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
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
37. for censured r. conceived CAP. I. VVherein the state of the question is opened and the sense EXPLAINED Wherein aswell the Imputation of FAITH is affirmed as the imputation of the RIGHTEOUSNESSE of CHRIST denyed in JUSTIFICATION FOR the cleare understanding of the state and drift of the question some things would be premised which for their evidence sake might be privilledged and exempted from passing under much dispute or contradiction yet if any thing be not sufficiently prepared for assent in the briefe proposall of it the ensuing discourse will labor to reconcile the disproportion and in the progresse make satisfaction for what it shall receive upon courtesie in the beginning As 1. That the termes justifying justification c. are not to be taken in this question nor in any other usually moved about the justification of a sinner either 1 sensu physico in a Physicall sense as if to justifie signified to make just with any habituall or actuall any positive or inherent righteosnesse Nor yet 2. sensu forensi propriè dicto in a juridicall or judiciary sense properly so called where the Iudge hath only a subordinate and derived power of â—udicature and is bound by Oath or otherwise to give sentence according to the strict rule of the Law as if to justify were to pronounce a man just or 〈◊〉 absolve him from punishment according to the strict terme of precise rule of that Law whereof he was accused as a transgressor though this sense be admitted and received by many But 3. and lastly sensu forensi improprié dicto in a judiciary sense lesse properly and usually so called vizr where he that Titteth Iudge being the supreme Magistrate hath an independancy or soveraignty of power to moderate and dispence with the Law as reason or equity shall require So that to justify in this question import's the discharging or absolving of a man from the guilt blame and punishment of those things whereof he either is or justly might be accused not because he is cleare of such things or justifiable according to the letter or strictnesse of the Law for then he could not be justly accused but because the Judge having a sufficient lawful soveraignty of power is willing upon sufficient weighty considerations known unto him to remit the penalty of the Law and to deliver and discharg him as if he were an innocent or righteous man As for the Physical sense of making just by inherent righteousnesse though Bellarmine and his Angells earnestly contend for it yet till Scriptures be brought low and Etymologies be exalted above them till use and custome of speaking deliver up their Kingdome into Cardinalls bands that sense must no way be acknowledged or received in this dispute Yet to give reason and right even to those that demand that which is unreasonable it is true that God in or upon a mans justification begins to justifie him Physically that is to infuse habituall or inherent righteousnesse into him But here the Scriptures and the Cardinall are as far out in termes as in a thousand other things they are in substance and matter that which he will needs call justification the Scriptures will as peremptorily call Sanctification Concerning the other sense of a judiciary justification usually and strictly so called SECT 2 wherein the Iudge or justifier proceeds upon legall grounds to acquit and absolve the party guilty or accused neither can this be taken in the Question propounded except the Scriptures be forsaken because the Scriptures constantly speake of this act of God justifying a sinner not as of such an act whereby he will either make him or pronounce him legally just of declare him not to have offended the Law and hereupon justifie him but of such an act whereby he freely forgives him all that he hath done against the Law and acquits him from all blame and punishment due by the Law unto such offences So that in that very act of God whereby he justifies a sinner as there is a discharge from all punishment due unto him so there is a profession withall or plaine intimation of the guiltinesse of the person now to be justified according to the Law and that he is not discharged or acquitted upon any consideration that can be pleaded for him according to the Law but that consideration upon which God proceeds to justifie him is of another order the consideration of somewhat done for him in this case to relieve him out of the course and order or appointment of the Law he whose justification stands whether in whole or in part it is not materiall herein in the forgivenesse of sinne can in no construction be said to be justified according to the Law because the Law knowes no forgivenesse of sinnes neither is there any rule for any such thing there The Law speakes of the curse death and condemnation of a sinner but for the justification of a sinner it neither takes knowledg nor gives any hope thereof Secondly That Iesus Christ the naturall Sonne of God and supernaturall Sonne of the Virgin ran a race of obedience with the Law aswell Ceremoniall as Morall and held out with every letter jot and tittle of it as farre as it any wayes concerned him during the whole continuance of his life in the flesh no mans thoughts ever rose up to deny but those that denyed him the best of his being I meane his Godhead Which of you convinceth me of sinne was his challenge to the Nation of the Jewes whilst he was yet on earth Ioh 8 46. and remaines through all ages as a challenge to the world He that can â—ast the least aspersion or imputation of sinne upon Christ shall shake the foundations of the peace and safety of the world Thirdly that this Christ offered up himselfe as a Lambe without spot in sacrifice upon the Crosse to make an attonement for the world and to purge the sinne of it I know no spirit at this day abroad in the Christian world that denies but that which wrought in Secinus formerly and still workes in those that are baptized into the same spirit of error with him Fourthly I conceive it to be a truth of greater authority amongst us then to meet with contradiction from any man that Iesus Christ is the sole and entire meritorious cause of every mans justification that is justified by God or that that righteousnesse or absolution from sinne and condemnation which is given to every man in his justification is somewhat yea a principall part or member of that great purchase which Christ hath made for the world Evan as God for Christs sake freely forgave you Ephes 4.32 Forgivenesse of sinnes or justification is from God for Christs sake he is worthy to be gratified and honored by God with the justification of those that believe in him whatsoever he is worthy of more Fiftly It is a truth that hath every mans judgment concurring with it that Faith is the condition appointed by God and
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
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
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.
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
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
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
justitia justice or righteousnesse but justificatio justification Beza by himselfe and perhaps more agreeable to the Apostles minde then the rest translates it jus the right or Law as it were of the Law And so both Chrysostom a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost ad Ro. 8. â— Serm. 13. and Theophylact b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in Rom. 8.4 of old expound the word not of any obedience of to the Law but of the end scope or intent of the Law viz. justification Paraus following Bezas translation of the word conceives that the Apostle by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or jus legis meanes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or damnatorie sentence of the Law against sinners mentioned cap. 5.16 in which signification of the word that right or power which God hath to condemne sinners unto death is called cap. 1.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where our English render it the iudgement of God the former translation had it the Law of God This exposition of the word though it seemes contrary to that given by Calvin and others mentioned yet will it give out one and the same sense and importance of the place with it as will presently appeare So that if this place were translated with exactnesse to the originall the argument that is now drawne from it for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse would wholly disappeare 6. Neither is it by ten degrees as cleere as the Sun that by the word Law in this Scripture we must of necessitie and with all precisenesse understand the Morall Law We know there are many other acceptions of the word in the writings of this Apostle And that it cannot be here meant precisely of the Morall Law is evident 1º because that impossibility of iustifying men thorugh the weaknesse of the flesh spoken of ver 3. is not confin'd to this Law alone but extends aswell to the other two Ceremoniall and Judiciall except we shall say that though the Morall Law was weake through the flesh and could not iustifie yet the Ceremoniall and Judiciall had a sufficiencie of strength hereunto which is manifestly untrue 2º because the Jewes to whom especially he addresseth himselfe in all his disputations concerning the Law and Iustification thereby built asmuch or more upon the observation of the Ceremoniall Law for their Iustification then of the Morall as was formerly observed Sect. 8. of this Chapter Now its certaine that the Apostle here takes the word Law in the same sense and latitude wherein the Jewes meant it when they contended and argued for Iustification by it otherwise he should not argue with them ad idem nor reach their apprehensions or meaning 3º because the Morall Law suppose it had not bin made weake nor disadvantag'd by the flesh yet could it not by the most exact observation of it have justified men at least not all men and by name not the Jewes who were bound to the observation of the other two aswell as of it and had bin found sinners had they faild in any point of either of these though they had bin absolute in the