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
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.
and agreeable to that nature in him which we call JUSTICE or severity against sinne and if he had pardoned sinne without it he had lost or passed over an opportunity of the declaration and manifestation of it to the world but had done nothing repugnant to it or to the prejudice or disparagement of it And thus far I can willingly subscribe to the opinion But whether such a free and satisfactionlesse condonation may be conceived to have had any possible consistence with the wisdome of God and therefore whether it had bin simply possible or no I am yet somewhat unsatisfied For a man to over-slip an opportunity that might lawfully be taken hold of and managed by him to some speciall advantage to himselfe either in point of Reputation Estate c. or the like is repugnant to the principles of sound wisdome and discretion but not of Justice at least not of Justice properly so called And the Holy Ghost Heb. 2.11 making it a thing so well becoming God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. For it became him c. intending to bring many children unto glory to consecrate the Prince of their salvation through sufferings i. not to save men without the death and sufferings of Christ seems rather to ascribe this cariage and method of the businesse to the wisdome of God then to his Justice But because confidence requires better grounds then present conceptions and apprehensions I forbeare further contending about the point in hand for the present Only I desire this may be considered and remembred as fully evident from the tenour of the Conclusion last estsblished that neither did the Law require of Christ the suffering of those things which he suffered nor were the things which he suffered every waies the same though in consideration value and importance the same fully with those the suffering whereof the Law threatned against all transgressors CAP. III. Certaine distinctiōs propounded and explained necessary for the further understanding of the businesse in question and the cleering of many difficulties incident to it THe word Iustification is taken in a double sense Distincti 1 SECT 1 either actively or passively In the active signification as farre as concern's the question in hand and as the Scripture use of it extendeth in the great businesse of the Justification of a sinner before God it most usually signifieth that act of God whereby he justifieth i. absolveth a beleeving sinner from the guist of and punishment due to his sinnes It may in this active signification signifie also any act of any other efficient cause of Iustification whatsoever of which kind there are many as we shall shew afterwards whereby it operates or contributes any thing towards this effect the justification of a sinner Yea to this active signification of the word may be referred the act of the forme it selfe or formall cause of Iustification which also in a way proper to it may be said to justify In the passive sense justification may signifie the effect it selfe of any or of all the former actions but most properly and frequently it signifieth that comcompleate and intire effect wherein all their severall influences and contributions meet and center together viz. that alteration or change which is made in the person or rather in the estate or condition of a person when he is justified which effect alteration or change standeth in this that whereas he was before the passing of such an act upon him a man under the guilt of sinne and liable to condemnation now he is a free man acquited and discharged from both In the former sense justification is atributed to God 1 Rom. 8.30 Whom he hath called them also he hath justified c. and ver 33. it is God that justifieth and so to Faith often In the latter sense it is attributed to or spoken of men Rom. 5.1 Therefore being justified by Faith c. and ver 18. Even so by the righteousnesse or justification of one the free guift came upon many to the justification of life i. to the full discharge and acquitting them from all sinne upon which life and salvation alwaies follow So that if the Question be asked what our justification is or wherein it stands it must first be inquired what justification it is that the Question intends for active justification is one thing and passive another and answere is to be made accordingly In like manner remission of sinnes signifieth either Gods act whereby he remitteth a manssinnes or else the effect of this act in and upon him whose sinnes are so remitted And generally all actions either have or in sufficient propriety of speech may have the same name with their proper passions or effects yea and sometimes with the relations resulting from them As calefaction frigefaction c. It is true there are severall other acceptions and significations of the word Iustification besides absolution from sinne when it is or as it may be used in other cases or upon other occasions as Christ himselfe is said to have bin justified 1 Tim. 16. who yet had no sinnes forgiven him and Abraham is said to have bin justified by workes Jam. 2.21 who yet had not his sinnes forgiven by or through his works So a man that is falsely accused may be justified and yet have no offence forgiven him as Christ was by Pilate when he professed that he found no fault in him Luk 23.4 But in the case and Iustification of a sinner before God the word justification still signifies and imports absolution from or remission of sinnes together with the punishment due to them Neither can there any instance be produced from the Scriptures of any other signification Iustice or righteousnesse Distincti 2 SECT 2 hath severall acceptions in the Scriptures when it is atributed unto God it signifies sometimes that universall and absolute holynesse and integritie of his nature which maketh him infinitely averse from doing any thing little or much contrary to the true rules of Iustice and Equity and inclines him only to do things agreeable hereunto Thus it seemes to be taken Psal 11.7 For the righteous Lord loveth righteousnesse c. So Dan. 9.14 Rove 16.5 besides many other places Sometimes againe and that very frequently it signifieth that nature in God which we commonly call truth or faithfulnesse in keeping promise Thus it is taken Psal 36.6 Thy righteousnesse is like the great Mountaines i. thy truth in thy promises can never be shaken or removed Thus Heb. 6.10 God is said not to be unrighteous i. as Paraeus well interprets not unfaithfull in his promise c. So againe 1 Ioh. 1.9 God is faith full and Iust to forgive us our sinnes i. constant in his promise this way Thirdly by the righteousnesse of God is often meant that gracious affection and disposition of his towards his people by reason whereof he is still propense and inclineable to doe them good as either to relieve and support them in trouble or to
