Theophylact b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in Rom. 10.4 Sect. 20 and Theodoret make Christ in this sense to be called by the Apostle the end of the Law for righteousnesse unto those that beleeve viz. because hee performed or exhibited unto them that which the Law propounded to it selfe as its end and would have performed but could not viz. their Iustification But Fourthly some Interpreters conceive that Christ in this sense is said to be the end of the Law for righteousnesse to him that beleeveth because the Law by convincing men of sinne and exacting of them a righteousnesse which it doth not enable them to performe and againe by threatning and condemning them for the want of it it doth as good as lead them by the hand unto Christ by whom they are freely justified This Exposition calls Musculus Master (a) Nam finis Legis est Christus Intelligendum est quod Lex ad Christum ducit Dum enim peccatum revelar arguit ac damnat justiciamque exigit quamnon praestat nihil aliud agit quam quod ad Christum ducit per quem justificemur gratis Musc in Rom. 10.4 and Calvin in one touch upon the place is not farre from it (b) Id autem fieri nequit quin omni justicia spoliats peccati agnitione confusi ab ipso justiciam gratuitam petamus Calvin in Rom. 10.4 But neither doth this seem to be the meaning of the place however because it maketh not at all against us in the present controversie we shall not at present insist upon any refutation of it Fiftly some think Christ is therefore called the end of the Law because by his coming in the flesh and by his sacrifice of himselfe he put an end to the Law and Mosaicall dispensation Both Musculus and Parous mention this exposition but name not the Author This exposition is a truth but doubtlesse not a true exposition Therefore Sixtly and lastly the plaine and direct meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture seemes to be this Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that beleeveth that is the Law meaning the whole Mosaicall Oeconomie or dispensation which is the frequent signification of the word Law in the writings of this Apostle as was formerly observed and exemplified was therefore and for that end and purpose given by God unto the Jewes his people that whilst it did continue it might instruct and teach them concerning the Messiah who was yet to come and by his death to make attonement for their sinnes that so they might beleeve in him accordingly and be justified and further that in time that people and Nation might be trained up nurtured and prepared for the Messia himselfe and that oeconomie and perfection of the worship and service of God which he should bring with him and establisheth in the world at his coming This interpretation including the whole Mosaicall administration within the meaning of the word Law was both Chrysostoms of old c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Rom. 10.4 and is Mr. Gatakers d Verum ego potius Christum finem legu ea ratione simpliciter dictum existimo quia Lex revera Dei populo lata est quae ad Messiam illu viam pramuniret quod erat ministerij Mosaici munus pracipuum Gatak Elench Gomar p. 53. yet living amongst us and Parcus likewise is large in the vindication and explication of it and Calvin himselfe a Indicat eâ—am legis praposterum Interpretem esse qui per cjus opera justificari quaerit quaniam in hoc lexdata est quo nos ad aâ—â—ara justitiam manuduceret Imo quicquid doceat Lex â—uicquid pracipiat quiequid promittaet semper Christum habet pro scepo ergo â—n ipsum dirigendae sunt omnes Partes c Cal. in Ro. 10.4 in his commentary upon the place seemes very inclineable to it This interpretation might be further confirmed First from the cariage and tenor of the context it selfe For doubtlesse the Apostles meaning is that Christ should be the end of that Law for righteousnesse by the observation whereof as being their own righteousnesse ver 3 the Jewes against whom he here reasons sought to be justified Now it hath bin often said and once at least sufficiently prooved that the Jewes sought righteousnesse and selfe Iustification afwell from the observation of the Ceremoniall as of the Morall Law Secondly from the full consent and entire sympathy of other Scriptures of like propension and phrase 2 Cor. 3.13 It is said that the Children of Israel could not stedfastly looke to the end of that which is abolished that is of the whole ministerie or dispensation of Moses as is evident from the cariage of the whole Chapter Now what was the end of this dispensation but CHRIST and Iustification by him So Gal. 3.24 Wherefore the Law was our Schoolemaster unto Christ that we might be justified by Faith By the Law in this place cannot be meant the Morall Law the whole series of the context from ver 13 to 25. riseth up against such an interpretation neither is there any Expositor I know that so understands it but by the Law which is here said to be our Schoolemaster unto Christ is unquestionably meant the whole frame or body of the administration of Moses yet with a more peculiar reference to the Ceremoniall part of it See Mr. Gatakers judgement touching this Scripture in his little Tract against Gomarus p. 54.54 and againe in his Scripta adversaria as he call's them p. 43. of the first part and p. 96. of the second together with Mr. Perkins upon the place Thus at last we have I suppose abundantly vindicated the Non-imputation of the Active obedience of Christ in the sense controverted out of the hand of all those reasonings and pleadings that are usually or that readily I thinke can be build upon the Epistle to the Romans wherein notwithstanding the greatest part of the strength and confidence of our Adversaries lyeth And therefore I shall make bold to accoÌ„modate the Reader with more brevity ingiving answere to those other Scriptures which yet remain The next of which SECT 22 is that 1 Cor. 1.30 But yee are of him in Christ Iesus who of God is made unto us wisdome anarighteousnesse and sanctification and Redemption Because Christ is heresaid to be made righteousnesse unto us by God it is argued that therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed us But to this I answer that here is a little or lesse colour for the deemed imputation then in any of the former Scriptures For First 1 Cor. 1.30 answered Christ is here no otherwise nor after any other manner affirmed to be or to be made righteousnes unto us then he is to be made wisdome or sanctification unto us Therefore there is no more ground to conclude from hence the imputation of Christs righteousnesse for our righteousnesse then of his wisdome for our wisdome or
increase and growth in grace also 2 Peter 3. Twelfthly that notwithstanding al that hath bin said for the vindication of new apprehensions or opinions substantially prooved from the Scriptures yet the Doctrine maintained in the following Discourse hath no need of any sanctuary in this kinde to protect it being nothing but what hath an armie both of ancient and moderne worthies to make it good Insomuch that as touching the two maine points avouched herein viz. the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense specified in the entrance of the Discourse and the non-imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense disclaimed I here make this open ingenuous and solemne profession that what I cannot pregnantly and irrefragably demonstrate to any unpartiall and disengaged judgment to have bin both anciently held and taught by the chiefe Fathers of the Primitive times as likewise by the best and most considerable part at least of the late Reformed Writers Luther Calvin Melancthon Musculus Pareus c at least if their judgements and toâ—chings may be judged of by their writings I will no waies owne but disclaime Onely this I must confesse that few of these Authors alwaies speake so evenly or steadily but that some expressions from their pens are very obnoxious and opportune for a contrary interpretation But my meaning is that take them either in their more frequent and constant expressions or in their more perspicuous and cleere expressions they cannot but by an unprejudicate eye be discerned fairely to sympathize in judgement with the points mentioned As for the contrary opinion it is as Mr. Gataker modestly enough expresseth his judgement to be feared that for more then a few ages together it was unknown to all Antiquitie (a) Verecy ne illa potius quam tuetur ipse quaÌ„que assertores ejusdem nonnulli pro lapide primario insidei pietatisque fundameÌ„tu habent per secula hand pauca antiquitati omni penitus ignota fuerit cum ea quam de Christi morto ae perpessionibus nos tutamur tuÌ„ in Scripturu sacru tum et in antiquoruÌ„ scriptu passim occurrat Mr. Gata in his defeÌ„ce of his Animadversioâ—s upon Piscators and Lucius disp p. 16. This by way of salve for the soare of noveltie The next impeachment of the Discourse was the emptinesse and slender importance use or consequence of it Many it is like will not be farre off from saying of it as Judas said of Maries box of oyntment poured out upon our Saviours head Mat. 26.8 What needeth this wast Here is a great deale of paines bestowed to little purpose Might not men make Heaven and be saved aswell in the contrary opinion which is commonly received and taught as in this whatsoever it be The Author might have imployed himselfe and his time better otherwise Give me leave to ease the discourse and my selfe of this burthen also by tendering these things to consideration First Luk 12 7. that if God be so tender and respectfull of us that even all the haires of our heads are numbred and kept upon accompt by him much more respectfull and tender ought we to be not only of the maine limbs or principall members of his truth Verbum onim â—n est res lovieula ut phanatici hodie putant sed eÌ„ Vnus apex major est coelo et terra Luther in Gal c. 5.12 Nihil putandum exiguum siquidem spiritus Sanctus noluis literu mandare quod non prosit Luther in Gen 12. Maledicta sit chariras comcordia propter quam conservandarâ— periclitars necesse sir verbuÌ„ Dei Luther in Gal. 5. Maledicta sit charitas quae servatur cum jactura Doctrinae fidei cui emnia cedere debent charitas Apostolus Angelus è coelo c. Idim ibid. Pax est omni bello tristior que veritatu et justitiae ruina Constat but even of all the haires of the head thereof I meane those that seeme of smallest consequence and importance that we suffer not the least of them to fall to the ground or to be trampled upon by the foote of negligence or contempt Especially if we consider Secondly that the least haire I meane the least jot or tittle of divine truth is more worth a thousand fold then our whole heads yea then all our heads put together One tittle of the word saith Luther is greater then Heaven and Earth And in another place nothing in the Scriptures is to be thought little in asmuch as the Holy Ghost would not have caused that to be written which should not be profitable which consideration drew from him many such expressions as these Cursed be that charitie and agreement which must be preserved and kept with the danger of the word of God and againe Cursed be that charity which is kept with the losse of the Doctrine of Faith unto which all things must give place charity Apostle Angell from Heaven c. It was the saying of another that that peace is more grievous then any Warre which costs the losse of truth and honesty But the Lord Christ himselfe gives us the best and most certaine account of the infinite worth and value of the least strictures or filings of the word of God in that passage to his Disciples Mat. 5 18 19. Verily I say unto you till Heaven and Earth passe one jot or one title shall in no wise passe from the Law till all things be fulfilled Whosoever therefore shall breake one of these least commandements and shall teach men so he shall be called the least in the Kingdome of Heaven but whosoever shall do and teach them the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven Doubtlesse if God so highly prizeth the anise mint and cummin of his Law as to recompence the tithing of them with such high preferment in the Kingdome of heaven much more or at least every whit as much doth he esteeme the jots and titles the meanest and least considerable things of his Gospell which is his darling and most beloved manifestation of himselfe unto the world And therfore it must needs argu much prophanenesse of heart and great estrangement in minde and spirit from the worth and excellencie of the things of God either to despise the knowledg or to censure a just discussion and examination of the smallest of them as a thing needlesse and of little use Hierom was farre from such a conceit as this when he said In Scripturis me minima differentia omitti debet Nam singuli semenes syllaba apices et puncta plena sunt sensibus Hieronymus that the smallest difference in the Scriptures was not to be lightly passed over because every word syllable title and point are full of sense and meaning Thirdly it is very considerable that misprisions and errors in Divinity aswell as in other arts and Sciences goe as it were by tribes and families so that there is no one error but hath many more link'd in affinitie with
fundamentall yet do they dispose more or lesse unto apostacie and absolute unbeliefe so on the other hand a cleere and sound and comprehensive understanding of any one cariage or passage of the Gospell according to the Scriptures contributes much towards the setling and establishing of the heart and soule in a firme beliefe and confidence of the whole The truth is that the body and frame of the Gospell is so compacted so neerly related in the severall parts and passages of it one thing looking with that favourable and full aspect upon another all things set in that methodicall order of a rationall connexion and consequentiall dependance one upon another that if a man be master in his judgment of any one passage thereof he may by the light and inclination hereof rectifie his thoughts otherwise and worke himselfe on to a cleere discerning and upright understanding of other things Therefore a thorough and full explication of any one point of the Gospell is of precious consequence and use But Sixtly the weightinesse and high importance of the subject of the discourse pleads the usefulnesse and concernment of it with an high hand For what can be of a more rich and solemne concernment to a man then cleerely to see and fully and satisfyingly to understand from the Scriptures how and by what meanes and upon what termes he either is or is to be Justifyed in the sight of God Doubtlesse the prospect of the promised Land from Mount Nebo was not more satisfactory and pleasing unto Moses then a cleere beholding of the Counsell and good pleasure of God touching the justification of a sinner is to the soule and conscience of him that either hopes or desires to be justified Therefore to search and inquire into this with all possible exactnesse cannot seeme needlesse to any man that savours never so little the things of his own peace Add we Seventhly in further prosecution of the same plea that there is no veyne in all the body of the Gospell no point whatsoever in Christian Religion more tender and wherin the least variation from the truth and mind of GOD may endanger the soule then this of Justification An haires breadth of mistake in this is more to be feared then a broad error in other points The truth is that if a man be of a sound and cleere judgement in the Doctrine of Justification and shall so continue he may finde a way into life through the midst of many errors and mistakes in other Articles and arguments of Christian Religion but if he stumbles or enterfires with the counsell of God about his justification he is in danger of perishing for ever neither will the cleerest knowledge of all other mysteries relieve him Behold I Paul say unto you that if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing Gal. 5.2 A small addition we see to the Counsell of God for our justification may cause our part to be taken away out of the Booke of life If an error in other points of Religion as about election reprobation freewill discipline or the like be to be redeemed with thousands doubtlesse an error in justification is to be redeemed with thousands of thousands In so much that all possible exactnesse and diligence in pensiculation of Scriptures and reasons and arguments to lay this corner stone aright in the building of our Faith may rather seeme negligence and loosenesse then any impertinencie or superfluitie of labour And though I have no commission from Heaven to judge that opinion touching the imputation of Christs active obedience which I oppose in the ensuing Treatise to be inconsistent with the favour of God and acceptation unto life and salvation yet in the bowells of Iesus Christ I humbly and heartily and seriously beseech all those that build their comfort and peace upon that foundation seriously to consider and lay to heart these 4 things which I shall very briefly mention desiring their respective inlargments rather in the soules and consciences of those whom they so neerly concerne First that the bridg of Justification by which men must passe and be conveyed over from death unto life is very narrow as hath in effect bin said already so that an heedlesse or carelesse step may be the miscariage and losse of the precious soule for ever Secondly that to promise our selves justification and life in any other way or upon any other termes then upon the expresse word and will of God revealed is to build upon a sandy foundation and may and ought to be abhorred and trembled at by us as the first-borne of presumptions Thirdly and with neerer relation to the great businesse in hand that to seeke justification by the Law is by the determination and sentence of Scripture it selfe no lesse then an abolishing from Christ or a rendring of Christ of none effect to salvation Christ is become of none effect unto you saith Paul whosoever of you are justified by the Law that is that seek or promise unto your selves justification by the works of the Law Gal. 5.4 Fourthly and lastly that that distinction which you commonly make between the Law or workes of the Law as performed by your selves and as performed by another meaning CHRIST to salve the danger as you conceive of your being justified by the Law is but a devise of humane wisdome at the best and no where warranted much lesse necessitated unto in the Scriptures and consequently must needs be a dangerous principle or notion to hazard the everlasting estate and condition of your soules upon I have in the Discourse it selfe and that more then once demonstrated the insufficiencie and danger of this Distinction and withall shewed that the Scriptures doe no where ascribe the Justification of a sinner to the works of the Law no not as performed by Christ himselfe but only unto his death and sufferings Therefore I content my selfe heere only to mention it Eightly and lastly the usefulnesse of the Discourse will abundantly appeare in this The opening and through Discussion of that great and noble Question therein handled concerning the Active and Passive obedience of Christ in Justification hath an influence into many other great and master veynes and passages of the Gospell and tends much to the rectifying and cleering of our judgements in these The difference betweene the two Covenants the communication of Adams sinne to his Posteritie and the equity of Gods proceedings in making the world subject unto death and condemnation thereby the consideration in Faith which makes it justifying the non imputability of the works of the Law to the non-performers of them the necessitie of Christs death the righteousnesse whereby we stand formally just before God with many other particulars of sweet and precious consideration will receive much light and cleering and confirmation hereby So that to charge the Treatise with fruitlesnesse or impertinencie is an accusation framed by the same line of equitie and truth whereby Joseph was accused of incontinencie by his
