirdly neither doth the Apostle here oppose unto or compare the obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam as one act unto or with another but as satisfaction to and with the provocation or the remedie to and with the disease Otherwise he should make sinnes of omission to be no disobedience because omissions are no acts And Adams transgression did not only stand in the commission of evill but in the omission of that which was good also Therefore Fourthly by that obedience of Christ whereby it is here said that many are or shall be made righteous that is justified we cannot understand that righteousnesse of Christ which consists only in his obedience to the morall Law but that satisfactorie righteousnesse or obedience which he performed to that peculiar Law of Mediation which was imposed upon him and which chiefly consisted in his sufferings See for this what hath bin already laid down cap. 3. of this latter part Sect. 4. p. 45. And for this Exposition of the word obedience in this place there is as great a vote and voyce of Interpreters both ancient and moderne as for any one Scripture I know which hath the least degree of difficultie in it And for the most part they compare this place with that Philip. 2.8 where it is said of Christ that he humbled himselfe and became obedient unto death c. making both Scriptures to speake but of one and the same obedience Theophylact a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theop. in Rom. 5.19 Peter Martyr (b) Docat quodnam fuerat illud bonum quod per unum Christum Iesum salutem hominibus recuperavit Illud autem ait fuisse Christo obedientiam de qua scribens ad Philippenses c. P. Mart. ad Rom. 5.19 And a little after Quae verba docet id quod Apostolus ait per obedientiam Christi qua nostracausa mortem subiit c. Calvin (c) Quum pronunciat no Christi obedientia constitui justos hinc colligimus Christum eo quod Patri satisfecerit justitiam nobis comparasse Calv. ad Rom. 5.19 Musculus (d) His verbis aperit de qua justitia Christi loquatur videlicet de illius obedientia de qua legis Philip. 2 Musculus ad Rom. 5 19 Eadem fere habent Pareus Piscator Gualterus in locum Pareus Piscator Gualter and of our own Mr. Gataker (e) Vterque locus Rom 5 19 Philip. 3.8 intelligendus est de obedientia quam mediationis legi peculiari Christus exhibuit c. Mr Gatak in Elench Gomar p. 49. are men of this interpretation Amongst whom Pareus gives two reasons of this his Exposition The first is the antithesis or opposition which the Apostle makes betweene the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ which saith he will not constare if by the obedience of Christ we understand vniversalem ejus conformitatem cum lege that is his universall conformitie with the Law the disobedience of Adam being but singularis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a singular and particular transgression But his latter and greater reason is the effect which is here attributed to this obedience of Christ viz. the justification or righteous-making of many which saith he the Apostle hitherto hath constantly vindicated or appropriated to the death and blood of Christ yea and the whole Scripture throughout teacheth our Faith to seeke its righteousnesse in this obedience of his So that all this while here is nothing at all appeares for the countenancing of that imputation of the active obedience of Christ which takes so deeply with the thoughts of many 5. Suppose that by the obedience of Christ we should here contrary to the generall current aswell of Interpreters as the Scriptures themselves understand that active righteousnesse or obedience which he performed to the Morall Law yet will it not follow from hence that therfore men must be justified or made righteous by it in such a way of imputation as is contended for For certaine it is that that justification or righteous-making which the Apostle speaks of in this 19. verse is the same with that which he had spoken of v. 16 17 18. Now that righteousnesse as he calls it v. 17. is described v. 16. to be the guift i. the forgivenesse of many offences i. of all the offences whereof a man either doth or shall stand guilty before God unto justification and evident it is that that righteousnesse or justification which stands in the guift or forgivenesse of offences or sinnes cannot stand in the imputation of an observation or fulfilling of the Law 6. and lastly it is but a loose and very unsavourie kind of arguing to reason from a thing simply done to a determinate manner of doing it If a man should argue thus Peter was slaine with death therfore he was slaine by a Beast or therfore he was slaine with a Dagger were there the least shaddow or appearance of the certainty of the Couclusion in the premises So when the Apostle simply and barely affirmes that by the obedience of Christ men are made
righteous to inferre and conclude a particular and determinate manner of rigteous-making from hence as viz. by imputation of this obedience there being other waies or manners of righteous-making as hath bin proved hath no power nor authority at all of an Argument in it Another text imployed in the service aforesaid SECT 11 is found Rom. 8.4 That the righteousnes of the Law might be fullfilled in us who walke not after the flesh but after the spirit From the former clause it is argued that the righteousnes of the Law can in no sence be said to be fullfilled in us but only by the righteousnes or obedience of Christ unto the Law imputed to us But to this also I Answere 1. That some both learned and Orthodox Rom. 4.8 cleared understand this clause of sanctification rather then of justification and by the fullfilling of the righteousnes of the Law that Euangelicall obedience to the Precepts thereof which all those that truly beleeve in Christ doe in part performe and desire and strive to performe more perfectly This was the exposition of Ambrose of old and seems to be the judgement of Peter Martyr (a) Quomodo autem praecepta legis in nobis impleantur per communionem cum Christo qui pro nobis mortuus est ita potest declarari quod illis qui credunt in eum spiritus conceditur quo vires corum instaurantur us obedientiam legis praestare possint non quidem perfectam et absolutam c. P. Marty ad Rom. 8.4 upon the place Nor is this exposition rejected by Musculus though he inclines more to another in which propension I shall willingly give him the right hand of fellowship So that however this place is not so cleere or demonstrative for the pretended Imputation But 2. That by the righteousnesse of the Law which is here said to be fullfilled in those that beleeve cannot be meant the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ imputed is evident from hence because it must of necessity be such a righteousnesse and such a fulfilling in beleevers which may be apprehended as a proper and sutable effect of Christs condemning sinne in the flesh immediately preceding in the end of v. 3. The very purport and frame of the context plainly sheweth this relation between them and that the latter was intended by God as a fruit or end of the former For what the Law could not doe saith the Apostle in that it was weake through the flesh God sending his own Sonne in the likenesse of sinnefull of flesh and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh That the righteousnesse of the Law might be fullfilled c. That ratiocinative particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that imports the fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the Law in those that beleeve to be a naturall and direct effect of or thing intended by God in Christs condemning sinne in the flesh Now unpossible it is that the active obedience of Christ or the imputation of it should be any proper effect of his condemning sinne in the flesh For by this expression of condemning sin in the flesh Interpreters generally agree and besides it is a thing evident in it selfe that the Apostle meanes the abolishing or taking away the guilt or the accusing and condemning power of sinne by the death of Christ The phrase of condemning sinne to note this by the way is metonymicall the antecedent put for the consequent condemning for disabling to accuse or being a means of the condemnation of another which we know are the consequents or effects of any mans being condemned in course of Law The testimony of a condemn'd person against any man is of no force in Law But to our purpose how the abolishing or taking away the guilt and condemning power of sinne by the death of Christ should be a means of the Imputation of the righteousnes of his life I am no wayes able to conceive or comprehend no more then I am how the present fullnesse of the stomacke should be a means to make a man stand in need of a second dinner immediately For certaine it is See the first and fourth Conclusions in the second chapter of this latter part p. 3.5 c. as hath bin reasoned home elsewhere in this discourse that he that hath the guilt of his sinne purged and taken away by the death of Christ needs no other righteousnesse nor imputation whatsoever for his justification or acceptation in the sight of God no more then he that is full needeth the honey-combe 3. It is a very uncouth and hard expression SECT 12 to call the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to