imputeing Adams sinne unto them because then an act of God should be as it were the life and soule of that sin which is in men Therfore men are not made formally just or righteous by any act of God imputeing righteousnesse unto them The Argument I conceive is of no easie solution to those who maintain the imputation it selfe of this righteousnesse and not the righteousnesse imputed to be the form of justification Which yet I conceive to be an apprehension every whit as rationall as that which on the other hand maintaineth the righteousnesse it selfe of Christ imputed to be this forme For whether we conceive of justification either under the notion of a relation being a new condition come upon the person justified which seems to be the best and truest notion of it or whether we conceive it as a passion besides which two I know no predicament a I nature that can be put upon it certainly no righteousnesse whatsovâ— properly so called much lesse the righteousnesse of another then of the person justified can be the forme of it It is unpossible that one predicament or predicamentall being should informe another and that righteousnesse whether we speake of that which is habituall or that which is actuall belongeth neither to the predicament of relation nor to that of passion is better known to Logicians then to be made matter of disputation The oyle in the cruse doth not yet faile SECT 5 There are some drops still of further reason to exaucthorize the opinion of this imputation If justification consists partly in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse partly in remission of sinnes then must there be a double formall cause of justification and that made up and compounded of two severall natures really differing the one from the other But this is unpossible Ergo. With the rod of this Argument Calvin scourg'd those Fathers of Trent for joyning regeneration or infusion of grace with remission of sins in justification as we heard before which supposing him a man but tolerably sound or sober in his intellectualls is a demonstration in abundance that his meaning never was to place Iustification in any imputation of righteousnesse really distinct from remission of sins but that his apprehensions in this point were praecise et formaliter the same with this Country-mans of latter times who calls Remission of sins that righteousnesse which is imputed (a) Remissio peccatorum est justitia imputata Chamier Panstrat t. 3. l. 21. cap. 19. see 10. Idem sunt justificatio et Remissio peccatorum Vismus Cat. part 2. Qu. 60. sect 3. Whose meaning by the way is not as some of the opposite party in this cause have catch'd and quarrel'd with like expressions from others as if God in justification did imputeremission of sins unto men and in this sence remission of sins should be called the righteousnesse which is imputed but that God really remitting and forgiving mens sinnes such remission and forgivenesse may well be called an imputed righteousnes partly because it is no absolute legall or text righteousnesse but a righteousnesse by interpretation or construction of favour partly because such a righteousnesse as it is it is notwithstanding given in the strength and mediation of the righteousnesse merit and satisfaction of another which is Christ Let us yet heare and not be wearie what both reason and Religion can further speake against this imputation so much spoken for SECT 6 If such imputation be necessary in justification Argum. 20 this necessity must be found either in respect of the justice of God because otherwise he could not be just in pronouncing men righteous or in respect of his mercie or for the salving or advanceing of some other Attribute c. But there is no necessity of bringing in such an imputation into justification in respect of any of these Therfore it is brought in without any necessity at all and consequently must of necessity be cast out againe The Protectors of it themselves assigne no other necessity of it but onely in respect of Gods justice God they say cannot salvâ justiciâ with the safety of his justice pronounce a man righteous that is not righteous their meaning is according to the strict and literall righteousnesse of the Law But to this I answere First that there is nothing at all necessarie to be done either by God himselfe or by man about the justification of a sinner by way of satisfaction to the Justice of God since that one offering of Christ of himselfe upon the crosse Otherwise there must be found somwhat defective or wanting in that satisfaction If the justice of God be fully and every waies satisfied and provided for by the death of Christ as concerning the Iustification of sinners doubtlesse there remaines nothing further as necessarie to be done either by God or by man or by any other creature for the satisfaction of the same Justice Therfore if God should impute the righteousnesse of Christ unto men in this case some other end or pretext for it must be sought out not any provision for or satisfaction to his justice The infinite valour of Christs passives must not be abated or drawn down to make way for an imaginatie exaltation of his actives The necessity of Faith to Iustification which is a necessity confessed and acknowledged by all â—â—yâ—th not in reference to Gods Justice as if any man satisfied that either in whoâ—e or in part by beleeving but the necessity of it respecteth either his wisdome or the counsaile of his will as the Apostles expression is Eph. 1.11 He judged it not meet not counted it unjust to save men in any other way by the satisfaction of Christ then by the way of Faith This is the WILL of him that sent me saith our Saviour Ioh 6.40 not the righteousnes or Iustice of him that sent me that every man which seeth the Sonne and beleeveth in him should have everlasting life If there were nothing else to hâ—nder but want of satisfaction to divine iustice doubtlesse the whole world should be saved Vehemens in Deâ— est ad homini benefaciendum affectus quem eousque puratus est extendere quâ—â—â—l IVSTICIA vlle modo permittit Corvin Cersur Anatom p. 79. without any more adoe And therfore by the way that saying of Arnoldus in his Censure of Molineus p. 79. is deeply taxable except he can best â—â—e himselfe to make an aâ—tonemâ—nt for the hardnesse of his text with a soft interpretation There is saith he a strong affection in God to doe good to man and this affection he is still ready to act or exercise as far as ever his justice will give him leave Secondly whereas it was sayd that God cannot SECT 7 with the safety of his justice or truth pronounce a man righteous that is not so indeed with a legall righteousnesse litterally and properly so called I answere that doubtlesse he may aswell and as truely pronounce and cal that man righteous that
them Numb 16.27 32 33. with Deut. 11.6 Indeed for Korahs Children at least for some of them it seemes from Num. 26.11 that they had withdrawne themselves from their Fathers Tent and company before the judgement came and so escaped But for the Families wives Children little ones yea tents and all the goods of the other yea and all those persons that remained and were found with Korah whether Children or others when the stroke of Divine recompence came together with al his goods were cast in together into the scale of the punishment to make weight for the height and hey nousnesse of the sinne The like is to be conceived in the case of Achan's sinne Ios 7.24.25 If the personall punishments of these men would have held out just and full consideration with their offences it is no waies probable but that the punishing hand of God wouâ—d have stayed there and not have bin stretched out further In like manner if the person of Adam had bin as great and large as his offence so that he had â—in able himselfe to have borne the fulnesse of the punishment which his sin deserved I conceive it most likely that God would have deserved and satisfied himselfe in point of justice out of his person alone and not have arrested all his posterity for the debt Because the most district justice that is in God can but require and exact from the creature offending that degree or measure of punishment for sin quae est internimiùm et parum which holds a just and even proportion with it And if the person of the creature offending be able to pay the whole reckoning and summe it selfe the like justice seemeth to require that it be not demanded elsewhere nor any others without their consent be charged with contributing to it So that if we shall suppose the person of Adam to have bin punishable according to the height and full extent of his sin and yet will say that God had power to charge this sinne upon his posteritie this must be understood of such a power as indeed God hath by way of absolute prerogative and soveraigntie of dominion over the creature