and therefore the Lord reckoned him a righteous man even for that very acceptation and beleeving But that is not all but likewise be accounteth faith to him for righteousnes because faith doth Sanctifie and make a man righteous c. So that evident it is if there be any such thing as evidence in the writings and opinions of men that this mans thoughts were never so much as tempted to conceit that the Apostle should tropologize or metonymize in the word Faith or beleeving in this Scripture Mr. JOHN FORBS late Pastor of the English Church at Middleburgh a man of knowne gravity pietie and learning in his Treatise of Iustification cap. 28 p. 135. hath these words For faith in this sentence meaning where it is said that faith is imputed unto righteousnesse is in my opinion to be taken properly in that sense whereby in it selfe it is distinguished both from the word whereby it is begotten and from the object of it in the word which is Christ Thus I have cited the authority of many Authors by way of collaterall assurance for the securing the literall and proper interpretation of this Scripture Not that the interpretation it selfe needeth tali auxilio aut defensoribus istis but only to remove that great stumbling stone of the world which lieth in many mens way towards many truths called PREIUDICE CAP. III. Other proofes from Scripture to to establish the former conclusion vindicated likewise from such exceptions as may be layd in against them SEcondly that the active obedience of Christ SECT 1 or his fulfilling the Morall Law was never intended by God to be that righteousnesse wherewith we should be justified in any such way of imputation as is pretended may be I conceive further demonstrated from all such passages in Scripture where the works of the Law are absolutely excluded from justification As Rom. 3 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law So Gal. 2.16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ even we have beleeved in Iesus Christ that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law Againe Rom. 3.20 Therefore by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight Besides other Scriptures of like importance Now if a man be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto him he shall be justified by the works of the Law because that righteousnesse of Christ we now speake of consists of these works as every mans personall righteousnesse should have done had there been a continuance in the first Covenant Therefore this righteousnesse of Christ cannot be imputed to any man for that righteousnesse whereby he is to be justified Neither will these and the like Scriptures be charmed by words of any such glosse or interpretation as this No man shall be justified in the sight of God by the works of the Law viz. as personally wrought by themselves because no mans works will hold out weight and measure with the strictnesse and perfection of the Law But this hinders not but that a man may be justified by the works of the Law as wrought by another supposing this other to be as great in working or obeying as the Law it selfe is in commanding and withall that God is willing to derive these works of his upon us by imputation For to this I answere 4 things First SECT 2 where the holy Ghost delivers a truth simply and indefinitly and in way of a generall or universall conclusion for in materiâ necessariâ as this is propositio indefinita vim obtines universalis as Logicians the best oversees of reason generally resolve us not to be justified by the works of the Law is as much as not to be justified by any works of the Law whatsoever wi hout imposing any necessity upon men either in the same place or else where in the Scriptures to limit or distinguish upon it then for men to interpose with their owne wisdomes and apprehensions by distinctions and limitations and reservations of what they please to over-rule the plaine and expresse meaning and signification of the words is not to teach men obedience and submission unto but to usurp a power and exercise authority over the Scriptures Neither is there any practise so sinfull or opinion so erronous but may find a way to escape the word of the Spirit and to come fairely off from all Scripture censure if they be but permitted to speake for themselves by the mouth of such a distinction Give but the loose Patrons of an implicit Faith liberty to distinguish upon like terms where the Scriptures in the most explicit manner falls foulest upon their implicit Faith they will be able by the attonement of such a distinction to make their peace with the Scriptures He that beleeves not saith our Saviour Mar. 16 16. shall be damned He that beleeves not shall be damned True may these men say He that beleeves not either by himselfe or by another shall be damned but this hinders not but that he that beleeveth as the Church beleeveth may be saved though he knoweth nothing explicitely of what the Church beleeveth the explicit Faith of the Church is sufficient to save him So likewise by the Law of such a distinction the Antinomian Sect amongst us will be able to justify their non-necessitie of personall sanctification or inherent holynesse against those Scriptures that are most pregnant and peremptory for it Without holinesse saith the Apostle Heb. 12 14. no man shall see the Lord True saith the Antinomian without holinesse either in himselfe or in some other no man shall see the Lord but he that is in Christ by Faith hath holinesse in Christ and therefore hath no necessity of it in his owne person Who seeth not that in these and many like cases that might be mentioned that liberty of distinguishing which we implead would plainly beguile the Holy Ghost of his direct intentions and meanings in those and such like Scriptures Therefore when the Scriptures expressely and indefinitly deliver that by the works of the Law no man shall be justified if men will presume to distinguish as hath been said and exclude such works from justification only as performed by our selves but make thē every mans justificatiō as performed by another who tasts not the same spirit of an unwarrātable wisdome in this distinction which ruled in the former Secondly I answere that if the Apostles charge and commission had bin SECT 3 in the delivering the doctrine of justification either to have made or to have given allowance for any such distinction as is contended about betweene the works of the Law as performed by men themselves and the same works of the Law as performed by Christ that those indeed should have no hand in justification but these should be all in all these should be justification it selfe certeinly he should have
bin unfaithfull in this trust and very injurious to these works of Christ in giveing away that place of honour in the opposition which was due unto them to another thing of a far inferior nature to them viz. Faith as it is evident he doth in the Scripture cited Gal. 2. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ He doth not say but by the works of Iesus Christ as if the opposition stood betweene the works of the Law as performed by men and the same works as performed by Christ which in all congruity of reason he should have done had the works of the Law as done by Christ any such preheminence this way above the other and not have ascribed that unto Faith which is somewhat wherein the poore and weake creature hath to do which was the right and prerogative of Christs righteousnesse Doubtlesse Paul was no such enemy to the righteousnesse of Christ as to set up an usurper upon the Throne which belonged to it Thirdly if Pauls intent had bin to have reserved a place in justification for the active righteousnesse of Christ or for the works of the Law as performed by Christ by way of opposition to the same works as performed by men themselves his indefinite expression excluding the works of the Law simply without the least in imation given of any difference of those works either as from the one hand or from the other would have beene of dangerous consequence and as a snare upon men to cause them to passe over the great things of their justification Certainly if Paul had ever digged such a pit as this he would have bin carefull first or last to have fil'd it up againe Fourthly and lastly if by excluding the works of the Law from justification Pauls meaning had been SECT 4 only to exclude these works as done by men themselves but had no intent to exclude them as don by Christ it can at no hand be thought or once imagined but that he would have made use yea made much of such a distinction or reservation himselfe and would have been a glad man if salva veritate Evangelij without trenching upon some Gospel truth he could have come over so neere to his Country-men the Jewes and have closed with them in the great point of justification upon such terms Such a distinction might have been a happy mediator betweene them For what was it that chiefly incensed the Jewes against Paul and the Preaching of the Gospell and the righteousnesse of Faith but that the Law and the observation of it should be passed over and not taken into the great businesse of justification Now if Paul keeping a streight course in the Gospel could have said unto them or treated with them after any such manner as this you have no reason to take offence or to be troubled that I preach justification by Faith in Christ because I do not exclude the righteousnesse or works of your Law no not from having the maine stroke in your justification nay that which I preach concerning Faith is purposely to advance the righteousnesse of the Law and to shew you how you may be justified by it I only Preach you cannot be justified by your owne observation of it because the holinesse excellency and perfection of it is such that you cannot attaine or reach it by your owne strength but God hath sent me to keep it for you by whose observation imputed to you you shall be justified Therefore I am no enemy to your justification by the works of the Law but only teach you that these works are done by another for your justification Who seeth not but by such an interpretation or mitigation of matters as this Paul might have taken off at least a great part of the violent and furious oppositions of the Iewes against him A little of this oyle poured into the wound would have much mollified it and in all likelyhood in time have healed it But Paul it seemes did not like the composition or make of it neither durst he administer any receite of it He cannot be thought to have bin ignorant of this distinction or meanes of mitigation and with as little probabilitie can it be thought that he that could be content not only to be made all things unto all men for their good but even to have been an anathema from Christ to win them to the Gospel would have withheld any such word of reconciliation from them whereby there had been the least hope of gaining them But we do not meet with so much as any one word of this qualification in all his writings which shewes that the difference and distance betweene them was deeper and greater then so The paroxysme or sharpe contention betweene him and them was not whether they were to be justified by the works of the Law either as performed and wrought by themselves or as wrought by another but simply and indefinitly this whether justification were by the works of the Law by whomsoever performed or by Faith as is more then manifest in all the passages in his Epistles wherein this question and dispute is brought upon the stage There is not the least intimation of any difference betweene them this way whether justification should be by the works of the Law either as performed by our selves or as performed by Christ Paul never puts them upon the works of the Law as done by Christ for the matter of their justification which shewes that both he and they though otherwise at as great a distance as can readily be conceived in the point of justification yet in this were both of one mind and one judgment Paul as far from holding Iustification by the works of the Law as performed by Christ as the stubbornest Jewes themselves were But there are two things that haply SECT 5 may be objected against the Answers given and that will seeme to make for the confirmation of that distinction or interpretation which we have so much opposed First that there is a sufficient ground laied even by Paul himselfe upon which to found the forenamed distinction viz. that by excluding the works of the Law from Justification he only excludes them as done by men themselves but not at all as done by Christ Secondly that there is mention also of the works of the Law as done by Christ or which is the same of Christs being made under the Law in one of the chiefest disputes Paul hath concerning Justification The former objection is built upon Tit. 3 5. The latter upon Gal. 4.4 The words of the former Scripture are theise Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had done but according to his mercy he saved us Vpon which words the objection getteth up thus Paul by so precise a rejection of works of righteousnesse done by us that is by our selves plainly implies an admission of these works as done by another for us Where one part or member
very truth which this discourse seeketh and ensueth for if God justifieth or regenerates for the righteousnesse of Christ which imports the merit thereof he cannot either justify or regenerate with this righteousnesse of Christ as the formall cause of either the Reason is because it is unpossible that one and the selfe same thing in respect of one and the selfe same effect should put on the different habitude or consideration both of the formall and efficient cause Wherefore if the righteousnesse of Christ be any efficient cause of Iustification as all must grant that will acknowledg it for a meritorious cause thereof no man gainsaying but that the meriting cause is a species or kind of efficient unpossible it is that it should be brought in to any part or fellowship in the formall cause thereof as will further be demonstrated when we come to lay downe our grounds and reasons for what we hold This for Answere to the former exception Concerning the latter objection SECT 7 from Gal. 4.4 Where Christ is said to have been made under the Law From hence it is inferred against the answere given that Paul doth mention the works of the Law as done by Christ in this discourse of Iustification and hereupon concluded further that therefore he had no intent to exclude the works of the Law as done by CHRIST from having their part in Iustification For Answere hereunto not to insist againe upon that which was delivered in the first branch of my Answere to the former objection which yet is sufficient to ease the point in Question of the burden of this objection I ad this in the first place that the phrase of Christs being made under the Law doth not signify Christs obedience or subjection to the Morall Law or that part of the Law which we call Morall but rather his subjection to the Law Ceremoniall as is evident from the scope of the place and particularly from that which is delivered immediatly ver 5. as the end or intent of that his being made under the Law viz. that he might redeeme them that were under the Law There is no reason to conceive that Christ should be said to be made under any other Law then that from under which he was to redeeme others Wherefore we being not redeemed from the Morall Law or from that obedience due to that that being lex aeterna aeternae obligationis an eternall Law and of an eternall obligation but from the Law of Ceremonies it must needs follow that it was this Law under which Christ is here said to have been made So that if men will gather anything from hence for the imputation of Christs obedience in just sication it must be of that obedience which he performed to the Jewish or Ceremoniall Law and so not only the Jewes but we of the Gentiles also must be cloathed with the robes of a Ceremoniall righteousnesse imputed unto us for our Iustification Bâ— secondly if we follow that interpretation of tâ—is clause Christ was made under the Law which Luther â—clines unto and is an exposiâ—â—n of no hard aspect neither upon the place perhaps of a more favourable then the former then by Christs being made under the Law we shall neither understand his subject on to the Morall Law nor yet to the Ceremoniall Law in the preceptive part of either but his subjection unto the Curse of the Law And thus it expresseth both the gracious designation of God and likewise â—he voluntary submission of Christ himselfe unto deaâ—â— for the deliverance of men not only from death it selfe in the future but even from the feare of death in the pâ—â—sâ—nâ— as is plainly expressed Luke 1.74 and Heb. 2.15 In which respect the fruit or effect and benefit of this his being made under the Law is here v. 1.5 said to be the receiving the adoption of Sons If this exposition will stand as I see not how it will easily be overthrowne there being much more to be said for the justifying of it then is it a plaine case that here is nothing spoken nor intended of any such works of Christ as are pretended for imputation in the Iustification of a beleever No adversary I have yet met with in this controversie ever affirmed that either the death of Christ or the imputation of his death should be either the formall or materiall cause of Iustification Much more might be added for the taking of this clause of Scripture from intermedling at all to the prejudice or disturbance of that conclusion for which we have undertaken but having sufficiently cleared as I conceive our second order or sort of proofes from the Scriptures we proceed to others yet remayning CAP. IV. A third Demonstration from the Scriptures of the non-imputation of CHRISTS righteousnesse for justification in the sense ruling in this Controversie THirdly SECT 1 that the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed unto men for their righteousnesse or justification I demonstrate with more brevitie from that Scripture Rom. 3.21 But now is the righteousnesse of God made manifest without the righteousnes of the Law having witnes of the Law and the Prophets even the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve From whence I thus reason if the righteousnesse of Faith which is here called the righteousnesse of God as else where it is in the writings of this Apostle either because he is the founder and contriver of it as Divines for the most part agree or because God bestowes it and gives unto men as Calvin conceives upon this place or because it is this righteousnesse only that will stand and hold out before God as the same Author varieth his conjecture here or whether it be called the righteousnesse of God by way of opposition to the righteousnesse of the Law which is and may well be called the righteousnesse of men Rom 10.3 because they can hardly rellish or savor any other righteousnesse but it or whether for som other reason not so necessary or pertinent to our present inquiry I say if this righteousnesse of Faith consists in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse then is it not nor can it be made manifest without the Law that is without the works of the Law as Calvin rightly interpreteth the meaning of the word But the righteousnesse of Faith is sufficiently manifested without the Law that is without the works or righteousnesse of the Law Therefore it doth not consist in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse The reason of the connâ—xion in the major propâ—sition against which exception must be made â—f the conclusion be denied because the minor is plaine Scripture in terminis is evident If the righteousnesse oâ— God consists in the imputation of Christs righteousnes then is it not made manifest without the Law that is without the works and righteousnesse of the Law because to such a righteousnesse the Law and the works thereof are every whit as necessary and
