or Adams person interpreted or expounded at large and may with as good propriety of speech be called Adam as the nation of the Iewes is often in the Scripture called Iacob So then it being granted 1º that the sinne of Adam was exceedingly sinfull and demeritorious 2º that his person properly taken by reason of the scantnesse or narrownesse of it was not capable of the fulnesse of that wrath which that sin deserved and which it stood best with the glory of God should be executed or poured out upon it it cannot be thought any waies unrighteous or unequall that his posteritie should be arrested also and taken into Communion with his person in the punishment inflicted to supplie that which was wanting in it That God should not be stinted or streightned in making provision for his owne glory in the punishment of sin but that he should punish till he maketh himselfe whole at least till he cometh as neere into his owne as conveniently he may there is no man can judge unequall or unjust Now then Adam who was the sinner having of his owne whereof or wherewith to make satisfaction I meane a posterity which was so fully so intirely and as I may say so identically his owne that it was as yet rather himselfe then his it cannot but be thought equall and meet that God should father seize upon these to doe himselfe right then upon the Angells or any other kind of creature that had not that neere and speciall relation to the transgressor As in the case of the sinne of Korah Dathan and Abiram and so of Achan before mentioned the personall punishment of the offenders not holding out proportion with the nature and quality of their offences there is no man but must needs conceive it more agreeable to justice that their owne families respectively and those that had the neerest relation to them should be taken to make up the exemplarinesse of the punishment till it was increased and raised to the line and levell of the offence then any other family or person that stood at a further distance from them God in a faire and reasonable construction involving Adam and his posterity in the punishment for his sinne did but involve Adam himselfe or his person only because his person and posterity when this punishment was executed were but one and the same Adam This is the third and last particular upon which the equitie of God in punishing aswell Adams posterity as his person for his sinne seemes to be grounded viz. the peculiar neerenesse and relation betweene his person and posteritie Me thinks there is a joynt intimation of all the three SECT 14 in that Scripture Rom. 5.12 Wherfore as by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and so death passed upon all men in that or rather according to the best translations and expositions in whom all men have sinned Here is first the demerit of this sin implied in that death is said to enter into the world by it There is nothing in sinne to draw death and condemnation after it but only the demerit or sinfulnesse of it as for the act it selfe whereunto this sinfullnesse cleaveth for malum semper habitat in alieno fundo as one saith evill is alwaies found with somwhat that is not evill this is directly and efficiently from God himselfe as hath bin said and therfore death is no wages due to this neither would it in case it were imputed to any man bring any guilt or condemnation upon him Secondly it being further said that death being entred into the world passed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon all men or over all men it sheweth that Adams single person was not sufficient or able to beare the fullnes of that punishment which the sinfullnesse-of his sin had deserved otherwise death doubtlesse would have stopp'd there and have gone or passed on no further Thirdly and lastly where it is added in the close as the reason why death being gotten into the world should passe directly towards men and should prevaile in speciall manner over them and that over them all without exception viz. because that in him i. Adam all men had sinned this implieth that had not men bin in the loynes of Adam who was the sinner or otherwise had no speciall or neere relation to him this death had had no more right or advantage against them then against other creatures So that now these things duly considered SECT 15 evident it is that the imputation of Adams sinne or rather of the act of Adams sinne for otherwise it is nothing to the purpose so much spoken of and urged in this case to his posteritie is not the ground or cause of the punishment that is fallen upon his posteritie for it neither is there the least little in the Scriptures founding that way but chiefly that speciall communion they had with him in his nature having then their severall beings respectively in his loynes and consequently in his sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See more of this in the Second Part. cap. 2. Sect. 11 12 13. in whom all have sinned saith Paul Therfore now the ground of that punishment or condemnation which is come upon all men is not the imputation of Adams sinne much lesse of the act of Adams sinne as before we distinguished but if any imputation be in this case it is of every mans owne sinne in Adam for it was not Adam alone that sinned but all sinned in him it is every mans owne sinne that is imputed to him and for which he is punished As Levi himselfe is said to have paied tithes in the loynes of Abraham his Father not that Abraham's paying of tithes was imputed to Levi Heb. 7.9.10 so neither is it to be said that Adams sinne is imputed to his posterity but rather that this posteritie themselves sinned in Adam and it is but every mans own sin not Adams that is imputed to him To make a bare and district imputation of the act of anothers sin the adequate and sole ground and foundation of that heavy judgement and punishment that is layed upon all men in this kind is not so much to represent God to the minds and consciences of men as a district just and severe Judge which with their interpretations may be affirmed of him as to make him so farre to take pleasure or to delight in blood and in the ruine of his creature that he will take occasion even where none is to slay and to destroy with death And of the two doubtlesse it were lesse dishonourable unto God to conceive or say of him in this case that he fell thus heavie in wrath and judgement upon the whole posterity of Adam because he would doe it or because it was his absolute will and pleasure so to doe then to pretend or conceive the bare imputation of the act of Adams sin the cause or reason of it For in the former the absolute power or Soveraigntie of
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
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
of that shrubbe that is apt to beare it in Summer the naturall season for such births Thus Levie as we heard is said to have beene i. to have had a being in the loynes of Abraham And this all mankinde even Adams whole posterity had a being and subsistence in Adam Now there are none of these kinds of beings and subsistences of things but have their acts and operations proportionable and proper to them the perfecter being the perfecter and lesse dependent operation Things that have an actuall and compleate being out of their causes act and worke of themselves their causes that produced them as such having no communion or fellowship with them in their actions Things that have their beings onely in their causes act and operate in and by and with these onely as having their whole dependence on them and subsistence in them yet are these acts and operations of things in their causes onely as truely theirs though not as perfectly and compleately theirs as they are the causes themselves in and by whom they were performed Thus Levie did as truely pay tythes in Abraham as Abraham himselfe did in whom he paied them otherwise wee make the Scripture lesse true in affirming the one then the other So that act of eating the forbidden fruit by Adam was as truely the act of all his posterity as his owne though not so compleately and perfectly theirs as his hee having no dependance on them or subsistence in any of them therein but they all depending on him as one in and by whom God had given them all their beings and having their subsistence in him as the naturall productive roote of all their actuall compleate beings a The Fathers generally have taught this inexistence or being of all men in Adam Fuit Adam in illo perierunt omnes Amb. in Luc. lib. 7. Adam erat nos omnes omnes eramus ille unus Adam Certum manifestumque est alia esse propria cuique peccata in quibus hi tantum peccant quorum peccata sunt aliud hoc unum in quo omnes peccaverunt quando omnes ille unus homo suerunt Aug. de Peccat Merit Remis l. 1. c. 10. In Adamo omnes peccavimus ib. c. 13. Si parvuli quod vera fides habet nasiuntur peccatoreâ— profecto eo modo quo sunt peccatores etiam pravaticatores legis illius quae in Paradise lata est agnoscuntur Aug. de Civi l. 16. c. 27. Qui non fuerit regeneratus interibit anima illa de genere ejus quia testamentum meum dissipavit quando in Adam cum omnibus etiam ipse peccavit ib. There being then a certaine and unquestionable truth in this that Adams sinne was the sinne of his posteritie as well as of his person this the Scripture affirmeth and holdeth forth unto us as one maine ground and consideration why and how the world comes to be involved in the guilt and punishment of Adams transgression 2. Adams sinne comes to relate or to have reference to his posteritie in matter of pollution and defilement and consequently of guilt and punishment by naturall descent and propagation from him Adams person the fountaine and spring-head of all his posteritie being corrupted and poysoned with him except God should have wrought miraculously and above the course of nature either by a through purging of the fountaine before any streame issued from it or by dissevering and untwisting as it were the poyson from the waters in the very point and moment of their issue and source neither of which he was any wayes bound to doe could not but send forth streames of like corruption and defilement with the fountaine it selfe This the Scripture plainely teacheth in many places Who can bring a cleane thing out of an uncleane not one Iob 14.4 God himselfe by his ordinary power cannot doe it So our Saviour Ioh. 3.6 That which is borne of the flesh corrupted and weakened by sinne is by the course of nature whereunto God himselfe hath righteously consented flesh i. a creature or thing of the same sinfull and weake nature and condition with it And to forbeare other texts of like importance this way the Apostle Rom. 5.19 expresly affirmeth that by the disobedience of one meaning Adam many were made sinners not by the imputation of the Act of his sinne to them this is neither Sunne nor Moone neither Scripture nor good Reason but by corrupting and defiling his owne person by reason whereof all that are borne of him in a way of naturall dissent and propagation must needs be borne sinners 3. And lastly death and condemnation are justly come upon the world no so much to speake properly and with the Scriptures for Adams transgression as by Adams transgression partly as this transgression of his was the sinne and transgression of the world as hath beene already said and proved partly as by meanes of this sin the world I meane all the sonnes and daughters of men that are borne into it are become personally and so compleately sinfull In this sence it is said that by the offence of one death reigned viz. over all by one Rom. 5.17 and so that death passed over all in that all had sinned ver 12. And againe that judgement came by one unto condemnation ver 16. And that all men by nature are children of wrath c. Ephes 23. If men can find any propriety in the word Imputation to signifie any of these three Considerations let the sinne of Adam be said to be imputed to his posterity I shall no wayes contradict it but for any such imputation as is pretended and pressed by many by which men should be constituted and made formally sinners before God and the sinne no wayes looked upon as theirs but onely by meanes of such imputation I neither finde the Scriptures affirming nor am otherwise able to comprehend Though justification and salvation came unto the world by Christ the second Adam Concusi 10 sect 14 as condemnation and death came by the first Adam yet are there many different considerations and circumstances betweene the comming and bringing in of salvation by the one and of condemnation by the other The Apostle himselfe gives instance in two particulars wherein they differ greatly Rom. 5.15.16 And besides these there are many others As first the sinne of Adam by which he brought condemnation upon the world was as well the act of all his posteritie as his owne in which respect they may as truely be said to have brought condemnation upon themselves as Adam but that obedience by which Christ brought salvation into the world can with no propriety of speech nor with any consistence of truth be said to have beene theirs or performed by them who are saved by it so that these cannot now be said with any more truth to have saved themselves then if they had not beene saved at all It is said indeede that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himselfe 2 Cor.