other Now it is evident that by the righteousnesse or Iustification of the Law in this place the Apostle meanes the righteousnesse or Iustification of such a Law which in it selfe was able to iustifie had it met with a sufficiencie of strength in men answerable to it Therefore he cannot be conceiv'd to speake here determinatly of the Morall Law which had no such abilitie in respect of the Jewes 4º and lastly because the Jewes had bin never the neerer a Iustification by the righteousnesse of the Morall Law imputed from Christ unto them supposing such an imputation being as hath bin said under the transgression of other Lawes So then this consideration also that by the word Law in this â—cripture cannot be meant the Morall Law gives an utter defeat to the attempt that is made upon it for the establishing of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse But 7. SECT 14 and lastly the cleare meaning of the place seem's to be this God sending his owne Sonne c. condemned sinne in the flesh that the righteousnesse or Justification of the Law might be fulfilled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or upon us c. that is that that Iustification or way of making men righteous which the Law that is the writings of Moses held forth and prophecied of unto the world long since viz. by Faith in the Messia that was then to come and to make attonemement for sinne by his blood might be fulfilled in us or upon us that is might be accomplished made good and fully manifested in us or upon us viz. in our Iustification who by our walking not after the flesh but after the Spirit that is by an eminencie of holinesse in our lives above the straine and pitch of men under the Law give testimony unto the world that the Messia or Great Iustifier of men foretold by Moses is indeed come into the world and having suffered for sinne and overcome death hath powred out the Spirit of Grace abundantly upon those that beleeve in him This interpretation especially as farre as concern's the clause in question that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us is confirmed aswell by the sweet proportion and sutablenesse betweene such a fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the Law in those that beleeve and live accordingly as the effect and that sending of Christ in the similitude of sinfull flesh to condemne sinne in the flesh laid downe in the former verse as the meanes or cause thereof Secondly in this interpretation the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fulfilled hath its proper and genuine force and signification which is wholly lost in that exposition which laboureth to finde the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in this place For to be fulfilled in the Scripture properly signifieth the accomplishment making good or full manifestation of a thing which before was under promise or prediction only and as it were in the darke Thirdly that righteousnesse or Iustification which is here called the righteousnesse or Justification of the Law is questionlesse the same righteousnesse which Rom. 3.21 is said to be witnessed by the Law that is by the writings of Moses and by the preaching whereof the Law it selfe is said to be established ver 31. of that Chapter So that in this respect it may very well be called the righteousnesse or Justification of the Law Fourthly and lastly according to the tenor of this interpretation this passage of Scripture is of perfect sympathie and accordance with those Rom. 3.21.22.25 whereas as the other interpretation leadeth it it can neither fiâ—de friend nor fellow in all the Scripture In the former of these last cited Scriptures the Apostle expresseth himselfe thus But now the righteousnesse of God without the Law is manifested being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets even the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Jesus Christ c. In the
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.
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
committed against the Law is doubtlesse out of the danger and reach of the curse of the Law Now it is fully consistent with the principles of that opinion it selfe which we oppose to ascribe a perfect forgivenesse of all sinnes to the passive obedience or death of Christ imputed without the imputation of the active obedience with it for that end Yea I never yet heard of any of that way and judgement who pleaded the necessity of Christs active obedience imputed for the bringing men off from the curse of the Law but only to bring them under the blessing or promise of the Law Doe this and live Therefore the argument in hand is no more a friend to that opinion it selfe which it seekes to establish then it is to the truth it selfe Falsum nunc vero nunc falso est conâ—â—arium Thirdly the imputation of a perfect fulfilling of the Law from another were it granted cannot make him a continuer in all things that are written in the Law to doe them who offends daily in many things and consequently will leave him in as bad a case in respect of the curse of the Law as it finds him All the imputations under Heaven of whatsoever from whomsoever cannot make him who hath not continued in all things of the Law to doe them to have continued in them It is well that this argument is weake for otherwise it is of a most bloody and unmercifull Spirit and would beare downe all the world before it into Hell If there be no other way or meanes for poore sinfull men to come off from the curse of the Law but by continuing in all things that are written therein to doe them Doubtlesse they must all fall under this curse and never rise againe Therefore Fourthly and lastly the direct intent and meaning of this passage of Scripture is this Cursed be every one that continueth not c. that is every one that expecteth Justification and salvation by the Law woe be to every such person man or woman if they continue not in all things that are written in the Law to doe them the curse of the Law will fall heavy and terrible upon them That this is the plaine and expresse meaning of the Apostle in this place and that that clause of universalitie Cursed be every one c. is to be limited to the universality of those only who depend upon the Law for Iustification is evident First SECT 28 As it is true that whatsoever the Law speaketh it speaketh to those that is to all those that are under the Law Rom. 3.19 so is it as true also that whatsoever the Law speaketh it speaketh only unto those that are under it and to none other Now those that expect and looke for Iustification by Faith in Iesus Christ and not by the Law are not under the Law but under grace Rom. 6.14 See also Rom. 7.1 2 3 4. Therefore the Cursings and threatningâ— of the Law doe no waies concerne or touch any of these So Gal. 5.23 speaking of those that were Christs that is that were dead to the Law as touching all hope and dependance upon it for Iustification and had cast themselves upon him for that blessing affirmeth that against such there was no Law meaning no Law to judge or condemne them And 1 Tim. 1.9 He denieth that the Law is given to a righteous man but unto the lawlesse and disobedient c. meaning that the Law as touching the curse and penalty of it was never intended by God for men that are holy and righteous that is that are true beleevers in Iesus Christ from whom all holinesse and righteousnesse proceed But Secondly the context it selfe apparantly leades us to this limitation and interpretation For 1º the words immediatly preceding in the beginning of the verse are these For as many as are of the works of the Law that is that seeke to be justified by the works of the Law as Calvin Musculus and all Protestant writers generally interpret are under the Curse To proove this he alledgeth that testimony of the Law mentioned For it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not c. So that this clause and the curse contained in it have only reference to those that are of the works of the Law that is that seeke to be justified by the Law and not by Christ Againe 2º the interpretation given is confirmed from the words of ver 9. immediatly foregoing Here he had pronounced those that were of Faith that is that sought Justification by Faith in Christ Blessed with faithfull Abraham Now to prove that these were the blessed ones of God and not those that would be justified by the Law which was the Spirit that now began to work among these Galathians he affirm's that all these are under the curse and consequently farre from being blessed And to prove this he cites the passage in hand from the Law it selfe Cursed be every one that continueth not c. So that it is evident from hence also that that continuance in all things which are written in the Law to do them is only required of those either for the removall of the Curse threatned or for the obteyning of the blessing promised who seeke to be justified by the works of the Law and not of those that beleeve with Abraham and depend upon Christ for justification 3º and lastly the tenor of the verse immediatly following is as the light of the Sunne to cleere and vindicate this interpretation For here the Apostle goeth on with the further proofe of his last conclusion viz. that those that are of the works of the Law are under the Curse thus And that no man is justified and then not blessed and consequently accursed by the Law is evident for the just shall live that is be justified and so live and be blessed by Faith when he saith that no man is justified by the Law he supposeth that no man can be said to continue in all things that are written in the Law to doe them for he of whom this may be truly affirmed may very properly be said to be justified by the Law The truth is there is no other way or meanes of Iustification by the Law imaginable but only this Therefore that Iustification which we have by Faith in Christ cannot be said to be by a continuance in all things that are written in the Law to doe them because this is nothing else but Iustification it selfe by the Law And whereas it might be objected SECT 29 but may not a man be justified by Faith and by the Law or righteousnesse of the Law together may not a man be entit'led to or invested with a righteousnesse of the Law in and by his Faith To this the Apostle answers by a preoccupation in the words immediatly following ver 12. And the Law is not of Faith that is a man doth not observe the Law in one kind or other by beleeving he cannot be said to have a
