THE True Doctrine OF JUSTIFICATION ASSERTED& VINDICATED From the errors of many, and more especially PAPISTS and SOCINIANS.  
OR A TREATISE of the Natural Righteousness of GOD, and Imputed Righteousness of CHRIST.  
By ANTHONY burgess Pastor of the Church at Sutton-Coldfield in Warwickshire.  AUG. de bono Persev. in fine. Qui errare me existimant, etiam atque etiam diligenter quae sunt dicta confiderent, ne fortassis ipsi errent. Ego autem cum per eos qui meos labores legunt, non solum doctior, verum etiam emendatior fio, propitium mihi Deum agnosco:& hoc per Ecclesiae doctors maximè expecto, si& in ipsorum manus veniunt, dignenturque nosse quae scribo. 
ANCHORA SPEI  printer's or publisher's device  
London, Printed for Thomas Underhill, at the Anchor and Bible in Pauls Church-yard, 1654.   

TO THE JUDICIOUS READER.  
READER,  
THe Wisemans Divine Observation, mentioned Eccles. 12.12. may justly put any man to some pause and deliberation, that is publishing Books to the world, for two discouragements are there spoken of; and if Solomon acted by the holy Spirit thought good to say so much in those dayes, what would he say to the multitude of Books that since have filled the world?  
The first Discouragement is the endless number of Books, and this is especially true in Polemical Discourses, for there bellum è bello nascitur, one controversy doth not end, but beget another, as one circled in the Water produceth another. And the second is, the wholesomeness that much study or reading bringeth to the flesh; so that it is like Pauls worldly sorrow that causeth death; yea this is not the worst; for Books, especially controversal, do produce weariness even to the spiritual part of a man, and do exceedingly dispirit and hebetate the vigorous actings of the soul in a practical gracious manner.  
Now these Considerations would have prevailed with me, not to have troubled the world with ingratefull Controversies, but that formerly an obligation lay upon me to finish this Work, to which also I have been often solicited by worthy and learned Friends; neither will that Objection of deading and dulling the affectionate part, hold much in this Debate, for it being wholly busied to advance Christ both in what he did and suffered, as in reference to us; hereby not onely the Truth will gain upon the Understanding, but the goodness of it exceedingly sweeten, and ravish the Affections: So that we may say, Out of this strong one, comes meat, and who so will seriously walk in this study shall find it not a barren Wilderness where are only briars and thorns, but a Land flowing with milk and honey.  
The principal and main Truth asserted in this Book, is the Imputation of Christs Active Obedience, as well, and in the same manner as his Passive in the matter of Justification, and that as a Believer is not to divide the Natures, or the Offices of Christ; so neither his Obedience in this great work of our Redemption. A Doctrine that doth openly and plainly proclaim more honour to Christ, and more comfort to the truly humbled sinner, then any of its Competitors. And therefore at first Reformation out of Popery, generally received by all the Learned and Godly Protestants, and as strongly opposed and argued against by all the Popish Writers, who concluded it to be the known and avouched Doctrine of the Protestants: But afterwards it came to be doubted of, and at last to be decried and denied, when on the contrary some Papists began to close with it.  
Now the Opposers of this imputed Righteousness, as it relateth to Christs Active Obedience, go upon different Principles.  
Some( as the Socinians) do so deny it, that they raze the very Foundation itself, and at the same time take away the Imputation of Christs Passive and Active Obedience, making both to be a mere human figment, abhorring from all Reason.  
Others( as the Papists) admit in some sense the Imputation of Christs sufferings, but spend their whole strength against the Imputation of his Righteousness, as if in that we were to be Justified.  
Among the Protestants there are some eminent and Learned men, who have also been for the Negative, viz. the Non-Imputation of Christs Active Obedience, as the matter of our Justification; though the number for the Negative, is nothing equal to the number for the Affirmative. Its not my purpose to pass such a severe Condemnation upon the Opinion of the Dissentients, as I see some learned men do( although the Doctrine asserted in this Book is heavily branded, as being the seed of Antinomianism, and endangering both Law and Gospel, by such who are of a contrary Judgement) but rather am grieved publicly to manifest a difference from such who are eminently useful in the Church of God. But cordial Esteem and Reverence may be to those, from whom Truth( as we judge) doth necessitate us to dissent. If any of the learned Opposers of the Opinion herein affirmed shall condescend so low, as to confute the Arguments propounded in this Treatise; If I am not convinced by the Light they bring, I shall think it a Duty still to maintain the interest of this so precious and wholesome a Truth. But Experience may teach us, That though Learning and Understanding will enable us to confirm true Doctrine, yet onely Grace and holy Meekness of Spirit, doth fit us for the right managing of it: Therefore because in Replies, we are prove to discover our nakedness, and to strive for a Doctrine more, as it is our Opinion, and as we are concerned in it, rather then as it is the Lords Truth, who as he needeth not our lye, so neither our passions; I do think it the most profitable and peaceable way, to propound and propugne the Doctrine in Thesi, and whatsoever Arguments are brought against it, nakedly to examine them, without Replies to a whole Book or Discourse that happily may be published by the Opponent: For what Reader doth not see, that such Contests are spent in personal reflections, in verbal mistakes, and conduce very little to any mans Edification? Truth being seldom more cleared by those whose Disputations are in pugno, and Syllogismi in calcibus, as Hierom once said of some in his time. Hereby also there are more Interpretations upon Interpretations, and Books upon Books, then upon the Doctrine itself, that is, the principal Subject. Its an happy thing to have a sound Judgement in the matter maintained, and a gracious Spirit in the manner of maintaining it.  
The Method I follow in this Book, is,  
First, To treat of the Righteousness of God in general, wherein I do maintain against Socinians, That there is such an Attribute in God, whereby he is inclined to punish sinners, if there be not Satisfaction given.  
Secondly, That Christ by his Sufferings in Soul and Body, as also by his Active Obedience, did truly, perfectly and really, not metaphorically satisfy this Justice of God, against Socinians also.  
Thirdly, That the Righteousness of God, as well as his Mercy is demonstrated in our Justification, and that because God is thus Righteous, none can be accepted to Eternal Life, without perfect righteousness.  
Hereupon in the fourth place, We examine what this Righteousness is, first, Negatively, then Positively; Negatively, we show, That it s not any supposed Righteousness we can have by Nature, neither is it the Righteousness of the Law, no, nor the Personal Righteousness we have, consisting in Evangelical Graces, and good Works.  
Neither lastly is our Faith, as it is a Work, accounted unto us for Righteousness: But Positively, it is an Imputed Righteousness, or a Righteousness without us: The matter whereof is Christs Righteousness, consisting partly in his Sufferings, and partly in his Obedience and Conformity to the Law of God. This is the brief sum of that which is more largely maintained in the Book.  
The Lord make this Tractate serviceable and useful unto thee for thy spiritual Edification in Christ.  
August 14th 1654. Anthony burgess.   

THE CONTENTS OF THIS TREATISE.  

SECT. I. OF the Righteous Nature of GOD.  
SERM. I. Psal. 11.7. For the Righteous Lord, loveth Righteousness. Demonstrations of Gods Righteousness; The Kindes of it, and in what sense it s attributed unto God.  
SERM. II. More Propositions concerning the Righteousness of God; showing that we must judge of it onely by his Word; That its Essential and Natural to him; The Rule of all Righteousness: That God cannot do any thing against his Righteous Will. How many ways Righteousness is taken when attributed to God; And in what sense he is said to be Just in forgiving and rewarding his People.  
SERM. III. More Propositions about the Nature of Righteousness; Also showing wherein Gods Love to the Righteous doth appear.  
SERM. IV. Answers some Objections against Gods Righteousness in himself, and his Love to Righteousness in men.  
SERM. V. A Modest Enquiry into Gods Providence about sin. How far he works about it, and yet no sin to be imputed to him. And why God lets sin to be.   

SECT. II. Of Christs Sufferings, Merit and Satisfaction.  
SERM. VI. Rom. 3.26. To declare( I say) at this time his Righteousness, that he might be Just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. That all men through Adams Transgression are plunged into sin, cursed by the Law, and obnoxious to the wrath of God, which is also upon them, and cannot be removed, unless there be a way of Satisfaction found out: That Christ voluntarily became man, and offered himself as a Sacrifice upon the across to satisfy Gods Justice, and expiate our sins.  
SERM. VII. More Demonstrations of the Satisfaction of Christs Death to Divine Justice; With Answers to the Socinian Objections against it.  
SERM. VIII. More Propositions about the Sufferings of Christ for sin: Their usefulness, sufficiency, and extent; With Answers to more Objections of the Socinians.  
SERM. IX. Our Justification by Christ a Demonstration not only of Gods Mercy, but Righteousness also. Or an instance of that Justice in God, whereby he will punish sin. Also a Discussion of the proper Nature of Merit and Satisfaction, showing that Christs sufferings had all the Requisites to Satisfaction.  
SERM. X. Of the fullness, Perfection, and Infinite Worth of Christs Satisfaction, as further demonstrating Gods Righteousness in our Justification.  
SERM. XI. Why it was necessary our Redemption should be by way of Justice, with Distinctions of natural Necessity. And whether God could have remitted sin without Satisfaction, modestly discussed.   

SECT. III. Of the justification of a sinner.  
SERM. XII. Rom. 8.33. It is God that Justifieth. Sheweth what Justification is, and what are the Adjuncts, Properties, and Effects of it.  
SERM. XIII. A particular Description of Justification.  
SERM. XIV. More Propositions tending to clear the Nature of Justification, especially showing how it answers all Accusations.  
SERM. XV. The several Distinctions of Learned Men in the Point of Justification.  
SERM. XVI. An Examination of some Distinctions about Justification, much controverted by several Authors.   

SECT. IV. Setteth forth what is not that Righteousness, whereby a man is justified.  
SERM. XVII. Rom. 10.3. For they being ignorant of Gods Righteousteousness, and going about to establish their own, have not submitted themselves unto the Righteousness of God. Sheweth, That every man is prove to set up a Righteousness of his own, to be Justified by it, and whence it proceeds.  
SERM. XVIII. Another great Cause of Mens trusting in their own Righteousness, viz. A Practical ignorance or inconsideration of some necessary things relating to our Actions.  
SERM. XIX. Rom. 3.10. As it is written, There is none Righteous, no not one. The Necessity of a perfect Righteousness: And how destitute all men naturally are of it; with the grounds thereof.  
SERM. XX. showeth, That every Man by Nature is spiritually Impure and Unclean, both in his Person, and in all his Actions, and therefore cannot be Justified by his own Righteousness. And treats of the salvation of Heathens.  
SERM. XXI. Gal. 3.11. But that no man is Justified by the Law in the sight of God, it is evident: For the Just shall live by Faith. That none can be Justified by the Works of the Law, though they are done by the Grace of God.  
SERM. XXII. That Justification cannot be attained by the Works of the Law.  
SERM. XXIII. 1 Cor. 4.4. For I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby Justified. That the Works of a Godly man done graciously, are not the Condition, or a Causa sine qua non of his Justification.  
SERM. XXIV. More Arguments to prove the former Position.  
SERM. XXV. Rom. 4.23, 24. Now it is not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him. But for us also; to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. That Faith as it is a Work, or the {αβγδ} credere, is not imputed unto us for our Righteousness.  
SERM. XXVI. More Arguments to prove, That Faith as it is a Work, is not imputed unto us for our Righteousness; With Answers to Objections. Also handling the Point of the Instrumentality of Faith.  
SERM. XXVII. Rom. 4.25. Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our Justification. That the whole Nature of Justification is not comprehended in Remission and forgiveness of sins.  
SERM. XXVIII.   

SECT. V. Of the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ both Passive and Active.  
SERM. XXIX. Rom. 4.11. And he received the sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised— that Righteousness might be imputed to them also. That a Believers Righteousness is imputed. Divers Propositions about imputation of Good and Evil, and of Christs Righteousness in particular.  
SERM. XXX. The Doctrine of the Imputation of righteousness demonstrated; With Answers to the Objections against it.  
SERM. XXXI. Isa. 53.5. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. Of the Sufferings of Christ, both in Body and Soul, as imputed to us for our Righteousness.  
SERM. XXXII. Sheweth, By Propositions and Arguments, That the whole Manhood of Christ suffered in Body and Soul, because of the Anger of God due to Sinners.  
SERM. XXXIII. Rom. 5.19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners: So by the Obedience of one shall many be made Righteous. Whether Christ while on Earth, did truly and properly obey the Will of God.  
SERM. XXXIV. Divers Propositions tending to clear the Point of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ. And the Point truly stated.  
SERM. XXXV. Arguments to prove the Imputation of Christs Active Obedience to us for our Justification.  
SERM. XXXVI. More Reasons to prove the Imputation of Christs Active Obedience to Believers.  
SERM. XXXVII. The fore-going Argument prosecuted, and some more added.  
SERM. XXXVIII. Arguments against the Imputation of Christs Active Obedience, answered.  
SERM. XXXIX. That Christ was truly and properly subject to the Law of God, both General and Particular: And that he suffered in Obedience both to the Natural and Positive Law.  
SERM. XL. Some Objections Answered, and Distinctions Examined, concerning the Obedience of Christ.  
SERM. XLI. A further Dispute for the Imputation of Christs Active Obedience.  
SERM. XLII. In Answering the last Objection, is discussed, Whether and how far Christ was bound to Obey and Suffer for himself: And shewed, that the same Arguments which are brought against the Active Obedience of Christ, make as much against his Passive.  
SERM. XLIII. More Objections Answered, and the Doctrine cleared from Antinomianism.  
SERM. XLIV. More Objections Answered.  
SERM. XLV. More Objections Answered, with Antidotes against Prejudice.    

The Names of the AUTHORS cited in this BOOK.  

ABbot Bish.  
Amesius.  
Andradius.  
Anselm.  
Aquinas.  
Aristides.  
Aristotle.  
Austin.   

BAll.  
Barlaeus.  
Baronius.  
Becanus.  
Bellarmine.  
Bertius.  
Beza.  
Bonaventure.  
Bradwardin.  
Bradshaw.  
Brocheus.  
Buchol. Wegel.  
Brockman.  
Bucer.  
Budeus.   

CAjetan.  
Calvin.  
Castellius.  
Catharinus.  
Causabon.  
Chemnitius:  
Chrysostom.  
Cocceius.  
Covarruvias.  
Clemens Alex.  
Cloppenhergius.   

DAvenant.  
De Dieu.  
Downam.  
Durand.   

EChart.  
Erasmus.   

FAbricius.  
Faustus.  
Forbes.  
Fraxinus.   

GAtaker.  
Gibieuf.  
Gomarus.  
Gregory.  
Grotius.  
Grynaeus.   

HIerom.  
Himelius.  
Hooker.  
Hugo.  
Hysichius.   

JUnius.   

KArgius.   

LApide.  
lo.  
Lindanus.  
Lorinus.  
Lubbertus.  
Lucius.  
lombard.  
Luther.   

MAldonat.  
Martin.  
Mayso.  
Meisner.  
Mentzer.  
Molina.  
Musculus.   

OLevian.   

PAreus.  
Perkins.  
Pererius.  
Pezelius.  
Photin.  
Pighius.  
Piltanus.  
Pinchin.  
Piscator.  
Plutarch.  
Polanus.   

RIvet.   

SAndaeus.  
Sanderus.  
Sasbont.  
Scaliger.  
Scotus.  
Sixtus Senensis.  
Socinus.  
Stapleton.  
Stephanas.  
Suarez.  
Suidas.   

TArnovius.  
Tapper.  
Tertullian.  
Trasymachus.  
M. Tullius.  
Twisse.   

VAsquez.  
Vedellius.  
Vives.  
Vorstius.  
Ursin.   

WAllaeus  
Ward.  
Wendelin.   

ZAnchy.    

A TREATISE OF JUSTIFICATION. PART II.  

SECT. I. Of the Righteous Nature of GOD.  

SERM. I. Demonstrations of Gods Righteousness; The Kindes of it, and in what sense it s attributed unto God.  PSAL. 11.7. For the Righteous Lord, loveth Righteousness. 
DAvid being now in exile, and like a bide( as vers. 1.) flying from mountain to mountain for his life, supporteth and comforts himself with arguments from Gods Righteousness. He that had an Harp to drive out the evil spirit from Saul, finds faith in God to be of such efficacy to chase away all unbelief and distrust in his heart. Therefore vers. 1. he professeth his confidence and dependence on God, which is aggravated from the malice of his enemies proceeding so far, That the very foundations are destroyed; all help and power is gone; What then can a righteous man do? Yes, he telleth us what is to be done, There is a righteous God in Heaven, whose eyes behold all things below, yea his eye-lids try the children of men: A Metaphor from men, who when they look narrowly into a thing, shut their eyes a little: Thus Gods knowledge is intuitive and exact; but this knowledge of Gods, is not a mere idle, speculative beholding, for thereby God trieth the righteous, viz. by afflictions; but as for the wicked, his soul hateth them; observe the emphasis, its more then simply to say, God hateth them. This hatred of God in respect of the wicked, is to be illustrated by an allusion to his judgements upon Sodom and Gomorrah; Every wicked man may fear that God should inflict the like, or equivalent punishments; for all this described in the Text, though terrible, yet is not as dreadful as hell; though one said of Sodoms judgements, that God did pluere gehennam è Coelo, fire and brimstone, that is the extremity of pain; an horrible tempest, that is the violence; and snares, that denoteth the inevitability; lastly God will rain all these, that denoteth abundance even to overflowing. Neither let any wicked man think this is onely to some eminent notorious sinners, like those of Sodom, for the Psalmist concludes, This is the portion of every wicked mans cup. But for the godly he ends with an happy proposition, The righteous Lord loveth righteousness, and which is equivalent, His countenance beholds the upright. The Hebrew word signifieth a diligent, exact and constant beholding, as if God were so in love with such, as he never takes his eye off from them.  
I am upon the former proposition, which indeed is two, one implied, the other expressed: Implied, The Lord is a righteous Lord. 2. This righteous Lord loveth righteousness. To open the words.  
The Lord Jehovah is first described by this Title Righteous, t●addick, from which say some the Greek word {αβγδ} comes, as they say, Jus of Jashur, but Aristotle deriveth that from {αβγδ}, because justice consists in an equal dividing between two. The word Righteous, or Gods Righteousness is used several ways; sometimes its the same with his Goodness, Mercy and Benignity, or at least his Fidelity and Faithfulness in his Promises. Thus David often prayeth, Psal. 31.1. Psal. 71.2. So also Psal. 103.17. that God would deliver him in his righteousness, i.e. his Mercy and Goodness: And this Righteousness of God he professeth he will make mention of, and talk of to others. Indeed some learned men, Osiander, Cameron, and all the Socinians upon a wicked interest they drive at( but the two former they do it innocently) affirm, That the righteousness of God is never used for that, whereby he punisheth sinners; but for mercy and fidelity, for say the Socinians, That whereby God avengeth himself on the wicked, is called vengeance, fury, anger or severity; But though it must needs be granted that righteousness is used so in many places, yet  
1. Its more properly the Syriack use of the word, when it denoteth mercy, although the Septuagint do many times translate the Hebrew word for mercy choosed, by {αβγδ}. But  
2. It cannot be denied but that in many places, its used for that propensity in God, whereby from his hatred to sin, he punisheth wicked men; and thus it must be here, as the Context evidenceth. Thus it is evidently used 2 Chron. 12.6. Rom. 2.5. Therefore in the next place, righteousness attributed to God, signifieth in the general, That rectitude and purity in Gods Nature, whereby he is free from all sin, and hateth all iniquity. And then more particularly, that Attribute in God, whereby he doth punish ungodly men: And in this sense it is taken here, both for the general and particular, as is more to be shewed. We observe then from hence,  
That God is a righteous God. Psal. 145.17. Hence 2 Tim. 4.8. 
observe.  he is called the Righteous Judge. And Abraham expostulateth with God on this point, Gen. 18.25. Shall not the Judge of the whole world do right?  
This Doctrine is of great importance, and my purpose being to treat of that righteousness whereby a believer stands justified before God, its necessary to lay this as a foundation.  
To understand this truth therefore consider these Propositions following,  

I. Gods righteousness two-fold. Of Gods universal Righteousness.  First, Take notice, that the Scripture attributeth a two-fold Righteousness to God, one we may call Universal, the other Particular. Universal Righteousness is that purity and integrity of his Nature considered absolutely in himself, whereby he is free from all sin, and so its the same with Jashar Tam, &c. Even as Aristotle makes all virtue to be in Justice, because every virtue consists in a just and due temperament; and as the Apostle makes {αβγδ} a general to all sin; so that Righteousness thus considered, is the same with Purity, Holiness and Uprightness, whereby whatsoever God doth, he doth it in a condecent and beseeming manner of a God. As Anselm said, Quando parcis justum est ut parcas, quando punis justum est ut punias: When God spareth he is just, and when he punisheth he is just, that is, in whatsoever God doth, he keeps up that rectitude and holiness, which a God is to do, he doth not show himself as a creature in those things, but as a God. Now this universal righteousness is meant in this place as the foundation, for the Psalmist argueth God will punish the wicked, and defend the upright from his nature, because he is thus universally righteous. This universal righteousness the Scripture describeth partly positively, by the infinite purity and holinesse that is in him. As the Apostle, God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all, 1 Joh. 1.5. and partly by his opposition to sin, Hab. 1. Thou art of purer eyes, then to behold iniquity. So Psal. 5.4. Thou art not a God that hast pleasure in iniquity. Thus you see we are to apprehended of God, as an infinite, holy, pure and perfect God. Hence Jam. 1.13. the Apostle saith, He can never tempt others actively to sin, or he himself be passively tempted to sin.  

Of Gods particular Righteousness.  In the next place there is his particular righteousness, and that may be distributed according to all those relations he taketh upon him, he is the Lord having absolute dominion over all, and so he is a righteous Lord in using that sovereignty; He is a Judge, and therefore a righteous Judge, as the Apostle calls him; he is a Father, and our Saviour, John 17.25. calls him righteous Father; He is the governor and Ruler of the world, and all this is administered in righteousness. Thus there is no relation, no office or state that God is pleased to assume, as a King, an Husband, but in all these the Lord works righteously.  
Again, 
Gods particular righteousness divided into several kindes.  This particular righteousness of his may be divided into several kindes or species, not that there are such multiplied beings in God, for he is most simplo and pure; but we thus distinguish according to our conceptions: As if a man should look in many glasses at the same time, it would be but one face, onely there would be multiplied reflections, and many faces in the several glasses. Thus Gods essence is one and the same, every thing in God, being God, but the diversity of objects, maketh a multiplied reflection to our understanding. The kinds of his particular Justice, are( as some make it.)  
1. His Mercy, they make even Gods grace and love a kind of his Justice, because its so proper and just, that the chiefest good should be merciful.  
But in the second place, there is the righteousness of his fidelity and promise, whereby he keepeth his Word; for in his promises there cometh an obligation, if not of God to us, yet of God to himself: Thus they say he is sibi debtor in whatsoever he hath promised.  
3. There is Righteousness vindicative, whereby he punisheth wicked and ungodly men, as Moses describeth God by this righteous property, That he will in no wise acquit the guilty, Exod. 34.7. Therefore its but the devils case thou art put into, when thou dreamest only of mercy in God, not at the same time remembering his righteousness.  
Secondly, 
II. Justice and righteousness properly attributed unto God.  Justice and Righteousness is truly and properly attributed unto God. There are many things attributed unto God, and that by Scripture language, which yet must be understood improperly, or metaphorically. Thus the Scripture speaks of his eyes and hands: Thus it saith, God repents and is grieved, all which are to be understood {αβγδ}, without any imperfection in God: Yea the words Decree and Counsel, if strictly taken, cannot be given to God, because in their rigorous sense they imply imperfection. Hence Scaliger said, Tam impia vox est consilium in Divinis, quam pluralitas Deitatis. But righteousness is an absolute perfection, implying that which is excellent, and so in the highest degree to be affirmed of God.  
When I say, righteousness is thus an absolute perfection, I understand it of that general righteousness, whereby God is true and holy in his Nature, and in all his ways: for as for political and civil righteousness, even Aristotle could say, it was absurd and ridiculous to attribute political virtues to God. Indeed there is a righteousness called commutative, which consists in an equality inter datum& acceptum, and this some jesuits, as Suarez Disput. de justitia Dei, would have truly and properly in God. But Vasquez another jesuit doth solidly oppose it, Tom. 1. Quaest. 20. Dis. 85. because it would bring down God from his glorious sovereignty, and if there cannot be any strict Justice between a Father and a son, a Master and a Servant, much less between God and the creature: Its true, all things we take from man and give to God, as to know, to understand and will, they have an imperfection, as they are in man, because they are accidents to man, and of a finite nature, yet we say( secluding the imperfection) they may in an eminent and transcendent consideration be given to God analogically, not univocally; for a thing may be said to have imperfection in it accidentally from the Subject, or essentially in its formal Nature, and what is of this later sort cannot properly be affirmed of God, as to grieve and repent. Now all such Justice as would make God a debtor to the creature, as if he did receive equally for what he hath given, supposeth an imperfection in the very nature thereof, as the Apostle argueth, Who hath first given to him? Rom. 11.35. And what hast thou that thou hast not received? Whether there be strict Justice between God the Father and Christ in the work of our Redemption, is not in this place to be discoursed on: Its certain, between God and a mere creature there cannot; and therefore all those Popish Doctrines of Merit and Satisfaction must fall to the ground. We see then in what sense Justice is attributed properly to God, and in what sense not.  
The third Proposition, 
III. Arguments demonstrating the Righteousness of God.  There are many Arguments that do strongly demonstrate God to be thus righteous. As  
1. There is an inward principle in a mans conscience, whereby he is persuaded of Gods righteousness, for what is it that makes a man upon the omitting of gross sins, such as the Law of Nature forbids, to have fear and remorse within, but the apprehension of a righteous God, who will call to a dreadful account? The very Heathens had that up often, {αβγδ}, God hath a just and an avenging eye: Therefore Rom. 1.32. its brought as an aggravation against those notorious sinners, That though they knew the judgement of God, viz. That they which commit such things are worthy of death, yet not only do the same, but have pleasure in those that do them. The Gentiles knew this judgement of God. Hence Rom. 2.15. Their consciences are said to accuse: If then you ask, How can it be proved God is a righteous God? I answer, From thy own heart; thy own soul; in this respect it is naturaliter Christiana, as Tertullian said: Oh then, where will those wretched sinners appear, who live in all profaneness and injustice, though a conscience within them crieth aloud that God is righteous! How canst thou stop thy ears to these loud cries? All thy mirth and jollity cannot raze this out, There is a righteous God.  
2. The providential government of this world, so vast, and consisting of men so unruly and carried by their lusts, doth demonstrate a righteous God. The world would be a Babel, would be an hell, had not God established an order of superiors and inferiors, of Governours and governed, as David acknowledged it was the Lord subdued his people under him, Psal. 18.47. And when God touched the peoples hearts, then they followed Saul, 1 Sam. 10.26. Thus David acknowledged Gods reigning in the world, that he is the King of the earth, and that he judgeth righteously, Psal. 67.4. So that the harmony of a musical instrument doth not more palpably demonstrate the art of an Artificer, then the government of this world, doth the righteousness of the governor, who is God; If a City, if a Nation cannot subsist without righteousness, For, take away righteousness( saith Augustine,) and what are Kingdoms but great robberies? how much less can the world abide without a righteous preserver of it? righteousness is said to go before God, Psal. 85.13. because that makes way for him in all his works.  
3. The Scriptures they are an undeniable and infallible principle to prove his righteousness. This is proclaimed in many places, Psal. 71.19. Psal. 36.6. Psal. 103.6. Indeed when we look upon the divine dispensations of Gods works in the world, beholding the godly sometimes in an afflicted condition, and the wicked in a prosperous; we are apt to question the righteousness of God. Through these waters of afflictions, that which is straight seemeth crooked, as in David and Jeremiah. But then come we to the Word of God, there righteousness is affirmed in all his ways, whatsoever our thoughts may be. The man that judgeth by the eye, thinketh the sun less then the world, but the Astronomer judging by principles of art, knoweth it is otherwise. Thus while we judge of Gods ways according to human principles, we call that unrighteous, which by Scripture light will appear most just.  
4. The righteousness that Angels and Adam was created in; yea that Image of God which is repaired in every godly man, consisting in Righoeousnesse and true Holinesse, this doth necessary infer Gods righteousness, for as the Psalmist argueth, He that made the eye, shall not he see? He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? Thus he that makes man righteous, shall not he much more be righteous? Is not this called the Image and likeness of God? And why so? but because this is a representation of his Divine Essence. The creatures represent a God, but this Image doth a righteous God: If therefore thou seest any man working righteousness, and loving righteousness in all his words and actions, know that righteousness is much more in the cause, in the fountain, which is God himself.  
5. The particular effects of Gods primitive Justice, or his judgements which he executeth in the world do also demonstrate his righteousness. God is not so in heaven, but his judgements, sometimes extraordinary, as in drowning of the world, burning the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah; and sometimes his ordinary ones, do teach every one, that God is not only merciful, but just, Psal. 89.14. Judgement and justice are the habitation of thy throne. Isa. 28.17. By the description thereof judgement laid to the line, is excellently shewed the exactness of justice God keeps to in destroying, he is as careful in destroying the mercies of a people, as an Artificer is to build an house.  
6. Gods justice is evidently seen, in that the godly are not acquitted without satisfaction through Christ; even the righteousness of God makes way for all the glorious effects of his mercy, when that is satisfied then comes pardon of sins, and salvation: but of this more largely afterwards.  
Lastly, The appointing of judgement and everlasting torments to all impenitent sinners, will then convince all the world of his righteousness, Act. 24.25. Paul preaching of this made Felix tremble, and 2 Pet. 2.3, 4. judas v. 15. speak terribly of this argument; Oh let not ungodly men take their ease and pleasure always! Think of this righteous God, that hath appointed such a righteous day: as thy works have been so will God render to thee: Shall not unquenchable fire, eternal gnashing of teeth and everlasting howling in tormenting flames make thee afraid? nabuchadnezzar made a Law, That whosoever would not worship his Image should be thrown into a fiery furnace, and this did so terrify every one, that none refused but the three Worthies; yet this furnace was not like to hell, whose flames never go out. Take heed then of abusing mercy, for this will bring thee at last into the hands of justice: Oh then there will be righteousness without any mercy, not a drop of water to cool the top of the tongue! Oh wretched and seduced sinners! Will your moment pleasures recompense those eternal torments? Are thy sins as great a good to thee, as hell will be a loss and torment?   

