Christ could not have bin our justification either in whole or in part in case it had bin performed by our selves is evident from hence because man being once fallen by sinning against the Law and made obnoxious to condemnation can never be raised or recovered againe by ten thousand observations of this Law The Law was able to have given life had it alwaies bin fulfilled and never broken but unto him that had once failed in the observation of it though he had bin made able to have kept it ten times afterward it had no power at all to give either life or justification The guilt of that sinne wherin he had once sinned could never have bin purged by any Law-righteousnesse noactive obedience whatsoever would ever have bin an attonement for him Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sinnes Heb. 9.22 Let me joyne another argument of the same lineage and stock with the former That which men are not bound by any Law or command of God to doe in their owne persons Argum. 22 SECT 3 for their justification cannot be imputed from another to any such end But men are not bound by any Law or command from God to observe the Moral Law for their justificatiō Therefore the observation of it cannot be imputed unto them from any other for any such end The reason of the major proposition if the conclusion sticks there is because imputation in the sense it is still taken by our adversaries in this controversie must be found out and ordained by God to supplie personall defects and inabilities But where there is no Law or command given unto men to obey there can be no personall defect It is no sinne or defect in any man not to obey where he hath no command and consequently there is no place nor occasion for any imputation to supplie it For the minor there is both substance and appearance enough of truth in it to privilege it from being a proposition of any further contention or strife Most evident it is from the whole course and current of the Scriptures that man in his lapsed condition since the fall had not the Law of works or the observation of the Morall Law imposed upon him for his justification before God but the Law of Faith only The morall Law as it hath received a new authority and establishment from Christ obligeth and bindeth the conscience under the Gospell to the observation thereof by way of dutie and thankfulnesse unto God but neither now nor at any time since the fall did it ever bind any man to the practise of it for his justification And therfore where it is said Rom. 2.13 that the hearers of the Law are not just before God but the doers of the Law shal be justified the meaning is not as if God exacted the strict observing of the Law for their iustification or that none should be iustified without such an observance but either 1º the words may be conceived spoken in a kind of ironie as if God did deride the hope and confidence of all those that should stand upon any such doing of the Law for their instification A man that promiseth a reward or matter of benefit upon such termes and conditions which he knoweth will never be performed by him that undertakes the performance of them rather derides the pride and ignorance of his presumption then really intends the collation of what he seemes so to promise To this interpretation Beza much inclineth in his marginall note upon that clause Or else 2º the meaning of those words the doers of the Law shall be iustified may be only this that God will accept justifie and save only such who out of a sincere and sound Faith towards him by his Christ shall addresse themselves to serve and please him in a way of obedience to his Lawes In this sense which I rather conceive to be the expresse intent of the Apostle in the words the doing of the Law is mentioned not as the meanes or meritorious cause of the iustification adjoyning but either as a condition sine quinon without which iustification is not to be expected or rather as an outward signe and manifestation of the persons that shall be iustified but in another way viz. by Faith Thirdly and lastly by the Law in this place the doers whereof as is said shall be iustified is not meant the Morall Law only which restreyned signification was simply necessary to have given the clause any colour of opposition or contradiction to the proposition mentioned but the whole Mosaicall dispensation consisting according to the common distribution of Ceremonialls moralls and judicialls The observation of all which no man I think ever affirmed to have bin imposed by God upon men for their justification But I feare we stand too long about oyling a wheele which would run merrily enough without it Let us rather heare the voyce of a new argument speaking Jf God requires only Faith of men to their justification then he imputes this Faith unto them thereunto Argum. 