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
neither Heresie nor Blasphemie neither Socinianisme nor Arminiarisme neither error nor noveltie in them doubtlesse the Discourse it selfe will abundantly gratify him herein But he that is full of prejudice loatheth the hony-comb of satisfaction Only to the charge and imputation of Noveltie besides what is effectually layd down in the ensuing discourse for the healing of this exulceration in the Spirits of men I desire to suggest a few things here by the way First that America though lately discovered unto us on this side of the World was yet as ancient a Land and part of the World as either Asia Africa or Europe it selfe And what prohibition can there be serv'd out of the Scriptures upon any tenet or opinion in Religion to arrest it for error or untruth or to prove it not to have bin of as ancient Creation and standing as any other truths professed amongst us only because we never saw the face or heard the name of it till yesterday Might not nay did not the Synagogue of Rome upon the same pretence blaspheme and quarell against all that glorious light brought into the Church by Luther and his compeeres in the daies of that reformation and brought it under the censure and condemnation of darknesse If so great and considerable a part of the world as America is being as large as all the other three so long knowne within an eight or there-abouts was yet unknowne to all the world besides for so many generations together well may it be conceived not only that some but many truths yea and those of maine concernment and importance may be yet unborne and not come forth out of their Mothers womb I meane the secrets of the Scriptures to see the light of the Sun especially considering of how easy ready a discovery visible things are by Name lands and great tracts of Earth in comparison of things that are Spirituall and those especially whose scituations and dwellings are farre remot from the commoÌ„ road or walk of mens studies and understandings as also how poor and barren and empty the visible world is of secrets and things to be known and how soon the contents thereof may be read over and understood in comparison of the infinite and endlesse varietie of the riches and treasures of the Scripture and the unknown abysse of truth there Secondly the Scriptures themselves give us a propheticall intimation of this that in and towards the latter ages of the world their foundations as it were shall be discovered and their great depths broken up and that knowledge shall abound as the waters cover the face of the Sea But thou oh Daniel saith the Angell to him Dan. 12.4 shut up the words and seale the booke even to the time of the end meaning that Daniel should so carrie the tenour of this part at least of his prophecie that it should not be cleerely understood till the drawing neere of the time wherein it is to be fulfilled and then many shall runne to and fro that is shall discourse and beate out the secrets of GOD in the Scriptures with more libertie and freedome of judgement and understanding and traverse much ground to and againe on which no man should set foot till that time and knowledg by this meanes shall be increased Much more might be added from the Scriptures in this particular Thirdly that no man is competently furnished and instructed to the Kingdome of Heaven that is for the Ministerie of the Gospell and promoting the affaires of the Kingdome of Heaven that way Maâ—t 13.25 but he that is like unto a man an householder which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new old i. who is not aswel able to make som new discoverie to bring forth somwhat of himselfe in the things of God in one kinde or other as to preach the common and received truths Fourthly that there are thousands of Scriptures that have not yet opened or delivered out their treasures but reserve them as the proper and peculiar glory of the generations of the CHURCHES yet to come Fiftly that many interpretations of Scriptures anciently delivered by Chrysostom Augustine and others of the Fathers are wholly deserted by Luther Calvin Musculus and other late Divines and others of a quite differing importance substituted in their stead Sixtly that severall opinions not only maintained by some speciall Father one or more as those lately mentioned or the like but even such as generally ruled in the Church for some ages together have beene waved yea and strongly opposed by their successors It were easy to instance were not brevitie the greater necessitie of the two Seventhly that divers interpretations of Scriptures especially in the old Testament and of some in the new delivered by Luther Calvin Musculus and other learned and Orthodox Writers of that Centurie are suspected yea and more then suspected even detected of misprision and mistake by many of the most learned of this age Eightly that is neither new nor unjustifiable by the practise of wise men to examine yea and to impugne received opinions if they be found erroneous He that will please to peruse the first Chapter of the first Booke of Doctor Hakewills learned Apologie of the Power and providence of God c. shall meet with great varietie of instances and examples both in Divinitie Philosophy in Ecclesiasticall Historie in Civil or Nationall Historie in Naturall Historie of opinions which had a long time bin generally received and yet were at last suspected yea and many of them evicted and rejected upon due examination Ninthly that there are now many errors erroneously so called in the Christian World which are made of the greatest and choycest truths yea and which doubtlesse will be redeemed from their captivitie and restored to their Thrones and Kingdomes by the diligence guifts and faithfulnesse of the approaching generation Tenthly that it is of sweet consistence with the providence of God and with the known method of his dispensations to put honour upon that which lacketh to discover and reveale himselfe in some particulars unto those that are weake and of lesse esteeme in the Church wherein he reserv's himselfe from persons of farre greater light and knowledge otherwise and which are counted pillars of the Church as is said of Iames and Cephas John Gal. 2.9 This made Zuingl to say (a) Etiam abjectissimi verba in Ecclesia noÌ„ conteyn nda sed aâ—dienda er judicâ—nda suÌ„t Zuingl in Epist that the words even of him that is most abject and despicable in the Church ought to be heard examined and considered of and a late writer of our own H. W. True originall of the Soule p. 3. that they are not alwaies the learnedst mâ—â— that finde out the greatest mysteries Eleventhly that to oppose and crie downe for error every thing that is not generally received and taught is to quench proceedings and to interdict unto the Churches growth in the Lord Jesus Christ and consequently
obedience of one shal many be made righteous Hence it is argued that as by the imputation of Adams disobedience men are made formally sinners in like manner by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse men are made formally righteous To this I answere First that somewhat hath bin already delivered in this Discourse touching the sense and meaning of this Scripture as likewise touching the includencie and insufficiencie of this argument See Part 1. c. 21. Sect. 2.3 c. Secondly it is not here said that by the imputation of Adams disobedience men are made formally sinners but simply sinners that is either obnoxious to death and condemnation as Bishop Davenant (c) Certum est illam ipsamactualem inobedientiam nobis imputari ita ut per eam stemus damnati c. Bish Daven de Iusti Act. c. p. 363. with some others interpret and as the word sinner is often used in Scriptures d 1 Kin. 1.21 Pro. 6.29 Psal 109.7 c. or else sinners by propagation not imputation as Augustine e Proinde Apostolus cum illud peccatum ac mortem commemoraret quae ab uno in omnes propagatione transissent eum Principemposuit à quo propagatio generis humani sumpsit exordium August de Peccat Mer. Rem l. 1. c. 9. vi etiam c. 13. c. c. 15. Apostolus opponit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adami non ut actionem actioni sed ut satisfactionem culpae ut remedium morbo Pareus de Iustic Christi Act â—et Pass p. 173. of old and Peter Martyr and Musculus of late with divers others as may be seene at large in their Commentaries upon this Scripture So that according to either of these interpretations of the word sinners here is neither little nor much for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse so much urged and contended for Thirdly neither doth the Apostle here oppose unto or compare the obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam as one act unto or with another but as satisfaction to and with the provocation or the remedie to and with the disease Otherwise he should make sinnes of omission to be no disobedience because omissions are no acts And Adams transgression did not only stand in the commission of evill but in the omission of that which was good also Therefore Fourthly by that obedience of Christ whereby it is here said that many are or shall be made righteous that is justified we cannot understand that righteousnesse of Christ which consists only in his obedience to the morall Law but that satisfactorie righteousnesse or obedience which he performed to that peculiar Law of Mediation which was imposed upon him and which chiefly consisted in his sufferings See for this what hath bin already laid down cap. 3. of this latter part Sect. 4. p. 45. And for this Exposition of the word obedience in this place there is as great a vote and voyce of Interpreters both ancient and moderne as for any one Scripture I know which hath the least degree of difficultie in it And for the most part they compare this place with that Philip. 2.8 where it is said of Christ that he humbled himselfe and became obedient unto death c. making both Scriptures to speake but of one and the same obedience Theophylact a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theop. in Rom. 5.19 Peter Martyr (b) Docat quodnam fuerat illud bonum quod per unum Christum Iesum salutem hominibus recuperavit Illud autem ait fuisse Christo obedientiam de qua scribens ad Philippenses c. P. Mart. ad Rom. 5.19 And a little after Quae verba docet id quod Apostolus ait per obedientiam Christi qua nostracausa mortem subiit c. Calvin (c) Quum pronunciat no Christi obedientia constitui justos hinc colligimus Christum eo quod Patri satisfecerit justitiam nobis comparasse Calv. ad Rom. 5.19 Musculus (d) His verbis aperit de qua justitia Christi loquatur videlicet de illius obedientia de qua legis Philip. 2 Musculus ad Rom. 5 19 Eadem fere habent Pareus Piscator Gualterus in locum Pareus Piscator Gualter and of our own Mr. Gataker (e) Vterque locus Rom 5 19 Philip. 3.8 intelligendus est de obedientia quam mediationis legi peculiari Christus exhibuit c. Mr Gatak in Elench Gomar p. 49. are men of this interpretation Amongst whom Pareus gives two reasons of this his Exposition The first is the antithesis or opposition which the Apostle makes betweene the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ which saith he will not constare if by the obedience of Christ we understand vniversalem ejus conformitatem cum lege that is his universall conformitie with the Law the disobedience of Adam being but singularis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a singular and particular transgression But his latter and greater reason is the effect which is here attributed to this obedience of Christ viz. the justification or righteous-making of many which saith he the Apostle hitherto hath constantly vindicated or appropriated to the death and blood of Christ yea and the whole Scripture throughout teacheth our Faith to seeke its righteousnesse in this obedience of his So that all this while here is nothing at all appeares for the countenancing of that imputation of the active obedience of Christ which takes so deeply with the thoughts of many 5. Suppose that by the obedience of Christ we should here contrary to the generall current aswell of Interpreters as the Scriptures themselves understand that active righteousnesse or obedience which he performed to the Morall Law yet will it not follow from hence that therfore men must be justified or made righteous by it in such a way of imputation as is contended for For certaine it is that that justification or righteous-making which the Apostle speaks of in this 19. verse is the same with that which he had spoken of v. 16 17 18. Now that righteousnesse as he calls it v. 17. is described v. 16. to be the guift i. the forgivenesse of many offences i. of all the offences whereof a man either doth or shall stand guilty before God unto justification and evident it is that that righteousnesse or justification which stands in the guift or forgivenesse of offences or sinnes cannot stand in the imputation of an observation or fulfilling of the Law 6. and lastly it is but a loose and very unsavourie kind of arguing to reason from a thing simply done to a determinate manner of doing it If a man should argue thus Peter was slaine with death therfore he was slaine by a Beast or therfore he was slaine with a Dagger were there the least shaddow or appearance of the certainty of the Couclusion in the premises So when the Apostle simply and barely affirmes that by the obedience of Christ men are made
his sanctification for our sanctification And if it be a weake and unsavourie inference from this place to conclude that we are wise with the same wisdome wherewith Christ was wise being imputed unto us it must needs be a bird of the same feather to infer that we are righteous with the same righteousnesse wherewith Christ was righteous being imputed to us Here is no more mention or intimation of the imputation of the one then of the other Suppose Christ were made righteousnesse unto us by the imputation of that righteousnesse of his which men so much contend for yet there is nothing more evident then that this speciall manner of his being made righteousnesse must be made good otherwise and from other Scriptures and cannot at all be prooved from this place As because a rich man hath silver and gold and jewells in his possession or keeping it doth not follow that therefore he hath silver in one Chest and gold in another or jewells in a third because he may possibly have them al in one the same From generall expressions particular modifications of things can never be prooved Therefore Secondly when Christ is said to be made righteousnesse unto us the meaning only is that he is made or ordained by God to be the Author or sole meanes by way of merit of our Iustification purchased and procured for us by his death and sufferings This Exposition is strengthened First the word righteousnesse SECT 23 is very frequently used by this Apostle for Iustification as hath bin often observ'd See particularly the third Chap. of this second part Sect. 2. Secondly that righteousnesse or Iustification which beleevers have in or by Christ is still attributed in the Scriptures to the death and sufferings of Christ as hath bin formerly observed (a) See cap. 2. of this latter part Sect. 7. p. 9.10 and never to his righteousnesse or active obedience 3. Neither is it true according to the principles of the men themselves who professe enmity to us in the point depending that Christ by his active obedience only should be made righteousnesse or justification unto us Therfore they forsake their own guides when they seek for the imputation of this righteousnesse unto us out of this place 4. And lastly the interpretation given hath the concurrent judgement of many sound and able Expositors for it who by Christs being made righteousnes unto us understand nothing else but our justification or righteous-making by him some placeing this justification in the forgivenesse of our sinnes some ascribeing it to the satisfaction that is the sufferings of Christ none of them either ascribeing the purchase of it to his active obedience or placing it in the imputation of this unto us Let Chrysostome a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Hom. 5. in 1. ad Corin. and Theophylact b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et mox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in 1 Cor. 1.30 be consulted with upon the place and of later times Pomeranus (c) Quierg◠in nobis peccatores sumus in ipso et per ipsum justi sumus non imputate propter ipsum nobis peccate Pomeran and Piscator (d) Iusticia id est cujus satisfactions nobu donata atque imputata justi sumus Piscator in 1 Cor. 1.30 Mr. Gataker likewise p. 47. of his little Tract against Gomarus rejects that interpretation as wanting aswell colour as substance of truth which seeketh to establish the imputation of the active obedience of Christ upon this Scripture Bernard as he is cited by a Great Master of the way of Imputation though against (e) Bishop Downham Tract of Iustific p. 223. Sect. 4. SECT 24. himselfe is expresse and full over and over for that sence of the place which we maintain Christ saith he as Bishop Downham translates him was made unto us wisdome in preaching justice or righteousnesse in absolution of sins c. Againe enlighten mine eyes that I may be wise remember not the sinnes of my youth and my ignorances and I am just Yet againe He was made unto us of God wisdome teaching prudence justice forgiving sins c. They only are wise who are instructed by his Doctrine they onely just who of his mercy have obtained parden of sinne In all this variety of expression it is observable that he still placeth that righteousnesse or justification which Christ is made unto us in the remission or pardon of our sins Which with the premisses upon this Scripture duly considered I presume no imputation of the active obedience of Christ will be any more urged or contended for from hence The next Scripture that is much sollicited by some to speake a good word in the cause of the aforesaid imputation is 2 Cor. 5.21 For he hath made him to be sinne for us who knew no sinne that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him From hence they inferre that as our sins are imputed unto Christ so Christs righteousnesse meaning his active obedience or else they doe not hold to the point is imputed unto us Of all the Scriptures which men take up for the plea of the imputation opposed Mr. Gataker hath well observ'd this is most pregnant and cleere against themselves (a) Quid ser◠clarius contiase producere poterat quam illud 2 Cor. 5.21 Gataker in Elench contra Gomar p. 48 2 Cor. 5.21 cleared But for Answere 1. There is no footing in this Scripture for the inference drawn from it here is nothing said touching any imputation of our sinnes to Christ and consequently here can be nothing to build a reciprocall imputation of his righteousnesse unto us upon As for that expression of Christs being made sinne for us it imports no such imputation as men suppose as will appeare presently 2. Some of the most judicious and learned assistants of the way of this Imputation absolutely reject this equality or reciprocation of Imputation between the sinnes of beleevers unto Christ and the righteousnesse of Christ unto them There is not the same force or power saith Bishop Davenant (b) Non est eadem vi◠nostra injustietae ad efficiendum Christum injustum iniquum qua est obedientiae ejus et justiciae ad constituendos fideles justos et innocentes Bishop Dauenaut De Iust Habit. c. p. 332. Christus ita volute peccata in se suscipcre ut non inde peccater sed hostia pro peccato constitueretur ibidem p. 333. of our unrighteousnesse to make Christ unrighteous which is of his righteousnes to make those that beleeve righteous and innocent See more to this purpose in the second Chapter of this Discourse Sect. 19. p. 26. So that according to their own principles if the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ be no otherwise imputed unto us then our sinnes are imputed unto him we are not made formally righteous by such an imputation 3. Neither is there so much as the face or