SERM. II. More Propositions concerning the Righteousness of God; showing that we must judge of it only by his Word; That its essential and natural to him; The Rule of all Righteousness: That God cannot do any thing against his Righteous Will. How many ways Righteousness is taken when attributed to God; And in what sense he is said to be Just in forgiving and rewarding his People.  PSAL. 11.7. For the Righteous Lord loveth Righteousness. 
WE are to add more Propositions that may clear this main Point about Gods Righteousness; 
IV. We must judge of Gods Righteousness only by the Word of God.  And the fourth in order is, That although there be many principles that demonstrate Gods Righteousness, yet we must judge of it only by the Word. Though human reason cannot but say, God is Righteous, yet we must not assert such a Righteousness in him as that would imagine, but what the Scripture directs us to: This is the Pillar to direct us in this wilderness: This is the star to guide. We must only learn of God, what we are to think of him, as by the light of the Sun we come to see the Sun. If the Heathen could say, that in respect of the celestial creatures and the knowledge of them, our understandings were but like the owls eyes to the Sun, dazzled more then enlightened: How much more is this true of God! What is the reason then that so many stumble at those Points in Divinity, about Gods permission and suffering of sin to be? about his discriminating of persons by Election and Reprobation? about the induration of sinners and punishing one sin with another? about the imputation of Adams sin to all his posterity? In these Points many have charged God with injustice only, because they judge of God by principles of human justice. But it is well observed by Musculus, Its hard( saith he) to understand what a just God is, because its difficult to know what God is: Therefore when such opinions come to be discussed by thee, raise up thy mind to think of God, as a God; he is not a creature, he is not a sworn Judge tied by Laws, he is not under a superior to command and prescribe him, and therefore those things are justly done by God, because he hath an absolute Dominion and sovereignty, which if a creature should do, it would be unjust. That is excellent of Gregory to this purpose, Qui in factis Dei rationem non invenit, in infirmitate suâ invenit cur rationem non inveniat. He that in Gods Works cannot find a reason of them, may easily find in his infirmities a reason why he cannot find a reason. To suffer sin to be when we can hinder it, this no creature may do; but God doth it justly. So to harden another man in sin, no creature may do, if he could do it; but God as a just Judge doth it, not indeed by infusing wickedness, but by withdrawing or denying mollifying grace. So to cooperate to that action, to which the deformity of sin doth necessary adhere, a creature may not do it; but God being the supreme Lord, and not tied by such laws as men are, he therefore may as a God do that, which a man cannot do without sin; yet this is not to be understood, as if God had an absolute power to do any thing against his Wisdom, and his Holy and Righteous Will, as is to be shewed; only this is brought to silence those profane disputers of the world, as Paul did, Rom. 9. who would bring God to account, and not submit to him, as having a supreme Dominion over all. As many points in Religion, so the several passages of Gods Providence in this world, have made men doubt and dispute about his Righteousness, That it should fare well with a wicked man, and he prosper in his sins, and on the contrary fare as ill with a godly man, so that be shall even perish in his righteousness, Eccles. 7.15. or at least as the same wise man observeth, Eccles. 9.2. All things fall alike to all, even to the righteous and the wicked, &c. This consideration hath not only amazed the Heathens, but we see David and Jeremiah staggering under it; and indeed if we consult with human principles, we undertake to measure the vast heavens with a little finger: but go we to Gods Word, there we see admirable arguments, declaring Gods Righteousness in all these Providences, especially that we must suspend our judgements till the last day, when God will manifest to the world his Righteousness: For as it is in the Scripture, if a man should make a full period in some verse, where there is but a comma or a colon, it would be blasphemy; As to take that verse of the Psalmist, Thou art not a God that hast pleasure in iniquity; if a man should make a full stop, reading Thou art not a God. this would be blasphemy; but if he read to the period, its excellent sense: So whosoever judgeth of Gods Righteousness by his Providential passages, before God hath made a full end, he may charge God foolishly. Learn we then from the Scripture, to judge with fear and reverence about Gods Righteousness, believing him to be Just and Righteous in all his Works, even when we cannot demonstrate it.  
The fifth Proposition, Gods Justice and Righteousness is essential and natural to him, 
V. Gods Justice and Righteousness is Essential and Natural to him.  and so is the same with God. Howsoever Vorstius blasphemously asserted Accidents in God, denying what is in God to be God, That being, God, is a most simplo uncompounded being, it must needs be so. God is, as tertul. de Trin. saith, not {αβγδ}, but {αβγδ}, he is not an integral whole consisting of parts, but totaliter totus, a most perfect uncompounded whole. Otherwise if we admit composition, we must also grant imperfection in him. Justice then being a property in God, its the same with his Nature: and if you say, How can God be just and merciful to, if both be his infinite Essence? I answer, Very well, for these two Properties as essential in God, are not opposite to one another; indeed the effects of justice and mercy are sometimes contrary, but the Attributes themselves are not, of which more afterwards, as also how far the effects of his Justice are natural, and yet free to him.  
The sixth Proposition, God is so Righteous, 
VI. Gods Nature and Will the Rule of all Righteousness.  that his Nature and his Will is the rule and measure of all righteousness. Even as in artificial things, therefore this or that work is done right or artificially, because conformable to the Idea of the Artificer which he hath in his mind: Or as Aquinas saith, Gods knowledge( viz. practical) is the cause of all created truth, and the rule of it, so also Gods holy Will is the rule and measure of all created good and righteousness; a thing being therefore just, because consonant to that eternal rule of Righteousness. Indeed there are somethings that are just and righteous in their nature intrinsically, as to love God, to do righteously with man, and these are not just because God Wils them, but they are just, and therefore he Wils them; yea such is his Perfection that he cannot but Will them, neither can he dispense to the contrary: Though even these things are therefore just, because conformable to Gods nature, or that eternal Law of Righteousness within him; for seeing they are not the first, and uncreated righteousness, but created, they must needs have a rule to measure them by. 2. There are righteous things, not from their nature, but merely from a command, and so are righteous because commanded, as in the forbearing to eat of the forbidden fruit; so all the Levitical worship, these had no intrinsical holiness, but therefore they were good, because required. Lastly, Bradwardin addeth a third kind, which he calls Justa mixta, mixed or compounded of both the other: For although it was not intrinsically evil for Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit, setting aside the command, yet supposing the command, then it was intrinsically evil for a creature not to obey the command of his Creator. Now as this is a mixed righteous good thing, so Gods Will about it is mixed, the one part being willed because righteous, the other righteous because willed. And this very consideration must needs convince that God cannot Will any thing unrighteously, for how can the Rule of Righteousness be unrighteous? we may better say, there cannot be any sin, then that God can Will it, for if he should Will it, it would not be a sin; as if the arrow were the mark, it could never miss. Oh what obediential resignation should this teach us, resign thyself unto Gods Will, as that which is most Righteous, and wherein there cannot be the least inordinacy.  

VII. God cannot do a thing against his Just and Righteous Will.  The seventh Proposition, We may not apprehended in God any such absolute power, whereby he may do a thing against his just and righteous Will. There is by the Schoolmen large Disputes about Gods absolute power, whether he may not forgive sin to a sinner, though he remain impenitent; and with the Socinians, Whether God may not absolutely pardon sin freely without any satisfaction; but howsoever men may speak boldly here, intruding to things above mans reach, yet this must be concluded on, that it is a great dishonour to apprehended a power in God to do any thing against the rules of his Wisdom and Justice:( As when some Schools determine, that God may command the hatred of himself, yea that by such an hatred of God a man may mereri, merit;) for that were to conceive him a God that had power to sin, and so to be no God: Therefore some have wholly rejected that distinction of Potestas absoluta and ordinata in God, for if it be so( saith Bonaventure) then there would be a potestas in God inordinatè agere, to act and work inordinately: but it cannot be denied, that God hath a power to do many things, which yet he will not do; as Christ said, his Father could sand him legions of Angels, and so he was able to raise up children to Abraham, even out of stones; but if God should do these things, then he would do them justly also, and righteously; so that do them or do them not, in each God is Righteous. And thus Scotus well explained that distinction, That there is no potentia absoluta in God, contradistinguished to ordinata, for if God should work otherways then he did, that potentia would be ordinata. Let us not therefore give liberty to endless disputes about an absolute power in God, which we cannot comprehend, but satisfy ourselves with that Will and ordered Power of his that is manifested in the Word. We may say of God and his Attributes, as Austin said of the Trinity, Dicimus trees Personas, non ut diceretur, said ne taceretur. And that is a truth, Deus verius cogitatur quam dicitur,& berius est quàm cogitatur.  
The eighth Proposition, 
VIII. Righteousness when attributed to God is taken three ways.  This doth much tend to the clearing of the true doctrine about Gods Righteousness: Righteousness when attributed to God is taken three ways: Sometimes for an attribute in God, the same with his Nature: Thus in the text and Ps. 145.17. Sometimes it is taken for the actual administration of Righteousness, for the execution of his just judgements, 2 Chron. 12.6. Ezra 9.15. Lastly, for the judgements themselves, Jer. 33.15. Isa. 16.5. Even as the mercy of God is sometimes taken either for the Attribute of God, or for his actual compassion, or for the effects of his mercy, and so Gods will is either taken for the {αβγδ}, the power to will, or {αβγδ}, the act of willing, or {αβγδ}, the object willed. Now when we speak of Gods Righteousness, its of great consequence to know whether we mean his Attribute of Righteousness, or the effects, for these two exceedingly differ, as in these considerations.  
1. Its a lawful and ordinary prayer which the Church often useth, whereby she deprecateth the Justice of God, and flieth to his Mercy: They supplicate, that God would not deal with them according to his Justice, but according to his Mercy; Now if in this prayer, by Justice should be meant Gods Attribute, there would be some blasphemy in the prayer, for God cannot but be Just, and deal justly: we may as well pray, that God would not be God. But if by Justice we understand the effects of Justice, then the prayer is very good and sound, viz. that God would not, though Just in his Nature, yet bring such effects of his wrath upon us, that may overwhelm us. We pray not then against the Attribute of God, but against the effects of it, which are subject to the liberty of his Will, whenas his Attributes are not.  
2. The effects of Gods justice are various and different, there are more upon some then upon another, but his Attribute cannot be so. When God executed some extraordinary punishments upon some notorious sinners, as the old world, the Sodomites, there we may say, God wrought more effects of his Justice upon those sinners then others, yet we cannot say, God is more just in punishing of them, then in other wicked men. Even as it is in Gods mercy, take it for an Attribute, we cannot say, God is more or less merciful; but if for the effects of it, then he is so in his Justice, God is always alike just, he is not more just at one time, then at another; but the effects of his Justice may be more at one time, and in one place then another.  
3. Hence it followeth that Righteousness taken for the effects of it, are not the same with God, neither is there a natural necessity of them; but if taken for an Attribute, its the same with God, and so God had been a just God, though there had been no creatures made, no sin to be punished. As he is a Wise God, and a merciful God, and a Mighty God, though he had not demonstrated any effects thereof. God is necessary Righteous, but he doth not necessary work such and such effects of his Righteousness.  
4. If Gods Righteousness be taken, as often it is in Scripture, for the effects of his righteousness, then there is a contrariety between them, and the effects of his mercy. To be preserved alive by Mercy, and to be destroyed by Justice are contrary, and so cannot be together upon the same subject. Now, though the effects be thus contrary, yet the Attributes from whence they flow are not contrary, for God is both at the same time, infinitely Righteous, and infinitely Merciful, there is no contrariety between them, but the effects of these may be in such an high degree, that they can never be together; as a man cannot be saved and damned at the same time, for these are the effects of Mercy and Justice in an high degree. Indeed if we consider some effects of these Attributes in a more remiss degree, then they may be together, and in many things God doth show forth both his Mercy and Justice together, yea even in hell God( they say) doth some work of mercy, because he doth punish citra condignum, he breaketh not out to the utmost of punishment sin doth deserve.  
Lastly, If we take Gods Righteousness ad intra, as an Attribute in him, we cannot say that God hath less of that, then of Mercy, if that also be taken as an Attribute; God is as just as he is merciful, and as merciful as he is just. Therefore when it is said, James 2.13. Mercy rejoiceth against judgement, and when God is described merciful, ready to forgive, but slow to wrath, these places are to be understood of the effects of these Attributes, not the Attributes themselves, for so God is no more inclining to Mercy then to Justice, they being both Infinite Perfections in him: But if we speak of the effects, then in this life, God is more ready to show forth the effects of his love and long suffering, as at the day of judgement he will more demonstrate the effects of his Justice. This is the time of mercy, then the time of Justice. Lastly, It cannot be denied but that the Scripture speaking of Gods rewarding holy men with eternal life, doth attribute it to Gods justice, as 1 John 1.9. He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. Heb. 6.10. God is not unrighteous to forget your labour of love. 2 Thess. 1.6. where its made a righteous thing with God to punish the persecutors of the Church, but to give rest to them that are troubled.  
This being clear, we are to examine whether Justice be here taken strictly, or merely improperly, so as to signify no more then the truth and fidelity of his promise, insomuch that if he should not bestow heaven upon the godly, he would be only unjust in his Word; not that he owed a godly man heaven, and had received of him equivalent for it. Some Papists, especially Suarez( as you heard) contends for this earnestly, That there is a true proper commutative justice between God and the godly man, when he is made happy. But this is too proud and high: 1. From the transcendency of the reward to our godly actions. In all strict justice there must be an equality between the thing given and received, but now heaven is so far above all our duties, that if all the glory of the world should be given to a man for lifting up a straw, it would not be comparable. Genes. 31. I am less then the least of thy mercies, saith Jacob, then much more less then the greatest; if a man be less then a drop of water, much less then heaven itself: so Rom. 8. These present sufferings are not worthy to that eternal weight of glory. 2. Our condition is such, that there cannot be any strict justice between God and us, because whatsoever we have it is his gift, Rom. 11. Who hath first given to him? So that although God vouchsafe grace to us, yea and makes a promise to this grace, yet he doth not lose his dominion over us. We are his servants still, and therefore the more we have, the more we are bound to be thankful to him, and not to stand on terms of justice. Therefore we see the Scripture attributing both Election, Vocation, Justification and Salvation, all these from the first to the last, solely to his grace and good pleasure. And hence it is that eternal life is called the gift of God, and an inheritance, which exclude any such thoughts as may crave it by way of justice.  
Use of Instruction, How unwise they are for their salvation, who look upon God as merciful only, not at all attending to his justice, whereas you have heard God is equally Righteous, and that he is no more merciful then just! Hence you have threatenings as well as promises: Why then doth not this wound thy heart more? Is there not an hell as well as an heaven? Is there not damnation as well as salvation? Why then dost thou hope always for one, and never fearest the other? Now indeed mercy compasseth you about, by mercy you eat, drink and sleep, but at the day of judgement Justice will environ you, then Justice prepares eternal torments, then Justice crieth aloud, Depart ye cursed; above, below, within, without, thou seest nothing but the effects of a just and righteous God.   

SERM. III. More Propositions about the Nature of Righteousness; Also showing wherein Gods Love to the Righteous doth appear.  PSAL. 11.7. For the righteous Lord loveth Righteousness. 
WE proceed to the second Proposition, which is expressed and declared, viz. That the righteous Lord loveth Righteousness; such as his Nature is, such he is, and such he loveth: A righteous God loveth righteous men. The Hebrew word for Love signifieth vehemently and greatly to love, and therefore seldom rendered by the Septuagint {αβγδ}, but {αβγδ}, which is greatly rest in our love, and to be satisfied therewith as Christ is called {αβγδ}.  
The love of God is two fold:  
1. General and common, which is carried out to a creature as his creature.  
2. More peculiar and special, whereby he doth will to the persons loved everlasting happiness and salvation; Of this love it is that the Psalmist speaketh; As for the Object of this love it s said to be righteousness. Its usual with the Hebrews for emphasis sake to put the Abstract for the Concrete, righteousness for a righteous person, as here. But then secondly, there is a further emphasis, the plural number for the singular, its righteousnesses in the Hebrew, to show that he only is righteous, who hath all the parts and kindes of righteousness. Thus you have the word in the plural, Isa. 33.15. As at another time it doth ingeminate the word, to signify the emphasis also and fullness of righteousness, Deut. 16.20. Thou shalt do justice, justice, that is, as the Translators render it, that which is altogether just.  

observe.  That God being righteous in his Nature doth only love righteousness in the creature. The righteous God loveth a righteous man. To manifest the truth of this, consider  
First, That as we mentioned about Gods righteousness, so also about mans, There is a two-fold consideration of it: First, General, as it signifieth the rectitude and conformity of the whole man to Gods Law; and in this sense its most frequently used in the Scripture, and so is the same with a holy, pure and upright man. This righteousness Adam was created in, and is called the image of God; for although there was among the Romans righteous men, as Fabricius of whom they said, they might sooner turn the sun out of its course, then move him from what is righteous; and among the Grecians there was Aristides the just, so called by all for his righteousness, yet these did not arrive to the righteous men the Scripture speaks of, who are sanctified in their Natures, and have the Image of God by his gracious power repaired in them.  
2. There are the parts and kindes of righteousness in a more particular manner, as it consists in dealing between man and man: This is distinguished from godliness, Titus 2.12. and thus among the moral Philosophers, justice is made a special distinct moral virtue, from other virtues: By this a man hath a constant will and purpose to give to every one that is due to him; without this Societies cannot consist, and whosoever is righteous the former way, is also in this later way, he is righteous in his words, just and faithful in all his actions, as 1 John 5. He that is born of God doth righteousness.  
Secondly, The proper Nature of righteousness lieth in a conformity to the Law of God, which is the rule of righteousness, even as the proper formal nature of sin, lieth in the transgression of the Law. Indeed Gods righteous nature and his will, is the original and archetypal rule, but the will of God revealed is the ectypal or copy of that original, so that if we would judge whether an action be righteous, 
Many things go to Righteousness.  or a person righteous, we must gather it by his conformity to the Law of God. Indeed there go many things to righteousness,  
1. An integrity or universality of the parts of it, called therefore the Image of God; so that as a mans body is not an hand or foot, but the comprehension of all; This neither is righteousness in one action, or in one kind, or at one time, but there must be an universality of these.  
2. As universality, so there must be a debitum, a due or an obligation for the Subject to have it, as in the understanding a mere nesciency is not a sin, but an ignorance of that we ought to know; so in the will a mere non volition, or omission is not a sin, unless it be of that which is due either to God or man.  
3. There must be purity of intention, a love of righteousness for righteousness sake. As Anselm defined Justitia to be Rectitudo voluntatis propter ipsam servata: whatsoever is not done for righteousness sake, and out of care to it, but for applause, profit, or other carnal ends, that is not true righteousness.  
Lastly, Which is the formal nature of righteousness, there must be a commensuration or adequation to the rule of righteousness; so that {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} are all one, that which is righteous, and that which is established by a Law. Now the righteousness of the Pharisees, though so highly esteemed amongst men, yet was rejected by God. As a rotten post shineth in a dark night, but when the Sun ariseth, then all know what it is. Thus when Christ by the light of his Ministry discovered what true righteousness was, that of the Pharisees was manifested to be light and empty, for their righteousness failed in universality, because they omitted many things, and such as were chiefest failed in the debt and obligation of it: Christ asked, Who had required those things at their hands: it failed in the purity of intention, for they did all things to be seen of men. Lastly, it failed in conformity to a Law, for being no commandment was for many things they did in which they placed righteousness, there could not be any conformity to a Law: for without a Law as there is no transgression, so no righteousness.  
Thirdly, There are persons who are truly and really righteous. This is to be noted, because the Papists generally calumniate the Protestants, as if they held there were no righteous persons, with an inherent righteousness. Among Protestants( say they) a man hath no righteousness, but an extrinsical and imputed one; so that though a man be full of iniquity, yet he is a righteous man, because Christs righteousness is made to him, but this is a notorious reproach; for although we say indeed, that the holiest men which live, have not a holinesse inherent in them, whereby they stand justified before God, yet they have a true personal, inward, habitual righteousness, as also an outward actual one, which doth in truth, though not in perfection agree with the rule; and this is clear, for the Scripture giveth both the titulum, and the rem, the title and nature of righteousness to them. The title thus, Abel and Noah, Zachary and Elizabeth, are said to be righteous persons, and it gives the nature of it to them, in that it saith, They walked in all the Commandments of the Lord unblamably, as also in that they are renewed according to the image of God, which consists in righteousness and true holinesse, for although this righteousness they have be not perfect, yet its true: So that hereby even God himself distinguisheth them from sinners and ungodly persons, and although sin cleaveth to them, yet they are denominated righteous from the more noble and excellent quality in them, as we say a man is rational, though his body be voided of reason. There are then persons sanctified by the grace of God, who are truly and indeed righteous.  
But yet fourthly, God loveth none to Justification and special favour with him, unless he have a perfect complete righteousness answering the rule, which because the most righteous men on earth have not, therefore they need a righteousness without them to be made theirs. Hence Paul Phil. 3. would not be found in his own righteousness, but that which is by faith in Christ: And David also prayeth God would not enter into judgement with him, for then no flesh would be justified, Psal. 143.2. We must not then trust or depend upon this inherent righteousness of ours, but fly to an imputed righteousness. As Luther expressed it, We must go from an active righteousness to a passive, from that we do to that we receive, 
Wherein Gods love to Righteousness doth appear.  for God requireth a perfect righteousness which we have not: But of this more in its proper place. Come we to show wherein Gods love to righteousness doth appear.  
And first, There cannot be a better testimony of it, then the Law of God, or his Commandments, which in all particulars requireth exact and perfect righteousness. The holinesse of Gods Word doth demonstrate the Divinity of it; All the moral Philosophers have not attained to the shadow of that righteousness, which the Word commands; this requireth inward and outward righteousness; this commands a righteous heart, and righteous thoughts, and righteous affections, a pure spring as well as pure streams. Hence it is when a man comes to be sanctified, that with Paul, He delights in the Law of God, Rom. 7. and with David accounts it above all riches and sweetness, Psal. 19, because its such a spiritual and holy Law: but wicked and unsanctified men they cannot endure it.  
Secondly, Gods love to righteousness appeareth in all his hatred and wrath against sin. Its that onely which God hateth and will punish to all eternity; God hateth not any, because afflicted, poor or miserable; yea he pitieth such, but if thou art wicked, then his soul is set against thee: Look in the Scripture, and whensoever you read of Gods hatred, anger, vengeance and fury, its always because men have sinned against him, Psal. 47.7. Thou lovest righteousness and hatest iniquity. These two are necessary joined together: Even as we are commanded Rom. 12. to hate that which is evil. The word signifieth, to hate it, as we do hell itself, to be as unwilling to sin as to be damned, and then cleave to that which is good. The word signifieth to be glued to it with intimate and adhering affections; if we then would know how greatly God loves righteousness, it will appear by his wrath and punishments of unrighteousness, Psal. 7.11. God is angry with the wicked all the day long. There is not an hour, a moment wherein God is not provoked against a wicked man, especially Gods hatred against sin, is seen in ordaining everlasting, easlesse torments, and that for the least sin, so that the least vain thought, or idle word, if not repented of, God hath appointed eternal torments, as their reward, though thou hast committed no other sin. Therefore its not onely against heinous and notorious sins, but even the least that God hath prepared those eternal flames of hell. Hence we see his fury against the Angels, throwing them into everlasting chains of darkness, and merely because of sinful thoughts, and corrupt motions of the will, for they being spiritual substances, were not capable of other sins: Oh then, let every one tremble at the commission of the least sin, seeing God hath declared such anger against it.  
Thirdly, Gods love to righteous persons appeareth in all his merciful and gracious Works he vouchsafeth to them. They onely are the object of his Love and Delight, to such only he doth communicate himself. As  
1. By the Scripture we see his constant approbation and complacency is in such, Psal. 1.6. The Lord knoweth the way of the righteous; he knoweth it by approbation, by love and special blessings vouchsafed to it: So that all the way of a righteous man, not onely some actions, but his whole conversation is pleasing to him, we may say the contrary to what is spoken of the wicked; God is pleased with the righteous all the day long. That is a remarkable expression, Psal. 34.15. which for the excellency of it is alleged 1 Pet. 1.12. The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears open to their cries. The eyes of the Lord are upon them, not towards them, to show the great delight and care of God, he never takes his eye off them, yea both eyes and ears are for them. This( to speak after men) implieth that God is( as it were) taken up wholly with them, as if there were no other work to be done in the world by God, but his attendance and care over the righteous: Oh then, how happy are such that walk in all righteousness! The eyes of God are always upon them for good.  
2. As his great love is thus towards them, so his preservation and protection of them is admirable in all calamities and miseries. Thus Noah, because a righteous person, and a Preacher of righteousness, hath an Ark to preserve him, when the whole world is drowned; and so Lot, 2 Pet. 2.8. a righteous man, and whose righteous soul was vexed, tormented, as if he had been in hell( the word may so signify) The Scripture saith concerning him, That the Lord knoweth how to deliver such. Prov. 11.8. The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his room: Yea, Prov. 21.18. The wicked is said to be a ransom for the righteous, that is, God will give up many wicked men to destruction to preserve a righteous man. Are not then those promises or Scripture truths powerful demonstrations of Gods love to righteous persons?  
3. Gods love to the righteous doth further appear, in that for their sakes he keeps off judgements from the wicked of the world. As Gen. 18. we have a full proof of it, when God condescended so far, as to say, For ten righteous mens sake, he would not have destroyed sodom and Gomorrah; So that righteous men are the pillars and a foundation of the Land: Therefore the Prophet complains, Isa. 51.1. The righteous man perisheth, and none layeth it to heart: Why should they lay to heart the death of a righteous man? Because for his sake God continueth many mercies, and withall his death is a sad prognostic of imminent calamities: Therefore its added, The righteous is gathered; A Metaphor either from those who gather up their Jewels and Plate together, when a fire is rising upon an house, or else from the Shepherd that gathereth his Flocks together into some place of defence, when he seeth a violent storm coming.  
4. God loveth the righteous, in that his goodness is not onely vouchsafed to them, but to their posterity also. So acceptable is righteousness to God, that where he finds it, not only the persons themselves, but their seed after them shall be blessed, Prov. 11.22. The seed of the righteous are delivered. When righteous parents are dead and forgotten by all their neighbours, yet God remembreth such; and though their seed be exposed to the world, and all do forget their parents, yet God will not: especially that famous place is never to be forgotten, Psal. 37.25. where David professeth, That in all the experience he had from his younger years to his old age, He never saw the righteous forsaken, or his seed begging bread. This place hath much exercised the thoughts of Interpreters, for we read David himself asking for bread of Abimelech the Priest; and Lazarus, whose soul was received into heaven, say at the rich mans gate, begging even for very crumbs of bread. To this many reply several answers, Some place it upon Davids experience, he doth not say, that in no age the righteous or his seed may not beg bread; but he in all his time had not observed it. Others place it in the nature of beggary, that is, say they, a punishment and a curse by the Law of God; and therefore though the righteous may be so poor, and their seed also, as to need sustenance from others, yet the curse of this poverty, which is called beggary, is taken from them. Thus some reconcile that seeming contradiction, Deut. 15.4. where God promiseth so to bless them, that there shall be no poor amongst them; yet at vers. 7. he saith, If there be any poor amongst you, thou shalt release unto him when seven years come, &c. By the former poor is meant a Beggar, one that is cursed by Gods Law; By the second, any needy person that wants relief from others.  
Others they answer this difficulty from the word [ forsaken] They never saw the righteous forsaken, nor his seed, though begging bread, not forsaken, because if God doth not always provide necessaries for them, yet be doth support them inwardly, and bless them with a contented spirit, as the Martyr said, If they took away his food from him, God would take away his stomach from him.  
Others, They answer it from the exposition of the word righteous, which( say they) doth not signify a strict, just, righteous man, but a liberal beneficent man; for by liberal things a liberal man is said to stand, Isa. 38 8. and many promises of earthly comforts are made to such as are compassionate to those that are in necessities.  
Some answer it from the Hebrew word seeking or begging, which signifieth such an anxious, careful seeking as Heathens do, without any faith in God, and any hope to speed.  
Others distinguish between an occasional begging, and a constant, perpetual way. David begged bread of Abimelech and Nabal; so Elisha of the widow of Sarepta: but this was occasional not perpetual.  
But lastly, That which is most satisfactory is, that such places which either promise or declare the outward prosperity of the righteous, are to be understood by light from other places of Scripture, and that is, They shall never fall into such outward calamities, unless when God seeth it good for them, for sometimes chastisements and afflictions are better then mercies, as Austin said, There was crudelis quaedam misericordia, and misericors quaedam saevitia. This is certain, when wealth and outward comforts are good for them and their seed, they shall always have them; and if they were as necessary to them as Christ is, God would no more deny that to them, then he doth Christ. But you must know these promises of earthly mercies are more frequent in the Old Testament, as being more suitable to that dispensation.  
5. God loveth righteousness, because in and by that God doth comfort and support the hearts of those that are so. Its observable what is said, Isa. 58.8. of a righteous man, His righteousness shall go before him, i.e. that shall make way for his acceptance with God and man. There shall not be any Law or bar to him from coming into Gods presence. He shall not with Esther say, I have not been called into the Kings presence, and so make it hazardous to go in unto him. Their righteousness, as you see in Job, was the testimony or evidence they had against all fears and doubts. Hence Prov. 3.32. His secret is said to be with the righteous; and Ephes. 6.14. it is called the breastplate of righteousness. This is a good Nurse in our old age. This is like young Abishag in old Davids bosom: as Hezekiah, Remember, O Lord, that I have walked before thee in truth and uprightness of heart.  
Lastly, God will crown righteous men with everlasting glory. If Mal. 3. ult. God saith in the end of his dispensations even in this world, they shall discern between the righteous and the unrighteous, how much more will this be true at the day of Judgement, when the goats shall be placed at the left hand, and commanded to depart into everlasting fire, but the sheep and the righteous shall be called to inherit that glory which was of old prepared for them!  
Use of Instruction. Doth the Lord love righteousness, then do thou exercise thyself in the way of righteousness all the day long, both universal and particular righteousness? comform thy whole man to Gods rule, live not according to thy lusts, to the principles of the world, but according to Gods will; Be righteous in thy words, in thy actions, in all thy dealings. Beware no such wicked thought arise in thy heart, as to think, If I deal righteously, if I do not lye, cheat, defraud, I shall not enrich myself, I shall lose such and such advantages. Its a Proverb raised from hell, He that useth honesty or righteousness shall die a beggar; I grant that in this wicked world, a mans righteousness may hinder him of many advantages, which unjust men will greedily embrace, and therefore Thrasymachus the Heathen called righteousness {αβγδ}, a general and noble folly. But stay till the end of all, till the day of Judgement, then you will see the difference God will make between the righteous and unjust, then the unjust will vomit up all this sweet morsel, and will become a beggar indeed, crying for a drop of water, and cannot have it.   