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
required on mans part to bring him into Communion and fellowship of that justification and redemption which Christ hath purchased for the Children of men and that without believing no man can have part or fellowship in that great and blessed businesse Sixtly It is evident from the Scriptures that God in the act of every mans justification doth impute or account righteousnesse unto him or rather somwhat for or instead of a righteousnesse the Scripture useth both expressions by meanes of which imputation the person justified passeth in accompt as a righteous man though he be not properly or perfectly such according to the Law and is invested accordingly with those great priviledges of a man perfectly righteous deliverance from death and condemnation and acceptation into the favor of God The reason of which imputation or why God is pleased to use such an expression of righteousnesse imputed in or about the justification of a sinner seemes to be this the better to satisfie the naturall scruple of the weake and feeble consciences of men who can hardly conceive or thinke of a justification or of being justified especially by God without an expresse literall and perfect legall righteousnesse Now the counsailes and purpose of God in the Gospell being to justifie men without any such righteousnesse being a righteousnesse indeed whereof man in his lapsed condition is wholly uncapable the better to salve the feares of the consciences touching such a defect and to prevent and stay all troublesome thoughts or queries that might arise in the minds of men who when they heare of being justified are still ready to aske within themselves but where is the righteousnesse conceiving a legall righteousnesse to be as necessary to a justification as Isaak conceived of a Lamb for a burnt offering Gen. 22 7. He GOD I meane is graciously pleased so far to condiscend to men in Scripture treatie with them about the weighty businesse of justification as in effect to grant and say unto them that though he finds not any proper or perfect righteousnesse in them no such righteousnesse as passeth under the name of a righteousnesse with them yet if they truely believe in him as Abraham did this believing shall in the consequences of it be as good as a perfect or compleate righteousnesse unto them or that he will impute righteousnesse unto them upon their believing So that now the state drift of the Q. SECT 3 is not either 1 whether Faith without an Object or as separated from Christ be imputed for righteousnesse for such a Faith doubtlesse in the point of justification was never dreamt of by any man that kept his wits company men may aswell fancy a living man without a Soule or a wiseman without his wits as a Faith without an Object much lesse was ever such a faith conceived by any to be imputed for righteousnesse Neither 2 is it any part of the intent of the Question to enquire whether Faith be the meritorious cause of a mans justification for both they that affirme and they that deny the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse deny the meritoriousnesse of faith every waies however it is true that they that would seem most to disclaime it and cast it furthest from them do yet in some of their most beloved tenets draw very neare unto it as will afterward appeare Neither 3 is it the Question whether Faith be the formall cause of justification that is whether God doth justifie a man with his Faith as a Painter makes a wall white with whitenesse or a Master makes his Scholar learned with knowledge for both parties make the forme of justification to be somwhat else differing from Faith contrary to that which is conceived to be the genuine tenet of Arminius Nor yet 4 doth the Question make any quere at all whether Christ be the sole meritorious cause of the Iustification of a sinner for both they that goe on the right hand of the Question and they that goe on the left are knit together in the same mind and judgment concerning this Neither 5 doth the Question as it is here propounded intend any dispute at all whether the active obedience of Christ falling in with the passive and considered in conjunction with it hath any influence into or contributeth any thing towards the Iustification of sinners for this also is acknowledged on both sides at least by the greater party of both But 6 and lastly the Question in precise termes is this whether the faith of him that truely believes in Christ or whether the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe that is the obedience which Christ performed to the Morall Law consisting partly of the inward habit of grace and righteous dispositions of his soule partly of all those severall and particular acts of righteousnesse wherein he obeyed be in the letter and proprietie of it that which God imputes to a believer for righteousnesse or unto righteousnesse in his Iustification So that he that believes is not righteous onely by accompt or by Gods gracious reputing and accepting of him for such but as rigidly literally and peremptorily righteous constituted and made as perfectly as compleatly as legally righteous as Christ himselfe is no difference at all betweene them quoad veritatem but only quoad modum the justified every whit as righteous as the justifier both righteous with the selfe same individuall righteousnesse only this difference betweene the one and the other the justified weares it as put upon him by another by imputation the Justifier weares it put upon him by himselfe or by inherency That the Scriptures no where countenanceth any such imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ as this I trust the Spirit of truth directing and assisting to make manifest in the sequell of this discourse and to give good measure of this truth unto the reader heaped up and pressed downe and running over heaped up by testimonies from the Scriptures themselves pressed down by the weight of many Arguments and demonstrations running over with the cleare approbation of many Authors learned and sound and every way greater then exception Only give me leave here to mention that by the way SECT 3 which may prevent many mistakes yea and offences too in reading the writings of many latter Divines especially of other Churches touching this point of imputation If we take the phrase of imputing Christs righteousnesse unproperly out of the usuall and formall signification of it as Luther and Caelvin and other Divines of the reformed Churches sometimes do in their writings viz. for the giving out or bestowing as it were the righteousnesse of Christ including his obedience aswell passive as active under one and the same terme of righteousnesse in the returne of it i. in the privileges blessings and benefits that are procured and purchased by it for men so a believer may be said to be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed But then the meaning can be no more but this A beleever is justified by the
very truth which this discourse seeketh and ensueth for if God justifieth or regenerates for the righteousnesse of Christ which imports the merit thereof he cannot either justify or regenerate with this righteousnesse of Christ as the formall cause of either the Reason is because it is unpossible that one and the selfe same thing in respect of one and the selfe same effect should put on the different habitude or consideration both of the formall and efficient cause Wherefore if the righteousnesse of Christ be any efficient cause of Iustification as all must grant that will acknowledg it for a meritorious cause thereof no man gainsaying but that the meriting cause is a species or kind of efficient unpossible it is that it should be brought in to any part or fellowship in the formall cause thereof as will further be demonstrated when we come to lay downe our grounds and reasons for what we hold This for Answere to the former exception Concerning the latter objection SECT 7 from Gal. 4.4 Where Christ is said to have been made under the Law From hence it is inferred against the answere given that Paul doth mention the works of the Law as done by Christ in this discourse of Iustification and hereupon concluded further that therefore he had no intent to exclude the works of the Law as done by CHRIST from having their part in Iustification For Answere hereunto not to insist againe upon that which was delivered in the first branch of my Answere to the former objection which yet is sufficient to ease the point in Question of the burden of this objection I ad this in the first place that the phrase of Christs being made under the Law doth not signify Christs obedience or subjection to the Morall Law or that part of the Law which we call Morall but rather his subjection to the Law Ceremoniall as is evident from the scope of the place and particularly from that which is delivered immediatly ver 5. as the end or intent of that his being made under the Law viz. that he might redeeme them that were under the Law There is no reason to conceive that Christ should be said to be made under any other Law then that from under which he was to redeeme others Wherefore we being not redeemed from the Morall Law or from that obedience due to that that being lex aeterna aeternae obligationis an eternall Law and of an eternall obligation but from the Law of Ceremonies it must needs follow that it was this Law under which Christ is here said to have been made So that if men will gather anything from hence for the imputation of Christs obedience in just sication it must be of that obedience which he performed to the Jewish or Ceremoniall Law and so not only the Jewes but we of the Gentiles also must be cloathed with the robes of a Ceremoniall righteousnesse imputed unto us for our Iustification Bâ— secondly if we follow that interpretation of tâ—is clause Christ was made under the Law which Luther â—clines unto and is an exposiâ—â—n of no hard aspect neither upon the place perhaps of a more favourable then the former then by Christs being