beleevers a fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the Law in them For that clause in them still notes either a subjective inhesion of some thing in persons or else some kind of efficiencie Now the Friends themselvs of that Imputation which we oppose unanimously and constantly affirme the righteousnesse of Christ to be subjectively and inherently in himselfe only and to become ours onely by imputation which they still make a modification contradistinguished against subjective inhesion So that in this sense the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be said to be fulfilled in them Nor can they say that the righteousnesse of the Law or of Christ is fulfilled in them in a way of efficiencie for they are not the workers of this righteousnesse Therefore an imputed righteousnesse can in no tolerable construction of speech be said to be fulfilled in men 4. If by the righteousnesse of the Law we understand that entire and compleate obedience which every beleever according to the great varietie of their severall conditions callings and relations stands bound to performe it can with no agreeablenesse to truth be said to be fulfilled in them by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse unto them Because as hath bin largely proved in the former part of the Discourse there is scarce any beleever if any at all but stands bound in a way of duty to God and his Law to the performance of many particular acts yea of many kindes of acts of obedience which are not to be found nor can it without sinne be conceived that they should be found in all that golden catalogue of workes of righteousnesse performed by Christ Therefore the righteousnesse of the Law in the sense declared which is the sense stood upon by our adversaries cannot be said to be fulfilled in those that beleeve only by the active obedience of Christ imputed to them 5. Neither doth the originall word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here translated righteousnesse signifie obedience unto or conformity with the Law but rather that justification which was the end and intent of the Law but that it was disabled through the weaknesse that is the sinfulnesse of the flesh to ataine it ver 3. And so Calvin Piscator Musculus with divers other learned Interpreters and Tremellius out of the Syriaque render the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by the Latine word
it selfe So Rom. 3.27 By the Law of Faith faith it selfe and againe Rom. 8.2 by the Law of sinne and death he means sinne and death simply For none of these have any Law properly so called onely the word Law added to them seems to represent them under a more emphaticall and weighty consideration 2. When this Apostle speaks of the righteousnesse of the Law elsewhere he never useth this hypallage to call it the Law of righteousnesse but still in plaine and direct language The righteousnesse of the Law See Rom. 2.26 Rom. 8.4 3. This exposition makes the double antithesis or opposition which the Apostle apparently makes between the Gentiles v. 30. and the Jewes v. 31. pregnant cleere and full wheras any other interpretation dissolves the strength and darkens the light of them The Gentiles saith he v. 30 followed not after righteousnesse that is had no thoughts of took no care or course for any justification before God But Israel v. 31. sought after the Law of righteousnesse that is propounded unto themselves as a busines of maine importance a righteousnesse or justification in the sight of God and ran a course of means such as it was to obteyne it Againe The Gentiles saith he v. 30. attained unto righteousnesse that is unto justification in the sight of God many of them have bin justified and saved But Israel could not attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse v. 31. that is could not compasse a justification of themselves in the sight of God as the Gentiles did The strict Law of opposition enforceth this or the like interpretation 4. And lastly that by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel could not attaine unto he meanes righteousnes simply or justification in the sight of God appeares from the latter reason or latter part of the reason which he renders v. 3◠of Israels miscarriage and falling short in this kind Wherfore saith he could not Israel attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse which he followed after because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the works of the Law If by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel is said to have sought after we understand the righteousnesse or obedience of the Law the reason which is here assigned by the Holy Ghost at least in part why they could not atain it viz. because they sought it by the works of the Law will be very incongruous and absurd For what savour either of reason or truth is there in it to say that a man therfore cannot attaine the righteousnesse or obedience of the Law because he seeks to attaine it by the works of the Law But to say that a man cannot attaine unto righteousnesse or justification before God if or because he seeks it by the works of the Law hath perfect consistence with both I mean both with reason and truth Lastly I might further strengthen this exposition with the Authority of Theophylact if need were who expounds that clause v. 31. they could not attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse of a simple and plaine non-justification a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in Rom. 9.31 The next Scripture proofe and last out of this Epistle to the Romans which is frequently alledged for the supposed Imputation is Rom. 10.4 The words these For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnes to every one that beleeveth Therfore say the Masters of that way of Imputation which we desire to hedge up with thorns the righteousnes of Christ or the obedience performed by him to the Morall Law is imputed to those that beleeve for their righteousnes But neither doth this Scripture know any such imputation more then its fellows For 1. Rom. 10.4 answered There is not the least resemblance or colour of reason that by the Law in this place should be meant precisely and determinately the Morall Law because as was both lately and formerly observed the Jews with whom chiefly the Apostle grapples in this place as is evident from the beginning of the chapter never so much as dreamt of justification by the Moral Law only but chiefly by the Ceremoniall Neither doth Calvin or any other Interpreter that yet I have met with understand the place of the Morall Law Besides it is evident from that which immediately follows v. 5. that he doth not speake here of the Morall Law for there he citeth that description which Moses giveth of the righteousnesse of the Law not out of any part or passage of the Morall Law but out of the heart and midd'st as it were of the Ceremoniall Law Those words the man which doth these things shall live by them wherein he placeth Moses's description of the righteousnesse which is of the Law are taken from Levit. 18.5 and are in speciall manner spoken of the Ceremonialls and Judicialls For thus the words lye ye shall therfore keep my Statutes and my Judgements which if a man doe he shall live in them Therfore doubtlesse the Apostle doth not speake here of the Morall Law Secondly SECT 19 neither is it any waies agreeable to truth that the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to beleevers suppose such an imputation were simply granted should be called the end of the Morall Law For doubtlesse no Law whatsoever considered simply as a Law is any cause or meanes of justifying a person in any other way or by any other meanes then by the observation of it selfe and consequently Iustification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of the Morall Law For nothing can properly be said to be the intent or end of a thing but only that which in reason and likelyhood may be procured and obtained by it Now there is an utter and evident impossibilitie that Justification by Christ should be procured or attained by the Morall Law Neither obedience nor disobedience thereunto hath any relation of causalitie to such an effect a man being never the neerer Justification by Christ either for the one or for the other It may be said with farre a more favourable aspect both upon reason and truth that Christ is the end of the Ceremoniall Law and yet not of this neither considered simply as a Law but as comprehending in it such and such usages or rites wherein Christ and Iustification by his blood were typified and resembled and which were to expire and to lose the binding power of a Law which it had before upon Christs coming As for the observation or transgression of this Law neither the one nor the other contributed any thing more towards any mans Iustification by Christ then the observation or transgression of the Morall Law did or doth Nay the observation both of the one and the other though very unperfect and lame have bin a stumbling block in the way of many and cast them quite off from Iustification by Christ as the Apostle implieth ver 3. Therefore Thirdly the Greek Expositors as Chrysostom a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Hom. 17. in Rom.