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
infinitenesse of that grace which the Lord Iesus Christ manifested unto the world by his dying for it If it be objected and said SECT 5 that other men are bound to lay downe their lives for the truth when they are call'd thereunto and so for one another 1 John 3.16 and this must needs be by the Morall Law therefore Christ stood bound by the same Law to doe the like To this I answere 1º that men considered simply as men and not as sinners or as men that have sinned were not bound by any Law whatsoever to lay downe their lives at all nor upon any occasion whatsoever because God by promise had setled the inheritance and possession of life upon innocencie and integrity for ever Therefore as the Apostle reasons in another case Gal. 3 21. Is the Law then against the promises of God God forbid So is it to be conceived in this case that the promise of God being d ee this and thou shalt live there was no Law that should contradict it that is that should enjoyne a man being innocent and doing all things required in the Law to die or part with his life upon any termes whatsoever Therefore secondly that obligation or commandement which now lieth upon men to part with their lives either for witnessing the truth or upon any other occasion was not originally any branch of the Morall Law but partly by reason of the interveening of sinne but especially by reason of the great benefit of the redemption of the world from sinne by Iesus Christ it is now a superadded duty amongst many others somewaies reducible to the Morall Law but not properly or directly conteyned in it And thus the Scripture it selfe plainely determineth For speaking of this duty of laying downe a mans life in case the spirituall yea or perhaps the temporall rall necessity of some men doe require it and doubtlesse there is the same reason of all other cases in this kind it grounds the equity and obligement of it upon the grace and benefit of Redemption by the death of Iesus Christ Hereby have we perceived love that he layd downe his life for us THEREFORE wee ought also to lay downe our lives for our Brethren 1 Joh. 3.16 So that in the third place Iesus Christ being universally free from sinne in and from the first instant of his conception to his death and having none nor any need of any to die for his redemption could have no tie or obligation upon him from the Morall Law to lay downe his life upon any occasion whatsoever in asmuch as this Law in the first institution and imposure of it requireth death of no man upon no occasion but for sinne neither did it then require this by any way or duty but of threatning neither doth it now require it of any man but upon the supposall of sinne and that great deliverance from sinne brought into the world by another Iesus Christ Fourthly and lastly I answere yet further that no man hath ever any calling from God by vertue of the Morall Law as now it stands with all the additions and improvements of it to lay downe his life either for witnessing the truth or for the benefit of the Brethren or for any other possible end or purpose when that end whatsoever it be for which this laying downe a mans life seemes to be required may be aswell that is as Lawfully and as sufficiently provided for in another way For certainly neither doth the Morall Law nor God himselfe by vertue of any commandement in this Law require of men at any time to die like fooles and what is it but to die like a foole when a man shall give his life for that which might aswell and as effectually bee procured by him in another way If therefore it be conceived that Christ might be called God by vertue of the Morall Law to lay downe his life for witnessing or sealing the truth I answere that Christ could have as sufficiently provided for the honour and advancement of Truth another way as by his death viz. by the inward illumination and conviction of the judgementsand consciences of meâ— by his spirit Therefore he had no call by the Morall Law to die for this end If it be yet objected but the salvation of men his Brethren could not be provided for by him in any other way but by his death only Therefore in this regard and for this end he might be bound by the Morall Law to die To this I answere as before in part that the Morall Law considered as simply morall i. as requiring only those duties of a man which were required of him in his estate of innocencie threateneth all sinners without exception with death without giving the least intimation or hope of any to die for them so farre is it from imposing it by way of duty upon any man whatsoever to die for them Therefore whatsoever may now be conceived to be imposed upon any man by way of duty in this kind doth not arise from the originall and native morality of the Law but from that alteration and change which the grace of redemption by Iesus Christ hath made in the estate and condition of men by reason whereof many generall principles and impressions of the preceptive or directive part of the Law are improved and extended to many dâ—tâ—es which were not at first comprehended or intended in them From all which duties it is evident that the Lord Christ considered simply as a man or as an innocent and sinlesse man or as having his condition no waies altered or made better by any Redemption by any another SECT 6 was absolutely and universally exempt and free Thus at last we have I conceive sufficiently cleered and established both the truth and necessity of the distinction last propounded viz. of the righteousnesse of Christ into that which is commonly called Active wherein his personall integrity and holinesse is absolved and made perfect and that which is called Passive which is the righteousnesse of another Law differing from that which is called Morall and was performed by him meerely in relation to the justification or righteous-making of others The truth and necessity of the distinction might be further evicted from the Scriptures as from these and such like Esa 53.11 2 Cor. 5.21 Heb. 7.26 Heb. 9.14 1 Pet. 3.18 c. By all which passages it is evident that Christ doth not justify others by the morall righteousnesse of his person whereby himselfe was made righteous but by that other righteousnesse which we may call mediatorie satisfactorie passive or meritorious and yet with all that this righteousnesse it selfe could have done nothing this way but upon presupposall of and inconsistence with the other as will hereafter further appeare But because this hath bin sufficiently performed by others (a) Pareus de Iustic Christi Act. et Pass P. 181. and the distinction it selfe is granted and acknowledged by the learnedest (b) Bish Davenant De
description of this cause given of Iustification is God himselfe Father Son and Holy Ghost considered is one and the same simple and intire essence though this act of justification as that of creation and some others besides is in special manner appropriated to the first person of the three the Father as other acts are to the other two persons Redemption to the Son Sanctification to the Holy Ghost c. in both which notwithstanding all the three persons being but one and the same intâ—re and undivided essence must needs be interesâ—ed Thus Rom. 8.33 where it is said that it is God that justifieth it is meant by way of appropriation of God the Father because there is mention made of Christ the second person immediately it is Christ that is dead c. Now that God is that kinde of cause of Iustification which hath bin attributed to him and no other is evident from the description of this cause formerly layd downe Sect. 4. of this Chapter For 1º that he is a cause of Iustification is the consent of all men without exception besides the Scripture lately cited Rom. 8. is full and pregnant this way It is God that justifieth 2º that he is neither the matter nor the forme of Iustification is sufficiently evident of it selfe neither did ever any man affirme either the one or the other of him and besides we shall cleere this further when we come to inquire after these causes 3º that he is not the end or finall cause of Iustification appeares from that property or condition of this cause mentioned Sect. 3. viz that it is to be atteyned or receive it's being by meanes of that thing whereof it is the end which cannot be verified of God or his being in respect of Iustification inasmuch as these no way depend upon it This likewise will further appeare when we come to lay downe the finall cause Therefore 4º and lastly he must of necessity be the efficient cause of Iustification there being no fift kinde of cause whereunto he should be reduced Secondly SECT 10 that he is the principall efficient cause and not instrumentall is evident also because he is not assum'd acted or made use of by any other in or about the justification of a sinner but himselfe projecteth the whole frame and cariage of all things yea and manageth and maketh use of all things instrumentally concurring or belonging thereunto It is God that justifieth the Gentiles by or through Faith Gal. 3.8 so Rom. 3.30 c. God maketh use of Faith and so of his word and of the Ministers of his word to produce Faith in the hearts of men and consequently to justifie them but none of these can be said to act or make use of God in or about this great effect Thirdly that he is the Naturall efficient cause of Iustification according to the notion and description of this cause given Sect. 5. is evident because in the exercising or putting forth this act of Iustification he acteth and worketh out of that authority and power which are essentiall and connaturall to him and not out of any superadded or acquired principle of art or otherwise whereof he is wholly uncapable It is true he is moved to the exercise of this act of â—ustifying men by somewhat that is extrinsecall and not essentiall to him viz. the intercession of the death and sufferings of Christ yet the act it selfe in the exercise of it proceeds by vertue of that authority and power which are estentiall to him as hath bin said No creature can be said to justifie or forgive any man his sinnes no not by Christ but God alone Who can forgive sinnes but God onely Mar. 2.7 Fourthly SECT 11 the Morall or internall impulsive cause of Iustification as it is an act of God is that infinite love goodnesse mercy sweetnesse and graciousnesse in God himselfe towards his poore creature Man looked upon as miserable and lying under condemnation for sinne This was the moving and procuring cause of the guift of Christ and his death and sufferings from him and consequently of that justification which is procured and purchased by Christ and his sufferings So God loved the world that hee gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever beleeveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life viz by Iustification through him Ioh. 3.16 Fiftly the externall Morall or impulsive efficient cause of this act of God is the Lord Iesus Christ himselfe in or through his death and sufferings or which is the same the death and sufferings of Iesus Christ God looking upon Christ as such and so great a sufferer for the sinnes of men is thereby strengthened and provoked to deliver those that beleeve in him from their sinnes and that condemnation which is due unto them i. to justifie them The Scripture is cleere in laying downe this cause Even as God for Christs sake freely forgave you viz. your sinnes i. justified you Ephe. 4.32 Those words for Christs sake are a plaine and perfect character of that kinde of cause we now speake of This with the former i. both internall and externall impussive or moving causes are joyn'd together Rom. 3.24 And are justified freely by his grace here is the inward impulsive cause of Justification through the Redemption that is in Christ Iesus viz. by meanes of his death and sufferings here is the outward moving cause we speake of Neither can the Death and sufferings of Christ with any shew of reason or with any tolerable construction or congruitie of speaking be referred to any other cause in the businesse of justification but the impulsive only He that would make Christ the instrumentall cause of Iustification (a) Mr. Walker Socinian discovered c. p. 138. discovers himselfe to be no great Gamaliel in this learning and had need thrust his Faith out of doores as he doth in many places and not suffer it to have any thing at all to doe about his Iustification least his Christ and his Faith should be corrivalls and contend for preheminence therein And yet more repugnant to reason is it to make either Christ himselfe or any righteousnesse of his whatsoever either the matter or materiall cause of Justification which yet the Socinian Discoverer doth (b) Ibid. p. 139 or the forme or formall cause thereof which is done by some others But that is a streyne of unreasonablenesse above all the rest to make either Christ or his righteousnesse both the formall and materiall cause too of this great act of God we speake of the Justification of a sinner these causes being of so opposite a nature and different consideration as hath bin described and yet even this conceit also hath found enterteynment with some To this kinde of cause we now speake of must be reduced also the active or personall righteousnesse of Christ as farre as it hath any influence into or any waies operates towards the justificatioÌ„ of a siner For though it be not satisfactory