SERM. IV. Answers some Objections against Gods Righteousness in himself, and his love to Righteousness in men.  PSAL. 11.7. For the Righteous Lord loveth Righteousness. 
I Shall conclude the subject mentioned in the Text, viz. Gods Righteousness in himself, and his love to it in man, when some few eminent Objections are Answered. The work remaining to be done, is to clear some Objections which are made against Gods Righteousness; for even owls have adventured to look into this dazzling Sun, and Dwarfs would measure these pyramids.  
And the first Objection usually raised is this, How can God be said to love Righteousness, to approve and command that only, seeing that in the Scripture we see him commanding those things that seem to be very unjust and against nature? The famous instances are, 1. Gods command to Abraham, that he should offer up his only son Isaac, Gen. 22.2. Was not this to will Abraham should do that which was most unnatural? 2. They instance in the Israelites, Exod. 11.2. Exod. 3.22. Exod. 12.35. Where God commands Moses to speak to the Israelites, that they borrow Jewels and Vessels of Gold of the Egyptians, as if they intended to restore them again, whereas thereby they robbed and spoiled the Egyptians. Is not this for God to allow and command thefts and lying? The third instance is from Hosea 1.2. Where the Prophet is commanded to take a wife of whoredoms, i.e. an eminent and notorious whore, and to beget children of whoredoms. And vers. 3. the Prophet did thus. Now this seemeth to be a very wicked and scandalous thing that the Prophet is commanded to do; and therefore by these instances, How can we say God doth so love Righteousness that he hateth all iniquity?  
But these texts may easily be cleared.  
For the first, Gods command to Abraham to kill his son, was not absolute and peremptory, it was only a command of trial, to discover his faith and obedience; for though Abraham received it as an absolute command, yet the event shewed it was only conditional, and for trial. But secondly, Grant that God had peremptorily required this, so as that Abraham had obeied it, yet herein God had willed no unjust or unrighteous thing, because God hath an absolute, supreme, and unlimited dominion over all mens lives, so that although one man is bound not to kill another, yet God may take away any mans life, when and how he pleaseth: God may annihilate all men, seeing he only created them, and gives them all the being they have. So that if God might have destroyed or killed Isaac immediately by his own hand, he might also command Abraham to be an instrument thereunto. Hence also it is, that God might without injustice or wrong have commanded men to have been sacrificed to him as beasts were, as we see the Heathens did their, thereby acknowledging Gods supreme dominion: but he being full of mercy and compassion appointed the sacrifice of beasts in mans stead, which was witnessed by the sacrificers laying his hand upon the sacrifice. Its true God by reason of his justice cannot destroy or afflict his creature by way of punishment, unless it be for sin, for they two are necessary conjoined; but simply to kill or destroy from his dominion and supreme power, he may without any shadow of wrong; yea such is Gods infiniteness, and we are so totally depending on him in all things, that he cannot do us any injury at all.  
And as for the second instance, we must confess that it did much perplex Austin of old, to answer Faustus the Manichee, who held, that the God of the Old Testament was not the same with the God of the New, and they bring this particular, where God is said to command the people both to lye and steal from the Egyptians: but we shall answer to the first thing, that which seems to be stealing and robbing; secondly, to the manner, that which seemeth to be lying and defrauding. For the former, it was not theft or robbery in the Israelites to take the Egyptians goods; for God( as you heard) who is the Lord of all things, he may take the goods that one man enjoyeth and give them to another, and this he doth when men have wickedly abused them to his dishonour. Now the Egyptians had abused their gold and silver to Idolatry, they had oppressed the Israelites and not paid them for their work and service; God therefore whose is the earth and the fullness thereof, he bestoweth those goods upon the Israelites: Even as he took the Land of Canaan from the Nations that were the lawful possessors thereof, for their impiety and wickedness, and gave it to the Israelites. Thus we are in these instances to have an eye upon Gods dominion, and although he hath given such good things to the inhabitants of the earth, yet he hath not alienated his dominion, or propriety, but he is Lord still, and therefore when any abuses the mercies he betrusteth them with, he takes them away and giveth them to others. But you must know that though God doth thus, yet men may not upon presumption that other men are wicked and unworthy adventure to do so, being bound by the Law of a superior, but God is not so tied; And by this we may answer that question, Whether God can dispense with the Law and duties of nature, or the morality of any of the ten Commandments, to give a man leave not to love him, or to lie and steal? For seeing God is thus holy and righteous, he cannot approve of, or command any thing that is intrinsically a sin, or dispense with any duty that is intrinsically good, for the Decalogue in the moral part of it, is of eternal, immutable and perpetual verity. As the fire burneth in every Country alike, so what is naturally just and righteous, is every where so. Even Tully, lib. 3. de rep. could say, that the Law of nature was such a Law, Nec prorogari fas est, nec derogarie hac aliquid licet, nec tota abrogari potest, non per Senatum or per populum can we be freed from this Law: yea God himself, because his holy Will is an eternal Law to himself, cannot free the creature from it. Indeed some Schoolmen have said, No action is intrinsically evil, but becomes so, because God forbids it, and therefore say that usual position, Some things are evil because prohibited, Some things are prohibited because evil, is true only with man, not with God, with whom they say nothing is evil, unless because of his prohibition. Hence is that detestable position of Mayso, lib. sent. dist. 17. quae. 2. That God might have made a Law, that whosoever shall blaspheme him should be blessed in heaven, and whosoever should praise him should be thrown into hell. But the bitter root of such opinions is, because they hold nothing is intrinsically evil or good. Its true if we speak of actions in their physical entity, so there is no evil intrinsical to them; but take them as moral actions, so to hate God, to lye or steal can never be but sins. The Israelites action therefore in taking the Egyptians goods, was not theft, not that God dispensed with his Law, but altered the object and propriety; so that by the true Master of all, that which was the Egyptians is now become the true possession of the Israelites. And further, Theft is the taking of another mans goods against his will, but God did so bow the Egyptians hearts, that they willingly gave them their goods. Hence Exod. 12.36. where it is translated the Egyptians lent them, according to the Hebrew it is, They even made and provoked the Israelites to ask of them, they were so willing to help them. And as for the later doubt, which the Manichees objected, God by Moses taught them to lie and defraud, for they borrowed these goods of the Egyptians, intending to spoil them thereby. Its true Austin could not well resolve it, but said, Though we cannot tell how they did well, yet we are to believe it. But though we translate the word borrowing, yet the Hebrew word is for to ask and require, therefore we cannot from the text prove any more then that they did crave and ask those goods of the Egyptians, and although there was no reason why they should grant them such a request, the Egyptians having been such oppressing enemies always of them; yet here appeared Gods wonderful power, that he could so suddenly turn their hearts and make them favourable to them. Bonfrecius the jesuit in loc. saith, they might lawfully borrow those Jewels of the Egyptians, and yet be not guilty of any fraud, though they paid them not again, because there was such a condition implied, Unless these goods prove to be our own, and thus it was with them. But though the Israelites in borrowing did not reveal all the truth, yet they denied none; and its not necessary in every case to reveal all the truth, though it be always necessary to deny none.  
The third instance is from Hosea 1.3. Gods command to Hosea, that he should take a woman of whoredoms to wife. This instance hath also much tortured the thoughts of most Learned men; yea great parties have been made about it. There are three several ways of Interpretation, all which have Learned abettors, but which way soever it fall, there will not appear any thing as if God did love or command unrighteousness. Ribera the jesuit holds that the Prophet did really take a notorious whore to wife, though by her marriage to the Prophet she became holy, and so the scandal was taken away, and for this he allegeth many Authors; but this seemeth not probable, and therefore Tarnovius doth by many solid reasons confute this, Exercitat. Bibl. 605. In the second place Tarnovius following Luther, saith, The Prophet took a godly sober woman to wife, but put those infamous names upon her and her children, thereby to admonish the people of Israel, that they were guilty of such whoredoms. The third is of Rivet and others, who make this not to be really done by the Prophet, no not so much as in vision, but understood it as a Parable, Go thou and prophesy to the people of Israel, who have indeed been married to the Lord, but they have proved full of whoredoms: and they are called the Prophets wife, because he was now in a special manner by his prophesy to take care of them. This is thought to be the most genuine interpretation, and accompanied with least inconveniencies, for though it depart from the letter of the text, yet that is lawful, when in the letter there is any indecent or dishonest thing commanded, as Austin of old observed. But as for our purpose, in none of these is any unrighteous thing commanded, no not in the first Interpretation, because they say, this woman, though formerly an whore, yet by the Prophets marriage of her was reduced to a sober and chast life: And thus much for the direction of your understandings in those famous instances.  
A second doubt, which not only the Learned, but the ignorant, yea all make, is, That if God thus love righteous men in all the several ways, as hath been shewed, How comes it about then, that many times the righteous man is in a worse outward condition then the wicked? that he may perish in his righteousness? Do not these glorious words seem to be like a deceitful brook to the weary traveller? and do not Divines, when they answer this Objection by several distinctions, as the Astronomers, who when they are not able to answer many arguments, fain Orbs and Epicycles in the Heavens? Is not experience against all this?  
To which we Answer, Though God hath made such promises to the righteous, yet seeing none is absolutely and completely righteous, its no wonder if they meet with several afflictions for those relics of corruption abiding in them. In heaven, there the righteous is compassed about with all blessedness, because he is inwardly perfected with all righteousness, as in the upper region there are no disturbing Meteors: But we are not in this life so high, and therefore being subject to many unrighteous, unholy thoughts and actions, its no wonder that we have the rod sometimes on our backs.  
2. There are many particular exercises of righteousness, as its taken for the universal rectitude of the whole man, which cannot be demonstrated but under afflictions and calamities. Now God will have us put forth every kind of righteousness: Were there not afflictions we could not discover our patience and humility, no nor such love to God, and obedience to him; afflictions being like the wind that bloweth upon the flower, which makes it smell the sweeter, and like the pounding of Frankincense, that is the more fragrant.  
3. God though he afflict the righteous, yet cannot be said the less to love them, yea he loveth them the more; and did he not love them, he would not chasten them, for whom God loveth he chastens, Rom. 3. and Heb. 5. Without this we are bastards and no children. Now the love of God in afflicting his own children, is discovered, In the original of afflictions, In the final cause of them, and In the effects thereof.  
In the Original, for they come from Gods tender love; though he be angry, yet its an anger of love, and therefore whom God hateth he will not punish; yea he delivers them up to their lusts without any affliction to hinder them, so that thou maiest from those very afflictions say, Now I know the Lord loveth me, that he will not let me run with all delight in the ways of sin; as David confessed it was Gods faithfulness to afflict him, for till then he went astray, Psal. 119.75.  
2. There is love in the Final cause, God therefore chastiseth the righteous, that sin may be bitter, that the light of his countenance may be more to them then all the world; that they may be weary of this Egypt, and long for Canaan; Were not these thorns put under us sometimes, we should lye down too sweetly and securely in the bosom of the creatures, so that some afflictions are as necessary as thy food and raiment to thee: This rod of correction beats out the folly in thy heart, this filing of thee takes off thy rust.  
3. There is love in the Effects thereof, for being sanctified by God, they purge from sin, they consume the dross, they winnow away the chaff, and are the happy physic which God the wise physician administers to the soul; so that although, as the Apostle saith, No affliction is for the present joyous, but grievous, Heb. 12.11. yet the effect thereof is peace and righteousness. There is not any affliction God hath brought on thee, but thou wilt say in the end thereof, that God loved thee, therefore he did so to thee, yea thou wilt bless God, as David did, for those chastisements; Who was I that the Lord did take such notice of me, that he hedged in my way with thorns? Oh I had been undone, if I had found the way to sin broad and open!  
Lastly, These afflictions are of love, if you consider the usefulness and serviceableness of them to assure and evidence unto us the truth of our grace, for when we shall continue in the way of righteousness, when there is no earthly encouragement, yea when there are all outward disheartnings, This is a sign we love righteousness for righteousness sake: as Jacobs love was manifested to be unfeigned, when he endured all that hardship for Rachel. Job discovered the sincerity of his heart, when he would trust in God and depend on him, even then when God seemed to be most against him: He did to God, that which Paul speaks of the Galatians, he loved them, though they loved him the less. When righteousness and prosperity go together, thou canst not tell to which thy heart doth most adhere: as a servant behind two great Lords, you cannot tell to which he belongs till you see them part: Thus when righteousness and outward advantages go together, you cannot well tell which you love best; but when it cometh to this, that thou must part with righteousness or worldly profits, and thou wilt readily leave the later, to enjoy the former, this declareth the soundness of thy graces: That thou art like the sea, which though never so much water rain upon it, yet that keeps its natural taste and saltness. Thus though afflictions one after another come upon thee, yet thou dost not repent of thy righteousness, but art resolved to live holily, though for its sake thou losest goods, honours, and life itself.  
I shall only mention one Objection more: If God be Righteous and thus loveth righteousness, then how comes it about that he suffers sin to be, which he can so easily hinder; yea how are those many places of Scripture to be understood, which attribute even the evil of sin to him? Thus God is said to harden Pharaohs heart, Exod 4.21. Joseph tells his brethren that it was not they, but God that sold him, Gen. 45.8. David saith, God bid Shimei curse him, 2. Sam. 16. God bid the lying spirit go and be in the mouth of the Prophets, 2 Chron. 18.21. God is said to give men up to their lusts, Rom. 1. God is said to give men up to strong delusions to believe a lie, 2 Thess. 2.11. Yea that great sin of killing the Lord Christ, is said to be foreordained by the hand and counsel of God, Acts 2.23. Acts 4.28.  
I aclowledge this is a deep Point, and requireth a large Tractate, it hath exercised both the Ancient and later Teachers in the Church of God: But so far as it may relate to our matter in hand, I shall answer in some particulars; and the rather because Lorinus the jesuit from this text, God loveth righteousness, doth charge the Protestants as making God the author of sin, and so to love sin as well as righteousness. To clear this, consider first, That in the doctrine of Gods will about sin, some speak in the defect, and some run into a blasphemous excess. The Papists would conclude all that God wils or doth about sin, under a mere bare permission, though in the explication some use more rigid and hard expressions then the Protestants do. But certainly those Scripture expressions before mentioned, signify more then a bare permission. In the excess run those blasphemous Libertines, against whom Calvin wrote, that made God the author of all the sins they committed, saying it was not they that did thus and thus, but God in them, as some a late have written blasphemously to that purpose. But the truth lieth between these, it goeth not to the right hand or left: for its certain the Scripture attributeth such actions as are sins to God, even as it doth at other times hands and eyes; so that all the difficulty is, how we must understand these and not blaspheme the holy Nature of God. Learned men allege a speech of Hugo, Godly souls are started when they hear God wils sin, viz. to be, and they abhor it, Non quia non been dicitur, said quia non been intelligitur. In the first place therefore, let this be laid down as a firm Conclusion, That God cannot properly and positively will sin in others, or sin himself, or tempt, and encourage, or incite others to sin, neither can he be the author of sin. The Sun may suffer an eclipse and lose the manifestation of light, but James 1. with God there is no shadow of change. The Word of God speaks wholly to this purpose, Psal. 5. Thou art not a God that willest iniquity: The Hebrew word signifieth to take pleasure and delight in it: yea Hab. 1. his eyes are so pure they cannot endure to behold it. Thus whatsoever anger or wrath you read God hath, its only against sin; for this all his jugdements are, for this he hath appointed those eternal flames of hell; so that though the damned creature lieth roaring to all eternity, yet he cannot get a day of ease; how then can God be said to Love or Will that which he only abhorreth, and hath decreed to punish with such unspeakable torments? James 1.23. doth directly speak to this, God is not tempted, nor can be tempt others, but every one is seduced by his own lusts: And indeed there are strong reasons for this: First, Because of the perfect and infinite Knowledge in God, whereby he knoweth evil in all the abhorrency and vileness of it; so that if God should sin( pardon the supposition) it would be against the greatest light that ever was, which is the highest aggravation of a sin, as we see in the Apostate Angels; but Gods Knowledge is so perfect, that no evil can insinuate into him. 2. Gods holy Nature and Will is the rule and measure of all righteousness; so that if it were possible for God to Will a sin, it would by his willing of it cease to be sin, it would thereby be made good; so that we may better say, there can be no such thing as sin, then that God can Will it. 3. Sin hath no proper efficient but a deficient cause; now the perfection of God is so Infinite and Absolute, that there cannot be any defect conceived in him: Therefore not only in the Church of God, but even amongst the wisest Heathens, this hath been an engrafted principle, that God could not Will sin. Therefore take heed of charging thy sins upon God, thou canst not help it, God giveth not thee the grace he doth others. This we are prove to, as appeareth by Adam at first, The woman thou gavest me, bid me eat: So by the Apostles exhortation, James 1. Let no man say God tempted him, for how canst thou charge God thus foolishly, when he hath implanted a conscience to accuse and arraign thee upon the commission of sin? Though none know of it, yet thou fearest and tremblest; which made Seneca say, Maxima peccantium paena est, peccasse, and sceleris in scelere supplicium est. Whence come those fears and horrors, if God did not hate sin?   

SERM. V. A Modest Enquiry into Gods Providence about sin. How far he works about it, and yet no sin to be imputed to him. And why God lets sin to be.  PSAL. 11.7. The Righteous Lord, loveth Righteousness. 
GOD( we have heard) is neither the willer or author of sin. This both Scripture, and the reason of Heathens have acknowledged; yet seeing that sin could not be, if God would hinder it, and therefore both at the same time it is contra voluntatem Dei, yet not sine Dei voluntate; and seeing the Scripture in many places doth so clearly attribute such things as are sins to God, Let us modestly inquire into Gods Providence about sin, how far he works about it, and yet no sin to be imputed to him. Modestly( I say) because in this Subject Augustine doth often run to a modus occultus, said semper justus, and a modus sieve explicabilis sieve inexplicabilis. Yea that profound Doctor Bradwardine de causa Dei, cap. 32. after he had in a most sublime manner descanted of this Theme, he ends his Chapter with this, In magnitudine hujus quaestionis mallem majores audire, quum ego minimus respondere.  
That we may therefore avoid all rocks, let us consider first how far, 
Wherein Gods will is conversant about sin, and wherein it is not.  or wherein Gods will is conversant about sin, and wherein it is not. And  
First, This is agreed upon by all, that God hath a permissive will about sin. He doth not simply and absolutely will it, nor yet peremptorily nill it, for then it could not be, but he wils the suffering of it. This permissive will of God is an efficacious will in some sense; for it is not as when a man saith to another, Do what you will, I will have no hand in it one way or other, but its truly and really a will, not of the sin but of the permission of sin, only the Orthodox call it a permissive will, in opposition to that approving and efficacious will God hath in good things, for the good things that are, God doth both facere and ordinare, make and order; but evil things he doth not make, onely he orders them. The word then is used to show a difference between Gods will in good things and in evil; so that its a wretched calumny of the Papists, as if the Orthodox did hold, That Judas his betraying of Christ, was as much willed by God, as Peters confession of him. We grant, that God hath a permissive will, as Genes. 20. God  told Abimelech, He had not suffered him to commit sin; only we say, Permission is not all God doth, and the Scripture expressions of Gods work about sin, signify more then that; only when we say, God permits sin to be, we must not take permission in such a sense, as when Christ said, Moses suffered the Israelites to give a bill of Divorce for the hardness of their heart; for according to some mens opinion, that permission made such repudiating to be no sin: nor is it in such sense, as when its disputed, whether a Magistrate may suffer stew-houses or heretics; for in that sense, though permission doth not signify an acquittance from sin, yet an immunity from punishment; but God never permits sin in any such sense: only by permission we mean Gods will not to impede or hinder a man from sinning, when if he please he can do it immediately. Therefore Gibieuf expresseth it well, That God doth not permittere potestati, but potentiae, lib. 2. de liber. he doth not permit it, that any one shall have right or privilege, and impunity to sin; but to the powers or faculties of the soul, by not restraining them. This permissive will of God must needs be acknowledged; for who can say, sin comes into the world absolutely against Gods will, he would have hindered it, but could not; this is to make Gods will not omnipotent, and mans will stronger then his.  
Hence in the second place, Let us say no more in Gods will about sin, then the Scripture, and plain reason will compel men, yet we shall never be able to satisfy cavilling spirits. For grant but this bare permissive will; will not the profane man cavil and say, Why doth God suffer me to run headlong into sin? Why doth he see me tumbling and falling, and doth not reach out his hand? If a man should see a blind man running head-long upon deep pits and precepies, it would be a sin in a man not to stop that blind man; yet God seeth blind, infirm, miserable man falling into sin, but doth not stay him. Thus profane men would cavil, and all, because they would have God obliged and tied by such Laws, as man is: Yea, if we do grant a fore-knowledge in God barely about sin, that he fore-knew when he created Adam, that he would sin and undo all his posterity, at this the froward heart of man will cavil, as well as at any thing else. This is good to be observed, because of some men who affect new opinions, thinking thereby to stop every froward spirit in this point; for that's impossible; for seeing God doth permit sin, Sciens& volens, and if man should do this, it would be blame-worthy in him, we must needs aclowledge, that God is not bound by such Laws, as man his creature is.  
Thirdly, Gods will, yea and his working or causality goeth to the material of every sin. He produceth every act to which sin is annexed, though not the sin, In him we live, and move, and have our being; the tongue of the blasphemer, the hand of the thief could not move to sin, did not God enable thereunto; only as man doth it, he sinneth, because he is deficient from that rule, whereby he ought to walk, but God who is perfection itself cannot deviate from his eternal Law of holinesse within himself. This indeed hath greatly exercised some, how God can produce the act of sin to which deformity is annexed, and yet not be the author of sin; and the rather, because sin being either a privation or else as others a positive relation at most, it cannot be brought about any other way then by causing the fundamentum which is the material act to which sin adhereth; As the withdrawing of light doth thereby produce darkness, and darkness cannot otherwise come to be, there cannot be any positive efficiency of it: Neither will it avail to say, God wils not sin quà sin, in this action, for so neither doth man, it being not possible that a man intending evil, should thereby work it, for evil quà evil is not the object of the will, no more then falsum quà falsum can be of the understanding; how then to clear God, and yet make man culpable, is the great work to be done; and those emphatical expressions of the Scripture about Gods will concerning sin made those Libertines Calvin wrote against Opusc. ad liber. attribute not only the actions, but the ataxy and inordination thereof to God, whereby they could not endure that i● should be said, Such a man murdered or committed adultery: They said it was blasphemy to say so, because it was Gods work not mans. Thus, saith Calvin, they transformed God into the devil, and made him equal, if not worse, then him. But as the Cloud was light to the Israelites, and darkness to the egyptians; so the Scripture is a Rule of light and order to godly, sober mindes, but a cause of stumbling and offence to carnal, vain hearts. But you may say, How can it be that the same action proceeding from God, and from man, that it should be a sin as it cometh from man, and not from God? Some to avoid this, as Durand of old, and Dodo of late, have maintained, that God hath no immediate concourse or efficiency in our actions: God, say they, created man with a power and ability to do such and such actions, he giveth him onely the power, and man acteth afterwards wholly of himself. But the Scripture speaketh otherways, In him we live and move; and if this were so, then God could not repress the action of a creature without destroying the power; but we read, God hindered the fire from burning; and yet it remained fire having a power to burn.  
Others, they say, Therefore God is not the cause of the sin, though of the action, because he cooperateth only in the way of a physical or natural cause, not moral, by approving, counseling or allaying of it, as Canus and Vasquez: but that is not satisfactory.  
Bellarmine, and so most of the jesuits, they say, God is freed, because he concurreth onely as an universal cause, he offereth his aid, as that which is indifferent, and so by man is used to a good or bad action. But certainly this cannot clear God; for how unworthy is it to conceive of God thus? As if he should say to man, Here I give you assistance, use it as you please, either to a good or an evil action. Bradwardine solidly confuted this Assertion of old, De causa Dei lib. 3. cap. 29. Constanter& liberâ voice dico, illum nolo pro Deo habere, &c. I cannot hold him for a God, whose most blessed will, I a most wicked sinner can velut mulirculam debilem opprimere& necessitare ad horribilem actum peccati necessitate to sin. This is to make God( saith he) Servituti peccatoris miserabiliter subjectum.  
Again, If Gods concourse be thus indifferent to a good or bad action, then that which they slander the Protestants with, may truly be retorted on them, That God worked no more for Peters confession of him, then he did for Judas his betraying of him. The good is no more of him, then the evil.  
Therfore Bradwardine he grants, That seeing God doth will the act, to which sin is annexed necessary, he doth also will the sin, yet sin is not imputed to God, because he doth not absolutely will it, but secundum quid: Yea, he saith, that in respect of God, who is the universal cause, there is no sin, that sin is so called onely in respect of a particular cause, for to God both mala and bona are bona, seeing he orders all sin to good, yea to a greater good, then sin can be evil. Thus Joseph  told his brethren, You thought evil to me, but God turned it to good. But the most solid answer may be, That though God doth enable to that act, to which sin adhereth, yet God doth neither sin, nor cause man to sin, because what God doth, he doth most perfectly, nor is tied to hinder sin; but man works in a defective manner, not according to the Rule; so that sin is immediately from the instrument man, or the devil, which God useth, not from God; as the Sunne-beams shining upon a noisome carcase, the ill smell is not to be attributed to the sun, but to the dung-hill.  
Others say, As a man that driveth a lame horse, he is the cause of the horses motion, but the lameness is from the horse; or as a man that writeth, the motion of the pen is from the hand, but the blotting and blurring is from some unfitness in the pen. Or lastly, as the Musician is the cause of the Tune upon the instruments string, but that there is any harshness or jarring, is from the instrument itself: So then conclude of this truth as most certain, that all those actions or motions to which sin cleaveth, as they have a physical entity, or natural being, must needs be from God, the chief and first being; as every stream must needs come from the fountain; hence is that Rule, Omne malum fundatur in bono, there cannot be a pure and mere evil, but it must adhere to some natural good.  
Fourthly, As God doth thus concur to the act of sin; so also he doth will sin as a punishment. Thus in those places forementioned, where God is said to harden, or to give up to lusts, it is to be understood as these sins are punishments. Nor can this be any love to sin, but a terrible demonstration of his wrath against it. Some have denied that one sin can be a punishment of another, but the Scripture is very clear in this, he is not the cause of the evil in the punishment, but of the punishment in the evil: for although sin as it is sin is voluntary to the sinner, and so he finds a delight in it: Yet as by this he is left by God to run more obstinately in ways of sin, and be thereby at last deprived of all happiness; so it is a misery and a punishment. Indeed God did not will the first sin by way of punishment, but as Augustine observeth all sins since the first, are both sins, causes of sin, and punishments of sin: Although as Pererius well observeth, Those efficacian words the Scripture useth are not applied to every sin or sinner, but to such as are notorious and in a more then ordinary manner left by God, as Pharaoh and the Jews for abusing such mercies. Its no wonder then if God be said to will sin as a punishment, for that is good, and an act of justice, yea it would be absurd to say, God onely suffers or permits that, for in this God doth demonstrate his holy and righteous nature, and hereby evil is made good; and as Aquinas saith, Inordinationem, non inordinatum relinquit. Neither may we say, How can sin being a privation come from God the Judge? for we see even in human judicatories, when the punishment is privative, as the loss of honour or goods, yet the judgement about it is positive.  
Fifthly, God may be said to will sin not as sin, but as its a means to declare his justice or mercy. Although sin be not in itself medium pierce, of any good, no more then venom or poison is of health, yet by the wisdom of God, its made conducible to those wise and holy ends which he intends, and in this sense its true, then even mala are bona, in respect of Gods ordering of them for a greater good, then evil suffered can be evil; and howsoever the Papists calumniate this expression, yet Gibieuf expressly asserts it, lib. 2. de liber. Evil( saith he) may be so either per modum objecti, as if it were an object to be desired or approved of, or else per modum medii, as it may be used by God for advancing his glory, and so God doth will it. Neither doth God herein offend against that Rule, We may not do evil that good may come of it, for God doth not do evil, his permitting of evil to be, is good, though the evil be not good.  
Sixthly, Gods work and will about sin is seen in the denying of that grace which if the sinner had he would not offend. And thus God may be said to cause sin, as removens prohibens; As he that withdraweth a pillar or foundation of a house, may be said to pull down the house: Gods denying of grace is either merely negative, when he doth not at first offer or vouchsafe it to man. Thus the Heathens live without the knowledge or offer of saving grace: Or secondly, Privative, when he doth withdraw such grace, either in whole or in part, that he bestoweth on some men: Thus many unregenerate men, though they had not true sanctifying grace, yet they had many workings and mollifyings of Gods Spirit, which they neglecting and contemning, God in a just judgement denieth them any such workings any more. Thus God is said to make the eyes of the Israelites blind, and their ears deaf, and their hearts hard, not by infusing any wickedness into them, but by denying such softening or preparatory works that they have upon them. Thus the Sun may be said to harden by withdrawing its beams, and he may be said to kill a man that takes away the food and sustenance he should live on. A terrible judgement it is, and the portion only of such who live within the means of grace, and abuse them; men are sensible of judgements upon their bodies, their estates, but not upon their souls: How doth a man complain that hath lost his eyes, it makes him weary of his life? Yet how many hundreds are there that are deprived of the spiritual eye, and yet lay it not to heart? neither stand with the blind man, where Christ is to come in his Ordinances, praying, Lord, that we may receive our sight!  
Seventhly, Gods will and work in sin is seen by delivering up to Satan, letting him have power and dominion to do what he will. Thus into the false prophets God sent lying spirits, and Judas had the devil entering into his heart, Joh. 13.27. Oh there are many profane, cursing wretches that have nothing more in their mouths then this! The devil take them, and that proveth too true. The devil hath taken thy soul, the better part of thee already. Its he that keepeth all at peace within thee, though a child of the devil, though in gull and wormwood, yet thou playest, riotest and runnest into all excess; whence is this obstinateness and wilfulness, but because the devil is in thy heart. As the godly are filled with the holy Ghost, whereby they boldly speak the things of God in the midst of all dangers; so wicked men being filled with the devil, can drink, swear, be profane, and contemn all the thoughts of hell and damnation. As we see in the egyptians, they ventured to go into the sea, when it was made dry for the Israelites, they feared not but boldly go on, and then on a sudden the waters overwhelm them. Thus do wicked men, they boldly and desperately venture upon such and such a sin, which when committed, at last Gods anger ariseth to their utter perdition. Oh then be afraid lest thy sins be so great that God deliver thee up to the devil! And as the bodily possessed, were thrown sometimes into the water, and sometimes into the fire; so thou fallest, sometimes in one grievous sin, and sometimes in another; when God leaveth thee thus to sin and Satan, he doth, saith Chrysostom, as if a great Captain should forsake his Army in the midst of their cruel enemies upon which ruin followeth inevitably.  
Lastly, Gods will and work about sin is in removing all those externals that might kerb sin, he will not chasten or afflict them, as Hos. 4.14. so Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone; or else he removeth the Word and faithful Ministers, and when they are thus in the dark, they must needs fall: or if God do continue such mercies, as he did wonderful things to Pharaoh, it is to harden them more. These mercies fat them to destruction: These Sun-beams do the more blind them: and therefore that is one way that Austin acknowledged God hardens by his patience: three ways he may do it, 1. Per Permissionem. 2. Patientiam, 3. Potentiam. Thus whatsoever befalls the wicked man it becomes a snare to him, it furthers his sin and damnation.  
In the next place, you may ask, 
Why God suffers sin to be.  Why doth God suffer sin thus to be? And here as Gibieuf lib. 2. de liber. observeth, we may better ask for a reason of the sin suffered, then of Gods will suffering it, for that is to ask a cause of Gods will, which cannot be, for then there were a greater thing then that, but in common speech we say, God doth will sin to be for these ends,  
1. That thereby Christ may be exalted and magnified; Out of sin God works the greatest good, even Christ our Mediator, which made Gregory say, Foelix culpa, quae talem meruit habere redemptorem, if sin had not been, Christ had not been.  
2. God by the permission of sin exalts his attributes, of justice in punishing, of mercy and grace in forgiving, and of wisdom in ordering of it; let us not then profanely cavil at the being of sin, but hearty admire all the glorious attributes of God exalted thereby, as sin hath abounded, so Gods grace and mercy hath abounded.  
3. God makes sin turn to the very good of him that committed it, because Paul was a blasphemer and a persecutor, the chiefest sinner of all, therefore he was more humble then all. This made Austin say, Audeo dicere, quod utile est superbis in aliquod manifestum peccatum incidere.  
4. By sin committed, the graces of the godly are more orient and glorious. Contraries do illustrate one another. As in speech there is a figure called Antithesis, whereby the oration is more glorious, so there is, saith Austin, an eloquentia rerum, by evil good is more praised. Thus the dark night sets out the day, the dark shadows in the picture adorn it, and the pauses or silence in singing make the melody sweeter.  
Lastly, Many excellent graces in the godly could never have been demonstrated, had not God suffered wicked men to satisfy their will. The patience, zeal and fortitude of Martyrs were seen by the wickedness of Nero and Dioclesian persecutors. As the gardener( saith Plutarch) sets his garlic and unsavoury herbs near his violets and roses, that so their sweet smell may be the more diffused; thus God makes the goodness of the godly admirable by the wickedness of the wicked.  
Use of Admonition, to adore that wisdom and power of God, who can and doth turn all the wickedness in the world to such wonderful good; so that the godly may say, their sins, yea and the sins of the Churches enemies have been happy sins. If a man come into the Artificers shop, he admireth at all the crooked and toothed instruments that are, to what use they be: but the Artificer makes curious and polished materials by such instruments; even thus God doth with all wicked men.    

SECT. II. Of Christs Sufferings, Merit and Satisfaction.  