Theophylact b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in Rom. 10.4 Sect. 20 and Theodoret make Christ in this sense to be called by the Apostle the end of the Law for righteousnesse unto those that beleeve viz. because hee performed or exhibited unto them that which the Law propounded to it selfe as its end and would have performed but could not viz. their Iustification But Fourthly some Interpreters conceive that Christ in this sense is said to be the end of the Law for righteousnesse to him that beleeveth because the Law by convincing men of sinne and exacting of them a righteousnesse which it doth not enable them to performe and againe by threatning and condemning them for the want of it it doth as good as lead them by the hand unto Christ by whom they are freely justified This Exposition calls Musculus Master (a) Nam finis Legis est Christus Intelligendum est quod Lex ad Christum ducit Dum enim peccatum revelar arguit ac damnat justiciamque exigit quamnon praestat nihil aliud agit quam quod ad Christum ducit per quem justificemur gratis Musc in Rom. 10.4 and Calvin in one touch upon the place is not farre from it (b) Id autem fieri nequit quin omni justicia spoliats peccati agnitione confusi ab ipso justiciam gratuitam petamus Calvin in Rom. 10.4 But neither doth this seem to be the meaning of the place however because it maketh not at all against us in the present controversie we shall not at present insist upon any refutation of it Fiftly some think Christ is therefore called the end of the Law because by his coming in the flesh and by his sacrifice of himselfe he put an end to the Law and Mosaicall dispensation Both Musculus and Parous mention this exposition but name not the Author This exposition is a truth but doubtlesse not a true exposition Therefore Sixtly and lastly the plaine and direct meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture seemes to be this Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that beleeveth that is the Law meaning the whole Mosaicall Oeconomie or dispensation which is the frequent signification of the word Law in the writings of this Apostle as was formerly observed and exemplified was therefore and for that end and purpose given by God unto the Jewes his people that whilst it did continue it might instruct and teach them concerning the Messiah who was yet to come and by his death to make attonement for their sinnes that so they might beleeve in him accordingly and be justified and further that in time that people and Nation might be trained up nurtured and prepared for the Messia himselfe and that oeconomie and perfection of the worship and service of God which he should bring with him and establisheth in the world at his coming This interpretation including the whole Mosaicall administration within the meaning of the word Law was both Chrysostoms of old c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Rom. 10.4 and is Mr. Gatakers d Verum ego potius Christum finem legu ea ratione simpliciter dictum existimo quia Lex revera Dei populo lata est quae ad Messiam illu viam pramuniret quod erat ministerij Mosaici munus pracipuum Gatak Elench Gomar p. 53. yet living amongst us and Parcus likewise is large in the vindication and explication of it and Calvin himselfe a Indicat eâ—am legis praposterum Interpretem esse qui per cjus opera justificari quaerit quaniam in hoc lexdata est quo nos ad aâ—â—ara justitiam manuduceret Imo quicquid doceat Lex â—uicquid pracipiat quiequid promittaet semper Christum habet pro scepo ergo â—n ipsum dirigendae sunt omnes Partes c Cal. in Ro. 10.4 in his commentary upon the place seemes very inclineable to it This interpretation might be further confirmed First from the cariage and tenor of the context it selfe For doubtlesse the Apostles meaning is that Christ should be the end of that Law for righteousnesse by the observation whereof as being their own righteousnesse ver 3 the Jewes against whom he here reasons sought to be justified Now it hath bin often said and once at least sufficiently prooved that the Jewes sought righteousnesse and selfe Iustification afwell from the observation of the Ceremoniall as of the Morall Law Secondly from the full consent and entire sympathy of other Scriptures of like propension and phrase 2 Cor. 3.13 It is said that the Children of Israel could not stedfastly looke to the end of that which is abolished that is of the whole ministerie or dispensation of Moses as is evident from the cariage of the whole Chapter Now what was the end of this dispensation but CHRIST and Iustification by him So Gal. 3.24 Wherefore the Law was our Schoolemaster unto Christ that we might be justified by Faith By the Law in this place cannot be meant the Morall Law the whole series of the context from ver 13 to 25. riseth up against such an interpretation neither is there any Expositor I know that so understands it but by the Law which is here said to be our Schoolemaster unto Christ is unquestionably meant the whole frame or body of the administration of Moses yet with a more peculiar reference to the Ceremoniall part of it See Mr. Gatakers judgement touching this Scripture in his little Tract against Gomarus p. 54.54 and againe in his Scripta adversaria as he call's them p. 43. of the first part and p. 96. of the second together with Mr. Perkins upon the place Thus at last we have I suppose abundantly vindicated the Non-imputation of the Active obedience of Christ in the sense controverted out of the hand of all those reasonings and pleadings that are usually or that readily I thinke can be build upon the Epistle to the Romans wherein notwithstanding the greatest part of the strength and confidence of our Adversaries lyeth And therefore I shall make bold to accoÌ„modate the Reader with more brevity ingiving answere to those other Scriptures which yet remain The next of which SECT 22 is that 1 Cor. 1.30 But yee are of him in Christ Iesus who of God is made unto us wisdome anarighteousnesse and sanctification and Redemption Because Christ is heresaid to be made righteousnesse unto us by God it is argued that therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed us But to this I answer that here is a little or lesse colour for the deemed imputation then in any of the former Scriptures For First 1 Cor. 1.30 answered Christ is here no otherwise nor after any other manner affirmed to be or to be made righteousnes unto us then he is to be made wisdome or sanctification unto us Therefore there is no more ground to conclude from hence the imputation of Christs righteousnesse for our righteousnesse then of his wisdome for our wisdome or
appearance in this place of any comparison made between Christs being made sinne for us whatsoever be meant by it and our being made the righteousnesse of God in him but only the latter is affirmed as the end consequent or effect of the former 4. that the weight and importance of that particle in him should be by the imputation of his active obedience unto us there is neither instance or paralell expression in Scripture nor rule in Grammar nor figure in Rhetorique to make probable in the lowest or lightest degree Therefore 5. and lastly the direct and cleere meaning of the place is this that God for that end made Christ sinne that is an offering or sacrifice for sinne for us that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him that is that we might be justified or made a society or remnant of righteous ones after that peculiar manner of Iustification or righteous-making which GOD hath contrived and established through that sacrifice or offering of his Sonne This interpretation is justifiable upon these and the like considerations 1. SECT 25 It is a frequent Scripture expression to call the sin-offering or the sacrifice for sinne by the name of sinne simply See for this Exod. 29.14 Exod. 30.10 Levit. 5 6 16 18 19. Levit. 7.1 2 7. Levit. 9.7 Ezek. 44.27 Ezek. 45.19.23 Hos 4.8 besides other places This is generally acknowledged by Interpreters yea by the choycest Adversaries themselves which we have in the present controversie (a) See Bish Downham Trea. of Iustifi p. 226. c. and Bish Davenant de Iustic Hab. p. 333. 2. To expresse a number or companie of justified or righteous persons by the abstract terme of righteousnesse is very agreeable likewise with the Scripture dialect in many other places It is an expression of like stamp and figure with those poverty for poore men captivity for captives c. Of which kinde you please to see many instances in the third Chap. of this latter part Sect. 3. in the latter end p. 45. 3. That addition of God the righteousnesse of God imports that that righteousnesse or justification which beleevers obtaine by the sacrifice or death of Christ is not only a righteousnesse of Gods free donation and guift but of his speciall wonderfull and profound contrivement for them 4. By the Grammaticall construction and dependance of the latter Clause our being made the righteousnesse of God in Christ upon the former viz. his being made sinne for us it is evident that in the latter such an effect must of necessity be signified and meant which may answere and suite with that cause which is mentioned in the former viz. the death of Christ for us Now the proper and direct effect of the sacrifice or death of Christ is deliverance from the guilt and punishment of sinne not the imputation of his active obedience unto men Christ did not die for men that they might be justified or made righteous by the righteousnesse of his life (a) Quis enim sic argumentaretur mentis â—ompos Christus factus est pro nobu peccatum i. sacrificium peccati expiatoriuÌ„ quo nos justi constitueremur â—â—r go obedientia Christi in vita praestita non autem morte sive sacrificio Christi justi constituimur Gatak Elench Gom p. 48. 