measure God is in holinesse righteousnesse goodnesse wisdome truth mercy c. and that he is so light or such a light in whom there is no darknesse at all 1 Joh. 1.5 And in this sense the light of the knowledge of God is said to be given by the ministers of the Gospell in the face of Iesus Christ 2 Cor. 4.6 meaning that those who truly and effectually preach Iesus Christ unto men and hold him forth in all the glory and excellencie of all that he both did and suffered in the world as they are left upon record by the Holy Ghost in the Gospell doe with one and the same labour certify informe the world what manner of essence and being in respect of hâ—linesse grace love sweetnesse mercy goodnesse bounty c. the true God is with whom they have to doe All these excellencies being apparantly extant and visible and that in the full transcendencie and height of their severall perfections in that obedience which Christ exhibited in the flesh unto God it cannot with any colour or pretence of reason be imagined but that that God from whom he came forth and whose servant hee was in all this great administration and from whom he must of necessitie receive and be furnished with all that strength and power of grace whereby he was enabled to do all these great things must needs be a God supereminently glorious in all the same and like perfections So that we see here is another end and that of maine consequence of the active obedience of Christ besides imputation Thirdly SECT 7 another end of this righteousnesse of Christ we speake of is the exemplarinesse of it it is the patterne in the Mount for all Adams posteritie to work by It is true the Law it selfe is as absolute and perfect a rule or patterne of righteousnesse as the conformity or obedience of Christ himselfe to it is but it is not so plaine and distinct a rule in some cases as the obedience of Christ to it And therefore the Holy Ghost sometimes briefly mentioning the letter or rule of the Law maketh use of the exemplarinesse of the obedience of Christ as it were to illustrate and interpret it And walke in love even as Christ hath lovedus and hath given himselfe for us c. Ephes 5.2 with many the like Fourthly the intire obedience and subjection of Christ to the Morall Law is of excellent importance and hath a Spirit of provocation in it to draw all the world after it in imitation of it it is a tempting righteousneste or an holy strong and blessed temptation to the world to worke righteousnesse the force and power whereof no man can withstand but with an high hand of desperate wickednesse and to the deepe shame and reproach of his person This end likewise is oft mentioned or insinuated in the Scriptures Take my yoke upon you and learne of me saith our Saviour himselfe Mat. 11.29 for I am meeke and lowly in heart c. implying that there was in his meeknesse not only a patterne or example to follow but a provocation also to make them willing and desirous to follow See Ephes 5.24.25 1 Pet. 4.1 with many others Fiftly the righteousnesse of Christ now under consideration was a meanes of continuing his person in the love and complacencie of his Father which was a thing of absolute necessitâ—e for the carrying through and accomplishing that great worse of Redemption which he had undertaken For if the mediator himselfe upon whose favor and interest with God the favor peace and salvation of the whole world depended should have but once miscarried and displeased him who should have mediated for him or made an attonement or reconciliation for him If salt hath lost the savor there is nothing to season it againe withall because all things are to be seasoned by it This end of his obedience and subjection to his Father himselfe plainly expresseth Joh. 15.10 If yee keepe my commandements you shall abide in my love even as I have kept my Fathers commandements and abide in his love See also Joh. 8.29 Sixtly that righteousnesse of Christ we speake of SECT 8 was of absolute necessitie to qualifie and fit the sacrifice for the Altar I meane to render him a person meet by his death and sacrifice of himselfe to make attonement for the world and to purge and take away the sinne of it It is true the infinitnesse of the value and considerablenesse of his death sprang from the God-head or Divine nature with which the humanitie of Christ had personall union yet was the absolute holinesse and righteousnesse of the humanitie it selfe of necesâ—ary concurrence also thereunto and that in two respects First there is no capacity in any part or parcell of the humane nature of personall union with the Divine except it be absolutely free from all touch and tincture and spot of sinne otherwise this proposition might be verified that God is sinfull a sound which neither the eares nor consciences of men are able to beare That God should die though it be a conclusion which to reason not yet taught or principled from above may seeme of the same hardnesse and inconsistencie with the other yet we know it is become not only familiar and of easy admittance but of very precious and sweet importance in the Schoole of Christianity But that God should finne is a saying of a greater offence and abhorring to reason proselyted and made Christian then to reason yet only it selfe and no more Secondly suppose for argument sake a possibilitie of that which is unpossible that the Divine nature might be hypostatically or personally united to an humanity tainted with sinne yet could it not give an infinitnesse of expiatory value or acceptation thereunto for others in case it were offered or made a sacrifice by it The reason is because such an offering or sacrifice were of absolute necessitie for the expiation of its owne sinne or at least it should be due and the justice of God might lawfully require it in such a way For no relation whatsoever of any creature to the Divine nature it selfe or to any person subsisting therein be it never so neere and intimate is able to dissolve or make voide any right or power which is essentiall to God as the right of requiring a full satisfaction for sinne is wheresoever or in what creature soever he findes it Now then whatsoever God either doth or in justice may require of any man to make satisfaction for his owne sinne unpossible it is that with the payment or tender thereof he should make satisfaction for the sinnes of others as it is unpossible in a course of Law and Civill Justice that a man by paying his owne debt should thereby discharge another mans The High Priest under the Law did not make atâ—onement for himselfe and for the people with one and the same sacrifice but saith the Scripture he offered sacrifice first for his owne sinnes and then
needing no further attonement himselfe for the people Heb. 7.27 So then evident it is that howsoever the infinitenesse of the merit and satisfactorinesse of the death and sufferings of Christ hath its resultance and rise from the Divine nature yet could no such merit or satisfactorinesse have taken place in respect of others had not Christ as man or his humane nature wherein he suffered bin perfectly righteous and free from all sinne that so he might stand in no need at all himselfe of that sacrifice which himselfe offered of himselfe Dying righteous and being God his death holds out weight and worth merit and satisfaction for the whole world whereas had he died a sinner in the least degree though his death by reason of the Godhead personally united to that created nature wherein in such a case he were supposed to suffer had bin of infinite value and satisfaction for otherwise it could not have bin expiatorie for himselfe there being every whit as much required for the attoning of one mans sinne as is for the sinne of the whole world yet had the infinitnesse of this satisfaction extended only to himselfe and to the purging of his owne sinne and not so much as to one other In so much that in this case had he meant to have propitiated for the world after he had once died and overcame death for himselfe he must have returned againe into the infirmitie of the flesh and have suffered death the second time Vpon this consideration doubtlesse it is that the Holy Ghost tendering the satisfaction and peace of the consciences of beleevers touching the fulnesse and unquestionablenesse of their redemption and salvation by the death of Christ still inserteth the mention of his perfect righteousnesse when he speaketh of his death or sufferings for them By his knowledg shall my righteous servant justifie many for he shall beare their iniquities that is the punishment due to their iniquities Esa 53.11 manifestly implying that there is a great weight and moment in the righteousnesse of Christs person to assure or secure the consciences of men coÌ„cerning their justification by his death You may please at leysure to peruse and compare these Scriptures further being all with many more of the same consideration 2 Cor. 5.21 Heb. 9.14 1 Pet. 1.19 1 Pet. 2.22 23.24 c. Thus then we have at least discovered another great end of the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ viz the qualification of his person at least in part for that meritoriousnesse of his death which may stand the world in stead for their justification So that there is no necessitie at all of having recourse to the pretended imputation for salving the necessitie or usefulnesse of it By what we have reasoned in this last passage it appeares how little substance of truth there is in that which some much insist upon SECT 9 as a confirmation of the argument now under debate viz. that the bare union of the God-head with the flesh or humane nature of Christ did sufficiently qualifie it for a sacrifice they meane for a sacrifice of that same expiatorie value and vertue which now it is so that in this respect at least there could be no necessitie or use of his fuâ—fiâ—â—ing the Law Doubtlesse the men of this affirmation either do not consider the necessitie of that personall integritie in Christ which we lately demonstrated and which the Scriptures from place to place insinuate or else they conceive that Christ man might have bin righteous without doing the works of righteousnesse that is without keeping the Law which is all one as if they should say he might have bin righteous though he had transgressed For not to keepe the Law in those to whom the Law is given is nothing else but to transgresse If they thinke to relieve themselves with this interpretation of their notion that if Christ had suffered in the first houre or instant of his incarnation or immediatly after the personal union of the two natures his sacrifice had bin of equall value merit and satisfaction with what now it is and yet in this case he had not fulfilled or kept the Law I answere that this interpretation is every whit as unfound and inconsistent with reaâ—on as the text it selfe For First let this supposition be admitted that Christ might have suffered in the Womb and that this suffering of his had bin as fully satisfactorie for the world as those sufferings are which he hath now endured yet had he bin as perfectly righteous in this case and consequently had observ'd and kept the Law as perfectly as now he hath done For the Law requireth of Infants during their Infancie nothing but integritie and holinesse of nature which doubtlesse the Lord Christ had from the first moment of his conception a child or infant thus qualified I meane with holines integritie of nature keepeth the Law as perfectly exactly as a man living to 30 or 40 yeares of age should do in case he never traÌ„sgrest But Secondly SECT 10 this interpretation drawes the saying it selfe quite besides the businesse in hand and makes it a meere impertinencie to the present question For when we affirme the righteousnesse of Christs life or his obedience to the Morall Law to be of absolute necessitie for the qualification of his person for a meet sacrifice our meaning is not that there was an absolute necessitie that he should have kept the Law upon the same termes every waies which now he hath done as that he should performe the same individuall acts of obedience or the same number of acts in case he had bin called to the suffering of death any whit sooner then now he was but that untill the very houre and instant wherein he should suffer whether it were sooner or later he should in all things submit himselfe unto the good will and pleasure of God concerning him aswell in that generall Law which requires obedience of all men besides which we call Morall as in that particular and speciall Law of Mediator which was given unto and imposed upon himselfe alone Such an indefinite righteousnesse as this we judge and have I suppose unanswerably proved to have bin simply necessarie in Christ for the raising of that sacrifice of himselfe to that height of acceptation in the behalfe of others which now it hath found at the hand of God But however suppose this necessitie or use of the righteousnesse of Christ could not be sufficiently cleared yet since there are many others of undeniable evidence the position so much contended for viz. that the God-head of Christ sufficiently qualified him for such a sacrifice as he was makes nothing at all for the imputation of his righteousnesse in the sense pretended Therefore we shall not trouble either our selves or our Reader any further with untying an impertinent knot But Seventhly SECT 11 as Christ was a sacrifice so was he and yet is and is to be for ever Heb. 7.17 c.
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
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
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
the man faith the Law that continueth not in all things c. Therefore a man that hath not been alwaâ—es righteous can never be made righteous by the righteousnesse of the Law imputed or not imputed or howsoever it may be conceived to come upon him Thirdly and lastly I answere if a mans sins be once forgiven him he hath no need of any imputation of any further righteousnesse for his Iustification because forgivenesse of sins reacheth home and amounteth unto a full Iustification with GOD. This is plaine from the words mentioned Rom. 5 16. The guift saith Paul that is the guift of righteousnesse as it is explained in the next verse is of many offences unto Iustification that is when God hath given men their offences or debts or forgiven them for to give a debt or forgive it is all one he hath fully justified them For that righteousnesse which God is said to impute unto men through Faith is nothing else being interpreted but the forgivenesse of sins or the acquiting of them from that death and condemnation which are due unto them And this is all the Iustification the Scripture knowes or speaks of the forgivenesse of our sins or acquitting from condemnation the genuine and proper signification of which word misapprehended hath been a maine occasion of leading many out of the way of Truth in this point A man may in a manner as plainely discerne where mens feet have faild them here as sometimes where a Horse foot hath slip'd upon an ice For reading in Scriptures of the justification of sinners or of men being made just or righteous by Christ they have conceived that such a thing cannot be but by a positive and formall Law righteousnesse somewaies put upon them and there being no such righteousnesse indeed any where to be found but only the righteousnesse of Christ hence they have apprehended that this justification must needs be by this righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto them whereas that righteousnesse which we have by Christ and wherewith we are said to be justified before God by beleeving is only a negative righteousnesse not a positive it is nothing else but a non-imputation of sin which I therefore call a righteousnesse by accompt or interpretation as having the privileges but not the nature and substance of a perfect legall righteousnesse The Scripture shines with as much cleernesse and evidence of this truth SECT 3 as the Sun doth with light when he riseth in his might Rom. 4 6. compared with ver 7 8. Even as David declareth the blessednesse of the man unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works A righteousnesse without works must needs be a negative or privative righteousnesse as is fully expressed in the following verses Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes not sinne You see the imputation of righteousnesse ver 6. is here interpreted to be nothing else but a not imputing of sin And so Calvin upon Rom. 3 21. calls this a definition of the righteousnesse of Faith Beati quorum remissa sunt iniquitates that is Blessed are they whose sinnes are forgiven And not long after Paulus tradit Deum homines iustificare peccata non imputando that is Paul teacheth that God justifieth men by not imputing their sins The like description of this righteousnesse you have 2 Cor. 5. that which ver 19. he calls in God the not-imputing of our sins unto us he calls in us ver 21. a being made the righteousnesse of God in him But most plainely Act. 13.38 39. Be it knowne unto you saith Paul to the Jewes that through this man CHRIST is preached unto you forgivenesse of sins which forgivenesse of sins he immediatly calls their Iustification And by him all that beleeve are iustified from all things from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Moses You