not of any power he stands possessed of in a way of regular and ordinary justice If it be here objected SECT 11 that notwithstanding God hath thus seized upon Adam himselfe and all his posterity with him and hath involved them together and made them all contributers in the punishment due to the first sin yet doth not all this punishment in the utmost extent of it answere in strict consideration the demerit of that sin so that that which God hath done in this kind is no sufficient meanes to heale the wound of that dishonour which he received from the hand of the creature To this I answere First if this be a truth as for the present I have nothing in a strict way of arguing to oppose against it directly that notwithstanding God hath fallen thus heavily upon Adam al his yet hath not hereby made himselfe any full satisfaction for the offence committed against him this rather tends to ease and justifie these proceedings of God in punishing aswell Adams posteritie as his person for his offence that is for the demerit of his offence then any waies infringeth or impleadeth any thing therein So that we shall not need for the cleering of Gods justice in troubling all Adams posteritie for Adams sinne to have recourse to a supposed imputation of the act of this sinne unto them the sinfullnesse or demerit of it which as hath been said is a thing far differing from and indeed contra-distinguished against the act of it is abundantly sufficient thereunto Yet secondly I answere withall that though the punishment of the sinne poured out upon Adams posteritie as well as his person will not hold out full weight and measure with the sinfullnesse or demerit of it in which respect God may seeme still to be behind hand with the creature and not to have repaired his breach sufficiently yet who seeth not but that he hath made a far more abundant provision for the vindicating of his glorious greatresse by causeing this dreadfull tempest of his displeasure to raine upon all flesh then if Adams person alone had bin rained upon in this kind and the expressions of his indignation had reached no further We have a common saying That where it is not to be had the King must loose his right Certainly if the great and terrible God ever payed any sinne home in wrath and vengeance he is not behind hand with this sin of Adam Thirdly and lastly SECT 12 I answere yet once more that in this respect God may be said to have made or given himselfe full satisfaction in pouring out this fullnesse of wrath upon Adams sinne not upon his person only but whole posterity also because he requireth nothing more by way of any further satisfaction for that sinne but only the abiding or suffering of that wrath and punishment which he hath inflicted upon it by Adam and his posterity This sheweth that he is perfectly eased of that his great adversarie At least wise where he complaineth not nor maketh any further demand we cannot say that he is unsatisfyed That sacrifice which he required of his Sonne Jesus Christ for the taking away or purging the sinne of the world was not required by way of addition to that punishment which hee had inflicted upon Adam and all his as if Christ with his sufferings and men with theirs should together make up one and the same entire satisfaction unto God for Adams sin No the Scripture calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a vice-ransom or counter-ransom i. a satisfaction instead of a satisfaction 1 Tim. 2.6 which implieth that that wrath which God had already poured out upon the world for sinne was in the nature of it and would have bin had his mercy bin pleased to have suffered his justice to goe on with the full execution of it and to have received at large This for answer to the objection and for the second particular upon which the equity of Gods proceedings in involving as-well the whole posterity of Adam as his person in the punishment due to his first sinne may well be built as hath bin suid viz the narrownesse of Adams person SECT 13 The third and last but of principall consideration in the businesse is the peculiar and neere relation of the posteritie of Adam to his person His posteritie was so neerely and intirely his when the sinne was committed and the judgment first poured out upon it that they were in his person and as it were a part or somewhat of it The time was when all men were but one Adam as Augustine expresseth it Adam erat nos omnes i. Adam was us all Augustin De Peccat Merit et Remiss And againe Omnes eramus ille vnus Adam i. We were all that one Adam And the whole generation of mankind is but Adam
God over the creature is plainly asserted though perhaps in terms somwhat harder then many eares will well beare but in the latter there is only a cold and hungry pretence alledged to beare out one of the greatest and most weighty acts of judgement that ever God exercised Of the two it is lesse dishonourable to a Prince or Monarch to professe a power above Law then to exercise it under a pretence of justice And what is there more in the imputation of Adams sinne to make the punishment of it upon all his posterity an act of justice in God or to ease the conceit of absolute Sovereigntie then if there were no such imputation at all Or suppose God should repute me to have sin'd in Adam and because he so reputeth me shall execute judgement upon me in case I did not so sinne as God reputeth me to have done it had bin altogether as much justice in God to have punished me without any such reputing me to have sinned as with it But in case I did sinne as the Scripture testifieth to my face I did now there is no necessity or occason why God should impute Adams sinne unto me to make me capable of punishment the imputation of this my owne sinne is abundantly sufficient Besides suppose I could not be truly said to have sinned my selfe being yet in the loynes of Adam and so my owne sinne not to be imputed unto me yet my communion with Adam in his nature or my neere relation to him being one of his children and posterity upon the former supposition that Adams sin was not punishable to the height in the punishment of his person only is a full and sufficient ground to beare out the justice of God in laying all that punishment upon me he hath done But of all conceits or apprehensions in this point that hath the least consistencie with sobernes and truth which makes the impuputation of the act of Adams sin which act was more from God then from Adam as hath bin said though the sinfulnes of this act was wholly from Adam and not at all from God to his posterity to be the reason and ground of that fore punishment wherin they are all included involved as if Gods reputing a world of men to have done that which indeed was from himselfe and therfore could at no hand be sinfull were a sufficient ground in justice equitiâ— to bring the guilt of everlasting death and wrath upon them The summe of all that â—ath bin reasoned at large in this Chapter SECT 16 amounteth to this 1. that the imputablenes of the transgression of the Law were it granted from one person to another doth not necessarily evince the like imputability of the obedience of the Law 2. that in Scripture there is nothing said to be imputed unto any man but that which was his before the imputation 3. that to impute doth never signifie the bare ascribing or setting over any act good or bad unto any man but a suitable dealing by the person to whom the imputation is made according either to the merit or demerit of such an act 4. that therfore neither the act of any mans obedience nor disobedience to the Law can either in Scripture language or propriety of speech be said to be imputed to any other then to the persons themselves obeying and disobeying 5. That the Scriptures are altogether silent concerning the imputation of Adams sin to his posterity 6. That reason it self fully demonstrates any such imputation