5. The Scriptures when they speake of the death or sufferings of Christ under the consideration of that efficiencie or causality which is in them in respect of Iustification never ascribe any other effect unto them but only either the remission of sinnes deliverance from wrath redemption or the like Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us Gal. 3.13 6. and lastly the Interpretation given as touching the substance and maine importance of it is the exposition of Interpreters almost without number as of Chrysostom Theophylact Occumenius Calvin Musculus Piscator c. I forbeare the citation of passages from them partly because the exposition hath bin I conceive abundantly cleared and confirmed already partly because it is upon the matter acknowledged by the chiefe opponents we have in the businesse in hand partly because the Authors themselves if any man doubt or be unsatisfied may readily be consulted withall and partly likewise to save the Reader an unnecessary labour as I conceive I shall only insist upon one Scripture more SECT 26 and that with somewhat the more brevity because the argument or proofe that is drawne from it is more ridiculous and importune then any of the former One copie of this Scripture is found Gal. 3.10 For it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Booke of the Law to doe them Out of this Scripture hath of late bin hewen as I heare this worthy pillar to support the tottering and ruinous building of the premised Imputation If every one be cursed that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to doe them then can no man be iustified but remaines accursed who hath not the perfect observation of the Law imputed from Christ unto him The reason is because no man is able to obtaine any such personall observation thereof The argument is not of any eminent desert to have an answere bestowed upon it yet let us not envie it this honour If the man of this argument whoever he be be in good earnest with it doubtlesse he is confederate with Stapleton the Papist at least in part who maintaines against Calvin that the righteousnesse of the Law and the righteousnesse of Faith are not two but one and the same righteousnesse Therefore First Gal. 3.10 Answered if there be no other meanes to dissolve the Curse denounced against all non-continuers in all things that are written in the Law to doe them but a perfect fulfilling of the Law by Christ imputed unto them woe and woe a thousand times to the world yea to the whole world of men and women without exception For certaine it is 1. that there is no such perfect fulfilling of Law imputed from Christ unto any man as hath been prov'd at large throughout the first part of this discourse and 2. that were there any such imputation yet this would not reach the dissolution of that curse this cleaves faster to the whole generation of Adams posterity then to be dissolved or loosed from any of them by any other meanes then by the blood of Jesus Christ It is not said that without keeping the Law but that without shedding of blood there is no remission Heb. 9.22 Christ might have kept the Law a 1000 yeeres for us and yet never have found Justification or redemption from the Curse of the Law for us had he not bin made a curse for us by his death and sufferings Gal. 3.13 Secondly SECT 27 he that is fully discharg'd and acquitted from all his non-continuances in the things of the Law I meane from the guilt of all his sins
there is no justification to be looked for before God by that which is unperfect but only by that which is perfect c. Ergo. To the Major Proposition I answere Answere by distinguishing that clause in the consequent or latter part of it then are we justified by that which is unperfect c. These words may have a double sense or meaning as either that we are justified without the concurrence of any thing that is simply perfect to our justification or that somewhat that is comparatively weake and unperfect may somewaies concurre and contribute towards our Iustification If the former sense be intended the proposition is absolutly false and the consequence to be denied it doth not follow If Faith be imputed for righteousnesse in the sense given then is there nothing that is perfect required as necessary unto Iustification this inconsequence is notorious Yea the truth is that the imputing of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense of the discourse presupposteth somewhat if not more things then one that is absolutly perfect as absolutly necessary unto Iustification Had not the Lord Christ who is perfect himselfe even as perfect as perfection it selfe could make him made a perfect attonement for sinne there had bin no place for the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse yea there had bin no place so much as for the being either of such a Faith or of any righteousnesse or Iustification at all for men For it is thorough the attonement made by Christ for us that either we beleeve in him or in God through him and it is through the same attonement also that God iustifieth us upon our beleeving that is imputes our Faith unto us for righteousnesse in the sense argued If the said clause be meant in the latter sense viz. that somwhat that is weake and unperfect may somtimes concurre or conduce towards Iustification so the Proposition is granted but then the Minor goes to wreck For Justification before God may be expected and looked for though that Faith whereby we beleeve yea and that Minister of the Gospell by whom we beleeve be both weake and unperfect and yet both these we know are somewaies contributorie towards Iustification Except yee beleeve that I am hee you shall die in your sinnes c. Joh. 8.24 and consequently never be iustified We have beleeved in Christ Iesus that we might be iustified c. Gal. 2.16 And that the Minister of the Gospell hath or at least may have his part or hand in our Iustification is evident How shall they beleeve in him of whom they have not heard and how shall they heare without a Preacher Rom. 10.14 He that hath any influence into our Faith or the working and raising that in the soule is somewaies instrumentall and helpfull towards our Iustification But neither doth our Iustification before God depend upon the perfection of our Faith but upon the truth of it neither doth the truth of our Faith depend upon the perfection of him by whom we beleeve but upon the truth of what he teacheth and delivereth unto us for that end So that the light of this truth shines on every hand that men may be iustified ministerially and instrumentally by things that are weake and unperfect Therefore this objection also is no better then his fellowes Sixtly Object 6 Some have opposed the imputation of Faith which we pleade for with this reason SECT 8 If Faith be imputed unto us for righteousnesse in the sense expressed then God should rather receive a righteousnesse from us then we from him in our Iustification But God doth not receive a righteousnesse from us but we from him in Iustification Ergo. I answere that in this syllogisme Answere the Major Proposition is guilty of the error and falshood in the conclusion For it no waies followes upon that imputation of Faith for righteousnesse which we defend that God should either receive a righteousnesse from us or that we should receive none from him in our Iustification Because First Gods imputing Faith for righteousnesse unto us in the sense which hitherto we have aided doth no waies imply or import that Faith is a righteousnesse properly so called but only that God by the meanes thereof and upon the tender of it looks upon us as righteous yet not as made either meritoriously or formally righteous by it but as having fulfilled and performed that condition or covenant upon the fulfilling and performance whereof hee hath covenanted and promised to make us righteous meritoriously by the death and sufferings of his own Sonne formally with the pardon and remission of all our sinnes Secondly Suppose such a position or inference as this lay in the bowells of what we hold that Faith were a proper righteousnesse yet neither would this argue that therefore God should receive a righteousnesse from us in our Iustification For we rather receive our Faith from God as was layd down in Answere to the fourth objection for our Iustification then God from us in our Iustification though I grant that in a sense a farre off and with much adoe it may haply be made a truth that God receives our Faith from us in Iustification But Thirdly and lastly that that imputation of Faith for righteousnesse which is protected by us supposeth a righteousnesse given unto and received by men from God in Iustification and consequently is farre from denying it is evident from hence because it could not be truly said that God doth impute Faith for righteousnesse unto any man excâ—pt he should make him righteous upon his beleeving Now as it is impossible possible that a man should be made righteous without a righteousnesse in one kinde or other so is it unpossible also that that righteousnesse wherewith a man is made righteous in Iustification should be given or be derived upon him from any other but from God alone For this righteousnesse as hath bin already proov'd at large can be none other but forgivenesse of sinnes and who can forgive sinnes but God alone And by this time the fire of this objection also I conceive is turn'd into smoke Some other exceptions I confesse there are against this Imputation we hold forth SECT 9 of lighter consideration but some of these if not the whole thripp of them I have Answered at large in my Answere to Mr. Walker now Printed by some as it seemes at the unreasonable importunity of my Antagonists Socinianisme Discovered c. which called for it and for 7 times more with open mouth and with multiplicitie of requests made of forged cavillations and ragged raylings But complaints I consider are here but impertinencies If the Reader please to set in about pag 32 of that Discourse and read on hee shall finde severall objections more such as they are against the Imputation in hand attended with their Answeres like mad-men with sober for feare of doing harme Aud as for those viperous and malignant imputations rather then objections of Socinianisme Arminianisme c. against the