see how he expresseth the nature of this Iustification we have by Christ viz. by the way of negative or privative righteousnesse as was said not a positive All that beleeve are iustified from all things that is all sins from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses So that that Iustification which we have by Christ in the Gospel is not a Iustification with righteousnesse properly so called but a Iustification from sinne and from the guilt of sinne and condemnation due to it when Christ said to men and women in the Gospel Thy sins are forgiven thee then he justified them the forgivenesse of their sins was their Iustification This is the most usuall and proper signification of the word Iustifie both in Scriptures SECT 4 and other Authors but in the Scriptures especially not to signifie the giving or bestowing of a complete positive righteousnesse but only an acquitting or discharging and setting a man free from the guilt and penaltie due unto such things as were laied to his charge In the Scripture it is usually opposed to condemning or condemnation He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just both these are abhomination unto the Lord. Prov. 17 15. What is here mâ—ant by justifying the wicked not making them righ eous and just men by putting a morall righteousnesse upon them he that can make a wicked man righteous or just so shall be so far from being an abhomination to the Lord that hee shall shine as the starres in the Firmament for ever and ever Dan. 12.3 Therefore by justifying the wicked in this place can be nothing else meant but the making of them just in the rights and privileges of just men which are freedome from censure punishment and condemnation as appeares by the opposition in the other member of the clause and condemneth the righteous So that by justifying the wicked is nothing else meant but the not-condemning him So Rom. 8 33 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen it is God that justifyeth who shall condemne c. Where you see againe the opposition betweene being justified and condemned See likewise Rom. 5.9 Therefore by justifying is nothing else meant but acquiting from condemnation and so to be justified and to live that is to be freed from death and condemnation are made equivalent or equipollent the one to the other Gal. 3.11 And that no man is justified by the works of the Law it is evident for the iust shal live by Faith that is shal be justified by Faith for otherwise there is no strength in the argument So againe ver 21. If there had bin a Law which could have given life that is could have justified men surely righteousnesse or Iustification should have been by the Law By his knowledge faith Esay c. 53.11 shall my righteous servant iustify many for he shall beare their iniquities that â—s by bearing the punishment or condemnation due unto their sinnes he shall deliver them from punishment This opposition we speake of betweene justification and condemnation is cleere in other Scriptures as Mat
This kind of proposition is frequent in Scripture I am the resurrection saith Christ Ioh. 11.25 The meaning is not that he was properly and formally the resurrection but that he was the cause meanes or Author of the resurrection So Paul saying that Christ is our hope meaneth only that CHRIST is the ground or Author of our hope 1 Tim. 1.1 In like manner when he saith Love is the fulfilling of the Law his meaning only is that a spirituall and unfeigned affection of love is an inward principle of that nature and importance which inclineth and disposeth a man to the performance and practise of all manner of duties required in the Law Therefore to say that the Love of Christ is imputed to men for their fu filling of the Law or for their righteousnesse is ridiculous More might be added by way of answere but the strength of the Objection is small Another thing that happily some will object against the argument propounded is this SECT 4 It is not necessary that men should have all particular acts of righteousnesse qualified with all circumstances answerable to their Callings imputed unto them for their justification It is sufficient if they have a righteousnesse imputed to them which is equivalent to such a righteousnesse To this I Answere two things First they which speake such things doe not consider the severity of the letter the strict and peremptory nature of the Law The Law will not know any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any thing by way of proportion or equivalencie one thing as good as another will not serve the turne The Law must have jot for jot title for title point for point letter for letter every thing to answere in the most exact conformity to it otherwise it hath a curse in a readinesse wherewith to take vengeance on men no life or reward Secondly to impute acts of righteousnesse to a man which are proper to another Calling and wholly disagreeing from that Calling wherein God hath placed him is rather to impute sinne unto him then righteousnesse Because though such acts were righteousnesse to him that wrought them yet if I being in a different Calling should be accounted by God to have done them which is the Law of imputation I must be judged by him as one that had transgressed the bounds of my Calling consequently had sinned Neither is that reason of any value which some alledg SECT 5 to countenance an equivalencie of righteousnesse in this kind instead of a proprietie viz. that God was not punctuall and every waies circumstantiall in inslicting the Curse of the Law upon the transgression of it because they suppose that by those words wherein the Curse of the Law is expressed Thou shalt die the death Gods meaning was that he should die an eternall death literally and not by way of equivalencie Therefore God having notwithstanding inflicted this Curse by way of equivalencie and not in the letter of it why may he not impute a legall righteousnesse unto men that hath only an equivalencie with that righteousnesse which they should have performed though not an exactnesse with it according to the letter For to this I answere First that the very foundation that is layed to build this objection upon is sandy and hath nothing either in Scripture or sound reason to bottome it From the Scriptures nothing that I have read is so much as pretended that way viz that God in those words Thou shalt die the death must of necessity precisely and determinatly meane eternall death according to the letter And by what fire such a spirit as this is will be extracted or drawne out of that body of those words I doe not yet understand If we judge of his intent and meaning in those words by the event of things or manner of execution they were meant determinatly neither of eternall death according to the letter nor yet of an eternall death by way of equivalencie but indifferently of either because it was an eternall death only by way of equivalencie that was inflicted upon Christ for one part of Adam or his posterity but upon the other part which perish it is inflicted according to the letter Secondly upon deeper consideration it will happily be found to be neerer the truth to hold that in those words Thou shalt die the death God his meaning was not at lest determinatly to threaten eternall death either in one kind or other either according to the letter or by way of equivalencie but to have the word Death taken and understood by Adam in the extent of the signification as it indifferently signifieth that evill of the punishment which was represented and knowne unto him by the name of Death without limiting his thoughts to the consideration either of the shorter continuance or of the everlastingnesse of the duration of it For as Scotus well determines in this case Aeternitas non est de ratione poenae peccatis debitae sed peccatores concomitans qui non possunt ut Christus vel cum Christo cluctari 1. Eternitie is not of the nature or essence of the punishment due unto sins but it followes and falls upon sinners who cannot wrastle out as Christ did or with him So then eternity not being essentiall to that punishment or death which God threatned it is no waies necessary that it should be included especially in such a precise and determinate manner as the objection pretendeth in the significatiō of that word wherein the punishmēt is expressed But thirdly and lastly suppose the foundation be gold yet will it be found hay and stubble that is built upon it For what if God should take liberty to varie from the letter of the Curse in the execution of it should threaten eternall death literally and inslict it equivalently this no waies proveth that the creature who was bound to obey the precepts of the Law might take the like liberty to performe one thing instead of another or that God should accept any such payment from them whether made by themselves or by another for them in the nature of a legall payment Indeed having received a full satisfaction for all the transgressions of the Law he may by a second or new Covenant accept of what he pleaseth to estate men in the benefit or blessing of that satisfaction and so that which is thus accepted becomes in this respect to him that performs it and from whose hand it is accepted equivalent to a perfect and compleate legall righteousnesse because it justifieth him in respect of all benefits and privileges of a justification as well as such a righteousnesse would have done But that he should accept on any mans behalfe as a perfect legall righteousnesse the performance of such things which are not required of him neither by the first Covenant of works nor by the second of Grace hath neither correspondence or agreement with the one Covenant or with the other A man me thinks must have a rare faculty to convert any
Earth divisim conjunctim as we 〈◊〉 upon such termes that no mans comsort or benefit by it is at all impaired or diminished because there are so many thousand thousands in the world that are partakers of the same benefit and comfort with them But every mans enjoyment and possession hereof is as full and entire to him as if the Sun shined to him alone and there were no other to divide the comfort with him Doubtlesse if this propertie were to be found in any mans Earthly estate or inheritance that it would goe as far and hold out as good measure amongst many as among few or as given but to one though a man had never so many Children yet this consequence would hold good if Sons then heires he would bestow his whole estate aswell upon his last-borne as his first But because there is a defect or imperfection this way in earthly inheritances therefore it followes not with men if Sonnes then heires but with God it doth because such imperfection hath no place in his heavenly inheritance But howsoever whether the streÌ„gth of the Apostles inference in these places rests either in this or in the former consideration or in any other evideÌ„t it is that the grace or guift of Adoption is given by God unto beleevers for an Euangelicall capacitie right or title to the Kingdome of Heaven And therefore whatsoever opinion or notion riseth up to magnifie it selfe against it by dissolving and frustrateing the use end and intention of it is certainly Anti-euangellicall and not to be received though an Angell from Heaven should bring it This for the major Proposition in the syllogisme rather by way of explication then confirmation for being rightly understood it cannot lightly be denied The Assumption followeth But such an imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ as is contended for SECT 2 dissolves the end and use of Adoption This is evident from the expresse declaration or interpretation which themselves make of their imputation who are the abettors and maintainers of it For wherefore is this imputation of Christs righteousnesse introduced into the businesse of Iustification The introducers generally make but one mouth amongst them and say that the righteousnesse of Christ must be imputed unto us that so we may have a right and title to life or to Heaven according to the tenor of the Covenant Hoc fac et vive do this and live For by remission of sinnes say they and truely a man is only delivered from death and condemnation due unto sinne but there accrues or growes no right or title to the Kingdome of Heaven from remission of sinnes unto any man And so apprehending nothing else within reach in or about a beleever meet or fit to make a plea or title of thereunto they have compelled the righteousnesse of Christ to take this honour and office upon it in a way of imputation Neither indeed is it easy to conjecture or conceive what other service this righteousnesse of Christ imputed should doe in justification or for what other end or purpose it should be introduced upon such termes and in such a way then to qualifie men with a capacity for Heaven Now then this being the direct and proper end use office purpose and intent of Adoption to invest a beleever with a capapacity for Heaven as hath been demonstrated from the Scriptures it evidently followes that whosoever shall offer or attempt to set any thing else upon this Throne seekes to dissolve and make frustrate the counsell and purpose of God concerning the grace of Adoption in tâ—â—s behalfe To bring in any other right or title to salvation besides that Adoption of Sonnes which we have in Christ is to depresse or put downe the wisdome of God and to exalt another instead of it If it be heere objected and said that both may stand together imputation of a perfect righteousnesse from Christ and Adoption both why may they not together make a twofold coard a stronger and more effectuall title then either alone To this I answere No they will not twist or winde or worke together not so much because of the diversitie and contrariety of their natures as the clay and yron would not worke and mix together in Nebuchadnezzars image though this might be a sufficient consideration I conceive to build a negative answere upon Legalls and Euangellicalls will not joyne or combine to make a title to Heaven but chiefly because either of them aswell the one as the other is a compleate and intire title within it selfe Perfect righteousnesse is a perfect and compleate title alone so is Adoption or Son-ship as perfect and compleate a title alone as it As to be the first borne or heire to an earthly inheritance gives as direct and full a right or title to the enjoyment of it as the lawfullest purchase can do Now it is certaine that God never ordeynes a plurality of meanes for one and the same end or purpose when one meanes is entire and every waies sufficient for it neither in the world naturall nor in the world Spirituall as the Gospell may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Nature makes one for one was the old axiome in Metaphysiques But especially in the Gospell you shall finde it generally so that God allowes and seales still but one means for one purpose I meane but one adaequate meanes in one kind or in the same relation to the effect and accordingly upon the bringing in or position of a second meanes for the same end or purpose complaines presently of the abrogateing or making voyd the other You shall observe many such passages and reasonings in the Gospell as these If they which are of the Law be heires Faith is made voyd and the promise made of none effect Rom. 4.14 So againe Jf the inheritance be of the Law it is no more by promise Gal. 3.18 ver 21. Jf there had bin a Law that could have given life surely righteousnesse should have bin by the Law Surely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily certainly God would not have gone further then this Law in procureing life unto any if there had bin but a possibilitie in the Law to have done it But I desire to insist a little upon that place SECT 4 Gal. 2.21 and upon occasion of the passage to reason the point a little further I do not saith Paul abrogate the grace of God for if righteousnesse be by the Law surely Christ hath died in vaine A man with his first thoughts may thinke the inference somewhat strange and that Paul should be too weake and contemptible in his premises to be so sore and strong in his Conclusion For thus a man might counter-argue with him How doth it necessarily follow that if righteousnesse or justification were by the Law that Christs death must presently be in vaine What if there were more meanes of justification then one more doers open into life then one one by Christ another by the Law were there