IOHANNES GOODWIN S THEOL CANTABRIG Aº AETAT 47. 1641. Thou see'st not whome thou see'st then doe not say That this is HEE who calls a lump of clay Without it's soule a mans thou see'st nâ—â— more Nay but the SHADOW of that lumpâ— what store Of gifts and graces what perfections rare Among ten thousand persons scatt'red are Gather in one Jmagine it to bee This SHADOWES substance and then say 't is Hee DT G G. fecit IMPVTATIO FIDEI or A Treatise of Justification wherein the imputation of faith for righteousnes mentioned Rom 43.5 is explained also that great Question largly handled whether the actiue obedience of Christ performed to the morall Law be imputed in Justification or not or how it is imputed Wherein likewise many other difficulties and Questions touching the great busines of iustification viz the matter forme thereof etc are opened cleared Together w th the explication of diuerse scriptures which partly speake partly seeme to speake to the matter herein discussed By John Goodwin pastor in Coleman-street Nisquaâ— legi sanctitutem humanani Christi 〈…〉 esse iustitiam nostram vel ejus partem Si quis legit quoeso mihi â—â—tendat ut et ego legem et eredam Partus De Iustic Christi Act et Passus Remisâ—iâ— peccaterum est Iusticia imputata Châ—â—â—â—r Tim. 3. lib. â— C. iâ— 9.10 Lâ—am Abieâ—tisimi verbae in Ecclesia non contemâ—â—nda sod audi ende et iudicanda sunt Zuingl in Epist. LONDON Printed by R. O. And G. D. And are to be sold by Andrew Crooke at the Greene Dragon in Pauls Church-yard 1642. Small wyars somtimes Massic wayghts do carry And on poore faith hangs great eternitie TO HIS DEARE BRETHREN the Reverend and Faithfull Ministers of the Gospell of Jesus Christ in and neere about the CITIE of LONDON Reverend and much honoured and respected in the Lord I Presume you have all taken speciall knowledge of a Booke not long since presented unto you by a Leviticall hand entituled Socinianisme Discovered and Confuted What Quarter the Divinitie of the said Discourse hath in your approbations I doe not yet so well understand as I desire I might but for the moralitie of it I make no question but you have done justice upon it aswell to mine as to other mens satisfaction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2.6 I doe not here offer unto you any formall answere or confutation of that piece because if I could doe the Truth and my selfe right otherwise I would willingly decline all personall contention and contestation I only lay downe more fully and at large mine owne judgement concerning those things about which the question is still depending betweene my Antagonist and me conceiving it a speciall duty lying upon me as the case stands to give an ingenuous and faire account unto your selves especially and from you to all men of what I hold therein aswell by making knowne what Scriptures and reasons and grounds otherwise have commanded my judgement to that point whereat it now stands as wherefore I judge both those Scriptures and arguments impertinent and insufficient to prove the contrary which have hitherto bin produced insisted upon for that purpose either by my Adversaries in the mentioned Discourse or any other I can meet with Nor doe I make the least question but that when you have diligently examined the particulars of my account you will give me your quietus est for the Totall Or in case you shall deny me this that you will give me in the stead thereof that which will be of equal or rather of superior consideration to me better reasons and grounds for the contrarie opinion then I here deliver for mine It is of sweet and comfortable importance to be accompanied in the way of a mans judgement by those that are learned and religious yet is it much more desirable of the two to be turned a side out of a way of error by an high hand of evidence and truth Since God ingaged me in these and some other controversies and the oppositions of men grew strong and thick upon me I have bestowed some time and thoughts to finde out and possesse my selfe throughly of such considerations which might make me willing yea more then willing if it might be rejoycingly willing to imbrace such opportunities wherein I may exchange error for truth And if God hath not given me darknesse for a vision herein I apprehend a marveilous bewtie benefit and blessing in such a frame of spirit which makes a man able and willing and joyfull to cast away even long endeered and professed opinions when once the light hath shone upon them and discovered them to be but darknesse I looke upon ignorance and error and all misprision in the things of God and of the glorious Gospell of Jesus Christ as that region in the soule wherein only dolefull creatures as Owles and Satyrs and Dragons I meane feares and terrors and distractions spirituall tumults and stormes and tempests are ingendred and begotten If all were light and truth in the judgment all would be peace and sweetnesse and joy in the heart and soule Therfore to me it is no more grievous to abandon any opinion whatsoever being once cleerely detected and substantially evicted for an error then it is to be delivered out of the hand of an enemy or to take hold of life and peace But on the other hand it argues childishnesse in understanding and a bundle of weaknesse folly bound up in the heart to be baffled out of a mans judgment with every light and loose pretence The raine fell as sore and the floods came with as great rage and the winds blew with as much violence against the house that was built upon the rock as upon that which was built upon the Sand yet that fell not as this did Mat. 7.25 26 27. In like manner many opinions that are built upon the Rock and Foundations of the Scriptures being truths of very deere and precious importance are capable of asmuch opposition and contradiction from men may have Forts and Bullwarkes and Batteries of as much strength in apearance raised up against them as opinions that are loose and lighter in the ballance then vanitie it selfe yet are they not therefore to be forsaken I presume my keene Adversary himselfe had his patience bin pleased to have awaited the sight and consideration of the whole body and frame of my discourse would have kept his Sword in his Scabberd and not drawne upon me with that violence and extremity of passion which now he hath done However I have presumed to follow him in the way of his Dedication fas est et ab hoste doceri knowing none more able then your selves to comprimize a difference of this nature according to equitie and truth and withal desiring none more indifferent and upright to give an award then I hope to finde a competent number at least of you I make no question but you all studie
37. for censured r. conceived CAP. I. VVherein the state of the question is opened and the sense EXPLAINED Wherein aswell the Imputation of FAITH is affirmed as the imputation of the RIGHTEOUSNESSE of CHRIST denyed in JUSTIFICATION FOR the cleare understanding of the state and drift of the question some things would be premised which for their evidence sake might be privilledged and exempted from passing under much dispute or contradiction yet if any thing be not sufficiently prepared for assent in the briefe proposall of it the ensuing discourse will labor to reconcile the disproportion and in the progresse make satisfaction for what it shall receive upon courtesie in the beginning As 1. That the termes justifying justification c. are not to be taken in this question nor in any other usually moved about the justification of a sinner either 1 sensu physico in a Physicall sense as if to justifie signified to make just with any habituall or actuall any positive or inherent righteosnesse Nor yet 2. sensu forensi propriè dicto in a juridicall or judiciary sense properly so called where the Iudge hath only a subordinate and derived power of â—udicature and is bound by Oath or otherwise to give sentence according to the strict rule of the Law as if to justify were to pronounce a man just or 〈◊〉 absolve him from punishment according to the strict terme of precise rule of that Law whereof he was accused as a transgressor though this sense be admitted and received by many But 3. and lastly sensu forensi improprié dicto in a judiciary sense lesse properly and usually so called vizr where he that Titteth Iudge being the supreme Magistrate hath an independancy or soveraignty of power to moderate and dispence with the Law as reason or equity shall require So that to justify in this question import's the discharging or absolving of a man from the guilt blame and punishment of those things whereof he either is or justly might be accused not because he is cleare of such things or justifiable according to the letter or strictnesse of the Law for then he could not be justly accused but because the Judge having a sufficient lawful soveraignty of power is willing upon sufficient weighty considerations known unto him to remit the penalty of the Law and to deliver and discharg him as if he were an innocent or righteous man As for the Physical sense of making just by inherent righteousnesse though Bellarmine and his Angells earnestly contend for it yet till Scriptures be brought low and Etymologies be exalted above them till use and custome of speaking deliver up their Kingdome into Cardinalls bands that sense must no way be acknowledged or received in this dispute Yet to give reason and right even to those that demand that which is unreasonable it is true that God in or upon a mans justification begins to justifie him Physically that is to infuse habituall or inherent righteousnesse into him But here the Scriptures and the Cardinall are as far out in termes as in a thousand other things they are in substance and matter that which he will needs call justification the Scriptures will as peremptorily call Sanctification Concerning the other sense of a judiciary justification usually and strictly so called SECT 2 wherein the Iudge or justifier proceeds upon legall grounds to acquit and absolve the party guilty or accused neither can this be taken in the Question propounded except the Scriptures be forsaken because the Scriptures constantly speake of this act of God justifying a sinner not as of such an act whereby he will either make him or pronounce him legally just of declare him not to have offended the Law and hereupon justifie him but of such an act whereby he freely forgives him all that he hath done against the Law and acquits him from all blame and punishment due by the Law unto such offences So that in that very act of God whereby he justifies a sinner as there is a discharge from all punishment due unto him so there is a profession withall or plaine intimation of the guiltinesse of the person now to be justified according to the Law and that he is not discharged or acquitted upon any consideration that can be pleaded for him according to the Law but that consideration upon which God proceeds to justifie him is of another order the consideration of somewhat done for him in this case to relieve him out of the course and order or appointment of the Law he whose justification stands whether in whole or in part it is not materiall herein in the forgivenesse of sinne can in no construction be said to be justified according to the Law because the Law knowes no forgivenesse of sinnes neither is there any rule for any such thing there The Law speakes of the curse death and condemnation of a sinner but for the justification of a sinner it neither takes knowledg nor gives any hope thereof Secondly That Iesus Christ the naturall Sonne of God and supernaturall Sonne of the Virgin ran a race of obedience with the Law aswell Ceremoniall as Morall and held out with every letter jot and tittle of it as farre as it any wayes concerned him during the whole continuance of his life in the flesh no mans thoughts ever rose up to deny but those that denyed him the best of his being I meane his Godhead Which of you convinceth me of sinne was his challenge to the Nation of the Jewes whilst he was yet on earth Ioh 8 46. and remaines through all ages as a challenge to the world He that can â—ast the least aspersion or imputation of sinne upon Christ shall shake the foundations of the peace and safety of the world Thirdly that this Christ offered up himselfe as a Lambe without spot in sacrifice upon the Crosse to make an attonement for the world and to purge the sinne of it I know no spirit at this day abroad in the Christian world that denies but that which wrought in Secinus formerly and still workes in those that are baptized into the same spirit of error with him Fourthly I conceive it to be a truth of greater authority amongst us then to meet with contradiction from any man that Iesus Christ is the sole and entire meritorious cause of every mans justification that is justified by God or that that righteousnesse or absolution from sinne and condemnation which is given to every man in his justification is somewhat yea a principall part or member of that great purchase which Christ hath made for the world Evan as God for Christs sake freely forgave you Ephes 4.32 Forgivenesse of sinnes or justification is from God for Christs sake he is worthy to be gratified and honored by God with the justification of those that believe in him whatsoever he is worthy of more Fiftly It is a truth that hath every mans judgment concurring with it that Faith is the condition appointed by God and
and tendred it unto him to require it for righteousnes or instead of righteousnes and not to accept it for righteousnes when it is brought unto him would be as apparant a breach of Covenant with God as it would be in a rich Creditor that should compound and agree with his poore Debtors for twelve pence in the pound or the like but when they brought the money to him should refuse to take it upon any such termes or to discharge them of their debt and give them out their bands Secondly SECT 6 when we deny the Imputation of Christs righteousnes in Justification we neither deny the righteousnes of Christ in it selfe we rather suppose and establish it Neither 2 do we deny the absolute necessity of it both to the Justification and salvation of a sinner Neither 3 do we deny a meritorious efficiency or causality in this righteousnes in respect of the Iustification of a sinner but verily believe and conceive that God justifieth all that are justified not simply and barely for Christs sake or for his righteousnes sake for a man may do a thing for his sake whom he much loves and respects though he hath not otherwise deserved it at his hands but for the merits sake of Christs righteousnesse there being a full and reall consideration in this righteousnes of Christ I meane his death or passive righteousnes chiefly why God should justifie those that believe in him But 4 and lastly that which we deny in denying the Imputation of Christs righteousnes is this that God should looke upon a believing sinner in his Iustification and account of him as one that had himselfe don all that Christ did in obedience to the Morall Law and hereupon pronounce or account him righteous or which is the same that God should Impute unto him those particular acts of obedience which Christ performed ◠the nature and proprietie of them so that he should stand as righteous before God as Christ himselfe or which is the same righteous with the selfe same righteousnesse wherewith Christ was righteous and so God make himselfe countable unto him for such obedience imputed in as great matters of reward as he would have beene for the like obedience personally performed by himselfe In a word this is that which we deny this is that which we affirme concerning the righteousnes of Christ in the Iustification of a sinner that God cloaths no man with the letter of it but every man that believes with the Spirit of it that is that this righteousnes of Christ is not that that is imputed unto any man for righteousnes but is that for which righteousnes is imputed to every man that believeth A Justified persō may in such a sense be said to be cloathed with Christs righteousnes as Pauls necessities were relieved supplied by his hands Act. 20 34. These hands saith he have ministred unto my necessities PAVL neither eate his fingers nor spun out the flesh of his hands into cloathing and yet was both fed and cloathed with them so may a believer be said to be cloathed with the righteousnes of Christ and yet the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe not be his cloathing but only that which procured this cloathing unto him and so Calvin calls that cloathing of righteousnes wherewith a beleever is clad in his justification justitiam morte resurrectione Christi acquisitam a righteousnes procured or purchased by the death and refurrection of Christ This righteousnes of Christ may be said to be the righteousnes of a beleever in such a construction of speech as the knowledg of God and of Christ is said to be eternall life Ioh. 17 3. viz in way of causalitie not in the formalitie of it And againe the righteousnesse of a Beleever in his Iustification may be termed the righteousnesse of Christ in such a sense as the favor of God in deliverance out of trouble is called a mans righteousnesse Iob 33 26. or as a bond servant under the Law is said by God himselfe to be his Masters money Exo. 21 21. because he was bought with his money or as the Nation and people of the Jewes is often in the Scriptures called Iacob they were not Iacob in the proprietie of his person but in his discent and propagation So may the righteousnesse of a Beleever be called the righteousnesse of Christ viz. in the fructification of it because it is a righteousnesse descended from it and issuing as it were out of the loynes of it What hath beene affirmed and what hath been denyed in the Question We come now to prove and to demonstrate the truth of both 1. from the authority of the Scriptures 2. from the grounds of reason as for the third kind of proofe or confirmation consent of Authors we shall not assigne a peculiar place for that by it selfe but enterlace our other proofes occasionally with such testimonyes as we have received from learned and judicious men for confirmation of the point to be discussed the greatest part whereof notwithstanding you shall meete with in the second and fift Chapters CAP. II. VVherein the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse is proved from the Scriptures and the interpretation of those Scriptures confirmed both by reason and authority aswell of ancient as moderne Divines VVHat it is that is imputed for righteousnesse in Iustification all the wisdome or learning under Heaven is not so fit or able to determine as the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture being the great Secretary of Heaven and privie to all the waies and counsells of God and therefore there is none to him to take up any difference or to comprimise betweene the Controverters about any Subject in Religion All the difficulty and question is because though he speaks upon the house top yet many times and many things he interprets in the eare All the Christian world either know's or readily may know what he speakes in the Scriptures but what his meaning and intent is in many things there delivered he leaveth unto men to debate and make out amongst them To some indeed he reveales the secret of his counsaile the Spirit of his Letter in some particulars but because these are not marked in the forehead therefore their thoughts and apprehensions though the true begotten of the spirit of truth are yet in common esteeme but like other mens till God himselfe shall please to make the difference by causing a clearer light of evidence and conviction to arise upon them yea many times the nearer the truth the further off from the approbation of many and sometimes even of those that are the greatest pretenders to the truth Foure things there are especially SECT 2 that much commend an interpretation when they are found in conjunction and establish it like that King upon his Throne Prov. 30 31. against whom there is no riseing up First if the Letter or Grammar of the Scripture will fairely and strongly beare it Secondly If the scope of the place will close