23 SECT 4 But God requires only Faith to justification Ergo. The consequence in the Maior Proposition is blamelesse for this reason because to impute unto iustsfication and to accept unto justification are somwhat differing in sound but nothing at all in sence and signification Now if God should require faith of men and onely Faith to their Iustification and not accept it thereunto he should make a bargaine or Covenant with men and refuse to stand to it when he had done his overtures would be faire and gracious but his intentions would be to seek and no where in Scriptures to be found If it be here replyed and said that though God requires onely faith of men to their justification yet he requires somwhat more and besides at the hand of another thereunto therfore that which he imputes unto men for their justification is not necessarily that which he requires of themselves but rather that which he requires of another for them To this I answer if it were the righteousnesse of Christ which is presumed to be the thing required of another and not the faith that is required of themselves that God imputes for righteousnesse unto them in their justification then may this righteousnesse of Christ be imputed for this end and purpose before yea and without the faith of any man For it is certaine that the Faith of men addes no vertue or vaiue to the righteousnesse of Christ therfore if this be that which God imputeth for righteousnesse in justification it may be imputed aswell without faith as with it and so men might be justified without beleeving Neither will it help in this case to say SECT 5 that imputation followeth the will and pleasure of God and therfore the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed unto any but to him that beleeveth because the will and pleasure of God is not to make imputation of it in any other way or upon any other terms For To this
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
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
justification I propound after this manner That righteousnesse which will not fit and furnish all beleevers with all points or parts of that righteousnesse which the Law requires of them cannot be imputed unto them unto justification But the obedience that Christ performed to the mor all Law is such a righteousnesse as will not fit and furnish all beleevers with all points of righteousnesse which the Law requires of them Therfore it cannot be imputed to beleevers for their justification The reason of the former Proposition is because a perfect and compleat legall righteousnesse and such certainly I meane perfect and compleat that that justifieth must of necessity be requires a precise punctuall and through obedience unto all things in the Law which any way concernes a man to doe If there be but a letter jot or title wanting in any man righteousnesse of all that was his duty to doe that righteousnesse is not at any hand for his iustification The curse of the Law and eternall vengeance will breake in upon a man body and soule aswell through the smallest and least-imaginable defects of a legall righteousnesse as through wider breaches and greater transgressions in case a man hath not wherewith to secure himselfe otherwise Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to doe them Gal. 3.10 Therfore there is no escaping the curse of the Laâ—â— by the law except a mans obedience be absolutely absolute aswell for constancie as univâ—â—se in ad things that are written viz. with reference to him and 〈◊〉 calling For otherwise there may be a struct and compleat I 〈◊〉 righteousnesse with 〈◊〉 the doing 〈…〉 Law in caâ—e they have no 〈…〉 As for instance Adam might have performed and accordingly have hin still Justified by a compleat Legall righteousnesse and yet never have performed many duties which the Law required of Eve for the continuance of her iustification So Christ fulâ—filled all righteousnesse as himselfe faith it became him to doe and consequently held an exact conformity with the Law so that neither Man nor God himselfe could rebuke him of sinne and yet the Law requires many things of many others both Men and Women which Christ never performed as will appeare in the demonstration of the latter Proposition which is at hand For the truth therfore of this Proposition that the righteousnesse performed by Christ unto the Morall Law SECT 2 will not sit and furnish all beleevers with all parts of such a righteousnesse as the Law requires of them it is so full of its owne light that further proofe will but runne over How many duties are Servants indebted unto their Masters after the flesh by the obligation of the Law which Christ never discharged or performed as namely that they should be obedient unto them with feare and trembling Eph. 6.5 Againe Wives charged by the Law with many points of obedience towards their Husbands yea and Husbands with some towards their Wives which certainly Christ never performed for them yea he expressely declined and refused the doing of some things as lying without the verge of his Calling which the Law requires as matters of speciall dutie from others When he was desired Luk. 12 13.14 to do Justice or take up a controversie betweene a man and his Brother his answere was Man who made me a Judge or divider over you Implying that he would meddle with no acts of righteousnesse that lay without the precincts of his Calling And indeed if he had though it was unpossible that ever his foote should have been taken in that snare it had overthrowne the infinit benefit that now redounds unto the world from those acts of righteousnesse which were performed by him in his Calling So when the people would have taken him and made him King Joh. 6. he absolutly refused and refusing the office of a King doubtlesse he would not take upon him the execution Therefore what righteousnesse should Kings and Magistrates have imputed unto them from Christ to make them just and righteous in their Callings when Christ himselfe refused to performe those acts of righteousnesse which are proper thereunto That which never was done or acted by Christ cannot be imputed that which never had a being is not capable of an act of imputation to passe upon it It may be some will object SECT 3 that Love is the fulfilling of the Law for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law Rom. 13.8 and this fulfilling of the Law by Love is such a righteousnesse as will fit all persons of all Callings and relations in the world