be imputed to us For certainly this righteousnesse of his life was as capable of such an imputation before and with out his death as after or with it For what defect or impediment can be conceived that should hinder it Adams sin according to the principles of that opinion against which we argue was capable of imputation as soone as â—t was committed and why should the righteousnesse of Christ require any further qualification or recommendation to put it off upon the like terms but onely the working and performance of it If it be yet said but the persons of men had not bin capable of this imputation without the death of Christ therfore there was a necessity of this death of his in this respect To this I Answer True indeed the persons of men are not capable of this imputation without the death of Christ but neither are they made the more capable by it But if this righteousnesse of Christ we speake of were in it selfe imputable in the sense contended for why should not the persons of men be capable of the imputation thereof in the midst of their sins aswell as Christ was capable of the imputation of their sins in the midst of his righteousnesse Especially considering that as it appeares from Rom. 5.14 the grace and guift of God which is by Iesus Christ saveth by a stronger and higher hand then sin condemneth CAP. XIV Opening a Seventh ground against the pre-refused Imputation viz. the taking away of forgivenesse of Sinnes THat opinion which makes and constitutes men perfectly and compleatly righteous with allegall righteousnesse as righteous as Christ himselfe though it be but quoad veritatem SECT 1 non quoad modum as some of that way think to distinguish themselves safe yet it comes to the same in this respect leaves no place for forgivenesse or remission of sinnes in persons so made righteous it evacuates that high and soveraigne power of God at least in the use and exercise of it towards those that beleeve whereby he forgiveth sins God we know forgave Christ no sinne why because he was perfectly righteous and in him was no sinne as Iohn speaketh 1 Iohn 5.3 Therefore if men be righteous with the same righteousnesse wherewith Christ was righteous as compleatly righteous as he they have no more sin to be pardoned then he had If it be said that God first gives remission of sinnes unto men and then imputes this perfect righteousnesse unto them To this exception answere hath bin made already Cap. 5. Sect. 2. To that which is there delivered I adde that Christ hath taught us to pray for forgivenesse of sinnes even after this imputation of righteousnesse if any such thing were except we will say that he fram'd that patterne of Prayer usually called the Lords Prayer onely for the use of infidels and unbeleevers Now to aske forgivenesse of sinnes of God and yet to conceit our selves as righteous as Christ was is rather to mock then to worship him whom we pray unto If it be here objected as the like objection was made against the fift ground SECT 2 in the former Chapter that this inconvenience sits as close to the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse as to the Imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ for that purpose For if faith be imputed for or instead of the righteousnesse of the Law must it not derive a righteousnesse upon the person to whom such imputation is made as perfect and compleat as the righteousnesse of the Law it selfe and consequently as the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe How then doth that opinion leave any other place for remission of sinnes in those that beleeve then that which standeth for the Imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ Are they not both under the same condemnation this way Not to repeat what was so lately delivered in full for satisfaction and Answere to this Objection I yet further adde ex abundanti that when Faith is said to be imputed for righteousnesse in justification instead of the righteousnesse of the Law it is evidently implyed that it is not the righteousnesse of the Law it selfe that is imputed for righteousnesse but another thing Faith by name instead of it Now any other righteousnesse or any other thing imputed for righteousnesse besides the righteousnesse of the Law will apparently beare a consistencie of sinne with it and so leave a place for forgivenesse of sins but the righteousnesse of the Law excluding the former cannot give entertainment to the latter When a perfect sanctification is imputed to a Man for his justification that Man can be no more reputed or thought to have sinne in him then to be obnoxious to death and condemnation which is most opposite to justification But when that which either is no sanctification or at most but an imperfect sanctification is imputed for righteousnesse in a mans justification there may be as full a justification as perfect a deliverance from death and condemnation as in the former case and yet place left in the person so justified for an inherencie of sin and consequently for the forgivenesse of it CAP. XV. Enforceing an Eight Reason against the Imputation questioned viz. a manifest compliance with that dangerous errour That God seeth no sinne in his people WHat communion hath light with darknesse saith the Apostle and what concord hath Christ with Belial 2 Cor. 6.14 15. SECT 1 If this Imputation of Christs righteousnesse which we oppose were from Christ doubtlesse it would have no intelligence or compliance with any opinion so opposite to him and his truth as this That God seeth no sinne in his people The opinion it selfe is an error so grosse and like the darknesse of Egypt that it is even palpable and may be felt Therefore we will not spend time in arraigning it as guilty which is already so generally condemned But that the opinion against which the face of this discourse is set is of the same confederacie with this and gives the right hand of fellowship to it nay leades and caries men directly into it will cleerely appeare by this Demonstration Whosoever is perfectly righteous or as righteous as Christ is in him God can see no sinne But every beleever saith this opinion which we impugne is as perfectly and compleatly righteous as Christ himselfe is Therefore in such God can see no sinne You see in this Syllogisme how the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense contended for by many brings in that error with a high hand and therefore is to be cut off from the Sanctuary of God And those that will hold and maintaine such an imputation and yet crie out upon and condemne the opinion of Gods not seeing sin in his Children are in a spirituall or morall sense like those Idolaters of old that caused their owne Children to passe through the fire Ismael was not the more naturall and genuine fruite of Hagars wombe that bare him then this conclusion oâ— tenet that God seeth no sinne in
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.
if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. q.d. If the sinne of Adam being but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an inconsiderate stumbling or a sinne proceeding from incogitancie and Adam hmselfe but one hath yet beene able to involve many i. his whole posteritie all that shall be borne of him in death and condemnation much more must it needs be conceived that the grace i. the gracious intent purpose of God towards men and the gift by that grace viz. of righteousnes justification by such a man as Iesus Christ is who is both God and man should abound unto many i. justifie and save with farre greater efficacie power and authority and as it were with an higher hand all those that by spirituall regeneration and a true faith shall descend from him The strēngth of of the Apostles reasoning and inference in this passage Scripture lyeth in this The salvation of the world faith he must needs proceede with farre higher hand by Christ then the condemnation of it did or doth by Adam Because 1. The foundation and ground worke of the one was the free and gracious intent and purpose of God which is a stronger and more active and lively principle or spring to set all the wheeles and worke on going that depend upon it then a permissive decree onely which as seemeth here intimated and imployed is the maine foundation the other viz. the condemnation of the world by Adam had in respect of God This permissive decree though it be as cleare as the other in respect of the event and comming to passe of such things as are comprehended in it yet is the motion of it but slow and heavie in comparison of the other Gods permissive decrees are chiefely executed by second meanes or by occasion of his withdrawing himselfe and leaving the creature to it selfe but his gracious decrees have his heart and soule and strength and might in their execution And secondly that which is the more proper and immediate cause of the difference here laid downe by the Apostle the condemnation of the world as touching matter of provocation and offence given unto God proceeds onely in the demerit and strength 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one inconsiderate act of sinne and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from one onely meere man whereas the salvation of the world advanceth in the strength of such a righteousnesse attonement or justification as was procured indeed by one man but this one man was Jesus Christ who is valuable with thousand thousands of men and ten thousand times ten thousand thousands So that what he hath purposely and with all his might done for the justification and salvation of the world must needs be of an incomparable farre greater efficacie to carry these before it then the stumbling or unadvised sinne of one poore meere and meane man in comparison can be to procure the condemnation of it Onely I desire that it should be here considered and remembered that there is nothing said in all this Conclusion any wayes to extenuate either the demerit or guilt of Adams sinne beneath their just proportions and degrees but onely to shew that there is a great excesse of merit in the obedience of Christ above the rate and proportion of demerit in the disobedience of Adam There being these and other differences betweene Adam in his condemning the world and Christ in his Act or Worke in saving it it is evident that all such arguments or reasonings which are drawne from specialites and particularities of agreement betweene them are invalid and insufficient except they have some other foundation to beare them That which makes a true and lively Faith instrumentall in Justification Conclusi 11 SECT 17 is nothing that is essentiall or naturall to it whether descent propertie or act but somewhat that is extrinsecall and purely adventitious viz. the force and efficacie of that will good pleasure ordination covenant and appointment of God in that behalfe As it was neither the stature nor comelinesse of Aarons person nor his descent from Levie nor his grace nor his wisedome nor his knowledge nor any service formerly done by him either unto God or his Church nor any thing that in any proprietie of speech could be called his that made him an high Priest but Gods calling him unto and investing him with that honour and function he might have beene all that hee was otherwise and might have done all that hee did otherwise and yet without this anointing and appointment from God another might have beene high Priest and not he So might Faith have beene Faith both in the Originall and descent of it from the Spirit of God as likewise in all that native beautie and excellencie that belongs to it yea and put forth all those acts which otherwise it puts forth as to bring men to Christ to lay hold of Christ c. and yet never have attained the honour that is now put upon it never have beene instrumentall in Justification And as the same anointing or calling from God which were confer'd upon Aaron would have made any other man Priest though of another Tribe though lesse gracefull of person of meaner gifts and abilities every-wayes than Aaron was had they beene conferred upon him so had any other grace as love patience temperance or the like the force and power of the same covenant or ordination from God to assist them it cannot be conceived but that any of these would justifie as effectually as faith it selfe now doth Therefore it is unquestionably evident that Faith doth not justifie as it relates to Christ or as it apprehends him or redemption by him or the like because all these and such like properties or acts as these are essentiall and naturall unto Faith I meane to such a Faith as we speake of and that Faith which hath not or doth not all this is no true lively or effectuall Faith or instrumentall in justification Wherefore if Faith should justifie in regard or by vertue of any of these it should justifie by it selfe or by some dignity quality or act that is proper to it or inherent in it Hence it is that Scripture still suspends the justifying power or propertie of Faith upon the will free grace and good pleasure of God but never upon any act or qualitie proper to it selfe This is the will of him that sent me saith our Saviour Ioh. 6.40 that every man that seeth the Sonne and beleeveth in him should have everlasting life c. clearely implying 1. That it is not any seeing of Christ either corporally or spiritually nor any beleeving in him that could carry eternall life had it not the efficacie of the will of God to strengthen it thereunto And 2 that had this Will of God fallen in conjunction with any other grace or act of