measure God is in holinesse righteousnesse goodnesse wisdome truth mercy c. and that he is so light or such a light in whom there is no darknesse at all 1 Joh. 1.5 And in this sense the light of the knowledge of God is said to be given by the ministers of the Gospell in the face of Iesus Christ 2 Cor. 4.6 meaning that those who truly and effectually preach Iesus Christ unto men and hold him forth in all the glory and excellencie of all that he both did and suffered in the world as they are left upon record by the Holy Ghost in the Gospell doe with one and the same labour certify informe the world what manner of essence and being in respect of hâ—linesse grace love sweetnesse mercy goodnesse bounty c. the true God is with whom they have to doe All these excellencies being apparantly extant and visible and that in the full transcendencie and height of their severall perfections in that obedience which Christ exhibited in the flesh unto God it cannot with any colour or pretence of reason be imagined but that that God from whom he came forth and whose servant hee was in all this great administration and from whom he must of necessitie receive and be furnished with all that strength and power of grace whereby he was enabled to do all these great things must needs be a God supereminently glorious in all the same and like perfections So that we see here is another end and that of maine consequence of the active obedience of Christ besides imputation Thirdly SECT 7 another end of this righteousnesse of Christ we speake of is the exemplarinesse of it it is the patterne in the Mount for all Adams posteritie to work by It is true the Law it selfe is as absolute and perfect a rule or patterne of righteousnesse as the conformity or obedience of Christ himselfe to it is but it is not so plaine and distinct a rule in some cases as the obedience of Christ to it And therefore the Holy Ghost sometimes briefly mentioning the letter or rule of the Law maketh use of the exemplarinesse of the obedience of Christ as it were to illustrate and interpret it And walke in love even as Christ hath lovedus and hath given himselfe for us c. Ephes 5.2 with many the like Fourthly the intire obedience and subjection of Christ to the Morall Law is of excellent importance and hath a Spirit of provocation in it to draw all the world after it in imitation of it it is a tempting righteousneste or an holy strong and blessed temptation to the world to worke righteousnesse the force and power whereof no man can withstand but with an high hand of desperate wickednesse and to the deepe shame and reproach of his person This end likewise is oft mentioned or insinuated in the Scriptures Take my yoke upon you and learne of me saith our Saviour himselfe Mat. 11.29 for I am meeke and lowly in heart c. implying that there was in his meeknesse not only a patterne or example to follow but a provocation also to make them willing and desirous to follow See Ephes 5.24.25 1 Pet. 4.1 with many others Fiftly the righteousnesse of Christ now under consideration was a meanes of continuing his person in the love and complacencie of his Father which was a thing of absolute necessitâ—e for the carrying through and accomplishing that great worse of Redemption which he had undertaken For if the mediator himselfe upon whose favor and interest with God the favor peace and salvation of the whole world depended should have but once miscarried and displeased him who should have mediated for him or made an attonement or reconciliation for him If salt hath lost the savor there is nothing to season it againe withall because all things are to be seasoned by it This end of his obedience and subjection to his Father himselfe plainly expresseth Joh. 15.10 If yee keepe my commandements you shall abide in my love even as I have kept my Fathers commandements and abide in his love See also Joh. 8.29 Sixtly that righteousnesse of Christ we speake of SECT 8 was of absolute necessitie to qualifie and fit the sacrifice for the Altar I meane to render him a person meet by his death and sacrifice of himselfe to make attonement for the world and to purge and take away the sinne of it It is true the infinitnesse of the value and considerablenesse of his death sprang from the God-head or Divine nature with which the humanitie of Christ had personall union yet was the absolute holinesse and righteousnesse of the humanitie it selfe of necesâ—ary concurrence also thereunto and that in two respects First there is no capacity in any part or parcell of the humane nature of personall union with the Divine except it be absolutely free from all touch and tincture and spot of sinne otherwise this proposition might be verified that God is sinfull a sound which neither the eares nor consciences of men are able to beare That God should die though it be a conclusion which to reason not yet taught or principled from above may seeme of the same hardnesse and inconsistencie with the other yet we know it is become not only familiar and of easy admittance but of very precious and sweet importance in the Schoole of Christianity But that God should finne is a saying of a greater offence and abhorring to reason proselyted and made Christian then to reason yet only it selfe and no more Secondly suppose for argument sake a possibilitie of that which is unpossible that the Divine nature might be hypostatically or personally united to an humanity tainted with sinne yet could it not give an infinitnesse of expiatory value or acceptation thereunto for others in case it were offered or made a sacrifice by it The reason is because such an offering or sacrifice were of absolute necessitie for the expiation of its owne sinne or at least it should be due and the justice of God might lawfully require it in such a way For no relation whatsoever of any creature to the Divine nature it selfe or to any person subsisting therein be it never so neere and intimate is able to dissolve or make voide any right or power which is essentiall to God as the right of requiring a full satisfaction for sinne is wheresoever or in what creature soever he findes it Now then whatsoever God either doth or in justice may require of any man to make satisfaction for his owne sinne unpossible it is that with the payment or tender thereof he should make satisfaction for the sinnes of others as it is unpossible in a course of Law and Civill Justice that a man by paying his owne debt should thereby discharge another mans The High Priest under the Law did not make atâ—onement for himselfe and for the people with one and the same sacrifice but saith the Scripture he offered sacrifice first for his owne sinnes and then
needing no further attonement himselfe for the people Heb. 7.27 So then evident it is that howsoever the infinitenesse of the merit and satisfactorinesse of the death and sufferings of Christ hath its resultance and rise from the Divine nature yet could no such merit or satisfactorinesse have taken place in respect of others had not Christ as man or his humane nature wherein he suffered bin perfectly righteous and free from all sinne that so he might stand in no need at all himselfe of that sacrifice which himselfe offered of himselfe Dying righteous and being God his death holds out weight and worth merit and satisfaction for the whole world whereas had he died a sinner in the least degree though his death by reason of the Godhead personally united to that created nature wherein in such a case he were supposed to suffer had bin of infinite value and satisfaction for otherwise it could not have bin expiatorie for himselfe there being every whit as much required for the attoning of one mans sinne as is for the sinne of the whole world yet had the infinitnesse of this satisfaction extended only to himselfe and to the purging of his owne sinne and not so much as to one other In so much that in this case had he meant to have propitiated for the world after he had once died and overcame death for himselfe he must have returned againe into the infirmitie of the flesh and have suffered death the second time Vpon this consideration doubtlesse it is that the Holy Ghost tendering the satisfaction and peace of the consciences of beleevers touching the fulnesse and unquestionablenesse of their redemption and salvation by the death of Christ still inserteth the mention of his perfect righteousnesse when he speaketh of his death or sufferings for them By his knowledg shall my righteous servant justifie many for he shall beare their iniquities that is the punishment due to their iniquities Esa 53.11 manifestly implying that there is a great weight and moment in the righteousnesse of Christs person to assure or secure the consciences of men coÌ„cerning their justification by his death You may please at leysure to peruse and compare these Scriptures further being all with many more of the same consideration 2 Cor. 5.21 Heb. 9.14 1 Pet. 1.19 1 Pet. 2.22 23.24 c. Thus then we have at least discovered another great end of the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ viz the qualification of his person at least in part for that meritoriousnesse of his death which may stand the world in stead for their justification So that there is no necessitie at all of having recourse to the pretended imputation for salving the necessitie or usefulnesse of it By what we have reasoned in this last passage it appeares how little substance of truth there is in that which some much insist upon SECT 9 as a confirmation of the argument now under debate viz. that the bare union of the God-head with the flesh or humane nature of Christ did sufficiently qualifie it for a sacrifice they meane for a sacrifice of that same expiatorie value and vertue which now it is so