SERM. VI. That all men through Adams Transgression are plunged into sin, cursed by the Law, and obnoxious to the wrath of God, which is also upon them and cannot be removed, unless there be a way of Satisfaction found out. That Christ voluntarily became man, and offered himself as a Sacrifice upon the across to satisfy Gods Justice and expiate our sins.  ROM. 3.26. To declare( I say) at this time his Righteousness, that he might be Just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 
FRom vers. 25. to the end of this vers. 26. we have a Divine and Theological description of our Justification; so that both the matter described, and the manner of the description are admirable. As there is the Song of Songs, and was the Holy of Holies, so this part of Scripture may be called Evangelium Evangelii, the Gospel of the Gospel, it being the sum and breviary of it. This noble and divine privilege of Justification is described in all the causes of it, the efficient, which is the grace of God; the material or meritorious cause, Christ crucified; the instrumental cause, Faith; and which is observable, not only Cajetan, but Lapide in locum, do aclowledge and call faith the causa applicans of our Justification. Lastly, There is the final cause, and that for the notableness of it is twice repeated, vers. 25. and in my Text. For though the former preposition be {αβγδ}, and the later {αβγδ}, yet that cannot make any difference, as some would have it. Therefore our Interpreters add [ I say] to declare[ I say] as hereby intimating how worthy it is of our observation and notice again and again. Thus we have this Scripture, like the grain of mustard-seed, little in quantity, but it will grow up into a vast three; so( that if we may allegorize) both the birds of the air may build their nests here, the sublime and most penetrating understandings may find a subject employing them to the full; and the beasts of the field, even profane and wicked men, but sensible and weary of their sins, may come and find a shadow of refreshment from this Text. So truly might Calvin in loc. say, Non est insignior locus, there is not a more signal and eminent place in all the Scripture for describing the nature of our Justification, then this: And if the true doctrine of Justification be the Pillar of the Church, this is the Pillar of that Pillar. My work is only to treat on the final cause, expressed in this vers. 26. Which is set down, 1. Generally, To declare his Righteousness, with the circumstance of time when, [ at this time.] 2. This final cause is distributed into the finis cujus, That he may be Just, and the finis cvi, a Justifier of him that believeth. Let us consider the final cause first as generally set down, {αβγδ}: Budaeus makes the word properly to signify that dilation or complaint which men made against such who were guilty of maladministration in the public; but here it is the same with {αβγδ} that is used 2 Thess. 1.5. a very pregnant place to expound this: yea we have the word in the text used for the same purpose, Rom. 9.22. What if God willing to show his wrath? But all the difficulty is, what is meant by {αβγδ}, righteousness here; for in the Scripture, especially in Pauls Epistles, the Righteousness of God is taken two ways, either for the attribute whereby he is righteous, or else for that righteousness whereby we are justified, which the Apostle often calls the Righteousness of God, either because its of Gods procuring, or of his imputing, or because acceptable to him; of which more in its time. Howsoever some Papists understand this of the later righteousness, following Austin, not quà Deus justus est, but quà induit hominem; yet the context doth evidence the former: only if meant of the former, then the question is, Whether righteousness be not taken for the goodness and mercy of God, as in many places it is; and speaking thus of the grace of God in our Justification, it might seem to favour this interpretation. Thus inconstant Grotius in his Comment upon the place understands it, it seemeth at his later end Socinianizing, so that he kept his worst wine to the last, and his secundae cogitationes were pejores; for in his defence of Christs Satisfaction against Socinus, pag. 24, 25. he doth with strong reason evince, that by righteousness is not meant Gods mercy, but that property in God whereby he is prove to punish sin, and there are two reasons for this interpretation: First, because Paul doth oppose this time wherein God appointed Christ to die for our sins, unto the time of the old Testament, where God had a {αβγδ}, which is not a remission, but a transmission of the punishment of sin: God did not exact in the old Testament the price or satisfaction for our sins, but deferred it till the times of the Gospel: Not but that the Fathers then had pardon of sin, and God did by many visible temporal judgements punish the wicked, but the expiatory service was not performed till Christ came, though the benefit of it did extend to times past, because Christs death did work as a meritorious and so a moral cause; now for a moral cause to work its not necessary it should exist immediately, its enough if it have esse cognitum, as the Schools say, that there be a mind which knoweth it and looks to it, as God did. Gods time then in the old Testament was a forbearance or putting off the punishment of sin, called therefore {αβγδ}. Chrysostom observeth well( though Sixtus Senensis saith its false, whereas he is deceived, following the Vulgar translation) that {αβγδ} patience is never attributed to God, because God cannot be said to suffer: but either {αβγδ}, or here in the Text {αβγδ}. This is the first reason. Secondly, By Righteousness we must understand the justice of God, because Christ is here said to be a propitiation, and that through his blood; so that although the grace of God be discovered in our Justification, so also is Gods justice, for therefore Christ  shed his blood to appease the wrath of God; and he is called here the propitiation, in allusion to the Mercy-seat made of pure gold, wherein God doth graciously reveal his will as reconciled, called therefore a placator or reconciler. This is a cogent reason, and thus Cajetan and Pareus take righteousness; and in this sense righteousness is often used, 2 Thess. 1.6. Heb. 2.2. Act. 17.31. The last day of judgement is said to be in {αβγδ}, Rom. 16.5, 7. Indeed learned Cameron noteth upon ver. 21. that the righteousness of God is used always for his goodness, mercy and salvation, and that it is never used to signify that which we call justice, whereby God punisheth sin. But Lodov. de Deiu upon this Text, doth solidly confute that assertion, showing that although sometimes it may signify the mercy of God, yet often, and most properly it s attributed to God, as the just Judge of the world; and he instanceth in some places above mentioned, adding also, Isa. 59.16. and so saith he it must be understood in this Text, for God sheweth his privative and vindicative justice, when by Christs blood, Satan hell and death, all the enemies of Gods children are overcome; and this, saith he, is evidenced, because the Apostle mentioneth a propitiation and redemption through Christs blood, and this the Jews acknowledged by their sacrifices, who thought thereby they obtained mercy after justice was satisfied.  
One thing more is to be added, that the Apostle useth three words of some affinity with one another: The first is {αβγδ} that is once only, Rom. 5.18. translated Justification. The second is {αβγδ}, and that sometimes is taken for the Laws and Commandments of God, Luk. 1.6. sometimes for the constitution and appointment of God to punish, as Rom. 1.32. and sometimes for Justification, Rom. 5.16. in a clean other sense then Aristotle useth it, who distinguisheth Ethic. lib. 5. from {αβγδ}, and makes it to be the correcting and punishing of that which is unjust. The third word is {αβγδ} here in the Text, and often in other places, applied sometimes to things, and sometimes to persons or actions, sometimes to God, and sometimes to man; whereas then we see Christ set forth to be a propitiation for sin, for this end, that God might declare his justice and righteousness, his severity and anger against sin, Observe,  
That Christ crucified is a demonstration of Gods justice and anger against sin. 
observe.  You may not look only for full demonstrations of Gods grace and love, but also of his justice and anger. Justified by his grace, there is mercy; through the blood of Christ, there is justice. Now the limitation of the manifestation of Gods justice in the Text, viz. to this time, the time of the Gospel, is very observable; for we are apt to think the time of the Gospel only a time of demonstration of Gods grace; that God never revealed so much love as in these daies: and indeed this is true, therefore its called the acceptable time, the time of salvation, the spiritual Jubilee: But yet withall its a time wherein God demonstrateth his justice, that his hatred against sin is so implacable, that only the blood of his dear Son can pacify him. God manifested his anger against sin in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, as also in the drowning of the whole world; but Christ crucified on the across may more evidence Gods fury and displeasure against sin, then any of those judgements; yea the torments of damned persons in hell do not so visibly show forth Gods irreconciliation with sinners, as Christs oblation of himself by way of an expiatory sacrifice for sin. But that the truth of this doctrine may appear, its good to take notice of these Propositions.  
First, That all mankind through Adams transgression, is wholly plunged in sin, and thereby cursed by the Law, and obnoxious to all the wrath of God threatened in his word. This the Apostle layeth as a sure foundation, to evince Gods grace and justice in our Justification, Rom. 3.19. That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God: This is a dreadful doom that the Apostle passeth upon all: First, he applieth all those notorious transgressions which the Psalmist reckoneth up, Their throat an open sepulchre, their feet swift to  shed blood, &c. to every one by nature; for though some only are actually so, yet seminally and habitually all are so; as young Serpents and Vipers are full of poison, though they have not vented it. No man is born without this depravation. Then secondly, Hereby saith the Apostle mans mouth is stopped. The defect of his condemnation is so evident, so clear to his own conscience, that he cannot pled any thing; not a word to say, his judgement is so palpably just. Thirdly, Every mans mouth is stopped, None can pled the ingenuity and goodness of his nature: no Jew, no gentle, no Heathen, though never hearing of Christ, can open his mouth for justification; how blame-worthy then are those Authors, who will open their mouths for the salvation of such! But this is not enough, for fourthly, We are all hereby become guilty, or subject to Gods judgement; Every man is a sentenced wretch to condemnation, every day, and every hour, yea moment this may surprise. Paul said he died daily, but every natural man may fear being damned daily. And lastly observe the universality, All the world: There is not any one born in a natural way of Adam, that is exempted. All the world is thus at the mercy of God; They have sinned, Hell is ready, Tophet is prepared, and justice is lifting up the arm to give that eternal blow, only God stayeth his hand: There wants nothing but a command from God, and then all the curse of the Law, and devils of hell lay hold upon thee as their own: This is every mans case: So also Gal. 3.10. every one is pronounced cursed, that continueth not in all things the Law requireth: Now no man doth that, but the clean contrary, breaketh every command, and that all the day long, his thoughts being always and only upon evil; therefore we are all in this cursed estate: The ground is cursed, the creatures are cursed, but none as man is cursed, whose condition is worse then Toads or the vilest creatures that are; he had a thousand times better never to have been born, or to have been made a Serpent or Toad, then a Man, if never recovering from this natural state he is born in.  
The second Proposition. As man is thus plunged into all sin, so the anger and wrath of God is accordingly upon him. For though sin may merit and justly deserve Gods wrath, yet some may think God will not take advantage, his mercy may be so great, that he will pass by all this relation: And thus indeed the Socinians, who deny Christs Satisfaction, and so lay the ax to the root of all Christianity. They say, notwithstanding mans sin, yet God was never unreconciled with us, and that there is no such thing as justice in God, which necessary requireth such a satisfaction; yea, they make this doctrine of Christs Satisfaction to Gods justice, to be horrible blasphemy: But what monstrous doctrines and blasphemies will not breed in mans heart, if not guided and assisted by God? for what is more clear in Scripture then Gods righteous anger and judgements against wicked men? Ephes. 1. Are we not all the children of Gods wrath? Is not God said to be angry with the wicked all the day long? Is not the wrath of God said to abide upon him that believeth not? So that such places do not only prove we are at enmity with God, but God also at enmity with us. Doth not the Scripture delight to call him a consuming fire? and that in respect of sin? But( say the Socinians) God is said 2 Cor. 5.13. to be reconciling the world to himself, and for that purpose the Gospel is the ministry of reconciliation; so that though we be enemies, and not reconciled to God, yet God is to us, he was never unreconciled with mankind; but they forget one passage in the Text, God was in Christ reconciling the world; so that had it not been through Christ, the great gulf between God and man would have continued. Indeed God is said to be first the party though offended, to seek reconciliation, partly to demonstrate his love the more to us, though he need us not, though he is happy enough without us, though not he, but we have done the wrong, yet he offers reconciliation, and hereby man is made the more inexcusable; partly in allusion to the custom amongst men, 
Why God first seeks to man to be reconciled.  whom though the inferior be bound to seek the face of his superior whom he hath offended, yet he dareth not be so bold the distance is so great. But lastly, the offer of reconciliation is attributed to God, because it is impossible for man abiding in his sinful condition, but to persist in all frowardness and rebellion against God. As David first sought out a way for reconciliation with Absolom; thus also God doth, because we, if left to ourselves, should live and die in an obstinate averseness to him. Besides, The Text only saith, God is reconciling the world to himself; now there is a great difference between God reconciling and reconciled: The former supposeth in God a propensity to bring about the way of reconciliation; not that he is already reconciled, but this floweth from a general love and pity he beareth to mankind, whereby he procureth a way that actual reconciliation may be obtained between man and God; yea Ephes. 2.16. compared with Col. 1.20. there is inferred a reconciliation of Jew and gentle, Angels and Men together, who by sin were made enemies; and all this is in uno tertio, to God himself, which supposeth that there was not only enmity between one another, but also against God himself: Let this then be firmly concluded on, That God is an angry enemy and a professed adversary unto every man abiding in his natural condition, and that therefore it belongs to his justice not to bear or suffer the contempt of his Majesty, but to be avenged on all, unless there be a way of satisfaction found out.  
Hence the third Proposition is, That Christ voluntarily became man, and offered up himself as a sacrifice upon the across to satisfy Gods justice and expiate our sins.  
This is that the Socinian ear cannot endure, though this be the Christian treasury; 
The blasphemous errors of Socinians.  therefore they hold Christ to be but a mere man, though a constituted and gifted God after his resurrection; and because a mere man, they deny by his death he satisfied God, but that he died as a Martyr to confirm the doctrine he preached, and to be an example unto us to walk in all patience and self-denial; and whereas they complain that we use the word Satisfaction in a fundamental point of Religion, which yet is not in Scripture: We answer, The thing is there, though not the word; there is redeeming, laying down a prise, becoming a sacrifice and propitiation, which is all one with Satisfaction; and they who will elude those words above mentioned, may they not, if the word satisfaction had been expressly mentioned evade also? would they not say, as they do about redemption and a sacrifice, that its only metaphorical? that the word is used sometimes when there is no price or expiation of the fault made, as in 2 Sam. 19.7. Mark 15.15. But that Christ by his death did pacify the wrath of God, and make an atonement to Gods justice, may easily be believed, if we do seriously consider with ourselves, that it must be some weighty, urgent and important cause, that should make Christ to die, and that so ignominiously. Its such a wonderful mystery that it may make us stand astonished, considering how dear Christ was to the Father, his only begotten Son, his well-beloved Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, yet God spareth not him, and that to become a curse for us, to die a cursed death with all shane and ignominy. Who can think that all this should be to confirm doctrine only, for that Christ, did enough by his miracles and holy life? and besides all the blessed Martyrs that suffered for the truth, abundantly confirmed that: Shall we then think that God would put his only son to die in that unheard of manner, and for no more then the Socinian expresseth? Is here such infinite love and unspeakable riches of grace only for this? Is he called a Saviour and a Mediator for no other end? Who that hath reason can be thus persuaded? But if this do not convince, the Scripture arguments are so powerful, that they will compel us, and its wonder to see how the Socinians place and displace, pervert and subvert every phrase, every word, yea every comma, that they may not be forced to believe that which they are resolved against. And  
First, 
Christs death a satisfaction to Divine Justice.  All those places of Scripture where Christ is said to redeem, purchase, or buy us by his blood, do plainly demonstrate that a Satisfaction was given to God by Christs death. The words are {αβγδ}, &c. Rom. 3.24. Tit. 2.14. Heb. 9.12. 1 Cor. 6.20. In all true and proper buying and redeeming, there is a price and a satisfaction, and thus the Scripture speaks of Christs blood. Neither doth that weaken this Argument, to say, That to buy or redeem doth sometimes signify to obtain a thing without any price; as, Buy without money, and the people of Israel are said to be redeemed out of Egypt, for none of those places have such circumstances to evince this meaning, as when it speaks of Christs death: the question is not, Whether the words may not be used metaphorically in some other place? but Whether it be in these texts or no? and we say, the Scripture useth these expressions constantly of Christs death, and why then should we depart from the literal meaning, unless we will turn all the Scripture into an Allegory? especially when its made an opposition to other kind of buyings, as 1 Pet. 1.8. You are not bought with gold and silver, but with the precious blood of Christ.  
A second Argument is taken from all those places of Scripture, where remission of our sins is attributed to Christs death as a cause, yea that he is said to die for us, Heb. 9.13. Rom. 3.14. Now how could the forgiveness of our sins be attributed to Christs death, if he died only for an example; his blood is said to be  shed for the remission of sins, yea that without blood there is no remission of sins. Christ then died not out of necessity of nature absolutely, as men do, but voluntarily; and to this death of his our pardon is attributed as a cause: Why? but because God would not forgive, had not there been such a cause procuring of it. Its not thy tears, nor all thy penal satisfactions Popery hath brought in, that could pay the least farthing, much less all the talents we owed to God. This Argument is the more strengthened if we take in all those places, where Christ is said to die for us, 1 Tim. 2.5. Matth. 20.18. where the prepositions are not only {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} for they may sometimes signify the final cause, viz. for our good, but {αβγδ}, which doth always signify a compensation, or a substitution in the room of another thing: Thus Matth. 5.30. An eye {αβγδ} for an eye, a tooth {αβγδ} for a tooth; neither are the adversaries ever yet able to show that {αβγδ} doth not always signify in our stead and for us, so that Christ died for us. And this is that which doth so commend and glorify the love of Christ, that he should come and die in our stead, that he should be made a curse in our room; that whereas Gods anger and fury was to fall upon us, he should interpose and say, Let all fall upon me. No wonder if the Scripture commend this to us, as a superlative, transcendent love: Jonathans love to David was not so much as a drop to this Ocean. All the profane instances of men dying for others, or devoting themselves to death for the public good, are but stars, or not so much, to this Sun; for here was not a mere corporal suffering, as some would have, Papists and Pinchin lately, but in his soul; strong conflicts he endured with Gods displeasure, crying out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? When Isaac was to be sacrificed, God provided a Ram in his place; this was our condition, when we were to suffer eternal vengeance as the just reward of our sins, then Christ interposed, saying, Behold I come to do thy will( O God.) So that Christ did not only die for our good, for so Paul suffered for the good of Gods Church, but in our stead and our room; That came upon him, which should have fallen upon us. Oh how should this endear Christ to us! Think, If when Christ was to die, God the Father had spoken from heaven to thee, I appointed my Son indeed to die, but come thou and be buffeted, spit upon, reproached and crucified in his room, come thou suffer agonies in his stead; Must thou not have been compelled to do this, as they did Simon to bear the across? Yet Christ did all this with willingness for thee.   

SERM. VII. More Demonstrations of the Satisfaction of Christs Death to Divine Justice; With Answers to the Socinian Objections against it.  ROM. 3.26. To declare( I say) at this time his Righteousness, &c. 
I Shall mention one or two more Arguments, to prove, That Christ died not only doctrinally, or exemplarily, but by way of atonement and expiation, so as to satisfy the justice of God, and appease his anger: For as David in an evil cause, being possessed with rage, as soon as ever he heard Uriah was dead, began presently to be pacified: So the justice and anger of God being prepared to consume sinful man, no sooner heareth of Christ crucified, but is accorded by an happy temperament through Christ with mercy. Therefore that Christs death was expiatory is manifested further,  
First, By those places of Scripture, which speak of that happy exchange which God hath made for us, by imputing our sins to him, and his righteousness to us. So that as God for our sins laid on him did break and wound him: Thus for his righteousness made ours, the Lord doth not onely forgive, but crown with everlasting glory.  
Among other places, there are these eminent Texts, Isa. 53.4, 5, 6, 7. &c. which Chapter seemeth to be an History rather then a prophesy of Christs sufferings. As for Grotius his opinion, That the man here spoken of in the Text, was Jeremiah, primarily and literally, though he acknowledgeth more sublimely Christ to be understood, Annotat. in Isa. cap. 4.53. we pass it by as a Jewish fable, though all along his Annotations he mentioneth not Christ, but endeavoureth to show how Jeremiah did bear the Jews sins, how he was wounded for their transgression, and did bear their iniquities, viz. by his preaching and instruction: Even as the Socinians explain it of Christ. But to the diligent Reader all things are as plain, as if he did with his bodily eyes see Christ crucified on the cross, sweeting blood in his grievous agonies; Let us consider the Prophet thus ocularly demonstrating Christ wounded, and that not for any sin he had done, but for our iniquities; and whereas the Prophet informs us of the judgement most men had to see him thus extraordinarily smitten by God, viz. that he was some grand Impostor and Deceiver, At the 4th vers. he saith, Surely( that is a word of confidence, and of causality) he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows. By griefs and sorrows are principally meant our sins, as 1 Pet. 2.25. Though Matth. 8.15. seemeth to apply it to bodily diseases, which the Socinians greedily catch at, saying, As Christ took away bodily diseases, not because he did bear them on his own body, he had no palsy, no lameness or blindness: so he takes away our sins, not by having them imputed to him, as a Surety in our stead, but by removing them, which they explain in several respects. But to that place of Matthew, among other answers there are two most probable. First, of those who think both sins and bodily diseases are properly and literally intended, and so Peter applieth it to one, and Matthew to another; but some learned men dislike this, because, say they, there cannot be two literal senses, or meanings of the same Text. And therefore in the second place, they say, by sorrows and griefs is directly and principally understood sins, but indirectly and by consequent bodily diseases, either because they come from sin, or because our Saviour in curing of bodily diseases did principally look to sin as the cause of them, and therefore  told the healed person, Her sins were forgiven her. Thus Christ by taking our sins upon him, did thereby acquire a right and power to remove those punishments that follow sin, and the Hebrew word Sabal, whatsoever may be said of Nasa, doth always signify to bear or carry, and not to take away: Oh then the unspeakable love of Christ in bearing our sins for us! This was more then to bear any outward calamity for us, for its sin only that displeaseth God, and makes him offended. To this purpose is vers. 5. The chastisement of our peace, or our pacifications was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed. What can be more express then this? In him was no sin found, but our iniquities bruised him, wounded him, crucified him; our sins were the spears that ran into his side, we are all crucifiers of Christ, we may all say with Judas, We have not only betrayed, but even crucified the holy one: A sad meditation it should be to humbleness: It followeth at vers. 6. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all, he hath made to meet on him, as when many violent waters meet in one breach that is made, it hurrieth all away: Had not the Lord Christ been God as well as man, our iniquities would have carried him away like a torrent, he could not have stood in the gap to stop the wrath of God that was breaking out. Though these things were bitter to Christ, yet they cause unspeakable joy to the believer, for God will not require punishment for the same sins twice, he will not punish them in Christ, and in thee also: when justice shall make inquisition after thee, thou wilt be found in Christ, as the manslayer in the City of refuge. Here is an Altar from which justice may not take thee and destroy thee. As if the Prophet could not speak enough of this glorious mystery, he repeateth again vers. 10. It pleased the Lord to bruise him, to grind him to dust, and although this was so terrible, yet vers. 12. He poured out his soul to death, which denoteth the free and spontaneous offering himself to all this misery.  
A second Text which confirmeth this reciprocal imputation, is 2 Cor. 5.21. He who knew no sin became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. What can be clearer? This Text seemeth to be written in the Sunbeams, its so evident for our purpose. Christ though he had no sin in himself, yet became sin; if you take it but for a Sacrifice of sin, it is enough; and indeed he could not be a Sacrifice for sin, unless sin was first laid upon him: And why is all this? We may say, That we who knew no righteousness, may become the righteousness of God in him; righteousness, and the righteousness of God, but in him. Thus we are Jacob in our elder brothers clothes, as Ambrose of old hinted, which Calvin further amplifying, so affencted Pighius the Papist, that he came off from his inherent righteousness, to that imputed by Christ. Now truly, what the Prophet Isaiah, Chap. 1. broke out into, Hear, O Heavens, and harken, O Earth! in respect of that unnatural rebellion of the Israelites, we may, because of this wonderful and unheard of love, its more then any sinful man dareth pray or hope for: That Christ should become thus a Sacrifice for us, that he should be bound to loose us, guilty to free us; it should be received into our hearts, as such unspeakable love, that we should even with the Church swoon and faint away in the ravishments of it. And yet there is  
A third Text that goeth higher, Gal. 3.13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us. What vassal could expect that his King should come and die an ignominious death that he may be set at liberty. Yet thus Christ did to us, and that his enemies, and rebels against him. This goodness of Christ is so transcendent, that we may justly conclude, Though one man had his heart full of as much love, as all the Angels and Saints collected together, yet he should cry out, I am straightened within, O my leanness, my leanness!  
The last sort of Arguments may be taken from those places of Scripture, which expressly call Christs dying a Sacrifice for our sins. Now its the proper notion of a Sacrifice to expiate sin, to reconcile God. Thus the Heathens, though they were guilty of horrible Idolatry, yet thus far they had a true impression upon their consciences, that something must be done to pacify God. Hence the Scripture doth so often attribute {αβγδ} to Christ, 1 John 2.2. Chap. 4.10. and this {αβγδ} is to expiate sin, Heb. 2.17. Now that Christ became a Sacrifice thus for our sins, ye heard Isa. 53.10 and often in the New Testament, Ephes. 5.2. where he is called not only {αβγδ}, but {αβγδ}, which is always applied to a bloody Sacrifice. And the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, especially Chap. 9.26. Chap. 10.12. doth at large prove his Priestly office from this oblation of himself a Sacrifice, whereas if this were done only doctrinally, as Socinians pled, he had no Priestly office at all. Now the Apostle sheweth all the Legal Sacrifices were only types of Christ. That it was not their blood that could expiate sin, but it must be Christs, neither will the Socinians exception avail, that onely the solemn anniversary Sacrifice for all the people, was only a type of Christ( though that indeed was more illustrious, and if granted is enough to confute their heresy) for all their private Sacrifices were likewise a type of Christ; and therefore 1 Cor. 5. Christ is called our Passeover, and John Baptist said, Behold the Lamb that taketh away the sin of the world: So that Christ being typified both in the public Sacrifice and private, doth notably teach us, that we are not only in the general to look upon Christs death as expiatory of the sins of all the elect, but every godly man in particular is to appropriate the benefit of this Sacrifice unto himself.  
Above all Sacrifices in the Law, that of the Scape-goat did palpably demonstrate Christ, for then the people in a solemn manner laid their hands on the Goat, thereby signifying, that as he was to perish, so they; only he was in their stead, and thus when their sins were laid on him, he was turned into the vast wilderness, where they could never hear of him more. Though he was not killed, yet hereby he was exposed to death, and this did signify that the sins of the godly being laid upon Christ, he bore them away even clear out of sight, so that they should never be charged upon the godly. Let then the godly soul believing say, Oh the depth, the breadth and height of this love of Christ being thus an expiatory Sacrifice for our sins: You see this Article founded upon Scripture so firmly, that heaven and earth must sooner pass away then th●s truth:& of them that would take this away from us, say, as Solomon of Adonijahs petition, This is to ask the kingdom also; This is to take away all Religion, heaven and all happiness from us. For it is in this Sacrifice, which is called a sweet savour to God, that he receiveth us: nothing from us can come but unsavoury and abominable, its in Christ onely we are accepted: As in a pure glass we may see loathsome and noisome carrion, but in the glasses representation of it, all the filthiness is taken away. As that Emperour, who in a precious jewel of a great quantity made like a glass, would behold through that, all horrid and deformed objects, which through that representation were made delightsome and acceptable. Thus in a well understood sense all the filth, the dross, the wearisomeness that is in our most holy duties being represented in Christ, hath their filthiness done away: So that though not for our sakes, yet for Christs sake, God will become reconciled with us; if thou to some unworthy man begging of thee in Christs name, dost rel●eve him saying, Its not for thy sake, but for Christs I do it; think God doth so to thee, its not for any worth in thy duties, in thy obedience, but for Christs sake.  
That this Doctrine may the more clearly be apprehended, I shall add further Propositions, the last running into many particulars.  
The fourth Proposition is, That God in Christ crucified, with the benefits accrueing thereby doth at the same time demonstrate both mercy and justice, grace and righteousness. We are justified freely by his grace, {αβγδ}, there was no antecedent cause, or right in us to justification, and that by the blood of Christ, as appeasing Gods wrath. So then, let not those many places of Scripture, which testify God forgiveth freely, and for his own name sake, make you doubt of Christs satisfaction, saying with the Socinians, How can it be freely, and yet with satisfaction? Is the love or mercy of a Creditor to be commended for releasing the debt of a debtor, if another hath paid the full sum to him, where is the Creditors kindness here? But to this it s fully answered, That when the mercy and grace of God is commended in the Scripture, Its not with respect to Gods justice, 
How Justification and Salvation are of love and grace, notwithstanding Christs satisfaction.  or opposition to that, as if a full price were not laid down, but to our works and righteousness. In all those places where Paul doth mention the grace of God that we are justified and saved by his grace: The immediate opposition, is not Gods justice, but Not of ourselves, not by the works that we have done. Our Justification then is of pure mere grace in respect of us, but in respect of Christ it is of merit, it is of justice. Although therefore the justice of God be satisfied by Christs blood, and so spiritual benefits are vouchsafed to us, yet all is of grace and mere love to us, and that in these particulars.  
First, It was Gods infinite love to his, that made him find out a way, and procure a Mediator for us. And thus the Scripture attributeth it to Gods love, that he sent his only son into the world to die for us; God might have left us in our undone estate, as he did the Angels, but he pitied us, and sent his Son to become a Sacrifice for us.  
Secondly, Its the mere grace and love of God not only to procure a Mediator, but to accept of him in our stead. For though Christs satisfaction was infinite, and could not be rejected by the Father as insufficient, for there was no defect in that, yet God was not rigidly bound in justice to accept of a Surety for us. But as God threatened, The day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die; and as the Rule is often mentioned in the Scripture, The soul that sinneth, that shall die; So might God have required this satisfaction in our persons, that we in our own persons must answer his justice, but yet such was his love and grace, that he admitted a Surety in our room, not abrogating his Law, but relaxing of it, as is to be more fully shewed.  
Thirdly, It is yet further of grace, because we in this work of reconciliation bring nothing of our own, we were in the state of enemies and adversaries. So that every thing proclaimeth grace to us.  
And fourthly, Its of grace, in respect of the application of this satisfaction and merit to our fouls; For how many, though Christ thus offered up himself, are yet damned, though Christ was crucified, yet most will eternally perish; and why is all this? but because most refuse the benefits of this Mediator, and so make themselves unworthy of his love, so that if any partake of these glorious benefits, it is because God doth make them differ from others. Its he that by his grace doth open their eyes, and change their hearts, whereby they hunger and thirst after this Redeemer. If therefore though Christ came into the world, yet his death may be in vain to thee, if thou through thy obstinacy mayest get no more good by Christ crucified, then the devils; then certainly such who are enabled and fitted to make use of Christ, they must aclowledge all is of grace to them.  
Hence the fifth Proposition, That there is a difference between mans forgiving another, and Gods forgiving us. Indeed we pray, that God would forgive us as we forgive them that trespass against us. And to this purpose our Saviour brings in a Parable, showing how we ought to forgive others, if we expect God should forgive us. But in this comparison, we must distinguish between mercy, and the manner of mercy. We are to be merciful as God is, but in the manner God takes one way, and we another. This is evident, because we are commanded to forgive our enemies abiding enemies, and although they refuse and reject our love; Whereas the Socinians confess, That it would not stand with the honour of God to forgive all mens sins, even of such who wilfully continue impenitent and obstinate. Again, Man is a private person, and the offended party, and so being bound by the Law of a superior, it is his duty sometimes to forgive without satisfaction( though in some cases he cannot) but God doth not forgive merely as offended, nor is he to be considered as a private person, but as the public Judge and Governor of the world, who is thereby engaged to judge righteously, and to render to every one according to his works: So that there is a vast difference between pecuniary debts and criminal, as you shall hear afterwards.  
The sixth Proposition, Christ dying doth not thereby hinder the endeavour after, and exercising of ourselves in all holy works. For thus the Adversaries urge.  
Object. The Doctrine of Christs satisfaction sets open a wide door to all impiety( say they) if Christ hath paid the debt and satisfied the Law, then we are not bound to pay it, and so we may live as we list.  
But first we see, even the Apostles themselves could not preach the grace of God, but they had this poison sucked from the sweet herbs they planted, Rom 6.1. Christ and his benefits do not oppose holinesse, but do necessary infer it; for Christs death is not only for remission of sin, but to redeem us a peculiar people unto himself, zealous of good works. There is not only a moral connexion between Christs death and an holy life, viz. That a man by beholding Christs love should be moved to love him again; but there is a causal connexion, even as between the Sun& the Sun-beams, between fire and heat: where the benefit of Christs death is, there is also his Spirit sanctifying and leading into every good way. Indeed the true and proper answer is, That seeing Christ satisfied God, by his death and his obedience. Therefore our obedience and sufferings are not required for that end, his was; we are not by our godliness to think of a compensation to God, ours cannot stand in his presence if God enter into judgement; our tears for sin are not to the same end his blood was. But though holinesse and patience be not required of us to that end, for which it was in Christ, yet there are many other great and necessary reasons of it in the Scripture: And as for the Socinian this objection may be more strongly retorted on him, seeing he holds such a mercy and grace as forgiveth sin freely without any satisfaction that God is reconciled with all men; That there is no such attribute of justice in God, whereby he is inclined to punish sin. These notions must needs encourage in all impiety and wickedness.  
The seventh Proposition, In this satisfaction and redemption of ours, the price was truly paid to God. It was God who accepted of the Sacrifice laid down for our sins. This is to be observed, because the enemies of this truth ask,  
Object. If we were bought, who received the price? The Scripture saith, we were captives to the devil, and we are redeemed from our vain conversation. Therefore if a price be paid, its paid to the devil and our vain conversation, and how absurd is that to say?  
Answ. But the answer is, In our Captivity we are to consider the principal that detaineth us, and the instrumental. The principal is Gods Justice, and his wrath, we are prisoners in the first place to that, but then the devil and sin as its a punishment, are the under jailers, the serjeants to Gods wrath; and its not absurd to be redeemed from them, as the instruments of Gods vengeance. Neither is that such an absurdity as the Socinians urge, that then God must satisfy himself, which is( say they) as if a man should give money out of his purse to another, to bid him satisfy him; for the case of a pecuniary debt, and a crime are not alike, as the famous instance of Zaleucus witnesseth, who when a Law was made for the putting out of the eyes of an adulterer, and his own son, being found in that crime, he found an excellent temperament to satisfy the Law, by suffering one of his own eyes, and another of his sons to be put out. Besides in this work of redemption we are to aclowledge the peculiar order, and appropriated works of the Trinity, which the Socinians blaspheming, no wonder they split themselves at this rock, so that the satisfaction was common to all the three persons, being God, Christ the second person, and the Spirit of God the third person required satisfaction as well as the Father, for they have one essential will, and justice; only the execution of this satisfaction, was by that wise temperament of sending the second person to become man, and die for our sakes.  
In these things therefore there is infinite occasion to draw out our Faith and our Love, whether the truth or the goodness be more wonderful, its hard to say. Oh the depths of the counsels of God, may faith say! And oh the depths and goodness of God, may love say! If it were only an object to be believed, here was enough to take up the whole man, but being also an object to be loved and embraced, How wide must our hearts be to receive such things? The truth of them is above thy understanding, and the goodness of them above thy heart. This Ocean cannot be received into thy little shell, they cannot enter into thy heart, do thou therefore enter into them; be swallowed up in the faith and love of these things; and certainly Paul was so, when he desired to know nothing but Christ crucified; and when he said, he no longer lived, but Christ in him. Oh remember there are more glorious things to possess thy heart, then earthly vanities: This Sanctum Sanctorum is not to entertain every unclean thing. This precious Cabinet is only for Jewels, and not dung.   