Iustic Habit. c. 28. p. 364. Argum. 3. Mr. Bradshaw Iustific p. 67.72 c. Bish Downham Iustificâ— c. 1. c. 2 Section 9. of those that are or at least sometimes seeme to be of opposite judgement in the maine of the controversie depending I thus leave it Onely I desire to remember you of the Item Pareus gives (c) De Iustic Christi Act et Pass p. 180. out of his observation touching this Dictinction that the neglect hereof causeth much confusion and encumbreth the Doctrine of Iustification with many difficulties and inconveniences and renders it hardly defensible against the Papists and other adversaries to the truth of it Therefore in managing the present Question about imputation speciall care must be had that we neither use our selves nor admit from others these words the righteousnesse of Christ but with an eye to this Distinction A thing may be said to be imputed to a man in severall respects and considerations First Distinct 4 SECT 7 a man 's owne acts whether good orâ—evill may be said to be imputed to him when he himselfe and none other is simply and without reference either to reward or punishment either reputed or pronounced the doer of them This sense of imputation is not unproper yet do I not remember the word any where in the Scriptures so used But in this sense aswell the Active as Passive obedience of Christ are by God imputed to Christ himselfe and to no other and the sinnes of beleevers themselves to themselves that have committed them respectively and to none other Secondly a mans doings whether good or evill may be said to be imputed to him when he is either actually rewarded or punished because of them or else is look'd upon by the Judge as one that shall in due time either be rewarded or punished for such doings except some reasonable and just occasion shall in the meane time intervene to alter either of these purposes concerning him In this sense Shimei maketh request to David that he would not impute folly to him that is that he would not punish him for that foolish act of his reviling him So the sinnes of unbelievers may be sayd to be imputed to them when either they are punished by God in this world or else cast into Hell for them In this sense also the sinnes of the elect themselves before they beleeve may be said to be imputed to them because they are looked upon by God as persons yet liable to condemnation for their sinnes and that should in time actually be condemned except by the precious benefit and advantage of Gods patience and long sufferance towards them they should come truely to beleeve in Iesus Christ before death Thirdly Another mans trespasse or offence may be said to be imputed unto us when either we are challenged or look'd upon as advisors counsellors or furtherers of him thereunto or otherwise are hardly dealt with or punished as if we had bin accessary in some such way And so another mans vertue learning valor and well-deserving in any kind may be said to be imputed unto him who is conceived or look'd upon as the chiefe Author teacher or incourager of the other in any of these In this sense the faire and hopefull cariage of King Ioash towards the beginning of his Reigne may be imputed to Iehojada the Priest 2 King 12.2 with 2 Ch. 24.2 Thus the knowledge and courage which were found in Peter and Iohn are in effect imputed to Christ himselfe by the Priests and Rulers Act. 4.13 In this sense also the victory won by the valor and courage of the Souldiers is oft imputed to the Generall or chiefe Commander Fourthly one mans sinne and so his vertuous act may be said to be imputed to another when this other through ignorance or mistake is look'd upon as the man that had performed either the one or the other and is either censured or punished or else honoured or rewarded accordingly In this sense King Porsenna's hostile attempt against the Romans may be said to have bin imputed unto his Scribe or Officer by Scaevola when upon a mistake he slew him supposing him to have bin the King I do not remember any instance for this sense of the word imputation in the Scriptures Therefore Fiftly one mans wickednesse or ill deserts may be said to be imputed unto others when they are any waies punished or worse dealt with in consideration thereof as on the contrary a mans worth vertue or well-deservings in any kind may be said to be imputed to others as viz. his children kinsfolke friends c. when they are considered and well dealt with in any kind because of their relation unto such a man In this sense David may be said to have imputed Ionathans kindnesse unto Mephibosheth his Sonne when he preferred him to honour in consideration thereof and so the wicked act of those that accused Daniel and caused him to be cast into the Lyons Den may be said to have bin imputed unto their wives and children by the King when he caused them also to be cast into the Lyons Den for it Dan. 6 24. So the sinne of Achan to his house and Family Ios 7. and the sinne of Dathan and Abiram to their wives and Children Num. 16. In this sense likewise Paul willeth Philemon to impute to him for so the word signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil. ver 18. any wrong or injury that his servant Onesimus had done him meaning that he was willing and ready to make satisfaction for it In this sense of imputation and in this only the sinnes of men may be said to be imputed unto Christ viz. because he suffered the things which he did suffer in consideration of them and these sufferings of his againe may be said to be imputed unto us because we are rewarded that is justified saved in consideration of them But that either our sinnes should be therefore said to be imputed unto Christ because he is reputed by God to have committed them or that his righteousnesse whether active or passive should be therefore said to be imputed to us because we are reputed by God to have done or suffered the one or the other (a) In this sense the imputation aswell of the Passive as Active obedience of Christ are elswhere denied in this Treatise See Part 1. c. 10 Sect. 4 c. hath neither footing nor foundation either in Scripture or reason Sixtly taking the word imputation in a large sense SECT 8 that also may be said to be imputed to a man which essentially and directly conduceth either to the benefit or punishment which accrueth unto him from that which is more properly and immediatly imputed to him In this sense when the wife or children of a man that hath well deserved of a state or Family are any waies rewarded or well dealt with in consideration of his desert not only the deserts themselves but his ingenuous and liberall education together with his
himselfe is iustified with the same Iustification wherewith sinners are iustified and consequently hath sinnes forgiven him aswell as they Because that communion which is betweene Christ and us who beleeve is but one and the same Communion and wherein Christ partakes aswell as we Therefore if the same forme of Iustification be found in him which is in us the same Iustification must be found in him or on him likewise 2º That communion which is betweene Christ and those that beleeve cannot be the formall cause of Iustification because it is no righteousnesse nor conformity with any Law either directly or indirectly either properly and precisely or by way of equivalencie and interpretatively himselfe likewise affirming p. 138 that in the act of iustification God makes men righteous by the perfect righteousnesse and full satisfaction of Christ expressing hereby if be expresseth any thing the formall cause at least according to his owne apprehension of Iustification So then the communion which is betweene Christ and us being a farre differing thing from the righteousnesse and full satisfaction of Christ it followes as well agreeably to his owne pen as to the truth it selfe that the Communion he speakes of is not the formall cause of Iustification 3º The formall cause of Iustification SECT 19 must needs be as we shall hereafter further demonstrate the proper impression or effect of the act of Iustification and consequently the effect of God who justifieth or exerciseth that act that is of God the Father as himselfe rightly supposeth p. 137. whereas that Communion betweene Christ and us which hee speakes of ariseth and floweth as himselfe also acknowledgeth in the passage cited from the Holy Ghost Therefore unpossible it is that this Communion should bee theformall cause of Iustification 4º This Communion betweene Christ and us is a consequent of our Iustification and taketh not place hath no being till after we be fully and compleately iustified This himselfe likewise upon the matter acknowledgeth in the words cited affirming that it ariseth and floweth from the Spirit which God sheds on us through Christ c. Now that the Spirit is not shed upon us till after or upon our beleeving and consequently till after we be iustified for Iustification followeth Faith as close as imagination it selfe can imagine is evident from those and many the like Scriptures This spake he of the Spirit which they that believed in him should receive c. John 7.39 And God which knoweth the heart gave them witnesse viz. that they truly beleeved as appeares from the former verse in giving unto them the Holy Ghost even as he did unto us Act. 15.8 Then Peter said unto them Amend your lives and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ for the Remission of sinnes and yee shall receive the guift of the Holy Ghost Act. 2.38 They were to beleeve before they were Baptized but the receiving of the Holy Ghost is promised after See further to this purpose Act. 6.5 Act. 8.15.16 Act. 11.17 with the 15. Act. 19.2 c. So then the Communion that is betweene Christ and us flowing from the Spirit which God sheds on us through Christ and this act of sheding being still performed by God after or upon our beleeving and consequently after or upō our compleate Iustificatiō it undeniably followes that this Communion cannot be the formall cause of our JUSTIFICATION because this is accomplished and accomplished it cannot be without the formall part or cause of it in being before the other receives it's being 5º SECT 20 If the communion that is betweene Christ and us were the formall cause of Iustification Christ himselfe might be truly said to be iustified by the same act of Iustification with us This is evident because the Communion spoken of relates aswell to him as to us and is inherent in him as much as in us and whatsoever partakes of the same forme or formall cause with another is doubtlesse in respect of this form capable of the same denominatiō with it If the forme of that Iustification be as well or as much in Christ as it is in us Christ may as wel be said to be iustified thereby as we But to say that Christ should be iustified by that communion which is betweene him and us is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a hard saying to the tender cares of Christians Therefore certainly though that Communion which is betweene Christ and us be a sweete and precious thing yet is it not the formall cause of Iustification no more then Samuel was therefore Isaak Abrahams Son because he was a good Sonne like him And 6o. If the Communion betweene Christ and us be the formall cause of Iustificatton then is not the reciprocall imputation of our sinnes to Christ and of his righteousnesse and full satisfaction to us this cause also which is yet affirmed by the same Author and with the same breath This consequence is pregnant and conquering because this reciprocall imputation is an act of God the Father and so supposed by the Author himselfe and if rightly understood not with any variation from the truth whereas the Communion mentioned floweth from the Holy Ghost as hath bin already observed and is here likewise expressely affirmed Now unpossible it is that two acts really differing the one from the other should ever so combine or incorporate as to make the forme or formall cause of any thing which as hath bin said is alwaies a single and simple being and voyd of composition This reason stands in force though we take his reciprocall imputation which he joynes with his communion to make up the forme of Iustification in a passive sense viz. for the effect of that act of God whereby he maketh that reciprocall imputation For neither can two effects really differing ever so complie or consent together to simplisie one the other as to raise a third thing or being betweene them of simplicitie enough to make the formall being of any thing 7º Neither can this reciprocall imputation taken by it selfe be the formall cause of Iustification because 1º it comprehends and includes two severall and distinct acts of God or two distinct and severall effects of two such acts of his The imputation of our sinnes to Christ is an act or effect really differing from the imputation of his righteousnesse and satisfaction unto us This is evident because as the rendring Christ obnoxious unto death is a thing really differing and of opposite consideration from the making of us righteous and capable of life so the acts by which these are effected must needs be really differing also the one from the other Now as hath bin already argued it is unpossible that any forme or formall cause should be made of any pluralitie of ingredients or be a composition made of severall things really differing the one from the other 2º It is impossible that this reciprocall imputation should be the forme we inquire after because only the beleeving sinner
righteousnesse at the least For there must be nothing lost of the vigor strength or perfection of either in the composition But that no Mediatorie righteousnesse can possibly be formall in justification was fully evinced and concluded in the fift argument Seventhly and lastly SECT 27 for this opinion it is the confession or profession which you will of some of the learnedest abettors themselves of that way of imputation which hath bin opposed in this Treatise that the generall current of Reformed Divines runns with an opposite streame to this opinion and with one mouth deny the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to be the formall cause of Iustification Who ever of our writers saith Doctor Prideaux a Quis unquam è nostru nos per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justificari asservit Dr. Prideaux Lect. 5. p. 163. affirmed that we are formally iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed And Bishop Downham a great hyperaspistes also of imputation chargeth it upon his adversaries as a depravation of their Doctrine (a) lib. 1. of Iustifi p. 39. Sect. 1.2 he meanes his owne and other Protestant Divines that they will needs with the Papists make them hold that we are formally righteous by that righteousnesse which is not in us but out of us in Christ which is absur'd And a little after marveiles at them how they could be so absurd as to conceive so absurdly of them himselfe and other Reformed Divines he had spoken of as if they held that the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe should be the formall cause of Iustification Now that both these testimonies are so farre true as they avouch the more generall opinion of Protestant Divines to stand against formall Iustification by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed will further appeare by the explication of the fift and last opinion touching the cause under dispute which now followeth Therefore Fiftly and lastly there remaines yet another opinion to be considered of SECT 28 which looketh upon remission or forgivenesse of sinnes The Authors judgmēt touching the formall cause of Iustification as the formall cause of Iustification And that this opinion hath both the fairest and largest quarter in the judgements and writings of Protestant Divines as also most agree-ablenesse with the truth we shall I trust make evident without much wearisomnesse of Discourse For the former of these the more generall consent of Reformed Authors besides what hath bin already delivered for the Iustification hereof from many of the Authors themselves in the first and fift Chapters of the former part of this Treatise I shall satisfie my selfe and I hope my Reader also will take part with me in this satisfaction with the testimonies only of two of eminent note amongst them both I conceive without exception and of sufficient learning and integritie to be beleeved in a matter of as great importance as this the one of them a forreiner the other an English Divine the one being of the same judgement himselfe the other in part dissenting the one dead the other yet living The former of the two is David Paraeus sometimes chiefe Professor of Divinty in the Vniversity of Heidelburgh who in his tract concerning the Active and Passive righteousnesse of Christ having laid downe his judgement in the controversie depending thus p. 176 a Superest Quarta sententia c. quod justificatio tota sit remissio peccatorum propter hanc satisfactionem nobis imputatam Hanc sententiam ut veriorem simpliciorem a◠tutiorem amplects me profiteor c. Parens De Iustit Christi Act. et Pass p. 176. 