righteousnesse Yea whereas the Object of Faith as justifying is expressed with great varietie of words and termes in the Scriptures in all this varietie there is not to be found the least mention of the righteousnesse of Christ As if the holy Ghost foreseeing the kindling of this false fire had purposely with-drawne or with-held all fuell that might feed it Sometimes Christ in person is made the Object of this Faith Ioh. 3 16. that whosoever beleeveth in him c. Sometimes Christ in his Doctrine or the Doctrine and word of Christ Ioh. 5 46. Had yee beleeved Moses yee would have beleeved me Sometimes Christ in the relation of his person and that either as he stands related unto God as his Father Ioh 20 31. These things are written that yee might beleeve that Iesus is the Christ the Son of GOD. Or else as he stands related to those ancient promises of God made unto the Nation of the Jewes from time to time before his coming in the flesh concerning a Messia to be given or sent unto them Ioh. 8 24. Except yee beleeve that I am he you shal die in your sins Sometimes thâ—r aising up of Christ from the dead is made the Object of this Faith Rom. 10 9. For if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and shalt beleeve in thy heart that God raised him up from the dead thou shalt be saved Sometimes againe God himselfe is mentioned as the Object of this Faith 1 Pet. 1 21. that your Faith and hope might be in God and Iohn 12 44. He that beleeveth on me beleeveth not on me but on him that sent me Besides many like places Lastly to forbeare further enumeration of particulars in this kind which are of ready observation in the Scriptures Sometimes the record or testimony of God concerning his Son is made the Object of this Faith 1 Iohn 5 10. He that beleeveth not God hath made him a liar because he beleeved not the record God witnessed of his Son c. In all this varietie or diversitie of expressing the Object of Faith as justifying there is no sound or intimation of the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ Not but that the righteousnesse of Christ is and ought to be believed as well as other things that are revealed and written in the Scriptures yea I conceive it to be of nearer concernment to the maine to beleeve this righteousnesse of Christ then the beleeving of many other things besides comprehended in the Scriptures aswell as it But one principall reason why it should not be numbred or reckoned up amongst the objects of Faith as justifying may with great probability be conceived to be this because though it ought to be and cannot but be beleeved by that Faith which justifieth yet it may be beleeved also by such a Faith which is so far from justifying that it denyeth this Christ whose righteousnesse notwithstanding it beleeveth and acknowledgeth to be the Son of God Thus some of his owne Nation the Jewes have given testimony to his righteousnesse and innocency who yet received him not for their Messiah nor believed him to be God And this is the frame and constitution of the Turkish Faith for the most part concerning him at this day Fiftly SECT 6 that Faith which is here said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse ver 3. is that Faith by which he beleeved in God that quickeneth the dead and calleth the things that are not as if they were ver 17. But the righteousnesse of Christ can in no tolerable construction or congruitie of speech be called that Faith by which Abraham beleeved in God that quickeneth the dead c. Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is not that Faith that is here said to be imputed for righteousnesse Sixtly that Faith which was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse ver 3. is that Faith wherein it is said ver 19. that Abraham was not weak and is opposed to doubting of the promise of God through unbeliefe ver 20. But the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be conceived to be that wherein Abraham was not weake neither doth the righteousnesse of Christ carrie any opposition with it to a doubting of the promise of God through unbeliefe being a thing of a differing kind and nature from it But betweene Faith properly taken or a firme believing and a doubting through unbeliefe there is a direct perfect opposition Therefore it is Faith in this sense and not the righteousnesse of Christ that is said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse Sevently that Faith which was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse was that Faith by which he was fully assured that he which had promised was able also to doe it for thus it is described ver 21. and the imputation of faith so described is plainly affirmed ver 22. and therefore it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse But the righteousnesse of Christ is not capable of any such definition or description as this that by it Abraham was fully assured that he that had promised was also able to performe it Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is not that that was imputed for righteousnesse unto Abraham Eightly that which shall be imputed unto us for righteousnesse is said to be our beleeving on him that raised up the Lord Iesus Christ from the dead v. 24. But the righteousnes of Christ is not our believing on him that raised up our Lord Iesus Christ from the dead Therefore it cannot be that that is either said or meant to be imputed unto us for righteousnes Ninthly and lastly whereas the question or point of imputation in Iustification is handled only in this passage of Scripture Rom. 4. for those other places Gal. 3 and Iam. 2 only mention it but insist not at all upon any declaration or explication thereof it is no waies probable but that the Apostle should speake somewhat distinctly and plainely of the nature of it here Otherwise he might seeme rather desirous to have layd a stumbling block in the way of men then written any thing for their learning and comfort If we take the word FAITH or BELEEVING so often used in this Chapter in the proper and plaine signification of it for that Faith whereby a man beleeves in Christ or the promise of God concerning Christ then the tenor of the discourse is as cleare as the day and full of light the streame of the whole Chapter run's limpid and untroubled But if we bring in a tropicall and metonymicall interpretation and by Faith will needs compell Saint Paul to meane the righteousnesse of Christ we cloath the Sun with a Sackcloath and turne Pauls perspicuitie into a greater obscuritie then any light in the Scripture knoweth well how to comfort or relieve The word FAITH being a terme frequently used in the Scripture is yet never found to signifie the righteousnesse of Christ the Holy Ghost never putting this word into that sheath neither is there any either rule in
Grammar or figure in Rhetorique that know's how to salve up the inconsistencie of such an interpretation SECT 8 If it be objected and said that faith in the Scripture is sometimes put for the object of faith as Gal. 3 23. But before Faith came that is the Doctrine of Faith or Christ himselfe the object of Faith we were kept under the Law So Gal. 1 22. He preacheth the faith which sometimes he destroyed c. and may be so used with as good proprietie of speech as hope is put for the thing or things hoped for which is an expression not unusuall in the Scriptures To this I answere first by concession that true it is the name of the faculty is sometimes put for the object appropriated to it neither is there any hardnes or cause of offence or mistake in such an expression It rather add's grace comlinesse to the sentence wherein it is used if it be used seasonably as might be exemplified by severall Scripture instances if it were pertinent But secondly by way of opposition I answere First though the faculty be sometimes put for the Object yet the act seldome or never to my remembrance The actor exercise of the grace of hope is never put for the things hoped for but hope it selfe is sometimes found in that signification As Colos 1 5. for the hope which is layed up for you in the Heaven So Tit. 2 13. Looking for that blessed hope c. Now that which is here said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse was not the habit or grace of his Faith but Abraham beleeved God that is exercised or put forth an act of Faith it was imputed unto him for righteousnes So that though faith may be sometimes put for the object of Faith yet the exercise of this Faith or to believe is never put for it Secondly though it should be granted that aswell the act it selfe as the faculty or habit may be sometimes put for the Object yet when the act and Object have been named together and the act expressed and specified by an Object proper to it and further somewhat immediatly ascribed to this act under that consideration all which is plainly seene in this clause Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse in this case to conceive or affirme that what is so ascribed is neither ascribed unto the act it selfe there mentioned which is here Abrahams beleeving nor unto the Object mentioned likewise with it which is here GOD Abraham beleeved God but to some third thing really differing from them both and not so much as once mentioned or named in all the discourse as the righteousnesse of Christ is not once named throughout this whole Chapter no nor in any other Chapter neere at hand either antecedent or subsequent what is this but to turne a mans back upon the text to looke out an interpretation and to exchange that which is plainly affirmed with what is not so much as obscurely intimated or implied and to make the Apostle speake as man never spake besides not for wisdome or excellencie of speech but for the uncouth abstrusenesse of his meaning Doubtles no instance is to be found of any Author whatsoever sacred or prophane who so far abhorred to be understood in what he spake as to put his minde into words of such a construction Thirdly and lastly to the Objection I Answere that neither is the righteousnesse of Christ the object of Faith as justifying as hath been said and sufficiently made good nor doth the Scripture where it speakes of Faith as justifying which places are not a few make the least mention or give the least intimation of such a thing It is true the Scriptures sometimes propound the righteousnes of Christ or his obedience to the Law as that which is to be beleeved so it may be termed a partiall object of Faith that is somewhat that is ought to be believed but so the creation of the world is propounded to be beleeved and that Cain was Adams Son is somewhat to be beleeved And generally whatsoever the Scriptures do affirme may be called a partiall object of Faith But the object of faith properly as it justifieth is either Christ himselfe or the promise of GOD concerning the Redemption and salvation of the world by him The righteousnesse of Christ is no more the object of Faith as justifying then either his being borne of a Virgin or his ascending up into Heaven or the like and either the one or the other may in that respect be aswell here said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse as the righteousnesse of Christ Thus you see at large how many passages and circumstances in the context stand up in contestation against that exposition which by Abrahams Faith in this Chapter will needs understand Christs righteousnesse Fourthly SECT 9 and lastly this interpretation we contend for according to which the word Faith or beleeving is to be taken properly in all the passages mentioned and not tropically or metonymically was the common interpretation anciently received and followed by the principall lights I meane the Fathers of the Church of God from the primitive times and for 1500 yeares together as far as my reading and memorie together will assist me was never questioned or contradicted Neither did the contrary opinion ever looke out into the world at least was never contended for till the yesterday of the last age So that it is but a calumnie or evill report brought upon the opinion and interpretation of this Scripture which we maintaine unworthy the tongue or pen of any learned and sober man to make either Arminius or Socinus the Authors or founders of either And for this last hundreth yeeres and upwards from about Luthers and Calvins times the fairest streame of Interpreters so runs as to water and refresh the same interpretation You will be easily inclin'd I presume to beleeve both the one and the other that both former and latter times have been friends and favourers of the interpretation given if you will please with diligence and without partiality to ponder and examine these few testimonies and passages following as they stand in their severall Authors respectively TERTULLIAN Caeterum quomodo filâ—â—â—let â—â—t â—â—tus fideâ— si non Aâ—â—aâ—â— Sâ—â—enim Aâ—â—cham Deo credidit et dâ—â—â—tatum est Iustitiae atque extudâ— Pate multatum natiorum mâ—ruit nuncupart noâ—â—atem credendo Deo magis protrdâ— justificamur sicut Abraham Tertull. contra Marc. l. 5. c. 3. Denique Abraham Deo credidit et justitiae deputatus ab isto est sed fidem ejus patientia probavit quum filium immolaere jussus est c. Idem de Patient c. 6. Videtur ergo eciam in prasenti â—oco quam multae fides Abrahae praecesserint in hoc nunc universa fides ejus esse collecta et ita ad justitiam ei reputata Origen l. 4. ad Ro. in c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
applyed by the said efficients is the matter or materiall part of it So in the justification of a sinner neither is God himselfe who is the principall efficient of this effect of justification neither is Faith which is the iustrumentall efficient of it for God is said in Scripture to justifie men by or through it Rom. 3.30 which for the most part are symptomaticall particles of the instrumentall-efficient cause neither is the righteousnesse of Christ which is the meritorious effiâ—ient cause of it none of these are either matter or forme or any constituting cause of iustification but only remission of sins or absolution from punishment as the sorme applyed unto or put upon the matter and the matter or subject it selfe whereunto this forme is applyed by all the 3 efficients spoken of according to their severall and distinct manner of working viz. the person of the beleever This Argument to him that understands and will seriously consider that unchangable Law mentioned of the 4. kinds rally acknowledged by the contrary-minded themselves in this Controversie But that Christ should be reputed before God to have sinned in me seems unto me an assertion so uncouth and un-Christian that a Christian had need to borrow the eares of a Pagan to hear it with patience However the untruth of it is thus made manifest If Christ be reputed before God to have sinned in me he must be reputed to have had a being in me for as operatio consequitur esse i. the operation of a thing follows and depends upon the being of it so he that supposeth or reputeth a person to have done any thing either good or evill in another must necessarily suppose or repute him to have had a being there But what being Christ should be reputed by God to have had in me being yet an unbeleever is a speculation too high for me to attaine unto Againe Argum. 14 SECT 2 against this supposed imputation I oppose this consideration If the active obedience of Christ be imputed unto me in my justification then is the passive imputed also For there can be no sufficient reason given why the one should be taken and the other left Neither are the adversaries themselves partiall in this point to the one above the other they generally allow place for both in their imputation But that the death or sufferings of Christ are not in the letter and formalitie of them imputed unto me I thus demonstrate If the death and sufferings of Christ be imputed unto me then may I be accounted or reputed to have died and suffered in Christ But I can at no hand be reputed to have died or suffered in Christ Therefore the death and sufferings of Christ are not imputed unto me I meane still in the letter and formality of them as I would be understood in the maâ—or proposition also The reason of the sequel in that proposition is evident from the former argument To have any thing imputed to a man in the letter and formality of it and to be reputed and taken as the doer or sufferer of what is so imputed are termini aequipollentes et sese mutuò explicantes are expressions that differ not in sense but relieve one the other in their significations The Reason of the minor that no man is to be conceived or said to have suffered in Christ is this because in Christ we are justisied and absolved from punishment and therefore cannot be said to have been punished in him He hath made us freely accepted in his beloved Ephes 16. Therefore he poured not out his wrath upon us in his beloved And by his stripes we are healed which is contrary to being wounded or punished 1 Pet. 224. And to say that we suffered or were punished in Christ is in effect to unsay or gainsay what the Gospell every where speaketh touching our Redemption and deâ—iverance from punishment by Christ In what sence the sufferings of Christ may be said to be imputed tobeleevers is 〈◊〉 plained in the Second part cap. 3. Sect. 7. He that knoweth how to reconcile these two may undertake to make light and darknesse friends and needs not feare miscarying in his designe that God should freely forgive us our sinnes and yet punish us for them and that to the full which must be said by those that will say we were punished in Christ If Christ were punished for us or in our stead which is the Scripture language 2 Cor. 5.21 who made him sinne for us doubtlesse we our selves can in no sense wherein words and truth will agree be said to be punished or to have suffered in him One Reason more and no more of this Chapter If the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense so oft-expressed be imputed to us Argum. 15 SECT 3 then are we justifyed at least in part by the Ceremoniall Law This consequence is too good to be denyed because part of that righteousnesse which Christ wrought stood in obedience to the Ceremoniall Law he was circumcised kept the Passeover c. Therfore if the righteousnesse of Christ be imputed unto us in the letter and formality of it that part of his righteousnesse which stood in obedience ceremoniall must be imputed also But that we are not justified either in whole or in part by the Ceremoniall Law is a truth so neare scituate to every mans apprehension that it needs not be brought neerer by force of argumentation If it be replyed that there is no necessity that any part of his righteousnesse Ceremoniall should be imputed because his morall righteousnesse is sufficient for imputation To this I answere First there is no warrant or rule in Scripture thus to rend and teare in pieces the one halfe from the other that which was one entire and compleat righteousnesse in Christ and to take which part we please to our selves and leave the other as a cast piece Secondly if that part only of the righteousnesse of Christ which stood in his obedience to the Morall Law be imputed unto us for righteousnesse in our justification then will there not be found the same way or meanes of justification for the whole body of Christ but the beleeving Jewes before Christs death must be made righteous or justified with one kind of righteousnesse and the Gentiles with another For the Jewes before the death of Christ had a necessitie of both parts of this righteousnesse to be imputed to them in their justification supposing their justification had stood in such an imputation as some stand up to maintaine aswell ceremoniall as morall But that the Jewes should be justified with one kind of righteousnesse and the Gentiles with another as there is no colour of reason that I know to maintaine so there is substance and strength of Scripture to oppose Rom. 3.22.30 Thirdly and lastly that righteousnesse of Christ which is called Morall if separated and divided from the other part which is Ceremoniall was not a compleat and perfect righteousnesse in him because it