SERM. VIII. More Propositions about the Sufferings of Christ for sin: Their usefulness, sufficiency, and extent; with Answers to more Objections of the Socinians.  ROM. 3.26. To declare( I say) his Righteousness, that he may be Just, and the Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. 
THere remain further Propositions to clear this fundamental Doctrine, That the Righteousness of God is declared by Christs blood  shed for the Remission of sin.  
As first, Christs blood was not useless, though God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son to die for us. For thus some urge, What necessity was there to satisfy Gods justice through Christ, seeing of his mere love he gave us Christ? if therefore without any wrong to his justice, he could so love us as to give his only begotten Son, Why could not the same love pardon sin, and give salvation without any injury unto his justice?  
This Proposition therefore is to show that there is a great difference between that love to mankind by which he sent his Son into the world, and that more special and peculiar love, whereby he doth vouchsafe to some all saving privileges. Its true, God without any breach of his justice did pity mankind, and find out a way for their pardon, but actually to pardon and save, that could not be without satisfaction, at least supposing the Decree of God, and his revealed will thus to punish sin, and the reason of the difference between these two kindes of love is from the nature of them, one is a general love, as some call it a love of beneficence, whereby we are propense to do good, when a fit or lawful way is found out: The other is a particular special love, and as some call it, a love of complacency and delight: now this cannot be in God towards a sinner, till his sin which is so loathsome and abominable, be removed: We see the like case amongst men, A Judge who seeth a malefactor condemned by the Law, may for some just and powerful reasons exceedingly pity the malefactor, and may think of all such ways whereby the Law may be satisfied, that so the condemned person may be released; yet actually he cannot set him at liberty, unless he will be unjust, till the Law be satisfied. Thus the Scripture commends in God a Philanthropy, a love to mankind, willing their good; but this cannot be actually performed till the justice of God be satisfied. He is merciful, but he is also just and righteous, and therefore will show his hatred and displeasure against sin.  
The second Proposition. Christs death, although the benefit of it doth not extend to all, yet was in itself a sufficient price and satisfaction to God. So that his righteousness is herein manifested, though all be not saved. I shall not enter into that dispute, Whether Christs death was intentionally a price for all? or Whether considered in itself only, it be sufficient, though not efficacious for all? This is now to be asserted, That though such a price was laid down sufficiently for all, yet God is not unrighteous, if all be not redeemed, neither may we think that men are unjustly damned, because a price is paid for them, for we must distinguish between the purchase or satisfaction itself, and the application of this, for though Christs satisfaction depend not on our faith, its not our believing that makes it a satisfaction to God; this it hath from its own inherent worth: yet that this satisfaction may be applied to us, and so become advantageous, there is faith required. Not that faith doth make Christs death effectual unto us, as if the benefit of that were suspended upon our believing, and our believing upon the uncertain use of our free will, for thus Christ might have died, and no man be saved; no more good might have come to men then the Apostate Angels, but that Christ by his death purchased such benefits for those that should believe and receive him; yea and this very believing and receiving of him is also a fruit of his death, so that Christs death though it be an absolute price unto God and depends not on the condition of our frail strength, yet it doth not oppose such an order of means, in the use whereof he only will communicate the privileges he purchased, so that if men do wilfully reject this price, they become guilty of their own damnation; as in the year of Jubilee, if a servant would not accept of the liberty offered, he was then to be a perpetual bonds man, and to have his ear boared as a sign thereof. Thus if thou wilt reject Christ proffering thee liberty from sin and hell, and that at so dear a rate, thou deservest to have thy ear boared, and to live and die Satans slave. When Cyrus proclaimed a liberty of returning for every Jew into his own Country, if any loved Babylon better then Canaan, and so would not take the benefit proffered, the fault lay upon the man himself, whose will was thus corrupted. Thus it is with the price Christ hath paid, many do not apply the benefit of it, because they are corrupted in their hearts, and love their empty husks, better then the fatted calf in their fathers house: God therefore accepted of the price, yet so that the application of it is to be in the way and order God hath appointed, so that the damned in hell are not punished unjustly, as if God required satisfaction twice, once of Christ, and then in their own persons.  
The third Proposition. Gods justice is satisfied, although Christ did not endure the eternal torments of death: For it was impossible for him who was to be our Mediator, that he should be always detained in his sufferings, and not be at last a conqueror. Though therefore it be objected against Christs satisfaction, That he did not suffer the everlasting torments of hell, and therefore it could not be a sufficient price to Gods justice: Yet it is answered that Christs sufferings in his soul and body were equivalent to it: Although to to speak properly, eternity is not of the essence of death, which is the reward of sin, and threatened by God, but its accidental, because man thus dying is never able to satisfy God; therefore seeing he cannot pay the last farthing, he is for ever kept in prison. As eternal death hath in it eternity and despair, necessary in all those that so die, so Christ could not suffer; but what was wanting in duration, was supplied partly by the immensity of his sorrows, conflicting with the sense of Gods wrath because of our sins imputed to him, so that he suffered more grief, then if the sorrows of all men were put together; and partly by the dignity and worth of him who did suffer. Therefore the Scripture calls it the blood of God, Act. 20.21. Indeed this is not only rejected by Socinians, but others also have denied the sufferings of Christ in his soul through Gods displeasure for our sins imputed unto him, adding many other new doctrines, especially one of late, Pinchin in his Book called The meritorious price, &c. But all those new assertions, blaming the common opinion as an universal error, are fitly to be examined, when we consider, What is that righteousness which is imputed to us: for he makes neither the active or passive obedience imputed to us, though he grant Christ by a Mediatorial oblation of his body on the across to have satisfied the wrath of God. Therefore we shall defer the consideration of his Notion till that time, and in the mean while take it for granted, that Isa. 53.4, 5, 6. 2 Cor. 5.21. Gal. 4.13. do prove that God laid our sins on him, that he bore them by imputation, that he conflicted in his agonies with the wrath of God, though without any sin: So that although Christ did not suffer the sinfulness and the perpetuity of those hellish torments, yet he did equivalently satisfy the wrath of God, and recompense them some other way. And for the better understanding of this, we are to know( as hereafter is to be more largely confirmed) that Christ in some respects did, or suffered the idem, the very same that we should have done; in other respects tantundem, or that which is equivalent: As for example, It was necessary that Christ should suffer death, and the same kind of death, viz. a cursed death for us. Therefore that position, though used in antiquity, That one drop of Christs blood was sufficient to redeem the whole world: Yea some jesuits say, Nerinber de adoratione, that one drop of sweat, or the least prayer of Christ, was enough to have saved a thousand worlds, because his person was so infinitely worthy, is not to be admitted: for his infinite worth is not all, Gods justice required death, and a cursed death, therefore the same; not a drop of blood, but death itself must be. But then in respect of some accidents to this death, as the eternity of it, or for the suffering of every kind of pain that is the fruit of sin, then an equivalent suffering was enough, it was not required he should suffer every kind of curse which is the effect of sin, but in the general a cursed death: And thus also it is in the fulfilling of the Law for us, it was not necessary that he should perform every holy duty, for he could not perform the obedience which Magistrates or Married persons are bound to do; its enough that there was a fulfilling of it in the general for us, for this was equivalent to every kind of particular obedience, as his sufferings were to every kind of suffering. Though therefore Christ did not suffer eternal death for sinners, yet he suffered that which was equivalent, and therefore the justice of God is by his death wholly appeased.  
The fourth Proposition. Though Christ the second person did thus voluntarily become a sacrifice for us, yet we are not to make such absurd conclusions as the Socinians do, That therefore we are beholding to one Person more then the other. By this doctrine( say they) we are more bound to the Son then to the Father, and so are to love one more then another. Thus corrupt reason would make a dissension, where the Scripture affirmeth unspeakable agreement, for the work of reconciliation is to be attributed to the whole Trinity, as satisfaction was given to it, because they have an essential will and justice; only the fulfilling of this was by the second Person, and the assumption of our nature, though it was terminated in the Son, yet the counsel and appointment of it was from the whole Trinity; which the Ancients declared by a similitude of three sisters putting on a coat upon one of them; though no similitude can illustrate this, because of the infinite distance between the Creator and the creature; and indeed the Scripture doth in a very high manner commend both the love of the Father and the Son, in the sons becoming an expiatory sacrifice for us: The Fathers love is declared in sending his only son in the world, that which was dearer to him then many thousand worlds, and whose good was to be preferred above all mankind; yet God sends him into the world, and upon this work, to die an ignominious death for us; and as God did thus sand his Son into the world, so he did also lay this command upon him to die for his sheep. Therefore John 14.10. he did as he received command of the Father. And by the Psalmist he declared to come and do the will of God, it was written in his heart. So that it was the Fathers will he should be thus bruised for our sins: yea he saith, Therefore the Father loveth him, because he layeth down his life for his sheep, John 10.17. Thus you see the Fathers infinite love manifested, and then the Sons love, that is unquestionable, seeing he was so ready and willing to lay aside the manifestation of his glory, and to become in the repute of the worst of men for our sakes. Let us not then profanely cavil at this glorious mystery, but adore the love of the Father and the Son, in their mutual agreement for this our redemption. Had the Father been against it, then Christs sufferings would not have been accepted: Had the Son refused it, then still our condition had been desperate without a Mediator. But oh the depths of Gods wisdom and love in finding out this way for our peace and comfort.  
The fifth Proposition. Although Gods justice be declared by Christs death, yet we cannot infer thence, that therefore Christs death was only in respect of God, and not in reference to us. For thus the adversaries argue, If Christ died to satisfy Gods justice, then this work which is so commended in the Scripture as an instance of love and grace to us, would not relate to us, but mainly to God, that he might be satisfied: But the inclusion of one end, doth not exclude the other, yea it necessary infereth it; for the chief and ultimate end of Christs death is the glorifying of God, but then there are other particular ends, as the satisfying of Gods justice, and by that all those inestimable benefits of Justification, Adoption and Salvation, which are attributed to Christs death likewise as the effects of it; so that because he died to appease the wrath of God, therefore he also died for our good: Hence is our reconciliation and peace with God made the fruit of his death: our sins provoked justice, and justice made a great gulf between Gods mercy and us, but Christ by his death removed all these divisions away.  
The last Proposition. Let it not seem strange that God thus required satisfaction ere he would pardon sin, when yet man may and is commanded to forgive freely. This hath been the occasion of shipwreck to many, they judge of Gods remission of sins, after the manner of men forgiving one another, but here is a vast difference:  
For first, The disputing of Gods absolute power, whether he can forgive without remission, is not here controverted: Its plain by the Scripture that he will not: so that seeing God will not accept of us without satisfaction, it behoveth us to conclude, that this is the wisest way and most honouring of God, seeing God doth all things for his glory.  
And yet secondly, Even human reason cannot but apprehended many dissimilitudes between a private mans forgiving another his trespass, and Gods forgiving us: as thus, Man is by God commanded to forgive his brother, not only humbling himself, but if he do not seek reconciliation: Hence is that command of requiting evil with good, of blessing those that curse us: But now the adversaries themselves dare not but say, it would be a great dishonour, and unbeseeming the holy God, to forgive all sin whether men repent or no: Who can apprehended that though wicked men do with all malice and obstinacy, blaspheme and reproach God, that his pure eyes can without wrath behold all this? Its certain the Scripture represents God a consuming fire to such: that speaks of no mercy or favour, but the contrary, all wrath and vengeance to such as go on so wickedly.  
Again, Even amongst men there are some trespasses that a man is not bound to forgive without satisfaction, neither can the party offended release the wrong, without sin; as if a man murder another mans wife or child, it is not in the mans power to release it, but he is bound to prosecute the revenge of it: and thus many cases may be given, wherein its not in a mans power to release his right, especially when it relateth to another, or when the Law of a superior obligeth him, or the good of the public doth require it: And although God have no superior, and so cannot be bound by a Law above him, yet he is a Law to himself, so that he cannot but do wisely and righteously in all his ways.  
Lastly, We are always to distinguish between private men and public persons; as also pecuniary debts, and criminal offences: It is true, a private man may remit a debt to his debtor, he is not bound to take any satisfaction; but a Judge in criminal causes, cannot without injustice forgive them. Now all sin is committed against God as a public person, as the Judge of the world; every sin tends to the destruction of the universe: if it be let go unpunished, then all men will rejoice in their wickedness, and think God is like one of them, as the Psalmist saith. If therefore Justice be so much commended to Magistrates for particular Societies, how much is it required to the whole Universe? The body can no more be compact without nerves and sinews, then the world without righteousness from God. Thus you have heard several Propositions, which, if thoroughly understood, will confirm us against all those cavils which corrupt reason doth invent; for its from that bitter fountain that all bitter streams do flow; whereas the understanding is to be captivated to the Word of God, we captivated Gods Word to our understanding: and as Tertullian in another case, Deus non erit Deus nisi homini placuerit. Having been thus large in the Doctrinal part, which was a shining light, let us be proportionable in the practical, that it may be also burning.  
And first, Doth God thus demonstrate his justice and severity against sin, by Christs death? then let us take heed of love and delight in it: Why should that be pleasing to thee which filled Christ with so much bitterness? He was a man of sorrows, and wilt thou be a man of jollities? Was it a light matter that made him sweat drops of blood? Was it for nothing that he cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Oh say of all sin which thou hast greedily desired, as David of the water of Bethlehem he so longed for, That it was the blood of men, he would not meddle with it; but do thou say, This is the blood of Christ, the price even of Christs blood, and how then shall I pollute myself with sin?  

How we should aggravate our sins by Christs death.  Now the aggravation of sin by Christs death, doth appear, First, In the infinite evil of it, that it carrieth such guilt with it, that nothing could satisfy God but an infinite price; and this is true not only of gross enormous sins, but also of the least sins: If all mankind were but guilty of one sin, and that the least thought which passeth away, yet there could not be any atonement made for it, but by Christs blood. Oh how should this make us tremble even at every idle word, idle thought! Oh say, This sin cannot be accounted little, which is against so great a God, and needs such an infinite price! Let not then the customariness and universality of sin make thee despise it; or do not say, This is but little, there needs not such ado; for the least sin thou art guilty of, can have no other atonement but by the blood of Christ. Little sins and great sins agree in this, they need a great Ransom.  
2. The aggravation of sin appeareth, if we consider what Christ was who came to destroy it. All the wonderful works that ever God did, the Creation of the world, and the preservation of it, are nothing to this, that God should become man, and die such a cursed ignominious death for us: In this mystery the Wisdom, Mercy, Justice and Power of God are made illustrious; now why was this? Shall we think the Father was unnatural and cruel to his Son to deliver him up to such torments for a matter of no moment? No certainly. This should make us stand astonished at the depth, length, and breadth of our sinfulness, that such an unheard of remedy must be provided for us! Oh cry out, My soul is too narrow, my thoughts are too straightened! I may think and think, but never can think according to the nature of sin. The remedy provided makes me see the desperateness of the malady.  
3. This also may aggravate it, that though a man do truly and bitterly humble himself for his sins, and aclowledge his rebellion, yet for all that, God will not pardon, without satisfaction by Christs blood: So that its not our tears, our prayers, our rendings of heart are able to expiate our iniquities, but it must be a work of infinite dignity to do this. God will have Christs blood and our tears also, but not for the same purpose. Therefore the Papists obscure this doctrine of Christs satisfaction, by adding their own. This is to divide the Mediatory Office between Christ and man; neither can all their distinctions deliver them. Let us then be an Evangelical people, who fly to Christ only; mourn, pray and humble ourselves we do, but its Christs blood only that can wash us clean, Let our eyes and hearts be fixed on him.   

SERM. IX. Our Justification by Christ a Demonstration not onely of Gods Mercy, but Righteousness also. Or an instance of that Justice in God, whereby he will punish sin. Also a Discussion of the proper Nature of Merit and Satisfaction, showing that Christs Sufferings had all the Requisites to Satisfaction.  ROM. 3.26. To declare his Righteousness, that he might be just, &c. 
WE have at large considered the final cause of our Justification through Christs blood, as it is laid down by the Apostle in the general. We now come to the distribution he makes of this final cause, which is  
1. The finis cujus, for what sake he thus justifieth, and that is, that he may be just.  
2. The finis cvi, for whose sake and good this is, and that is, That he might justify him who believeth in Jesus. We are to treat on the finis cujus, That he might be just, {αβγδ}. This word( as the former {αβγδ}) doth sometimes signify a merciful one, sometimes one that is true, and sometimes one that is righteous in his works. Therefore there are interpreters, who as they understood the former word of Gods goodness and mercy, so they do this also: And indeed it cannot be denied, but that righteousness doth many times signify mercy; because as Dieu observeth in loc. all the just and righteous acts of God in overcoming the Churches enemies, are a mercy to the Church. Christs conquering the devil and sin by his blood, hereby brought unspeakable mercies to his people; but the former reasons do convince, That just is to be here taken strictly, for that property whereby he is propense to punish sin; and this is declared in that he will not justify a believer without an atonement or satisfaction through Christs blood, and thus you have heard the word is used many times; and I shall add one pregnant place more, because this is so vehemently opposed by Socinians, Rom. 2.5. where the day of Judgement, called also the day of wrath, is there said to have the revelation of Gods righteous Judgement; Why righteous? but because he will punish those hardened sinners in the Text with his eternal wrath; hence {αβγδ} is often for vengeance, Jud. 7. 2 Thess. 1.9. yet we will not limit this justice to his vindicative righteousness onely, but to the righteousness of his words also.  
That God in Justification of a believer is not only gracious and merciful, but just also. Not in the same respects, 
observe.  but gracious in respect of us, and just in respect of the meritorious cause of it. I am to treat of the righteousness of God, demonstrated therein, and that is discovered in these particulars, The righteousness of his words, 
The righteousness of Gods word in our Justification by Christ, is seen,  and the righteousness of his works.  
The righteousness of Gods word concerning our Justification by Christ is seen,  
First, By all those predictions and promises which were made for Christs coming into the flesh, and becoming both a Priest and King of peace for us. This was so notably spoken of, that all the Jews were in expectation of them, though many of them carnally thought of a temporal Saviour otherwise: The Scripture saith, That both Moses and the Prophets testified of him, Act. 28.23. Its an unsound opinion, though some of the Ancients were taken with it, That the Fathers in the Old Testament by their holinesse did merit the Incarnation of Christ; for this is attributed wholly to the love of God; and certainly if Christs human Nature did not merit its hypostatical Union, much less could the believers of old, merit Christs coming into the world; Great are the predictions, and precious are the promises of a Christ in the Old Testament: Therefore the Prophets when the people were in any outward calamities, did then comfort them with the coming of a Messiah, as Esay 9. and Micah 5. partly hereby to assure them, that even their temporal power should not be totally destroyed till Shiloh came; and partly to teach the believers in all their public straights, that though they had no outward peace, yet there was a spiritual peace procured with God through Christ; and therefore they were to rejoice in Christ, when they had no earthly comfort to be glad of. Thus God shewed the truth of his promises, when in the fullness of time Christ came. Not as if Christ had not any Subsistence before he was incarnated, as the Socinians blaspheme: for 1 Cor. 10.4. the Israelites in the wilderness are said to tempt Christ; And Heb. 11.26. Moses in his dayes is said to esteem the reproaches of Christ above the treasures of egypt; And 1 Pet. 1.11. The Spirit which was in those Prophets of old, is called the Spirit of Christ. Christ then was in respect of his Divine Nature before his Incarnation, and all the godly in the Old Testament had benefit by him as well as in the New, for God had respect to that oblation which Christ was to offer in time.  
Secondly, Gods righteousness of truth in respect of his words, was also manifested in our Justification by Christs death. For Genes. 3. God made this threatening to Adam, In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die. This sentence was passed from Gods own mouth, its irrevocable: So that whatsoever might be said in respect of Gods absolute power to do otherwise, yet hypothetically supposing this commination, it would be unjust if death should not be required for sin. Its true there is a difference between a threatening and a Promise. In a Promise, God doth, as it were, become a debtor to man, he giveth a man so qualified right to claim such a privilege of him, though in respect that by this Promise man is not alienated, or the thing promised from his dominion, he is not properly a debtor to man, for that is impossible, but to himself, he cannot be unfaithful to himself, yet we aclowledge this fulfilling of his promise is attributed not onely to love or faithfulness, but righteousness also, 2 Thess. 1.6. 1 John 1.9. But in a threatening we cannot say properly that the delinquent hath a right to be punished, though he doth deserve it, or that God becomes in any respect a debtor to the sinner to punish him, yet in regard God is truth itself and immutable, no io●a or tittle of any threatening shall fall to the ground: Let not the wicked man dream of such a mercy as shall infringe Gods truth; let him not fancy such a pardon, as doth contravene any threatening; Seeing therefore God hath peremptorily set down such a Law, that upon sin there must be death, and this must stand, though heaven and earth should fall, it was altogether becoming the Justice of God, that if the sinner himself did not die, yet there must be one in his stead, that so the Law may be satisfied.  
But then here is the grand Objection, If Gods Justice be required for the fulfilling of that Law, how can that be, seeing the sinner himself doth not die, but an innocent one in his room, the just for the unjust, 1 Pet. 3.18? which is tragically aggravated by the Socinians, as if the Orthodox attributed unheard of cruelty and injustice to God; And indeed thus far the Doubt seemeth to have a specious ground, How is Gods righteousness seen in the fulfilling of this threatening? Or how is this threatening made good, seeing the person threatened, If thou eat thou shalt die? And as in the Hebrew, Dying thou shalt die, viz. certainly and infallibly, did not, or doth not die; but an innocent one, who knew no sin, is substituted in his room.  
But this is easily answered, Though the strict letter of the threatening required the sinner himself to die, yet it did not exclude, or forbid a Surety to come between. God indeed said, the sinner shall die, but not he in his own person onely: So that though another should offer himself in his room, yet I will not accept of him; if God had done this, he had not onely shut man out of the terrestrial Paradise, but from all hopes also of the heavenly one, he had made their condition like that of the devils, and every man begging for pardon, would have had no more hope then Dives had for a drop of water in hell. But God made no proviso in that threatening against a Surety, therefore that Law was not directly broken, and yet it was not exactly fulfilled neither. What was it then? Learned men say, That God did not by this accepting of a Surety for us abrogate that Law, for then wicked men who reject Christ, could not be damned in their own personal impieties. We see God in Ezekiel still continuing a Law like this, The soul that sinneth it shall die, Ezek. 18.4. Its not then an abrogation of the Law; nor yet in the second place is it a dispensation of the threatening, for then it is properly a dispensation, when some by special privilege are exempted from a Law, which otherwise obligeth all: but this could not be, for all mankind was involved in it, and Christ needed not a privilege to be exempted from it, for he was never included in it. Nor was it an equitable interpretation of the Law, for that is, when upon the reason of the Law, although not the Letter of the Law, a person is found never at first to be intended by it: but it was a relaxation, or rather a merciful condescension of the Law-giver by his goodness and wisdom to find out an expedient, or happy temperament: So that the Law might be satisfied, yet man find mercy. Thus it was {αβγδ}, but {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, it was not exactly according to Law, nor yet properly against it, but it was above it, and yet for it, for thereby death for sin was brought about.  
Thus you have heard Gods righteousness in his word abundantly declared by Christ dying to obtain our Justification.  
But the main and principal particular is, 
The righteousness of Gods work.  To show the righteousness of Gods work herein, or that it was an instance of that Justice in him, whereby he will punish sin. For seeing the Scripture describeth his Nature to be such, that he is holy, that he loveth no sin, that he is displeased with it, and abhorreth it, it was necessary therefore there should be a demonstration of this Attribute of God, but if it were onely of Justice, then there would be no declaration of his Mercy. The wise God hath therefore so ordered it, that there should be eminent demonstrations both of his Mercy and Justice. Gods Justice therefore in our Justification is seen, in that the Lord Christ laid down his life by way of Satisfaction to God. He died not onely to show us an example of Patience and Obedience; but the principal end of his death was to expiate our iniquities, and to be Satisfactory to the Justice of God. Now that this truth, though full of Comfort, yet of difficulty also, may be the better understood, we are to take notice of these things.  
First, That in the Lord Christs work of Redemption for us, Divines do speak of Christs Merit, and his Satisfaction. And although the Scripture doth not expressly use such words, yet it hath that sense and meaning which is intended by them, onely these two words have a different Notion; for Merit that doth properly respect the Subject for whom the good thing is Merited; 
The difference between Merit and Satisfaction:  but Satisfaction doth in the first place relate to the good of the person that is satisfied. Thus Christ by his Merit did aim at those heavenly mercies, which we are to enjoy by him; but in his Satisfaction he did in the first place look to God, that his Glory and Honour might be repaired, which was obscured by sin, yet this is not so to be understood, as if Christs Satisfaction did not also redound to our good; for in that God is Satisfied, there is thereby a way made for our Justification and Salvation; yea God would have his Justice Satisfied, that so a way might be made for the Effects of his Grace. Again, There is this difference between Merit and Satisfaction; Merit doth properly respect the Good that is to be procured, but Satisfaction the Evil that is to be repelled: howsoever, in Christ we are not to make such distinctions, for in his Merit was a Satisfaction, and in his Satisfaction, Merit.  
Secondly, Consider this, That the Schoolmen distinguish between Satisfaction and Satispassion. Satisfaction they make a voluntary willing undergoing of such a punishment God will have: And thus Christs Satisfaction was free and voluntary, when the Psalmist said, Sacrifice and Oblation God would not have, then saith Christ, lo I come to do thy will, O God, Psal. 40.8. lo, I come, that denoteth the willingness and promptness in him, to a task so bitter and dreadful to flesh and blood. But Satispassion is, when the party doth unwillingly suffer such a punishment, as God in his Justice shall inflict on him; hence, they say, that the damned in hell, they do satispati, but not satisfacere, because all those eternal torments are inflicted on them against their will, which is the cause they rage and gnash their teeth with everlasting howlings and roarings of spirit; yet this is not to be understood so, as if they did suffer enough to recompense God, and make amends for the disobedience they are guilty of. No, if they could do so, then they would at last be acquitted, and set at liberty from those hellish chains of darkness; but because they are never able to satisfy, they are to all Eternity chained up in their misery.  
Thirdly, To every true and proper Satisfaction, there are four things required, 
Four things requisite to true and proper Satisfaction, applied to prove Christs Satisfaction.  which were all seen in Christs Oblation of himself.  
1. There is required that it be done to another; for a man cannot properly be said to satisfy himself.  
2. That it be amongst equals.  
3. That it be in such things as are the parties own that doth satisfy, not any ways freely received from him to whom the Satisfaction is made. 
True.   
Lastly, That it be in such things that are not due to him who is satisfied by some other title or consideration.  
I shall not at large treat on these, for I handle the Satisfactory work of Christ in our Redemption onely, as thereby is discovered the Justice and righteousness of God, but because some declaration of these particulars, will make you to assent to the whole truth, viz. That God doth not deliver us from hell and sin by his mere Power, nor by mere Mercy, but of Justice and Mercy conjoined together. I shall touch of them.  
For the first, Satisfaction being a part of Justice, and Justice in its very Nature being to another, How could Christs Oblation of himself be a Satisfaction, seeing Christ was God also? it seemeth absurd for a man to satisfy himself. This difficulty is much discussed by the Schoolmen, and the Socinians they also urge it.  
And to answer it, Some say, that whereas Justice is always said to be ad alterum, that is taken from Aristotle and other Philosophers, who were altogether ignorant of this Divine Mystery; so that as they would say of Obedience and Submission, it must be always of an inferior to a superior, yet we know that Christ, who was God-man, was in a state of Humiliation and Obedience, and that unto himself, as God. But because not onely Philosophers, but even the natural light of reason doth convince, That in Satisfaction there must be two extremes, The party satisfied, and The party satisfying, or at least two distinct considerations; Therefore that is rejected by some.  
Others they say, It is not absurd to reason, to say, a man satisfieth himself, that is, his Law and Will which he hath appointed. Its absurd to say, A Magistrate, who having made such a penal Law, and yet willing to spare some Delinquent for just reasons, when he finds out a way to satisfy the Law, in procuring such an expedient, that he satisfieth himself.  
But the best answer is, That though Christ be God, yet considered as Mediator, as God-man, so there is a distinct respect from him as merely God. Now he satisfied as he was God-man, and in respect of his Mediatory Office he is to be considered, as distinct from the absolute consideration of his person, as God; and this the Apostle insinuates, Gal. 3.20. when he saith, A Mediator is not a Mediator of one, that is, there must be two parties at distance, where there is a Mediation; and thus God was as absolutely considered, and man as absolutely considered: Therefore Christ he was first medius, did partake of both Natures; and then a Mediator, did accomplish that Office for us: Even as Aaron, when Gods wrath was consuming the offenders, he stood with his Incense between the living and the dead; This did typically represent the atonement by Christs death, its he alone that stands between the damned and saved. Its true, here are not distinct suppositums in Christ, but the two distinct Natures is enough to cause such a difference that we may discern the offended and him who makes the Satisfaction, and indeed the excellency of Satisfaction lieth in the equality of the compensation, not in the real diversity of the extremes; so that though in Justice amongst men there may in this respect be a more perfect way of Satisfaction, because one man doth quoad suppositum differ from another, yet in respect of that compensation, it hath a transcendency above all human Satisfaction, and its no wonder for a thing to be exceeded by another in its generical Nature, but that to exceed the other in its specifical nature. As the heavens in their body, which is a generical nature, doth exceed mans, but mans in its specifical exceedeth the heavens. Thus in Christs Satisfaction we may consider a difference between the party satisfied, and him that makes the Satisfaction.  
2. In true and proper Satisfaction there must be also an equality; for although the party satisfying by his humiliation and submission, doth for a while subject himself as an inferior, yet unless he had an equal dignity with the party offended, he could not forgive him out of justice, but of grace and liberality. Now thus it was with Christ, if we consider him in respect of his Mediatory Office, so he is inferior to the Father; and in this respect was in a state of humiliation; and hence it is that he referreth all glory to his Father, that he saith, he cometh to do his Fathers will, and that his Father is greater then he; but then consider him in his Person, as God, so there is an equal dignity with God, and by this means all those acts of his humiliation, and of his most reproachful sufferings, had a Satisfactory power in them, yea the lower he humbled himself, and the more he was despised, the more did his dignity discover itself: for how more noble and worthy the person is who submits himself unto a mean action, the meaner that is, the more dignity is thereby put upon it.  
3. In Christs Satisfaction there was a compensation unto God of his own; he was not bound to suffer that death, neither though he was made man was he bound to be on earth in an obedient way to the moral command, but he might have taken mans nature, and immediately have glorified himself in heaven: Its true, supposing the end, why Christ came into the world, he could not but be in an obedient way to the moral Law: but so also supposing this end it could not be but that he must suffer; Therefore the Scripture puts a necessity upon it, Luk. 24.26. {αβγδ} The son of man must suffer, and so enter into his glory, but more of this hereafter, as being a main point for those who deny Christs active obedience imputed to us, but yielding that his passive is, say contrary to what he delivered, that Christ was bound as a creature in respect of his human nature to obey the moral Law, and so fulfilled that for himself, and not for us, and therefore it could not be imputed to us; but the falsehood of this will appear hereafter; for the present we see, that Christ both in respect of his obedience and sufferings was wholly voluntary, and in an absolute sense not due to God any other ways: and so comes in  
The fourth particular, That as Christ was our Mediator from that which was his own, so also that which he did in our behalf, he was not bound to do upon any other title to God, for if it had been due otherwise, then in all reason it could not have been for us, but for himself. Its true his human nature had all it had from God, for being a creature could not obey the will of God, or endure the conflicts of that dreadful death without assistance from God, therefore an Angel was sent to comfort him: but being this human nature was personally united to the God-head, and so he was in a most ineffable manner, God and man; hence it is that what he did, was of himself, and his own, therefore he said, He had power to lay down his life, and to raise it up again, Joh. 10.18. If then these particulars were by a lively meditation amplified, viz. That Christ so full of dignity and glory in himself, even equal to God, would yet submit himself to the most shameful and terrible torments that could be, to procure our peace and ransom; if( I say) this were powerfully thought on: Oh the astonishment and enlargings of heart it would make in thee! Nothing would grieve thee so much as the naughtiness of thy heart, coldness and formality in holy duties: How sadly wouldst thou check thyself? saying, Did Christ work out my redemption with no more fervency and diligence then I pray or hear his Word? How impossible would my salvation have been, if he had as unwillingly undertook the Mediatory Office for me, as I am many times to do his will? Oh, he could say with all readiness, lo I come to do thy will, O God! though this will was to be bruised and wounded for my transgressions: but I am could and drawing back, when I am to do his will, though it bring much joy and peace with it: Oh these dull and heavy hearts of ours! but as the Artificer hath his Engine to screw up the heaviest timber to the top of the house: so though thy heart be earthly, stupid, inclining downward, yet the consideration of Christ dying for us, should be an admirable Engine to draw our hearts upwards.   