177. Possem huc affer re Authoritates Patrum c. Possem quoque afferre cōsensum Lutheri Melancthonis c. p. 178. that remission of sinnes for the satisfaction of Christ imputed to us is our whole and intire Justification and argued accordingly p. 177 in the following page addeth as followeth I might here produce the Authorities of the Fathers who likewise place our righteousnesse meaning in Justification in the alone forgivenesse of sinnes for the death of Christ and accordingly cites severall testimonies out of Austin Occumenius and Ambrose And immediatly after these testimonies thus I might also alledge the consent of Luther Melancthon Zuinglius Oecolampadius Bullinger Calvin Martyr Musculus Hyperius Vrsine Olevian c. from whose Doctrine in the point of Iustificatiou I doe not varie a nailes breadth So that the light of this mans reading and judgement together could discover no other opinion touching the formall cause of Justification either in the Fathers or any the chiefe Protestant writers in his time but that it should stand only in Remission of sinnes The latter of the two mentioned is Mr. Thomas Gataker a man of approved learning and integritie amongst us who in Mr. A. Wottons Defence against Mr. Walkers Charge lately published in Print by him acknowledgeth p. 58 that howsoever for his part hee deemeth it erronious and so doe I too taking the word Iustification in that large sense which it seemeth he doth where he argueth against the opinion as viz. in his Animadversions upon the disputes betweene Piscator and Lucius p. 9. besides sundry other places in his writings to hold that Iustification consisteth in remission of sinnes yet that Calvin Beza Olevian Vrsine Zanchie Piscator Pareus Musculus Bullinger Fox and divers others of great note and name yea whole Synods of ours are found so to say adding further and yet were these men never yet that I ever heard or read for so saying condemned as Heretiques much lesse as blasphemous Heretiques but had in high esteeme as their worth parts and workes well deserved by those that therein dissented from them To this I might if need were adde Mr. Authony Wotton a man of much labour diligence and dexterity in searching out the judgements and opinions of Protestant writers touching the great Point of Iustification as appeares by that learned piece of his intit'led de Reconciliatione peccatoris c. who in the 3 4 5 and 6 Chapters of the second booke of the first part of this worke hath mustered together a greater troupe of Reformed Authors then either of the other and from their owne pens respectively hath made them all speake distinctly and plainely the same things touching the formall cause of Iustification which the two former Authors as we heard ascribed unto some of them Now for the declaration and proofe-making of this opinion SECT 29 because for the present I conceive it most agreeable to the truth some things would briefly be premiz'd As 1º That Iustification being an action hath no forme or formall cause at all properly so called that is hath no substantiall forme nor yet any forme that is properly a part of it because this is proper only to substantiall natures and beings See Sect. 8. of this Chapter 2º That there can in no other respect or consideration be ascribed any forme or formal cause unto Iustification but only as it
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
which strâ—ngthen the hands of men of opposite judgement to us to contend and pleade for it Meete and equall it is that men who pleade reason that is any thing that is like unto equity or truth should either obtaine the cause they pleade and be assented unto or else receive a valuable consideration to the full in their own coyne I meane in reason by way of Answere But inasmuch as some of these arguments have bin already answered upon occasion in some former passages of the Discourse I presume I may so farre entrust my Reader with the concernments of the cause in hand being in part his own without danger as the accepting of Answers els-where given in case they be sufficient doth amount unto only with reference without repetition The first argument for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense refused SECT 2 is thus framed If there be no standing in judgment before God unlesse we be endued with perfect righteousnesse then must the righteousnesse of Christ be imputed to us in our Iustification But there is no standing for us in judgment before God unlesse we be endu'd and furnished with a perfect righteousnesse Ergo. I Answere by denying the consequence in the former proposition Answere there may be no standing in judgment before God without a perfect righteousnesse and yet the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense controverted not be imputed The reason is because remission of sinnes which is the purchase and procurement of the death and sufferings of Christ for us as our Adversaries themselves acknowledg is a perfect righteousnesse and every waies able to support and beare us out in judgement before God as hath bin abundantly proved in the five first conclusions laid down and proved in the second Chapter of this latter part of the Discourse p. 3 4 c. Yea and our best Reformed Divines finde a sufficient strength of confidence for beleevers in the presence of God in the death and sufferings of Christ alone Calvin (a) Instie l. 2. c. 17. Sect. 9. having mentioned that of the Apostle Rom. 3.24 c Being justified freely by his grace through the Redemption that is in Iesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood addeth as followeth Paul commendeth the grace of God in this that he hath given the price of our redemption in the death of Christ and then willeth us to betake our selves unto his blood that so obteyning righteousnesse we may stand secure before the judgement of God And elsewhere (b) Instit l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 9. interpreting that clause against Osiander that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 he first delivereth himselfe thus Osiander here triumpheth as if he descried the spectrum or image of his essentiall righteousnesse when as the words sound quite another way viz. that we are righteous by the expiation or attonement made by Christ for us And a little after somewhat more fully to our purpose thus sed hoc loco c. that is but in this place readers that have but their wits about them though I should say nothing cannot but acknowledge that nothing else is meant quam nos mortis Christi piaculo suffultos apud Dei tribunal stare that is then that we stand at Gods judgement seat underpropt or borne up with the expiation or attonement of Christs death If God will judge thee said Anselme long before him say Lord Si Deus voluerit te judicare dic Domine mortem Domini nostri Iesu Christi obijcio â—nter 〈◊〉 et te et judicium tuum alâ—ter tecum non conteâ—do Anselm I interpose the death of our Lord Iesus Christ betweene me and thee and thy judgement otherwise I strive not with thee And Ambrose before him to the like effect though not altogether so plainly Gloriabor non quia vacuus peccati sum c. that is I will glory not that I am void of all sinne but that my sinnes are forgiven So that evident it is as hath bin formerly signified that a man needs not take care or thought for any other righteousnesse in the presence of God then only the forgivenesse of his sinnes which he is confidently to expect in and through the death and sufferings of Christ Againe secondly the Imputation we oppose SECT 3 is by some protected with the shield and Buckler of this Argument He that is justified by the righteousnesse of another Argum. 2 and not by his owne must needs be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed The reason is because there is no righteousnesse to be found in any other fit for the justification of any man but the righteousnesse of Christ alone But every man that is justified is justified by the righteousnesse of another and not by his owne Ergo. I Answere First Answere to the major proposition by denying it and oppose this contradictory for a truth against it A man may be justified by the righteousnesse of another and not his own and yet no necessitie of the righteousnesse of Christ that is of his active obedience for of this only the question is to be imputed unto him The reason hereof is more then manifest out of what hath bin already delivered viz. because the passive obedience of Christ is the righteousnesse of another and men may be and are fully and throughly justified by the merit hereof communicated unto them in the free pardon of their sinnes without any further righteousnesse derived upon them either from him or from any other in a way of imputation or however To make this good there needs nothing be added to what the Reader may please to finde in the 4th and fift Conclusions premis'd in the second Chap. of this latter part Sect. 4. and 5. p. 567. To the minor proposition Answere 2 I answere likewise by distinguishing the predicaeum or latter clause of it A man may be said to be justified by the righteousnesse of another and not by his owne in a double sense either 1º by way of merit or 2º by way of forme In the first sense the proposition is admitted whosoever is justified is justifyed by the righteousnesse of another and not by his owne that is is justified by the merit of the righteousnesse of another and not by the merit of his owne But this sense maketh nothing to the point in hand In the latter sense it is altogether untrue for that righteousnesse wherewith a man is formally justified or made righteous is alwaies a mans owne I meane by donation and possession and not anothers except only in respect either of procurement and so it is Christs or of collation and so it is Gods Remission of sinnes whereby a beleever is formally justified as hath bin often said and once at least largely proved (a) part 2. c. 4. Sect. 30 31.32.33 is a mans owne righteousnesse in such a sense as his Repentance or Faith is his own being all
his I meane of those that were-to descend Spiritually from him by Faith though for my selfe I had rather demurre then joyne issue in this And yet how ridiculous is it on the one hand and of dangerous consequence on the other to suppose that all that Adam did and all that very possibly he might have done either may or might have bin so imputed to all his posteritie as if they had done it Of what advantage or concernment can it be unto me that God should looke upon me as one that gave Names to all Cattell and to the foules of Heaven and to every Beast of the Field which yet Adam did Gen. 2.20 Or as upon one that first propagated man-kinde and begat Cain which we know were done by Adam with twenty things more of like nature In case he had stood and continued in his righteousnesse the publiquenesse of his person had bin no waies touched nor impaired hereby and yet is it of very doubtfull importance to conceive that all that righteousnesse which Adam in this case had wrought should have bin look'd upon as the righteousnesse of all his posteritie and imputed to them for their Justification For from hence it would follow 10 that all his posteritie should have bin saved 20 that they should all have bin sinlesse which are two principall regions of terra incognita 30 and lastly that they should all have bin justified by a double righteousnesse one personall and wrought by themselves another imputative wrought by another and so in this respect at least should have bin better provided for their justification then those that are now justified by Christ Secondly it hath bin formerly demonstrated SECT 20 how little consistence it hath either with truth See cap. 2. Sect. 14. of this second Part. or with the manner of Scripture expression to say that the sufferings of Christ are by God look'd upon as our sufferings or to conceive that we should suffer in him It is not all one to say saith Doctor Willet we are punished in Christ and Christ was punished for us and in our stead this is warranted by the Scripture Esa 53.6 But the other cannot be affirmed for seeing in Christs death we have remission of our sins we cannot be said for the same sinnes to be punished in and with Christ whereof we have remission in his death Comment on Dan. 9. Qu. 25. p. 289. Thirdly the publiquenesse of a person who negotiates the businesse and affaires of others as Christ did of those that shall beleeve in him doth no further or any otherwise interesse those whose affaires they manage in what they do in or about such a transaction but only with reference to the issue and successe of what they do for them in that behalfe If a man undertakes the ordering and issuing of such a businesse for me and deales dishonestly or unconscionably with others therin and at last makes a conclusion with much damage and disadvantage to me which might be a wise and saire cariage of things on my behalfe have bin prevented I am in this case liable to suffer all the detriment and damage which the unconscionablenesse or weaknesse of my Agent hath brought upon me but I am not to be look'd upon as one that have us'd the same unconscionablenesse with him or as if his weaknesse were mine Or in case he had dealt wisely or faithfully for me and had brought my businesse to a good end or issue I here receive benefit and good by such a mans wisdome and faithfulnesse but these are not ascribed orimputed unto me as mine owne because he was my Agent that used them The Client that prevailes against his adversary before the Judge by the skill of his Advocate or Lawyer is not therefore reputed as skilfull in the Law as his Advocate nor to have pleaded his own cause as substantially and effectually as his Lawyer did In like manner as farre as Adam had a Commission or power from God to deale for me or in my affaires being one of his posteritie I am bound to undergoe and suffer my share in that evill or miserie which he brought upon the world through his weaknesse or unfaithfulnesse in that transaction but this weaknesse or unfaithfulnesse of his as a Commissioner for me is not look'd upon as my personall weaknesse or unfaithfulnesse only so farre as my person was in his they are ascribed and imputed unto me as mine own See for this cap. 2. Sect. 11. of this second part So againe on the other hand as farre as Christ had a power from God to deale for me and in mine affaires being one that beleeve in him I have my part and portion in that blessed end and issue whereunto by his holinesse wisdome faithfulnesse and patience he brought the affaires of the world entrusted in his had but God doth never the more looke upon me as if that holinesse wisdome faithfulnesse and patience had bin mine nor is it any waies necessary that he should to make me capable of that which falls to my share as I am a beleever in that great and blessed transaction of Christ Fourthly and lastly to part with this argument also upon such terms SECT 21 that we may never need to meete more neither is it altogether so solid or sound a truth as haply is supposed that Christ stood in the place or stead of those that should beleeve in him especially in all things performed by him and which tended to the qualification of his person for the accomplishing of that great work of Redemption To stand in the place or stead of another implies a necessitie of his being in the same place and doing the same things himselfe wherin he stands and which he doth who is supposed to stand in his stead unlesse they had bin done by this other for him Now Christ did a thousand things yea and suffered many for the doing and suffering wherof there lay no personall necessitie upon many Beleevers whether Christ had done or suffered them or no. As for example there was no necessitie either in way of duty or of penaltie lying upon any Beleever one or other to be conceived or borne of a virgin to turne water into wine to command the winds and the Seas to ordain Apostles or the like Againe there was no necessitie lying upon any beleeving Gentile to have bin circumcised to have bin in subjection unto Ioseph to have eaten the Passeover at Hierusalem c. Therefore in all these Passages of his life with many others it is full evident that he stood not in the place or stead of all Beleevers All that the Scripture speaketh in this case is that he suffered for us was made a curse for us c. which expressions though they imply indeed in the generall a necessitie of our sufferings unlesse Christ had suffered for us yet do they not imply a necessitie of our sufferings in the same kinde or after the same manner in all particulars
