Selected quad for the lemma: head_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
head_n	body_n	member_n	mystical_a	10,421	5	11.0632	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85397	Impvtatio fidei. Or a treatise of justification wherein ye imputation of faith for righteousness (mentioned Rom: 43.5.) is explained & also yt great question largly handled. Whether, ye actiue obedience of Christ performed to ye morall law, be imputed in justification or noe, or how it is imputed. Wherein likewise many other difficulties and questions touching ye great busines of iustification viz ye matter, & forme thereof etc are opened & cleared. Together wth ye explication of diuerse scriptures, wch partly speake, partly seeme to speake to the matter herein discussed by John Goodwin, pastor in Coleman-street.	Goodwin, John, 1594?-1665.; Glover, George, b. ca. 1618.	1642 (1642)	Wing G1172; Thomason E139_1; ESTC R15925	312,570	494

person but only for him that spake them Those which were words full of grace and truth in that mouth that spake them and for which they were fitted would be words of presumption and blasphemie in any other if they were conceived to be spoken either in the Name or concerning the person of the speaker So that you see clearly SECT 3 that one maine reason why we deny the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the propriety or formality of it in justification is not because we deny the righteousnesse it selfe nor because we deny the necessity of it nor yet because we lesse honour and magnifie it then others but on the contrary because we desire to establish it upon better foundations and shew a plainer and greater necessity of it and give more honour and glory to it then the adverse opinion can do If men will needs understand that Esay 42.21 of Christs fulfilling the Law The Lord is well pleased for his righteousnesse sake he will magnifie the Law and make it honourable there is no such way to raise the interpretation of the words on high as to make the righteousnesse of Christ in respect of the letter and formality of it incommunicable He that should have taken the Reed out of Christs hand that was put into it instead of a Scepter and have broken it in pieces and given him a Scepter 's of gold instead of it should have honoured Christ more then they that gave him the Reed So he that shall overthrow a pretended use and feigned necessity of Christs righteousnesse and demonstrate a true and reall necessity of it indeed he no waies derogates either from the righteousnesse it selfe or from the necessitie of it but addeth weight and authority unto both It is a speciall circumstance or qualification much insisted upon and required in the honour we ascribe or give unto God that it be precisely that honour which is due unto him or due unto his Name Psal 29.2 and Psal 96.8 because indeed upon a true account that would be found no honour at all unto him which is not due unto him He that shall deny that ever any man lay in that womb of the Virgin wherein Christ was conceived and fashioned by the Holy Ghost besides himselfe shall neither disparage the womb that bare him nor him that was conceived in it but should rather honour both And so he that shall say there was never man buried in the Tomb wherein Christs body lay disparageth neither No more is it any dispargement or prejudice cast upon the righteousnesse of Christ to say that there was never any man formally justified with it but himselfe alone that it is a righteousnesse sit for no man to weare or assume to himselfe but only for the person of him that wrought it Nay he that here speaketh these things exalteth the righteousnesse of Christ on high and mainteineth the honour that belongeth to it Therefore by the way to charge the crime of Arrianisme upon this opinion which some have much adoe to forbeare is to frame an accusation against it upon the like termes that Potiphars wife proceeded upon in her inditement against her Servant Joseph the foule crime of incontinencie was layd to his charge whereas his vertuous offence was nothing else but a high streine of a chast behaviour Gen. 39. Or it were as if a man should be accused of want of love to the Brethren who were now ready to lay downe his life for their sakes greater love then which as our Saviour saith no man hath There is no opinion that can more deerely sympathize with the Divinity of Christ then that that denieth the imputation of his righteousnesse in the sense so frequently disallowed But some perhaps will think sufficiently to salve the congruity or sitnesse of this righteousnesse of Christ for imputation to beleevers SECT 4 from the consideration of the union that is betweene Christ as the head and beleevers as the body or members and reason after this manner Though the righteousnesse of Christ be too glorious and excellent to be appropriated unto men or to be accompted unto them for their personall actions as they are men or as they are sinfull yet as they are members of Christ and he their head they see no inconvenience in it they may be ascribed unto them May not that which is done by the head be ascribed or communicated to the whole body To this I Answere two things First that Christ and beleevers are a mysticall body that is a body only by way of a secret resemblance or similitude with a naturall body Therefore an universall concent or agreement in all things betweene them cannot be thought on because then a similitude would be no longer a similitude but an identitie and a mysticall body would be no longer a mysticall body but a naturall Now one difference betweene them is this what any one member of the body naturall doeth as head eyes eares c. the whole may be said to do when the head