which stands in any perfection of vertues sanctification Somwhat before the former words alledged Nos verò quod dat admittimus reciprocart inter se justificationem et remissionem peccatorum i. We admit of what he Bellarmine grants that justification and remission of sins are one and the else same thing And againe pag. 908. Remissio peccatorum est justitia imputata i. Forgivenesse of sins is that righteousnesse that is imputed to us Stephanus Fabritius to like purpose coâ—menting upon Psal 32.1 desines justification thus Justificatio est actio Dei quà eum qui in Christum mediatorem credit ex solà gratià et misericordi propter satisfactionem et meritum Christi à peccat is absolvit et justum ac innocentem pronunciat i. Justification is an act of God whereby of his meere grace and mercy for the satisfaction and merit of Christ he absolves him from his sins that beleeveth in Christ the Mediator and pronounceth him just and innocent Lastly Amesius upon the same Psalme and verse makes remission of sins and justification terms equipollent and reciprocall Descriptio beatitudinis petiturà causa efficiente et continente quae est remissio peecatorum vel justificatio cum ejus effectis c. i. The description of blessednesse is drawn from the efficient and holding cause thereof which is Forgivenesse of sins or Iustification with its effects It were easie I presume for him that hath leisure SECT 8 to traverse the writings of these and other Reformed Divines to make the pile farre greater of such passages as these Therfore certainly they are very injurious not onely to the names and reputations of these worthy lights in the Church of God who deny them fellowship and communion in so glorious a truth and would force upon them in the very face of their own solemne declarations of themselves to the contrary an opinion so inconsistent with the streame of the Scripture and all sound reason but to the truth it selfe also by seeking to represent it to the eyes and consciences of men as a Beacon upon a hill or as a Sparrow upon the house top alone by it selfe destitute of Friends and helpers when as it dwells in the midst of its own people and hath many of the very choyce of those holy and faithfull and chosen ones that are with the Lamb against the Beast to stand for it So that those odious aspersions of Popery and Arminianisme are Vipers that wil easily shake into the fire when the time of shaking comes This for a 4th Demonstration of our Conclusion from the Scriptures CAP. VI. Conteining a Fift Argument or proofe from Scripture for clearing the Assertion FIftly SECT 1 I conceive that a cleare opening of that Scripture Philip. 39. will yield us plenty of further light for the discovery of that truth we seek after in the obscurity of our present Controversie The words are And be found in him not having mine own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the Faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God through Faith In the former verse the Apostle professeth what strange effects the excellency of the knowledge of Christ had wrought in him it had caused him to count all things losse which somtimes he had esteemed the greatest gaine and the best treasure yea to despoyle himselfe as it were with a spirit of deep indignation of all those formerly beloved and rich-esteemed ornaments which were unto him as chaines of gold about his neck and as he then thought highly commended him and made him glorious in the sight of God and men he means his Pharisaicall righteousnesse and legall observations his Jewish prerogatives c. he was now so farre transformed by the renewing of his mind by the light of the knowledge of Christ shining in unto him that he looked upon all his former glory as upon dung and smelt a favour of death in those things which had bin his only confidence and hope before of life and peace Now the reason why he favoured himselfe all that might be in these under-thoughts and avileing apprehensions of his former things and layed on load in this kind all he could he declares to be this that he might win Christ or make gain and advantage of him How this his desire or intent of gaining Christ might be accomplished he expresseth thus And may be found in him Observe he doth not say that he may be found in his righteousnesse much lesse in his righteousnesse imputed to him but simply in himselfe That he might be found in him which is an usuall expression in Scripture of the spirituall estate and condition of a beleever viz. to be in Christ Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Iesus So cap. 16.7 Who also were in Christ before me i. were beleevers c. What it is to be found in Christ or how it must be with him if he be found in him viz. when his time is come for he speaks here of the future of the time of his breaking up as it were by death he expresseth 1. negatively thus not having mine own righteousnesse yet not simply and alltogether no righteousnesse that may in no sence be called his own but precisely and determinately no such righteousnesse of his own which stands in works of the Law Such a righteousnesse of his own he must be sure not to have i. not to trust to or to shroud and shelter himselfe under from the stroke of Gods justice 2º affirmatively thus but that i that righteousnesse which is through the Faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by Faith Here is not the least jot or tittle of any mention not the least whispering breathing or intimation of any righteousnesse he should have by the imputation of the righteousnes of Christ no nor of any righteousnesse by or through the righteousnesse of Christ but only such a righteousnes as is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through Faith of Christ or by beleeving in him Now because such a righteousnesse as this wherein is nothing more required of men SECT 2 but only Faith in Christ might seeme a slender and tickle righteousnesse to adventure so great a weight as the precious soule upon and comes far short of that righteousnesse of a mans owne which he might make out by the works of the Law the Apostle addes by way of commendation of this righteousnesse to uphold the credit and esteeme of it in the hearts and consciences of men that it is the righteousnesse of God i. a righteousnesse which God himselfe hath found out and which he will owne and countenance and account for righteousnesse unto men and no other but this Even the righteousnesse of God saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in Faith i. which comes and accrues and is derived upon a man by Faith The mentioning of this righteousnesse the second time as being or standing in Faith is doubtlesse emphaticall One reason
is the act of Faith that Iustifieth As when a man putteth forth his arme and reacheth a pot or cup with drink in it wherewith he quencheth his thirst he may be said to quench his thirst instrumentally by reaching out his arme because this was a meanes to procure it So let men put what meaning or interpretation they please upon their words when they professe and acknowledg that it is Faith that Iustifieth if they meane at all as they say they must meane that it is the Act of Faith that Iustifieth because both that Faith by which a man beleeves in Christ is an act of Faith and againe that Faith by which a man is instrumentally Iustified is an act of Faith and that Faith that layeth hold upon the righteousnesse of Christ is an act of Faith too Therefore let men turne themselves any way and which way they please and make their words to fall either to the North or towards the South if they meane as they say that faith indeed Iustifieth they must meane that it is the act of faith that Iustifieth And when themselves will say that faith Iustifieth and yet will condemne it for an error in another that the act of faith should Iustify they cannot escape the hands of this dilemma but one of the horns will gore them either it must follow that they doe not meane as they say or that they condemne their owne opinion and meaning in another most true it is that it is far from truth to say that faith iustifyeth as it is an act and as far from truth it is to say that it is not the act of faith that Iustifieth If it be yet further replyed and said SECT 4 that when men say we are justified by Faith their meaning is that we are justified by that which faith apprehendeth and this is farre from saying that Faith is imputed for righteousnesse To this I Answer 1. if their meaning be simply and without limitation so that we are justified by that which Faith apprehendeth when they say we are justified by Faith then they speake more truth then they are aware of and as it seems more then they intend to speake For that Faith justifieth is most true but that whatsoever Faith apprehendeth should justifie hath no fellowship with truth no not so much as in appearance For By Faith we understand or apprehend the worlds were made Heb. 11.3 yet no man will say that the creation of the world justifies men Secondly if men ascribe justification in every respect and consideration to that which Faith apprehendeth they utterly overthrow that which generally they professe viz. the instrumentall justification of faith For if any thing that faith apprehendeth justifieth every way both materially and formally and meritoriously and principally and instrumentally c. Faith shall justifie no wayes and so when men say they are justified by Faith their meaning must be they are not at al justified by Faith but by some other thing Therfore of necessity it is that Faith must justifie some way if it iustifieth any way it must of neceility be by imputation or account from God for righteousnes because it is all that God requires of men to their iustification instead of the righteousnesse of the Law The fore if God shall not impute or account it unto them for this righteousnesse it would stand them in no stead at all to their iustificaetion because there is nothing usefull or availeable to any holy or saving purpose whatsoever but only to that whereâ—â— to God hath assigned it If God in the new Covenant of the Gospell requires faith in Christ for our iustification instead of the righteousnesse of the Law in the old and this Faith will not passe in account with him for such righteousnesse both his Commandement and Covenant for beleeving and the obedience it selfe of beleeving will both become voyd and of none effect the intire benefit of them being suspended upon the gracious pleasure and purpose of God in the designation of them to their end CAP. VIII Conteining the last proofe from Scripture for the Non-imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sence controverted THere is yet one Scripture remaining happily amongst many more that have not yet manifested themselves in this Controversie that seems yea I verily beleeve SECT 1 doth more then seem quite to overthrow and take away that which must be the groundworke and foundation to set this imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ upon if ever it stands viz. the imputability or transferiblenesse of it from one to another If the Scriptures doe not only no where establish but in any place absolutely deny a possibility of the translation or removing of the righteousnesse of Christ from one person to another this will strike the fatall stroke in deciding this Question This I conceive will be evicted with a pregnancie irrefragable from that Scripture Gal. 3.12 And the Law is not of Faith but the man that doth them shall live in them This Scripture doth not barely and simply deny a deceivablenesle or possibility of translation of the righteousnesse of the Law from one person to another but denies it emphatically and with the utmost advantage of a deniall For it denies a possibility of it to be done even by that hand expresly and by name I meane the hand of faith which was the ikelyest hand under Heaven to have done it if the nature of the thing to be done had not resisted the doing of it The Apostle denyeth unto faith it selfe the office and power of being a Mediatrix in this case to derive or carry over the righteousnesse of the Law from one person to another By which it appeareth also that he had an intent particularly to make the righteousnesse of the Law as performed by Christ himselfe uncapable of this translation or imputation because faith never pretended nor ever could have ground or colour to pretend a deriving or translating of any other legall righteousnesse from one person to another for Justification but only that which was performed by Christ If there were any thing in all the world that could have done the thing that is pleaded for Faith indeed hath the preheminence of likely hood to do it because it doth derive a righteousnesse from one to another such a righteousnesse as is deriveable an imputative righteousnesse you may call it because it is such by account or interpretation I meane remission of sins this Faith derives from Christ upon him that beleeveth but for a righteousnesse of the Law it cannot derive because such a righteousnesse is not deriveable Let the words and scope of the Scripture mentionedbe narrowly examined SECT 2 and all this that hath been said will be found in the bowells of it And the Law is not of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the man that doth them shall live in them or if you would translate the emphasis also which is in the originall thus the very doer of them the
man shall live The former clause after Pauls succinct and presse manner of expressing himselfe is very briefe and therefore somewhat obscure in it selfe but the latter clause easeth the burden of the dificulty and casteth a sufficient light upon it Whereunto if we adde but the dependance and reference that this verse hath upon the former Pauls meaning will bee found as cleere as the noone day Therefore when he saith the Law is not of faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the originall by or out of faith his meaning can be no other but this that the righteousnesse of the Law doth not arise or come upon any man out of his Faith or by his beleeving or that no man is made partaker of a legall righteousnesse by beleeving but saith he the very doer the man he shall live in or by them He proves the truth of the former clause from the expresse tenor of the Law or legall righteousnesse as standing in full opposition to any derivation of it from one to another even by Faith it selfe As if he should say no legall righteousnesse can come upon any man by beleeving because it is only the man himselfe that doth the things of the Law that shall be justified and live by them the righteousnesse of the Law never goeth further in the propriety or formalitie of it to the justification of any man then to the person of him that fulfills the Law That by the word Law in this place is meant the righteousnesse or fulfilling of the Law besides that there can hardly be made any reasonable interpretation of the clause if this word be taken in any other sense may appeare by the like acception of the same word the Law in other passages of this Apostle when it is used upon like occasion Rom. 4.13 for the promise was not to Abraham or his seed through the LAW i. through the righteousnes of or obedience unto the Law viz. that it should be obtained and enjoyed by any such righteousnesse as is evident by the opposition in the following clause but through the righteousnesse of faith i. this promise was not made unto him and his seed that the benefit and blessing of it should be obtained by the former but by the latter righteousnesse The word is againe used in the same signification in the very next verse For if they that be of the Law be heires i. that are for the righteousnesse of the LAVV. and will stand to be justified by that besides other places without number The scope likewise of the place and the dependence of the clause with the former ver SECT 3 apparantly evinceth this interpretation The Apostle in the former verse had delivered it for a truth that no man could be justified in the sight of God by the Law i. by the righteousnesse or works of the Law for this reason because the Scripture saith that the just shall live by faith Now because this consequence might seeme somewhat doubtfull and insuâ—ficient lying open to some such exception against it as this what though the just doe or must live by faith may they not be justified by the works of the Law too and live by them also may not the righteousnesse of the Law be made over unto them by faith and so compound righteousnesse be made for them of both together No saith Paul the Law is not of faith there can be no legal righteousnesse derived or drawn upon men by faith and that for this reason because such a righteousnesse is by the expresse letter and tenor of the Law consined and appropriated to the person of him that fulfills it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man himselfe that doth them shall live by them q. d. there is a repugnancy and contradiction in it ex naturarei in the very nature and effence of the thing that the righteousnesse of the Law should â—ver be removed or caried over from one mans person to another though it were attempted by the hand of Faith it selfe God never intended that the Law and faith should meet together to jumble up a justification for any man And whereas it is frequently charged as a matter of deep prejudice upon the opinion laboured for in this discourse that it magnityeth faith above measure and makes an Idol of it the truth is that the contrary opinion which ascribes to it a power of transferring a legall righteousnesse â—â—â—gnifieth it 7 times more and ascribes a power even of impossibilities to it Faith may boast of many great things otherwise and may remove mountaines but for removing any legall righteousnesse in the sense we speake of it must let that alone for ever There is a greater contrariety and indisposition in the severall natures of faith and the Law in respect of mixing or working together to make up a Iustification then was betweene the lion and Clay in Nebuchadnezzars vision Dan. 2.43 though in other things they well agree Repugnantia legis et fidei est saith Calvin in Gal. 3.12 in causa justificationis facilius enim aquam igni copulabis quam haec duo concilies homines fide et lege esse justos 1. There is a repugnancie betweene the Law and faith in the matter of Iustification and a man may sooner couple fire and water together then make these two agree that men are righteous by faith and yet by the Law too Consonant to this Scripture last opened is that Rom. 4.14 For if they which are of the Law be heires faith is made voyde and the promise is made of none effect Where you see as full and as irreconcileable an opposition betweene the righteousnesse of the Law and the righteousnesse of faith in respect of justification as is betweene East and West it is unpossible they should be brought together There is a greater gulfe fixed betweene them then was betweene Abraham and Dives faith cannot go over to the righteousnesse of the Law to joyne with that in Iustification neither can the righteousnesse of the Law bee brought over unto faith What reason there may bee conceived for this Non-imputabilitie of the righteousnesse of the Law See Cap. 21 we shall have a faire opportunity to declare in the prosecution of our grounds and reasons for the point we favor in this discourse which is the next thing we hast unto CAP. IX Wherein the first ground or argument for the conclusion undertaken is propounded and established HAving considered with as much diligence and faithfulnesse as frailty would permit how the Scriptures stand affected and incline in the controversie depending we are lead in the next place by the hand of a plaine and familiar method to propound such Arguments and considerations for the confirmation of the premisses as reason and sobriety of thoughts about the stated Question have suggested My first ground and argument to prove that the righteousnesse of Christ in the sence now under dispute viz. in the letter and proprietie of it cannot be imputed unto any for their