SERM. X. Of the fullness, Perfection, and Infinite Worth of Christs Satisfaction, as further Demonstrating Gods righteousness in our Justification.  ROM. 3.26. That he might be Just, &c. 
THe truth to be demonstrated is, That not only Gods Mercy, but his Justice is declared in our Justification. That which the Socinians deride as inconsistent, viz. a free Remission of sin, and yet a full Satisfaction, we see the Scripture maintains, not indeed in the same respect, and to the same subject, for its a gracious pardon to us, though it be of justice to Christ who paid the debt.  
The last time we shewed, it was a true and proper Satisfaction which Christ made by his blood for our sins. It was not an improper or metaphorical one, it had all the requisites to Satisfaction.  
In the next place we say, it was not onely a true Satisfaction, but it was a copious plentiful one, 
Christs Satisfaction a copious and plentiful one.  it was superabundant to our sins. There is not so much evil in them as there is good in Christ. There is not so much offence in them to God, as there is honour to him by Christ, Heb. 7.25. Christ being there by the Apostle exalted above the legal Priests, and declared to be every way fit and full for our Redeemer, its said, He is able to save us to the uttermost; he hath not left one farthing unpaid; There is not any great sin or little sin that will be charged upon thy score: Oh think not, If I had not been so great a sinner, if I had never been defiled with such and such transgressions, then there might have been some hope! This is to undervalue Christs Redemption, this is to think there is more in sin to damn, then in Christs obedience to save. Whereas thy sins are to Christ but as a little Cloud to the glorious sun, his obedience exceeds thy transgressions as much as his person doth thy person. Now then, if he being God, all the Nations of the world are but as one drop to him; so also must their sins be; if therefore thou hadst all the sins of all men in the world upon thee, they would be but as a drop to that ocean. This is not spoken to encourage the presumptuous sinner, for alas he hath no part in this Satisfaction, but to comfort the humbled sinner loaden with the sense of his sins. Though they are a burden greater then he can bear, yet not then Christ can endure, yea take quiter away. Thus John 10.10. Christ came, That his sheep might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly, even more then enough; therefore its so often called, The riches of his grace. There is an infinite treasury, able to satisfy thee and others also. In itself indeed it is a ransom sufficient to redeem all sinners, yea a thousand worlds of sinners, for the price is not the more diminished, though it be extended to never so many. As the sun hath fullness of light to enlighten all in the world; if the blind do not see by it, its thine indisposition, not any scarcity of light in the sun: Thus it is here; if all men are not acquitted by Christs death, its not because that was insufficient, as if it had not virtue enough to reach to thee as well as others; but by thy unbelief thou rejectest this sovereign remedy, otherwise there is an overflowing fullness in this satisfaction; thy cruse will sooner fail to receive it, then the oil be deficient: Oh then what large room hath faith to expatiate in! Sit down and dive and dive, yet thou canst not come to the bottom of Christs blood, but as the Prophet Ezekiel saw still more and greater abominations, so mayest thou in the satisfactory Obedience of Christ every day discover more and more fullness: Its like digging where a spring and fountain is, that riseth up higher and higher, even till it come like the waters of Noah, to exceed the highest hills, even the most sublime meditations that can be; and that we may be fully assured of this truth, see what a notable opposition the Apostle makes Rom. 5.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. between the first and second Adam, at large proving that Christ doth superabound in the fruits of his grace above the first Adam in the effects of his sin, he calls it grace, and the abundance of grace, and this abundance of grace reigneth to life. So that these Texts should be like so much oil poured in the wounds of every broken-hearted sinner; What can satisfy him if this do not? Is there any thing that can be desired more then this? What though sin by Adam be thus potent, yet righteousness by Christ is more prevailing, so that we give not Christ the honour due unto him, while we are dejected through unbelief, and thy sins seem great, but not Christs obedience.  
Thirdly, Its not only a full and true Redemption, but its a perfect satisfaction, that is, 
Christs Satisfaction a perfect one.  the acceptance of Christs death did arise from the infinite worth and condignity of it, not from the mere favour of God. Indeed all those Schoolmen called the Nominals, they say, that the ground of Christs Satisfaction was from the kind acceptance and benevolence in God, and therefore they make it to be of as much favour that God did accept of Christs satisfaction, as if it had been of a pure mere man, only they grant there was more congruity in Christ to be accepted, then a mere man, because he was God also. Hence Durand is not afraid to say, that as by Adam we were made sinners; so by the same Adam we might have been made righteous, Distinct. 21. Qu. 2. lib. 3. Thus Vorstius while wavering did aclowledge Christs Satisfaction, but yet placed the ground of it in Gods gracious acceptance and receiving of it, Lubb. Error. 55. which certainly doth much dishonour Christ in the expiatory Sacrifice, he made for our sins. Indeed the Orthodox do aclowledge in a sound sense the necessity of Gods gracious acceptance of Christs Satisfaction, not as if that were not in itself Satisfactory from its worth, but because God was not bound to accept of a Surety in our stead, he might have charged the threatening upon our own persons, and so we ourselves be charged with all the guilt of sin. There could be no necessity either Natural or Moral, obliging or enforcing of him to receive a satisfaction by another: So that in this respect it was Gods favour, to accept of Christs sufferings for us. Again, Christ as a Mediator, is wholly the gift of God. The Scripture makes it Gods mere love to sand his son into the world, Christ did not merit to be a Mediator, the appointment of him for that office is attributed by Scripture wholly unto the love of God and his grace: So that it cannot be called perfect satisfaction in this sense, as if Christ by his death did so purchase our Reconciliation, that God could not in justice refuse it, for it was wholly of Gods favour that Christ was fore-ordained to be our Mediator. But then if we consider the benefits accrueing to the godly by Christs death; 
In what sense Christs Satisfaction is perfect.  these were obtained by a full and perfect satisfaction, that is, God did not by way of grace, supply what was imperfect, or indulge any defect in Christs work of our Redemption, but there was an inward equality and condignity between the price paid, and the mercy obtained; and this is fully proved, because the Scripture when it speaks of Christs death, as Heb. 10.10, 14. and Col. 2. and in other places, doth always attribute Gospel-mercies to his death, and not to the grace of God. It makes the ground and cause of mercies not to be the favour of God, but the works that Christ hath wrought; therefore it speaks far otherwise of Christ, then of the works of a godly man, When it saith the godly are saved, presently it excludes the works we do, and giveth all to Gods grace; but when it speaks of Christ, there his righteousness and works are acknowledged. Though Paul would not be found in his own righteousness, yet he is not afraid, but desireth to be in Christs righteousness; he knoweth no blemish, no fault or insufficiency can be found in that: So that we evidently see Christs satisfaction, is, 1. A true, proper one. 2. A plentiful and an abundant one. 3. A full and perfect one. It had in the way of Satisfaction all that God could require; so that there cannot be a more complete Satisfaction then this.  
Hence fourthly, This obedience of Christs it was more satisfactory to God then all the sins committed by the elect, 
More satisfactory to God then all the sins of the elect are displeasing to him.  are displeasing to God. God took more delight in his humiliation, and smelled a sweeter savour in his Sacrifice, then all our sins could offend him. Thus you heard from Rom. 5. the excellency of the gift through Christ in making righteous, did superabound the filthiness of sin in making a sinner: from this it is that God would never have suffered sin to be, had he not thereby produced a better good then sin could be evil. This certainly should admirably support the drooping soul: Oh thy sins afflict thee! Thou mournest because of the dishonour and unkindenesse that hath been in thy iniquities, thou criest out, Its not my misery, my destruction troubleth me so much, as that God is offended: Oh every thing within me trembleth, while I consider God is displeased! Let this contrite spirit but turn the eye the other way, and there it may behold Christ giving God as much honour, and satisfying his holy will, as ever thy iniquities had injured him: Oh now( God saith) fury and wrath is not in me, I have no more quarrel and controversy with thee; that Christ is become thus obedient to the cross, its enough, I have as much as my justice could demand, my frowns are turned into smiles, my rod of iron into a sceptre of grace; certainly the meditation of this should be health in thy bones, and wine to thy heart; What is that thought wherein thou art entangled all the day long, but this? God is offended with my dulness, slothfulness, and my thousand imperfections: Oh I am loathsome in my own eyes, much more in Gods: If Jacob was afraid of Laban; if Jacob was afraid to meet Esau his brother, when yet he was innocent, and had given no just cause of offence, much rather may I tremble, who provoke God all the day long: but then when I look upon Christs satisfaction, then I am acquitted: if there be no charge against Christ, no accusation against him, there is none against me. Shall Jacob then so rejoice in seeing Esau's face altered to him? Shall he say, I have seen thy face as the face of God? How much rather may the humble and believing sinner be filled with gladness, when through Christs blood God shall be thus appeased and reconciled with him! if thy unworthiness make thee diffident, so that thou canst not pled Gods free grace; yet here is an argument put in thy mouth from Christs expiatory Sacrifice, that thou mayest say, O Lord, I am unworthy, but it is just and right that Christ obtain what he died for! Its grace to me, but it is righteousness to Christ.  
Fifthly, We are to consider in sin two things, the malum creaturae, and the malum Dei. The evil of the creature is that noxious and damnable effect of it, whereby it instateth a man in a condition of all misery; the evil towards God in sin is that whereby it doth injure and offend him, being nothing but contempt of him, and if it were possible working the very destruction of God: Now Christ by his death doth satisfy God for sin, principally and in the first place, as it is offensive to God, as it dishonours him; and then secondarily and by redundancy, as its destructive of the creature; for if we remove the cause, we take away the effect; if the dishonour and offence to God be removed, then is the destructive and damnable effects of sin also taken away; onely by this we should learn, in all our humiliation and debasement for sin, to be affencted with that which is the greatest evil in it. Christ in all those unspeakable agonies of his, did satisfy chiefly for sin, as it was Gods offence, as it was a dishonour to him; so should our hearts be broken and contrite within us, mainly because we have offended him, as David, Psal. 51. Against thee, thee onely have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight, because it was against God, and in his sight, this broke his bones, this pounded his heart to dust. It was not his childes death, nor all the other miseries accompanying his sin, that did so break and bruise him, as that God was hereby displeased: Oh then that we were such a spiritual people, that could apprehended what is most to be bewailed in our transgressions; if fear of judgements and hell be the onely and alone cause of all thy trouble, thou art not yet so spiritual, as thou oughtest to be: The loss of Gods favour should be more unto thee, then all temporal evils.  
Sixthly, The righteousness of God and his Justice is seen in Christs Satisfaction from a threefold respect. 
The infinite worth of Christs obedience from three grounds.  There are three grounds of the infinity of worth in Christs obedience, and therefore it being then infinite upon all those Titles, its plain, that God would not forgive only by grace, but by justice also. The infinite worth of his obedience did arise,  
1. From the dignity of his Person, he was God-man; so that all the obedience of Angels and men if put together, could not amount to the excellency of Christs Satisfaction: Stand amazed at thy happiness, O believer, thou hast gained by thy loss, thou hast lost the obedience of a creature, but the obedience of an infinite person is now made thine; hence its many times called the righteousness of God; among other reasons, because its such as God is satisfied with, he looketh for no better, yea there can be no better. Though God hath infinite treasures of wisdom and omnipotency, yet he cannot provide a better obedience for us then this is: As God cannot love a better object then himself; This is not impotency, but potent perfection, whether this infinite dignity derived from the person of Christ to his actions, be a physical entity affecting the operations, or a moral relation by way of resultancy, though disputed by Schoolmen, yet must necessary be granted, that it s a moral relation, and so derived to every mediatory action: as if the whole value of money were only from the stamp and superscription it beareth; then whether the materials were gold, or silver, or iron, or leather, it would be nothing to the purpose, the stamp would make it to be of like worth; seeing therefore that Christ in all his mediatory actions, was God as well as man, thereby was an infinite dignity communicated to them( I say his mediatory actions) because some question whether Christ did not many human actions that were either wholly indifferent, or to a mere natural end, and no higher, but that must needs be derogatory to Christ, because To us he was born, to us he was given, to us he lived, and to us he died. All that Christ was, and did, or suffered, did mediately or immediately tend to our Redemption, and our Saviour intended that in all things.  
2. It was infinite, not only in respect of the dignity of the person, but also respectu rei obla●ae, the price offered, which was himself a Sacrifice for our sins; which made the Apostle prefer this thing above that by gold or precious stones; So that if we consider what that price or oblation was, we must needs grant an infinite dignity to it.  
3. It was infinite in respect of the manner of the oblation; or the whole mediatory Office of Christ was discharged in that manner, that it did also merit at Gods hand. It is true the habitual and actual grace of Christ in his human nature, was not entatively infinite, for so onely God is; but because of the personal union, there was infinite worth redounding to every thing he did: yet seeing the grace and holinesse of Christ, which he shewed in all that he did, was not limited, as in creatures ( for he received not the Spirit in measure.) therefore the holy manner of doing all things God required, was acceptable unto God.  
And if you object, Seeing that the dignity of Christs person did put such infinite worth upon what Christ did; Why then did not any one action satisfy? Why might not that internal acceptance, which he declared, Behold, I come to do thy will, O God! have been enough without death itself? What need many actions of infinite dignity, seeing there cannot be more then infinite?  
To this it is answered, That infinite worth, simply as so, is not enough, unless it be ordered and proportioned according to the will of him, who is to be satisfied; for if a man should give for a captive prisoner an infinite sum of money, yet if not according to such a way and a condition, as the conqueror prescribeth, though that sum of money were sufficient in itself to redeem a thousand such as that prisoner is, yet because not according to the condition prescribed, it could not be called a Satisfaction. And thus because Gods will was, that a sinner should die, though never so many glorious actions, having an infinite dignity, were accomplished; yet they could not be Satisfaction, as to this matter, unless there be such a death as was threatened.  
Seventhly, Because Christ in his Mediatory Office, was thus infinitely worthy: Hence it is that no mere creature, Angel nor man, though endowed with all imaginable perfection, could satisfy for mans sins. Some of the Schoolmen have concluded the contrary, asserting, That a pure creature might have satisfied: but as the Apostle argued, If righteousness come by the Law, then Christ died in vain; So if Salvation and Justification could come any other way, then Christ did needlessly endure ●ll those torments and agonies; and certainly it cannot be thought that Christ should put himself into such a state of Humiliation, if any supposed creature could have done it. That is true of lo, If he had not been man, non praeberet exemplum, he could not have given us an example; and if he had not been God, non praeberet remedium, he could not have procured a remedy. Therefore they do dangerously err, who hold Christ a Mediator onely in his human Nature, as that Itancarus of whom it s reported, Andr. Osiand. Disput. that he would say, There was more in Peter lombard,( who held Christ a Mediator according to his human nature) then there was in an hundred Luthers, two hundred Melancthons, or four hundred Calvins. But if Christ were wholly Mediator as man, then man as man might make an atonement to the infinite Justice of God, which is impossible: seeing whatsoever such a supposed creature could do, was wholly from the gift of God; and the more he did, the more he was obliged to God: Now Satisfaction could not be if all were of grace and Gods bounty; and in this sense it is, that Calvin said, lib. 2. Institut. cap. 17. If we should absolutely and simply oppose Christ to the judgement of God, there could be no place for merit, because in man there could not be found any such worth. This reason doth plainly evince, That Calvin speaks of Christ, as supposed a mere man; so that its a violent perverting of his meaning by the jesuit Sandaeus Hydrus Hollandicus, when he would from this infer, That by Calvins principles, the Doctrine of Satisfaction cannot be maintained. Thus virulent also is Mentzer the Lutheran from that passage in Calvin and Meisner, who though otherwise a learned Lutheran, from other doctrinal principles of the Calvinists, would lay down this conclusion, He that would avoid Photinianism must eschew Calvinism, Anthrop. Sac. Dec. 3. But all this is maliciously affirmed, for none are more solid maintainers of this truth then they are.  
Eighthly, From hence we may see how infinitely we are obliged to God for all the grace we have. There is not the pardon of the least sin, or the least degree of grace, but it came unto thee upon a dear rate; it was more then if God should have created a world only for thee; yea thou art more bound to God for the least spiritual mercy thou hast, then all the Angels in heaven are for all the grace they have; for then God did but will and command, and they were filled with all holinesse immediately; but here Christ must die, he must become a Sacrifice, and die a cursed death, ere we could have a drop of mercy: Oh what enlarged hearts should we have upon the discovery of any Gospel-mercy vouchsafed to us! How much was required ere this could be? Every mercy was purchased by the precious blood of Christ; so that our hearts and mouths should be filled with joy and praises: how much did this work on Paul? Because Christ loved him, and gave himself for him, Gal. 3.   

SERM. XI. Why it was necessary our Redemption should be by way of Justice, with Distinctions of natural Necessity. And whether God could have Remitted Sin without Satisfaction, modestly discussed.  ROM. 3.26. To declare his Righteousness, that he might be just, &c. 
THe final cause of our Justification is in this Text set down generally, and then divided into two particulars, The finis cujus, and the finis cvi.  
The finis cujus I shall at this time accomplish; and for the other, viz. finis cvi, I shall take another Text. The end for the sake whereof God will justify us through Christs blood, as a Satisfactory Atonement, is to declare his Justice and righteousness, that he doth not onely abhor it, but will punish it, with his severest wrath, and therefore spareth not his son, when he will become Surety for a sinner; That Christ made a true and proper Satisfaction by his blood to Gods Justice, hath been proved at large. 
Why it was necessary we should be redeemed in a way of Justice.   
Let us proceed to show the grounds of this way, Why it was necessary that we should be redeemed in a way of Justice, as well as of Mercy and Power. For some decry this as a most absurd and profane imagination. Now besides the Scripture Texts, which you have heard plainly declaring Gods will to redeem man in this manner, and no other, we may conceive two grounds of it.  
And the first is, From the Nature of sin. It is of an infinite guilt, 
From the nature of sin.  and hath an infinite evil in the nature of it, and therefore no mere creature, but that person who had an infinite dignity could make Satisfaction for it. Its a Rule received by all, That by how much greater and more noble the person is, to whom the offence is made, by so much the offence is the greater, as judas vers. 8.9. aggravates some mens sins from the excellency of the object, They speak evil of dignities. When Shimei cursed David, the King and chief governor of the Land, it was more heinous then if he had done it to one of the meaner sort. Hence in respect of the object, The crucifying of Christ was a crimson sin, because he was the son of God, and the Lord of glory; The death of all the men in the world was not so much as his: Now seeing the majesty and honour of God is infinite, and there is no proportion between a creatures glory, and Gods glory: Therefore every sin being injurious to this Majesty, and offensive of his glory, it must have an infinite evil and guilt in it.  
Indeed the Schoolmen dispute, Whether sin can properly be said to be an infinite evil? Some grant, that in some respect it may be called infinite, because its against an infinite God, whose Majesty is incomprehensible, but this is wholly extrinsical, for God is not the intrinsical object of the soul, no not when it enjoyeth him in the most happy manner. Now if this be granted, its enough to us, that seeing sin hath at least thus far an infinite demerit in it, because committed against a God of unsearchable Glory and Majesty, therefore none can make compensation or satisfy, but such an one, who hath as much honour and worth in him, as sin brought dishonour; and this can onely be God and man, who though as a man did things humiliter, yet as God they were done sublimiter.  
But there are others that say the evil of sin is infinite intrinsically, because it doth offend God, in quantum est offendibilis, as far as he can be offended; for that sin doth not actually hurt God, and destroy him, is from his infinite perfection: if the sinner by his sin could effect the ruin of the Divine Majesty, he would. Hence by the first Commandment we are forbidden, To make to ourselves any other gods but him; Every sinner sets up another God besides him: Now that is to offend God as highly as he can be offended; Every sinner making the object of his sin another God, provokes God as much as God can be provoked; Those that made their belly their God, Phil. 3.19. And covetousness being called Idolatry, Col. 3.5. as the Poet said, Clausum arcâ custodit Jovem. These sinners sitting up creatures in the room of God, offend him infinitely; so that if a creature could love God in quantum est amabilis, that would be infinite love; hence God onely loveth himself; so because sin is an offence against him, as far as he can be offended, therefore it may well be said to have an infinite evil and guilt in it. Neither( say the same Authors) will this make every sin alike, because one infinite cannot be more then another; for although in respect of the aversion from God, and offence to him, all are alike, and therefore all are punished equally poenâ damni, with the loss of God; yet in respect of their conversion or turning to the creature, which is the cause of turning from God, so there is a difference: As( say they) darkness is in itself a total privation of light, yet as there may be causes impeding this light, so one darkness may be greater then another: Howsoever these things are, yet to be sure the Scripture speaks of sin, as an offence, rebellion and despising of God; and he being the Jehovah, and fountain of all good and excellency, sin doth thereby derive such guilt upon the offender, that unless there be a greater good, then all the sins collectively are an evil, there cannot be any true and proper satisfaction. And indeed the wisdom of God would not have suffered evil to be, had he not known thereby to procure a greater good.  
The second main ground, why God doth justify by way of satisfaction, 
From the nature of his justice.  is, From that glorious property of his Justice, whereby as he hateth sin, so he doth propend to punish it. This property we have asserted by many places of Scripture, because the Socinians deny it, making Mercy and Justice( or as they call it anger) no properties in God, but mere voluntary effects of his free will, which being laid down as a foundation, then the superstruction must be, That Christ did not die by way of Satisfaction, at least, there was no necessity of it. But we affirm, That as Mercy, Omnipotency and Wisdom, so Justice also, whereby he inclineth to punish sin, is natural to God.  
Indeed even amongst the Orthodox, there is difference of Judgements, at least in this point, Whether primitive Justice was so natural to God, supposing sin to be, that he could not remit it without Satisfaction? But happily by a distinction or two the difference may be reconciled.  

Distinctions of natural necessities. And whether God could remit sin without Satisfaction.  1. Concerning Natural, which Paraeus Comment. in 2d cap. Gen,& cap 9. ad Rom. Dub. 12. hath out of Aquinas, That a thing may be said to be natural two ways, either, 1. When it necessary and merely floweth from the principles of nature; thus the fire burneth naturally, the ston descends naturally. Or secondly, When it floweth from the principles of nature, but by the mediation and intervention of free will. Thus to understand, to will, to laugh, to speak, are natural actions to man, yet so as the exercise of them is subjected unto our free will. Thus when we say its natural to God to punish and correct sin, we mean in the later sense; not as if God must necessary punish as soon as ever it is committed, or that he must punish to the utmost every time, as natural Agents work to the utmost they can: but the exercise of this, is subject to his wisdom and liberty.  
2. When we say God doth necessary punish sin, because he is just in his nature, we must distinguish of necessity, 1. There is an absolute and immutable necessity: Thus God only is necessary, it being impossible that God should not be. 2. There is a limited and respective necessity, and that sometimes from the efficient cause, because he is thus or thus disposed; as when it is said, 1 Cor. 10. There must be heresies, that is, partly in respect of the efficient cause, because there will be ignorance and pride always in men, although the Text mentioneth there onely the final cause.  
2. From the material cause. Thus death is necessary and inevitable, because we have principles of corruptibility within us.  
3. From the formal cause, because that is immutable and unchangeable.  
4. From the final cause, supposing such an end. Now its true in the former sense, it was not necessary to have Christs Satisfaction; for it was not absolutely necessary that mankind should be redeemed: God might have passed it by, as he did the apostate Angels. Hence Heb. 2.10. Gods love is aggravated, That he took not the Nature of Angels, but the seed of Abraham.  
But for the later kindes of necessity, some are true here, as there was a necessity of pardoning sin by Satisfaction, in respect of the efficient cause God, seeing by nature he loathes and hates sin.  
2. From the final cause, seeing he purposed in procuring our Salvation to glorify his Mercy and Justice, he would not punish all sin with eternal damnation, nor yet let all go unpunished, but would manifest himself both just and merciful; supposing this, it was necessary that sin should not be pardonned without satisfaction.  
Thirdly, A thing may be absolute and necessary, either quoad exercitium actus, in respect of the exercise of the act, or the specification and manner of it; or rather thus, The objects of some properties in God, may be said to be necessary. Or secondly, The objects supposed, then the acts are necessary. To Gods Omnipotency there is required no object, because it makes its objects: and so to Gods wisdom there is required no qualification in the object, for he can order every thing to a glorious end; but to Gods Mercy and Justice, there are not onely required objects, but objects so qualified either with grace and sin. Therefore when we say, that it is natural to God to punish sin, we mean not, as if God must naturally create a world, and procure man to be a sinner, but these things were done by Gods free-will; only suppose man doth fall and become a sinner, then Gods Justice requireth the punishment of it; So that it was free to God whether he would create man or no, yet supposing man is fallen, then its not free whether he will be just in his actions to the sinner or no.  
These distinctions might clear the point, but because even amongst the Orthodox, there are different assertions in this matter, let us discuss it a little more.  
There are several learned Authors, that hold Gods Justice in correcting and punishing sin is so natural, that he cannot but punish it, or require Satisfaction, otherwise he should deny himself and his own Nature; and this is not to derogate from his Omnipotency and Perfection, no more then to say, he cannot lye; but it ariseth from his infinite Perfection. Thus hold many excellent Writers, Piscator amica Collati. cum Vorst. Lubbertus 99. Error. Vorst. Paraeus in cap. 2. Genes.& cap. 9. ad Rom. Dub. 12. Brocheus Animad. in Vorst. Martin. de persona Christi. Steg. Photin. pag. 506, 507. and many others.  
There are again others that say, If God be considered absolutely in respect of his power, and not upon a supposition of his decree, which is de facto to let no sin go unpunished, but to punish it either in the person or his surety; In this absolute sense they say, God might freely have remitted sin without any Satisfaction, and that there were other ways of our salvation then by redemption through Christ. Augustine several times affirmeth this, especially Ser. 3. de Sanct. Domini, God saith he, would so repair man, that he would not let sin go unpunished, because he is just, nor yet let it be incurable, because he is merciful, Potuit aliter fieri quantum ad potentiam Medici, &c. If we consider the power of the physician, he could have done otherwise: but that place is most notable and urged by all that go this way, lib. 3. de Trin. 13. cap. 10. where he saith, Another way of healing our misery, was possible to God, but there was none more convenient then this; Though these places do assert another way possible, yet they do not determine whether that other way would have been without Satisfaction or not: Calvin indeed speaks peremptorily to this purpose, in cap. 15. John v. 13. Poterat vel solo verbo, aut nutu nos redimere, &c. God might by a mere word or command have redeemed us, but he took this way through his Son, that his love might be made more manifest. And the Schoolmen generally following lombard their Master, and he also following Augustine from the forementioned place, do with one consent conclude, God might forgive sin without any Satisfaction, and that Christs death is necessary onely hypothetically, upon a supposition of Gods Decree, to take this way rather then another. Hence Sandaeus the jesuit, ( Hydrus Holland) makes the catholic truth, as he calls it, to be between the Socinians and the Calvinists, determining, that God will not de facto pardon sin without Satisfaction, against the Socinians; yet absolutely he could have done otherwise, against the Protestants. But his malice deceiveth him in this, for many Orthodox Protestants, yea and Calvin himself aclowledge, God might have redeemed us by his sole Command or word. And of late the learned Doctor Twiss hath a digression on purpose against Piscator and Lubbertus in this very point, Vind. lib. 1. de elect. Digress. 8. But seeing both Lubbertus and Dr Twiss himself do aclowledge that distinction mentioned by Paraeus about a two-fold naturality, I see no reason why he should so industriously confute Lubbertus, neither do his Arguments seem pressing.  
For my own thoughts I shall declare them in these particulars:  
1. Its agreed on by all hands( except the Socinians) that whatsoever God might have done, yet he hath plainly revealed his will, that he will not pardon sin, no not the least sin without a price paid, and an atonement made. God hath decreed this way and no other, he hath revealed himself to be a God that will not acquit the guilty, and that will judge even the least sins, though they be but idle thoughts and words: Seeing therefore God hath pitched upon this way, it seemeth superfluous and useless to dispute about the possibility of another way, and indeed it would be mis-spent time, but that the Socinians necessary plunge us into it, denying any such Justice of God, as thereby to punish sin, but making it wholly arbitrary to punish or not punish: so that to evidence this truth the more about Gods righteousness requiring Christs Satisfaction, we may soberly and modestly inquire into it.  
Yet in the second place, What Doctor is there, though never so subtle, angelical or profound, that can positively determine this? Who knoweth the deep treasuries of Gods power? Who can comprehend his nature? Therefore it becometh either party of the dissentients to deliver their judgement soberly, and not to condemn one another, seeing one pretends a zeal to Gods Justice, that it would be derogatory to suffer the contempt of his Majesty without punishing; and the other they declare a zeal to Gods Omnipotency, that he is not to be bounded as men, but having no superior above him, may do what he please.  

The Authors opinion in the point.  These 2 things premised, I do incline to that opinion, which holdeth, That a corrective or vindicative Justice is natural and essential to God, so that he cannot but punish sin, or have satisfaction, and an atonement by a Surety: Provided that natural be taken in this sense, for that which floweth from nature, yet by the help of free-will and reason; as we say, to laugh, to speak, to will, is natural to a man. And there are these Reasons preponderating with me for it.  
First, The Scripture when it speaketh of Gods punishing sin, doth not attribute it merely to his Will and Decree, but to his just nature, because he is a righteous God. Thus Psal. 11.7. when the Psalmist had described the judgements of God upon the ungodly, he infereth it from the righteousness of his Nature, Because he is a righteous God, he will thus punish them also. Rev. 16.15. The judgements which God there executed upon the Churches enemies, are said to be, because he is a righteous God: Seeing therefore that the Scripture when it speaks of the punishing of sin, doth not attribute it merely to his free-will and power, but because of his just nature, whereby he hateth sin, and as Judge of the world will be avenged on it; Therefore we may affirm, such justice as its an attribute, is essential to God, though the effects of it, are subject to his free-will, to punish when, where and how he will.  
Secondly, If God punish sin merely from his will, then it must follow, that sin or no sin is all one to him: That God in his own nature is not more moved with all the blasphemies and impieties of the world, then if there were none at all; For if God by nature doth not incline to punish sin, but its mere will, then it is no more then when God purposed to create the world, or to make it rain: As it was nothing to Gods nature to make a world, or not make it; to cause it to rain, or not to rain; such an indifferent thing sin must be to God; But how can this stand with those places, that say, God is of purer eyes then to behold iniquity, Hab. 1? And that, God is angry with the wicked every day? And if the Adversaries think it hard to say, That God cannot pardon the least sin without satisfaction, certainly it is more difficult to say, That all the sins of the world may be forgiven, though men never humble themselves, and repent of them.  
Thirdly, If God punish sin merely from his will, and not from his Nature, How is it that all men have implanted in them such principles about God, that he will punish sin? Why is it, that upon the committing of any sin, there is trembling, and a remorse of conscience? Neither can it be said, This is because God by his Word hath revealed he will punish it; for even Heathens and Pagans they have such implantations upon their conscience, they have been able to say, that a wicked man though he may be securus, yet he is never tutus, that Gods judgement hangs over his head, as a drawn sword. And this the Apostle verifieth of them, Rom. 1.32. That they know {αβγδ} the just judgement of God. How came they to know this, but from an engraffed principle of conscience within?  
Fourthly, The Scripture speaking of damnation, and the punishment of sin, attributeth it not only to God ordaining such a reward, but to the merit and desert of sin itself. Thus Rom. 1.32. they that do such things are said to be worthy of death; Why worthy? Or whence doth the desert of hell arise? Is it merely because God will? Or not rather, because sin being a dishonour to God doth deserve it? If then sin do deserve eternal wrath, then its from Gods justice, not from his mere will that sin is punished.  
Fifthly, This seemeth much to derogate from the Lord Christ, if he came into the world, and to undergo all those agonies he did for sin, and yet sin might have been forgiven without it. If sin could have been pardonned without Christ, why was the beloved Son of God made a curse, and died such a reproachful death for us? And certainly, seeing that our Redemption must be by way of Satisfaction, and that requireth a person of infinite dignity, I wonder how any can think any other way was possible, unless we may imagine that the Father or the holy Ghost might have been incarnated, for no mere creature could be a Mediator to reconcile God and man; and certainly, seeing that Austin himself saith, Though other ways were possible, yet none is so convenient; this is to give up their cause; for who can tell, whether God could not find out a more convenient way as well as possible? And if not, then certainly we must conclude, that such is the excellency and perfection of God, that he always takes the most excellent and perfect way. And thus much shall suffice for the clearing of this main Article of Religion.  
And let the godly soul make this Use of it, to admire the wisdom and knowledge of God, who, when mankind was utterly lost, and as hopeless as the Apostate Angels; When Justice stood with a fiery sword to keep man from all happiness, that then God should provide a way for our salvation. This is that glorious mystery into which the Angels desire to search, though not so much concerned in it; and shall not the godly man much more study it? For now he hath two tenors to hold his pardon and salvation by, Free grace and Justice; Free grace, in respect of himself; Justice, in respect of Christ. If thou think Free grace will not acquit such a wretch as thou art, then know a full price is laid down to discharge thee of all thy sins: So that now when the Prince of the world comes against thee, thou mayest say in some sense as Christ did, He can find nothing in thee, for how can he accuse thee, seeing Christ is thy Surety? The bond hath been sued upon him, he would not leave one farthing unpaid. Therefore the godly man may live and die without fear, he may well with Paul cry out, Who can lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? Its Christ that died. This answers Law, Devils, Conscience, Justice, and all. As Paul said to Philemon concerning Onesimus, If he have wronged thee, or oweth thee any thing, put it on my account: So doth our Mediator to God, If these owe thee any thing, or have wronged thy Majesty, put it on me. Paul indeed added, I Paul have written it with my own hand, but Christ hath ratified and confirmed it with his own blood.    

SECT. III. Of the Justification of a Sinner.  