righteousnesse So Psal 106.30 31. Phineas stood up and executed judgement c. and that viz. act of his was IMPUTED to him for righteousnesse i. received a testimony from God of being a righteous and holy act So againe 2 Cor. 5.19 not IMPUTING their trespasses i. their own trespasses unto them Secondly SECT 5 when a thing is said simply to be imputed as viz. sinne folly and so righteousnesse or the like c. the meaning of the phrase is not to be taken concerning the bare acts of the things as if for example to impute sin to a man signified this to repute the man to whom sin is imputed to have committed a sinfull act or as if to impute folly were simply to charge a man to have done foolishly but the phrase of imputing when it is applyed to things that are evill and attributed to persons that have a power of judicature over those to whom the imputation is made in which posture only to my remembrance the word is found in Scripture signifieth the charging of the guilt or demerit of what is said to be imputed upon the head of the person to whom the imputation is made with an intent of inflicting some condigne punishment upon him So that to impute sinne in Scripture phrase is to charge the guilt of sin upon a man with a purpose to punish him for it Thus Rom. 5.13 Sinne is said not to be IMPUTED whilest there is no Law The meaning cannot be that that act which a man doth whether there be a Law or no Law should not be imputed to him The Law doth not make any act to be imputed or ascribed to a man which might not aswell have bin imputed without it But the meaning is that there is no guilt of any act charged by God upon men nor any punishment inflicted upon men for any thing done by them but only by vertue of the Law prohibiting or restreyning it In which respect the Law is said to be the strength of sinne viz. because it giveth a condemning power against the doer to that which otherwise would have had none 1 Cor. 15.56 So againe Job 24.12 when it is said that God doth not lay folly to the charge of them i impute folly to them that make the soules of the slaine to cry out c. the meaning is not that God doth not repute them to have committed the acts of oppression murder c. For supposeing they did such things it is unpossible but that God should repute them to have done them but the meaning is that God doth not visibly charge the guilt of these sins upon them or inflict punishment for them So 2 Sam. 19.19 When Shimei prayeth David not to IMPUTE wickednesse unto him his meaning is not to desire David not to think he had done wickedly in rayling upon him for himselfe confesseth this in the very next words but that David would not inflict that punishment upon him which that wickednesse deserved This was that non-imputation of wickednesse which Shimei desired of David So when David himselfe pronounceth the man blessed to whom the Lord IMPUTETH not sinne his meaning is not as if there were any man whom the Lord would not repute to have committed those acts of sin which indeed they have committed but that such are blessed upon whom God will not charge the demerit of their sins in the punishment due to them So yet againe to forbeare further citations in this point 2 Cor. 5.19 when God is said not to IMPUTE their sinnes unto men the meaning is not that God should not repute men to have committed such and such sins against him but this that he freely discharged them from the punishment due unto them By all which testimonies and instances from the Scriputres concerning the constant and solemne use and signification of the terme imputing or imputation it is evident that the Mâ—nor Proposition in the Objection viz. that the transgression of the Law is imputable from one mans person to anothers hath no such cleere or certaine soundation in the Scriptures SECT 6 And therfore thirdly and lastly to come home to the instance of the imputation of Adam's sinne to his posterity which is brought for the confirmation of it I answere also First that either to say that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to his posteritie of beleevers or the sin of Adam to his are both expressions at least unknowne to the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures There is neither line nor word nor syllable nor letter nor tittle of any such thing to be found there But that the faith of him that beleeveth is imputed for righteousnesse are words which the Holy Ghost counteth neither errour nor heresie to use But secondly because I would make no exception against words further then necessitie I meane a necessitie of making provision for the truth enforceth I doe not like that any mans words that will take salt and be made savourie by interpretation should be cast out upon the dunghill though I know a man that hath received this measure pressed down heaped up and running over from many gran that there are expressions in Scripture concerning both both the communication of Adams sinne with his posterity and of the righteousnesse of Christ with those that beleeve that will fairely enough beare the terme of imputation if it be rightly understood and according to the use and importance of it in Scripture upon other occasions as we lately cited many instances but as it is commonly taken and understood by many it is no currant language but occasions much error and mistake Concerning Adam's sinne or disobedience SECT 7 many are said to be made sinners by it Rom. 5.19 And so by the obedience of Christ it is said in the same place that many shall be made righteous But now if men will needs exchange language with the Holy Ghost they must see to it that they make him no loser If when they say that Adams sinne is imputed to all unto condemnation their meaning be the same with the Holy Ghosts when he saith that by the disobedience of one many were made sinners there is no harme done to exchange upon such terms is not to rob But it is much to be suspected nay it is too evident by what many of themselves by way of interpretation speake that the Holy Ghost and they are not of one mind touching the imputation or communication of Adams sinne with his posterity but that they differ as much in meaning as in words If when they say that Adams sinne is imputed to all unto condemnation their meaning be plaine and right downe this that the demerit or guilt of Adams sin is charged upon his whole posteritie or that the punishment of Adams sinne redounded and ran over as it were from his person to his whole posterity a maine part of which punishment lyeth in that originall defilement wherin they are all conceived and borne and wherby they are made truly and
or Adams person interpreted or expounded at large and may with as good propriety of speech be called Adam as the nation of the Iewes is often in the Scripture called Iacob So then it being granted 1º that the sinne of Adam was exceedingly sinfull and demeritorious 2º that his person properly taken by reason of the scantnesse or narrownesse of it was not capable of the fulnesse of that wrath which that sin deserved and which it stood best with the glory of God should be executed or poured out upon it it cannot be thought any waies unrighteous or unequall that his posteritie should be arrested also and taken into Communion with his person in the punishment inflicted to supplie that which was wanting in it That God should not be stinted or streightned in making provision for his owne glory in the punishment of sin but that he should punish till he maketh himselfe whole at least till he cometh as neere into his owne as conveniently he may there is no man can judge unequall or unjust Now then Adam who was the sinner having of his owne whereof or wherewith to make satisfaction I meane a posterity which was so fully so intirely and as I may say so identically his owne that it was as yet rather himselfe then his it cannot but be thought equall and meet that God should father seize upon these to doe himselfe right then upon the Angells or any other kind of creature that had not that neere and speciall relation to the transgressor As in the case of the sinne of Korah Dathan and Abiram and so of Achan before mentioned the personall punishment of the offenders not holding out proportion with the nature and quality of their offences there is no man but must needs conceive it more agreeable to justice that their owne families respectively and those that had the neerest relation to them should be taken to make up the exemplarinesse of the punishment till it was increased and raised to the line and levell of the offence then any other family or person that stood at a further distance from them God in a faire and reasonable construction involving Adam and his posterity in the punishment for his sinne did but involve Adam himselfe or his person only because his person and posterity when this punishment was executed were but one and the same Adam This is the third and last particular upon which the equitie of God in punishing aswell Adams posterity as his person for his sinne seemes to be grounded viz. the peculiar neerenesse and relation betweene his person and posteritie Me thinks there is a joynt intimation of all the three SECT 14 in that Scripture Rom. 5.12 Wherfore as by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and so death passed upon all men in that or rather according to the best translations and expositions in whom all men have sinned Here is first the demerit of this sin implied in that death is said to enter into the world by it There is nothing in sinne to draw death and condemnation after it but only the demerit or sinfulnesse of it as for the act it selfe whereunto this sinfullnesse cleaveth for malum semper habitat in alieno fundo as one saith evill is alwaies found with somwhat that is not evill this is directly and efficiently from God himselfe as hath bin said and therfore death is no wages due to this neither would it in case it were imputed to any man bring any guilt or condemnation upon him Secondly it being further said that death being entred into the world passed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon all men or over all men it sheweth that Adams single person was not sufficient or able to beare the fullnes of that punishment which the sinfullnesse-of his sin had deserved otherwise death doubtlesse would have stopp'd there and have gone or passed on no further Thirdly and lastly where it is added in the close as the reason why death being gotten into the world should passe directly towards men and should prevaile in speciall manner over them and that over them all without exception viz. because that in him i. Adam all men had sinned this implieth that had not men bin in the loynes of Adam who was the sinner or otherwise had no speciall or neere relation to him this death had had no more right or advantage against them then against other creatures So that now these things duly considered SECT 15 evident it is that the imputation of Adams sinne or rather of the act of Adams sinne for otherwise it is nothing to the purpose so much spoken of and urged in this case to his posteritie is not the ground or cause of the punishment that is fallen upon his posteritie for it neither is there the least little in the Scriptures founding that way but chiefly that speciall communion they had with him in his nature having then their severall beings respectively in his loynes and consequently in his sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See more of this in the Second Part. cap. 2. Sect. 11 12 13. in whom all have sinned saith Paul Therfore now the ground of that punishment or condemnation which is come upon all men is not the imputation of Adams sinne much lesse of the act of Adams sinne as before we distinguished but if any imputation be in this case it is of every mans owne sinne in Adam for it was not Adam alone that sinned but all sinned in him it is every mans owne sinne that is imputed to him and for which he is punished As Levi himselfe is said to have paied tithes in the loynes of Abraham his Father not that Abraham's paying of tithes was imputed to Levi Heb. 7.9.10 so neither is it to be said that Adams sinne is imputed to his posterity but rather that this posteritie themselves sinned in Adam and it is but every mans own sin not Adams that is imputed to him To make a bare and district imputation of the act of anothers sin the adequate and sole ground and foundation of that heavy judgement and punishment that is layed upon all men in this kind is not so much to represent God to the minds and consciences of men as a district just and severe Judge which with their interpretations may be affirmed of him as to make him so farre to take pleasure or to delight in blood and in the ruine of his creature that he will take occasion even where none is to slay and to destroy with death And of the two doubtlesse it were lesse dishonourable unto God to conceive or say of him in this case that he fell thus heavie in wrath and judgement upon the whole posterity of Adam because he would doe it or because it was his absolute will and pleasure so to doe then to pretend or conceive the bare imputation of the act of Adams sin the cause or reason of it For in the former the absolute power or Soveraigntie of
yeares in his integritie and uprightnesse without the least touch of any transgression he had still bin a debtor of obedience to the Law upon the same termes that he was at the beginning and the least interruption or breach in the course of his obedience had even now beene the forfeiture of that life hee enjoyed So then this position also is unquestionably true that there needs no other righteousnesse but onely the forgivenesse of or freedome from sinne to give a man a cleare and lawfull title unto life Notwithstanding the Scriptures of the new Testament seeme to place the immediate right or capacitie which beleevers have to the Kingdome of heaven and eternall glory rather in the grace of Adoption or Sunship vouchsafed by God unto them through Jesus Christ then in any righteousnesse whatsoever even remission of sinnes it selfe not excepted as was proved more at large in the 12th Chapter of the former part of this Treatise The reason whereof may haply be this because the life and blessednesse which come by Jesus Christ to the world through Faith are of a farre higher nature excellencie and worth than that life which was covenanted by God with Adam by way of wages for his worke or obedience to the Law and therefore require a higher and fuller and richer capacity or title in the creature to interesse him therein than that did Worke or labour faithfully performed is sufficient to entitle a man to his wages or hire the labourer saith Christ is worthy of his hire but the gift of an inheritance requireth a speciall grace and favour no lesse than of an Adoption to make a man regularly and according to the usuall course of humane transactions capable thereof That satisfaction which Christ made to the justice of God for sin Conclusion 6 SECT 7 and whereby he procured remission of sinnes or perfect righteousnesse and reconciliation with God for those that beleeve See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 4.15.25 And Paraus de Iustit Christi Act. pass p. 168. 180. consists onely in that obedience of his which he performed to that peculiar and speciall Law of mediation which God imposed upon him which we commonly though perhaps not altogether so properly call his passive obedience and not at all in that obedience or subjection which he exhibited to that common Law of nature which we call morall This is evident because nothing can be satisfactory to divine justice for sinne but that which is penall without shedding of blood saith the Apostle Heb. 9.22 there is no remission and consequently no satisfaction for doubtlesse where there is satisfaction there is and may be remission Now that that obedience or subjection which Christ exhibited to the morall Law was no wayes penall to him is evident from hence Penall to him in respect of his Godhead it could not be the divine Nature being no wayes passive in it selfe nor capable of punishment Againe in respect of his humane nature this obedience could not be penall because it was required of man in his innocency and imposed by God upon Adam before his fall yea and still lieth and shall he to the dayes of eternity upon men and Angels yea and upon Jesus Christ himselfe in their glorified conditions Love which the Apostle affirmeth to be the fulfilling or keeping of the Law never falleth away Therefore to make obedience to the morall Law penall is to affirme that man was punished and that by order and appointment from God before his fall or before hee sinned and that the glorified Saints and Angels yea and Iesus Christ himselfe are now punished in heaven Besides the Scriptures themselves no where ascribe this satisfaction we speak of or the work of Redemption nor any part or degree of it to the holinesse innocency or active obedience of Christ but still to his passive See Rom. 3.25 Rom. 5.6 8. 2 Cor. 5.21 Eph. 1.7 Ephe. 2.16 Col. 1.14 Heb. 2.14 Heb. 9.12.14.26 Heb. 10.10 1 Pet. 2.24 1 Pet. 3.18 1 Iohn 1.7 Revel 1.5 c. Besides many other places of like importance Conclusion 7 But this is a point which I have had occasion to prosecute more at large elsewhere SECT 8 where I have fully answered that common answer and exception to these and such like Scriptures See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 8.19.20 c. Qui verò obedientiae activae aut sanctitati nativae meritum justitia ascribunâ— mortem Christi fine dubio inanem reddunt Par. de Iustic Christi Activa Pasâ—va p. 181.182 that they are all figurative and by a Synechdoche expresse the whole by mentioning only a part Therefore I shall not further insist upon this here If Christ had fulfilled and kept the Law for us i. in our steed till the utmost period of his life there had beene no occasion or necessity of his dying for us There is no light clearer than this For if we stand before God by vertue of the perfect obedience of Christs life imputed to us as our owne righteousnesse and obedience to the Law perfectly righteous we are no more obnoxious to the curse of the Law and consequently have no neede of any satisfaction to divine justice nor of any remission of sinnes by blood Duo ista pronustciata Christuâ— sanguinis effusione redemit nes ab execratione legis Christus obedientiam prâ—stitit proâ—â—â—bis implicant contradictionem Piscator There needs nothing more to a perfect justification than a perfect righteousnesse or a perfect fulfilling of the Law This the Apostle clearely layeth downe Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse be by the Law whether performed by our selves or by another for us for there is the same reason of both in respect of justification then Christ is dead in vaine This proposition is so cleare and full of the light of its owne truth that both Piscator and Pareus heretofore and Mr. Gataker of late have not simply affirmed but with more than an ordinary confidence avouched that to hold an imputation of the active obedience of Christ amounts to no lesse than an abrogation of his death But this consequence also I remember I have argued more at large in the 13. Chap. of the former Part of this Treatise and therefore for the present leave it Conclusi 8 That Vnion and Communion which true beleevers have with Christ SECT 9 doth no wayes require or suppose any such imputation of his righteousnesse unto them as is conceived That Vnion and Communion which the wife hath with the husband doth not require that whatsoever the husband hath should be imputed to the wife or that the wife should be reputed to have whatsoever the husband hath The wife is not reputed wise because the husband is wise she may be weake and simple notwithstanding and justly so reputed to be neither is the honestie or faithfulnesse of the husband in marriage so imputed to the wife and therefore she must be reputed faithfull and honest in the same kinde The wife may be