whatsoever Therefore the perfect Love of Christ may be imputed for righteousnesse unto all though particular and proper acts of obedience otherwise be wanting But to this I Answere First howsoever Love may be termed an Evangelicall keeping or fulfilling of the Law because God accepteth of it graciously wheressoever he findeth it in truth and rewar deth it accordingly yet is it not a strict literall and legall fulfilling of the Law it is not such a fulfilling of it as will hold out weight and measure for any mans justification in a Covenant of works For first the Law requires many duties from men and seizeth upon them with the Curse immediatly upon the first nonconti◠〈…〉 â—al tâ—inâ—s Nâ—w Love is but one duty 〈…〉 and therefore cannot be many much 〈…〉 Love were such a fu filling of 〈…〉 â—â—qâ—ired in a legall justification 〈…〉 beleevers be justified not by an 〈…〉 by a pers nal righteousnesse because no 〈◊〉 is a true beleever but he that â—oves his Brother truely and whose Faith worketh by such love Thirdly and lastly if the Love of Christ were capaâ—le of that imputation for righteousnesse that is pretended then will it follow at least according to the principl â— of that Opinion against which we disputâ— that the whole active obedience of Christ I meane all that righteousnesse of his which stood in holy actions conformable to the Law was in vaine be cause there is no other possible necessity granted of this righteousnesse of Christ by these men but only for imputation Therefore Secondly to the objection I answere yet againe that where the Scripture calleth Love the fulfi ling of the Law it speaketh only of that part of the Law which we call the second Table as is no whit lesse then evident in the place last named Rom. 13.8.9 But that fulfilling of the Law which claimes the honour of a justification whether by imputation or personall performance must comprehend as well a fulfilling of the first as of the second Table Thirdly and lastly that proposition Love is the fulfilling of the Law is not propositio sormalis but causalis consecutiva as Logiciaxs speake that is such a proposition wherein one thing is said to be another not because it is precisely the same in nature and being with it but because it is the cause of it and so hath the being of the other vertually in it
This kind of proposition is frequent in Scripture I am the resurrection saith Christ Ioh. 11.25 The meaning is not that he was properly and formally the resurrection but that he was the cause meanes or Author of the resurrection So Paul saying that Christ is our hope meaneth only that CHRIST is the ground or Author of our hope 1 Tim. 1.1 In like manner when he saith Love is the fulfilling of the Law his meaning only is that a spirituall and unfeigned affection of love is an inward principle of that nature and importance which inclineth and disposeth a man to the performance and practise of all manner of duties required in the Law Therefore to say that the Love of Christ is imputed to men for their fu filling of the Law or for their righteousnesse is ridiculous More might be added by way of answere but the strength of the Objection is small Another thing that happily some will object against the argument propounded is this SECT 4 It is not necessary that men should have all particular acts of righteousnesse qualified with all circumstances answerable to their Callings imputed unto them for their justification It is sufficient if they have a righteousnesse imputed to them which is equivalent to such a righteousnesse To this I Answere two things First they which speake such things doe not consider the severity of the letter the strict and peremptory nature of the Law The Law will not know any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any thing by way of proportion or equivalencie one thing as good as another will not serve the turne The Law must have jot for jot title for title point for point letter for letter every thing to answere in the most exact conformity to it otherwise it hath a curse in a readinesse wherewith to take vengeance on men no life or reward Secondly to impute acts of righteousnesse to a man which are proper to another Calling and wholly disagreeing from that Calling wherein God hath placed him is rather to impute sinne unto him then righteousnesse Because though such acts were righteousnesse to him that wrought them yet if I being in a different Calling should be accounted by God to have done them which is the Law of imputation I must be judged by him as one that had transgressed the bounds of my Calling consequently had sinned Neither is that reason of any value which some alledg SECT 5 to countenance an equivalencie of righteousnesse in this kind instead of a proprietie viz. that God was not punctuall and every waies circumstantiall in inslicting the Curse of the Law upon the transgression of it because they suppose that by those words wherein the Curse of the Law is expressed Thou shalt die the death Gods meaning was that he should die an eternall death literally and not by way of equivalencie Therefore God having notwithstanding inflicted this Curse by way of equivalencie and not in the letter of it why may he not impute a legall righteousnesse unto men that hath only an equivalencie with that righteousnesse which they should have performed though not an exactnesse with it according to the letter For to this I answere First that the very foundation that is layed to build this objection upon is sandy and hath nothing either in Scripture or sound reason to bottome it From the Scriptures nothing that I have read is so much as pretended that way viz that God in