studieth the man may be said to study So when the eye seeth or eare heareth c. yea it is more proper to ascribe these and such like acts which are exercised by the particular members of the naturall body severally and the whole person then to the members themselves by which they are acted it is more proper to say the man seeth by the eye then to say the eye seeth But in the mysticall body it is otherwise When Christ the Head of this body wrought miracles the body could not be said to have wrought them So when Paul a speciall member of this body reproved Peter the whole body cannot be said to have reproved him because some of the members joyned with Peter in his sinne against Paul in his reproofe The Reason of which difference is this because in the naturall body the members make but one Suppositum as the Schoolemen speake or one personall being and so have but one and the same numericall principle of all their actions and motions viz. the reasonable soule but a mysticall body being made up of many persons or personall beings which have every one entire natural substantial beings in themselves besides their relation of members one to another and so have every one principles of their actions really distinct each from other One mans will is not really and numerically the same with anothers nor one mans grace really the same with anothers And hence it cometh to passe that what one of these members doe is not necessarily to be ascribed to the whole body but to that member only which doth it inasmuch as it hath a principle within it selfe which is not numerically the same with the rest But secondly I answere more briefly and plainely to the objection Though the benefit of what the head doth be communicated to the whole body and every member for every member in the naturall body fareth the better for the Head and the operations of it yet that

which the head doeth or worketh is no waies to be imputed or ascribed either unto the hand or foot or any other member as if it were done by them so doth the whole mysticall body of Christ and every member thereof even the whole Societie and fellowship of beleevers reape and enjoy abundantly the fruite benefit and blessing of all that Christ the Head either did or suffered in the world forgivenesse of sins peace of conscience acceptation into favor with God adoption sanctification hope of glory glory or salvation it selfe when it cometh c. all these and the like are Grapes gathered from that Vine the active and passive obedience or righteousnesse of Christ furnisheth his whole body with all these precious and pleasant riches and yet there is no necessity that either his doings or sufferings should be ascribed or imputed unto them no more then the labor and skill of the Bee is to be ascribed unto him that eates the honey SECT 5 Againe some urge the consideration of the mariage betweene Christ and his Church and consequently every beleever to salve the congruity or sitnesse of his righteousnesse for imputation to beleevers and reason after this manner The wife by mariage hath a right to all that is her Husbands she is endowed with all his goods they are aswell hers as his Therefore a beleever being maried to Christ hath a right and title to all that Christ hath all that Christ hath is his and therefore his righteousnesse is his c. To this I Answere two things First it is true the wife by mariage comes to be endowed with all that is her Husbands but this endowing of her with all is no ingredient into the mariage it selfe much lesse is it the formall cause of the mariage but is a fruite or consequent of it So the right and title which a beleever hath to the righteousnesse of Christ accrues unto him by and upon the spirituall mariage The mariage must be first made up betweene Christ and him which is done by Faith or beleeving before he comes to have this right spoken of in the righteousnesse of Christ Therefore it cannot be impured unto him in the very act of beleeving which is the golden apple the adverse opinion strives for and yet much lesse before the act of beleeving which yet is affirmed by some great and le●rned abettors of that side Because in both these cases the title we speake of to the righteousnesse of Christ should not grow to a beleever by or from or upon his mariage but either in or before it But secondly I answere yet further and close more neerely with the spirit of the objection Howsoever by mariage there ariseth a title unto the wife of all that is her Husbands so that it may be sayd that all that is the Husbands is made or becomes the wifes yet this is so to be qualified and understood that no Law either of naturall decencie and sobriety or of a rationall expediencie or behoofe to either party receive prejudice or violation All that is the Husbands is not every waies the wifes by meanes of her mariage nor for every use or purpose but only in a way of expediencie or beneficialnesse to her As for instance the cloaths or garments of the Husband are the wife 's by mariage but how not hers to put on and weare upon her owne person for so they would be hers to her owne shame and reproach We know it was prohibited in the Law Deut. 22.5 The woman shall not weare that which perteyneth unto the man for all that doe so are an abhomination unto the Lord thy God But hers they are and may be called hers in this sense as it is a comfort and credit unto her that her Husband be cloathed like himselfe and that his habit be according to his rank and quality So is it indeed an unspeakable comfort and a ground of a glorious rejoycing unto a beleeving Soule that her Lord and Husband Iesus Christ is cloathed with that rich and glorious robe of righteousnesse that he is so holy so harmlesse so far separate