if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. q.d. If the sinne of Adam being but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an inconsiderate stumbling or a sinne proceeding from incogitancie and Adam hmselfe but one hath yet beene able to involve many i. his whole posteritie all that shall be borne of him in death and condemnation much more must it needs be conceived that the grace i. the gracious intent purpose of God towards men and the gift by that grace viz. of righteousnes justification by such a man as Iesus Christ is who is both God and man should abound unto many i. justifie and save with farre greater efficacie power and authority and as it were with an higher hand all those that by spirituall regeneration and a true faith shall descend from him The strēngth of of the Apostles reasoning and inference in this passage Scripture lyeth in this The salvation of the world faith he must needs proceede with farre higher hand by Christ then the condemnation of it did or doth by Adam Because 1. The foundation and ground worke of the one was the free and gracious intent and purpose of God which is a stronger and more active and lively principle or spring to set all the wheeles and worke on going that depend upon it then a permissive decree onely which as seemeth here intimated and imployed is the maine foundation the other viz. the condemnation of the world by Adam had in respect of God This permissive decree though it be as cleare as the other in respect of the event and comming to passe of such things as are comprehended in it yet is the motion of it but slow and heavie in comparison of the other Gods permissive decrees are chiefely executed by second meanes or by occasion of his withdrawing himselfe and leaving the creature to it selfe but his gracious decrees have his heart and soule and strength and might in their execution And secondly that which is the more proper and immediate cause of the difference here laid downe by the Apostle the condemnation of the world as touching matter of provocation and offence given unto God proceeds onely in the demerit and strength 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one inconsiderate act of sinne and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from one onely meere man whereas the salvation of the world advanceth in the strength of such a righteousnesse attonement or justification as was procured indeed by one man but this one man was Jesus Christ who is valuable with thousand thousands of men and ten thousand times ten thousand thousands So that what he hath purposely and with all his might done for the justification and salvation of the world must needs be of an incomparable farre greater efficacie to carry these before it then the stumbling or unadvised sinne of one poore meere and meane man in comparison can be to procure the condemnation of it Onely I desire that it should be here considered and remembered that there is nothing said in all this Conclusion any wayes to extenuate either the demerit or guilt of Adams sinne beneath their just proportions and degrees but onely to shew that there is a great excesse of merit in the obedience of Christ above the rate and proportion of demerit in the disobedience of Adam There being these and other differences betweene Adam in his condemning the world and Christ in his Act or Worke in saving it it is evident that all such arguments or reasonings which are drawne from specialites and particularities of agreement betweene them are invalid and insufficient except they have some other foundation to beare them That which makes a true and lively Faith instrumentall in Justification Conclusi 11 SECT 17 is nothing that is essentiall or naturall to it whether descent propertie or act but somewhat that is extrinsecall and purely adventitious viz. the force and efficacie of that will good pleasure ordination covenant and appointment of God in that behalfe As it was neither the stature nor comelinesse of Aarons person nor his descent from Levie nor his grace nor his wisedome nor his knowledge nor any service formerly done by him either unto God or his Church nor any thing that in any proprietie of speech could be called his that made him an high Priest but Gods calling him unto and investing him with that honour and function he might have beene all that hee was otherwise and might have done all that hee did otherwise and yet without this anointing and appointment from God another might have beene high Priest and not he So might Faith have beene Faith both in the Originall and descent of it from the Spirit of God as likewise in all that native beautie and excellencie that belongs to it yea and put forth all those acts which otherwise it puts forth as to bring men to Christ to lay hold of Christ c. and yet never have attained the honour that is now put upon it never have beene instrumentall in Justification And as the same anointing or calling from God which were confer'd upon Aaron would have made any other man Priest though of another Tribe though lesse gracefull of person of meaner gifts and abilities every-wayes than Aaron was had they beene conferred upon him so had any other grace as love patience temperance or the like the force and power of the same covenant or ordination from God to assist them it cannot be conceived but that any of these would justifie as effectually as faith it selfe now doth Therefore it is unquestionably evident that Faith doth not justifie as it relates to Christ or as it apprehends him or redemption by him or the like because all these and such like properties or acts as these are essentiall and naturall unto Faith I meane to such a Faith as we speake of and that Faith which hath not or doth not all this is no true lively or effectuall Faith or instrumentall in justification Wherefore if Faith should justifie in regard or by vertue of any of these it should justifie by it selfe or by some dignity quality or act that is proper to it or inherent in it Hence it is that Scripture still suspends the justifying power or propertie of Faith upon the will free grace and good pleasure of God but never upon any act or qualitie proper to it selfe This is the will of him that sent me saith our Saviour Ioh. 6.40 that every man that seeth the Sonne and beleeveth in him should have everlasting life c. clearely implying 1. That it is not any seeing of Christ either corporally or spiritually nor any beleeving in him that could carry eternall life had it not the efficacie of the will of God to strengthen it thereunto And 2 that had this Will of God fallen in conjunction with any other grace or act of
Conclus 12 either in the Scriptures or Reasons to say SECT 19 that Christ by any imputation of sinne was made formally a sinner nor that sinne in any other sence should be said to be imputed to him then as the punishment due unto it was inflicted on him I shall not neede to insist upon the justification of this Conclusion partly because it hath beene sufficiently argued and cleered in the former part of this Treatise a Cap. 19. Sect. 1.2 but chiefely because it is given in with both hands by the chiefe masters of that way of Imputation which we oppose Christ saith Bishop Downham b Tract of Iustifica p. 40. was made sinne or a sinner by our sinnes not formally God forbid but by imputation c. And Bishop Davenant c De Iustit Habit â—â—einhaerent Desp c. 24. p. 33. Voluit Christus peccata ita in se suscipere ut non inde peccator sed hostia pro peccato constitueretur idem p. 333. calls it a thing repugnant to the salvation of men and blasphemous once to imagine that Christ should be made wicked i. formally a sinner by any imputation of sinne to him And a little before hee makes the impuâ—ation of sinne to Christ to stand in the translation of the punishment of sinne and curse of the Law upon him And in another place Christ was willing so farre to take our sinnes upon him not as to be made a sinner hereby but onely a sacrifice for sinne So that if the men with whom wee have to doe in this businesse of imputation would but stand their owne ground and walke peaceably with their owne principles wee should soone comprimize For their great maxime is that in that manner wherein our sinnes are imputed unto Christ in the same Christs righteousnesse is imputed unto us If so then are not we made formally righteous by any righteousnesse of Christ imputed to us because Christ is not made formally a sinner by any sinne of ours imputed to him Conclusi 13 SECT 20 Faith doth not onely if at all declare a man to be righteous or in a justified estate but is the very meanes by which Justification or righteousnesse is obtained so that no man is to be reputed nor indeede is a person justified in the sight of God specially if we speake of yeares of discretion untill hee obtaines this grace of justification by beleeving This is the constant Doctrine of the Scriptures and there is not one of many of our Reformed Divines that doe oppose it He that beleeveth not saith our Saviour himselfe Mar. 16.16 shall be damned If Justification were in order of time before faith it might very possibly be that many might escape damnation who yet never beleeved because they might die in that interim of time which is supposed to lie betweene a mans justification and his beleeving The like argument might be framed from that passage also Ioh. 8.24 Except you beleeve that I am he you shall die in your sinnes But there are other texts of Scripture so pregnant for this truth that there is no rising up with reason against them Therfore we conclude saith the Apostle that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3.28 That which hee had laboured hitherto and laboureth on in some Chapters following to prove was not how or by what meanes a man might know or be declared either to himselfe or others that he is a justified person but how and by what meanes he might come to be justified These two are of a very farre differing consideration and importance It is of a thousand times more concernement to a man to be justified than to know that he is justified Besides if the Apostles scope and intent here had beene to argue the declaration or to propound the meanes of a discovery or manifestation of a person justified and not simply to prove and shew how and by what meanes justification it selfe is to be attained there can no reason be given either why he should have excluded the workes of the Law or insisted upon Faith rather than many other graces as love patience c. especially why he should have insisted on Faith onely without the association of other graces For it is certaine that obedience to the Law and so love patience temperance humilitie c. are as effectuall nay have a preheminence above Faith it selfe for the discovery of a man in the estate of Justification Shew me thy faith by thy workes and I will shew thee my faith by my workes Iam. 2.18 Therefore workes are more easie to be seene and more apt for discovery or manifestation then Faith for that which discovereth or maketh things manifest is light Ephes 5.13 whereas that which needs manifestation is darkenesse in comparison and therefore the more unfit and uncapable of being a meanes for the discovery and manifestation of other things So elsewhere love is represented as a grace of speciall use and service this way I meane for the discovery and manifestation of justification or of a man in a justified condition but is never mentioned as of any use for justification it selfe Wee know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brethren 1 Iohn 3.14 The Scripture doth not any where ascribe the like discoverie of justification unto Faith but justification it selfe it ascribeth unto Faith againe and againe Therefore being justified by Faith c. Rom. 5.1 So ver 2. so Gal. 3.8 The Scriptures foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles by faith c. It would make a sence very unsavoury and weake to carry the interpretation of these words thus The Scriptures foreseeing that God would declare by Faith that the Gentiles were justified neither would such a sence any wayes accommodate that which followeth But I hasten SECT 21 passing over many places wherein Justification it selfe not the discovery of Justification is attributed unto Faith and conclude with that one testimony Gal. 2.16 We 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 wee might be justified by the faith of Christ c. not because we were righteous or justified or that we might know our selves to be justified but that we might be justified by the faith of Iesus If the Apostle should here speak of a declarative justification there is no relation why he should have excluded the workes of the Law these being every whit of as declarative an importance this way as beleeving it selfe nay above it as we proved before and the Scripture it selfe plainely intimates Little children saith Iohn let no man deceive you He that doth righteousnesse is righteous c. i. is thereby viz. by his doing righteousnesse declared to be righteous or a person justified it is no where said in such a sence that he that beleeveth is righteous Therefore it is evident that the opposition which
this Apostle still makes betweene the works of the Law and beleeving in the point of justification is not at all in respect of the notification or discovery of it either to the justified themselves or others but simply and absolutely in respect of the effecting it Besides to make Paul say thus that they had beleeved in Christ that they might know that they had beene justified by beleeving in him is to make him speake at a very low rate of reason and understanding and not much short of contradictions For with what tolerable congruity or construction of reason can a man be said to beleeve with this intent or for this end that hee may know he is justified by beleeving The doing of a thing for a certaine end is no meanes to certifie or assure any man that the end is or shall be much lesse that it hath already beene obtained by the doing it Much more might be argued both from the Scriptures and reason and testimony of Authors for this Conclusion if it were either necessary or seasonable in this place Neither are the things that can be objected against it SECT 22 of any such weight but that they may receive a faire and ready answer I have heard onely of two Arguments that are made against it The first is this If a man must beleeve before he be justified then God doth not justifie the ungodly because he that beleeveth cannot be counted an ungodly man To this I answer in few words that when the Scripture saith that God justifieth the ungodly the meaning is not as if the person to be justified must needs be ungodly i in the midst of his prophanenesse in the very nicke and instant of time wherein God justifieth him But God may be said to be he that justifieth the ungodly because he hath found out a way and meanes whereby to juftifie sinners and ungodly men viz. Faith in Jesus Christ which neither the Law knoweth nor could ever the wisedome of men or Angels have imagined The justification of the ungodly is ascribed unto God as an high and excellent clogium of his wisedome and goodnesse as when Christ is said to save sinners the meaning is not that men are actually wicked and sinfull when salvation is actually conferr'd upon them but that he affords meanes to those that are sinners as viz. the grace of Faith Repentance c. whereby they may be and many are saved Or else secondly Answer might be that God may be said to justifie not onely when hee absolves and perfecteth the act or worke of justification i. when hee passeth a sentence of absolution upon the beleever but even when hee beginneth it i. when he first toucheth moveth or incline the heart to beleeve upon which justification properly so called dependeth and followeth immediatly Now before and untill this supernaturall touch or motion of the heart from God a man in strictnesse and proprietie of speech may be called ungodly It is a common rule among Divines for the interpretation of many Scriptures In Scripturis saepe fieri dicitur quod fieri incipit In Scripture that is often said to be done which is onely begun to be done and whereof the cause onely is yet in being Thus Prov. 11.2 Shame is said to come when pride commeth viz. because pride is the cause of shame and Tit. 3.5 God is said to have saved men when he hath conferred regeneration or the washing of the new birth upon them because regeneration is a meanes of salvation besides many like instances that might be added In like manner justification may be said to come when Faith commeth and God may be said to justifie when he giveth men Faith whereby they shall be justified c. In this sence therefore God may be said to justifie the ungodly because he giveth Faith unto men being yet sinfull whereby they are justified Thirdly and lastly Further answer might be that there being no prioritie of time at all but onely of nature between a mans beleeving and his being justified so that in the very first instant and touch of time wherein he can be conceived truely to beleeve he is to be conceived justified also God may as properly be said to justifie the ungodly though he justifieth onely those that beleeve as to give Faith or the grace of beleeving unto the ungodly The reason is plaine because in respect of time a man is as immediately ungodly before his justification as he is before his beleeving though he be not justified SECT 23 till hee beleeveth The later Objections against the Conclusion in hand is if a man hath the Spirit of God given him before hee beleeveth he must needs be justified before he beleeveth otherwise it must be said that a man may have the Spirit of grace and sanctification and yet be in an estate of wrath and condemnation And that a man hath and must have the Spirit of Grace before hee beleeveth it is evident because otherwise he could not beleeve To this I answer first by concession that a man is not able of himselfe and without the speciall presence and assistance of the Spirit of grace to raise an act of a true beleeving in his soule But secondly by way of exception I answer two things first that though a man cannot beleeve without the gracious assistance of the Spirit of God yet doth it not follow from hence that there should be the least imaginable distance or space of time betweene a mans receiving the Spirit and his beleeving wherein hee should remayne liable to condemnation because the first touch of the Spirit upon the soule the act of beleeving may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sticke as fast and close together in respect of time as the scales of Leviathan doe in respect of place which by the description and testimony of God himselfe who best knowes their composure and frame are so neere one to another that no ayre can come between Ioh. 41.16 The Sunne was not first made and afterwards shined but his shining in respect of time is as ancient as his creation there was not the least distance or space of time betweene wherein any thing could be done or the least motion performed So may the comming of the Spirit of Grace unto the soule and the act of the soules beleeving touch in one and the same point of time an infinit power being able to worke any thing in a moment in which case it is evident that there is no place for the inconvenience mentioned in the objection viz. that a man endued with the spirit of grace should for a time be in an estate of condemnation except hee were justified before he beleeveth 2. SECT 24 Be it supposed that the spirit of grace should be at worke in the soule for any space of time before the soule hath put forth an act of true beleeving yet till there be a saving worke of Faith wrought by him in the soule it is no wayes inconvenient nor
simply and directly in it selfe nor contributing any thing immediatly by way of merit towards the Iustification of a sinner the reasons whereof have bin formerâ—y given So that God is not thereby provoked or mov'd to justify any man yet falling in conjunction with that other righteousnesse of Christ which we call passive and making his blood to be the blood of a Lamb undefiled and without spot 1 Pet. 1.19 it cannot be denied but that here and in this consideration it hath some kinde of an impulsive and moving efficiencie towards Iustification qualifying in part the sacrifice of Christ for that fullnesse and height of acceptation with God The great misery of the poore creature man lying under condemnation for sinne cannot properly be conceived or call'd any cause of his justification yet is it somewaies reducible to this externall impulsive cause in hand inasmuch as that goodnesse and graciousnesse of God we spake of was hereby occasioned and moved to take some course for it's Iustification and salvation Concerning Faith SECT 12 the generall and uniforme Doctrine of Reformed Authors gives it for an instrumentall efficient cause of Iustification which is the sixt and last kinde of efficient we shall insist upon and so it hath bin more then once represented in this Treatise yet we meet with many expressions concerning Faith even in the best and most approved writers which doe not so much sympathize with the instrumentall as the impulsive efficient Thus Musculus speaking of Abraham (a) Ob eam â—dem sâ— qua promittenti Deo sirmiter credidit justus est a Deo reputatus Musc in Gen. 15. ver 6. saith that he was reputed righteous by God FOR that Faith whereby he firmly beleeved God promising Aretius thus (b) Imputavit ei justitiam quod est fidem gratam habuit adeo ut justum eum haberet justitia imputativa Aret. ad Rom. 4. God imputed righteousnesse to Abraham that is accepted his Faith and againe a Faith so firme and pious was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse In all which expressions with many others both in these and other Authors of like importance there seemes rather an impulsive or perswasive then an instrumentall efficiencie ascribed unto Faith The Scriptures themselves also in respect of other favors blessings and deliverances vouchsafed by God unto Beleevers seeme at least in many places to ascribe rather an impulsive then instrumentall efficiencie unto Faith in the procuring of them So Daniel was brought out of the Denne and no manner of hurt was found upon him BECAUSE he beleeved in God Dan. 6.23 In like manner the Prophet Hanani to King Asa The Ethiopians and the Lubims were they not a great host with Charets and horsemen exceeding many yet BECAUSE then didst rest upon the Lord he delivered them into thine hand 2 Chr. 16.8 See Jer. 39.18.2 Chr 31.18 c. 14 11. with many others Notwithstanding elsewhere this Faith of Beleevers the Holy Ghost makes rather instrumentall then impulsive and that in respect of such favors also Mâ—ny instances whereof are found in that one Chapter Heb. 11. By Faith they passed through the Red Sea ver 29. By Faith the walls of Iericho fell downe 39. Againe ver 33. it is sayd concerning Gideon Barak Sampson c. that through Faith they subdued Kingdomes wrought righteousnesse stopped the mouthes of Lyons quenched the violence of fire c. For reconciling this seeming difference in the Scriptures it may be said that the instrumentall and impulsive efficients are not so opposite but that sometimes and in some cases the instrumentall cause may put on the consideration of an impulsive also and aswell move a man to doe a thing as assist him or be made use of by him in the doing it Thus a competent strength of men may aswell move a King to give battaile to an enemy as assist him in the battaile and obteyning the victory So a Carpenter or other artificer having tooles or instruments thereafter may be perswaded or moved by them in part to undertake some piece of worke which otherwise they would not And thus Faith I conceive may in different respects be look'd upon either as an instrumentall or as an impulsive cause in Iustification As it is a ground or reason why God justifieth one man when he justifieth not another for the beleever is alwaies iustifyed and that because he is a beleever and the unbeleever not so it hath the nature of an impulsive cause againe as it is subservient to the counsell or decree of God concerning Iustification and is accordingly made use of by him in the act of Iustification for he is said to iustify men by and through Faith Rom. 3 30 c. it puts on the nature and consideration of an instrumentall cause properly so called True it is Faith is not an impulsive or moving cause in Iustification of the same kinde nor after the same manner that Christ and his sufferings are these are impulsive and moving in a superior way by way of merit and consequently of Iustification simply and therefore are at no hand to be reckoned amongst the instrumentall causes thereof whereas Faith moveth only in an inferior and under way and by such a motion wherewith causes properly instrumentall sometimes move as hath bin said and therefore mooveth not properly to Iustification or to Iustification simply but comparatiuely that is to the Iustification of such and such men viz that doe beleeve Other causes there are instrumentally inservient unto Iustification as viz. the word of God that is preached the preaching it selfe of this word the Minister by whom this word is preached the sight apprehending or understanding of this word the operation or worke of the Holy Ghost by which this word is made effectuall in the heart and soule of a beleever and generally whatsoever tendeth or contributeth towards the worke of Faith in the soule may be called instrumentall in or about Iustification according to the importance of the old maxime Quod est causa causae est etiam causa causatâ— But how the Sacraments should become instrumentall causes or meanes of Iustification must be knowne by inquiring at the Oracle at Rome for neither the Scriptures nor the Reformed Religion have any of this learning in them This briefly for the efficient câ—uses of Iustification which is the first generall head of causes among the foure Secondly SECT 13 concerning the finall causes of Justification all parties as farre as I know are upon the matter agreed also For though one may discover and put upon accompt more intermediate or subordinate ends or finall causes hereof then another yet no man denieth at least can with reason deny but that the Glory of God which is the generall great and sovereigne end of all things whatsoever hath the preheminence also amongst and above all the ends of Iustification that can be named or enter into the heart of man to conceive The great subordinate end and which lies fairest and fullest