those words Thou shalt die the death must of necessity precisely and determinatly meane eternall death according to the letter And by what fire such a spirit as this is will be extracted or drawne out of that body of those words I doe not yet understand If we judge of his intent and meaning in those words by the event of things or manner of execution they were meant determinatly neither of eternall death according to the letter nor yet of an eternall death by way of equivalencie but indifferently of either because it was an eternall death only by way of equivalencie that was inflicted upon Christ for one part of Adam or his posterity but upon the other part which perish it is inflicted according to the letter Secondly upon deeper consideration it will happily be found to be neerer the truth to hold that in those words Thou shalt die the death God his meaning was not at lest determinatly to threaten eternall death either in one kind or other either according to the letter or by way of equivalencie but to have the word Death taken and understood by Adam in the extent of the signification as it indifferently signifieth that evill of the punishment which was represented and knowne unto him by the name of Death without limiting his thoughts to the consideration either of the shorter continuance or of the everlastingnesse of the duration of it For as Scotus well determines in this case Aeternitas non est de ratione poenae peccatis debitae sed peccatores concomitans qui non possunt ut Christus vel cum Christo cluctari 1. Eternitie is not of the nature or essence of the punishment due unto sins but it followes and falls upon sinners who cannot wrastle out as Christ did or with him So then eternity not being essentiall to that punishment or death which God threatned it is no waies necessary that it should be included especially in such a precise and determinate manner as the objection pretendeth in the significatiō of that word wherein the punishmēt is expressed But thirdly and lastly suppose the foundation be gold yet will it be found hay and stubble that is built upon it For what if God should take liberty to varie from the letter of the Curse in the execution of it should threaten eternall death literally and inslict it equivalently this no waies proveth that the creature who was bound to obey the precepts of the Law might take the like liberty to performe one thing instead of another or that God should accept any such payment from them whether made by themselves or by another for them in the nature of a legall payment Indeed having received a full satisfaction for all the transgressions of the Law he may by a second or new Covenant accept of what he pleaseth to estate men in the benefit or blessing of that satisfaction and so that which is thus accepted becomes in this respect to him that performs it and from whose hand it is accepted equivalent to a perfect and compleate legall righteousnesse because it justifieth him in respect of all benefits and privileges of a justification as well as such a righteousnesse would have done But that he should accept on any mans behalfe as a perfect legall righteousnesse the performance of such things which are not required of him neither by the first Covenant of works nor by the second of Grace hath neither correspondence or agreement with the one Covenant or with the other A man me thinks must have a rare faculty to convert any
thing into the similitude of a truth at pleasure that can beleeve or conceive that Christs preaching on the Mount ordaining Disciples reproving the Scribes and Pharises working miracles and the like which were parts of his obedience to the Law should be imputed to a woman â—or example instead of her obedience and love and faithfulnesse to her Husband and that she should be reputed before God to have performed all these duties according to the strict forme and exigencie of â—he Law because Christ performed the forenamed duties and these by imputation are made hers CAP. X. A second ground against the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense formerly rejected drawn from the transcendencie of the nature of it A Second Reason SECT 1 why the active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ cannot in the parts and proprietie of it be imputed unto any man whatsoever for righteousnesse may be contrived and cast into this frame That righteousnesse which is exactly and precisely fitted to the person and office of him that is mediator betweene God and man or Redeemer of the world cannot be imputed unto any other man for his righteousnesse But such is the righteousnesse of Christ a righteousnesse precisely fitted to the person and Calling of a mediator c. Therefore it cannot be imputed unto any other man whatsoever for righteousnesse unto him The minor proposition I conceive will be yeelded without much striving If any man will undertake to finde any such flaw in the righteousnesse of Christ that doth amount to the least degree of an incongruitie or inconsistencie with his office of mediator attempts no lesse then the undermining the foundations of the peace of the world and laying the hope of the salvation of men in the dust Such an High Priest saith the Apostle Heb. 7.26 it became us to have i. that it was necessary we should have if we looked for salvation by him that is holy harmlesse undefiled separate from sinners c. And woe unto the world if the least either spot or blemish could be found in this High Priest or his righteousnesse Therefore I presume that the deere interest which every man layeth claime to in the truth of this proposition will secure it from all violence of