This kind of proposition is frequent in Scripture I am the resurrection saith Christ Ioh. 11.25 The meaning is not that he was properly and formally the resurrection but that he was the cause meanes or Author of the resurrection So Paul saying that Christ is our hope meaneth only that CHRIST is the ground or Author of our hope 1 Tim. 1.1 In like manner when he saith Love is the fulfilling of the Law his meaning only is that a spirituall and unfeigned affection of love is an inward principle of that nature and importance which inclineth and disposeth a man to the performance and practise of all manner of duties required in the Law Therefore to say that the Love of Christ is imputed to men for their fu filling of the Law or for their righteousnesse is ridiculous More might be added by way of answere but the strength of the Objection is small Another thing that happily some will object against the argument propounded is this SECT 4 It is not necessary that men should have all particular acts of righteousnesse qualified with all circumstances answerable to their Callings imputed unto them for their justification It is sufficient if they have a righteousnesse imputed to them which is equivalent to such a righteousnesse To this I Answere two things First they which speake such things doe not consider the severity of the letter the strict and peremptory nature of the Law The Law will not know any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any thing by way of proportion or equivalencie one thing as good as another will not serve the turne The Law must have jot for jot title for title point for point letter for letter every thing to answere in the most exact conformity to it otherwise it hath a curse in a readinesse wherewith to take vengeance on men no life or reward Secondly to impute acts of righteousnesse to a man which are proper to another Calling and wholly disagreeing from that Calling wherein God hath placed him is rather to impute sinne unto him then righteousnesse Because though such acts were righteousnesse to him that wrought them yet if I being in a different Calling should be accounted by God to have done them which is the Law of imputation I must be judged by him as one that had transgressed the bounds of my Calling consequently had sinned Neither is that reason of any value which some alledg SECT 5 to countenance an equivalencie of righteousnesse in this kind instead of a proprietie viz. that God was not punctuall and every waies circumstantiall in inslicting the Curse of the Law upon the transgression of it because they suppose that by those words wherein the Curse of the Law is expressed Thou shalt die the death Gods meaning was that he should die an eternall death literally and not by way of equivalencie Therefore God having notwithstanding inflicted this Curse by way of equivalencie and not in the letter of it why may he not impute a legall righteousnesse unto men that hath only an equivalencie with that righteousnesse which they should have performed though not an exactnesse with it according to the letter For to this I answere First that the very foundation that is layed to build this objection upon is sandy and hath nothing either in Scripture or sound reason to bottome it From the Scriptures nothing that I have read is so much as pretended that way viz that God in those words Thou shalt die the death must of necessity precisely and determinatly meane eternall death according to the letter And by what fire such a spirit as this is will be extracted or drawne out of that body of those words I doe not yet understand If we judge of his intent and meaning in those words by the event of things or manner of execution they were meant determinatly neither of eternall death according to the letter nor yet of an eternall death by way of equivalencie but indifferently of either because it was an eternall death only by way of equivalencie that was inflicted upon Christ for one part of Adam or his posterity but upon the other part which perish it is inflicted according to the letter Secondly upon deeper consideration it will happily be found to be neerer the truth to hold that in those words Thou shalt die the death God his meaning was not at lest determinatly to threaten eternall death either in one kind or other either according to the letter or by way of equivalencie but to have the word Death taken and understood by Adam in the extent of the signification as it indifferently signifieth that evill of the punishment which was represented and knowne unto him by the name of Death without limiting his thoughts to the consideration either of the shorter continuance or of the everlastingnesse of the duration of it For as Scotus well determines in this case Aeternitas non est de ratione poenae peccatis debitae sed peccatores concomitans qui non possunt ut Christus vel cum Christo cluctari 1. Eternitie is not of the nature or essence of the punishment due unto sins but it followes and falls upon sinners who cannot wrastle out as Christ did or with him So then eternity not being essentiall to that punishment or death which God threatned it is no waies necessary that it should be included especially in such a precise and determinate manner as the objection pretendeth in the significatiō of that word wherein the punishmēt is expressed But thirdly and lastly suppose the foundation be gold yet will it be found hay and stubble that is built upon it For what if God should take liberty to varie from the letter of the Curse in the execution of it should threaten eternall death literally and inslict it equivalently this no waies proveth that the creature who was bound to obey the precepts of the Law might take the like liberty to performe one thing instead of another or that God should accept any such payment from them whether made by themselves or by another for them in the nature of a legall payment Indeed having received a full satisfaction for all the transgressions of the Law he may by a second or new Covenant accept of what he pleaseth to estate men in the benefit or blessing of that satisfaction and so that which is thus accepted becomes in this respect to him that performs it and from whose hand it is accepted equivalent to a perfect and compleate legall righteousnesse because it justifieth him in respect of all benefits and privileges of a justification as well as such a righteousnesse would have done But that he should accept on any mans behalfe as a perfect legall righteousnesse the performance of such things which are not required of him neither by the first Covenant of works nor by the second of Grace hath neither correspondence or agreement with the one Covenant or with the other A man me thinks must have a rare faculty to convert any
one it must be the same in the other also He that is as righteous as Christ is which those must needs be that are righteous with his rightsousnesse needs no more repentance then Christ himselfe needeth I see not what in a way of sober reason can be opposed against this argument That was a desperate Answere which a zealous defender of that Faith made to save the life of his opinion being assaulted by this argument but it was right-down dealing howsoever and faithfulnesse to his principles in their great distresse that Beleevers being perfectly righteous in Christ have indeed no need of Repentance If it be objected and said that notwithstanding the imputation of a perfect righteousnesse from Christ SECT 2 yet beleevers have their personall sins and faileings which Christ had not and in respect of these they need not daily and continuall Repentance To this I answere True Beleevers indeed stand in need of daily Repentance in respect of their personall sinnes and failings which are daily but they that have an entire and perfect-Law-righteousnesse imputed to them have no such need in any respect Therefore Beleevers are not the men that have any such righteousnesse imputed to them Certainly they that have the perfect fulfilling and observation of the Law imputed unto them by God cannot stand guiltie before God of any sinne or breach of this Law because in the imputation of a perfect righteousnesse there is an universall non-imputation of sinne apparantly included Besides if God doth impute a perfect Law-righteousnesse to men it must be supposed that the rights and privileges belonging to such righteousnesse doe accompanie it in the imputation so that the person to whom such imputation is made stands really invested and possessed of them Otherwise God should impute the shells without the kernell and give empty titles without the substance of honour Now one maine privilege of a perfect Law-righteousnesse is to invest with a full and entire right unto life out of its owne intrinsecall and inherent dignity and worth which is a privilege wholly inconsistent with the least touch or tincture of sinne in the person that stands possessed of it Therefore where such a privilege or right is there can be no occasion or necessity of Repentance because Repentance presupposeth sinne If it be yet said further SECT 3 that the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse will be asmuch shaken by this Objection as the imputation of Christs righteousnesse for righteousnesse because if Faith be imputed for or instead of the righteousnesse of the Law it must bring likewise and derive all the privileges of such a righteousnesse upon the person to whom such imputation is made Therefore that privelege also which excludes the necessity of Repentance To this I answere by denying the consequence of that which is brought to justify the Exception When the Scriptures say that Faith is imputed for or instead of the righteousnesse of the Law the intent and meaning is not as if God either imputed or accepted or accounted Faith for the selfe same thing which the righteousnesse of the Law is intrinse cally and formally or as if God in this imputation either gave or accounted unto Faith any power or privilege to justify out of any inherent or internall dignity or worth in it which is the intrinsecall and formall property of a Law-righteousnesse but the meaning only is that God upon a mans Faith will as fully justify him that is acquit him from death and condemnation as if he had perfectly fulfilled the Law He that beleeveth may be as fully and perfectly justified as he that fulfilleth the Law and yet not bee justified in the same manner or upon the same termes He that fulfilleth the Law and thereby is justifyed is justified out of the inherent internall dignity of that which justifyeth him but he that is justified by Faith is not justifyed by the inherent dignity or merit of that which justifyeth him but by the free and gracious acceptatiō of it by God for that which is justifying in it own nature by vertue of its inherent worth dignity So that although Faith be imputed to a man for or instead of the righteousnesse of the Law and he by such imputation of his Faith be justified yet it doth not follow that therefore he is justified upon the same terms every way as he should have been had he been justifyed by the imputation of the righteousnesse it selfe of the Law Wherefore the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse may well stand with personall sinnes in him to whom this imputation is made in respect of which sinnes he remaines continually oblieged to Repentance but the imputation of a perfect legall righteousnesse for righteousnesse makes a man perfectly and legally righteous in the letter and formalitie of it And this is that kinde of righteousnesse which absolutly excludes all consistencie of sinne in the same person with it and consequently leaves no place for Repentance This for the fift ground or reason against the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in justification sensuliterali SECT 4 A Sixt ground against the same imputation of the active obedience of Christ is it takes away the necessity of his death If men be as righteous as Christ himselfe was in his life there were no more necessity of his death for them then ther was either of his own death or of the death of any other for himselfe If we were perfectly just or righteous in him or with him in his life then the just should not have died for the unjust as the Scriptures speak for whose salvation there was a necessitie he should die but he should have died for the just for whom there was no necessitie why he should die This Reason the Apostle expresly delivers Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse be by the Law then Christ died in vaine I desire the unpartiall Reader to observe narrowly the force of this inference made by the Holy Ghost If righteousnesse or justification be by the Law then Christ died in vaine Men cannot here betake themselves to their wonted Sanctuary and Refuge to say that by the Law is to be understood the works of the Law as performed by a mans selfe in person Nay their own interpretation here will betray their opinion into the hand of this Reason that fights against it For by the word Law in this place understand the works of the Law as performed by Christ the consequence will rise up rather with the greater strength and power against them If righteousnesse were by the works of the Law as performed by Christ that is if the imputation of them were our compleat absolute righteousnesse the death of Christ for us had bin apparently in vaine because the righteousnes of his life imputed had bina sufficient every waies a compleat righteousnes for us Neither can it be here said SECT 5 that there was a necessity that Christ should die that so the righteousnesse of his life might
his Children is of that opinion which mainteyneth men to be compleatly righteous by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the letter and formality of it But as sometimes it comes to passe that a man falling into love with a woman that hath a great charge of Children hanging upon her having maried the mother would willingly wrangle or beate the Children out of dores and turne them off to begg so it is often seene that when men have unadvisedly imbraced an opinion seeming in their eye a beautifull and lovely truth and did not at first before they were wedded to it apprehend and consider what rugged and harsh consequences it had attending upon it they shift and turne and winde themselves about every way to quit themselves of that dishonourable charge wherewith they finde themselves by reason of their opinion encumbred withall But how men that will owne an imputation of a perfect righteousnesse can with any tollerable appearance of reason shift off from themselves the opinion of Gods not seeing sin in those that are cloathed with it is I confesse beyond the line of my apprehension If God could see no sinne in Christ because he was perfectly and compleatly righteous how he should see it in any that are as compleatly and perfectly righteous as he and that with the same righteousnesse wherwith he was righteous is a riddle that cannot be made out but by him that plougheth with a better heyfer then yet I have met with any CAP. XVI Propounding a ninth Demonstration against the pretended imputation viz. the confounding of the two Covenants IT is true SECT 1 many that hold the way of imputation are nothing ashamed nor afraide of this consequent the confounding of the two testaments or covenants of God with men that of the works with that of grace and vice versa that of grace with that of works These conceive that God never made more covenants then one with man and that the Gospell is nothing else but a gracious aide or reliefe from God to helpe man out with the performance of the first Covenant of works so that that life and salvation which is said to come by Christ shall in no other sense be said to come by him but only as he fulfilled that Law of works for man which men themselves were not able to fulfill and by imputation as by a deed of guift makes over that his perfect obedience and fulfilling of the Law to those that beleeve so that they in the right of this perfect obedience thus made theirs by imputation shall come to inherit life and salvation according to the strict and rigid tenor of the Covenant of works Doe this and live But as far as I am able to conceive men may aswell say there was no second Adam really differing from the first as no second Covenant differing really from the first and that mount Sina in Arabia is the same mountaine with mount Sion in Judaea and that the Spirit of bondage is the same with the Spirit of Adoption and that Isaak and Ishmael were but the same Child If the second Covenant of Grace were implicitly and tacitly conteyned in the first then the meaning of the first Covenant conceived in those words Doe this and live must be thus Doe this either by thy selfe or by another thy surety and live There is no other way to reconcile them or to reduce them into one and the same Covenant If this were Gods meaning in the first Covenant that keeping the Law either by a man himselfe in person or by another should equally serve the turne and a man should live by either then 1º it must follow that a Mediator was promised before the fall for this Covenant was struck with man in Innocencie 2º that Adam either understood not his Covenant that was made with him or else knew of a surety and redeemer before his fall at least as being in a readinesse for him in case he should fall 3 if keeping the Law either by a mans selfe or by another were in Gods meaning in that Covenant a sufficient meanes of life then any other surety any other Mediator would have made the reconciliation aswell as he that was God and man For God might have created a meere man with abilities to have kept the Law as fully as Adam or any of his posterity was bound to doe 4 and lastly if the fulfilling of the Law by any surety whatsoever were a sufficient meanes of life unto Adam and his then was the death of Christ no waies necessary because Christ had perfectly kept and fulfilled the Law before his death Againe 2 SECT 2 If the first and second Covenant were in substance the same then must the conditions or teâ—ms of agreement in both be the same For the conditions or terms of agreement in a Covenant are as formall and essentiall a part of a Covenant as any other thing belonging to it Though there be the same parties Covenanting and the same things Covenanted for or about yet if there be new articles of agreement it is really a new bargaine and another Covenant Now if the conditions or terms of agreement be the same in both those Covenants then to DOE THIS and TO BELEEVE Faith and works are really the same whereas the Scripture from place to place makes the most irreconcileable opposition betweene them But it may be there are some that are more shie of this consequence that stick not to hold the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense opposed and yet demuire upon an identitie of the two Covenants they doe not conceive this to be the fruite of that wombe Wherefore to prove that the mother hath no wrong at all in having this dead child layed by her side for her owne I thus reason Where the parties covenanting are the same and the things covenanted for the same and the conditions or agreement the same there the Covenants are every waies the same But if the righteousnesse of the Law imputed to us be the agreement or condition of the Now Covenant all the three persons things conditions are the same Therefore the two Covenants first and second the old and the new are every waies the same because as concerning the other two the parties Covenanting and the things covenanted for it is agreed on both sides that they are the same If it be Objected and said That the righteousnesse of the Law imputed from another and personally wrought by a mans selse are two deffering conditions therfore it doth not follow that the Covenants should be the same To this I Answere that the substance of the agreement will still be found the same notwithstanding the works or righteousnesse of the Law are the same by whomsoever wrought If Adam had fulfilled the Law as Christ did he had bin justified by the same righteousnesse wherewith Christ himselfe was righteous If it be yet said that Imputation in the second Covenant which was not in the first makes a reall difference