that in this respect at least there could be no necessitie or use of his fuâ—fiâ—â—ing the Law Doubtlesse the men of this affirmation either do not consider the necessitie of that personall integritie in Christ which we lately demonstrated and which the Scriptures from place to place insinuate or else they conceive that Christ man might have bin righteous without doing the works of righteousnesse that is without keeping the Law which is all one as if they should say he might have bin righteous though he had transgressed For not to keepe the Law in those to whom the Law is given is nothing else but to transgresse If they thinke to relieve themselves with this interpretation of their notion that if Christ had suffered in the first houre or instant of his incarnation or immediatly after the personal union of the two natures his sacrifice had bin of equall value merit and satisfaction with what now it is and yet in this case he had not fulfilled or kept the Law I answere that this interpretation is every whit as unfound and inconsistent with reaâ—on as the text it selfe For First let this supposition be admitted that Christ might have suffered in the Womb and that this suffering of his had bin as fully satisfactorie for the world as those sufferings are which he hath now endured yet had he bin as perfectly righteous in this case and consequently had observ'd and kept the Law as perfectly as now he hath done For the Law requireth of Infants during their Infancie nothing but integritie and holinesse of nature which doubtlesse the Lord Christ had from the first moment of his conception a child or infant thus qualified I meane with holines integritie of nature keepeth the Law as perfectly exactly as a man living to 30 or 40 yeares of age should do in case he never traÌ„sgrest But Secondly SECT 10 this interpretation drawes the saying it selfe quite besides the businesse in hand and makes it a meere impertinencie to the present question For when we affirme the righteousnesse of Christs life or his obedience to the Morall Law to be of absolute necessitie for the qualification of his person for a meet sacrifice our meaning is not that there was an absolute necessitie that he should have kept the Law upon the same termes every waies which now he hath done as that he should performe the same individuall acts of obedience or the same number of acts in case he had bin called to the suffering of death any whit sooner then now he was but that untill the very houre and instant wherein he should suffer whether it were sooner or later he should in all things submit himselfe unto the good will and pleasure of God concerning him aswell in that generall Law which requires obedience of all men besides which we call Morall as in that particular and speciall Law of Mediator which was given unto and imposed upon himselfe alone Such an indefinite righteousnesse as this we judge and have I suppose unanswerably proved to have bin simply necessarie in Christ for the raising of that sacrifice of himselfe to that height of acceptation in the behalfe of others which now it hath found at the hand of God But however suppose this necessitie or use of the righteousnesse of Christ could not be sufficiently cleared yet since there are many others of undeniable evidence the position so much contended for viz. that the God-head of Christ sufficiently qualified him for such a sacrifice as he was makes nothing at all for the imputation of his righteousnesse in the sense pretended Therefore we shall not trouble either our selves or our Reader any further with untying an impertinent knot But Seventhly SECT 11 as Christ was a sacrifice so was he and yet is and is to be for ever Heb. 7.17 c.
â—a Priest also or an High Priest and that righteousnesse of his we speake of qualifieth him that is contributeth towards his qualification for Priest-hood aswell as it did for sacrifice If he had not been perfectly righteous and consequently fulfill'd the Morall Law aâ— well as any other Law which concern'd him he had bin uncapable of that great place or dignitie of Priest-hood which now he executes to the great benefit and blessing of the world This is evident from that Scripture Heb. 7.26 27. For such an High â—riest it became us to have who is holy harmelesse undefiled separated from sinners c. meaning that no Priest whatsoever without these qualifications could have stood us in that great stead had bin sit to intercede with God for us as Christ now doth Eightly and lastly that holy pleasure and contentment which Christ himselfe tooke in those works of righteousnesse wherein hee addresse himselfe to God his Father by obedience to his Law may well be look'd upon as one considerable end or use of this obedience of his My meat is saith himselfe Ioh. 4.34 to doe the will of him that sent me and to finish his work Christ was inwardly and secretly refresh'd and satisfied with every act or worke of righteousnesse which he wrought as generally men are by acting and working out of such principles as are connaturall and pleasing to them It is joy to the just to doe judgement saith Solomon Prov. 21.15 Then the people rejoyced when they offered willingly c. 1 Chr. 29.9 Especially the Lord Christ being full of grace and of the Spirit of holinesse and withall knowing perfectly and throughly apprehending the full excellencie and beauty of all righteousnesse and subjection unto God could not but take and tast very high and excellent contentments in all that he did in such a way So that were there no other end use or necessitie of that righteousnesse of Christ about which we now reason but only his own personall satisfaction and contentment in the working it this is abundantly sufficient to salve the the usefulnesse and necessitie of it How many things are done even by wise men with no relation to any further end but only their owne pleasure satisfaction and contentment in doing them Therefore the Argument last propounded to establish the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense supposed viz. the uselesnesse of it otherwise is weaker then its fellowes though neither have these cause to boast of much strength A fift argument imployed in the same service SECT 12 Argum. 5 is this If we be debtors unto the Law and that not only in matter of punishment deserved by our disobedience to it but in perfection of obedience also then did Christ not only suffer death for us that we might be delivered from the punishment or curse due unto our sinnes but also fulfilled the Law for us that so we may be reputed to have fulfilled the Law in him or by the imputation of his fulfilling the Law unto us otherwise the Law should yet remaine to be fulfilled by us But we are debtors unto the Law not only in matter of punishment for our transgression but in perfection of obedience also otherwise our sinning against the Law should exempt and privilege us from subjection to the Law Ergo. A short Answere I conceive may do sufficient execution upon a long argument Answere Therefore I say nothing to the major proposition but only in what we shall charge upon the minor to this I answere that it labours of an infirmity very incident to reasonings especially against the truth called homonymia or ambiguitie of expression For when it affirmoth that we are debtors to the Law in perfection of obedience aswell as in matter of punishment as this debt of obedience may be variously interpreted and understood the proposition may either be true or false If this be the meaning that we that are beleevers are debtors unto the Law in perfection of obedience for our justification it is utterly false For we have no need to depend upon it or any obedience to it for our justification in the sight of God but are fully and freely justified by Christs blood Ro. 5.9 Neither are such debtors to it so much as in matter of punishment Christ having cased their shoulder of this burden by taking it upon his own It is true those that beleeve not in Christ may in this sense be said to be debtors to the Law aswell in matter of perfect obedience as of punishment that if they meane to be justified and to escape the punishment and condemnation under which they lye otherwise then by Christ they must keep the whole Law because no third way of justification from punishment due to the transgression of the Law was ever heard of nor is imaginable but either by Faith in Christ or by a personall obstervation of the whole Law And in this sense the Apostle Gal. 5.3 testifieth to every man that is circumcised viz. with reserence to his justification 〈◊〉 God this he is bound to keepe the whole Law as well as to be circumcised I because he that sticketh not wholly and entirely unto Christ for justification must of necessitie keep and observe the whole Law even every jot and tittle of it and not some part or parts of it only to obtaine justification with God But Secondly If the proposition meaneth that beleevers are debtors of perfect obedience to the Law in a way of sanctification and thankfulnesse unto God for that unspeakable grace of Iustification and forgivenesse of sinnes by Christ so it is and hath bin formerly acknowledged for a truth cap. 3. Sect. 10. of this second Part. But in this sense it concerneth not the question in hand Thirdly we are not therefore exempted or priviledged from fulfilling or keeping the Law no not in respect of Iustification it selfe because we have transgressed it but 1º having once transgressed we are utterly uncapable of such an observation or keeping it whether personally or by imputation which may amount to a Iustification or exemption from punishment 2º that relaxation or release which we have from an observation of or dependance upon the Law for Iustification accrueth unto us by meanes of our dependance upon Christ for Justification thorough his death and suffering the curse of the Law for us Rom. 7.4 For Fourthly SECT 13 God never required of any man but only of Christ both exactnesse of obedience to the Law and subjection to punishment due to the transgression of the Law coniunction but divisim only He that shall perfectly keep the Law is no where threatned or bound to suffer the penaltie due to the transgression of the Laâ—â— nay the very expresse renor of the Law promiseth exemption or freedome from punishment unto such Dee this and thou shall live The Law doth not make any man a debtor in respect of punishment simply and absolutely but conditionally only and upon supposition of sinne Fiâ—â—ly and lastly