contradiction from any man So that if there be any thing weake and unconcluding in the Argument it must be sought for in the major Proposition Therfore let us cause that to passe through the fire and see whether any flame will kindle upon it The tenor of this was that that righteousnesse which is exactly fitted to the person and office of a Mediator cannot be imputed for righteousnesse unto any other man How a conceipt of any such imputability should lodge quietly in any mans thoughts I confesse I cannot comprehend The whole generation of Disputers for that imputation SECT 2 which we oppose generally interpret the phrase of having the righteousnesse of Christ imputed by being cloathed with this righteousnesse of Christ or with the robes of his righteousnesse Now then he that assumeth this righteousnesse of Christ unto himselfe and apparelleth and arayeth himselfe with it represents himselfe before God not in the habit of a just or righteous Man but in the glorious attire of him that makes men iust and righteous the great Mediator of the world whose righteousnesse hath heights and depths in it a length and breadth which insinitely exceed the dimensions and proportions of all men whatsoever And as John speaking as is probable of his transfiguration in the Mount or whether it be of any other manifestation of his glory it is not much materiall useth these words Joh. 1.14 We beheld his glory as the glory of the only begotten of the Father meaning that the glory wherein Christ then appeated was so supertranscendently glorious and excellent that it exceeded the rank and quality of the creature whether Angel or Man and was meet only for him to weare that was the only begotten of the Father i. the naturall Sonne of God the greatnesse of the person could not but have bin acknowledged by that vestment of glory which he then had on so may and must it be acknowledged and said of the righteousnesse of his life that it was peculiarly appropriated to him that was the only begotten of the Father the great Saviour and Redeemer of the world Neither did that glory of his which Iohn saw further transcend the condition of the creature then the glory of this righteousnesse doth Now then for a silly worme a sinfull and contemptible creature to take this robe of unmeasurable Majesty upon it and to conceit it selfe as great in holinesse and righteousnesse as Iesus Christ himselfe for that is the spirit that rules in that opinion to teach men to assume all that Christ did unto themselves and that in no other way nor upon any lower terms then as if themselves had personally done it whether this be a behaviour and deportment of soule of that grace and acceptance on High which many have suffered themselves to be perswaded of whether it will rellish well in the eye of jealousie or no I earnestly desire that men would make it a matter of Conscience seriously to consider and re-examine All the parts of his righteousnesse all the acts of obedience that he performed he performed them as one that had received the spirit without measure i.e. there was a weightinesse and worth in them which did fully answere the fullnesse of that grace that was given unto him above all his fellows a title of honour wherewith the Holy Ghost is pleased to honour the Saints yea those acts of obedience though hee wrought them in the humane nature or as he was Man yet by reason of the neere neighbourhood and streight combination of the God head in the unitie of the same person they could not but receive excellent impressions from that also The righteousnesse was in all the parts and circumstances of it such as became God himselfe in personall union with his creature the humane nature Now whether that be not to be accounted robbery and that of a high nature for the creature to assume an equality of righteousnesse whether by imputation or however with God himselfe I leave to the sober and unpartiall thoughts of men to consider But especially there are some streyns in this righteousnesse of Christ that cannot be appropriated or applyed unto any other whatsoever without notorious and manifest impiety All that Christ taught and preached on earth was part of his righteousnesse and obedience For I have not spoken of my selfe saith he Ioh. 12.49 but the Father that sent me gave me a commandement what I should say and what I should speake Therfore when he speaketh these and many such like words I am the light of the world Come unto me all that are wearie and heavie laden and I will refresh you c. is it meet for any other to conceive them as spoken by himselfe in his owne
of it beyond the person of the fulfiller Some indeed conceive that Adams standing in obedience to the Law had bin the standing and perpetuall confirmation in grace of all his posterity If this opinion could be made to appeare any thing more then conjecturall Divinitie I grant that then in respect of the intent and purpose of God the righteousnesse of the Law had been as imputable as the transgression of it but this will not prove it such in the nature of it but only by way of Covenant and so the consequence in the proposition will still languish and be infirme But though I can be confident with Paul to call Christ the last Adam 1 Cor. 15.45 Yet I am somwhat tender to call Adam the first Christ To say that Adam by his righteousnesse should have merited the justification of himselfe and all his posterity is I take it to make him somwhat more then a figure of him that was to come But to say that by his transgression he merited the condemnation both of himselfe and posterity is no such hard saying I conceive in the cares of any man Therefore however the righteousnesse