of Christ Therefore he that gives this forme to any man in the formalitie of it gives the redemption and salvation of the world to him with it If it be here objected and said its true the Redemption and salvation of the world follow the righteousnesse of Christ as it was performed by him and personally inherent in him not as it is imputed to men that beleeve I answere 1º that in this objection the Question is begg'd and that supposed which is the maine hinge of the controversie viz. the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in the formalitie of it a Position that stands convicted in the former part of this Treatise of manifest untruth by the testimonies of many witnesses both Divine and humane 2◠I answere yet further that the meritoriousnesse of the righteousnesse of Christ supposing such a propertie in it must needs be essential to it and inseparable from it It is not an adventitious or contingent propertie but connaturall to it seated and rooted in the very intrinsecall and constituting principles of it So that whatsoever be done with it whatsoever becomes of it to whomsoever it be imputed this meritoriousnesse of it goeth along with it and may be ascribed to whomsoever the righteousnesse it selfe may be ascribed Yea supposing this propertie we speake of this meritoriousnesse in the righteousnesse of Christ we must consequently suppose it to be so essentiall and intrinsecall to it that the righteousnesse it selfe must needs be destroyed and turn'd into another righteousnesse of an inferior kind and importance if that be separated from it As suppose a piece of gold to be of such a value as for example worth ten shillings or the like to whomsoever this piece shall be given there must of necessitie the value or worth also of ten shillings bee given therewith unto him the just value and worth of a thing being inseparable from the thing it selfe at least the thing it selfe inseparable from it 3o It would be knowne by what warrant either of Scripture or good reason men should make this a point of their Faith that God when he imputes the righteousnesse of Christ unto men should strip it naked of the meritoriousnesse of it and so make it a righteousnesse more worth-lesse and vile then any positive righteousnesse whatsoever consisting of workes can be For it is essentiall to every such righteousnesse whether perform'd by men or Angells or by whomsoever to be meritorious at least of the justification of the person in whom it is found This lyeth full and faire in that of the Apostle Rom. 4.4 To him that worketh i. that perfectly observeth the Law the wages is not counted by faver but of debt Therefore i◠the righteousnesse of Christ when it is imputed to beleevers be devested of that which is the glory of it above all other righteousnesse I meane the meritoriousnesse of it it suffers losse and disadvantage and is not at all exalted or magnified by imputation This for the objection Sixtly SECT 26 if the righteousnesse of Christ be the formall cause of justification this must be verified either of the morall righteousnesse of Christ alone or of his Ceremoniall righteousnesse alone or of his Mediatory righteousnesse alone or of all or some two of these together But neither the morall righteousnesse of Christ alone nor his ceremoniall righteousnesse alone nor his mediatorie righteousnesse alone nor all nor any two of these righteousnesses together can be the formall cause of Justification therefore no righteousnesse of Christ whatsoever is to be look'd upon in any such relation of causalitie in respect of justification The proposition in this syllogisme I conceive carrieth the light of it 's owne truth with it The enumeration of the severall species or kinds of righteousnesse in Christ is sufficient As for his originall and habituall righteousnesse I comprehend them both under his morall Therefore if the conclusion stick 's the assumption is to be blam'd for it But that this also is blamelesse I thus demonstrate by the severall parts of it First that his Ceremoniall righteousnesse alone should be formall in justification never as yet I conceive entered into any mans head or heart to conceive Therefore I presume we may spare the arguing of this mēber without any prejudice at al to our cause Secondly that his mediatorie righteousnesse alone which consists in his passives should be the cause inquired after is not to my knowledge affirm'd by any of that judgement we oppose in the depending controversie But howsoever the truth of it thus appeares because the formall cause alwaies gives a sutable denomination to the subject But no justified person can be called mediatorily righteous therefore a mediatorie righteousnesse is not the formall cause of justification Thirdly by the same argument it is as manifest as heart can wish that neither can both these righteousnesses together be that formall cause we speake of nor hath any man every et adventured either his credit or his conscience upon this opinion Therefore here also we will borrow confidence and make restitution when an adversarie shall reasonably demand it Fourthly See cap. 18. Sect. 3. of the first part that his morall righteousnesse alone as distinguished and separated from his Ceremoniall cannot be this formall cause is evident because then the beleeving Iewes who liv'd before Christs coming in the flesh and the beleeving Gentiles since should not be iustified with one and the same righteousnesse from Christ For the Iewes who liv'd before the dissolution of the Mosaical oeconomie by the sufferings of Christ were aswell bound to the observation of the Law Ceremoniall as Morall and therefore could not be justified by the imputation of a morall righteousnesse only Againe on the other hand those that have lived since the promulgation of the said dissolution made by Christ were not only free and not bound to the Law Ceremoniall but were strictly bound from it and from the observation of the rites and usages therein commanded Therefore for these to have the observation of Mosaicall rites and Ceremonies imputed to them is to have rather sinne then righteousnesse imputed to them Fiftly by this last consideration also it appeareth that the two last named righteousnesses of Christ Ceremoniall and Morall cannot be so cast or run into one or so conspire together as to make the formall cause of Iustification we seeke after The beleeving Gentiles since the promulgation of that Gospell must have no Ceremoniall threds woven into the piece of righteousnesse whereby they must stand iustified in the fight of God Lastly that neither can his morall and mediatorie righteousnesse so comport or complie together as to raise a third kinde of righteousnesse betweene them that should make the formall cause of Iustification so much questioned and contended about may be sufficiently apprehended by what hath bin already delivered For that righteousnesse which shall be supposed to be compounded of these two must necessarily be conceived to be a Mediatorie
then when God promiseth to cloath his Church being yet in bondage and miserie with the garments of salvation he implieth that for the present they were cloathed like exiles and prisoners and captives that is that they were in these conditions and so subject to all the inconveniences and miseries incident to them But he will change their garments that is alter their estates and conditions of servants he will make them free of banished he will make them possessors of their own land of poore he will make them rich of vile and contemptible he will make them honourable c. The full and entire happinesse of which new condition the Prophet by the figure synecdoche expresseth by the change of their garments according to the usuall manner of the Scripture which often signifieth the estate or condition by the garments proper to it As Junius hath well observed in his annotations upon Esay 22.17 (a) Dignitas ut ab insignibus vestimentis cognoscitur ita Synecdochicâ—egrave in Scripturis designatur vestirnentorum appellatione Iunius Annot. in Esa 22.17 As ominencie of place or office saith he is known by garments sutable and proper to it so is it in the Scriptures by a synecdoche often signified and expressed thereby As when GOD threatened Shebna with the losse of his great Place and with Captivity and that he would put his servant Eliakim into it he expresseth this investiture of Eliakim into this new condition or office thus And I will cloath him with thy Robe and strengthen him with thy Girdle Esa 22.21 To passe by all other Scriptures wherein the observation of Iunius mentioned might be exemplified the Booke of the Revelation represents unto us both the dignitie of Christ himselfe and likewise of his Saints after the same manner by robes and garments and that more then once or twice And in the midst of the 7 Candlesticks one like unto the Sonne of man cloathed with a garment down unto the feet Revel 1.13 This represents the great dignitie of Christ In like manner the honour of his Saints and faithfull ones is thus expressed cap. 3 4 5. And they shall walke with me in white for they are worthy He that overcommeth shall be cloathed in white array c. So the dignitie of the 24 Elders is represented by their cloathing in white rayment cap. 4.4 Againe the whole multitude of Saints out of all Nations are said to stand before the Lamb cloathed with long white robes robes I conceive of the same importance with these robes of salvation in Esa and Palmes in their hands cap. 7.9 â—o also cap. 19 14. where it is said that it was granted to the Lambs wife the Church that she should be arrayed with pure white linnen and shineing which is said to be the righteousnesse of the Saints cap. Revel 19.7 8. cleered and answered by the way 19.7.8 it is evident that nothing is spoken or meant concerning Iustification by Christ or his righteousnesse but only that great honour and reward is hereby signified which Christ was now pleased to conferre upon his Church and Saints who were justified by him long before The pure fine and shining linnen is said to be the righteousnesse of the Saints to shew that the greate glory honour and dignitie which Christ now conferreth upon his Church is the gracious and bountifull reward of her Husband by him given unto her in consideration and remembrance of her righteousnesse that is her holinesse faithfulnesse zeale constancie c. under the persecution of the Beast and great Apostacie of the Christian world It is an usuall manner of speech in Scripture to expresse the reward of a thing by the Name of the thing it selfe whereof it is a reward Thus Numb 22.7 the Elders of Midian and Moab are said to have departed having Divinations for so it is in the originall in their hand that is the money or reward of Divinations So 2 Sam. 4.10 Good tidings is put for the reward of good tidings Againe Revel 13.10 Here is the patience and Faith of the Saints that is the reward and recompence of the patience and faithfull cleaving of the Saints unto Christ when they shall see vengeance executed upon their enemies and themselves made Actors in it Many other instances in this kinde have I remember bin else where in this Treatise (a) Part 1. c. 1. Sect. 4. drawne together So the pure and shining linnen that is the bright glory wherewith the Church is now invested is said to be the righteousnesse of the Saints because it is the reward of it This to be the plaine and direct meaning of the place might be further argued from that ratiocinative particle FOR For the linnen is the righteousnesse c. In which words it is evident that there is a reason given of the grant made to the Church mentioned in the former part of the verse viz. that she should be so arrayed or cloathed that is dignified this reason is said to be the righteousnesse of the Saints It is as if it had bin said that the Lamb's wife should be thus gloriously recompenced is nothing but that which well agreeth with the righteousnesse and bounty of God who thus liberally and bountifully rewardeth and returneth his righteousnesse into his bosome as he had promised This place doubtlesse parallel's with that cap. 3.4 These shall walke with me in white for they are worthy The worthinesse of the one and the righteousnesse of the other are but the same and both are assign'd as the reason of the honour done unto them The riches jâ—llitie and prosperous condition whilst it lasted of Babylon or Rome is likewise expressed by the metaphor of garments And that great Citie that was cloathed in fine linnen and purple and scarlet c. Revel 18.16 By all which Scriptures diligently compared with many more of like expression that might be added it is more then manifest that by those metaphors of garments and robes in Esa there is nothing meant touching the inward and spirituall condition of the Church much lesse his Iustification by the active righteousnesse of Christ imputed And indeed it may seeme very strange to build a dogmaticall point of Faith upon figurative and metaphoricall expressions there being no plaine or to pregnant Scripture confirme or warrant it As for those expressions in Paul of putting on Christ Induere ChristuÌ„ hic significat virtute spiritus ejus vndique nos muniri qua idonei ad omnes sanctitatis partes reddamur Calvin in Rom. 13.14 Quemadmodum quotquot circuÌ„ciduntur MoseÌ„ induunt hoc est Mosis se profitentur esse discipulos ut secuÌ„duÌ„ illius institutionem ambulent ita qui baptizantur Christum induunt profitentes se illius discipulos c. Musculus in Gal. 3.27 Rom. 13.14 Gal. 3.27 c. there is neither of them speaks of Justification but the former of sanctification and the latter of profession both which if they were not apparant enough unto any man
that shall but a little consider the context in either place might further have bin prooved without much labour Let Calvin Musculus and other Protestant Interpreters be consulted with about them We have found nothing in those Scriptures of the old Testament which are look'd upon with an eye of the greatest confidence for the building up of that imputation which we endeavour to cast downe Let us passe from Prophets to Apostles and consider whether they also be not made to speake the mindes of other men and not their own when they are made to speake for this imputation The farre greatest part of testimonies brought against us out of the new Testament are lodg'd within the compasse of that one Epistle to the Romans the rest are but few The first place alledged by some is that Rom. 3.21.22 But now is the righteousnesse of God made manifest without the Law having witnesse of the Law and of the Prophets Even the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ c. By the righteousnesse of God say they is here meant the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ who is God imputed to all that beleeve c. I answere Rom. 3.21 cleared First this Scripture hath bin already fully opened in the first part of this Treatise cap. 4. throughout where upon due examination it was found to speake plainly for the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse but no waies for the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ for any such purpose Secondly Some by the righteousnesse of God in this place understand the truth and faithfulnesse of God in keeping promise This was the exposition of Ambrose long since And that this faithfulnesse of God is frequently in Scripture called his righteousnes hath bin already observed 3. cap. Sect. 2. p. 93. Thirdly and lastly by the righteousnesse of God in these Scriptures is meant doubtlesse either that way method or meanes which God himselfe hath found out to justifie or make men righteous See cap. 3. Sect. 2. p. 40. of this second part or else which comes to the same that very righteousnesse by which we stand justified or righteous in the sight of God This is the generall interpretation of the best Protestant Expositots as Calvin (a) Iustitiam Dei accipi pre ea quâ— Deo prâ—batur notum esse debuerat elementariis Calvin Instit l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 9. Dubium est qua ratione Dei justiciam appellet quam per sidem obtinemus ideone quia sola coram Deo consistit an quod eam nobis Dominus sua miscericordia largiatur Calv. in Rom. 3.21 Musculus (b) Exponi patestde ea justicia qua nos coram Deo justificamur c. Musculu in Rom. 3.21 Beza (c) Posita est omnis justificatio inremissione peccaterum et idea justicia haec in imputatione posita justitia Dei vocatur Beza De Coena Dom. Iusticia Dei id est salus vel redemptio quam Deus praestat Cam Myroth p. 178. Iusticia imputata rectè dicitur justicia Christi quia Christus eam sua obedientia nobis acquisivit Sicut etiam dicitur justicia Dei Juia Deus propter Christi meritum eam nobis imputat Pareus de Iusti l. 2. c. 2. p. 388. Sect. 8. Ro. 3.31 cleered c. Neither have I met with any that understands it of the righteousnesse of Christ nor is there the least appearance in the context of any necessitie so to take it Againe the last verse in the same Chapter is layd hold on by some as a favorer of their Imputation Do we then make the Law of none effect through Faith God forbid yea we establish the Law They conceive that the Law cannot be said to be established by Faith or by the Doctrine of Faith but only by imputation of Christs fulfilling it unto Beleevers I answere I that there is no necessity that by Law in this place should be meant precisely the Morall Law Calvin understands it aswell of the Ceremoniall Law as of the Morall and explaines how aswell the one as the other may be said to be established by Faith (d) Quare hanc Pauli excusationem uequae de ceremoniis seorsim neque de mandatis ut vocant moralibus sed in universum de tota lege accipio Calvin In Rom. 3.31 Therfore he is farre from conceiving that the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse should be established by Pauls affirming the Law to be established by faith Ambrose likewise long before him conceived the same things of this Scripture 2. It is much more probable that of the two Paul should here assert the establishing rather of the Ceremoniall Law then of the Morall 1. because the Jewes to whom he addresseth himselfe in this excusation seeking to ease and qualifie their spirits touching the Doctrine of Faith were more tender and jealous over the Ceremoniall part of their Law then over the Morall placing the far greatest part of their hope if not the whole of their justification and salvation in the observation hereof as appeares from Act. 15.1 Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses yecannot be saved c. So from Gal. 5. v. 2. compared with the 4. as also from diverse other places both of the Old and New Testament Now it is no waies like that the Apostle should seek to prevent the lesser and lighter offence in this people and wholly neglect them under the greater 2. because the Doctrine of faith and justification by Christ taught by the Apostle did not carry any such colour or appearance of opposition to the morall part of their Law as it did to the Ceremoniall The Gospell buildeth up moralities and that with an high hand but it abrogateth and casteth downe Ceremonialls altogether that is it calls men off from the further use and practise of them though it confirmes indeed their precedent use benefit and authority and so establisheth them Now it is but a weake conceit to think that Paul should goe about to vindicate or purge either himselfe or his Doctrine from a lighter and weaker suspicion and leave both obnoxious to a greater But 3. Suppose that the Apostle here speaks precisely and determinately of the Morall Law yet is there no necessity gain'd from hence that this should be said to be established by the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse For 1. both Austin and Chrysostome affirme that the Law is therfore said to be established by faith because faith compasseth and attaines that righteousnesse which the Law sought after and could not attaine Chrysostom's expression is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Ro. Homil. 7. that faith establisheth the will of the Law by bringing that to perfection which the Law would have done 2. The Morall Law may in this sence also be said to be established by faith because faith purgeth the hearts of those that beleeve and works out those corruptions and sinfull inclinations which disable men from doing the