SERM. XII. Sheweth what Justification is, and what are the Adjuncts, Properties, and Effects of it.  ROM. 8.33. It is God that Justifieth. 
THough human Histories relate the stately pomp and wonderful glory that great Emperours and conquerors have triumphed in, yet who so readeth from the 31. vers. to the last of this Chapter, must say, that all the Caesars in their highest glory were not equal to Paul in the heavenly triumph he makes in these verses; so that as Elijah had his fiery chariot carrying him to heaven, thus this part of the Chapter may be called Pauls Divine Chariot, whereby he is exalted as high as heaven, with a powerful conquest over all enemies.  
The Apostle having in the former part of the Chapter treated of many admirable privileges Gods children do enjoy at vers. 31. he begins to be overwhelmed in his Meditations, and suffers his spiritual deliquiums, as being not able to say any more, What shall we say to these things? As if he had said, My soul suffereth violence within me, I cannot go any further. A sea of eloquence is but a drop to this infinite matter; Like the Queen of Sheba, seeing the glory of Solomon, and beginning to faint within her; thus doth Paul, beholding the excellent glory God puts on his children, and having after this divine ecstasy, something recovered himself, he instances in three sad temptations which usually afflict and pessundate the godly, giving three strong Antidotes and Cordials against them.  
The first temptation is from the external power and force, which the enemies of Gods Church use to the crushing and breaking of the godly, though Christ will at last break them with a rod of iron, yet in the mean time they thus break his people. Now to this, saith Paul, If God be for us, Who can be against us? If God be for us, it is not a speech of doubting, but raciocinating; Si is for Quoniam, seeing God is for us, Who can be against us? Is any greater then God? Is any more powerful then him? Thou mayst well oppose God to all enemies; they have earthly power, but I have God; they boast of their Titles and Names, but how glorious are the Titles and Attributes of God?  
A second temptation is from the want of these necessary, outward comforts. The people of God are sometimes not the Divesses, but the Lazarusses of the world; Though they have an interest in all promises, yet for the present they may be destitute and wanting all things. To this the Apostle giveth a strong Cordial, If he hath given us his son, then whom nothing is dearer or more precious, How shall he not with him give us all things else? What is food and raiment to Christ?  
A third temptation, which is the sorest of all, is from sin, The Law accusing us, the Devil charging us, and our own hearts and consciences condemning us. Now to this, see what a triumphing challenge he makes, Who shall lay any thing to Gods elect? Its God that justifieth.  
So that in the words we have a quick and sharp interrogation, with a vehement and complete responsion.  
The interrogation is, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? He doth not say, Who shall condemn them? though he mentioneth that in the next place, But who shall so much as charge them? draw up a bill and indite them? Many men may be accused and indicted, and yet not condemned, but here the Apostle doth not only deny the later, but the former also, none can condemn them, yea none can charge them or accuse them, for the reason is, It is God that justifieth. Some of old red this also interrogatively, Doth God that justifieth them? Doth he lay to their charge? But it runs most smoothly without an interrogation.  
In the words we have the efficient cause, God; and the action attributed to him, he justifieth, or {αβγδ}, who is justifying, If God justify none can accuse, seeing he is the supreme Judge, and all the mulcts which issue out of the Courts of conscience go in his name. If therefore they have not Gods Name and Authority to warrant them, they are not to be regarded; if God gives an acquittance or discharge, none dare oppose, for the Greek word {αβγδ} I shall speak more in the Explication.  

observe.  That there is a glorious privilege vouchsafed to the believer, which the Scripture calls Justification. This is the very Marrow of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, and therefore we are to give the more attendance to it. Luther said, Praefat. in Galat. That this Article of Justification did reign in his heart, that night and day his thoughts did flow and reflow about it. Its the Centre wherein all theological truths do meet. Its the Ocean that by its several streams watereth and refresheth the Paradise, the Church of God. Its the Ark of faith, all Religion is kept pure, while this is kept pure. Its accounted one instance of the prophetical spirit in Luther, that he fore-saw this Doctrine would be after his time greatly obscured; and indeed not onely Papists, but all sorts of heretics have throw a many dead flies in this precious ointment; so that the Doctrine of it being of such vast consequence, it calls for all able learned men to keep this Spring pure: As every wound in the heart is mortal, so every error about Justification is dangerous: Therefore it is a licentious expression of that Leviathan, hobbs Deceiver, cap. 18. who sports himself in all Political, Ethical and Theological matter, when he saith, The Disputations about justifying faith are merely Philosophical, and so not essential to Religion; and thus the Remonstrants makes it not a straws matter, whether we say, Fides quae viva, or quà viva justificat, whereas these particulars declare a vast difference; as when we speak of Christ, it would be to say, Christus qui Deus est moritur, and quâ Deus est, Christ who is God died, and as he is God he died, the former is a truth, the later is blasphemy; and besides this Doctrine is very necessary practically, how many thousands are ignorant of it, that know not what Justification is, that which they need more then their daily bread: that which they want as much as their breath, even every moment, of this they are wholly unskilful.  
Let us therefore enter into this Land of Canaan that floweth with milk and honey. 
Divers Propositions tending to clear the point of justification.  And  
First, Let us be informed what it is, and afterwards what the adjuncts and properties and effects of it. And if the Philosophers assertion be, that by the name of a thing we come to the nature of it; 
Of the signification of the word.  this must hold much more in this point of Justification, whereas the matter and thing itself is peculiar and proper, revealed only by the Word, so is the name and phrase to express it by, for the Greek word {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, answering the Hebrew word Hizdick in Hyphil is used in another signification, then commonly it is with human Authors, for Hysichius makes it to signify {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}.  
Suidas attributes two significations to it, {αβγδ} to punish, and {αβγδ}, to judge that which is just and equal, and for the most part it is used of things and not of persons.  
Stephanus, Thes. ling. Tom. 1. allegeth many places out of profane Authors, where the word is used, and all to this purpose to judge that which is just, or to be as much as {αβγδ} or simply to judge, and sometimes from {αβγδ} to condemn, and with Aristotle {αβγδ} is opposed {αβγδ} to obtain our right, which when a man doth not, but is unjustly dealt with, then he is said {αβγδ}; but in the Scripture use of the word it is most commonly attributed to persons, and signifieth not to punish or condemn, as often with human authors; hence their public places of punishment were called {αβγδ}, as Hesychius saith;& Nazianzen calls hell, or the place there of the damned, {αβγδ}, but to justify and absolve, to acquit a person as righteous: And herein the New Testament followeth the Septuagint use of it, although the word be used most frequently by Paul. Now the Septuagint they translate the word Hizdick, or as if used in other conjugations most commonly by {αβγδ} or {αβγδ} about twenty four times, but once by {αβγδ}, Job 27.5. we render it, God forbid I should justify you, once {αβγδ}, Prov. 27.5. He that justifieth the wicked, {αβγδ}, Job 13.18. I know I shall be justified, {αβγδ}, Should a man full of talk be justified? {αβγδ}. Job 4.17. Shall a man be more just then his Maker? Dan. 8.14. {αβγδ}, The Sanctuary shall be cleansed, in the Hebrew it is, Shall be justified, but the word is in Niphal. In all other places the Septuagint useth {αβγδ} or {αβγδ}, and in all of them, when the word is used in Hiphil, It signifieth either the absolving or acquitting of one righteous, or the declaration of a mans righteousness by some outward testimony. This being clear in the Scripture, and asserted as the first Proposition, therefore we lay down a second.  
Secondly, That to justify in a Scripture sense is to absolve or pronounce a man righteous, not to infuse or put righteousness into a man. Here is the great contest between the Papists and us; We say the word is taken from Courts of Justice, when a person accused is absolved and so used in a juridical sense; They say it signifieth to make inherently just and righteous, as calefaction signifieth to make inherently hot, and Sanctification to make inherently holy. Now this is not a vain strife of words, for the great Article of our Religion depends upon the right discovery of the use of the word: If to justify signify to give us an inherent righteousness, then by that we may appear before God; in the confidence of that we may live and die; we must still look to something within us; but if to justify signify to acquit us being accused for sin through the grace of God, and the righteousness of Christ, then we are to go out of ourselves to renounce every thing that is ours, we are to look without us, we are with Paul, Phil. 3. Not to be found in our own righteousness, but that which is by faith in Christ. It is the judgement of the Protestants, that the word is constantly used so in the Scripture, and that the adversaries are never yet able to produce any one place to the contrary, insomuch that Bellarmine himself confesseth, this is the most common use of the word. Neither do the Papists onely interpret the word justify for Justification, or making righteous by habitual and actual righteousness. But the Socinians also, and all their Interpolators. Castelli de Justif. doth industriously set himself to prove, that to justify is to heal a man of his sins by inward sanctification, though he aclowledge the Scripture-use of the word in the sense before-mentioned, neither can he instance in any one place to the contrary.  
But when we say its a juridical word, the meaning is not, as if it were applied only to Judges in their judicial acts; for its many times applied to particular persons justifying either themselves or others, only we say, when applied to God, it signifieth a judicial absolution, for here in this Text, there are accusations and condemnations supposed, to which Justification is opposed; and indeed if to justify were to endow us with holinesse and righteousness, then considering how imperfect and weak the best mans graces are, there would be enough to lay to his charge; so that with Cain he would be forced to cry out, My sins are greater then I can bear. Indeed there is a speech of Calvins questioned by Vorstius, de Justitia Dei, when he saith, That God in justifying of us, doth Quodammodo deponere personam judicis; and the Arminians make two distinct, as it were, Thrones of Gods, a Throne of Grace, and a Throne of Justice( Lubbert. cont. Bertium;) and this they do, that so their {αβγδ} credere may be accounted of for an universal righteousness to Justification: but as you heard, and shall be manifested more( God willing) God doth not pronounce any righteous, but he that hath a perfect righteousness; now seeing no godly mans righteousness, much less faith itself, which is but a particular grace, is all the righteousness we ought to have: Therefore we must look out for some more perfect and enduring righteousness then this is; for the present take notice, that most of the places of Scripture speaking of Justification, make it a discharging and acquitting from accusations, and so doth legally make just, not qualitatively, Deut. 25.1. Isa. 5.23. Prov. 17.15. And indeed to justify a wicked man could not be an abomination to the Lord, if to justify were to make just and holy, for this would be acceptable to God.  
Those two places often instanced in by the Papists, are as often answered by the Orthodox, Dan. 12.3. They that are justifiers of many, or as we render it, That turn many to righteousness, shall be as the stars, for the Ministers of the Word do not justify by infusing holinesse into their teachers, but by informing and instructing of them how to attain to this benefit, and by a declarative application of Gods grace to the humbled, repenting sinner, in which sense they are said to remit and loose sin, which is to justify instrumentally, even as they are said to regenerate, 1 Cor. 4.13. and save, 1 Tim. 4.16. instrumentally.  
The other place is Revel. 22.11. He that is righteous, let him be righteous, or justified still. Some Divines will indeed grant, that Justification taken largely and improperly, may comprehend under it Sanctification also, for God never justifieth, but those he sanctifieth, yet there is no necessity to understand it so here, seeing it may only denote, that he who is righteous should abide and continue in the state of Justification, For though holy works do not justify, yet by them a man is continued in a state and condition of Justification: so that did not the Covenant of Grace interpose, gross and wicked ways would cut off our Justification, and put us in a state of condemnation. Let this then be concluded on, That Justification is a legal or juridical word; so that if men guilty of crimes, especially capital, tremble at those Summons which bring them before the Judge, How much more should we at those sins for which we shall be arraigned at Gods bar? So that if God did not mercifully absolve us through Christ, we must necessary undergo that eternal doom, which is due unto our sins.  
Thirdly, Justification being thus an absolution of us, and pronouncing of us righteous, there is necessary implied thereby, that we are indeed made and constituted righteous; For seeing God pronounceth a curse against him that justifieth the wicked, we cannot or must not think, that because God is said to justify the ungodly, Rom. 4. that God doth that which he abhorreth in us; for though the person justified be in himself a sinner, yet at the same time believing in Christ, and putting Christs righteousness upon him, he is made a partaker of a perfect righteousness, by which he is justified. Hence Rom. 5.19. By one mans obedience shall many be made righteous, where by obedience is not meant onely Christs death, but his active conformity to the Law of God, neither is that expression to be understood of inherent righteousness, as is more largely to be shewed: God then when he pronounceth us righteous, judgeth according to truth; So that in this we need not contest with the Papist, Whether it signify to make righteous or no, onely we deny it to make righteous inherently, we are truly and really made righteous, but not by a perfect renovation of the whole man in a full conformity to Gods will. This if duly considered must revive the heart of every true believer: He thinketh, How shall I come with my rags into the presence of so glorious and holy a Majesty? How shall I so full of sin and imperfection, come into Gods presence? Is it not as offensive, as it was for those croaking frogs to creep into Pharaohs chamber? Oh remember that thou art a just and righteous man, not in thyself, but in Christ, in whom is no blemish! When God beholds his Church in Christ, then he saith, Cant. 3. Thou art all fair, my Beloved, there is no spot in thee; yet this doth not degenerate into that Antinomian position, That God seeth no sin in his people, nor doth chastise them for it, as is to be shewed.  
Fourthly, Seeing that to justify is to constitute, and to declare or pronounce righteous; therefore in the third place, it signifieth to attribute all those testimonies either real or verbal to a person so justified, as if he were inherently and completely righteous. Thus when God is said to be justified, Psal. 51. that is, because he is indeed just and righteous, to aclowledge this in the world, so to speak of him, and so to celebrate all his providences, as one that doth dispense every thing with much wisdom and purity. Thus wisdom is said to be justified of her children, Matth. 11.19. Although learned men much differ about the sense of that place, and give contrary Interpretations, Some understanding the word to signify reproved and condemned, because Christ was disallowed by the Jews, as the Greek word is used sometime in human authors: Howsoever, when a person is made righteous, and so pronounced, then whatsoever promises and privileges are appointed for righteous persons, he may claim and expect: hence the effects of such a Justification, are such, that none can have but righteous persons, as Rom. 5.1, 2. Being justified we have peace with God; and Ephes. 3. We may come boldly to the throne of grace. There is none can lay any thing to our charge: What can be said more of Angels and Saints in Heaven? None can blame them, accuse or condemn them, and this justified persons have in this life; Oh the depth, breadth and length of this glorious mercy! Now the believer, though compassed about with many infirmities, may as boldly walk abroad, and be afraid or ashamed of no nakedness, no more then Adam before his fall: Though it is not upon his doing the Law that he liveth, yet it is upon Christs fulfilling of it: When Joseph is discharged out of prison, then he feareth no more arrests, yea he is preferred to the greatest glory and honour that can be in the Court: Why is it that men leave not the thoughts of all other things to be instated in this freedom? Did they so much esteem a freedom in the City of Rome? How much more ought we to be of that City in Heaven? for there neither Law, or Conscience, or Devils have any thing to do with us, we are no more under their dominion.  
Fifthly, Justification in the Gospel-way doth always suppose some accusation, some charge, and therefore he must have been a sinner that is thus justified. Indeed the Apostle speaks of a Justification by works, as Rom. 2.13. The doers of the Law shall be justified; and Gal. 2.16. There he argueth against such a Justification, but this is only a supposed and imagined one; The presumptuous Jew being confident in his own righteousness thought to introduce such an one: for now since man fallen all the Justification that is, proceedeth by pardoning our infirmities, and imputing Christs righteousness unto us. Hence Adam if he had continued would have been justified, and so the confirmed Angels are, but not in that notion or way as the Scripture-justification is declared to be: for Adam and the elect Angels, have no matter or desert of accusation, there was not the least blemish in their natures; Therefore our Justification differs specifically from them; yea our Justification before God, differs much from a judicial absolution in the Courts of men, for with them the more faults are pardonned, the less is he justified; yea a man that is pardonned is not said to be justified, but when crimes are charged upon him, and he proveth himself not guilty, then is the Judge said to justify him. But it is not thus in Gods Court, for there the sinner is arraigned and found guilty, it is too plain he hath transgressed this and that command, he cannot hid it, or cover it: Now then, God by looking upon us through Christ, who made himself an atonement for our sins, doth absolve and pronounce us just: Oh then that believers did understand Gods way better! There is nothing more innate and natural to man, then to be his own self-justifier, still to think, that for the goodness of his heart, and the holinesse of his works, he shall be accepted of. The Jews Rom 9.1. whatsoever Paul said, yet would go about to establish their own righteousness. Men may sooner be convinced to part with their sins, then with their seeming righteousness in matter of Justification; What was it that made Luther lye in a very hell so long, that he often wished he had never been a man, the terrors of sin were so great upon him? But because he was ignorant of Gods way in justifying. Till a man be thoroughly Evangelized, he cannot but think, he must go with his full works to God that he may be justified, and till he hath them, he must excruciate and torment himself, as being under daily fears and bondage; so that its one of the difficultest lessons, and that which Christs Scholars in his highest form do only learn, to go out of their holinesse and duties by faith to Christ for righteousness, as well as by conversion to turn from their sins to God. Indeed men corrupted in their opinions judge otherwise, as Castellio lib. de Justic. he makes this relying on anothers righteousness, viz. Christs, to be a sweet pleasing thing to flesh and blood, as if men had rather do this then mortify any one sin; but as the Sun can never be without light; so neither can this righteousness be with out true holinesse: So that although many mens mouths are like open sepulchers against this way of Justification, yet it being so clearly discovered in the Scripture, and the Saints recorded to tremble at their own righteousness, lest God should enter into judgement with them because of it; Therefore all the godly are to look on this, as the Anchor of their souls, as the only City of Refuge, as that they only can live with and die with, without which what was said of Judas might be true of every one, It had been better he had never been born.   

SERM. XIII. A particular Description of Justification.  ROM. 8.33. It is God that Justifieth. 
SOme Propositions have been already delivered for the clearing of this necessary and precious Doctrine of Justification, of which we are to say, as God of the Land of Israel, Our eyes and our hearts are to be upon it all the day long. We shall at this present add more. And  
First, Though Justification be not an infusing of such holinesse and righteousness into us, that thereby we are justified, yet this Justification is never without a Sanctification of our natures: So that this Doctrine gives no just ground for those profane calumnies Papists and others make, as if we held that men, though wallowing in sin, were justified by God, as if because Christs righteousness was imputed to them, there needed no other holinesse at all. Hence do they so much deride this righteousness as putative; yea Castalia( lib. de Justif.) mocketh the Orthodox with their putative modesty and putative learning, but this is an impudent slander; for we profess over and over again, That inherent righteousness, and imputed are inseparably annexed, neither is the Question, Whether God doth renew us by his Spirit, and sanctify our natures when he justifieth us? But Whether this be our Justification? Even the Papists themselves aclowledge, That besides this Justification and infused righteousness they speak of, there is requisite also remission of sins, or a judicial absolution, only they make this either previous or concomitant, or subsequent to our Justification. This then is confessed on all sides, That an inherent godliness and holinesse every justified person hath; But the Question is, Whether for this within him he be justified, or for something without him? We say, The righteousness of the most eminent person that is, cannot stand in Gods sight, neither can the just God who pronounceth of things as they are, declare that to be a perfect righteousness which is not. Now its plain, That all godly men find and feel imperfections in their most holy things: One would think that one passage, Psal. 143.2. is enough to satisfy all, where David, though a man after Gods own heart, yet prayeth, That God would not enter into judgement with him, because in his sight no man living can be justified. He doth not say, he himself, but no man living; for, saith Augustine, Vidit totam vitam humanam circumlatrari peccatis suis, upon Psal. 130. If thou markest our iniquities, O Lord, who should stand? Our imperfections and sins are like so many dogs barking about us that we cannot stir this foot or that foot, but one sin or other doth immediately open the mouth against us. Though therefore we are possessed of inherent righteousness, yet we rest not, or put confidence in this. This Contarenus an ingenuous Papist of old, acknowledged saying, We had no righteousness on which we might rest, niti tanquam re stabili, but only the righteousness of Christ. But of this more in time.  
Propos. 2. As the Scripture speaks of a two-fold righteousness and a two-fold rule and covenant: So there is also a two-fold Justification. There is a righteousness of the Law which is universal complete and final, whereby a man is pronounced by God just in himself, and for his works sake; so that its not of free grace, but debt, that he is so accepted of; and there is a righteousness of faith, or covenant of grace, whereby a sinner believing is pronounced righteous, not in himself, but through Christ his Surety, and thereby Salvation is wholly of grace to him. The former kind of Justification is now a mere non ens, there is no such thing but in books, no man living is justified thus inherently and subjectively, and therefore the Apostle in those two Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, where Justification is professedly and exactly treated of, doth very powerfully and fervently set himself against that legal Justification, which some corrupt teachers endeavoured to introduce. Now its a very necessary point even for every Christian to know this distinction, for there are but these two ways of justification possible, the one would have been of Adam had he continued in holinesse, then his Justification would not have been a judicial acquittance by remission of sin, but an accounting of him just for his inherent and acquired righteousness. But this way of Justification is impossible for man fallen, and yet the heart of man is very prove to this way, as appears by the Jews and Pharisees, who laboured to establish their own righteousness; and by the false Apostles even in the very first age of the Church, you read, nothing troubled the Church more, then what that was by which we stood justified before God: The false teachers boldly affirming, That it was by the Law, and the righteousness thereof, and by the works we do; Paul on the other side zealously opposeth, informing, That our Justification is in pardon of sin and imputation of righteousness, and that no kind of works, no not of Abraham, though regenerated, do justify us: If therefore thou art able to distinguish between these two kind of Justifications, bless God for this knowledge, and get the spiritual improvement thereof, for they are immediately contrary, and therefore no Subject can be justified both these ways; if it be by works of the Law, then not of faith; if it be by inherency, then not by imputation. Indeed the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us, as Paul speaks, Rom. 8.3. but not by us, we are justified by the righteousness of the Law in Christ our Surety, he satisfied that, but because we were not performers of it in our own persons, therefore its wholly of grace to us, because its altogether without us: Insomuch that some Divines say, We have our Justification and Salvation, by a Do this and live, but not in our own persons, but through Christ our Mediator, who did the Law for us. Therefore though our works be every where excluded from Justification under any notion whatsoever, yet Christs works are necessary included: As these two Justifications are directly contrary, so there is no way of compounding them together by confusion or mixtion, they being two kindes consisting in indivisible, and therefore you cannot by any distinction so unite them that a third way of Justification should be produced; and this is especially to be observed, for that hath been the endeavour of many later writers, to make a compound of Justification of faith and works together, to make a mixed thing of these two; That whereas the Apostle doth make them immediately contrary, If of works, then not of faith, and the believer and the works are always opposed as incompatible, and without this immediate opposition, the Apostles arguments would fall to the ground, they will Dare tertium, and find out some expedient to reconcile those things which the Apostle makes so extremely distant. As the Papist, We are not justified by works, that is, say they, as opposed to Christs death, and his Spirit, but if they be the works of grace, and the Spirit of God, if tincta sanguine Christi, then so we are justified. The Socinians and others say, though upon different principles, We are not justified by the works of the Law, but by the works of the Gospel, or by works in an Evangelical consideration, so that they be not judged meritorious, or that they obtain Salvation by way of debt, but as conditions required by the Gospel, thus they and faith justify. But all this mincing and palliating will not hold; The Apostle gives no medium between believing and working, all kind of working quà working, is immediately opposed to believing; so that faith as it is a work is excluded from our Justification. But of this more in time, its enough for the present that we are to apprehended these two kinds of Justification as immediately contrary, and by no subtle distinctions in the world can be united together.  
Prop. 3. That we may understand all the essentials ingredient to this glorious privilege of our Justification, we may take this large and popular description of it, Justification is a gracious and just act of God, whereby through Christ our Mediator and Surety, a sinner but repenting and believing is pronounced just, and hereby put into a state of reconciliation and favour with God, to the praise of Gods glorious Attributes, and to the believers eternal Salvation. I shall not examine this description by accurate logical rules, its enough that it is comprehensive of every thing requisite to the knowledge of Justification. And  
First, We call it an action, 
justification an action.  for so God as a just and merciful Judge is considered in this matter, pronouncing of such as are free from all curses, and also just and righteous. Justification is not properly the sentence or judgement whereby we are pronounced righteous, but its Gods action: Now whether it be an immanent action, and so from all eternity, or transient, accomplished in time, I have elsewhere discussed ( Treatise of Justif.) and there concluded, That it s not immanent nor from eternity, but passing upon a believer in time. 
justification not an immanent but a transient.  Indeed the Schoolmen darken the dispute about immanent and transient actions, that its hard to say from them, what is either so or so; for who would not without al doubt conclude, that the Creation of the world is a transient action, and yet they hotly quarrel about that, some affirming, and some denying at least in some sense.  
Let us therefore lay aside the distinction of immanent and transient, and plainly say, God doth not from eternity justify us, 
Its an action of God.  no more then sanctify or glorify, but when a man believeth, then, and not before is he justified, as I have at large proved in the mentioned place. Its an action of God, therefore in the Text its said, God doth justify, for seeing that sin is onely committed against him, and its an offence to his Majesty, and a transgression of his Law; therefore the Scripture attributeth it to God only; and indeed though all the men in the world, and our own consciences do acquit us, yet while God doth not justify we remain unavoidably miserable. Now when we say, God justifieth, that is to be understood of the three Persons in the Godhead; the Father justifieth, and the Son justifieth, so doth the holy Ghost. Though the Scripture observeth the peculiar economy and order, and therefore Justification is attributed to the Father, and the merit of it to the Son, and the application of it to the holy Ghost. The Socinians, they say, Christ justifieth only instrumentally, not principally, even as faith is said to save. Socin. apud Steg. p. 510. but this cannot be, because Christ is God as well as man, and therefore cannot be instrumental, but principal. Hence Isa. 53. it is said, Christ even as Gods righteous servant, which is in respect of his Mediatory Office should justify many. Again Rom. 5. Christ and the first Adam are compared and opposed, as the two heads, one of condemnation; the other of Justification to life; so that as Adam was the principal in reference to death and judgement, so Christ is the fountain of life and righteousness. Furthermore, Christ is the directing and efficient cause of all organical and instrumental causes in our Justification, as faith, which is mans instrument, Christ is the cause of it, Luk 17.5. So Christ is the cause of the Ministry, and the spiritual success of it, Eph. 4.11, 12. And hence it is that he is called, The Sun of righteousness, Mal. 5.2. The true light, Joh. 1.9. The King of righteousness, Heb. 7.2. All which comparisons do plainly demonstrate, That Christ is principal, and not instrumental.  

A gracious action of God.  In the description we say, Its the gracious action of God, for there is nothing did move God, but his own mere favour; Therefore its said, Rom. 3. freely by his grace; Gods mercy and mans misery do illustrate one another, though it were of Justice to Christ, yet wholly of grace to us; and therefore if thou art justified, when many thousands lye in a wretched, condemned estate: Oh what enlargements of heart should there be to free grace! Shall the malefactor freed from his prison and condemnation so rejoice? how much then should justified persons glorify God, who are thereby delivered from the curse of the Law, and not only so, but advanced to all honour and glory! Abhor all Popish doctrines of Satisfaction or compensations to God; fly from all presumptuous doctrines that advance free-will, or affirm preparatory merits to our Justification! Sooner may we find stars in the bottom of the earth, then any merit in us of our acceptance with God.  

By or through Christ our Mediator or Surety.  Further in the description it followeth [ By or through Christ our Mediator and Surety.] This is the meritorious cause of Justification; for Christs obedience and death, is both the meritorious and material cause of our Justification, meritorious as antecedent to our application, and the material cause as applied and received by us. Justification then, though it be free and of mere grace, yet it is also of Justice, and therefore the throne of Gods grace, and of his Justice, while he justifieth us, is all one, and this doth not only oppose the Socinian blasphemy denying Christs merit and satisfaction, but that corrupt position also, which affirmeth, That Christ died so, that our imperfect righteousness and faith, may be accepted of as perfect; As if Evangelical righteousness whereby we are justified, were our own personal righteousness: And if it be objected, Ours is imperfect, drossy and corrupt; They answer, Christ by his death did procure such a Gospel-dispensation, that that which in itself is imperfect, should through Gods gracious esteem be accounted of as perfect; but this is to make God Judge, and esteem of things otherwise then they are, and to make Christ die, if not for the abrogating of the Law totally as a rule, yet gradually, that it shall not require so much as it did before; But whatsoever the Law required before Christs death, it doth still as effectually and as powerfully as ever, and no righteousness can justify us, but what is universal, and every way commensurated to the rule. So that as against the former heresy, we say, God did not pardon sin, as some great Kings of the world use to do at the instant Petition of some Favourite; so neither against the later error do we say, That Christ by his death hath obtained that half the debt should be accounted as the whole, or whereas the debt was to be paid in gold, it should now suffice if it be paid in led, or some other base metal.  
The next thing in the description is a sinner repenting and believing; a sinner, 
A sinner repenting and believing.  therefore he that is perfectly righteous cannot be partaker of an Evangelical Justification; This should inform the godly, that they are not with diffidence and distrust to be cast down, when they feel the relics of corruption still moving in them; whensoever they assay to go, they find some pain and stiffness, much unbelief, pride, and many worldly cares do hinder and trouble them: Oh refresh thyself with the nature of this Justification! If thou wert not a sinner thou didst not need a Justification, if thou wert not undone in thyself, thou didst not want a Saviour, if there were no corruption in thee, there would be no need of a Christ. Thus the Apostle Rom. 4.3. He justifieth the ungodly; now this Justification doth not only reach to sins against the Law, but against the Gospel; it sounds as intolerable Doctrine in my ears, That Christ our Mediator did only expiate by his death sins against the Law and Covenant of works, but that those that are against the Covenant of grace, even our faith as justifying and repentance, which are not duties known by the Law, or consistent with it, have their imperfections in them, and do deserve eternal damnation, and therefore our Mediator stands obliged by his office, to atone for the sins that are in the second Covenant as well as in the first.  

A sinner but repenting.  In the description of the object, we add, a sinner, but repenting, and this is to exclude all Antinomian poison, as if a person abiding in his sins, and while persisting in his rebellions, were partaker of this glorious privilege: this cannot be, because remission of sin, which is a great part of our Justification, is always by the Scripture promised to such as humble themselves, and repent of their iniquities, till there be humiliation, there is no forgiveness, as I have in the former Treatise at large proved. Therefore that is a foul slander of Grotius against the Orthodox( Voto pacis pag. 115.) that with us, it were enough to say to the most wretched sinner that liveth, Do but believe this, that thy sins are forgiven, and there is nothing more required to thy salvation, cum haec viatico evolat in Coelum: With what fore-head could he charge this upon the Protestant Doctrine, who had red many of their writings? But there cannot come honey from a Serpent. We say, there is no aptitude or fitness, yea there is an absolute contrariety in a sinner to Justification, till he do repent. But repenting is not all, it must be a sinner repenting and believing. This corrective must be to our repentance, else our tears will be of the fountain Marah, 
Believing:  only this you must diligently attend unto, that repentance is not an ingredient to our Justification, as faith is, Repentance qualifieth the subject, but faith immediately receiveth it. Repentance is not an instrument receiving Christ, as faith doth. Its not therefore a justifying repentance, as we call it a justifying faith: Hence the Scripture useth a peculiar appropriated expression of faith, Justified by faith, and remission of sins is received by faith in his blood, which is never attributed to any other grace. Therefore that is unsound doctrine which excludeth faith from a peculiar instrumentality in our Justification, making faith and obe dience to be the conditions of our Justification, and that they do both alike justify, only faith is granted to have some kind of principality: But this is directly to be confuted, when we come to show negatively, What is not that righteousness by which we stand justified.  
In the description followeth the very formal and essential nature, wherein this Justification doth consist, 
Is pronounced just.  and that is in pronouncing Just. Now this doth contain in it two things, Remission of sins, and Imputation of Christs righteousness. Its true in this later, There is great dispute amongst the Orthodox, some denying wholly the imputed obedience of Christ, as actively considered: But that is in its due place to be largely maintained, neither may we, if we attend to Scripture, or to the nature of Justification, think that it is wholly comprehended in pardon of sin; I have at large in my former Treatise discussed the nature of the pardon of sin. Its my main scope in this Book to handle the doctrine of imputed righteousness, of which fully, as my method proposed, will conduct me to it. The consequent of this Justification followeth in the description, That hereby the person justified is instated into Gods favour. Some make reconciliation an antecedent, some a part of Justification, but it seemeth more properly to be the effect of it; for when once justified, then the great gulf between God and us is removed; Then when God and man are agreed, they may walk together, and we have fellowship with him, and this is not to be conceived in the way of some transient actions that pass away, and leave not so much as a relative change. No, for when God doth justify us at first, we are upon our believing put into a state and a fixed condition of peace with God. Thus the Scripture speaks of it as a state, like that of Sanctification and Glorification; so that while we are sleeping we are justified, because put into that estate, although we do not then actually believe. The first act therefore of faith receiving Christ in whom we are justified, is like the putting of one into a state of marriage, or of Magistracy: Though the first act pass away, yet the relative change it hath made continueth always; We are not justified by the habit of faith, but by the act, and yet after the first act we stand justified, though we are not all the day long actually believing. Its true, many learned Divines say, Justification is a continued action, and it may be granted in this sense, that God doth daily justify believers, even as he constantly preserveth them in their natural being; but it is not true in this sense, as if we were put into a new state of Justification every day. This is not only to make a first and a second Justification, but a thousand Justifications; remission of sins and imputation of Christs righteousness are reiterated; but Justification besides these doth connote a fixed estate of the justified person, which is but once, and the Mediator of the Covenant of grace doth so firmly uphold this privilege, that there shall never be any total intercision of it, neither do ever any plenarily apostatise from this wonderful favour, that once received it. Lastly, There is the end of this Justification, which is two-fold, on Gods part, and on the believers part. On Gods part it is, That the glorious Attributes of God, especially his wisdom, Grace and Justice may be magnified; and certainly all these are more seen in the Justification of a sinner, then in the creating of the world, or in the most eminent mercies and deliverances the Church ever had: And on the believers part, it is for his infinite comfort here, and his eternal happiness hereafter: So that our Justification is the beginning of heaven here upon the earth; we can have no more right to heaven hereafter, then Justification doth for the present entitle us unto, only we shall have a full possession, which as yet we want. No wonder then if Paul say, Rom. 5. Being justified by faith we have peace with God, yea and glory in tribulations, rejoicing with joy unspeakable.   

SERM. XIV. More Propositions tending to clear the Nature of Justification, especially showing how it answers all Accusations.  ROM. 8.33. It is God that Justifieth. 
WHat the Scripture saith, Deut. 24.15. of the poor man, That his hire is not to be detained from him, no not for a day, because his heart is set on it, Its all he hath to live upon; The same is much more to be applied of that person, who is spiritually poor and sensible of his great debt through sin: The Doctrine of Justification is not for a day or an hour to slip out of his mind, for his heart is set on it. Its all the comfort, and all the hope he hath, if that go all goeth: So that the excellency and necessity of the point being so great, I shall not withhold any thing that may serve for the clear discovery of it. I shall therefore add more Propositions to the former. And  
The first is, That though Justification be properly attributed to a sinner believing, yet the Scripture speaks of Christs Justification, not as if Christ repented for us, or believed for us, as some have absurdly affirmed. Saltmarsh. For as Christ had no personal sin, so neither could he have such a personal repentance, or justifying faith. Besides, by this Assertion Christ should have relied upon himself, as a mediator, and so have been justified by faith in his own blood. But the Scripture speaks of Christs Justification to another purpose, 1 Tim. 3.16. where its called a great mystery, God manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit; yea this expression in the Text, Its God that justifieth, seemeth to be taken from Isa. 50.8. He is near that justifieth me, who will contend with me? So that what is there said of Christ, the Apostle doth apply to every believer. Now there are learned men speak of Christs Justification two ways: Some say, That as Christ took our sins upon him, and so was under Gods displeasure, bearing the wrath due unto us; 
Whether Christ was or did need to be justified.  so likewise it was necessary he should have a Justification, not for any sin of his own, but as a common person, and our Surety and Head: Insomuch that Christ upon his Resurrection( they say) having consummated the work of our Redemption, was then justified by the Father, and absolved from all the sins of the elect, which were charged upon him; and thus they grant a virtual Justification in Christ, as we are said to be risen with him, and to sit in heavenly places with him, before there be an actual Justification by faith; and this they make the reason, why that which the Prophet spake of Christ, the Apostle applieth to every believer, because Christ is the common person, they are looked upon in him, and none may accuse them, but he must accuse Christ first; but the Scripture seemeth not to be clear for this, 
Reasons against it.  unless we mean that Christ merited our Justification, and so we were virtually justified in him, because he obtained the right of our Justification, which was in time to be applied to us: Neither is there any ground to fasten such a Justification upon Christ, because our sins were not so laid upon him, or imputed to him, as to denominate him a sinner. Its true, his righteousness is made over to us, so as that thereby we are constituted and accounted of as righteous, but our sins are not in the same manner laid upon him; and the reason of this difference is, because our sins were imputed to him, for him to bear away, to take away the guilt of them, they were not to abide on him. But Christs righteousness is made ours, to abide and continue ours, and therefore we are denominated righteous, but not Christ a sinner, though its true in a large sense. Luther said, Christ was the greatest of all sinners, but his meaning not his words must be regarded. If therefore there was not such an imputation of sin unto Christ, as our Surety, in the sense mentioned, then there needed not such a justification of him, as a common person. And as for that Text, 1 Tim. 3.16. Justified in the Spirit, by the Spirit, is meant, as most Divines aclowledge, the Divine Nature of Christ, whereby he raised up himself, as Heb. 9.14. he is said to have offered up himself by the eternal Spirit, which was his Divine Nature; so that he was justified by raising up himself; that whereas his enemies had accused him for an impostor, for a false prophet, for one that wrought by the devil, and therefore justly suffered such an ignominious end, now he being raised again by his own power, he was justified against all those calumnies that were cast on him, and this seemeth to be the most genuine exposition.  
Propos. 2. This Justification of the believer extends as far as his accusation and condemnation might have reached. 
justification extends as f●● as accusatio● and condemnation.  I make Justification to oppose both accusation and condemnation, not mattering Stapletons cavil on this Text, quarreling with Calvin and Beza, because its opposed onely to accusation, and that in the next verse Christs death is opposed to our condemnation, for one is but the antecedent, the other the consequent, and Justification taking away the former, must needs remove the later; wheresoever then any accusation may be made against a sinner believing, there we are to conceive our Justification freeing of us. Now our accusation may arise several ways:  
1. There is the Justice of God accusing and arraigning of us, 
Accusations.  because we have not in the least manner perfectly observed his Law. 
1. From God.  Therefore that calls for the due punishment belonging to us; for to every sinner we may say the clean contrary in the Text, before he doth believe, Who shall say any thing to free or excuse him that is ungodly? Its God that accuseth and its God that condemneth. Our Justification therefore in the first place doth absolve us from all that God the Judge of the world hath against us. Hence Justification doth still respect to Gods sight, and to Gods account, Psal. 143.2. In thy sight shall no man living be justified. The world may justify us, our own hearts may absolve us, but God who is greater then our hearts, he may condemn us. Thus Rom. 5.1. Being justified, we have peace with God; so that the primary and chief thing in Justification, is to remove that enmity between God and us; we were stubble and he a consuming fire; we were darkness, and he light: Now by Justification all this contrariety and distance is taken away; this then is the original and source of all happiness, our reconciliation begins with God first: As the waters of the Sea can never lye still while the winds blow upon them; so the heart of man can never have any true quietness, while God doth frown on him. If the anger of a King be like the roaring of a Lion, how dreadful is the anger of God? The sense of this made David so often pray for the light of Gods countenance, as without which no kingdoms, no success or earthly greatness can make him happy.  