of the Law is not as imputable as the transgression of it Secondly whereas demand was made SECT 3 by way of absolute confirmation of that former proposition what should make any such difference betweene the obedience of the Law and the transgression of the Law that the former should not be as imputable as the latter the obedience as the transgression I answere there may be this conceived as a ground of difference betweene them in that respect Sinne or disobedience to a Law is ever greater in ratione demeriti in way of demerit or desert of punishment then obedience or subjection to a Law is in ratione meriti in deserving a reward One that takes a purse or murders a man by the high way side deserveth to receive more in punishment then a thousand deserve in reward that suffer men to travaile peaceably by them Though he that dishonestly refuseth to pay a debt where it is due may deservedly be cast into prison yet it doth not follow that he that keeps touch and payeth at his day deserves to be exalted to a Throne So might Adam by his transgression of the Law merit death and condemnation to himselfe and posterity and yet not have merited life and salvation to both by his obedience The reason of which difference is evident because if he had obeyed and kept the Law he had only done that which was his duty to doe and this by our Saviours rule Luk 17.10 makes but an unprofitable servant i. I conceive is no ground to demand or challenge any great matters at his masters hand except it be by Covenant or promise from him Adams obedience to the Law was a debt due unto God from him severall waies and in sundry respects or considerations First God was his soveraigne Lord and had absolut power over him to command him what service or obedience he pleased Secondly he was his maker and Creator and had given him his being and in this respect had full right and title to imploy him as he pleased Thirdly God had bin liberall and exceeding bountifull unto him many waies he created him in his owne image and likenesse furnished him with principles of righteousnesse made him Lord over the works of his hand placed him in a Paradise of all delight and contentment In all these respects Adam was a debtor yea and more then a debtor unto God of that obedience unto his Law which he required of him Now the greater debtor Adam was unto God the more and greater bands and ingagements were upon him to make good that obedience which God required of him to his Law the lesse meritorious had this obedience bin in case Adam had stood and performed it and the more demeritorious also was his transgression and disobedience Therefore that consequence in the major proposition of the objection If the transgression of the Law be imputable then is the obedience imputable also is so farre from being legitimate and solid that the imputablenesse of the transgression of it rather overthroweth the imputablenesse of the obedience of it then any waies proveth or establisheth it For the more imputable that is punishable the transgression of it is the lesse imputable that is rewardable is the obedience of it So that you see now we have touch'd the hollow of the right thigh of the Objection how it halts right downe upon it And you see withall how we might fairely and honestly discharge our selves from having any thing more to doe with the Minor Proposition or with the instance of the imputation of Adam's sin which was insisted upon for the proofe of it because if either Proposition be disabled the glory of the whole Argument is layed in the dust Notwithstanding because the imputation of Adams sinne to his posteritie as it is ordinarily phrased is conceived to be a master veyne in this Controversie and is frequently produced to prove the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by way of analogie or proportion I shall be willing to lay downe with as much brevitie and plainenesse as I can how and in what sense onely either the Scriptures themselves or sound reason will countenance the notion of that imputation The issue will be that neither the one nor the other will be found either to owne or favour any other imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity then we have hitherto granted of Christs righteousnesse to those that beleeve The righteousnesse of Christ is imputed i. is made over or given to those that beleeve not in the letter or formality of it as hath bin often said but in blessings priviledges and benefits purchased of God by the merit or mediation of it So the sinne of Adam is imputed to his posterity not in the letter and formality of it which is the imputation commonly urged but in the demerit of it i. in the curse or punishment due to it which is the imputation commonly urged but in the demerit of it i. in the curse or punishment due to it or deserved by it Therfore as concerning this imputation of Adams sin I answere First the Scripture no where affirms either the imputation of Adams sin to his posterity or of the righteousnesse of Christ to those that beleeve neither is the phrase or manner of such speaking any waies agreeable to the Dialect or language of the Holy Ghost For still in the Scriptures whersoever the word or term of IMPUTING is used it is only applyed unto or spoken of somthing of the same persons to whom the imputation is said to be made and never to my remembrance to or of any thing of anothers Rom. 4.3 Abraham beleeved God and it was IMPUTED to him for righteousnesse i. his own beleeving was imputed to him not another mans So verse 5. But to him that worketh not but beleeveth His Faith is IMPUTED to him for
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