wants a literal or legall righteousnesse upon him especially supposing he hath another righteousnesse holding any analogie or proportion thereunto as he may account any mans uncircumcission circumcission Rom 2.26 Or call the un-circumcised Gentiles the circumcision Philip. 3.3 O◠pronounce and call Iohn Baptist Elias Mat. 11.14 Or call the two witnesses two O live Trees and two Candle-sticks Revel 11.4 besides other instances in Scripture of like interpretation without number Now as Christ spake as truly when he called John Elias as he should have done if he had called him only Iohn and the Holy Ghost spake as truly when he called those that beleeve though uncircumcised in the flesh the circumcision as if he called them the uncircumcision or as if they had bin literally circumcised So may God with as much righteousnesse and truth pronounce and call or account a man righteous that is not strictly properly or literally such if he hath any qualification upon him that any way answereth or holds proportion in any point with such a righteousnesse as he should doe in case this man had this legall righteousnesse as he should doe in case this man had this legall righteousnesse upon him in the absolutest perfection of the letter For as in those and such like Scripture instances the ground of the communication of the Name is only some particular agreement betweene either the persons or things not an universall concent or identitie in all things So when God pronounceth or accounteth a man righteous it is not necessarie that he should be literally properly morally and every way RIGHTEOUS it is sufficient to beare out the justice and truth of God in giving either the Name or esteeme of a righteous man unto him if his person be under any such relation or condition Idemsunt habere temissionem peccarorum et esse justum Vrsinus Cat. part 2 Qu. 56. Sect. 1. Idem sunt justificatio et remssio peccatorum ibid. Q. 60. Sect. 3. as belongeth to a legall righteoussesse or which a legall RIGHTEOUSNESSE would cast upon him Now one especiall privilege or benefit we know belonging to a perfect legall righteousnesse is to free the person in whom it is found from death and condemnation Doe this and thou shalt live and he that hath his sinnes forgiven him is partaker with him in the fullnesse of this privilege is as free from condemnation as he and may with truth and proprietie of speech enough in this respect be either called or accounted a righteous man Thirdly and lastly answere might be made in few words that forgivenesse of sinnes is a true yea a compleate righteousnesse in the kind though it be not a through conformity with the morall Law Remission of sins is a passive righteousnesse as absolute perfect in the kind of it as any active righteousnes which consists in an entire observation of some Law And for him that hath once sinned or ever failed in the observation of the Law there is no other righteousnesse appliable unto him or whereof he is capable but only this passive righteousnesse of forgivenesse of sinnes Which for all other ends purposes advantages privileges whatsoever is as effectuall to him that is invested with it as the active righteousnesse it selfe could be except only for selfe-boasting and glorying in the flesh which is a privilege if it must needs be so called altogether inconsistent with and numeet for the lapsed weake and sinfull condition of man So that God when he hath forgiven any man his sinnes may with abundance both of justice and truth pronounce and call him a righteous man though he be as far from that legall righteousnesse as the East is from the West CAP. XX. Conteyning the 21 22 23 and 24 Reasons to prove the imputation of Faith and the non-imputation of the righteousnesse of CHRIST TRuth may have many Reasons for her SECT 1 though many times she hath but few friends But Reasons give them time will make friends and the usurpation of error will cease from the judgements and understandings of men when her nakednesse and filthinesse shall be discovered But they shall proceed no further saith Paul of men that resist the truth 2 Tim. 3.8.9 and gives this signe or reason of their period approching for their follie shall be manifest unto all them c. Men that either are or would be esteemed wise will owne nothing that is foolish when the follie thereof is made manifest unto them Now as some things are more visible and easier to be seene or discerned then other for the manifestation whereof a lesser light is sufficient whereas things lesse perceptible require an advantage of light more condensed and fortified to make a cleere and distinct representation of themselves to the sight so are some truths in Religion better prepared and fitted for the understandings and judgments of men in themselves and consequently the errors opposite to them have a more pregnant inconsistencie with reason and for the discoverie of such both errors and truths a weaker and fainter light of argumentation is for the most part sufficient but againe there are other truths whose scituation lyeth at a greater distance from those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common principles of reason or that have a more subtile and lesse perceptible connexion with them and for the manifestation of these together with their opposite errors to the judgments and consciences of men many times the most strongest and cleerest and-most multiplied light of discourse and argumentation is found lesse then enough Therefore let us yet contend with some further demonstrations to bring the conclusion laboured for into a cleere and perfect light that it may be no charge or trouble at all to the minds and thoughts of men to receive it That which having bin done in our owne persons Argum. 21 SECT 2 could not have bin our Iustification nor any part of the righteousnesse by which we could have bin justified cannot be made our justification nor any part of it by imputation from another But the righteousnesse of the Law pretended to be imputed from Christ in justification had it been wrought by our selves in our owne persons could not have been our iustification nor any part of that righteousnesse by which we were to be justified Therefore this righteousnesse of Christ cannot be made our justification nor any part of it by imputation from him The major I conceive hath more reason in it then to be denyed If a personall fulfilling of the Law could have bin no justification nor part of justification to us certainly an imputative fulfilling of it could not have bin either The imputation of a thing from another cannot adde any strength or vertue to it above a personall acting or working yea the nature and intent of imputation in the sense we now speake of it is only to supplie the defect of personall performance therefore it cannot exceed it For the minor that the righteousnesse of the Law which was performed by
Christ could not have bin our justification either in whole or in part in case it had bin performed by our selves is evident from hence because man being once fallen by sinning against the Law and made obnoxious to condemnation can never be raised or recovered againe by ten thousand observations of this Law The Law was able to have given life had it alwaies bin fulfilled and never broken but unto him that had once failed in the observation of it though he had bin made able to have kept it ten times afterward it had no power at all to give either life or justification The guilt of that sinne wherin he had once sinned could never have bin purged by any Law-righteousnesse noactive obedience whatsoever would ever have bin an attonement for him Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sinnes Heb. 9.22 Let me joyne another argument of the same lineage and stock with the former That which men are not bound by any Law or command of God to doe in their owne persons Argum. 22 SECT 3 for their justification cannot be imputed from another to any such end But men are not bound by any Law or command from God to observe the Moral Law for their justificatiō Therefore the observation of it cannot be imputed unto them from any other for any such end The reason of the major proposition if the conclusion sticks there is because imputation in the sense it is still taken by our adversaries in this controversie must be found out and ordained by God to supplie personall defects and inabilities But where there is no Law or command given unto men to obey there can be no personall defect It is no sinne or defect in any man not to obey where he hath no command and consequently there is no place nor occasion for any imputation to supplie it For the minor there is both substance and appearance enough of truth in it to privilege it from being a proposition of any further contention or strife Most evident it is from the whole course and current of the Scriptures that man in his lapsed condition since the fall had not the Law of works or the observation of the Morall Law imposed upon him for his justification before God but the Law of Faith only The morall Law as it hath received a new authority and establishment from Christ obligeth and bindeth the conscience under the Gospell to the observation thereof by way of dutie and thankfulnesse unto God but neither now nor at any time since the fall did it ever bind any man to the practise of it for his justification And therfore where it is said Rom. 2.13 that the hearers of the Law are not just before God but the doers of the Law shal be justified the meaning is not as if God exacted the strict observing of the Law for their iustification or that none should be iustified without such an observance but either 1º the words may be conceived spoken in a kind of ironie as if God did deride the hope and confidence of all those that should stand upon any such doing of the Law for their instification A man that promiseth a reward or matter of benefit upon such termes and conditions which he knoweth will never be performed by him that undertakes the performance of them rather derides the pride and ignorance of his presumption then really intends the collation of what he seemes so to promise To this interpretation Beza much inclineth in his marginall note upon that clause Or else 2º the meaning of those words the doers of the Law shall be iustified may be only this that God will accept justifie and save only such who out of a sincere and sound Faith towards him by his Christ shall addresse themselves to serve and please him in a way of obedience to his Lawes In this sense which I rather conceive to be the expresse intent of the Apostle in the words the doing of the Law is mentioned not as the meanes or meritorious cause of the iustification adjoyning but either as a condition sine quinon without which iustification is not to be expected or rather as an outward signe and manifestation of the persons that shall be iustified but in another way viz. by Faith Thirdly and lastly by the Law in this place the doers whereof as is said shall be iustified is not meant the Morall Law only which restreyned signification was simply necessary to have given the clause any colour of opposition or contradiction to the proposition mentioned but the whole Mosaicall dispensation consisting according to the common distribution of Ceremonialls moralls and judicialls The observation of all which no man I think ever affirmed to have bin imposed by God upon men for their justification But I feare we stand too long about oyling a wheele which would run merrily enough without it Let us rather heare the voyce of a new argument speaking Jf God requires only Faith of men to their justification then he imputes this Faith unto them thereunto Argum. 23 SECT 4 But God requires only Faith to justification Ergo. The consequence in the Maior Proposition is blamelesse for this reason because to impute unto iustsfication and to accept unto justification are somwhat differing in sound but nothing at all in sence and signification Now if God should require faith of men and onely Faith to their Iustification and not accept it thereunto he should make a bargaine or Covenant with men and refuse to stand to it when he had done his overtures would be faire and gracious but his intentions would be to seek and no where in Scriptures to be found If it be here replyed and said that though God requires onely faith of men to their justification yet he requires somwhat more and besides at the hand of another thereunto therfore that which he imputes unto men for their justification is not necessarily that which he requires of themselves but rather that which he requires of another for them To this I answer if it were the righteousnesse of Christ which is presumed to be the thing required of another and not the faith that is required of themselves that God imputes for righteousnesse unto them in their justification then may this righteousnesse of Christ be imputed for this end and purpose before yea and without the faith of any man For it is certaine that the Faith of men addes no vertue or vaiue to the righteousnesse of Christ therfore if this be that which God imputeth for righteousnesse in justification it may be imputed aswell without faith as with it and so men might be justified without beleeving Neither will it help in this case to say SECT 5 that imputation followeth the will and pleasure of God and therfore the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed unto any but to him that beleeveth because the will and pleasure of God is not to make imputation of it in any other way or upon any other terms For To this
I answere if the will and pleasure of God be to make no imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ but upon the condition of Faith intervening then is it evident that this righteousnes is not imputed unto justification to any man because the condition of faith must necessarily intervene and come betweene So that if this righteousnes of Christ were as our Adversaries would have it imputed unto men yet it must be onely towards Iustification not unto it for by their own affirmation it is faith that hath the next and most immediat connexion therewith Secondly if God suspends the imputation of Christs righteousnes upon the performance of the condition of faith and then makes this imputation then faith doth not take hold of the righteousnes of Christ imputed but first takes bold of it and then the imputation followeth after Which 1. is contrary to the expresse judgement of some of the learnedest of their owne party Who affirme this imputation of Christs righteousnes by God to precede the condition of faith or act of beleeving in men a Deus primum imputat satisfactionem Christi deinde in nobis efficit sidem quā illamimputatam applicemus Vrsinus Cat. part 2 Qu. 60. sect 5. Fides ex parte nostra hanc justitiam Sic sia Deo imputatam apprehendit solummodoet applicat Dr. Prid. Lect. 5. de Instificat Sect. 11. Secondle if faith should first take hold of the righteousnes of Christ before it be imputed and then the act of Gods imputation should supervene upon it and the beleever not be justified till this act of Gods imputation had passed upon him then must it be conceived that a man may have the righteousnes of Christ upon him by faith and yet not be justified by it For if the will of God be not to impute the righteousnes of Christ unto Iustification but upon the condition of faith performed and this condition is performed by laying hold on the righteousnes of Christ not yet imputed by faith it evidently followeth that a man may lay hold on the righteousnes of Christ by faith and yet want that which is essentiality requisite to his Iustification according to this opinion viz. Gods imputation of this righteousnes unto him which as the opinion teacheth followeth the apprehension therof by faith and is not precedaneous to it Againe SECT 6 yet once more for the imputation of Faith in the sence insisted upon I plead the Apostles plea and Argument Rom. 4. That which was imputed to Abraham for righteousnes in his Iustification Argum. 24 is imputed to other beleevers also But the Faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righteousnes c. Ergo. Whether both these Propositions in the direct sence here implyed and with relation to the conclusion issuing from between them as they are here layd down be not the genuine and unwrested Doctrine of the Apostle Paul and that over and over in that 4th chapter to the Romans and whether the choycest learning aswell ancient as moderne hath not sealed and subscribed hereunto I referre the Reader to a diligent perusal of the second Chapter of this discourse for his satisfaction where likewise he may see the ashes of the contrary interpretation consumed and burnt up with the fire of the triall So that I conceive here needeth no addition of any thing to strengthen either the one Proposition or the other above what hath bin there delivered CAP. XXI Wherein the last reason against the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse viz. the non-imputability of the Law is propounded and maintained IF the righteousnes of the Law be not imputable Argum. 25 SECT 1 or deriveable in the letter and formality of it from one mans person to another then cannot the righteousnes of Christ be imputed to any man in Iustification after any such manner The consequence cannot lightly be denyed by him that will but grant light not to be darknesse Therfore I assume But the righteousnes of the Law is not imputable from one mans person to another Therfore the righteousnes of Christ is not imputable much lesse imputed to any man in his Iustification This Argument was mentioned in our Scripture proofes cap. 8. where you shall find it built upon that Foundation of truth Gal. 3.12 The reason or ground of which non-imputability or untransferiblenesse of the Law-righteousnesse we found expresse in the very tenour and plaine words of the Law it selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the very man that hath done them shall live by them and no other From which inference or addition no mans understanding can with reason abstaine But it is like we must here againe prepare to battaile and shall be assaulted with this Objection SECT 2 If the transgression of the Law be imputable from one mans person to another Object then may the righteousnesse of the Law be imputed also after the same manner For what should cause a difference between the one and the other in this respect But that the transgression of the Law is imputable from one mans person to another is evident from hence because the sinne of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit is imputed to his posterity Ab actu ad potentiam validissima est consequentia Ergo. Give me leave to deliver my last Argument out of the hand of this Objection and so we shall draw towards a Conclusion of this first part In my answer I shall addresse my selfe to both the Propositions but chiefly insist upon the instance that is brought to prove the Minor to demonstrate the insufficiencie and impertinencie of that for that purpose For the former Proposition not to let passe incerta procert◠that which is weake with the credit and reputation of strength I answere therfore to it that the consequence in it is not so tight and pregnant as happily is conceived or as the confidence of the demand annexed by way of confirmation seems to import The imputablenesse of the transgression of the Law were it granted is no concluding demonstration of the like imputablenesse of the righteousnesse or obedience performed unto it and then this Proposition will not be found any such Oracle of truth First in the tenour of the Law there is no such emphaticall restraint of the guilt or punishment due unto the transgression of it to the person of the transgressor as ther is of the reward promised to the observation of it to the person of the observer as we heard in the clause cited from Gal. 3.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. the very man that hath done them shall live by them It is no where found on the other hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the very man that transgresseth them shall die for his transgression As if God in giving the Law had left unto himselfe a libertie and scope to derive and carry the guilt and punishment due to the transgression of the Law as far as he pleased but had no intent to extend the reward promised to the fulfilling
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.