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
appearance in this place of any comparison made between Christs being made sinne for us whatsoever be meant by it and our being made the righteousnesse of God in him but only the latter is affirmed as the end consequent or effect of the former 4. that the weight and importance of that particle in him should be by the imputation of his active obedience unto us there is neither instance or paralell expression in Scripture nor rule in Grammar nor figure in Rhetorique to make probable in the lowest or lightest degree Therefore 5. and lastly the direct and cleere meaning of the place is this that God for that end made Christ sinne that is an offering or sacrifice for sinne for us that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him that is that we might be justified or made a society or remnant of righteous ones after that peculiar manner of Iustification or righteous-making which GOD hath contrived and established through that sacrifice or offering of his Sonne This interpretation is justifiable upon these and the like considerations 1. SECT 25 It is a frequent Scripture expression to call the sin-offering or the sacrifice for sinne by the name of sinne simply See for this Exod. 29.14 Exod. 30.10 Levit. 5 6 16 18 19. Levit. 7.1 2 7. Levit. 9.7 Ezek. 44.27 Ezek. 45.19.23 Hos 4.8 besides other places This is generally acknowledged by Interpreters yea by the choycest Adversaries themselves which we have in the present controversie (a) See Bish Downham Trea. of Iustifi p. 226. c. and Bish Davenant de Iustic Hab. p. 333. 2. To expresse a number or companie of justified or righteous persons by the abstract terme of righteousnesse is very agreeable likewise with the Scripture dialect in many other places It is an expression of like stamp and figure with those poverty for poore men captivity for captives c. Of which kinde you please to see many instances in the third Chap. of this latter part Sect. 3. in the latter end p. 45. 3. That addition of God the righteousnesse of God imports that that righteousnesse or justification which beleevers obtaine by the sacrifice or death of Christ is not only a righteousnesse of Gods free donation and guift but of his speciall wonderfull and profound contrivement for them 4. By the Grammaticall construction and dependance of the latter Clause our being made the righteousnesse of God in Christ upon the former viz. his being made sinne for us it is evident that in the latter such an effect must of necessity be signified and meant which may answere and suite with that cause which is mentioned in the former viz. the death of Christ for us Now the proper and direct effect of the sacrifice or death of Christ is deliverance from the guilt and punishment of sinne not the imputation of his active obedience unto men Christ did not die for men that they might be justified or made righteous by the righteousnesse of his life (a) Quis enim sic argumentaretur mentis â—ompos Christus factus est pro nobu peccatum i. sacrificium peccati expiatoriuÌ„ quo nos justi constitueremur â—â—r go obedientia Christi in vita praestita non autem morte sive sacrificio Christi justi constituimur Gatak Elench Gom p. 48. 5. The Scriptures when they speake of the death or sufferings of Christ under the consideration of that efficiencie or causality which is in them in respect of Iustification never ascribe any other effect unto them but only either the remission of sinnes deliverance from wrath redemption or the like Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us Gal. 3.13 6. and lastly the Interpretation given as touching the substance and maine importance of it is the exposition of Interpreters almost without number as of Chrysostom Theophylact Occumenius Calvin Musculus Piscator c. I forbeare the citation of passages from them partly because the exposition hath bin I conceive abundantly cleared and confirmed already partly because it is upon the matter acknowledged by the chiefe opponents we have in the businesse in hand partly because the Authors themselves if any man doubt or be unsatisfied may readily be consulted withall and partly likewise to save the Reader an unnecessary labour as I conceive I shall only insist upon one Scripture more SECT 26 and that with somewhat the more brevity because the argument or proofe that is drawne from it is more ridiculous and importune then any of the former One copie of this Scripture is found Gal. 3.10 For it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Booke of the Law to doe them Out of this Scripture hath of late bin hewen as I heare this worthy pillar to support the tottering and ruinous building of the premised Imputation If every one be cursed that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to doe them then can no man be iustified but remaines accursed who hath not the perfect observation of the Law imputed from Christ unto him The reason is because no man is able to obtaine any such personall observation thereof The argument is not of any eminent desert to have an answere bestowed upon it yet let us not envie it this honour If the man of this argument whoever he be be in good earnest with it doubtlesse he is confederate with Stapleton the Papist at least in part who maintaines against Calvin that the righteousnesse of the Law and the righteousnesse of Faith are not two but one and the same righteousnesse Therefore First Gal. 3.10 Answered if there be no other meanes to dissolve the Curse denounced against all non-continuers in all things that are written in the Law to doe them but a perfect fulfilling of the Law by Christ imputed unto them woe and woe a thousand times to the world yea to the whole world of men and women without exception For certaine it is 1. that there is no such perfect fulfilling of Law imputed from Christ unto any man as hath been prov'd at large throughout the first part of this discourse and 2. that were there any such imputation yet this would not reach the dissolution of that curse this cleaves faster to the whole generation of Adams posterity then to be dissolved or loosed from any of them by any other meanes then by the blood of Jesus Christ It is not said that without keeping the Law but that without shedding of blood there is no remission Heb. 9.22 Christ might have kept the Law a 1000 yeeres for us and yet never have found Justification or redemption from the Curse of the Law for us had he not bin made a curse for us by his death and sufferings Gal. 3.13 Secondly SECT 27 he that is fully discharg'd and acquitted from all his non-continuances in the things of the Law I meane from the guilt of all his sins
legall righteousnesse put upon him by his Faith This he proveth from the expresse tenor and condition of the Law it selfe which requires a personall observation of the things contained therein by every man that shall live that is that shall be justified thereby But the man that doth them shall live in them the full importance of which clause you shall finde opened in the 8. Chapter of the first part of this Discourse By all that we have reasoned upon the passage of Scripture in hand it is more then double evident that here is no refuge or sanctuary for the preteÌ„ded imputation but rather an high hand of Heaven against it to overthrow it Some further plead that of the same Apostle Phil. 3 9. That I may be found in him not having mine owne righteousnesse c. but we have elswhere (a) In the first part of the Dis course cap. 6. upon a diligent search and inquirie found this Scripture looking a quite contrary way Other Scriptures then these alledged with any face or colour of reason in the cause of that Imputation which I disclaime I verily know none If I did I would not favor my selfe or the cause I maintain in the least by dissembling or suppressing any of them As for those that are consideÌ„t that they see that imputation of Christs righteousnes which we oppose in that and the like Scriptures Deliver me from blood guiltinesse ô God Lob. 41 27. and my tongue shall sing of thy righteousnesse Psal 51.14 and againe in that Do this and live Luk. 10.28 I leave them and their confidence to the convictions of miracles and signes from heaven For doubtlesse as for texts and interpretations they are turned into Stubble with them and reasons demonstrations are esteemed by them but as Leviathan esteemeth yron and brasse that is as straw and rotten wood Iob. 41.27 CAP. VI. VVherin the Arguments against the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense stated in the beginning of the Discourse are propounded and answered THere have bin two opinions the one affirmative the other negative hitherto promiscuously argued and maintained in this Discourse The former pleads the Imputation of Faith in a proper sense for righteousnesse in an unproper as was declared in the beginning The latter denyeth the imputation of Christs active obedience in the letter and formalitie of it in Iustification which expressions likewise have long since bin interpreted and cleered from all ambiguitie We shall now towards the close of our worke distinguish them and answere the arguments or objections against the one and the other apart by themselves I begin with the reasons or arguments urged against the affirmative SECT 1 The first and great argument or objection against the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense taken usually presents it selfe in this or the like shape That which impeacheth the truth or justice of God Object 1 can have no consistence or agreement with the truth But the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense declared impeacheth or trencheth upon the truth and justice of God Ergo The reason of the assumption which is only questionable is rendred thus because if God should impute Faith for righteousnesse he should account that to be a righteousnesse which is none and therein should be untrue or unjust The major proposition in this syllogisme is an anoynted truth and not to be touch'd but it is unequally yok'd the minor being of a contrary Spirit and therefore to be denied And to the proofe or confirmation of it I answere First that this was in effect the plea and argument of that fanatique Spirit of Suencfeldius as it stands upon record in Zanshie (a) Dei tribunal est multo justius quam Iureconsultorum ubi impii non absolvuntur Ergo in Theologia verbum justificandi non juridicâ— pro absolutione est accipiendum sed pro justum integrum gratum Deo reddere Zanch. in Epist l. 1. p. 215. and likewise of the Counsell of Trent as Calvin hath observ'd (b) Iterum enim affirmant nos verè justos esse non tantum reputari Ego contrà c Calvi Antidos ad sess 6. p. 324. to prove that the word Iustification in the Scripture was not to be taken in a juridicall sense viz. for absolution but in a physicall or morall sense for the making or constituting of a man properly and compleatly just or righteous and is the common argument of the Papists for their Justification by inherent grace and works (c) Bellarminus dicit verbo imputandi non significari nudam existimationem sed existimationem cui veritas in reipsa respondear Chamier t. 3. l. 21. c. 13. p. 886. This notwithstanding I conceive it very unjust to charge those that use it either with Swenchfeldianisme or Popery But Secondly neither doth it follow that God should account that for righteousnesse which is no righteousnesse though he should count Faith for righteousnesse For any obedience or action conformable to a righteous Law or rule may truly and oft in Scripture is be called righteousnesse Then stood up Phineas and executed judgement c. and it was counted unto him for righteousnesse c. Psal 106 30. By righteousnesse in this place cannot be meant a conformity or obedience to the whole Law one particular act as this was whatsoever it were cannot beare the appellation of righteousnesse in such a sense Therefore it signifies only a conformity with some particular and speciall precept or rule See the word used much in a like sense Gen. 30.33 2 Cor. 9.9.10 Hebr. 11.33 c. Now then Faith or beleeving being a subjection or obedience to a speciall commandement of God 1 Iohn 3.23 2 Pet. 2.21 Rom. 1.5 c. it may both with truth and in sufficient proprietie of speech be called righteousnesse yea the weakest or most imperfect believing looke what degree of sincerity and truth there is in it so farre it may truly be called and counted righteousnesse yet by righteousnesse in that clause where God is said to impute the Faith of him that beleeveth for righteousnesse SECT 2 Non hoc diciturâ— Deum apud se judicare illos pro quâ—um peocatis universis Christus satisfocit nihil mali unquam commisisse aut boni debiti omisisse sed eodem haberâ— loco quoad mortu reatum et jus ad vitam aeternum acsi nihil vel mâ—li ad misissent vel boni debâ—ti admisissent Gat. Elench p. 35.36 Sâ—e also my answere to Mr. Walker p. 24. 25. c. I do not conceive is meant an act of obedience or conformity to any speciall or particular precept of God Therefore Thirdly when with the Scriptures we affirme that God imputeth or accounteth any mans Faith unto him for righteousnesse we do not meane that God only accounteth such a beleeving for a righteous act unto him much lesse do we meane that he esteemeth it a perfect literall and compleate observation or
fulfilling of the whole Morall Law but that which we meane is this that God lookes upon a man who truly beleeveth with as much grace and favor and intends to doe as graciously and bountifully by him as if he were a man of perfect righteousnesse and had entirely kept and fulfilled the whole Law In this sense to account Faith for righteousnesse hath not the least colour or appearance either of injustice or repugnancie with the truth The Reader may please to see the substance of this answer further opened and confirmed in the former part of this Discourse Cap. 19. Sect. 6 and 7. Fourthly and lastly there is scarce any thing affirmed more frequently or familiarly by the best reformed writers then that God esteemes or accounts those just or perfectly just who properly and in exactnesse and strictnesse of speech are not such but only have their sinnes forgiven Therefore they apprehended no matter of unjustice or contrarietie unto truth in that which the objection impeacheth of both From hence we gather saith Calvin (a) In Rom. 4.3 that Pauls dispute is not what men are in themselves sed quo loco Deus ipsos censeat that is but in what place or condition God is pleased to account them And elsewhere (b) De vera Loâ—es Refor ratione p. 368. It followes then that we are just or righteous and consequently may justly and righteously be so accounted by God quia nobis peccata non imputantur because our sinnes are not imputed to us Therefore we stand just or righteous before God saith Mr. Fox (c) De Christo gratu Iustine l 3. p. 280. because our sinnes are forgiven us We have Remission of sinnes saith Melancthon (d) In Exam. Theol. de Iustific p. 529. for and through Christ which having obteyned justi sumus coram Deo we are righteous before God Paul saith Calvin estimates the blessednesse of a man from hence quia hoc modo justus est non reipsà sed imputatione that is because he is after this manner righteous not in very deed but by imputation And a little after going on with his confutation of Osiander he must grant saith he at least that as farre as that imputation of his extendeth justos conseri qui reipsa non sunt that is that they are accounted meaning by God righteous who yet are not righteous indeed It were easy to weaâ—â—e the Reader over (e) Instit l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 11. Gratuâ—ta Dei acceptatio subrogatur in locum justiciae idem Non magu ve ritati screutiae justeque Dei judicio repugnat cos pro quorum peccatâ—â— tam commissionus quam omnissionis satisfastio per Christi mortem plenissime est prastita tales judicare qui nihil mali commiserint nihilque boni omiserent quam eos perfecte justos judicare ut pote qui perfectam legi obedientiam prassi teriut cum id ipsi tamè noutiquam fecerint pro quibus Christus tandem prâ—stitisse perhibetur Gatak Elench Gomar p. 35. vi seqq and over with heaping up such expressions as these out of these and other Authors of like Authentique Name with them But the objection was at least as much as answered before therefore proceed we to doe as much for another A second objection rais'd by some against the Imputation of Faith in a proper sense for righteousnesse SECT 3 Object 2 is this If Faith in such a sense should be imputed for righteousnesse then should justification be by works or by somewhat in our selves But the Scripture every where rejecteth works and all things in our selves from having any thing to doe in Iustification Ergo. I answere to both propositions and first to the major by distinguishing the consequent therein That justification should be by works or by somewhat in our selves may be understood two waies Either 1o. by way of merit so that by works should signifie by the merit of works which is still the Scripture sense or else 2o. by way of simple performance If the Proposition be taken in the former sense it is altogether false and the consequence thereof denied Faith may be imputed for righteousnesse in the sense oft declared and yet no man justified by the merit of any work or works in himselfe If it be taken in the latter sense so the minor Proposition is false to touch upon this in the second place For the Scripture no where rejecteth every thing that may goe under the name of a worke or that may be said to be done by us in respect of a simple performance from having to doe in the matter of justification Nay it expressely requireth of us and enjoyneth that as of absolute necessitie to justification yea and attributeth Justification to it from place to place which it selfe calleth a work This is the worke of God saith our Saviour to the Jewes that yee beleeve in him whom he hath sent And when Paul exhorts the Philippians to worke out their salvation with feare and trembling doubtlesse he doth not exclude their Faith or beleeving in Christ Now that beleeving in Christ is required as of absolute necessitie aswell to Iustification as salvation at least of those that are adulti and of yeares of discretion is a thing I conceive so well knowne and of that universall confession that I may forbeare the citation of Scripturs without prejudice to the truth of it Thus our best and soundest writers without scruple call that beleeving by which we are justified a work or the doing of something Faith saith Calvin (a) Fides praecâ—puum opus est quod a nobis Deus exigit Calvin in Iac. 1.22 is the chiefe work that God requireth of us And what did Abraham saith Musculus (b) Quid enim feeit Abraham quod imputaretur c. Musc in Gal. 3.6 that should be imputed for righteousnesse but only beleeve God The Reader may please to see more to this purpose in my Answere to Mr. Walker p. 67 c. So that the treasure of this objection is but coales also A third Objection is this Object 3 That which maketh Justification not to be of grace or of free grace SECT 4 cannot stand with the truth of the Gospell But the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense now contended for makes Iustification not to be of Grace Ergo. Reverencing the innocencie of the major Proposition I come with a rod unto the minor Answere charging this with untruth and that upon this ground and evidence because the Scripture still makes or acknowledgeth a perfect and entire consistence of grace or free grace with the condition of Faith in Iustification For by Grace yee are saved through Faith Ephes 2.8 And are freely justified by his Grace c. Rom. 3.24 through Faith in his blood c. ver 25. Nay the truth is that the worke of beleeving as our Saviour called it is so farre from carrying any opposition in it to the freenesse of Gods grace in