made under the Law we shall neither understand his subject on to the Morall Law nor yet to the Ceremoniall Law in the preceptive part of either but his subjection unto the Curse of the Law And thus it expresseth both the gracious designation of God and likewise â—he voluntary submission of Christ himselfe unto deaâ—â— for the deliverance of men not only from death it selfe in the future but even from the feare of death in the pâ—â—sâ—nâ— as is plainly expressed Luke 1.74 and Heb. 2.15 In which respect the fruit or effect and benefit of this his being made under the Law is here v. 1.5 said to be the receiving the adoption of Sons If this exposition will stand as I see not how it will easily be overthrowne there being much more to be said for the justifying of it then is it a plaine case that here is nothing spoken nor intended of any such works of Christ as are pretended for imputation in the Iustification of a beleever No adversary I have yet met with in this controversie ever affirmed that either the death of Christ or the imputation of his death should be either the formall or materiall cause of Iustification Much more might be added for the taking of this clause of Scripture from intermedling at all to the prejudice or disturbance of that conclusion for which we have undertaken but having sufficiently cleared as I conceive our second order or sort of proofes from the Scriptures we proceed to others yet remayning CAP. IV. A third Demonstration from the Scriptures of the non-imputation of CHRISTS righteousnesse for justification in the sense ruling in this Controversie THirdly SECT 1 that the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed unto men for their righteousnesse or justification I demonstrate with more brevitie from that Scripture Rom. 3.21 But now is the righteousnesse of God made manifest without the righteousnes of the Law having witnes of the Law and the Prophets even the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve From whence I thus reason if the righteousnesse of Faith which is here called the righteousnesse of God as else where it is in the writings of this Apostle either because he is the founder and contriver of it as Divines for the most part agree or because God bestowes it and gives unto men as Calvin conceives upon this place or because it is this righteousnesse only that will stand and hold out before God as the same Author varieth his conjecture here or whether it be called the righteousnesse of God by way of opposition to the righteousnesse of the Law which is and may well be called the righteousnesse of men Rom 10.3 because they can hardly rellish or savor any other righteousnesse but it or whether for som other reason not so necessary or pertinent to our present inquiry I say if this righteousnesse of Faith consists in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse then is it not nor can it be made manifest without the Law that is without the works of the Law as Calvin rightly interpreteth the meaning of the word But the righteousnesse of Faith is sufficiently manifested without the Law that is without the works or righteousnesse of the Law Therefore it doth not consist in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse The reason of the connâ—xion in the major propâ—sition against which exception must be made â—f the conclusion be denied because the minor is plaine Scripture in terminis is evident If the righteousnesse oâ— God consists in the imputation of Christs righteousnes then is it not made manifest without the Law that is without the works and righteousnesse of the Law because to such a righteousnesse the Law and the works thereof are every whit as necessary and
more necessary then Faith it selfe for Faith is made only a meanes of the derivation of it upon men but the body and substance of the righteousnesse it selfe is nothing else but the pure Law and the workes of it And how a righteousnesse should be said to be made manifest without the Law whose essence strength and substance is nothing but the Law I conceive to be out of the reach of better apprehensions then miâ—â— to comprehend If it be here objected and said SECT 2 that this righteousnesse of God or of Faith may be said to be made manifest without the Law or the works of it because there are no works required of us towards the raising of it but this hinders not but that the workes of the Law as performed by Christ may be the matter and substance of it To this I answere First this Sanctuary hath been already polluted and the horns of this Altar broken downe in the demonstration of the former proofe Secondly there is not the least intimation given that the Apostle should have any such by or back meaning as this but that this righteousnesse of Faith should be fully taught and apprehended without any consideration of the Law or the works thereof as an ingredient into it Thirdly the works of the Law are neverthelesse the works of the Law because performed by Christ The greatnesse or holinesse of the person working according to the Law doth not alter or change the nature or property of the works but they are the works of the Law whosoever doeth them Christs being Christ doth not make the Law not to be the Law Fourthly this righteousnesse is said to receive testimony or witnesse from the Law that is from that part of Scripture which is often called the Law viz. the Books of Moses Mat 5 17. and c. 7 12. as Calvin here well interprets and from the Prophets therefore it cannot be a righteousnesse consisting in the imputation of a legal righteousnesse because there will be found no testimony given either by the Law or by the Prophets to such a righteousnesse except it be in aenigmate a testimony in a riddle which no man can finde out but by divination instead of an interpretation whereas it is repugnant to the nature of a testimony not to be somewhat plaine and expresse that it may be well understood But if we interpret this righteousnesse of God to be a righteousnesse procured or derived upon a man by Faith oâ— beleeving there is expresse testimony to be found given unto it both by the Law and also by the Prophets as the holy Ghost expressely here affirmeth by the Law Gen. 15 6 And he Abraham beleeved in the Lord and he counted it unto him for righteousnesse By the Prophets Hab. 2.4 But the just shall live by his Faith Fiftly and lastly this righteousnesse of God is said to be unto all upon all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or through Faith by way of opposition to the works of the Law ver 20. Now betweene Faith and the Law or works of the Law there is a constant oposition in the writings of this Apostle Rom. 3.27.28 and ag c. 4.13 14. and c. 9.32 and c. 10.5 6. Gal. 2 16. and c. 3.5 and ver 11.12 c. But betweene the Law and the works or righteousnesse of Christ there is no opposition but a perfect agreement Therefore that righteousnesse which is by Faith cannot stand in the righteousnesse of Christ imputed CAP. V. A Fourth Demonstration from Scripture of the avouched Conclusion FOurthly SECT 1 against the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense already disclaimed for that righteousnesse by which we are justified in the sight of God I argue from Rom. 5. ver 16. and 17. compared together The guift of righteousnesse as it is called ver 17. which is by Christ in the Gospel is said ver 16. to be a free guift of many offences unto justification From whence I thus reason That righteousnesse which is the guift of many offences that is the forgivenesse of many offences or sins unto justification cannot be a perfect legall righteousnesse imputed unto us or made ours by imputation But the righteousnesse which is by Christ in the Gospel by which we are justified is the guift of many offences unto justification Therefore it cannot be a perfect legall righteousnesse made ours by imputation The minor is the proposition of the Holy Ghost in terminis The major I demonstrate thus That righteousnesse which extends unto a mans justification by the forgivenes of sins can be no perfect legall righteousnesse imputed But the righteousnesse of Christ in the Gospel by which we are justified extendeth unto a mans justification by the forgivenesse of sins Therefore it can be no legall righteousnesse imputed The Reason of the former proposition the weaknesse of which only it must be that ministers strength to an adversary for further dispute in this question the authority of heaven being too pregnant in the other is this because a legall or perfect righteousnesse doth not preceed to jâ—stâ—â—y a mans person by way of forgivenesse of sins but is of it selfe intrinsecally and essentially a mans Iustification yea such a Iustification with which forgivenes of sinnes is not competible For what need hath he that is legally righteous or hath a legall righteousnesse imputed unto him of forgivenesse of sins when as such a righteousnesse excluds all sinne and all guilt of sinne from his person If it be here objected and said SECT 2 that a mans sinnes are first forgiven him and then this perfect righteousnesse of Christ is imputed unto him and so he is justified To this I answere First if we will needs distinguish the effects of the active and passive obedience of Christ after this manner so as from the active part of this obedience to fetch a perfect righteousnesse for imputation and from the passive remission of sinnes yet whether it be any waies reasonable to invert the order of these effects and dispose of them aâ— pleasure in a crosse method to their causes producing them I leave it to sober consideration Christ â—â—d not first die and after death keep the Law for us but he first kept the Law and then suffered death for us Therefore iâ— we will needs make the imputation of the one a distâ—nct bâ—n sit from the imputation of the other reason requireâ—â— that that which was first purchased should be first received or applied and consequently hat imputation of righteousnesse should have a precedency in order of râ—mission of sinnes Secondly if a man hath once sinned which must needs be acknowledged of every man that hath sins forgiven it is not any lâ—gall righteousnesse whatsoever imputed that can justifie him no if it were possible for him to keep the Law perfectly in his own person ever after to the daies of eternity this would not justify him because such a Iustification is repugnant to the expresse tenor of the Law Cursed is