the judgment of the best Expositors of the Protestant party ALL errour and mistake in matters of Christian Religion SECT 1 is occasioned either in the conception or continuance or both by somwhat which God in the Scriptures hath well said but is by men not well understood And as Gregory long since well observ'd it in matter of practise (a) Cum vitium virtus putatur culpa fine meâ—n cumulatur Greg Do Paster Cur. l 3. c. 1. that when men conceive of sinne under the notion of a duty there it is committed with an high hand and without measure the reason whereof is because conscience and concupiscence are then in conjunction which for the most part are in opposition about the committing of sin whereby the course of it is somwhat broken and impaired so it is likewise in point of judgement when men conceive of their by-thoughts and misapprehensions as countenanced from Heaven in the Scriptures their confidence lifts up it selfe very high and the mildest contradiction is little lesse then an abhomination unto them The reason whereof I conceive to be this the opinion in this case being their owne must needs have a strong and perfect sympathie with all the powers of nature yet unsanctified and so must needs engage these and then againe being look'd upon as a truth of a divine parentage and issuing from God by means of this apprehension it engageth all the powers of Grace and of the new man also to contend for it And thus what by the nature and substance of it on the one hand being erronious and sinfull and what by the appearance and shew of it on the other hand being as if it were indeed spirituall and divine it is apt to transport a man with an extasie of zeale even above himselfe for the maintenance of it and to inspire him with resolutions of sacrificeing credit Name estate friends himselfe upon the honour and service of it in case it be opposed Now amongst many signes that might be given of an opinion of that very frame and constitution we speak of darknesse for substance and light in appearance this is one of frequent observation when the maintainers of it are ambitious to heap up citations of Scripture proofes without end and to overwhelm their adversaries with Divine testimonies For as the saying is Nusquam est qui ubique est he that is every where is no where so it is much to be suspected that such an opinion is no where in the Scriptures which is pretended to be every where When men sharke about for Scriptures and cannot find those that willingly and freely offer themselves in the service of an opinion but labour and toyle as it were in the fire to redeem the defect of full and pregnant proofes with multitudes and numbers of such as they can find it is a ground of much suspicion that the opinion is not of God but of men The Scriptures are many which are mustered up by the Masters of that way of Imputation which we oppose for the service of their opinion but amongst them all there is not one that comes roundly on or that speaketh plainly or directly to the businesse in hand which is a plaine signe that it is not indeed they that speak at all but the spirit of the men that speaketh in them whatsoever they seem to speake in this kind I make no question but I shall be able to give a thorough and perfect accompt of what I now affirme by a particular examination of the Scriptures themselves alledged in that behalfe The greatest part of them I conceive have bin occasionally touch'd already and in part cleered in this discourse But because a true and solid understanding of them carryes the maine stroke in the Question and controversie depending I thought good to assigne an intire Chapter for the interpretation and solution of them so that the Reader may more readily know where to find and whither to repaire for explication of them al together I begin with those usually alledged from the old Testament which are not many The first place is Psal SECT 2 32.1 Blessed is the man whose transgression is forgiven Psal 32.1 2. Answered whose sinne is covered Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not transgression c. The covering of sin mentioned in the middle clause is by some conceived to be the righteousnes or active obedience of Christ which God imputing to beleevers covereth all their sinnes therewith To this I Answer 1. That some of our best Expositors conceive all the three expressions here mentioned to be but synonymous i. of one and the same signification and importance and yet with all conceive this variety to be emphaticall and to note that abundance of Grace in God whereby our sins are forgiven Doctor Ames in his sixt Document upon this Psalme carryes the tenour of these passages thus (a) Magâ—a est Dei gratia qua peccata nostra remittuntur Hoc eo ipso innuitur quod taÌ„ emphatica repetitione et quasi congerie verborum declaraâ—ar quia rei tantae nulla sufflcis Orationis forma Amesius in Psal 32. Document 6. Et â—ex Gratia Dei abundans est ad â—mnia peccata tollenda levat tegit et non imputat And Luther in his Summarie of the Psalme is not farre from it (b) Iustitia nostra propriè est remissio peccatorum seu ut loquitur Psalmus peccata non imputare peccata regere Luther in Summ. Ps 32. Peccatorum remissionem tribus loquendi generibus exprimit quae tamen omnia in idem cadunt Sâ—ph Fabrit in Psal 32. Parcus likewise on Rom. 47. is of the same judgement and cites Ambrose with him 2. For those two expressions not-imputing of sin and covering of sinne Calvin holds them to be the same in sence and signification and that they are of the same importance with those other Scripture phrases where God is said not to remember sinne to blot it out to cast it behind his backe or into the depths of the Sea and the like and moreover cites Augustine as his Predecessour in this Interpretation (c) Peccatorum non recordari est ea non postulare ad poenam Id ipsum alibi dicitur proij ere post tergum delere in star nubu demergere in profundum maris non imputare tectumque habere Certè si punit Deus peccata imputat Si vindicat recordatur si ad judicium vocat tecta non habet c. Atque in hune moduâ— interpretatur Augustin claru verbis c. Calvin Inst lib. 3 c 4. So that none of all these with twenâ—y more that might be put to them never dreamt of the righteousnesse of Christ lying so close under this covering of sin 3. Neither can sinne be said to be covered with the righteousnes i. the active obedience of Christ since according to the grounds and principles of that very opinion against which we argue sinne is wholly
dissolved and taken away by the imputation of his death or passive obedience and this before the imputation of the active obedience be made unto us See for this cap. 5. Sect. 2. of the first part of this Discourse Now that which is wholly dissolv'd and taken away needs no further covering in respect of God nor indeed is capable of any 4. The righteousnes or active obedience of Christ is so farre from being a covering of sinne that it is rather a means of the discovery of it and by the light and absolute purity and perfection thereof sets off sinne with the greater sinfullnesse even as the Law it selfe doth Therfore 5. and lastly if it be conceiv'd necessary to place any emphaticall difference in this expression of covering of sinnes from the other two of forgivenes of sin and not imputing sinne I conceive it most agreeable to Scripture notion to assigne this peculiarity of importance to it that by covering of sinne is meant Gods gracious expressing himselfe to a man that hath sin'd especially in a way of outward prosperity and peace It is most probable that by covering of sinne somwhat should be meant which is contrary to that which the Scripture expresseth by a discoverie of sinne Now it is evident from these and many like places more Ezek. 16.57 Ezek. 23.10.29 Job 20.27 Esa 57.12 c. that by discovering of sinne is meant the executing of judgements or inflicting of punishments upon sinners answerable to their sinnes which may wel be called a discovering of sin and wickednes because neither the sinners themselves nor yet others are ordinarily capable of any knowledge or apprehension to purpose of the demerit and vilenesse of sinne but by meanes of the severity of God expressing it selfe in visible judgements upon those that have sinned Therfore by covering of sinne both here and elsewhere is meant nothing else doubtlesse but Gods expressing of himselfe to persons that have sinn'd upon their Repentance in waies of Grace favour and love as if they had not sinned nor provoked him To this purpose when he shews any outward favour or countenance to men as by protecting them from dangers or delivering them out of trouble or the like he is said to justifie them Iustifying the righteous to give him or by giving him according to his righteousnes 1 King 8.32 compare herewith 2 Chron. 6.23 So that here is no shelter or covering for the Doctrine of Imputation in this Scripture Againe SECT 3 those parallell Scriptures Ier. 23.6 and 33.16 are alledged And this is his Name whereby he shall be called the Lord our righteousnesse I answere that neither is there any colour in these words for the pretended imputation Ier. 23.6 and c. 33.16 cleered For First it is not here said that the righteousnesse of the Lord shall be our righteousnesse nor that the righteousnesse of the Lord shall be imputed to us for righteousnesse no here is altum silentium profound silence as concerning any imputation Secondly it is wholly repugnant both to the Grammaticall and Rhetoricall importance of the expression and words as likewise disagreeing from the Scripture phrase and manner of speaking in the like cases to put such a sense or interpretation upon them as this Christ is our righteousnesse by imputation Christ can in no tolerable construction of speech be said to be imputed to us the imputation of a person was never heard of therefore cannot be said to be imputed to us for our righteousnesse But Thirdly and lastly the plaine and direct meaning of the place is this This is his Name whereby he shall be called The Lord our righteousnesse that is He shall be generally acknowledged and celebrated by his people the Jewes for the Prophet speak's particularly of these as is evident in the context as the Greate Author and procurer of that righteousnesse or justification in the sight of God for righteousnesse is very usually put for justification as was noted cap. 3. Sect. 3. of this second part upon which abundance of outward glory peace and prosperitie should be cast upon them This interpretation is agreable to the Scripture phrase and manner of speaking in the like cases For First the attributing or imposition of a Name upon either thing or person often notes the quality or property in either or some benefit redounding from either answerable thereunto (a) Schema est propheticuÌ„ quo nominu quasi peoprij impositione rei aut personae de qua agitur qualitas aut fatum indicetur Med. â— Apocalyps p. 84. Solet Scriptura dicererem quampiam vel personam hoc vel illo nomine vocatum iri non quod habitura sit illud nomen aut tali nomine vulgo appellanda sit sed quod vere ac plane habitura sit rem talâ— nomine significatam Perer. in Gen. p. 848. Sect. 30. His name shall be called wonderfull Counsellor c. Esa 9.6 that is he shall be acknowledged and looked upon by men as an actor and doer of things very strange and excellent as one that is able and ready to give the best advice and counsell to those that shall repaire unto him in difficult cases c. See of like importance and expression Ezek. 48.35 Mat. 1.21.23 Apoc. 8.10 with many others Secondly There is no phrase or expression more familiar in Scriptures quà m effectum praedicare de cansa in resto that is then to attribute an effect to its cause or Author by a verb substantive only or to affirme the effect of the cause directly Thus Christ is said to be our hope 1 Tim. 1.1 To be our life Col. 3.4 To be the resurrection Joh. 11.25 To be our peace Ephes 2.14 To be the glorie of his people Luk 2.32 with many the like meaning that he is Author purchaser or Procurer of all these So when he is said to be our righteousnesse there can no other construction be made of it but this that he is the Author or procurer of our righteousnesse Calvin is expresse for this interpretation of this passage All these expressions saith hee (b) Omnes istâ—â— locutiones peraeque valent justificari nos Dei gratia Christum esse justitiam nostram justitiam morte ac resurrectione Christi nobu acquisitam Calvin in Gal. 3.6 carrie the same sense and meaning that we are iustified by the grace of God that Christ is our righteousnesse that righteousnesse is procured for us by the death and resurrection of Christ c. See more of this interpretation before Cap. 3. Sect. 2. Thirdly and lastly that by righteousnesse in this place is meant that Iustification which stands in remission of sinnes and that by Christs being called the Lord their righteousnesse is only meant that through him God would be reconciled to them and pacified with them as concerning all their provocations appeares from the like tenor of other Scripture passages For usually when God promiseth deliverance and outward prosperity to this people after long and sore
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