to be no sufficient or tollerable ground or reason why God in a way of justice and equity might involve Adams posterity with his person in the punishment due to his sin 7. and lastly that there are other grounds herof both more agreeable to reason to the rules principles of common justice equity so that there is not so much as the least degree of any necessity to bring the Imputation of Adams sin in the sence pressed by our adversaries for their turns upoÌ„ this theatre The Conclusion resulting from the constellation of these particulars is easily discerned to be this that the Imputation of Adams sin to his posterity is no better Argument to prove the imputation of Christs righteousnes in the sence questioned to beleevers then the imputation of Christs righteousnes is to prove the imputation of Adams sin and that neither the one nor the other in the sence urged and opposed have any firm footing either in reason or Religion The end of the first part THE SECOND PART CAP. I. Wherein is contained a briefe proposall of the Particulars in this Second Part. HAving brought forth our strength both of Scripture and Reason seconded in both with sufficient authorities of men of best esteeme as well to overthrow the conclusion set up by the Adversary in the Question debated as to establish that which we have undertaken for and oppose against it it remaines that for the making good the ground which we have gotten we should disarme our enemies and take away those weapons from them wherein they trust by answering those Scriptures and Reasons which are usually chosen for the service of this warrefare and whereby some endeavour as well to build up what we have laboured hitherto to throw downe as to cast downe what we have to built up The truth is that no cause or truth reigneth in fulnesse of glorie and peace till all the enemies thereof be either reconciled or put under his feete In consideration whereof I shall no wayes smoother or dissemble any objection of the adverse party as farre as I know they have yet pleaded or can conceive they may possibly plead yet further for themselves in the point depending nor seeke to gaine the least advantage to my selfe by cutting the haire or diminishing the strength of any argument I shall propound against my selfe to answer but rather on the other side shall shew all fairenesse and faithfulnesse in relieving my adversaries in their oversights and as farre as my ability extendeth endeavour to supply that which is wanting on their part in maintenance of the cause they have undertaken I shall therefore in this Second Part of my Worke first lay downe and prove with all convenient briefenesse that may be some conclusions which have speciall relation to the Question depending and will give a further light of insight therein and which will be as foundations or grounds to frame answers upon to severall objections that are or may be made against the decision maintained in this Discourse 2. I shall lay downe and open some distinctions which will make a cleare and lightsome way for the truth through the darkenesse of many difficulties which seeme to oppose it on every side as well from the Scriptures as reasoning otherwise 3. I shall lay downe the nature and purport of Iustification in the severall causes and carriages thereof according to the Scriptures as farre as I am able to conceive 4. I shall briefely propound and answer the
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
yeares in his integritie and uprightnesse without the least touch of any transgression he had still bin a debtor of obedience to the Law upon the same termes that he was at the beginning and the least interruption or breach in the course of his obedience had even now beene the forfeiture of that life hee enjoyed So then this position also is unquestionably true that there needs no other righteousnesse but onely the forgivenesse of or freedome from sinne to give a man a cleare and lawfull title unto life Notwithstanding the Scriptures of the new Testament seeme to place the immediate right or capacitie which beleevers have to the Kingdome of heaven and eternall glory rather in the grace of Adoption or Sunship vouchsafed by God unto them through Jesus Christ then in any righteousnesse whatsoever even remission of sinnes it selfe not excepted as was proved more at large in the 12th Chapter of the former part of this Treatise The reason whereof may haply be this because the life and blessednesse which come by Jesus Christ to the world through Faith are of a farre higher nature excellencie and worth than that life which was covenanted by God with Adam by way of wages for his worke or obedience to the Law and therefore require a higher and fuller and richer capacity or title in the creature to interesse him therein than that did Worke or labour faithfully performed is sufficient to entitle a man to his wages or hire the labourer saith Christ is worthy of his hire but the gift of an inheritance requireth a speciall grace and favour no lesse than of an Adoption to make a man regularly and according to the usuall course of humane transactions capable thereof That satisfaction which Christ made to the justice of God for sin Conclusion 6 SECT 7 and whereby he procured remission of sinnes or perfect righteousnesse and reconciliation with God for those that beleeve See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 4.15.25 And Paraus de Iustit Christi Act. pass p. 168. 180. consists onely in that obedience of his which he performed to that peculiar and speciall Law of mediation which God imposed upon him which we commonly though perhaps not altogether so properly call his passive obedience and not at all in that obedience or subjection which he exhibited to that common Law of nature which we call morall This is evident because nothing can be satisfactory to divine justice for sinne but that which is penall without shedding of blood saith the Apostle Heb. 9.22 there is no remission and consequently no satisfaction for doubtlesse where there is satisfaction there is and may be remission Now that that obedience or subjection which Christ exhibited to the morall Law was no wayes penall to him is evident from hence Penall to him in respect of his Godhead it could not be the divine Nature being no wayes passive in it selfe nor capable of punishment Againe in respect of his humane nature this obedience could not be penall because it was required of man in his innocency and imposed by God upon Adam before his fall yea and still lieth and shall he to the dayes of eternity upon men and Angels yea and upon Jesus Christ himselfe in their glorified conditions Love which the Apostle affirmeth to be the fulfilling or keeping of the Law never falleth away Therefore to make obedience to the morall Law penall is to affirme that man was punished and that by order and appointment from God before his fall or before hee sinned and that the glorified Saints and Angels yea and Iesus Christ himselfe are now punished in heaven Besides the Scriptures themselves no where ascribe this satisfaction we speak of or the work of Redemption nor any part or degree of it to the holinesse innocency or active obedience of Christ but still to his passive See Rom. 3.25 Rom. 5.6 8. 