justification I propound after this manner That righteousnesse which will not fit and furnish all beleevers with all points or parts of that righteousnesse which the Law requires of them cannot be imputed unto them unto justification But the obedience that Christ performed to the mor all Law is such a righteousnesse as will not fit and furnish all beleevers with all points of righteousnesse which the Law requires of them Therfore it cannot be imputed to beleevers for their justification The reason of the former Proposition is because a perfect and compleat legall righteousnesse and such certainly I meane perfect and compleat that that justifieth must of necessity be requires a precise punctuall and through obedience unto all things in the Law which any way concernes a man to doe If there be but a letter jot or title wanting in any man righteousnesse of all that was his duty to doe that righteousnesse is not at any hand for his iustification The curse of the Law and eternall vengeance will breake in upon a man body and soule aswell through the smallest and least-imaginable defects of a legall righteousnesse as through wider breaches and greater transgressions in case a man hath not wherewith to secure himselfe otherwise Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to doe them Gal. 3.10 Therfore there is no escaping the curse of the Laâ—â— by the law except a mans obedience be absolutely absolute aswell for constancie as univâ—â—se in ad things that are written viz. with reference to him and 〈◊〉 calling For otherwise there may be a struct and compleat I 〈◊〉 righteousnesse with 〈◊〉 the doing 〈…〉 Law in caâ—e they have no 〈…〉 As for instance Adam might have performed and accordingly have hin still Justified by a compleat Legall righteousnesse and yet never have performed many duties which the Law required of Eve for the continuance of her iustification So Christ fulâ—filled all righteousnesse as himselfe faith it became him to doe and consequently held an exact conformity with the Law so that neither Man nor God himselfe could rebuke him of sinne and yet the Law requires many things of many others both Men and Women which Christ never performed as will appeare in the demonstration of the latter Proposition which is at hand For the truth therfore of this Proposition that the righteousnesse performed by Christ unto the Morall Law SECT 2 will not sit and furnish all beleevers with all parts of such a righteousnesse as the Law requires of them it is so full of its owne light that further proofe will but runne over How many duties are Servants indebted unto their Masters after the flesh by the obligation of the Law which Christ never discharged or performed as namely that they should be obedient unto them with feare and trembling Eph. 6.5 Againe Wives charged by the Law with many points of obedience towards their Husbands yea and Husbands with some towards their Wives which certainly Christ never performed for them yea he expressely declined and refused the doing of some things as lying without the verge of his Calling which the Law requires as matters of speciall dutie from others When he was desired Luk. 12 13.14 to do Justice or take up a controversie betweene a man and his Brother his answere was Man who made me a Judge or divider over you Implying that he would meddle with no acts of righteousnesse that lay without the precincts of his Calling And indeed if he had though it was unpossible that ever his foote should have been taken in that snare it had overthrowne the infinit benefit that now redounds unto the world from those acts of righteousnesse which were performed by him in his Calling So when the people would have taken him and made him King Joh. 6. he absolutly refused and refusing the office of a King doubtlesse he would not take upon him the execution Therefore what righteousnesse should Kings and Magistrates have imputed unto them from Christ to make them just and righteous in their Callings when Christ himselfe refused to performe those acts of righteousnesse which are proper thereunto That which never was done or acted by Christ cannot be imputed that which never had a being is not capable of an act of imputation to passe upon it It may be some will object SECT 3 that Love is the fulfilling of the Law for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law Rom. 13.8 and this fulfilling of the Law by Love is such a righteousnesse as will fit all persons of all Callings and relations in the world whatsoever Therefore the perfect Love of Christ may be imputed for righteousnesse unto all though particular and proper acts of obedience otherwise be wanting But to this I Answere First howsoever Love may be termed an Evangelicall keeping or fulfilling of the Law because God accepteth of it graciously wheressoever he findeth it in truth and rewar deth it accordingly yet is it not a strict literall and legall fulfilling of the Law it is not such a fulfilling of it as will hold out weight and measure for any mans justification in a Covenant of works For first the Law requires many duties from men and seizeth upon them with the Curse immediatly upon the first nonconti◠〈…〉 â—al tâ—inâ—s Nâ—w Love is but one duty 〈…〉 and therefore cannot be many much 〈…〉 Love were such a fu filling of 〈…〉 â—â—qâ—ired in a legall justification 〈…〉 beleevers be justified not by an 〈…〉 by a pers nal righteousnesse because no 〈◊〉 is a true beleever but he that â—oves his Brother truely and whose Faith worketh by such love Thirdly and lastly if the Love of Christ were capaâ—le of that imputation for righteousnesse that is pretended then will it follow at least according to the principl â— of that Opinion against which we disputâ— that the whole active obedience of Christ I meane all that righteousnesse of his which stood in holy actions conformable to the Law was in vaine be cause there is no other possible necessity granted of this righteousnesse of Christ by these men but only for imputation Therefore Secondly to the objection I answere yet againe that where the Scripture calleth Love the fulfi ling of the Law it speaketh only of that part of the Law which we call the second Table as is no whit lesse then evident in the place last named Rom. 13.8.9 But that fulfilling of the Law which claimes the honour of a justification whether by imputation or personall performance must comprehend as well a fulfilling of the first as of the second Table Thirdly and lastly that proposition Love is the fulfilling of the Law is not propositio sormalis but causalis consecutiva as Logiciaxs speake that is such a proposition wherein one thing is said to be another not because it is precisely the same in nature and being with it but because it is the cause of it and so hath the being of the other vertually in it
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
yea many of them meet by the way in the justification of such before they come to their journeys end yet to justifie the wonderfull and deep wisdome of God as we ought to doe in bringing about this great work of the salvation of the world we must enquire after and find out peculiar and distinct reasons and ends for all that variety of things which is to be found in or about Christ as why he should be God and why he should be Man what both the one and the other of these peculiarly contributes towards the salvation of men why he should be born why born of a Virgin why he should grow up and live till he came to the perfect stature and age of a man why he should be circumcised why fullfill the Law why preach the Gospell before his death why at last he should suffer death why die upon the Crosse why hee should be buried why hee should rise againe c. with many more particulars of like nature that might be mentioned all which have their speciall and peculiar working towards the great worke of salvation as in a benigne constellation every Staire gives out his peculiar influence by himselfe As all Rivers fall into the Sea and meet there in one though the course of their waters lie from all parts under Heaven from the East and from the West from North and South So whatever Christ was and whatever he did spake and suffered though they are things much differing in themselves and in their immediate and proper effects yet they all meet and center in that common and glorious effect the salvation of those that beleeve And for men not to distinguish these in due manner aswell in their effects and purposes as in their natures is not only to confound themselves but which is worse to confound that most exquisite and admirably-beautifull frame of the Gospell and as it were of a defenced City to make a ruinous heap From the guilt of which confusion-making in the Gospell how unpossible it is fairely to acquit such an imputation of Christs righteousnesse as hitherto we have opposed will further appeare in the reasons ensuing Fiftly and lastly if remission of sinnes be but a part of justification SECT 10 and the imputation of Christs righteousnesse must be added as another part of it to make it perfect and compleat then must the formall cause of one and the same effect be double the absurdity which Calvin as we heard truly charged upon the Trent Councellors and Bellarmine as falsely recharged upon him yea that which makes the absurditie swell yet higher one and the same formality or formall part of a thing which is ever most simple and indivissible shall be compacted and compounded of two things not only of a differing but of a diverse yea and of an opposite importance and consideration as the sequell of the businesse rightly interpreted will make manifest For where there is a perfect and compleat righteousnesse imputed as the righteousnesse of Christ is and must be apprehended there is no place for remission of sinnes CAP. XII A fourth reason against the pretended Imputation it frustrates the grace of Adoption MY fourth ground against the supposed imputation of Christs righteousnesse I dispose in this Syllogisme That which dissolves and takes away the necessity and use of that sweet and Euangellicall grace of Adoption SECT 1 cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hold a streight course with the truth of the Gospell But this imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense controverted dissolves and takes away the necessity c. of Adoption Ergo. The proposition I conceive will be yeelded sine sanguine et sudore otherwise the sword of the Spirit the word of God would soone command it The Scriptures speake much of the grace of Adoption or Sonship of beleevers being made the Children and Sonnes of God That we might receive the Adoption of Sons Gal. 4.5 And because yee are Sonnes ver 6. Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Sonne c. ver 7. To passe by other places without number Joh. 1.12 But as many as received him to them hee gave power or prerogative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be made or to become the Sonnes of God Doubtlesse this grace or prerogative of Adoption and Sonne-ship is not given unto men by God in vaine not for the sweet sound only that the letter or name of Adoption makes in the cares it hath relation to some further matter of moment and consequence depending thereon It is given as an immediate capacitie or qualification to those that beleeve to make them capable of their everlasting inheritance their Son-ship is the proper and next ground of that investiture unto them The Scriptures are in nothing more expresse then this If we be Children then also heires even heires of God and heires annexed with Christ Rom. 8.17 So againe Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Son if a Son then an heire of God through Christ Gal. 4 7. As if he should say we are therefore made Sonnes or adopted to be Sonnes that so by right of this Sonship we might be heires of God and by the right of this Heyr-ship come to inherit that immortall undefiled inheritance which fadeth not away with Iesus Christ himselfe The reason or strength of that inference or consequence If Sonnes then Heires seems to stand in this because though amongst men all that are Sons are not Heires if we speake of Sonnes by nature but only he that is the first borne yet Sonship by Adoption I conceive hath alwaies respect to an inheritance a man never adopteth a child but with an intent or purpose to make him his heire So that though in the case of Son-ship by nature it will not follow If Sons then heires yet in the case of Adoption it will And this we know is the case and condition of Beleevers they are Sons of God not by nature but by Adoption Vnlesse perhaps we will rather conceive the reason of the inference to lye in this that the Apostle argueth and concludeth upon the supposition of this truth that the Kingdome of Heaven or that inheritance which God hath provided for his Saints is of another nature and hath a preheminence and perfection above any earthly inheritance as in a thousand other respects so particularly in this that it may be injoyed possessed and inherited by all the Children of God though in number never so many upon such terms that every one may enjoy and possesse the whole and no mans portion or possession here suffers any losse or diminution at all though all his Brethren enjoy the same Portion and possession with him And in this respect haply with some others it may be caâ—ed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the inheritance of the Saints IN LIGHT Colos 1.12 The light of the Sun we know is of that nature and property that it is enjoyed by the whole world and by all the Inhabitants of the
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
one it must be the same in the other also He that is as righteous as Christ is which those must needs be that are righteous with his rightsousnesse needs no more repentance then Christ himselfe needeth I see not what in a way of sober reason can be opposed against this argument That was a desperate Answere which a zealous defender of that Faith made to save the life of his opinion being assaulted by this argument but it was right-down dealing howsoever and faithfulnesse to his principles in their great distresse that Beleevers being perfectly righteous in Christ have indeed no need of Repentance If it be objected and said that notwithstanding the imputation of a perfect righteousnesse from Christ SECT 2 yet beleevers have their personall sins and faileings which Christ had not and in respect of these they need not daily and continuall Repentance To this I answere True Beleevers indeed stand in need of daily Repentance in respect of their personall sinnes and failings which are daily but they that have an entire and perfect-Law-righteousnesse imputed to them have no such need in any respect Therefore Beleevers are not the men that have any such righteousnesse imputed to them Certainly they that have the perfect fulfilling and observation of the Law imputed unto them by God cannot stand guiltie before God of any sinne or breach of this Law because in the imputation of a perfect righteousnesse there is an universall non-imputation of sinne apparantly included Besides if God doth impute a perfect Law-righteousnesse to men it must be supposed that the rights and privileges belonging to such righteousnesse doe accompanie it in the imputation so that the person to whom such imputation is made stands really invested and possessed of them Otherwise God should impute the shells without the kernell and give empty titles without the substance of honour Now one maine privilege of a perfect Law-righteousnesse is to invest with a full and entire right unto life out of its owne intrinsecall and inherent dignity and worth which is a privilege wholly inconsistent with the least touch or tincture of sinne in the person that stands possessed of it Therefore where such a privilege or right is there can be no occasion or necessity of Repentance because Repentance presupposeth sinne If it be yet said further SECT 3 that the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse will be asmuch shaken by this Objection as the imputation of Christs righteousnesse for righteousnesse because if Faith be imputed for or instead of the righteousnesse of the Law it must bring likewise and derive all the privileges of such a righteousnesse upon the person to whom such imputation is made Therefore that privelege also which excludes the necessity of Repentance To this I answere by denying the consequence of that which is brought to justify the Exception When the Scriptures say that Faith is imputed for or instead of the righteousnesse of the Law the intent and meaning is not as if God either imputed or accepted or accounted Faith for the selfe same thing which the righteousnesse of the Law is intrinse cally and formally or as if God in this imputation either gave or accounted unto Faith any power or privilege to justify out of any inherent or internall dignity or worth in it which is the intrinsecall and formall property of a Law-righteousnesse but the meaning only is that God upon a mans Faith will as fully justify him that is acquit him from death and condemnation as if he had perfectly fulfilled the Law He that beleeveth may be as fully and perfectly justified as he that fulfilleth the Law and yet not bee justified in the same manner or upon the same termes He that fulfilleth the Law and thereby is justifyed is justified out of the inherent internall dignity of that which justifyeth him but he that is justified by Faith is not justifyed by the inherent dignity or merit of that which justifyeth him but by the free and gracious acceptatiō of it by God for that which is justifying in it own nature by vertue of its inherent worth dignity So that although Faith be imputed to a man for or instead of the righteousnesse of the Law and he by such imputation of his Faith be justified yet it doth not follow that therefore he is justified upon the same terms every way as he should have been had he been justifyed by the imputation of the righteousnesse it selfe of the Law Wherefore the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse may well stand with personall sinnes in him to whom this imputation is made in respect of which sinnes he remaines continually oblieged to Repentance but the imputation of a perfect legall righteousnesse for righteousnesse makes a man perfectly and legally righteous in the letter and formalitie of it And this is that kinde of righteousnesse which absolutly excludes all consistencie of sinne in the same person with it and consequently leaves no place for Repentance This for the fift ground or reason against the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in justification sensuliterali SECT 4 A Sixt ground against the same imputation of the active obedience of Christ is it takes away the necessity of his death If men be as righteous as Christ himselfe was in his life there were no more necessity of his death for them then ther was either of his own death or of the death of any other for himselfe If we were perfectly just or righteous in him or with him in his life then the just should not have died for the unjust as the Scriptures speak for whose salvation there was a necessitie he should die but he should have died for the just for whom there was no necessitie why he should die This Reason the Apostle expresly delivers Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse be by the Law then Christ died in vaine I desire the unpartiall Reader to observe narrowly the force of this inference made by the Holy Ghost If righteousnesse or justification be by the Law then Christ died in vaine Men cannot here betake themselves to their wonted Sanctuary and Refuge to say that by the Law is to be understood the works of the Law as performed by a mans selfe in person Nay their own interpretation here will betray their opinion into the hand of this Reason that fights against it For by the word Law in this place understand the works of the Law as performed by Christ the consequence will rise up rather with the greater strength and power against them If righteousnesse were by the works of the Law as performed by Christ that is if the imputation of them were our compleat absolute righteousnesse the death of Christ for us had bin apparently in vaine because the righteousnes of his life imputed had bina sufficient every waies a compleat righteousnes for us Neither can it be here said SECT 5 that there was a necessity that Christ should die that so the righteousnesse of his life might