his I meane of those that were-to descend Spiritually from him by Faith though for my selfe I had rather demurre then joyne issue in this And yet how ridiculous is it on the one hand and of dangerous consequence on the other to suppose that all that Adam did and all that very possibly he might have done either may or might have bin so imputed to all his posteritie as if they had done it Of what advantage or concernment can it be unto me that God should looke upon me as one that gave Names to all Cattell and to the foules of Heaven and to every Beast of the Field which yet Adam did Gen. 2.20 Or as upon one that first propagated man-kinde and begat Cain which we know were done by Adam with twenty things more of like nature In case he had stood and continued in his righteousnesse the publiquenesse of his person had bin no waies touched nor impaired hereby and yet is it of very doubtfull importance to conceive that all that righteousnesse which Adam in this case had wrought should have bin look'd upon as the righteousnesse of all his posteritie and imputed to them for their Justification For from hence it would follow 10 that all his posteritie should have bin saved 20 that they should all have bin sinlesse which are two principall regions of terra incognita 30 and lastly that they should all have bin justified by a double righteousnesse one personall and wrought by themselves another imputative wrought by another and so in this respect at least should have bin better provided for their justification then those that are now justified by Christ Secondly it hath bin formerly demonstrated SECT 20 how little consistence it hath either with truth See cap. 2. Sect. 14. of this second Part. or with the manner of Scripture expression to say that the sufferings of Christ are by God look'd upon as our sufferings or to conceive that we should suffer in him It is not all one to say saith Doctor Willet we are punished in Christ and Christ was punished for us and in our stead this is warranted by the Scripture Esa 53.6 But the other cannot be affirmed for seeing in Christs death we have remission of our sins we cannot be said for the same sinnes to be punished in and with Christ whereof we have remission in his death Comment on Dan. 9. Qu. 25. p. 289. Thirdly the publiquenesse of a person who negotiates the businesse and affaires of others as Christ did of those that shall beleeve in him doth no further or any otherwise interesse those whose affaires they manage in what they do in or about such a transaction but only with reference to the issue and successe of what they do for them in that behalfe If a man undertakes the ordering and issuing of such a businesse for me and deales dishonestly or unconscionably with others therin and at last makes a conclusion with much damage and disadvantage to me which might be a wise and saire cariage of things on my behalfe have bin prevented I am in this case liable to suffer all the detriment and damage which the unconscionablenesse or weaknesse of my Agent hath brought upon me but I am not to be look'd upon as one that have us'd the same unconscionablenesse with him or as if his weaknesse were mine Or in case he had dealt wisely or faithfully for me and had brought my businesse to a good end or issue I here receive benefit and good by such a mans wisdome and faithfulnesse but these are not ascribed orimputed unto me as mine owne because he was my Agent that used them The Client that prevailes against his adversary before the Judge by the skill of his Advocate or Lawyer is not therefore reputed as skilfull in the Law as his Advocate nor to have pleaded his own cause as substantially and effectually as his Lawyer did In like manner as farre as Adam had a Commission or power from God to deale for me or in my affaires being one of his posteritie I am bound to undergoe and suffer my share in that evill or miserie which he brought upon the world through his weaknesse or unfaithfulnesse in that transaction but this weaknesse or unfaithfulnesse of his as a Commissioner for me is not look'd upon as my personall weaknesse or unfaithfulnesse only so farre as my person was in his they are ascribed and imputed unto me as mine own See for this cap. 2. Sect. 11. of this second part So againe on the other hand as farre as Christ had a power from God to deale for me and in mine affaires being one that beleeve in him I have my part and portion in that blessed end and issue whereunto by his holinesse wisdome faithfulnesse and patience he brought the affaires of the world entrusted in his had but God doth never the more looke upon me as if that holinesse wisdome faithfulnesse and patience had bin mine nor is it any waies necessary that he should to make me capable of that which falls to my share as I am a beleever in that great and blessed transaction of Christ Fourthly and lastly to part with this argument also upon such terms SECT 21 that we may never need to meete more neither is it altogether so solid or sound a truth as haply is supposed that Christ stood in the place or stead of those that should beleeve in him especially in all things performed by him and which tended to the qualification of his person for the accomplishing of that great work of Redemption To stand in the place or stead of another implies a necessitie of his being in the same place and doing the same things himselfe wherin he stands and which he doth who is supposed to stand in his stead unlesse they had bin done by this other for him Now Christ did a thousand things yea and suffered many for the doing and suffering wherof there lay no personall necessitie upon many Beleevers whether Christ had done or suffered them or no. As for example there was no necessitie either in way of duty or of penaltie lying upon any Beleever one or other to be conceived or borne of a virgin to turne water into wine to command the winds and the Seas to ordain Apostles or the like Againe there was no necessitie lying upon any beleeving Gentile to have bin circumcised to have bin in subjection unto Ioseph to have eaten the Passeover at Hierusalem c. Therefore in all these Passages of his life with many others it is full evident that he stood not in the place or stead of all Beleevers All that the Scripture speaketh in this case is that he suffered for us was made a curse for us c. which expressions though they imply indeed in the generall a necessitie of our sufferings unlesse Christ had suffered for us yet do they not imply a necessitie of our sufferings in the same kinde or after the same manner in all particulars
It doeth not follow that except Christ had bin circumcised we must have bin circumcised except he had fasted 40 daies we must have fasted 40. except he had bin scourged with rods or crucified on a Crosse we must of necessitie have bin scourged or crucified only it followes that except Christ had suffered either in these or some other particulars as satisfactorie to divine wisdome and justice as these we must have suffered and that most grievously Therefore it is not every waies so square a truth that Christ even in his sufferings themselves particularly considered stood in our stead But the Scriptures which oft say that Christ suffered for us died for as c. never say that either he kept the Morall or Ceremoniall Law nor any part of either for us though this expression may be admitted without granting that he did these in our stead See cap. 3. Sect. 11. of this second part And thus we see that this argument also is defective on every side Another SECT 22 Argum. 10 reaching after the same conclusion with the former but scarse with the liek appearance of strength is this If we cannot be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ otherwise then by the imputation of it then must it needs be imputed unto us in our justification But there is no way of being Iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ but only by the imputation of it unto us Ergo. I answere in few words to the latter proposition Answer that if the righteousnesse that is the active obedience of Christ could have no other influence into Iustification but in that way of imputation which hath hitherto bin gain-said either Iustification must stand without it or else fall For certame it is that no such imputation can stand as hath bin proved by three demonstrations and by foure and by many more added to them in the first part of this Discourse But the weaknesse of the Proposition is sufficiently evinced from hence because that righteousnesse of Christ mentioned in it concurr's towards Iustification by qualifying his person for that sacrifice of himselfe by which Iustification or remission of sinnes hath bin purchased for all those that beleeve as hath bin opened at large in an answere to a former argument The quiver of our Adversaries is well nigh exhaust and almost empty by this I scarce know two arguments more really differing from those already produced that will well hold the Answering The best of those which yet remaine I conceive is this If we may truly be said to be dead and crucified with Christ SECT 23 Argum. 