2 Cor. 5.21 Eph. 1.7 Ephe. 2.16 Col. 1.14 Heb. 2.14 Heb. 9.12.14.26 Heb. 10.10 1 Pet. 2.24 1 Pet. 3.18 1 Iohn 1.7 Revel 1.5 c. Besides many other places of like importance Conclusion 7 But this is a point which I have had occasion to prosecute more at large elsewhere SECT 8 where I have fully answered that common answer and exception to these and such like Scriptures See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 8.19.20 c. Qui verò obedientiae activae aut sanctitati nativae meritum justitia ascribunâ— mortem Christi fine dubio inanem reddunt Par. de Iustic Christi Activa Pasâ—va p. 181.182 that they are all figurative and by a Synechdoche expresse the whole by mentioning only a part Therefore I shall not further insist upon this here If Christ had fulfilled and kept the Law for us i. in our steed till the utmost period of his life there had beene no occasion or necessity of his dying for us There is no light clearer than this For if we stand before God by vertue of the perfect obedience of Christs life imputed to us as our owne righteousnesse and obedience to the Law perfectly righteous we are no more obnoxious to the curse of the Law and consequently have no neede of any satisfaction to divine justice nor of any remission of sinnes by blood Duo ista pronustciata Christuâ— sanguinis effusione redemit nes ab execratione legis Christus obedientiam prâ—stitit proâ—â—â—bis implicant contradictionem Piscator There needs nothing more to a perfect justification than a perfect righteousnesse or a perfect fulfilling of the Law This the Apostle clearely layeth downe Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse be by the Law whether performed by our selves or by another for us for there is the same reason of both in respect of justification then Christ is dead in vaine This proposition is so cleare and full of the light of its owne truth that both Piscator and Pareus heretofore and Mr. Gataker of late have not simply affirmed but with more than an ordinary confidence avouched that to hold an imputation of the active obedience of Christ amounts to no lesse than an abrogation of his death But this consequence also I remember I have argued more at large in the 13. Chap. of the former Part of this Treatise and therefore for the present leave it Conclusi 8 That Vnion and Communion which true beleevers have with Christ SECT 9 doth no wayes require or suppose any such imputation of his righteousnesse unto them as is conceived That Vnion and Communion which the wife hath with the husband doth not require that whatsoever the husband hath should be imputed to the wife or that the wife should be reputed to have whatsoever the husband hath The wife is not reputed wise because the husband is wise she may be weake and simple notwithstanding and justly so reputed to be neither is the honestie or faithfulnesse of the husband in marriage so imputed to the wife and therefore she must be reputed faithfull and honest in the same kinde The wife may be
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
contrary to truth to judge the person in an estate of condemnation though he may be comming on in a way towards justification As men that never come to be justified but perish in their sinnes everlastingly are said to be partakers of the holy Ghost Heb 6.4 that is may have many great and excellent workings of the holy Ghost within them and upon them so may men to whom the grace of justification and salvation upon it is intended by God have the like workings of the Spirit upon them for a time and yet have no worke at all upon them truely saving i. which hath an essentiall and necessary connexion with salvation And till some such worke as this is wrought though the Spirit of God be in them yet are they under condemnation and dying in their present condition without somefurther worke of grace should certainely perish Now though there may be many workings of the Spirit of God in men before they beleeve which may be called Saving in regard of their issue and event yet is there none formally saving that is that hath salvation promised unto it till Faith it selfe be wrought The first touch of any worke upon the soule that is either truly sanctifying or necessarily saving is that whereby the soule is inabled to touch upon Christ for its justification neither is the habit of Faith first planted in the soule by the holy Ghost and afterwards the soule enabled by it 'to exercise and put forth an act of beleeving whereby it is justified but as the common and more probable opinion is that fruit-bearing trees were at first created with ripe fruits upon them so doth God at first create both the habit and act of faith in the soule in the same moment of time and not the one before the other So that the first act of beleeving whereby the creature is primarily justified is not rais'd out of any pre-existent habit or grace of Faith as all after acts of beleeving are but is as immediately the product or effect of the power of God as the habit of Faith it selfe is even as the fruits which according to the opinion mentioned were created with and upon their trees did not grow out of these trees nor were produced in a naturall way by them as all after fruits growing upon them were but were as proper and immediate effects of the creative power of God as the trees themselves So we see at last that the conclusion laid downe is no waies prejudic'd nor shaken by either of these objections Conclu 14 SECT 25 The sentence or curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death but this death of Christ was a ground or consideration unto God whereupon to dispence with his Law and to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty or curse therein threatned This is evident because the threatning and curse of the Law was not at all bent or intended against the innocent or righteous but against transgressors onely Therefore God in inflicting death upon Christ being innocent righteous did not follow the purport or intent of the Law If he had inflicted death upon all the transgressors of the Law this had bin a direct execution of the Law because this was that which the Law threatned and intended But God in spareing and forbearing the transgressors who according to the tenor of the Law should have bin punished manifestly dispenceth with the Law and doth not execute it As when Zaleucus the Locrian Lawgiver caused one of his owne eyes to be put out that one of his Sons eyes might be spared who according both to the Letter and intent of the Law should have lost both he did not precisely execute the Law but gave a sufficient account or consideration why it should for that time be dispenced with and not put into execution In this sense indeed Christ may be said to have undergone or suffered the penalty or curse of the Law 1º it was the curse or penalty of the Law as now hanging over the head of the world and ready to be executed upon all men for sinne that occasioned his suffering of those things which he endured Had not the curse of the Law either bin at all or not incurr'd by man doubtlesse Christ had not suffered at all Againe 2º and somewhat more properly Christ may be said to have suffered the curse of the Law because the things which he suffered were of the same nature and kind at least in part with those things which God intended by the curse of the Law against transgressors namely death But if by the curse of the Law we understand either that intire systeme and historicall body as it were of penalties and evills which the Law it selfe intends in the terme or else include and take in the intent of the Law as touching the quality of the persons upon whom it was to be executed in neither of these senses did Christ suffer the curse of the Law neither ever hath it nor ever shall be suffered by any transgressor of the Law that shall beleeve in him So that God required the death and sufferings of Christ not that the Law properly either in the letter or intention of it might be executed but on the contrary that it might not be executed I meane upon those who being otherwise obnoxious unto it should beleeve Neither did God require the death and sufferings of Christ as a valuable consideration whereon to dispence with his Law towards those that beleeve SECT 26 more if so much in a way of satisfaction to his justice then to his wisdome For doubtlesse God might with asmuch justice as wisdome if not much more have passed by the transgression of his Law without consideration or satisfaction For him that hath a lawfull authority and power either to impose a Law or not in case he shall impose it it rather concern's in point of wisdome and discretion not to see his Law despised and trampled upon without satissaction then in point of justice No man will say that in case a man hath bin injured and wrong'd that therefore he is absolutly bound in Justice to seeke satisfaction though he be never so eminent in the grace and practise of Justice but in many cases of injuries susteyned a man may be bound in point of wisdome and discretion to seeke satisfaction in one kind or other Austin of old and D. Twist of late besides many other Orthodox learned Divines a See Mr. Gataker Defence of Mr. Wotton p. 59.60 hold that God if it had pleased him might have pardoned Adams transgression without the atonement made by the death of Christ Therfore according to the opinion of these men it had bin no waies contrary to the Justice of God nor derogatory to the glory of it if he had freely pardoned it without any consideration or attonement Only it is true his requiring that full satisfaction which hath now bin made by Christ is very sutable