which men must be justified and so saved so that no man can be justifyed but he only that may truly be said to have done this that is performed an universall obedience to all the precepts to every jot and tittle of the Law in this sense I say it neither is nor ever was nor ever shall be a rule of God nor a rule of truth For God hath alwaies had and for ever will have Repugnantia legis et fidei est i◠causa justificationis facilius enim aquam igni copulabis quam haec duo concilis es homines lego et side esse justos Calvin in Gal. 3.12 another Law or rule for the Iustification of men besides Doe this and live even that Law or rule which is still in Scripture opposed to this Beleeve this and live Compare Rom. 3.27 with Rom. 10.5.6 c. See likewise cap. 4. of the first part of this discourse throughout together with the Answere given to the Scripture Gal. 3.10 in cap. 5. of this second part These passages perus'd and considered will perfectly allay all the heat and burning of this Argument Another foundation to build the imputation counter-argued upon is laid by some after this manner SECT 18 Argum. 8 That righteousnesse which God accepteth on our behalfe as the righteousnesse imputed to us in Justification But the righteousnesse of Christ is that righteousnesse which God accepteth on our behalfe Ergo I answere briefly 1º by denying the Major 2º Answer by distinguishing upon the Minor The reason of my deniall to the Major is because God may and doth accept that for us or on our behalfe which yet hee need not in the sense contended for in this Treatise impute to us God accepted Abrahams prayer on the behalfe of Ismael and yet did not impute this prayer to Ismael himselfe as if he had prayed it In like manner he accepted the prayer of Elisha for the Shunamites Sonne and yet did not looke upon the child as if he had made it for himselfe It is true in these and many other cases of like consideration which might be added the persons prayed for by others received benefit by the prayers that were made for them but there is no colour of reason to conceive that God must necessarily looke upon such prayers as if they had bin made by the persons themselves for whom they were made and who were profited by them It is like they had the greater acceptation with God and prevailed more on the behalfe of those for whom they were made because they were made by others for them especially by persons of such grace and interest with God as they were who did make them then if they had bin made by themselves In like manner those on whose behalfe Christs sufferings were accepted receive an unspeakable blessing and benefit by them but this operates nothing towards such an inference or conclusion as this that therefore God must looke upon these sufferings of Christ as if they had personally endured them on whose behalfe they are accepted which is the imputation principally opposed in this Treatise nay such a supposition or imputation as this rather tends to destroy or prejudice their acceptation then any waies to further it The sufferings of Christ doubtlesse have the height of their acceptation with God on the behalfe of those that beleeve because they are look'd upon by him as the sufferings of himselfe I meane of Christ and of no other Againe 2º to the minor I answere likewise by Distinction If by the righteousnesse of Christ the proposition meaneth precisely that obedience which he exhibited to that generall and common Law whereunto all other men are oblieged considered apart from his obedience to that peculiar Law of Mediator given to himselfe alone so it is altogether false For God did not accept this righteousnesse of Christ on our behalfe so or upon such termes as to justifie us either with it or for it as hath bin ten times said and oft enough proved already If by this righteousnesse be meant that obedience of Christ commonly knowne by the name of Passive or both Active and Passive together so this proposition may be granted but then the other will be found tar die as hath bin shewed unlesse we make foure termes in the syllogisme instead of three by taking the same words in one sense in the Major and in another sense in the Minor and then it is no longer a syllogisme but a Paralogisme So that neither can this argument do any thing Therefore let us further trie the strength of those that are yet behind Some conceive that the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense taken and left may be firmly established upon the publiquenesle of his person SECT 19 Argumt 9 and reason after this manner If Christ were a publique person standing in the place or stead of all those that should beleeve in him then all that he did and all that he suffered are to be looked upon and are reputed by God as done and suffered by these and consequently are imputed to them But Christ was a publique Person standing in the place and stead of all that should beleeve in him Ergo. In this argument Answere I charge the former Proposition with weaknesse and untruth Because the publiquenesse of Christs person or his standing in the place of those that should beleeve is no sufficient ground to build this inference upon therefore all that he did and all that he suffered are looked upon by God as done or suffered by them This is evident his conception incarnation birth circumcision subjection to Ioseph his supposed Father his apposing the Doctors in the Temple his whipping the buyers and sellers out of the Temple his Redemption of the world with other particulars more of like consideration without number were all either things done or suffered by him yet are they not looked upon by God as done or suffered by all those that beleeve in him For to what purpose for example should I being a beleeving Gentile and so not only free from the Yoke of Iewish Ceremonies but further under command not to use them be looked upon by God as one circumcised so what can it in reason advantage me to be look'd upon by God as one who in Christ was in subjection unto Ioseph especially how shall I not feare and tremble to take the least hold of such a conceipt that God should looke upon me as having redeemed the world which yet was one of the greatest acts that Christ did Therefore this proposition is no Oracle Princes and Magistrates are publique persons yet God forbid that all that they doe should be look'd upon by God as done by all those that are in subjection under them Adam was as publique a person yea and more publique in a sense then Christ himselfe yea and is conceived by the most to have stood as much in the place or stead of his posteritie as Christ did in the stead of
his I meane of those that were-to descend Spiritually from him by Faith though for my selfe I had rather demurre then joyne issue in this And yet how ridiculous is it on the one hand and of dangerous consequence on the other to suppose that all that Adam did and all that very possibly he might have done either may or might have bin so imputed to all his posteritie as if they had done it Of what advantage or concernment can it be unto me that God should looke upon me as one that gave Names to all Cattell and to the foules of Heaven and to every Beast of the Field which yet Adam did Gen. 2.20 Or as upon one that first propagated man-kinde and begat Cain which we know were done by Adam with twenty things more of like nature In case he had stood and continued in his righteousnesse the publiquenesse of his person had bin no waies touched nor impaired hereby and yet is it of very doubtfull importance to conceive that all that righteousnesse which Adam in this case had wrought should have bin look'd upon as the righteousnesse of all his posteritie and imputed to them for their Justification For from hence it would follow 10 that all his posteritie should have bin saved 20 that they should all have bin sinlesse which are two principall regions of terra incognita 30 and lastly that they should all have bin justified by a double righteousnesse one personall and wrought by themselves another imputative wrought by another and so in this respect at least should have bin better provided for their justification then those that are now justified by Christ Secondly it hath bin formerly demonstrated SECT 20 how little consistence it hath either with truth See cap. 2. Sect. 14. of this second Part. or with the manner of Scripture expression to say that the sufferings of Christ are by God look'd upon as our sufferings or to conceive that we should suffer in him It is not all one to say saith Doctor Willet we are punished in Christ and Christ was punished for us and in our stead this is warranted by the Scripture Esa 53.6 But the other cannot be affirmed for seeing in Christs death we have remission of our sins we cannot be said for the same sinnes to be punished in and with Christ whereof we have remission in his death Comment on Dan. 9. Qu. 25. p. 289. Thirdly the publiquenesse of a person who negotiates the businesse and affaires of others as Christ did of those that shall beleeve in him doth no further or any otherwise interesse those whose affaires they manage in what they do in or about such a transaction but only with reference to the issue and successe of what they do for them in that behalfe If a man undertakes the ordering and issuing of such a businesse for me and deales dishonestly or unconscionably with others therin and at last makes a conclusion with much damage and disadvantage to me which might be a wise and saire cariage of things on my behalfe have bin prevented I am in this case liable to suffer all the detriment and damage which the unconscionablenesse or weaknesse of my Agent hath brought upon me but I am not to be look'd upon as one that have us'd the same unconscionablenesse with him or as if his weaknesse were mine Or in case he had dealt wisely or faithfully for me and had brought my businesse to a good end or issue I here receive benefit and good by such a mans wisdome and faithfulnesse but these are not ascribed orimputed unto me as mine owne because he was my Agent that used them The Client that prevailes against his adversary before the Judge by the skill of his Advocate or Lawyer is not therefore reputed as skilfull in the Law as his Advocate nor to have pleaded his own cause as substantially and effectually as his Lawyer did In like manner as farre as Adam had a Commission or power from God to deale for me or in my affaires being one of his posteritie I am bound to undergoe and suffer my share in that evill or miserie which he brought upon the world through his weaknesse or unfaithfulnesse in that transaction but this weaknesse or unfaithfulnesse of his as a Commissioner for me is not look'd upon as my personall weaknesse or unfaithfulnesse only so farre as my person was in his they are ascribed and imputed unto me as mine own See for this cap. 2. Sect. 11. of this second part So againe on the other hand as farre as Christ had a power from God to deale for me and in mine affaires being one that beleeve in him I have my part and portion in that blessed end and issue whereunto by his holinesse wisdome faithfulnesse and patience he brought the affaires of the world entrusted in his had but God doth never the more looke upon me as if that holinesse wisdome faithfulnesse and patience had bin mine nor is it any waies necessary that he should to make me capable of that which falls to my share as I am a beleever in that great and blessed transaction of Christ Fourthly and lastly to part with this argument also upon such terms SECT 21 that we may never need to meete more neither is it altogether so solid or sound a truth as haply is supposed that Christ stood in the place or stead of those that should beleeve in him especially in all things performed by him and which tended to the qualification of his person for the accomplishing of that great work of Redemption To stand in the place or stead of another implies a necessitie of his being in the same place and doing the same things himselfe wherin he stands and which he doth who is supposed to stand in his stead unlesse they had bin done by this other for him Now Christ did a thousand things yea and suffered many for the doing and suffering wherof there lay no personall necessitie upon many Beleevers whether Christ had done or suffered them or no. As for example there was no necessitie either in way of duty or of penaltie lying upon any Beleever one or other to be conceived or borne of a virgin to turne water into wine to command the winds and the Seas to ordain Apostles or the like Againe there was no necessitie lying upon any beleeving Gentile to have bin circumcised to have bin in subjection unto Ioseph to have eaten the Passeover at Hierusalem c. Therefore in all these Passages of his life with many others it is full evident that he stood not in the place or stead of all Beleevers All that the Scripture speaketh in this case is that he suffered for us was made a curse for us c. which expressions though they imply indeed in the generall a necessitie of our sufferings unlesse Christ had suffered for us yet do they not imply a necessitie of our sufferings in the same kinde or after the same manner in all particulars
It doeth not follow that except Christ had bin circumcised we must have bin circumcised except he had fasted 40 daies we must have fasted 40. except he had bin scourged with rods or crucified on a Crosse we must of necessitie have bin scourged or crucified only it followes that except Christ had suffered either in these or some other particulars as satisfactorie to divine wisdome and justice as these we must have suffered and that most grievously Therefore it is not every waies so square a truth that Christ even in his sufferings themselves particularly considered stood in our stead But the Scriptures which oft say that Christ suffered for us died for as c. never say that either he kept the Morall or Ceremoniall Law nor any part of either for us though this expression may be admitted without granting that he did these in our stead See cap. 3. Sect. 11. of this second part And thus we see that this argument also is defective on every side Another SECT 22 Argum. 10 reaching after the same conclusion with the former but scarse with the liek appearance of strength is this If we cannot be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ otherwise then by the imputation of it then must it needs be imputed unto us in our justification But there is no way of being Iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ but only by the imputation of it unto us Ergo. I answere in few words to the latter proposition Answer that if the righteousnesse that is the active obedience of Christ could have no other influence into Iustification but in that way of imputation which hath hitherto bin gain-said either Iustification must stand without it or else fall For certame it is that no such imputation can stand as hath bin proved by three demonstrations and by foure and by many more added to them in the first part of this Discourse But the weaknesse of the Proposition is sufficiently evinced from hence because that righteousnesse of Christ mentioned in it concurr's towards Iustification by qualifying his person for that sacrifice of himselfe by which Iustification or remission of sinnes hath bin purchased for all those that beleeve as hath bin opened at large in an answere to a former argument The quiver of our Adversaries is well nigh exhaust and almost empty by this I scarce know two arguments more really differing from those already produced that will well hold the Answering The best of those which yet remaine I conceive is this If we may truly be said to be dead and crucified with Christ SECT 23 Argum. 11 to be quickened with Christ to have risen againe with Christ to sit in heavenly places in or with Christ c. then may we be truly said to have fulfilled the Law with Christ also for there is no reason why any difference should be made in this case and consequently the fulfilling of the Law by Christ is imputed to us and accounted ours But we may truly be said to be dead and crucified and quickned raised againe and to sit with Christ in Heavenly places the Scripture affirming all this Ergo. My Answere to this argument is a Protestation against the consequence of the major Proposition Answere as being insufficient Our being dead and risen againe with Christ c. in a Scripture serise haâ—â—â—â—o such conclusion or inference as this in their bowells therefore we have fulfilled the Morall Law with Christ alsoâ— or if we could be said to have fulfilled this Law with Christ our own fulfilling it in him should rather be said to be imputed to us Cap. 2. Sect. 11. of this second Part. then his fulfilling it for us as we formerly reasoned concerning the imputation of Adams sinne But the reason of the difference viz. why we may be said in the Scripture sense to be dead and risen againe with Christ c. and yet cannot be said to have fulfilled the Law with Christ in the sense demanded is this When the Scripture saith we are dead we are crucified we are quickened or risen againe with Christ c. the meaning is not that God looks upon us as if we had layd downe our naturall lives by death when he layd downe his and as if this laâ—ing down ourlives were a fatisfaction to his justice for our sinne for then we might aswell be said to have satisfied for our selves or to have redeemed our selves with Christ as to have died or bin crucified with him such expressions as these only import either a profession of such a death in us which holds proportion and hath a spirituall kinde of resemblance and likenesse with the death of Christ which is usually called a death or dying unto sinne and to the world Rom. 6.5 or else this death it selfe really effected and wrought in us by that death of Christ being therefore called the communion or fellowship of his sufferings aswell as a conformitie to his death Phil. 3.10 You have the expression us'd in the former sense Rom. 6. â— How shall we that are dead to sinne that is who professe a being dead unto sinne with Christ live yet therin and so be a reproach to our Profession In the latter sense it is found Gal. 2.20 I am crucified with Christ that is the naturall death of Christ for for mâ— anâ— many moe hath wrought upon me in a way of assimilation to it selfe and hath made me a dead man to the world So when Beleevers are said to be quickened or risen againe with Christ the meaning is not that God lookes upon them as quickened from a naturall or corporall death to a naturall or glorified life and condition as Christ quickening and rising againe was which yet must be the meaning if any thing be made of it to strengthen the proposition now under assault but the cleare meaning of such expressions is either to signifie the profession that is made by us of that newnesse of life which in way of a spirituall analogie and likenesse answeres that life whereunto Christ was quickened and rose againe from the death Rom. 6.5 or else the new life it selfe raised and wrought in us by that quickning and rising againe of Christ from the dead In the former sense you shall finde one of them used Colos 3.1 Jf ye be risen with Christ that is since you make profession of that new and excellent life which answers the life which Christ lived upon and after his resurrection give this account and evidence of it unto the world seeke the things that are above c. In the latter sense you may finde the other Eph. 2.5 Even when we were dead in sinnes hath quickened us together with Christ meaning that GOD by the quickening and raising of Christ from the dead had begotten them as Peter speakes to such a life which spiritually answereth that quickening and rising againe of Christ But on the other hand as there is no such expression in Scripture as this we have fulfilled the Law