11 to be quickened with Christ to have risen againe with Christ to sit in heavenly places in or with Christ c. then may we be truly said to have fulfilled the Law with Christ also for there is no reason why any difference should be made in this case and consequently the fulfilling of the Law by Christ is imputed to us and accounted ours But we may truly be said to be dead and crucified and quickned raised againe and to sit with Christ in Heavenly places the Scripture affirming all this Ergo. My Answere to this argument is a Protestation against the consequence of the major Proposition Answere as being insufficient Our being dead and risen againe with Christ c. in a Scripture serise haâ—â—â—â—o such conclusion or inference as this in their bowells therefore we have fulfilled the Morall Law with Christ alsoâ— or if we could be said to have fulfilled this Law with Christ our own fulfilling it in him should rather be said to be imputed to us Cap. 2. Sect. 11. of this second Part. then his fulfilling it for us as we formerly reasoned concerning the imputation of Adams sinne But the reason of the difference viz. why we may be said in the Scripture sense to be dead and risen againe with Christ c. and yet cannot be said to have fulfilled the Law with Christ in the sense demanded is this When the Scripture saith we are dead we are crucified we are quickened or risen againe with Christ c. the meaning is not that God looks upon us as if we had layd downe our naturall lives by death when he layd downe his and as if this laâ—ing down ourlives were a fatisfaction to his justice for our sinne for then we might aswell be said to have satisfied for our selves or to have redeemed our selves with Christ as to have died or bin crucified with him such expressions as these only import either a profession of such a death in us which holds proportion and hath a spirituall kinde of resemblance and likenesse with the death of Christ which is usually called a death or dying unto sinne and to the world Rom. 6.5 or else this death it selfe really effected and wrought in us by that death of Christ being therefore called the communion or fellowship of his sufferings aswell as a conformitie to his death Phil. 3.10 You have the expression us'd in the former sense Rom. 6. â— How shall we that are dead to sinne that is who professe a being dead unto sinne with Christ live yet therin and so be a reproach to our Profession In the latter sense it is found Gal. 2.20 I am crucified with Christ that is the naturall death of Christ for for mâ— anâ— many moe hath wrought upon me in a way of assimilation to it selfe and hath made me a dead man to the world So when Beleevers are said to be quickened or risen againe with Christ the meaning is not that God lookes upon them as quickened from a naturall or corporall death to a naturall or glorified life and condition as Christ quickening and rising againe was which yet must be the meaning if any thing be made of it to strengthen the proposition now under assault but the cleare meaning of such expressions is either to signifie the profession that is made by us of that newnesse of life which in way of a spirituall analogie and likenesse answeres that life whereunto Christ was quickened and rose againe from the death Rom. 6.5 or else the new life it selfe raised and wrought in us by that quickning and rising againe of Christ from the dead In the former sense you shall finde one of them used Colos 3.1 Jf ye be risen with Christ that is since you make profession of that new and excellent life which answers the life which Christ lived upon and after his resurrection give this account and evidence of it unto the world seeke the things that are above c. In the latter sense you may finde the other Eph. 2.5 Even when we were dead in sinnes hath quickened us together with Christ meaning that GOD by the quickening and raising of Christ from the dead had begotten them as Peter speakes to such a life which spiritually answereth that quickening and rising againe of Christ But on the other hand as there is no such expression in Scripture as this we have fulfilled the Law
with Christ so neither if there were would it make any thing at all to salve the truth of the proposition under question if the sense and meaning of it were caried according to the line of the interpretation of those other expressions mentioned For what if we should be said either to professe such a fulfilling of the Law which holds a spirituall analogie or proportion with Christs fulfilling the Law or really and personally to fulfill the Law after such a manner were there any thing in this to inferre an imputation of Christs personal fulfilling the Law in the letter and formalitie thereof unto us Doubtlesse Christ's quickening and rising againe are not in the letter and formalitie of them imputed unto the Saints for their quickening and rising againe in the same manner if they were Hymeneus and Philetus had bin no Heretiques for teaching that the resurrection was past already 2 Tim. 2.18 Therefore neither is there any thing in this reason more then in its fellowes to repaire the breaches that have bin made upon that imputation which with them it seeks to fortifie We have but one encounter more SECT 24 Argum. 12 and then the battaile ceaseth for the present The last argument I shall propound and Answere is this Whosoever is a sinner and so continueth whilst he lives cannet be justified otherwise then by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse But every man Christ excepted is a sinner and so continueth whilst he lives Therefore no man can be justified but by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse An answere to this and an end Answere though the truth is that more then an answere hath bin given already I repeate therefore rather then adde in reference to the former Proposition that if there be no other way or means for the justifying of a sinner then by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense so often sentenced doubtlesse the condition of the whole world is miserable and help-lesse there is no way or dore of life yet opened unto sinners For imputation of this righteousnesse upon such terms there is none as hath bin largly proved and if I be not mistaken beyond all reasonable deniall throughout the bodie of this discourse But blessed be the Father of mercies and God of all comfort who without the key of such an imputation hath opened an effectuall dore of Iustification unto poore sinners yea even unto those who are like to be no better then sinners whilst they live in the world however this justification coming upon them makes them the best and happiest of sinners in that kinde Those that truly beleeve in Iesus Christ being not under the Law but under grace are not liable to condemnation for the things they commit daily against the Law If any man sinne as we ast do whilst we live we have an Advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sinnes 1 Jâ—n 2.1.2 So that for the dissolving and taking away all the gurâ—t danger and inconveniences of the â—inuâ—s of beleevers in every kinde there needs no imputation of the active obedience of Christ the propitiation which he is unto them by his blood and intercâ—ision hath done this service for them to the uttermost before this imputation is supposed to come at them And doubtlesse it is no more to the justification of a sinner then the Midwifes were to the deliverâ—e of those Hebrew women who were fully and safely delivered before the Midwifes came at them Que apud Dominum propitiatio est nisi sacrisiciciumâ— et quod est sacri ficium nisi quod pro noâ—is oblatum est in morte Christi Aug. Exod. 1. What propitiation saith Augustine is there with the Lord but sacrifice and what sacrifice is there but that which was offered for us in the death of Christ Nor are we to thinke that the fulnesse of the merit of the death of Christ is so exhaust and spent upon the purchase of the parden and forgivenesse of our sinnes that it will not hold out to procure our acceptation also with God Yes by the redundancie of this merit saith Mr. Reynolds (a) The life of Christ p. 402. after satisfaction made thereby unto his Fathers justice for our debt there is further a purchase made of grace and glory and all good things in our behalfe Yea Adoption it selfe and the acceptation of our persons and admittance into the high favour of God to be made heyres of selvation spring all from one and the same most precious and fruitfull roote of the blood of Christ the perfect holinesse of his person and righteousnesse of his life presupposed as hath bin said So that he that hath communion in the fulnesse of his death shall not know what to doe with the imputation of the righteousnesse of his life after it were it made unto him or conferred upon him But enough if not more then enough of this heretofore Thus have we at last overcome and fully answered all those arguments and pieâ—â—â— which to my knowledge have yet bin insisted upon and consâ—â—ed in by anâ— for the up-bearing of thâ—â—â—utation 〈◊〉 Christs righteousnesse in the sense 〈…〉 contradicted in the discourse viz. in the letter and formality of it or as the formall cause whether in whole or in part of Iustification If any man of conâ—â—ary judgment and yet unsatisfied will vouchsase in a spirit of meekenesse and love either to diâ—â—â—â— the insufficiencie and weaknesse of any of there Answers in case he conceives them insufficient and weake or else further to object what he conceives to be of greater weight and importance then the arguments already answered I shall willingly and unpartially consider of either And if in either I shall finde any thing of pregnant and solid conviction and above answere I shall soone turne Proselyte and be glad to be so delivered of an error I had much rather be imployed in cancelling and desacing mine owne errors then other mens and desire to make it my daily trade and occupation to exchange darknesse for light crooked things for streight errors for truths The Lord by his Spirit lead us into the way of all â—ruth and keepe us that we turne not aside either to the right hand or to the lest that so we may be soundly built up in our most holy Faith and be prepared hereby for his everlasting Kingdome FINIS