deliver them out of trouble or the like And this doubtlesse is the most frequent signification of the word of all other Thus Psal 145.7 They shall abundantly utter the memory of thy great goodnesse and shall sing of thy righteousnesse that is of thy clemency and grace towards thy people So Psal 51.14 Mica 6.5 besides other places without number Fourthly that gracious purpose and intent of God towards his elect for giving them saving Faith in due time is sometimes called the righteousnesse of God Thus 2 Pet. 1.1 those beleevers to whom Peter writes are said to have obteyned like precious Faith with him through the righteousnesse of God c. Fiftly that which is of most concernment to the question in hand by the righteousnesse of God is sometimes meant that Iustification or that way method or meanes of Iustification whereby God Iustifieth and makes men righteous Thus Rom. 3.21 The righteousnesse of God which is without the Law i. that way and course which God hath found out for the Justification or making men righteous which consists not in the observation or works of the Law is said to be manifested being witnessed by the Law i. the writeings of Moses and the Prophets So the verse following the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ In the like sense the word is also used Rom 1.17 Rom. 10.3 In all which places with their fellowes by the righteousnesse of God is meant that Iustification or way of making men righteous which God himselfe out of his speciall wisdome and grace hath found out and recommended unto the world as being farre differing from that way of Iustification which the wisdome of the flesh and the thoughts of men run so much upon viz. by workes and observation of the Law In the same kind of expression mens owne righteousnesse signifies Rom. 10.3 that way or meanes by which they intend or seeke to be Iustified Some Divines of great worth and fame affirme Iustitiae veâ—abulum in Scripturis se mper notas Dei bonitatem Miseriâ—ordians salutem redemptionem nunquam vere adhibetur ad id significandum quod vulgo iustitiam dicimus neÌ„pe affectum illum quo Deus ad scelera et peccata vindicanda propendet irae iudicij vocabula ad hoc significandum potius adhibentur Cameron Myroth in ve 21. cap. 3. ad Rom. p. 178. that the word Iustitia Justice or righteousnesse in Scripture never signifieth that which is commonly called Justice in God that is that nature or affection in God which inclineth him to punish or take vengeance on sinne this they say is usually expressed by those terms wrath and judgment but either the goodnesse mercy and salvation of God or the like But whether this observation will stand or no I make some question For in the sixt place I conceive that sometimes that very affection in God mentioned viz. his severity against sinne and sinners is expressed by this word righteousnesse In this sense the word I conceive may well be taken Rom. 3.25.26 c. that he i God might be Iust and a Iustifier of him which is of the Faith of Iesus that is that God might appeare and be declared to be a severe Judge and punisher of sinne and yet iustifie and acquit all those from sinne who beleeve in Iesus Christ Seventhly Christ himselfe sometimes seemes to be called the righteousnesse of God as Esa 42.21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousnesse sake So Esa 51.5 c. Now Christ may be called the righteousnesse of God because he is the great Author or Mediator of that righteousnesse or Iustification which God vouchsafeth unto the world Lastly the society and company of those that are made righteous or iustified by God through Christ are called the righteousnesse of God 2 Cor. 5.21 of which phrase we shall speake further in this Distinction Againe 2º this word Iustice or righteousnesse SECT 3 when applied to men sometimes signifieth that generall frame of the heart or soule consisting of all those holy dispositions and affections which are found in some degree in every true-borne child of God In this sense God himselfe attributeth righteousnesse unto Noah Gen. 7.1 Thee have I seene righteous c. In this sense righteousnesse is opposed to the corrupt and sinfull frame of the heart in the estate of unregeneratenesse and a righteous man to an unregenerate man This sense is obvious in Scripture Secondly the fruits works or actions arising from such a frame of heart are sometimes called righteousnesse Thus it is used Act. 10.35 1 Ioh. 3.7 and elsewhere Thirdly that particular and speciall disposition which inclineth a man to deale uprightly and according to the rules of equity with all men and is opposed to fraud violence oppression c. together with the worke and fruite of such a disposition sometimes goeth under the Name of Iustice or righteousnesse See Gen. 30.33 Deut. 1.16 Esa 33 15. besides many other places Fourthly and with more concernment to the point in hand Iustification it selfe in the passive sense declared in the former distinction is sometimes by a metonymie of the cause for the effect expressed by the word righteousnesse Thus Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse i. Justification come by the Law i. by the works of the Law then Christ is dead in vaine So Rom. 10 4. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse i. for Justification to them that beleeve So ver 5. Moses describeth the righteousnesse which is of the Law c. i. sheweth wherein that Justification consisteth which is to be attained by the Law if men will seeke to be justified by it So againe Ro. 5 17 The guift of righteousnesse i. of Justification and ver 18 by the righteousnesse of one c. i. by the iustifying of one as the former translation reads it and that I conceive more agreeably to the originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather by one iustifying i. by one procurement of Iustification the gift came upon all men viz. that beleeve unto Iustification of life meaning that Christ by one and the same meanes used for the iustifying of men purchased and procured the Justification of all those that should beleeve be they never so many and that such a Iustification which shall be accompanied with salvation See more instances of this signification of the word Rom. 8.4 Rom. 9.30 Rom. 10.10 1 Cor. 1.30 c. with divers others Thus also in the same propriety of speech to make righteous and to iustify are but the same as to make wicked and to condemne Compare Rom. 5. ver 19. with ver 18. Fiftly sometimes Christ himselfe is by an ellipsis of the efficient or procuring cause very usually in Scripture called the righteousnesse of men i. the Author or procurer of their Justification or righteousnesse as Ier. 23.6 33.16 c. In the same figure of speech he is elsewhere called our hope our life our sanctification our redemption c.