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
applyed by the said efficients is the matter or materiall part of it So in the justification of a sinner neither is God himselfe who is the principall efficient of this effect of justification neither is Faith which is the iustrumentall efficient of it for God is said in Scripture to justifie men by or through it Rom. 3.30 which for the most part are symptomaticall particles of the instrumentall-efficient cause neither is the righteousnesse of Christ which is the meritorious effiâ—ient cause of it none of these are either matter or forme or any constituting cause of iustification but only remission of sins or absolution from punishment as the sorme applyed unto or put upon the matter and the matter or subject it selfe whereunto this forme is applyed by all the 3 efficients spoken of according to their severall and distinct manner of working viz. the person of the beleever This Argument to him that understands and will seriously consider that unchangable Law mentioned of the 4. kinds rally acknowledged by the contrary-minded themselves in this Controversie But that Christ should be reputed before God to have sinned in me seems unto me an assertion so uncouth and un-Christian that a Christian had need to borrow the eares of a Pagan to hear it with patience However the untruth of it is thus made manifest If Christ be reputed before God to have sinned in me he must be reputed to have had a being in me for as operatio consequitur esse i. the operation of a thing follows and depends upon the being of it so he that supposeth or reputeth a person to have done any thing either good or evill in another must necessarily suppose or repute him to have had a being there But what being Christ should be reputed by God to have had in me being yet an unbeleever is a speculation too high for me to attaine unto Againe Argum. 14 SECT 2 against this supposed imputation I oppose this consideration If the active obedience of Christ be imputed unto me in my justification then is the passive imputed also For there can be no sufficient reason given why the one should be taken and the other left Neither are the adversaries themselves partiall in this point to the one above the other they generally allow place for both in their imputation But that the death or sufferings of Christ are not in the letter and formalitie of them imputed unto me I thus demonstrate If the death and sufferings of Christ be imputed unto me then may I be accounted or reputed to have died and suffered in Christ But I can at no hand be reputed to have died or suffered in Christ Therefore the death and sufferings of Christ are not imputed unto me I meane still in the letter and formality of them as I would be understood in the maâ—or proposition also The reason of the sequel in that proposition is evident from the former argument To have any thing imputed to a man in the letter and formality of it and to be reputed and taken as the doer or sufferer of what is so imputed are termini aequipollentes et sese mutuò explicantes are expressions that differ not in sense but relieve one the other in their significations The Reason of the minor that no man is to be conceived or said to have suffered in Christ is this because in Christ we are justisied and absolved from punishment and therefore cannot be said to have been punished in him He hath made us freely accepted in his beloved Ephes 16. Therefore he poured not out his wrath upon us in his beloved And by his stripes we are healed which is contrary to being wounded or punished 1 Pet. 224. And to say that we suffered or were punished in Christ is in effect to unsay or gainsay what the Gospell every where speaketh touching our Redemption and deâ—iverance from punishment by Christ In what sence the sufferings of Christ may be said to be imputed tobeleevers is 〈◊〉 plained in the Second part cap. 3. Sect. 7. He that knoweth how to reconcile these two may undertake to make light and darknesse friends and needs not feare miscarying in his designe that God should freely forgive us our sinnes and yet punish us for them and that to the full which must be said by those that will say we were punished in Christ If Christ were punished for us or in our stead which is the Scripture language 2 Cor. 5.21 who made him sinne for us doubtlesse we our selves can in no sense wherein words and truth will agree be said to be punished or to have suffered in him One Reason more and no more of this Chapter If the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense so oft-expressed be imputed to us Argum. 15 SECT 3 then are we justifyed at least in part by the Ceremoniall Law This consequence is too good to be denyed because part of that righteousnesse which Christ wrought stood in obedience to the Ceremoniall Law he was circumcised kept the Passeover c. Therfore if the righteousnesse of Christ be imputed unto us in the letter and formality of it that part of his righteousnesse which stood in obedience ceremoniall must be imputed also But that we are not justified either in whole or in part by the Ceremoniall Law is a truth so neare scituate to every mans apprehension that it needs not be brought neerer by force of argumentation If it be replyed that there is no necessity that any part of his righteousnesse Ceremoniall should be imputed because his morall righteousnesse is sufficient for imputation To this I answere First there is no warrant or rule in Scripture thus to rend and teare in pieces the one halfe from the other that which was one entire and compleat righteousnesse in Christ and to take which part we please to our selves and leave the other as a cast piece Secondly if that part only of the righteousnesse of Christ which stood in his obedience to the Morall Law be imputed unto us for righteousnesse in our justification then will there not be found the same way or meanes of justification for the whole body of Christ but the beleeving Jewes before Christs death must be made righteous or justified with one kind of righteousnesse and the Gentiles with another For the Jewes before the death of Christ had a necessitie of both parts of this righteousnesse to be imputed to them in their justification supposing their justification had stood in such an imputation as some stand up to maintaine aswell ceremoniall as morall But that the Jewes should be justified with one kind of righteousnesse and the Gentiles with another as there is no colour of reason that I know to maintaine so there is substance and strength of Scripture to oppose Rom. 3.22.30 Thirdly and lastly that righteousnesse of Christ which is called Morall if separated and divided from the other part which is Ceremoniall was not a compleat and perfect righteousnesse in him because it
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
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
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
things therein required and so promotes the observation and keeping of it This upon the matter is the interpretation of Musculus (*) Fides verò quoniam justificat credentes corda credentium purgat quod neque Lex apud Iudaos neque Philosophia apud Gentes neque doctrina bonorum operum apud Christianes praestare potest ram non adversatur bonorum operum Doctrinae ut illam magis stabiliat Musculus ad Rom. 3. ult upon the place Pareus likewise admits of it and cites Austin for it also But 4. The Law may be said to be established by the Doctrine of faith inasmuch as the comminations and threatnings of the Law as In the day thou â—atest therof thou shalt die the death and againe Cursed be he that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to doe them c. are by the Doctrine of justification by faith declared not to be in vaine The sufferings of Christ wherby we are justified through faith are a full confirmation of the force efficacie and authority of the curse of the Law being the price of the Redemption of those that beleeve from it Yet 5. and lastly I conceive the better Interpretation of the place to be that by Law the Apostle should meane that part of the Old Testament which comprehendeth the writings of Moses with those other Books which together with the writings of the Prophets make up the intire body thereof For in this sence he had used the word v. 21. where he affirmed the righteousnesse of God to have testimonie of the Law and the Prophets The word is elswhere and that somewhat frequently taken in this signification Now the Law in this sence may most properly be said to be established by Paul â—eaching the Doctrine of faith because this Doctrine is fully consonant and agreeable to those things that are written therein as he sheweth at large in the following Chapter arguing and insisting upon two pregnant testimonies to this purpose the one from Moses the other from David Origen of old made use of this Interpretation (b) Fides confirmas legem quia Christus inquit Moses de me scripsit Qui ergo credit Christo confirmat Legem quiae credit in Christum Origen and Hierome was not far from it (c) Fide lex stabilitur quia fide probamus verum esse quod lex dicit Testamentum testamento legem legi circumcisionem circumcisions successuram Hierony Piscator of later times likewise adhereth to it in his Disputes with Ludovicus Lucius (d) See Mr. Gatakers Animadversions upon these Disputes p. 42. The next Scripture sometimes managed for the imputation we oppose is Rom. 4.6 Even as David declareth the blessednesse of the man to whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works That righteousnesse which God is here said to impute to a man can be no other as is pretended but the righteousnesse of Christ To this I answere First SECT 9 that this Scripture and expression of Gods imputing righteousnesse Rom. 4.6 opened is fully opened and cleered in my Answere to Mr. Walker p. 41. whither the reader is desired to repaire for satisfaction if he desires it Secondly that of the two if we will needs here understand a positive legall righteousnesse it is much more probable the Apostle should meane a righteousnesse consisting of such works