from sinners as he is but she must take heed of assuming these things unto her selfe otherwise then in the benefit and comfort of them she must not thinke her selfe as holy as harmlesse as far separate from sinners as Christ himselfe is The Common or inferior Priest that should put on and serve in the High Priests garments was by the Jewes adjudged guilty of death by the hand of Heaven As Mr. Ainsworth citeth out of Maimony upon Exod. 28.43 So againe the wisdome and understanding of the Husband may be said to be the wifes by mariage But how not for her to be wise withall for in this respect it is her Husbands only notwithstanding mariage the woman is not therefore as wise as her Husband because the Husbands wisdome is hers by mariage but it is hers in the benefit and comfort of it thus having a Husband that is wise she shall live the better and more comfortable life with him she shal be the better provided for and the like So the righteousnesse of Christ becomes ours by right of our spirituall mariage with him but not to be righteous withall formally for this is still his personall propriety notwithstanding the giving of himselfe in mariage to us but to have the benefit and blessing of communicated unto us and derived upon us both in our justification adoption and salvation CAP. XI A third ground against the pretended imputation viz. the Non-necessitie of it A third Reason SECT 1 warring strongly against this imputation of Christs righteousnesse is There is no necessity or occasion of any such imputation The truth of the old rule doth not wax old neither will ever vanish Deus et natura nihil faciunt frustrà Neither God the Master nor Nature the servant ever make any thing in vaine If God hath sufficiently provided otherwise for the justification of his people most certaine it is that he doth not impute this righteousnesse of Christ unto them for that end which yet is the only end for which the necessity thereof either is o● indeed can be pretended That a beleever is sufficiently justified before God without any imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ I still meane in the letter and formalitie of it I thus demonstrate He that is compleatly justified by having his sins forgiven is justified without the imputation of this active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ This proposition is generally granted for no man contends for this imputation in the sense we speake of in regard of forgivenesse of sins neither is there any colour for it but for another purpose as we shall see hereafter Therefore I assume But a beleever is suthciently justified before God by the forgivenesse of his sins therefore I conclude There is no need of this imputation of Christs righteousnesse for justification The latter proposition that men are fully justified before God by

loose and false and deservedly so esteemed by all men notwithstanding her union and communion with an husband of upright affections neither doth the union and communion which the rest of the members of the body have with the head necessarily require that whatsoever the Head hath or doth should be imputed to all the members respectively The eyes which are in the head are not imputed to the hands or feete nor the eares which grow upon the head imputed to the heeles nor the actions or naturall functions of seeing and hearing the one performed by the eyes the other by the eares imputed to the armes or legges so that these should be said either to see or to heare as they doe In like manner there is not the least shew or colour of pretence to build a necessity of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to beleevers upon that union and communion which they have with him or to conclude and inferre that because beleevers have union and communion with Christ therefore his righteousnesse must be theirs in such a sence that they may have the denomination of righteous therefrom or be constituted and made righteous therewith May it not be said with as much reason that because beleevers have union and communion with Christ therefore his soule and his body must needs be imputed to them yea and his wisedome and his power and his glory imputed to them also so that they are esteemed by God as wise as powerfull as glorious by vertue of such imputation as Christ himselfe is That union and communion which beleevers have with Christ SECT 10 are sufficiently yea abundantly salved and made good in these and such like particulars 1. By vertue of this union and communion with him they are actuall members of that mysticall and blessed body or society whereof he is the head 2. They are partakers of the same spirit with him who dwelleth in them as he dwelleth in Christ himself 3. They have communion fellowship in the same fruits and effects of the Spirit with him 4. By vertue of this union and communion with him they have part and fellowship in that Redemption which he hath purchased with his blood 5. They have speciall interest in that infinite wisedome and power of his as in all other perfections and excellent endowments of his person whereby he is both every wayes able and alwayes ready and willing to doe marvellously for them and to advance the things of their peace 6. they have a compleate right and title to that immortall and undefiled inheritance which is reserved in the heavens 7. They have communion and fellowship with God himselfe and speciall interest in his love 8. And lastly they have communion and fellowship one with another and are dearely and deepely interessed in the mutuall affections one of another besides many other rich priviledges of like nature and of very precious concernment So that to deny the imputation of Christs righteousnes is no more to deny or