in view to the sight of all men is the advancement of the creature or persons iustifyed to that exceeding height of glory and endlesse happinesse in the intire and satisfying injoyment of God which himselfe was graciously pleased to ordeyne them unto from the beginning and to prepare and make them meet for in time Besides these two there might be diverse other more appropriate and particular ends both in respect of God the Iustifier and the elect of God the Iustified assigned as in respect of God the manifestation of his abundant pardoning grace or mercie tempered with justice c. in respect of the creature Iustifyed deliverance from wrath or punishment due to sinne a way making unto Adoption and fatherlike grace and acceptation with God with all the sweet privileges and blessings depending hereon c. but because there is no question or controversie stirring about these and the Doctrine of Justification may be competently knowne and understood without a particular enumeration of them I forbeare to make it matter of further labour to the Reader to insist upon them The chiefe contention and dispute amongst Reformed Divines in the businesse of Iustification SECT 14 is about the two causes that are yet behinde viz. the materiall and the formall but especially about the latter Therefore Thirdly Mr. Walker Socinianisme discovered c. p. 139. concerning the matter or materiall cause of Justification the Socinian Diseoverer with some others conceive they cast a spirit of honour upon the righteousnesse and satisfaction of Christ by setling this relation of causalitie in respect of Iustification upon them but doubtlesse much upon the like terms of mistake with those mentioned by our Saviour Ioh. 16.2 who should thinke that they did God service when they killed his best servants For First by making these the matter See Part 1. c. 17. Sect. 1.2 c. or materiall cause of Iustification they devest and spoyle them of the honour of that causalitie which is proper and peculiar to them and 7 times more honourable then that which is this way attributed to them viz. of that causalitie which we call meritorious This is evident by the tenour of the third Rule formerly laid downe in the second section of this Chapter whereby it appeares that no one cause whatsoever can put on more habitudes or relations of causality then one in respect of one and the same effect So that if the righteousnesse of Christ be the meritorious and impulsive cause of Iustification which is granted on all hands without exception even by the men against whom we reason it can at no hand be deemed the materiall cause also Because the meritorious and impulsive cause is a kinde of efficient as both hath bin lately proved and besides is generally so notioned and acknowledged by all neither can it be reduced to any of the other 4 heads of causes with any tolerable congruitie or colour of reason It was never heard of to this day that any efficient cause was the matter of the effect produced by it Secondly the righteousnesse of Christ whether Active or Passive or both cannot be the matter of Iustification because the matter of a thing is alwaies En◠incompletum an incompleate and imperfect entitie or being untill the introduction and union of the forme with it which still gives perfection of being and existence to it But the righteousnesse of Christ take it in what otion or under what consideration you please hath an intire perfect and compleate being neither can it fall under imagination what forme it should be capable of that by union with it should adde beauty and perfection to it Thirdly and lastly if the righteousnesse of Christ be the matter of Iustification it must be either matter properly or unproperly so called Matter properly so called which they call materia ex quâ it cannot be because this kinde of matter 1º is proper to substantiall natures or beings onely 2º is it selfe alwaies a substance 3º is alwaies a part of that nature or thing whereof it is the matter 4º and lastly is still the inferior weaker and viler part thereof Whereas Iustification in the first place being an act hath only an accidentall not a substantiall being and consequently is not capable of matter properly so called as no act or action whatsoever besides is Secondly the righteousnesse of Christ was never conceived to be in praedicamento substantiae to be a substantiall nature but an accidentall forme or quality and therefore cannot be matter properly so called of any thing Thirdly the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be a part of Iustification because Iustification as hath bin said is an action and the righteousnesse of Christ a forme or qualitie and most certaine it is that one predicamentall nature or being cannot be a part of another Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be this matter of Iustification we now speake of Fourthly and lastly it is furthest of all from all colour or appearance of truth that the righteousnesse of Christ in what composition or union soever it shall be found should be the weaker and lesse worthy part thereof being of that infinit perfection and worth which we all acknowledg and ascribe unto it Therefore certainly it is no matter of Iustification properly so called Secondly SECT 15 that neither is it any matter hereof unproperly so called may be thus demonstrated Matter unproperly so called is either that which Logicians call materia in qua or materia circa quam Matter in the former notion imports only the subject of a thing that is a substantiall nature as supporting some accidentall forme or being in it In this sense fire is sayd to be the matter of the heate that is in it and a man to be the matter of the learning or knowledge which he hath c. But this is most unproper and least used sense or signification of the word MATTER of all other In the latter notion the matter of a thing is the object or that thing upon which any thing acteth or about which it is conversant or exercised In this sense wood or tymber may be said to be the matter of the Carpenters art or imployment and his Scholars the matter of the Masters instruction c. This kinde of matter is most commonly and properly attributed to acts that are transient and with motion and alteration though it may be ascribed to that other kinde of act also which is without alteration and is called immanent in which sense bookes or the knowledge of things conteyned in them may be said to be the matter of the Schollers industrie or studie and the persons predestinated to be the matter of that immanent act of God which we call Predestination c. Now that the righteousnesse of Christ cannot in either of these notions or significations of the word matter be the matter of justification it is evident First not in the former because Iustification is not the subject wherein this righteousnesse