vertuous dispositions as essentially requisite to make him a man capable of such deservings may be said to be imputed to them i. they have a benefit accrueing to them from such education and dispositions of his though not immediately but by the intervening of those worthy acts and services performed by him In this sense not only Achans sinfull and sacrilegious act of taking away the wedge of gold and Babylonish garment but the bitter roote it selfe that bare this cursed fruit I meane his covetousnesse may be said to have bin imputed unto all those of his house that were punished with him for that sacrilege In this sense likewise aswell the habituall holynesse of Christs person as the morall righteousnesse or active obedience of his life may be said to be imputed to those that beleeve in him because these were essentially and directly requifite to make his death and sufferings justification and life and salvation to them as hath bin further opened in the former part of this Treatise But because this signification of the word is somewhat remote and unusuall and hath no manner of counteuance from the Scripture Piscator Paraeus with other learned and Orthodox Divines have simple denyed all imputation of the active righteousnesse or obedience of Christ and doubtlesse the Doctrine of Iustification as it is layd downe in the Scriptures would not at all suffer if the expression were layd aside altogether Seventhly a thing may be said to be imputed to a man when he is looked upon or dealt with as if he had some true worth or qualification in him whereunto there are speciall privileges belonging when as yet he hath not the worth or qualification indeed but comes to have right to the privileges notwithstanding in some other way In this sense righteousnesse is said to be imputed to him that beleeveth Rom. 4.6.11 c. that is he that truely beleeveth in Christ is looked upon by God and partly hath and partly shall have and injoy all the privileges and blessings which do belong and are annexed by covenant or promise unto a perfect and compleate Law-righteousnesse though there be no such righteousnesse found in him because Iesus Christ by his death and sufferings hath purchased a right and title for him to these privileges and blessings which title is actually derived and settled upon him upon his beleeving So that to say God imputeth righteousnesse to a man is but in effect to say that God lookes upon him with the same grace and favor wherewith he would looke upon him if he were properly and legally righteous indeed and had never sin'd and intends all the further privileges and blessings of such a righteousnesse unto him In such a sense as this when a man take's likeing to and loves another mans child and intends to settle his estate upon him he may be said to impute Son-ship unto him because though he be not his Son yet he confer's the rights and privileges of a Sonne upon him as viz. fatherlike affection and his inheritance Eightly SECT 9 one thing may be said to be imputed to a man for or instead of another when the rights and priviledges which originally and properly belong to the one are yet exhibited and conferr'd upon him upon the performance of the other or againe when upon the committing of one offence he is charged with the guilt and inconveniences of another the guilt and evill consequences whereof are more notorious and manifest Thus he that provideth not for his owne especially for his houshold hath the sinne of denying the Faith i. the Gospell imputed unto him 1 Tim. 5.8 because the evill consequences of both sinnes are much the same but yet are more readily acknowledged as likely to arise from the latter In this sense also the Faith of him that beleeveth is said to be imputed to him for righteousnesse Rom. 4.3.5 c. because the same privileges which originally and more apparantly did belong unto and were setled by God upon a legall righteousnesse or immunity from sinne do now belong unto and are setled by Covenant and promise from the same God upon beleeving Ninthly and lastly any matter of profit benefit or advantage which any waies accrueth or is coming towards a man whether by way of due debt or of free donation and grace or the like may be said to be imputed unto him accordingly Thus Rom. 4.4 the reward viz. of justification and life is said to be reckoned or imputed to him that worketh i. that shall deserve it by a perfect observation of the Law of debt and not of grace The meaning is that if any man should be rewarded by God with life and happinesse upon his perfect obedience to the Law such a reward would be generally taken and looked upon by men as no matter of grace or favor from God but as a matter of right and due debt to such a man There is no word or terme to my remembrance belonging to the dispute in hand or to the Doctrine of Iustification in generall more incumbred with variety of significations then this of Imputation and consequently more obnoxious to mistake and misunderstanding There is scarse any proposition can be framed wherein this word is used indefinitly and without speciall limitation or explication but may both be granted and denied according to a different sense and acception thereof As for example such propositions as these The active obedience of Christ is imputed The active obedience of Christ is not imputed The passive obedience of Christ is imputed The passive obedience of Christ is not imputed c. are either true or false according as the word imputed is understood and taken in them Therefore speciall care must be had how and upon what termes this word passeth or be admitted in the present Controversie Obedience to the Morall Law may be said to be required of men two waies or in two respects Distinct 5 SECT 10 First by way of iustification that a man thereby may be esteemed perfectly righteous by God and accordingly have all the privileges of a compleate righteousnesse conferred upon him Secondly by way of sanctification that he may testifie and expresse his subjection unto God and his unfeigned desire of pleasing him in all things In both respects this obedience was required of man in his estate of innocencie and is still required of the Holy Angells yea and was required also of the Lord Iesus Christ himselfe Compare Mat. 3.16 with Iohn 15.10 c. But since the fall of man it is not nequited of him by way of justification in the sense expressed but only in a way of sanctification This is evident by these a consideratios First because a man being once touch'd with sinne and failing in the least point of obedience as all men were and did in the fall is not capable of any such obedience to the Laâ— whereby it is impossible for him to be justified no though he should keepe the Law with all possible
things therein required and so promotes the observation and keeping of it This upon the matter is the interpretation of Musculus (*) Fides verò quoniam justificat credentes corda credentium purgat quod neque Lex apud Iudaos neque Philosophia apud Gentes neque doctrina bonorum operum apud Christianes praestare potest ram non adversatur bonorum operum Doctrinae ut illam magis stabiliat Musculus ad Rom. 3. ult upon the place Pareus likewise admits of it and cites Austin for it also But 4. The Law may be said to be established by the Doctrine of faith inasmuch as the comminations and threatnings of the Law as In the day thou â—atest therof thou shalt die the death and againe Cursed be he that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to doe them c. are by the Doctrine of justification by faith declared not to be in vaine The sufferings of Christ wherby we are justified through faith are a full confirmation of the force efficacie and authority of the curse of the Law being the price of the Redemption of those that beleeve from it Yet 5. and lastly I conceive the better Interpretation of the place to be that by Law the Apostle should meane that part of the Old Testament which comprehendeth the writings of Moses with those other Books which together with the writings of the Prophets make up the intire body thereof For in this sence he had used the word v. 21. where he affirmed the righteousnesse of God to have testimonie of the Law and the Prophets The word is elswhere and that somewhat frequently taken in this signification Now the Law in this sence may most properly be said to be established by Paul â—eaching the Doctrine of faith because this Doctrine is fully consonant and agreeable to those things that are written therein as he sheweth at large in the following Chapter arguing and insisting upon two pregnant testimonies to this purpose the one from Moses the other from David Origen of old made use of this Interpretation (b) Fides confirmas legem quia Christus inquit Moses de me scripsit Qui ergo credit Christo confirmat Legem quiae credit in Christum Origen and Hierome was not far from it (c) Fide lex stabilitur quia fide probamus verum esse quod lex dicit Testamentum testamento legem legi circumcisionem circumcisions successuram Hierony Piscator of later times likewise adhereth to it in his Disputes with Ludovicus Lucius (d) See Mr. Gatakers Animadversions upon these Disputes p. 42. The next Scripture sometimes managed for the imputation we oppose is Rom. 4.6 Even as David declareth the blessednesse of the man to whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works That righteousnesse which God is here said to impute to a man can be no other as is pretended but the righteousnesse of Christ To this I answere First SECT 9 that this Scripture and expression of Gods imputing righteousnesse Rom. 4.6 opened is fully opened and cleered in my Answere to Mr. Walker p. 41. whither the reader is desired to repaire for satisfaction if he desires it Secondly that of the two if we will needs here understand a positive legall righteousnesse it is much more probable the Apostle should meane a righteousnesse consisting of such works or of such an obedience to the Law as hath an absolute and perfect agreeablenesse to every mans condition and calling respectively then the righteousnesse of Christ which hath no such property in it hath bin already represented in this Discourse (a) Cap. 2. Sect. 5. p. 7. Thirdly that righteousnesse which God is said here to impute is by the best Expositors placed in Remission of sins Righteousnesse imputed saith Paraeus (b) Iustitia imputata consistis in gratuita remissione tectione non imputatione peccatoruÌ„ Pareus ad Rom 4.7 p. 371. Hoc sensu justitia imputata dicitur justicia Christi meritorie seu effective quia Christi merito nobisest parta non subjective quia Christo inhaereat Idem ibidem consists in a free remission covering or non-imputation of sinne And a little after shewing in what sense the righteousnesse which is imputed by God unto beleevers may be called the righteousnesse of Christ he expresseth himselfe thus In this sense imputed righteousnesse is called the righteousnesse of Christ viz. by way of merit or effect because it is procured for us by the merit of Christ not because it is subjectively or inherently in Christ many testimonies have bin formerly cited from divers other good Authors of concurrent judgement with him herein We are taught saith Calvin upon the place (c) Postremo doâ—emur hanc quoque remissionem gratuitam esse quia sine operibus imputatur quod et remissionis nomen indicat Calvin in Rom. 4.6 Quarto autem capite ad Romanos primum appellat justitia imputationem nec eam dubitat in remissione peccatorum câ—llocare idem Instit l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 4. that Remission of sinnes is free because it is imputed without workes But Fourthly the phrase of imputing righteousnesse may I conceive be best interpreted and understood by the contrary expression of imputing sinne Opposita juxtase posita magis elucescunt To impute sin signifieth only either to looke upon a person as justly liable to punishment or to inflict punishmeÌ„t upon a person peccati nomine for or in consideration of sin This latter signification I finde more frequent of the two in Authors of best esteeme God imputes sin saith Paraeus (a) Imputat Deus peccatium cum punit non imputat cum non punit sed condonat et tegit quasi non esset Pareus ad Rom. 4.7 when he punisheth and he doth not impute it when he doth not punish but pardoneth c. So Calvin (b) Ergo et peccatorum non recordari est ea non postulare all poenam Idipsum alibidicitur proijcere post tergum delere instar nubis c. non imputare tectumque habere c. Calvin Instit l. 3. c. 4. Sect. 29. vi etiam in Rom. 5.13 maketh the non-imputation of sinne and the not-punishing of sinne of one and the same signification and importance If therefore to impute sinne signifieth only either to hold a man liable to punishment for sinne or to execute and inflict punishment upon him for sinne doubtlesse to imputerighteousnesse importeth nothing else but either to looke upon a man as a righteous person or to conferre upon him and actually invest him with the precious priviledges that belong to persons truely righteous But however Fiftly and lastly here is neither peere nor peepe of the least ground or reason to conceive that by righteousnesse in this Scripture should be meant the righteousnesse of Christ SECT 10 The next Scripture mis-us'd for the imputation aforesaid is that Rom. 5.19 For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners Rom. 5.19 cleered so by the
righteous to inferre and conclude a particular and determinate manner of rigteous-making from hence as viz. by imputation of this obedience there being other waies or manners of righteous-making as hath bin proved hath no power nor authority at all of an Argument in it Another text imployed in the service aforesaid SECT 11 is found Rom. 8.4 That the righteousnes of the Law might be fullfilled in us who walke not after the flesh but after the spirit From the former clause it is argued that the righteousnes of the Law can in no sence be said to be fullfilled in us but only by the righteousnes or obedience of Christ unto the Law imputed to us But to this also I Answere 1. That some both learned and Orthodox Rom. 4.8 cleared understand this clause of sanctification rather then of justification and by the fullfilling of the righteousnes of the Law that Euangelicall obedience to the Precepts thereof which all those that truly beleeve in Christ doe in part performe and desire and strive to performe more perfectly This was the exposition of Ambrose of old and seems to be the judgement of Peter Martyr (a) Quomodo autem praecepta legis in nobis impleantur per communionem cum Christo qui pro nobis mortuus est ita potest declarari quod illis qui credunt in eum spiritus conceditur quo vires corum instaurantur us obedientiam legis praestare possint non quidem perfectam et absolutam c. P. Marty ad Rom. 8.4 upon the place Nor is this exposition rejected by Musculus though he inclines more to another in which propension I shall willingly give him the right hand of fellowship So that however this place is not so cleere or demonstrative for the pretended Imputation But 2. That by the righteousnesse of the Law which is here said to be fullfilled in those that beleeve cannot be meant the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ imputed is evident from hence because it must of necessity be such a righteousnesse and such a fulfilling in beleevers which may be apprehended as a proper and sutable effect of Christs condemning sinne in the flesh immediately preceding in the end of v. 3. The very purport and frame of the context plainly sheweth this relation between them and that the latter was intended by God as a fruit or end of the former For what the Law could not doe saith the Apostle in that it was weake through the flesh God sending his own Sonne in the likenesse of sinnefull of flesh and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh That the righteousnesse of the Law might be fullfilled c. That ratiocinative particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that imports the fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the Law in those that beleeve to be a naturall and direct effect of or thing intended by God in Christs condemning sinne in the flesh Now unpossible it is that the active obedience of Christ or the imputation of it should be any proper effect of his condemning sinne in the flesh For by this expression of condemning sin in the flesh Interpreters generally agree and besides it is a thing evident in it selfe that the Apostle meanes the abolishing or taking away the guilt or the accusing and condemning power of sinne by the death of Christ The phrase of condemning sinne to note this by the way is metonymicall the antecedent put for the consequent condemning for disabling to accuse or being a means of the condemnation of another which we know are the consequents or effects of any mans being condemned in course of Law The testimony of a condemn'd person against any man is of no force in Law But to our purpose how the abolishing or taking away the guilt and condemning power of sinne by the death of Christ should be a means of the Imputation of the righteousnes of his life I am no wayes able to conceive or comprehend no more then I am how the present fullnesse of the stomacke should be a means to make a man stand in need of a second dinner immediately For certaine it is See the first and fourth Conclusions in the second chapter of this latter part p. 3.5 c. as hath bin reasoned home elsewhere in this discourse that he that hath the guilt of his sinne purged and taken away by the death of Christ needs no other righteousnesse nor imputation whatsoever for his justification or acceptation in the sight of God no more then he that is full needeth the honey-combe 3. It is a very uncouth and hard expression SECT 12 to call the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to beleevers a fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the Law in them For that clause in them still notes either a subjective inhesion of some thing in persons or else some kind of efficiencie Now the Friends themselvs of that Imputation which we oppose unanimously and constantly affirme the righteousnesse of Christ to be subjectively and inherently in himselfe only and to become ours onely by imputation which they still make a modification contradistinguished against subjective inhesion So that in this sense the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be said to be fulfilled in them Nor can they say that the righteousnesse of the Law or of Christ is fulfilled in them in a way of efficiencie for they are not the workers of this righteousnesse Therefore an imputed righteousnesse can in no tolerable construction of speech be said to be fulfilled in men 4. If by the righteousnesse of the Law we understand that entire and compleate obedience which every beleever according to the great varietie of their severall conditions callings and relations stands bound to performe it can with no agreeablenesse to truth be said to be fulfilled in them by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse unto them Because as hath bin largely proved in the former part of the Discourse there is scarce any beleever if any at all but stands bound in a way of duty to God and his Law to the performance of many particular acts yea of many kindes of acts of obedience which are not to be found nor can it without sinne be conceived that they should be found in all that golden catalogue of workes of righteousnesse performed by Christ Therefore the righteousnesse of the Law in the sense declared which is the sense stood upon by our adversaries cannot be said to be fulfilled in those that beleeve only by the active obedience of Christ imputed to them 5. Neither doth the originall word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here translated righteousnesse signifie obedience unto or conformity with the Law but rather that justification which was the end and intent of the Law but that it was disabled through the weaknesse that is the sinfulnesse of the flesh to ataine it ver 3. And so Calvin Piscator Musculus with divers other learned Interpreters and Tremellius out of the Syriaque render the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by the Latine word