any wayes to obscure their union communion with Christ than to deny that the miracles which Christ wrought are imputed to us or than to deny that a man seeth with his hands or healeth with his heeles is a denying that the members of the body have any connexion union or communion with the head The sinne in of Adam is no where in Scripture said to be imputed to his posterity Conclusi 9 SECT 11 neither can any other imputation thereof be proved either by Scripture or sound reason than that which stands either in a communion of all his posteritie with him therin the second Adam only excepted who for divers reasons was an exempt person or els in a propagation of his nature defiled therewith or lastly in that punishment or condemnation that is come upon the world by it But as for any such imputation of it by vertue whereof precisely considered and simply as an act of Gods justice all his posterity should be constituted and made formally sinners neither doe the Scriptures acknowledge nor sound reason admit The former clause of this Conclusion is unquestionable The Scriptures wheresoever they speake of Adams sin and the relation of it to his posterity wholly abstaine from the terme of imputation neither doe they use any other word or phrase in this Argument of like signification and importance with it at least in that notion and sence wherein it is so frequently used by many in this controversie But first they acknowledge a communion betweene Adam and his posterity except the before excepted in this sin in respect whereof the sinne may as well be attributed to any and to all of his posterity as to Adam himselfe as Abrahams act of paying tythes to Melchizedeth is ascribed to Levie being in his loynes as well as to Abraham himselfe And to say as the thing is saith the Holy Ghost Heb. 7.9 Levie also which receiveth tythes paied tythes in Abraham The truth and propriety of which saying he makes good by this demonstration in the next words For he was yet in the loynes of his Father Abraham when Melchizedech met him It is not here said that Abrahams paying tythes was imputed to Levie but that Levie himselfe payed tythes in that act of Abrahams as well as Abraham So that this act of paying tythes was as well Levies act as Abrahams and is imputed to him not as Abrahams act but as his owne In like manner the Scripture plainely affirmeth that all Adams posterity sinn'd in Adam in that first sinne of his especially Rom. 5.12 but it no where affirmeth that Adams sinne is imputed to them Their owne sinne in Adam may with good propriety of speech and safety of truth be said to be imputed to them but that Adams sinne otherwise than as it is or was theirs as well as his by reason of that subsistance and being they had in him or in his loynes should be imputed to them hath neither ground in Scripture nor consistence either with reason or truth That old rule in Metaphysiques SECT 12 Operatio rei consequitur esse rei i. the Acts or operations of things still follow the being of things and are proportionable and suteable thereunto is sound and rationall and of perfect agreement with that Scripture Reason cited from Heb. 7.10 There are severall kinds of beings and subsistences of things A thing may have its being either in causis or extra causas i. either in the causes of it onely or out of the causes viz. when it is actually produced and in a compleate being Againe those things that have their beings onely in their causes may have their being either in their supernaturall causes onely as the counsell purpose and power of God or in the naturall causes also that is when such things have an actuall and compleate being which according to the common course of nature and providence are able and apt to produce them Thus in Winter the Rose may be said to have a being in the roote

which follows close upon the former observation that either there was such an opinion then ruling in the Reformed Churches or at least taught and maintained by some eminent man one or more amongst them that held iustification to consist in Remission of sins onely otherwise those deep-advised sages of the Councel should have but put a dead slie into their box of oyntment by boltring into the ayre and indeed rather have forged a weapon for their adversaries then taken any from them If it were any particular and eminent man they struck at as an abettor of that opinion there can none be pitched upon with greater probability then Calvin who still carried matters of Religion against them at that time with a higher hand then any other And Bellarmine as we heard ingenuously confessed Calvin by name to be the man Thirdly and lastly from this passage observe how some mens either learning or memory misuseth them by suggesting to them that the opinion pleaded and contended for in this Treatise viz. the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse or which is the same that iustification stands in Remission of sins onely is an opinion confederate with Popish errors Certainly those great Agents and Factors for the Roman party would never have bin so farte overseene in their solemn and sacred assembly to have poured out the vials of their wrath upon the head of an opinion that was their owne The importune striving and contendings of some men to make Galvin for them in an opinion wherof doubtlesse his learning was never guilty have compelled us to make somewhat the longer labour and discourse of it for his rescue and to set him cleere upon his own principles and foundations If any man remains yet unsatisfied touching this Authors judgement in the point now under examination and desires rather an heape then enough it were an easie matter to make the pyle of testimonies from his own pen yet farre