his sanctification for our sanctification And if it be a weake and unsavourie inference from this place to conclude that we are wise with the same wisdome wherewith Christ was wise being imputed unto us it must needs be a bird of the same feather to infer that we are righteous with the same righteousnesse wherewith Christ was righteous being imputed to us Here is no more mention or intimation of the imputation of the one then of the other Suppose Christ were made righteousnesse unto us by the imputation of that righteousnesse of his which men so much contend for yet there is nothing more evident then that this speciall manner of his being made righteousnesse must be made good otherwise and from other Scriptures and cannot at all be prooved from this place As because a rich man hath silver and gold and jewells in his possession or keeping it doth not follow that therefore he hath silver in one Chest and gold in another or jewells in a third because he may possibly have them al in one the same From generall expressions particular modifications of things can never be prooved Therefore Secondly when Christ is said to be made righteousnesse unto us the meaning only is that he is made or ordained by God to be the Author or sole meanes by way of merit of our Iustification purchased and procured for us by his death and sufferings This Exposition is strengthened First the word righteousnesse SECT 23 is very frequently used by this Apostle for Iustification as hath bin often observ'd See particularly the third Chap. of this second part Sect. 2. Secondly that righteousnesse or Iustification which beleevers have in or by Christ is still attributed in the Scriptures to the death and sufferings of Christ as hath bin formerly observed (a) See cap. 2. of this latter part Sect. 7. p. 9.10 and never to his righteousnesse or active obedience 3. Neither is it true according to the principles of the men themselves who professe enmity to us in the point depending that Christ by his active obedience only should be made righteousnesse or justification unto us Therfore they forsake their own guides when they seek for the imputation of this righteousnesse unto us out of this place 4. And lastly the interpretation given hath the concurrent judgement of many sound and able Expositors for it who by Christs being made righteousnes unto us understand nothing else but our justification or righteous-making by him some placeing this justification in the forgivenesse of our sinnes some ascribeing it to the satisfaction that is the sufferings of Christ none of them either ascribeing the purchase of it to his active obedience or placing it in the imputation of this unto us Let Chrysostome a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Hom. 5. in 1. ad Corin. and Theophylact b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et mox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in 1 Cor. 1.30 be consulted with upon the place and of later times Pomeranus (c) Quierg◠in nobis peccatores sumus in ipso et per ipsum justi sumus non imputate propter ipsum nobis peccate Pomeran and Piscator (d) Iusticia id est cujus satisfactions nobu donata atque imputata justi sumus Piscator in 1 Cor. 1.30 Mr. Gataker likewise p. 47. of his little Tract against Gomarus rejects that interpretation as wanting aswell colour as substance of truth which seeketh to establish the imputation of the active obedience of Christ upon this Scripture Bernard as he is cited by a Great Master of the way of Imputation though against (e) Bishop Downham Tract of Iustific p. 223. Sect. 4. SECT 24. himselfe is expresse and full over and over for that sence of the place which we maintain Christ saith he as Bishop Downham translates him was made unto us wisdome in preaching justice or righteousnesse in absolution of sins c. Againe enlighten mine eyes that I may be wise remember not the sinnes of my youth and my ignorances and I am just Yet againe He was made unto us of God wisdome teaching prudence justice forgiving sins c. They only are wise who are instructed by his Doctrine they onely just who of his mercy have obtained parden of sinne In all this variety of expression it is observable that he still placeth that righteousnesse or justification which Christ is made unto us in the remission or pardon of our sins Which with the premisses upon this Scripture duly considered I presume no imputation of the active obedience of Christ will be any more urged or contended for from hence The next Scripture that is much sollicited by some to speake a good word in the cause of the aforesaid imputation is 2 Cor. 5.21 For he hath made him to be sinne for us who knew no sinne that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him From hence they inferre that as our sins are imputed unto Christ so Christs righteousnesse meaning his active obedience or else they doe not hold to the point is imputed unto us Of all the Scriptures which men take up for the plea of the imputation opposed Mr. Gataker hath well observ'd this is most pregnant and cleere against themselves (a) Quid ser◠clarius contiase producere poterat quam illud 2 Cor. 5.21 Gataker in Elench contra Gomar p. 48 2 Cor. 5.21 cleared But for Answere 1. There is no footing in this Scripture for the inference drawn from it here is nothing said touching any imputation of our sinnes to Christ and consequently here can be nothing to build a reciprocall imputation of his righteousnesse unto us upon As for that expression of Christs being made sinne for us it imports no such imputation as men suppose as will appeare presently 2. Some of the most judicious and learned assistants of the way of this Imputation absolutely reject this equality or reciprocation of Imputation between the sinnes of beleevers unto Christ and the righteousnesse of Christ unto them There is not the same force or power saith Bishop Davenant (b) Non est eadem vi◠nostra injustietae ad efficiendum Christum injustum iniquum qua est obedientiae ejus et justiciae ad constituendos fideles justos et innocentes Bishop Dauenaut De Iust Habit. c. p. 332. Christus ita volute peccata in se suscipcre ut non inde peccater sed hostia pro peccato constitueretur ibidem p. 333. of our unrighteousnesse to make Christ unrighteous which is of his righteousnes to make those that beleeve righteous and innocent See more to this purpose in the second Chapter of this Discourse Sect. 19. p. 26. So that according to their own principles if the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ be no otherwise imputed unto us then our sinnes are imputed unto him we are not made formally righteous by such an imputation 3. Neither is there so much as the face or
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