justitia justice or righteousnesse but justificatio justification Beza by himselfe and perhaps more agreeable to the Apostles minde then the rest translates it jus the right or Law as it were of the Law And so both Chrysostom a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost ad Ro. 8. â— Serm. 13. and Theophylact b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in Rom. 8.4 of old expound the word not of any obedience of to the Law but of the end scope or intent of the Law viz. justification Paraus following Bezas translation of the word conceives that the Apostle by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or jus legis meanes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or damnatorie sentence of the Law against sinners mentioned cap. 5.16 in which signification of the word that right or power which God hath to condemne sinners unto death is called cap. 1.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where our English render it the iudgement of God the former translation had it the Law of God This exposition of the word though it seemes contrary to that given by Calvin and others mentioned yet will it give out one and the same sense and importance of the place with it as will presently appeare So that if this place were translated with exactnesse to the originall the argument that is now drawne from it for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse would wholly disappeare 6. Neither is it by ten degrees as cleere as the Sun that by the word Law in this Scripture we must of necessitie and with all precisenesse understand the Morall Law We know there are many other acceptions of the word in the writings of this Apostle And that it cannot be here meant precisely of the Morall Law is evident 1º because that impossibility of iustifying men thorugh the weaknesse of the flesh spoken of ver 3. is not confin'd to this Law alone but extends aswell to the other two Ceremoniall and Judiciall except we shall say that though the Morall Law was weake through the flesh and could not iustifie yet the Ceremoniall and Judiciall had a sufficiencie of strength hereunto which is manifestly untrue 2º because the Jewes to whom especially he addresseth himselfe in all his disputations concerning the Law and Iustification thereby built asmuch or more upon the observation of the Ceremoniall Law for their Iustification then of the Morall as was formerly observed Sect. 8. of this Chapter Now its certaine that the Apostle here takes the word Law in the same sense and latitude wherein the Jewes meant it when they contended and argued for Iustification by it otherwise he should not argue with them ad idem nor reach their apprehensions or meaning 3º because the Morall Law suppose it had not bin made weake nor disadvantag'd by the flesh yet could it not by the most exact observation of it have justified men at least not all men and by name not the Jewes who were bound to the observation of the other two aswell as of it and had bin found sinners had they faild in any point of either of these though they had bin absolute in the other Now it is evident that by the righteousnesse or Iustification of the Law in this place the Apostle meanes the righteousnesse or Iustification of such a Law which in it selfe was able to iustifie had it met with a sufficiencie of strength in men answerable to it Therefore he cannot be conceiv'd to speake here determinatly of the Morall Law which had no such abilitie in respect of the Jewes 4º and lastly because the Jewes had bin never the neerer a Iustification by the righteousnesse of the Morall Law imputed from Christ unto them supposing such an imputation being as hath bin said under the transgression of other Lawes So then this consideration also that by the word Law in this â—cripture cannot be meant the Morall Law gives an utter defeat to the attempt that is made upon it for the establishing of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse But 7. SECT 14 and lastly the cleare meaning of the place seem's to be this God sending his owne Sonne c. condemned sinne in the flesh that the righteousnesse or Justification of the Law might be fulfilled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or upon us c. that is that that Iustification or way of making men righteous which the Law that is the writings of Moses held forth and prophecied of unto the world long since viz. by Faith in the Messia that was then to come and to make attonemement for sinne by his blood might be fulfilled in us or upon us that is might be accomplished made good and fully manifested in us or upon us viz. in our Iustification who by our walking not after the flesh but after the Spirit that is by an eminencie of holinesse in our lives above the straine and pitch of men under the Law give testimony unto the world that the Messia or Great Iustifier of men foretold by Moses is indeed come into the world and having suffered for sinne and overcome death hath powred out the Spirit of Grace abundantly upon those that beleeve in him This interpretation especially as farre as concern's the clause in question that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us is confirmed aswell by the sweet proportion and sutablenesse betweene such a fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the Law in those that beleeve and live accordingly as the effect and that sending of Christ in the similitude of sinfull flesh to condemne sinne in the flesh laid downe in the former verse as the meanes or cause thereof Secondly in this interpretation the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fulfilled hath its proper and genuine force and signification which is wholly lost in that exposition which laboureth to finde the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in this place For to be fulfilled in the Scripture properly signifieth the accomplishment making good or full manifestation of a thing which before was under promise or prediction only and as it were in the darke Thirdly that righteousnesse or Iustification which is here called the righteousnesse or Justification of the Law is questionlesse the same righteousnesse which Rom. 3.21 is said to be witnessed by the Law that is by the writings of Moses and by the preaching whereof the Law it selfe is said to be established ver 31. of that Chapter So that in this respect it may very well be called the righteousnesse or Justification of the Law Fourthly and lastly according to the tenor of this interpretation this passage of Scripture is of perfect sympathie and accordance with those Rom. 3.21.22.25 whereas as the other interpretation leadeth it it can neither fiâ—de friend nor fellow in all the Scripture In the former of these last cited Scriptures the Apostle expresseth himselfe thus But now the righteousnesse of God without the Law is manifested being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets even the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Jesus Christ c. In the
latter thus Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for or concerning remission of sinnes that are past c. It plainly appeares from these Scriptures compared together First that the righteousnesse of God that is the way meanes or course which God holds for the Justification of men stands in remission or forgivenesse of sinnes Secondly that this righteousnesse or Iustification of his is witnessed that is asserted and vindicated by the Law that is the writings of Moses and consequently may well be called the righteousnesse or Iustification of the Law Thirdly and lastly that this righteousnesse of God testified and asserted by the Law in the sense given and exercised by him under the Law in the forgivenesse of the sinnes of those that then beleeved was not manifested or declared or as our other Scripture had it fulfilled that is fully revealed and discovered to the roote bottome and foundations of it till the coming of Christ into the world and his dying for sinne which in that other place is called his condemning sinne in the flesh This for answere in full to this Scripture The next place SECT 15 which I understand hath bin of late taken hold of by some to supply that which it seemes is wanting in others for the defence of that imputation which we oppose is Rom. 9.31.32 But Israel which followed after the Law of righteousnesse hath not attained to the Law of righteousnesse Wherefore because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the workes of the Law c. From hence it is thus argued that had Israel that is the Jewes who followed after the Law of righteousnesse beleeved in Christ they had attained the Law of righteousnesse that is should have had the righteousnesse of the Law performed by Christ imputed unto them But to this also I Answere 1. that by the Law of righteousnes Rom. 9.31.32 answered which the Jewes are here said to have sought after but could not attain is not meant the Moral Law nor indeed any Law properly so called either Morall Ceremoniall or Judicial for God had preveÌ„ted them with the guift of all these Laws so that they need not have sought after them If it be objected that their studie endeavor of keeping the Law which they had may be called a seeking or following after the Law I answere be it so yet this studie and endeavor of theirs could be no cause of their coming short of righteousnesse or Iustification which yet is ascribed to that seeking or following after the Law of righteousnesse here mentioned As Christians are never the further off from being justified by living holily and keeping the commandements of God So neither was the care and endeavor of the Jewes to observe the precepts of that Law which God had given them any cause of their miscariage in point of Iustification Abraham and those that were justifyed by Faith in Christ as he was were as conscientious and careful observers of al Gods Lawes as any of those were who stumbling at the stumbling stone were never justified Therefore by the Law of righteousnes in this Scripture is not meant any Law properly so called much les definitively the Morall Law Secondly in this expression the Law of righteousnesse in the former clause of the verse Calvin findes an hypallage the Law of righteousnesse put for the righteousnesse of the Law (a) Iam priere loco legem justiciae per hypallagen posuisse mihi videtur pro justicia legis in repetitione secundi membri alio sensu sic vocasse justiâ—iae formam seu regulam Calvin in Rom. 9 1. Nam illud sectandâ— legem justiciae simpliciter esse dictum de legis justitia i. ea quae ex operibus legu est patebit infra c. Mus in Rom. 9.31 in the latter clause he takes it in somewhat a different signification for a forme or rule of righteousnesse Musculus dissents little if any thing at all from this interpretation by the Law of righteousnesse understanding that righteousnesse which stands in the works of the Lawb. So that neither of these Authors nor any other that I have yet met with restreyne the word Law in these phrases determinatly to the Morall Law Thirdly neither is there any reason nor colour of reason to limit the Apostles expressions in this place of the Law of righteousnesse to the Morall Law only and the righteousnesse thereof because it is notoriously knowne and hath bin more then once observed formerly that the Jewes never hoped for nor sought after righteousnesse SECT 16 or Iustification by the Morall Law only or the works thereof alone but by the Ceremoniall Law also and the observances hereof yea principally by these as hath bin els where in this Treatise prooved from the Scriptures So that by the Law of righteousnesse whereof they miscaried by not seeking it by Faith cannot be ment determinatly the Moral Law or the righteousnes therof because they never travaild of this upon such termes they never had thought or hope of being iustified or made righteous by the Morall Law or righteousnesse thereof only And so Paraeus by the Law of righteousnesse in this place understands aswell the Ceremoniall as the Morall Law (a) Iudaeos ait sectatos legem justiciae quae praescribit justiciam operibus perfectam hoc est conatos esse tum ceremoniarum observatione tum moralium operum meritu justificari coram Deo Pateus in Rom. 9.31 4. Neither would the righteousnes of the Moral Law alone suppose they should have attained it by beleeving have stood the Jewes in any stead for their justification being aswell bound to the observation of the ceremoniall law as of it Therfore it was not this law or the righteousues of it which should have bin imputed to them in case they had trruly beleeved consequeÌ„tly no imputation of any law righteousnes whatsoever from Christ can be concluded from this place But 5. lastly to give the cleere sence and meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel is said to have followed after but not to have attained because he sought it not by Faith c. can be meant nothing else but justification it selfe or righteousnesse simply and indefinitely taken in which acception it is oft put for justification as was observed cap. 3. Sect and elsewhere which the Jewes seeking to attaine it by the works of the Law that is by themselves and the merit of their own doings and not by faith in Iesus Christ were never able to attain but lost the favour of God perished in their sinnes That this is the direct and expresse meaning of the place may be several waies confirm'd 1. To call righteousnesse simply that is SECT 17 justification the Law of righteousnesse is agreeable to this Apostles dialect elswhere For Rom. 7.23 25. by the Law of sinne he means nothing else but sinne
it selfe So Rom. 3.27 By the Law of Faith faith it selfe and againe Rom. 8.2 by the Law of sinne and death he means sinne and death simply For none of these have any Law properly so called onely the word Law added to them seems to represent them under a more emphaticall and weighty consideration 2. When this Apostle speaks of the righteousnesse of the Law elsewhere he never useth this hypallage to call it the Law of righteousnesse but still in plaine and direct language The righteousnesse of the Law See Rom. 2.26 Rom. 8.4 3. This exposition makes the double antithesis or opposition which the Apostle apparently makes between the Gentiles v. 30. and the Jewes v. 31. pregnant cleere and full wheras any other interpretation dissolves the strength and darkens the light of them The Gentiles saith he v. 30 followed not after righteousnesse that is had no thoughts of took no care or course for any justification before God But Israel v. 31. sought after the Law of righteousnesse that is propounded unto themselves as a busines of maine importance a righteousnesse or justification in the sight of God and ran a course of means such as it was to obteyne it Againe The Gentiles saith he v. 30. attained unto righteousnesse that is unto justification in the sight of God many of them have bin justified and saved But Israel could not attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse v. 31. that is could not compasse a justification of themselves in the sight of God as the Gentiles did The strict Law of opposition enforceth this or the like interpretation 4. And lastly that by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel could not attaine unto he meanes righteousnes simply or justification in the sight of God appeares from the latter reason or latter part of the reason which he renders v. 3◠of Israels miscarriage and falling short in this kind Wherfore saith he could not Israel attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse which he followed after because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the works of the Law If by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel is said to have sought after we understand the righteousnesse or obedience of the Law the reason which is here assigned by the Holy Ghost at least in part why they could not atain it viz. because they sought it by the works of the Law will be very incongruous and absurd For what savour either of reason or truth is there in it to say that a man therfore cannot attaine the righteousnesse or obedience of the Law because he seeks to attaine it by the works of the Law But to say that a man cannot attaine unto righteousnesse or justification before God if or because he seeks it by the works of the Law hath perfect consistence with both I mean both with reason and truth Lastly I might further strengthen this exposition with the Authority of Theophylact if need were who expounds that clause v. 31. they could not attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse of a simple and plaine non-justification a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in Rom. 9.31 The next Scripture proofe and last out of this Epistle to the Romans which is frequently alledged for the supposed Imputation is Rom. 10.4 The words these For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnes to every one that beleeveth Therfore say the Masters of that way of Imputation which we desire to hedge up with thorns the righteousnes of Christ or the obedience performed by him to the Morall Law is imputed to those that beleeve for their righteousnes But neither doth this Scripture know any such imputation more then its fellows For 1. Rom. 10.4 answered There is not the least resemblance or colour of reason that by the Law in this place should be meant precisely and determinately the Morall Law because as was both lately and formerly observed the Jews with whom chiefly the Apostle grapples in this place as is evident from the beginning of the chapter never so much as dreamt of justification by the Moral Law only but chiefly by the Ceremoniall Neither doth Calvin or any other Interpreter that yet I have met with understand the place of the Morall Law Besides it is evident from that which immediately follows v. 5. that he doth not speake here of the Morall Law for there he citeth that description which Moses giveth of the righteousnesse of the Law not out of any part or passage of the Morall Law but out of the heart and midd'st as it were of the Ceremoniall Law Those words the man which doth these things shall live by them wherein he placeth Moses's description of the righteousnesse which is of the Law are taken from Levit. 18.5 and are in speciall manner spoken of the Ceremonialls and Judicialls For thus the words lye ye shall therfore keep my Statutes and my Judgements which if a man doe he shall live in them Therfore doubtlesse the Apostle doth not speake here of the Morall Law Secondly SECT 19 neither is it any waies agreeable to truth that the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to beleevers suppose such an imputation were simply granted should be called the end of the Morall Law For doubtlesse no Law whatsoever considered simply as a Law is any cause or meanes of justifying a person in any other way or by any other meanes then by the observation of it selfe and consequently Iustification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of the Morall Law For nothing can properly be said to be the intent or end of a thing but only that which in reason and likelyhood may be procured and obtained by it Now there is an utter and evident impossibilitie that Justification by Christ should be procured or attained by the Morall Law Neither obedience nor disobedience thereunto hath any relation of causalitie to such an effect a man being never the neerer Justification by Christ either for the one or for the other It may be said with farre a more favourable aspect both upon reason and truth that Christ is the end of the Ceremoniall Law and yet not of this neither considered simply as a Law but as comprehending in it such and such usages or rites wherein Christ and Iustification by his blood were typified and resembled and which were to expire and to lose the binding power of a Law which it had before upon Christs coming As for the observation or transgression of this Law neither the one nor the other contributed any thing more towards any mans Iustification by Christ then the observation or transgression of the Morall Law did or doth Nay the observation both of the one and the other though very unperfect and lame have bin a stumbling block in the way of many and cast them quite off from Iustification by Christ as the Apostle implieth ver 3. Therefore Thirdly the Greek Expositors as Chrysostom a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Hom. 17. in Rom.