greater even to the wearying and punishing of such a man with his own desire Somewhat more then hath bin here delivered may be found in the first Chapter where also you may see this worthy Champion of the truth accompanied and seconded in this service with many of his fellows not much inferiour to him And this bv way of Answere in the first place to the objection that Remission of sins SECT 6 was not the whole but only a part of our Iustification Secondly I Answer that from the Scriptures themselves that were alledged it may be evidenced as by expresse demonstration that there is no more no other part or member of iustification but onely forgivenesse of sins that the nature and substance of it is fully comprehended in this What can be more pregnant then that Rom. 4 6 7. c. Even as David also describeth the blessednesse of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sinnes are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne If there were any thing more belonging to this righteousnesse which is by imputation then only the forgivenesse of iniquity or the covering of sin would the Holy Ghost wholly have omitted it and left it out when he intended a description or declaration if it Especially would he have omitted that which is the maine and principall and formall part of it as the righteousnesse of Christ imputed is pretended to be If a man should prefix such a Title as this before a Book or over the head of a Mappe A description of the world c. and never so much in all his Book or Mappe as once mention Europe or Asia the chiefe parts of the world but onely some obscure and lesser Countries would it not argue that either he wanted wit himselfe or else hoped that his Readers would want it altogether Or if a Limner should be set on worke to draw a mans picture or portraicture and should only draw the trunk of his body without a face or head upon it were this the portraicture or description of a man No more would Paul or rather the Holy Ghost have called the forgivenesse of sinnes a description or declaration of the righteousnesse which is imputed by Faith if it had bin only a part and that the lesser and lesse materiall part of it It is true SECT 7 sometimes in Scripture by a Synechdoche a part is put for the whole as the persons of men and women consisting of bodies and soules are called soules Act. 7.14 and elsewhere But 1. this is never done in descriptions or declarations of things as when the Holyghost describes the creation of man expresse mention is made both of the materiall part the dust of the earth and likewise of the formall Gods breathing in his face the breath of life Neither in reason is that to be called the description of a thing which conceales and silenceth that which is best and the most beautifull part of it and onely mentioneth somewhat of inferiour consideration in it Secondly when such a figure is used a part put for the whole it is seldome or never that the worser and more ignoble part is mentioned but still the formall and better part as bodies are no where put for the persons of men but onely Soules Except happily in two cases 1. when the whole comes under consideration and is spoken of by reason of the inferiour part as somtimes the body of Christ or flesh of Christ is put for Christ himselfe as man and for the whole humane nature of Christ namely when that which is spoken of him hath its relation to him in respect of his body or flesh Or else 2. when the Holy Ghost would represent the weaknesse and contemptiblenesse of the condition of the whole then somtimes he calls the whole by the name of that which is the weakest part of it and the ground or cause of the vanitie and weaknesse of the whole As when it is said that All flesh is grasse c. by flesh meaning Men in respect of their weake and vanishing condition in this world Neither of which cases can be pretended in that description of Iustification Thirdly and lastly when this Figure Synechdoche is used in any of these or the like cases a part being put for the whole it is when things are plaine and evident so that by the part which is named and expressed that may readily be understood which is implyed as easie to be made out either by other places of Scripture or by common sence as in the instances given All flesh is grasse by flesh here no man can understand any thing else but men cloathed with flesh So Acts 7. where Iacob is said to come down into Egypt with threescore and fifteen soules no man can think that these soules came with him without their bodies But now it is farre otherwise in this description of iustification commended unto us by Paul That by forgivenesse of sins should be meant both

given unto him by God or Christ Him hath God lift up with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour to give Repentance unto Israel and remission of sinnes Act. 5.31 Now that which is given unto a man by God may truly and properly be called his owne There is no merit indeed in remission of sins but there is proprietie in it to him that receiveth it A third Argument of Soveraigne esteeme as I have perceived with some SECT 4 Argum. 