or of such an obedience to the Law as hath an absolute and perfect agreeablenesse to every mans condition and calling respectively then the righteousnesse of Christ which hath no such property in it hath bin already represented in this Discourse (a) Cap. 2. Sect. 5. p. 7. Thirdly that righteousnesse which God is said here to impute is by the best Expositors placed in Remission of sins Righteousnesse imputed saith Paraeus (b) Iustitia imputata consistis in gratuita remissione tectione non imputatione peccatoruÌ„ Pareus ad Rom 4.7 p. 371. Hoc sensu justitia imputata dicitur justicia Christi meritorie seu effective quia Christi merito nobisest parta non subjective quia Christo inhaereat Idem ibidem consists in a free remission covering or non-imputation of sinne And a little after shewing in what sense the righteousnesse which is imputed by God unto beleevers may be called the righteousnesse of Christ he expresseth himselfe thus In this sense imputed righteousnesse is called the righteousnesse of Christ viz. by way of merit or effect because it is procured for us by the merit of Christ not because it is subjectively or inherently in Christ many testimonies have bin formerly cited from divers other good Authors of concurrent judgement with him herein We are taught saith Calvin upon the place (c) Postremo doâ—emur hanc quoque remissionem gratuitam esse quia sine operibus imputatur quod et remissionis nomen indicat Calvin in Rom. 4.6 Quarto autem capite ad Romanos primum appellat justitia imputationem nec eam dubitat in remissione peccatorum câ—llocare idem Instit l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 4. that Remission of sinnes is free because it is imputed without workes But Fourthly the phrase of imputing righteousnesse may I conceive be best interpreted and understood by the contrary expression of imputing sinne Opposita juxtase posita magis elucescunt To impute sin signifieth only either to looke upon a person as justly liable to punishment or to inflict punishmeÌ„t upon a person peccati nomine for or in consideration of sin This latter signification I finde more frequent of the two in Authors of best esteeme God imputes sin saith Paraeus (a) Imputat Deus peccatium cum punit non imputat cum non punit sed condonat et tegit quasi non esset Pareus ad Rom. 4.7 when he punisheth and he doth not impute it when he doth not punish but pardoneth c. So Calvin (b) Ergo et peccatorum non recordari est ea non postulare all poenam Idipsum alibidicitur proijcere post tergum delere instar nubis c. non imputare tectumque habere c. Calvin Instit l. 3. c. 4. Sect. 29. vi etiam in Rom. 5.13 maketh the non-imputation of sinne and the not-punishing of sinne of one and the same signification and importance If therefore to impute sinne signifieth only either to hold a man liable to punishment for sinne or to execute and inflict punishment upon him for sinne doubtlesse to imputerighteousnesse importeth nothing else but either to looke upon a man as a righteous person or to conferre upon him and actually invest him with the precious priviledges that belong to persons truely righteous But however Fiftly and lastly here is neither peere nor peepe of the least ground or reason to conceive that by righteousnesse in this Scripture should be meant the righteousnesse of Christ SECT 10 The next Scripture mis-us'd for the imputation aforesaid is that Rom. 5.19 For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners Rom. 5.19 cleered so by the
latter thus Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for or concerning remission of sinnes that are past c. It plainly appeares from these Scriptures compared together First that the righteousnesse of God that is the way meanes or course which God holds for the Justification of men stands in remission or forgivenesse of sinnes Secondly that this righteousnesse or Iustification of his is witnessed that is asserted and vindicated by the Law that is the writings of Moses and consequently may well be called the righteousnesse or Iustification of the Law Thirdly and lastly that this righteousnesse of God testified and asserted by the Law in the sense given and exercised by him under the Law in the forgivenesse of the sinnes of those that then beleeved was not manifested or declared or as our other Scripture had it fulfilled that is fully revealed and discovered to the roote bottome and foundations of it till the coming of Christ into the world and his dying for sinne which in that other place is called his condemning sinne in the flesh This for answere in full to this Scripture The next place SECT 15 which I understand hath bin of late taken hold of by some to supply that which it seemes is wanting in others for the defence of that imputation which we oppose is Rom. 9.31.32 But Israel which followed after the Law of righteousnesse hath not attained to the Law of righteousnesse Wherefore because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the workes of the Law c. From hence it is thus argued that had Israel that is the Jewes who followed after the Law of righteousnesse beleeved in Christ they had attained the Law of righteousnesse that is should have had the righteousnesse of the Law performed by Christ imputed unto them But to this also I Answere 1. that by the Law of righteousnes Rom. 9.31.32 answered which the Jewes are here said to have sought after but could not attain is not meant the Moral Law nor indeed any Law properly so called either Morall Ceremoniall or Judicial for God had preveÌ„ted them with the guift of all these Laws so that they need not have sought after them If it be objected that their studie endeavor of keeping the Law which they had may be called a seeking or following after the Law I answere be it so yet this studie and endeavor of theirs could be no cause of their coming short of righteousnesse or Iustification which yet is ascribed to that seeking or following after the Law of righteousnesse here mentioned As Christians are never the further off from being justified by living holily and keeping the commandements of God So neither was the care and endeavor of the Jewes to observe the precepts of that Law which God had given them any cause of their miscariage in point of Iustification Abraham and those that were justifyed by Faith in Christ as he was were as conscientious and careful observers of al Gods Lawes as any of those were who stumbling at the stumbling stone were never justified Therefore by the Law of righteousnes in this Scripture is not meant any Law properly so called much les definitively the Morall Law Secondly in this expression the Law of righteousnesse in the former clause of the verse Calvin findes an hypallage the Law of righteousnesse put for the righteousnesse of the Law (a) Iam priere loco legem justiciae per hypallagen posuisse mihi videtur pro justicia legis in repetitione secundi membri alio sensu sic vocasse justiâ—iae formam seu regulam Calvin in Rom. 9 1. Nam illud sectandâ— legem justiciae simpliciter esse dictum de legis justitia i. ea quae ex operibus legu est patebit infra c. Mus in Rom. 9.31 in the latter clause he takes it in somewhat a different signification for a forme or rule of righteousnesse Musculus dissents little if any thing at all from this interpretation by the Law of righteousnesse understanding that righteousnesse which stands in the works of the Lawb. So that neither of these Authors nor any other that I have yet met with restreyne the word Law in these phrases determinatly to the Morall Law Thirdly neither is there any reason nor colour of reason to limit the Apostles expressions in this place of the Law of righteousnesse to the Morall Law only and the righteousnesse thereof because it is notoriously knowne and hath bin more then once observed formerly that the Jewes never hoped for nor sought after righteousnesse SECT 16 or Iustification by the Morall Law only or the works thereof alone but by the Ceremoniall Law also and the observances hereof yea principally by these as hath bin els where in this Treatise prooved from the Scriptures So that by the Law of righteousnesse whereof they miscaried by not seeking it by Faith cannot be ment determinatly the Moral Law or the righteousnes therof because they never travaild of this upon such termes they never had thought or hope of being iustified or made righteous by the Morall Law or righteousnesse thereof only And so Paraeus by the Law of righteousnesse in this place understands aswell the Ceremoniall as the Morall Law (a) Iudaeos ait sectatos legem justiciae quae praescribit justiciam operibus perfectam hoc est conatos esse tum ceremoniarum observatione tum moralium operum meritu justificari coram Deo Pateus in Rom. 9.31 4. Neither would the righteousnes of the Moral Law alone suppose they should have attained it by beleeving have stood the Jewes in any stead for their justification being aswell bound to the observation of the ceremoniall law as of it Therfore it was not this law or the righteousues of it which should have bin imputed to them in case they had trruly beleeved consequeÌ„tly no imputation of any law righteousnes whatsoever from Christ can be concluded from this place But 5. lastly to give the cleere sence and meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel is said to have followed after but not to have attained because he sought it not by Faith c. can be meant nothing else but justification it selfe or righteousnesse simply and indefinitely taken in which acception it is oft put for justification as was observed cap. 3. Sect and elsewhere which the Jewes seeking to attaine it by the works of the Law that is by themselves and the merit of their own doings and not by faith in Iesus Christ were never able to attain but lost the favour of God perished in their sinnes That this is the direct and expresse meaning of the place may be several waies confirm'd 1. To call righteousnesse simply that is SECT 17 justification the Law of righteousnesse is agreeable to this Apostles dialect elswhere For Rom. 7.23 25. by the Law of sinne he means nothing else but sinne
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
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
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