committed against the Law is doubtlesse out of the danger and reach of the curse of the Law Now it is fully consistent with the principles of that opinion it selfe which we oppose to ascribe a perfect forgivenesse of all sinnes to the passive obedience or death of Christ imputed without the imputation of the active obedience with it for that end Yea I never yet heard of any of that way and judgement who pleaded the necessity of Christs active obedience imputed for the bringing men off from the curse of the Law but only to bring them under the blessing or promise of the Law Doe this and live Therefore the argument in hand is no more a friend to that opinion it selfe which it seekes to establish then it is to the truth it selfe Falsum nunc vero nunc falso est conâ—â—arium Thirdly the imputation of a perfect fulfilling of the Law from another were it granted cannot make him a continuer in all things that are written in the Law to doe them who offends daily in many things and consequently will leave him in as bad a case in respect of the curse of the Law as it finds him All the imputations under Heaven of whatsoever from whomsoever cannot make him who hath not continued in all things of the Law to doe them to have continued in them It is well that this argument is weake for otherwise it is of a most bloody and unmercifull Spirit and would beare downe all the world before it into Hell If there be no other way or meanes for poore sinfull men to come off from the curse of the Law but by continuing in all things that are written therein to doe them Doubtlesse they must all fall under this curse and never rise againe Therefore Fourthly and lastly the direct intent and meaning of this passage of Scripture is this Cursed be every one that continueth not c. that is every one that expecteth Justification and salvation by the Law woe be to every such person man or woman if they continue not in all things that are written in the Law to doe them the curse of the Law will fall heavy and terrible upon them That this is the plaine and expresse meaning of the Apostle in this place and that that clause of universalitie Cursed be every one c. is to be limited to the universality of those only who depend upon the Law for Iustification is evident First SECT 28 As it is true that whatsoever the Law speaketh it speaketh to those that is to all those that are under the Law Rom. 3.19 so is it as true also that whatsoever the Law speaketh it speaketh only unto those that are under it and to none other Now those that expect and looke for Iustification by Faith in Iesus Christ and not by the Law are not under the Law but under grace Rom. 6.14 See also Rom. 7.1 2 3 4. Therefore the Cursings and threatningâ— of the Law doe no waies concerne or touch any of these So Gal. 5.23 speaking of those that were Christs that is that were dead to the Law as touching all hope and dependance upon it for Iustification and had cast themselves upon him for that blessing affirmeth that against such there was no Law meaning no Law to judge or condemne them And 1 Tim. 1.9 He denieth that the Law is given to a righteous man but unto the lawlesse and disobedient c. meaning that the Law as touching the curse and penalty of it was never intended by God for men that are holy and righteous that is that are true beleevers in Iesus Christ from whom all holinesse and righteousnesse proceed But Secondly the context it selfe apparantly leades us to this limitation and interpretation For 1º the words immediatly preceding in the beginning of the verse are these For as many as are of the works of the Law that is that seeke to be justified by the works of the Law as Calvin Musculus and all Protestant writers generally interpret are under the Curse To proove this he alledgeth that testimony of the Law mentioned For it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not c. So that this clause and the curse contained in it have only reference to those that are of the works of the Law that is that seeke to be justified by the Law and not by Christ Againe 2º the interpretation given is confirmed from the words of ver 9. immediatly foregoing Here he had pronounced those that were of Faith that is that sought Justification by Faith in Christ Blessed with faithfull Abraham Now to prove that these were the blessed ones of God and not those that would be justified by the Law which was the Spirit that now began to work among these Galathians he affirm's that all these are under the curse and consequently farre from being blessed And to prove this he cites the passage in hand from the Law it selfe Cursed be every one that continueth not c. So that it is evident from hence also that that continuance in all things which are written in the Law to do them is only required of those either for the removall of the Curse threatned or for the obteyning of the blessing promised who seeke to be justified by the works of the Law and not of those that beleeve with Abraham and depend upon Christ for justification 3º and lastly the tenor of the verse immediatly following is as the light of the Sunne to cleere and vindicate this interpretation For here the Apostle goeth on with the further proofe of his last conclusion viz. that those that are of the works of the Law are under the Curse thus And that no man is justified and then not blessed and consequently accursed by the Law is evident for the just shall live that is be justified and so live and be blessed by Faith when he saith that no man is justified by the Law he supposeth that no man can be said to continue in all things that are written in the Law to doe them for he of whom this may be truly affirmed may very properly be said to be justified by the Law The truth is there is no other way or meanes of Iustification by the Law imaginable but only this Therefore that Iustification which we have by Faith in Christ cannot be said to be by a continuance in all things that are written in the Law to doe them because this is nothing else but Iustification it selfe by the Law And whereas it might be objected SECT 29 but may not a man be justified by Faith and by the Law or righteousnesse of the Law together may not a man be entit'led to or invested with a righteousnesse of the Law in and by his Faith To this the Apostle answers by a preoccupation in the words immediatly following ver 12. And the Law is not of Faith that is a man doth not observe the Law in one kind or other by beleeving he cannot be said to have a
formall cause of justification as if by the word only or alone he meant to shut out this infusion of grace only and not the active obedience of Christ imputed I shall by a passage or two from him in the point cleere his intention in such expressions and fully manifest how importune and at open defiance with the truth any such interpretation of his minde and meaning must needs be In which words saith Calvin meaning those of the Apostle Rom. 4.6 in his commentaries upon the place we are taught justitiam Paulo nihil esse quà m remissionem peccatorum that is that righteousnesse with Paul is nothing else but remission of sinnes And not long after upon the 9th verse of the same Chapter So iustitia Abrahae est peccatorum remissio quod securè ipsepro confesso assumit c. that is If Abrahams righteousnesse be the forgivenesse of his sinnes which he meaning Paul without any further care or thought about it takes for granted c. By these passages it is evident that whatsoever his own minde or judgement was in the point now under question viz. whether remission of sins simply alone without any other additioÌ„ whatsoever were the righteousnesse of a Beleever in justification he attributes the affirmative unto Paul and makes his opinion and judgement to stand for Remission of sinnes simply excluding not the infusion of grace only but all other things whatsoever Except haply men Gyant-like will attempt to set Pelion upon Ossa heap presumption upon presumption and say that Paul likewise expressed himselfe in the Point only by way of opposition to the Popish opinion concerning grace infused and had no intent to be understood simply that Remission of sinnes was a Beleevers righteousnesse Otherwise for Calvin to ascribe one opinion unto Paul in the point of justification and to be himselfe of another is neither better nor worse then to professe himselfe wiser then he in the businesse yea then the Holy Ghost himselfe speaking by him Which horrid blasphemy those men unadvisedly bring upon the head of this holy and faithfull servant of God who labour to make him of a quite differing judgment himselfe especially in so weighty a point as justification is from that which he acknowledgeth to be the judgment of so great and glorious an Apostle as Paul was I might adde a third passage yea and three more to that of his ex abundanti of the same importance and perhaps somewhat more pregnant Therefore Paul saith he (a) Merite Paulus fidei justitiam in peccatorums ormissiene simpliciter includit docevs earn a Davide describi cum beatum heminem pronunciat cui non imputantur peccata Calvin De vera Ecales Res ratione p. 368. doth well simply to include the righteousnesse of Faith in Remission of sinnes teaching us that David so describeth it when he pronounceth the man happy whose sinnes are not imputed unto him Whether Calvin himselfe did simply and absolutly and not with limitation and restraint place the righteousnesse of Faith in remission of sinnes or no most unanswerably undeniable it is that he conceived Paul so to doe Nor is there any reasonable ground or cause to adde a word of this in the close of this Answere why men should be so averse or shie as some are SECT 16 from looking upon Remission of sinnes as a righteonsness yea as a perfect and complete righteousnesse since it is equivalent unto and vertually conteynes and comprehends in it the most absolute and entire obedience unto the Law and will of God as hath bin already fully demonstrated cap. 2. Sect. 4. of this second Part where also the authority and confent of Augustine in this behalfe was produced who plainly affirmeth Omnia mandata facta deputantur quonde quiequid non fit ignoscitur Ang. Retract l. 2. c. 19. that all the commandements of God are reputed to be kept or done when whatsoever is not done is forgiven Againe â— o it may well and in sufficient proprietie of speech beare the nature of a righteonsnesse vea and that perfect and compleate because it hath all those great and high privileges annexed to it and depending upon it which a righteousnesse most literally and strictly so called could have as the love favor acceptation and approbation of God yea life and salvation themselves It hath bin elsewhere as I remember observed in this discourse that the names of things are very usually enterchanged in Scripture upon occasion of a similituda or likenâ—sse of use or offect betweene them John Baptist is called by the name of â—liah because he was servicenble unto God and his cause after the same manner and with the same spirit that Eliah was So Peter and Iohn were counted Pillars Gal. 2.9 because they were conceiv'd to stand the Church of Christ in some such stead as Pillars doe the house that is supported by them So Christ himselfe to omit other instances in this kinde without number is called Bread a Vine a Dore a Way a Roote a Branch the morning Starre c. because in something or other he resembles the nature or use or both of all these things In like manner Remission of sinnes though it had not the nature or essence of a perfect righteousnesse in it may yet be called a perfect righteousnesse because it is of the same consideration benefit and use unto the creature with a perfect righteousnesse indeed But enough for this argument I hope it will be from henceforth contented and complaine no more for want of satisfaction A seventh argument which is likewise layd hold on by some as a Shield and Buckler to defend the imputation assailed SECT 17 Argum. 7 is this If Doe this and live be an everlasting rule of God and which shall never be dissolved cancelled or growne out of date then must the active obedience of Christ be imputed unto men in justification that so they may be said to have done this that is to have fulfilled the Law and so live But Doe this and live it an everlasting rule of God which shall never be dissolved c. Ergo. I answere that all the strength of this argument lyeth in the hollownesse of those words take them out of which proposition you please is an everlasting rule c. In this sence I grant that do this and live is an everlasting rule it is and hath bin and shall be everlastingly true that whosoever shall do this that is fulfill the Law perfectly shall live and enjoy the favor of God c. But this sence makes nothing to the purpose neither is there so much as the face of a consequence in the major if it be taken whosoever continueth in all things that are written in the Law to do them shall live and be saved whether Christs righteousnesse be imputed unto them or not But if the meaning of the clause be is an everlasting rule that is is the only perpetuall and standing rule or Law whereby and according to