3 to establish the imputation hitherto gain-said is this Jf Beleevers have a true and reall communion with Christ then is his righteousnesse theirs by imputation But certaine it is that Beleevers have a true and reall communion with Christ Ergo. I Answere The Major proposition in this syllogisme wants two things at least which a good proposition should have Answere viz. reason and truth First it wants truth because a true and reall communion with Christ may stand without his active obedience being made theirs by imputation They that please may see abundance of truth in this by those lights which we have already set up partly chap. 10. Sect. 4. and 5 of the former part partly againe chap. 2. Sect. 9 and 10. of this second part There is a reall union and communion betweene the head and the feet in the same naturall body yet is not the braine or the proper functions and operations of the head made the braine or functions of the feet by imputation So there is a reall union and communion betweene the Husband and the wife in mariage yet is not the holinesse strength or wisdome of the Husband made the holinesse strength or wisdom of the wife by imputation Againe 2º as it wants truth so that which is a want more worthy of blame it wants reason also It hath neither colour nor appearance of truth in it that that union and communion which beleevers have with Christ should of necessitie implie or draw after it the appropriation of his active obedience unto them by way of imputation at least of such an imputation as is the golden apple for which our Adversaries in the present question so eagerly contend that is so that this obedience of his must become their formall righteousnesse either in whole or in part in justification For what possible ground of difference can there be found or assigned out of that union and communion which interced's betweene Christ and the beleever why rather the righteousnesse or active obedience then the wisdome or power or glory of Christ should be made the Beleevers by imputation A Fourth Foundation or ground upon which I finde the imputation of Christs righteousnesse as aforesaid built by some SECT 5 Argum. 4 is this If there be no other end reason or necessity why Christ should fulfill the Law but only that his obedience thereunto might be imputed unto us for righteousnesse in our justification then is not the imputation thereof to be denied But no other end reason or necessitie can be given why Christ should fulfill the Law but only that his obedience unto it might be imputed for righteousnesse unto those that beleeve in their Iustification Ergo. To this latter proposition I answere Answere that it is unsound rush and branch head and tayle and that there are diverse other ends reasons and necessities that may be assigned of Christs obedience to the Law and that which is there assigned is but supposititious and inconsistent with the truth If the former of these be demonstrated viz. that there are other ends and reasons and those very considerable why Christ should fulfill the Law the proposition is disabled and broken in judgement as for the latter that the imputation of Christs fulfilling the Law for righteousnesse unto those that beleeve is but an imaginarie and meerely-presumed end of his fulfilling it it hath bin in effect the grand conclusion argued and established throughout the Discourse First therefore one reason or end of Christs obedience to the Law might be to procure the greater authority and deeper reverence to the Doctrine which he taught whilst he yet conversed with men on Earth It is said Mat. 7.28 that the people were astonied at his Doctrine because he taught as one having authoritie and not as the Scribes Some make this the ground of the difference because Christ did to the uttermost what he taught which the Scribes did not and therefore were more obnoxious to neglect and contempt in their teaching But however it is a truth of generall acknowledgment and not necessary now to be argued that the holinesse uprightnesse and unblameablenesse of the life 's of the teachers have a powerfull influence into the consciences of men to render them more observant and and awfull in their attention to the things which are taught by them yea and to make those the more inexcuseable that shall despise their teaching Let these and the like Scriptures be laid together and considered of to this purpose Mat. 21.32 Ioh. 5.35 Ioh. 8.46 1 Tim. 4.12 2 Tim. 3.14 c. Secondly SECT 6 this righteousnesse or active obedience of christ unto the law was serviceable to that same great end whereunto our righteousnesse and our obedience such as they are are subservient also viz. the glorie of god and the advancement of his kingdome being fill'd with the fruites of righteousnesse saith paul which are by iesus christ unto the glory and praise of god phil 1.11 if other mens righteousnesnes come to be well conditioned and so sanctified as it were by the meanes of iesus christ that they are hereby made fit matter for the praise and glory of god much more must it needs be conceived that his owne personall righteousnesse partakes abundantly of the same condition and makes for the exaltation of god farre above the line and measure of other men his owne words ioh 8.49 fully understood import no lesse iesus answered I have not a devill but I honour my father and yee dishonour me and againe ioh 7.18 he that seeketh his glory that sent him speaking of himselfe in respect of god his father the same is true and no unrighteousnesse is in him wherein or how or by what meanes did christ honour his father or seeke his glory that is labour and endeavor to procure glory to him from the world doubtlesse by a full and faithfull discharge of all things that he required of him aswell in that generall and common Law of his which we call Morall whereunto all other men are debtors of obedience aswell as hee as like wise in that peculiar Law of Mediation which was imposed upon himselfe alone In respect of his absolute intire and uncontrollable obedience and condescension or ascension rather if you will to both these Lawes he is I conceive styled Heb. 1.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the resplendencie or brightnesse of his Fathers glory that is a perfect meanes of discovering and making knowne unto the world how excellent and glorious above