2. From the Law  In the second place; The Law, that doth accuse him for cursed is every one that fulfilleth not that to every iota. The Apostle in his Epistle to the Galatians at large sheweth, there cannot come any Justification by the Law; there is nothing but a curse and execration by that. Therefore Rom. 7. though of itself it were appointed for life, yet accidentally through our corruption it is made a killing and a damning Law; sin hath a sharp and bitter sting, but its the Law that puts this into it. Now when we are justified, the Scriptures in many places deny us to be under the Law, Rom. 6.14. Rom. 7.6. Not that they are exempted from the regulating power of the Law, God himself cannot free them from obedience to that, no more then he can make them not to be his servants or creatures, or then he can deny himself the just titles and rights which belong to him, as God, but only from the malediction and curse of the Law; The Law cannot now implead us for the breach of it, because we are found in the righteousness of Christ, The impossibility of the Law as to us, is fulfilled in Christ, our Justification then freeth us in this Court.  
3. Our accusation may be from the Devil, for he is called, 
3. From the Devil.  The Accuser of the Brethren to God, as we see he complained of the high-Priests garments, Zech. 3.1, 2. Satan stood at Gods right hand to resist him, and had we not a constant accuser of us to God, what need would there be of an Advocate with the Father in heaven to pled our cause? 1 John 2.2. The Devil then he inditeth thee for all those sins and infirmities thou art guilty of, be requireth thee as his own, he challengeth thee as a fire-brand for hell: But our Justification that absolveth us here also, that stops his mouth. Being in Christ he can no more accuse us, then Christ himself: Therefore Christ died to judge the Devil, who was the Prince of the world, to cast him out, and to dissolve his works, John 12.31. John 16.11. 1 John 3.8. Insomuch that when the Devil comes he cannot find any condemnation for thee, who art in Jesus Christ.  
4. A man is accused from his own Conscience, as Rom. 7. 
4. From ones own conscience  you see Paul from the sense of sin within him, crying out, Oh miserable man that I am! who shall deliver me? And David, Psal. 19. Who can understand his errors? He hath more corruption in him then he can find out. This is that which is as good as a thousand witnesses, yea an whole world against us, and our Justification doth remove this inditement also, sereneth and quiets the conscience; so that Ro. 5. We have peace with God, and rejoice with joy unspeakable: Insomuch that some Divines make Justification properly to lye in this, when the heart of a man being terrified and broken for sin doth receive this Justification, and by the sense or persuasion thereof, is filled with much joy and peace, but though eminent Divines say thus, yet its hard to affirm it as truth, for there is a great deal of difference between our Justification and the sense of it. Many may be justified, and yet not think so, or know so. Justification and the certain persuasion of it are separable; we see David, though a child of light, yet walking sometimes in darkness. Therefore our Justification doth not consist in our apprehension of it, for that doth necessary suppose it to antecede, and the act doth follow the object, except when its causative and constitutive of it. But it is not so here, our Justification is received by faith, but then the reflex act, or the souls knowledge, that it is justified, followeth after, and that differently; in some it followeth immediately, in others it s detained a long while; yea a godly man, though greatly in the favour of God, may( for ought I know) live and die in the sense of the want of it; for the persuasion and inward sense of our Justification is not essential to Salvation; neither doth the Scripture require it as a necessary ingredient to our happiness. Indeed to believe is necessary to Justification and Salvation, but to know, or to be assured that we do believe, is not. But though our Justification doth not necessary and inseparably cause such peace and consolation in the soul, yet in its nature it doth incline to it: As the sun doth to cast its beams abroad, though an eclipse may obstruct and hinder it: and no wonder these emanations of Justification may be intercepted, since in Christ himself, who was truly God, the sense of consolation was for a while stopped, and did not diffuse itself from the Divine Nature to the human. That Spirit of God spoken of Rom. 8.15. Gal. 4.6. which is sent forth in our hearts, whereby we cry Abba, Father, is not in the act of our Justification, but consequent upon it, for God must be our Father, and reconciled with us before we can call him Father. By all this it appears, that our Justification is not only in foro Dei, but in foro conscientiae also; and indeed our consolation floweth from the later. Though God justifieth us, yet till we feel and know this, we may walk as uncomfortably, as if not justified at all. Mary Magda●●n had her sins forgiven her, before Christ particularly spake to her, Be of good comfort thy sins be forgiven; but when this was particularly applied to her, then she did rejoice with all fullness of joy.  

5. From men.  5. Our justification doth extend even to all those accusations that we have from Men. Great are the calumnies that are laid upon the godly, as hypocrites, deceivers, and the worst of men. Now when God justifieth, he cancelleth all these accusations. Grotius on the Text, following the Remonstrants, speaks as if the accusation and condemnation here spoken of, to which Justification is opposed, did consist in this only: for he mentioneth no other, Who shall accuse and lay any thing to their charge, when God justifieth? But though this be included, yet its the least considerable in our Justification. Therefore when the children of God are slandered, reproached, and men speak all manner of evil of them without cause; they may comfort themselves from their Justification, God layeth no such thing to their charge, God looks not upon them as thus and thus, but they are through Christ accepted and beloved. Thus you see that Justification doth reach as far as our accusation. Its not a covering too narrow for all thy nakedness, Christs robes will hid thee when sig leaves cannot.  
Its asserted, That Justification called in titulo, or virtual, 
Whether Gods act of justifying be only his grant of it in the Gospel.  is nothing but the grant of it in the Gospel; but I see not how that can be called our Justification, its the sign or instrument declaring of it, not Justification itself, as the grant or promise of our Sanctification is not our Sanctification; and as on the contrary our condemnation while we abide in sin, or Gods anger against the sinner is not the threatening promulged, but that which comes from God himself; neither then could we say, that we are justified by Christ given unto us, but by the Proposition laid down in the Scripture, whereas all say, that the objectum quod of our faith is ens incomplexum, not the promise of Christ, but Christ himself promised. Besides Abraham was justified, and he is made the pattern of all that shall be justified, yet there was no Scripture grant, or dead of gift in writing, declaring this; God then communicating himself to believers in an immediate manner; Therefore to call this grant or conditional promise in the Scripture [ Whosoever shall believe shall be justified] a transient act of God, is very unproper, unless in such a sense, as we say, Such a mans writing is his hand, and that is wholly impertinent to our purpose.  
Thirdly, This justification of us is not necessary at first onely, while we are coming out of our sin, but in the whole progress of our Sanctification. Its true, some Divines say, that Justification is completed and perfected at one instant, when we first believed. Others, they say, its a continued action, and happily both may be reconciled: for take Justification as it connoteth a state we are put into, so its not iterated, but done once; neither are we put again and again, or daily in the state of Justification, no more then God doth daily create the world. But if we take Justification for the particular acts of it, remitting of sin, and imputing of Christs righteousness, then these are daily and continually performed: Even as in our natural life, though we be not daily created, yet we need a constant preservation in that life we were created in. Thus it is here, God out of his mere grace did upon our believing put us into a state of Justification, from which favour we should fall every moment, did not God continue us therein. Hence in the Text its {αβγδ} God that is continually justifying of us; if we speak of Sanctification as a state, we cannot say that is reiterated, that the godly are frequently sanctified in that sense; but if Sanctification be taken for the particular acts of Gods grace, exciting, corroborating, quickening, and the like; these are as daily necessary as our daily bread; thus it is in our Justification, we need a constant remission, we want a perpetual imputation, because our sins and imperfections are renewed daily.  
Fourthly, Our Justification is full and adequate to every purpose in this life. The Scripture speaks of it as a privilege, that we are now made partakers thereof; for while we consider how great and glorious an honour and happiness it is, we may think this is too great to be had in this life, Angels and glorified Saints can have no more: but be not discouraged, God even in this life, though full of rags and ulcers, doth pronounce us just through Christ, and deal with us as just, Rom. 3.24. Being justified freely by his grace; we have it already, we may for the present make a comfortable improvement of it, and Rom. 5.9. Being now justified by his blood; Now its already done for us, and so 1 Cor. 6.11. Ye are justified, ye are sanctified, the one was then done for them as well as the other. Hence Rom. 4.5. Its God that justifieth the ungodly in the present tense. If therefore we walk not as justified persons, its our ignorance and unskilfulness in these great things. Its true at the day of judgement there will be a solemn and more complete justifying of us, as I have elsewhere shewed, yet that Justification spoken of so much by Paul in his Epistles, doth belong to this life; and indeed we cannot then be said to be justified by faith, for justifying faith in that act, as well as repentance will then cease, every thing that implieth an imperfection in the subject being then abolished; or if we be then justified, i.e. declare justified in an Evangelical sense, it will be, because we did in this life believe in Christ, because we once had justifying faith. Hence this kind of Justification will cease in heaven, though the praise and glory for it will ever redound to Christ. It is thought that the Union between Christ and his Church shall never cease, but the manner of application of it on our part, and communication of it on Gods part by Ordinances shall not then continue. Though therefore at the day of judgement, we shall have a more public and solemn Justification before God, Angels and men, in which sense it may be said, We are not completely and perfectly justified till then; yet that relateth most to what was in our lives past, not to what we shall be then, seeing at that time the spirits of just men are made perfect, and their bodies crwoned with immortality and glory.  
Propos. 5. In a well explained sense, that Proposition is true of our Divines, that all believers are justified alike, The meanest woman believing, though the greatest sinner, a Mary Magdalen, as much as the Virgin Mary. This indeed is thought blasphemous Doctrine in Popery, because they confounded Justification and Sanctification, and therefore are necessitated to admit of Degrees, one being more holy then another: but with the Orthodox, Justification is without us, and consists in the favour of God, who looking upon us through Christ, doth justify from great sins as well as little sins, one sinner is as easily justified as another, and alike justified: yet understand this in a sound sense; for though there be no difficulty with God in pardoning great sins as well as little, and Justification like the sea can drown the tallest egyptian, as well as a little child; yet more is required of a greater sinner then of a less in the way to Justification. Crimson sins must 〈…〉 greater sorrow; sins of daily incursion require not such a solemn repentance, as those that waste the conscience; though when sincerely repenting, the believer is not to doubt of the pardon of great sins, because great. Though to God Justification from all sins be as easy as from one, and from great sins as well as less, yet our repentance is to be drawn out according to the nature of our sins, although it must be acknowledged, that the least sin being against such an infinite Majesty, deserveth our most intensive sorrow, and could we be melted into rivers of tears, yet they could not wash away the least spot of sin. Again, Though all are equally justified, that is to be understood intensivè, as they say, not extensivè, that is, though all justified persons have those privileges which accompany Justification, they have peace with God, they have a right to heaven and happiness; yet he that hath more sins pardonned then another, and so hath Christs righteousness to cover more imperfections then another, he may be said extensively to be justified more then another is, though he hath not the full and complete mercy of Justification, more then he that hath sinned less. As a giant that hath six fingers and six toes, and is vaster in body, hath not a bigger soul( for according to some Philosophers, All souls are essentially equal) then a less man, only the operation and virtue of it may diffuse itself more extensively.  
Lastly, This is not to be understood so, as if faith, which is the applying means of our Justification, may not be firmer in some then in others. For no doubt some have a strong faith, some have a weak faith, and so some apprehended their Justification more steadfastly then others, yet because the worth and merit of our Justification is not in the degree of our faith, but in Christs righteousness apprehended by it; therefore the weak Christian is as completely and perfectly justified as the stronger. This, if duly considered, may establish and revive the drooping Christian, who because he hath less grace, therefore thinketh he hath less Justification: No, this is to say, thou hast a less Christ then Paul or David had. Though there be difference in your Sanctification, yet not in your Justification.   

SERM. XV. The several Distinctions of Learned Men in the Point of Justification.  ROM. 8.33. It is God that Justifieth. 
THere remain two Propositions more that will clear this fundamental Doctrine of Justification.  
The first is, That there is no absurdity or inconveniency in granting that the form or nature of our Justification is two-fold, 
No inconveniency in granting the form of our justification to be two-fold.  or consists in two things. Bellarmine lib. 1. de justific. endeavours to fasten it upon the Protestants, that they make Justification to have a two-fold form, viz. Remission of sin and imputation of righteousness, although at the same time he reckons up four different opinions( as he calls them) amongst the Protestants. Our Divines generally in their answer strive to make Justification to consist in one simplo form, and so endeavour a reconciliation between those four opinions, making them to be only different expressions, especially Paraeus, Castigat. Bellar. and Vorstius Antibellar. de Justif. with others, make remission of sin and imputation of righteousness to be the same thing, expressed onely from different terms or extremes: Even as the expulsion of darkness, and introduction of light, are the same motion. I shall not here consider the truth of this Assertion, only I may affirm, That there is no error or inconvenience, to make Justification to consist in two distinct benefits, which may be called a double form, for pardon of sin, and imputation of Christs righteousness, are( as is to be shewed) two real distinct mercies, both completing our Justification. Indeed to assert a two-fold form of Justification that is heretogenean and opposite to one another, as our learned Writers charge the council of Trent with, though that speaks ambiguously and subtly, viz. in remission of sin and infusion of righteousness; this we say is very absurd and erroneous; for how can the righteousness inherent in us, be a form of Justification, which is an action of God? Its irrational to affirm any such thing; but if the two-fold form be homogeneous, of the same kind, both actions of God without us, then I see no cause so much to strive against such a doctrine, and the Scripture doth plainly speak of both these parts, remission of sin, and imputation of righteousness, and that not as the same thing, but of one as the ground of the other: sin is pardonned, because righteousness is imputed, and certainly imputation of righteousness is the more noble part of Justification, and that which is more immediately constitutive of it: Insomuch that some learned Divines make remission of sin not of the formal nature of Justification, but an effect or consequent of it: but that seemeth not so consonant to Scripture. Now the ground why its no absurdity to make Justification to consist in two distinct mercies, is Because this is wholly a gracious favour of God, and therefore takes in as many ingredients as he pleaseth to appoint: So that the form of Justification, is not like the forms of natural things, that consist in indivisibili, but like any moral or civil forms, which by Law many times require several actions to the constitution of them: So that if we would judge of the nature of Justification, we must not examine it by natural motions, such as the expulsion of darkness or coldness, and the introduction of light or heat, but rather compare it with civil grants of liberty and favour, that the supreme Magistrate sometimes bestoweth, which may consist of several branches, and many particular privileges, whereof one is really distinct from the other.  
Propos. 2. This privilege of Justification is a real, efficacious privilege in all those effects it is appointed for. 
The reality of justification by imputation.  Let the Adversary calumniate never so boldly, yet in this truth nihil haerebit. This viper cannot fasten on this Doctrine, That justification is nothing according to the Protestants Doctrine, but a mere putative figment, that it is a mere Chimaera. For first, Its remission of sin, which they themselves aclowledge to be by the Satisfaction of Christ, Is that a mere figment? Is it such a mere fancy and notion to say, Christs death and his sufferings are imputed to us, so that Gods justice is satisfied more then if we had suffered in our own persons? If then this be no fiction or putative fancy, Why is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us? Besides, to call this a mere figment, is likewise to destroy many civil Covenants and acceptilations in Law; Do not the civil Laws of a Magistrate give a real being for many actions which are merely by imputation? As when a Surety bound for a debtor dischargeth the debt, Is not the debtor by Law acquitted, as if he had done it in his own person? Yea private men may by their imputation give a reality to some actions: When Paul wrote to Philemon, that he should charge Onesimus his wrongs and debts upon him, if Philemon voluntarily did this, and for Pauls sake accounted all as discharged, had not here been a real discharge of Onesimus? How much more then must this hold between God and us, through Christ our Surety and Mediator. For  
1. Here is a real giving of Christ with all his benefits to us: As Christ really died, really fulfilled the Law, and suffered the punishment of sin due to us, so this as really given to us and made ours, unless we will say, that justifying faith is but a mere fancy, or a non-entity.  
2. There is Gods judging and accounting this Obedience and Satisfaction for us as ours. Now Gods judgement is always according to truth, what he accounts to another must needs be so. Hence is the phrase Rom. 4. of imputing righteousness; Gods judgement, and imputing of this as ours, makes it a real thing. Hence by this God is said to be reconciled, to forgive, to be well-pleased, all which argue reality.  
3. There is a real grace on our part, which doth receive this righteousness offered, and that is often said to be by faith in his blood; Now this faith is a most real thing, for Heb. 11.1. its called {αβγδ}, The substance of things hoped for; its called hungering and thirsting, its called coming to Christ, yea its said to be eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood: So that even the whole life of a godly man is attributed to this faith; yea Paul, Gal. 2. makes his natural life to be nothing to this, I no longer live, but Christ in me, and the life I live is by faith in Christ. Therefore we are sooner to conclude, that our eating, our drinking, our natural life, are non-entities, then this receiving of Christs righteousness.  
Lastly, The effects of this justification are real, and they are the choicest food or refreshment of a Christian, for hereby we have peace with God, we are made blessed, we have boldness at the throne of grace, we can glory in all tribulations. Although therefore Logicians say, That relation is the least degree of entity, yet this relative change by our justification is of admirable virtue and efficacy, yea we are to rejoice in it, as if it were the most physical or natural transmutation that can be imagined; It is a relative change, which hath a real fundamentum, and a real terminus, as Chemnitius well sheweth, though Bellarmine very superciliously derideth it, as ridiculous logic.  

The distinctions of learned men about justification.  Having thus laid down the most material things that clear this truth, let us consider what Distinctions sound or unsound that are given by learned men in this point, that so we may receive the gold, and reject the dross, separating the precious from the vile.  
And first, Some speak of a justification active, and a justification passive, not that they are two species or kindes of Justification, but onely the same the same thing considered as coming from God, is called active justification; and the same as received or applied by the believer, is passive justification. As the Schoolmen distinguish of a Creatio activa and passiva, making Creatio passiva to be the creature itself: now this distinction hath its use, for when we say, Faith is an instrument of our Justification, it is not as Justification is actively considered, or as it is an action of God, How can any action of man be an instrument to Gods action? but as we are passively justified, we are justified by believing; its not our faith that doth produce our Justification properly: Therefore, though in Divinity its often said, Sola fides justificat, Only faith justifieth, yet that is to be resolved passively in this sense, By faith onely we are justified. Thus all those Arguments, If we are justified by faith, then by our own work, and that this is to give too much to faith, yea more then some say they do to works, which they hold a condition of our Justification. All these and the like Objections vanish, because we are not justified by faith, as Justification is considered actively, but passively. Its true, God doth never justify any actively, but the same person is passively justified: Therefore though God did will from eternity to justify, yet he did not actually justify till in time. Neither may this make it any difficulty how to affirm Justification a transient action, when the knowledge or will of God accepting are immanent; for in all the undoubted transient actions which are, as Sanctification, Preservation, Gods will and knowledge about these are immanent only; the willing of the existence or being of such a thing in such a time, is that which makes it transient; I do not here dispute, Whether we are to conceive in God, besides his knowledge and will, an executive power: that would be too tedious, and not very pertinent in this place.  
Secondly, The Scripture speaks of a lawful and good Justification, as also of an unlawful and sinful one, which men are many times guilty of, for Justification is attributed to man as well as God. Thus Prov. 17.15. He that justifieth the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. This is very frequent amongst men, those that will accuse and condemn the generation of the just, as hypocrites and false, yet will justify and applaud the wicked, as the best men on earth. Its a very sinful thing to justify any wicked cause or action, and to this may be reduced all those that a bet or maintain false doctrines and errors. Its an abomination to the Lord to call evil, good, and falsehood, truth; there is also a sinful justification, when men approve themselves and acquit themselves from sin, as if they had good hearts, and a good life, though at the same time, not only the Law accuseth them, but they are abominable to God: Oh this false justification is the grand enemy to this Evangelical Justification! Why is it that most who hear this doctrine are no more affencted with it? are not ravished with it? It is because they have a false righteousness; they look upon a justification of their own by the works they have done, and therefore they never desire or pant after this. This is the desperate disease of those who are formal, civil persons, preserved from gross notorious sins, commonly none are more stupid under this precious Doctrine then they. The Pharisees they were plunged all over in this self-justification, Luke 16.15. This is the sin our Saviour chargeth upon them, Ye are they which justify yourselves; and Luke 18.14. by an instance of a Pharisee and a Publican, is excellently represented, that many times they are justified before God, who have no such thoughts of themselves, thinking the clean contrary, at least knowing they have deserved it; and again, there are others who are very confident, and presuming in their own goodness, and yet are wholly abhorred by God: Oh that this mother-sinne, this root of all evil were expelled your hearts! Oh that every one were brought to see this, and to cry out, I have no righteousness of my own, I look upon myself and tremble, How shall I come into Gods presence? Oh that upon the discovery of the loss of Gods Image, thou couldst go out with deflowered Tamar, thinking thyself undone, saying, And I, poor, sinful, wretched I, whither shall I go? profaneness is not so great an enemy to Evangelical Justification, as pharisaical righteousness. The Jews, because they endeavoured to establish their own righteousness, were wholly ignorant of the true righteousness. Paul would have thought it blasphemy to speak of all his religious duties while a Pharisee, which he doth afterwards, when a believer, that they were a loss to him, that they were as dung and dross, such a thought would have been rejected with great disdain: Oh this is it that undoth most! You cannot, you dare not begin to think, I am in a condemned estate, all my righteousness I presume in, is nothing worth: Oh miserable and wretched man that I am, What shall I do? The heart of man is so full of itself, that it dareth not admit such thoughts. But there is a good Justification, and that is when God justifieth the sinner believing in and through Christ. God doth not here pronounce a man righteous without a righteousness, or that hath no righteousness, but because clothed with the righteousness of Christ, therefore is the believers nakedness covered from the eyes of God.  
Thirdly, There is an absolute Justification( if we speak in the general nature of it) and a comparative Justification. An absolute Justification is, when a crime charged upon such a man, is proved to be false, and the party accused prevaileth over his adversary, so that his innocency may be more cleared. This is ordinary amongst men. There is also a comparative Justification, when men, though guilty of sins, yet compared with others more heinous, seem to have a kind of innocency, Minora vitia virtutes vocamus, Ezek. 16.51. Thus Jerusalem is said to justify Sodom and Samaria, though places full of great pollution, because they had not committed half of the abominations of jerusalem. And this comparative Justification is very frequent in the world; How many are there, who therefore justify themselves, because they are not so bad as others, they run not into the same excess of riot, neither are they so profane and opposite to what is holy, as many in the world are? Thus they think God will justify them, because less wicked then others, seeing they do justify themselves: Oh but how little is their ground of comfort in this respect! for thou art to live answerably to Gods Word, thou art to make that the rule to walk by. Though others are worse then thee, yet the Scripture makes thy life and conversation a state of gull and wormwood, and though to greater sinners there be greater torments provided, yet even to less sins no less then everlasting flames are appointed. A comparative Justification is not available without a positive and absolute one from God.  
4. There is a Justification in foro Dei, in Gods Court, and there is a Justification in foro Conscientiae, in the Court of Conscience. Then are we justified before God, when he no longer chargeth our sins upon us, when he removeth the guilt we are obnoxious unto; Some have thought it hard to conceive of a tribunal God hath in heaven, where before himself and the holy Angels he doth arraign us. And certainly we are not to limit this bar of God to heaven, but so far, and where God doth demonstrate his anger against sin so far, and there may we say God doth erect his tribunal; when God afflicts a man for his sins, either with inward troubles of conscience, or outward calamities; this may be called a summoning of the sinner before his tribunal, then is the offender to apply himself to God for reconciliation, so that this forum Coeli is not so to be understood, as if Gods anger were included there, but as manifesting itself either to the conscience, or otherwise. Therefore this second kind of Justification in the Court of Conscience is opposed only to the Court of heaven in this respect, because many times those whom God justifieth in heaven, feel not, or are not persuaded of his Justification in their hearts: Therefore it is that though partakers of unspeakable privileges, yet they walk in darkness, as having no comfort at all belonging to them. Although( as was declared formerly) this is not Justification, but the sense of it. Luther represented this two-fold Justification by those two passages of Christ concerning Mary Magdalen, for Christ spake concerning her, first, when she did not hear him, That her sins were forgiven her, and afterwards he spake particularly to her, Be of good comfort, thy sins are forgiven thee; God then may justify in heaven, and this by a direct act of faith be applied, but the reflex act or certain knowledge of thy Justification be separated from it: God hath his wise ends, why he sometimes bestoweth this privilege, and doth not give the sense of it, sometimes it is his action alone to separate these two; but at other times, and that fals out too often, the people of God through their careless, unfruitful and unprofitable walking raise up a great gulf between the light of Gods favour, and their own souls; so that though he is indeed blessed that hath his sins pardonned, that hath a righteousness imputed to him, the Scripture calls this man a blessed man, and no other, yet this blessed man may be in his own sense miserable and wretched, yea a man appointed for destruction; therefore be earnest in prayer to God, not onely to justify thee in heaven, but in thy own heart and spirit: this will make thee walk thankfully, cheerfully and fruitfully. This will be like Ezekiels spirit in the wheels. This will be oil to thy bones, and wine to thy heart. It was the sense of this made Paul in this Chapter thus victoriously triumph over all opposition: especially take heed of such a life, which though it doth not make a total intercision of, yet it makes a sad interruption in our Justification; when the intercourse of this is stopped, it is like a besieged City that hath all the pipes of water cut off, that have no way of refreshment to come to them, then they would like Dives be glad of a drop of water.  
Fifthly, Some learned men speak of an universal Justification, and of a particular one. An universal Justification they call that, when a man at his first believing, is received into Gods favour, then there is an universal pardon of all his sins committed, God leaveth not out the least farthing, but it is all discharged: And then a particular Justification they call that, which is daily iterated in our lives; for as we daily renew particular sins, so we need daily remission of them: Now although, as I have shewed, Justification denoteth a state of man, and so is universal and unutterable; yet being they call it a particular Justification, and mean thereby onely the renewed pardon of particular sins daily committed, I would not much contend in the matter; we cannot call remission of sin a state, as we call Justification; for although when a sin is remitted, we have Gods favour as to that particular, yet we commit more sins daily, which would endanger us, were we not in a state of Justification, whereby Gods grace will so watch over us, that no sins shall drive us out of this heavenly Paradise.  
Sixthly, There is a Justification of the cause, and a Justification of the person, and these are always to be distinguished. Job did justify himself against his friends, and would not let go his integrity; this was a Justification of the cause, or matter of fact. And thus David oftentimes in his particular quarrel between his adversaries and him, doth often appeal to God, and pled his innocency, and prays to God to regard his righteousness, but this was not in the Justification of his person; then he renounceth his own righteousness, and entreats God would not enter into judgement with him. To this may be reduced that act of Phineas, Psal. 106.31. executing Justice, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, not for the righteousness of his person, but of that act or cause. Therefore there is a vast difference between this phrase, and that Rom. 4. quoted out of Genesis, Abraham believed, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, as is to be shewed.  
Lastly, There is a Justification before God and before men. A Justification before God is, when God himself doth acquit us from our iniquities, and against this no men or devils can put a bar. A Justification before men, is when we walk so holily and exactly according to the principles of faith, that thereby we declare ourselves to be true believers, and justified before God. This Justification is necessary against all those that glory in the title and name of Christianity, as if a bare faith separated from holinesse was enough. It was one of Simon Magus his blasphemies, as History reports, affirming, that faith did make a man free to do what we would, and that it is a slavery to be obliged by Gods command to any holy duties. The gnostics also tumbled in this mire; and the Eunomians, who delivered, That if a man did hold that faith they taught, the committing of no gross vices would hinder their salvation. This Justification before men by holy works, is that which James pleads for in his Epistle, as some Divines conclude; and certainly it is part of the meaning, as in time is to be shewed. Therefore that men may not deceive themselves, through their self-love, saying, They are justified, when God condemneth, the Scripture speaks of a Justification by holy works before men, that so the hypocrite may be excluded, and the good three known by its good fruit.   

SERM. XVI. An Examination of some Distinctions about Justification, much controverted by several authors.  ROM. 8.33. It is God that Justifieth. 
I Shall now conclude this Text, from which we have been informed about the Nature of Justification.  
There remain two or three distinctions that are controverted by several authors, and these are at present to be examined. And  
First, Some distinguish of a baptismal Justification, and a Justification of persons grown up. This of late hath been agitated, especially Dr. Ward for the affirmative, maintaining a Baptismal Justification of all children baptized, De Baptis. Infant. disceptat. And the learned Mr. Gataker, who is for the negative; and indeed it would be a very hard task to prove the Justification of all Infants baptized out of Scripture. For  
1. Hereby must necessary be established a two-fold Justification, and that of a different nature, one of Infants in Baptism, from which there will be often a total and final apostasy.  
2. Of grown persons, which( according to the fore-mentioned authors opinion,( for I speak not of Thompson, Bertius, or others of that metal) is perpetual, and from it can be no falling away. Those learned men therefore Davenant and Ward, who introduce a Baptismal Justification, are forced to make this different toto genere, from that of grown persons; the one( they say) is amissable, the other can never be lost. But by Scripture direction we cannot walk boldly in these paths. Though indeed the Scripture speaks not directly of Infants Justification, yet by consequence it doth plainly and fully demonstrate it. Not that they are justified by actual faith, as the Lutherans contend, but this gracious privilege is applied to them, surely, though not expressibly by us; some difference then must be granted between an Infants Justification, and a person grown up, but not specifically, or in the nature of it, as if the Justification of the one might be totally intercided, and not the other, for Rom. 5. the Apostle chaineth them inseparably together, Whom he hath predestinated he hath justified, and whom he hath justified he hath glorified.  
Secondly, This opinion is not so wary as that of others; for some limit this baptismal Justification only to elect Infants, but these extend it to all baptized Infants, because they hold the Sacrament of Baptism exhibitive of grace, which is always effectual in the subject receiving, unless there be some obex or impediment put by the Suscipient, which( say they) cannot be in Infants: But to make such an universal Justification of all visible members of a Church, is a great Paradox.  
And thirdly, If it be granted, that the Sacrament of Baptism is not onely obsignative, but exhibitive of grace, yet that doth not follow, that it must be in all, and at that time of Baptism, but it may be exhibitive of grace in its due time, when it shall please God by the word preached to work it, and the original corruption every one is born in, is obex enough, seeing by that every Infant is a child of wrath. This doctrinal assertion hath too much influence in the hearts of all, for do not most rest on their Baptism as the ground of their Justification and Salvation, never attending ●●to those qualifications of an holy life, and renouncing the ways of sin and Satan to which our Baptism doth engage us. Indeed the Sacraments are usually called the organical means of our Justification on Gods part; but this is not to be understood, as if they had some inward, latent, physical virtue in them, as natural causes or medicinal pills have, to produce real effects: No they are moral causes only instituted by God; and although he hath promised to go along with his own institutions, yet they do not ex opere operato, merely by receiving of them convey grace, unless faith in the receiver make them effectual, as digestion in the stomach makes meat to nourish; therefore to a dead man food would do no good, neither do the Sacraments, where spiritual life is not laid as a foundation. In Popery this Justification by the opus operatum of Sacraments is much advanced. The Church( saith Becanus) hath two Baths to wash away its filth, the one of Baptism for original sin, the other of Penance for actual; and for the former he allegeth a place out of Gregory, He that doth not believe all his sins are washed away in Baptism, doth believe not Pharaoh and the egyptian host were drowned in the read Sea. But although the Sacraments God hath appointed be not empty mockeries, yet they are effectual onely, where there is due preparation. As the Jews did generally rest upon their Circumcision for Justification; and we may perceive by Pauls zealous disputes in his Epistles to the Galatians and Romans, that works of the Ceremonial Law, as well as of the Moral, were pleaded for by false teachers, as the causes of Justification; so still the same corrupt opinion, as so much sweet poison is received by most men, that they were justified in their Baptism, and therefore they need not trouble themselves with any more fears in this point. But if thou wert justified then, thou wast also sanctified then, for these always go together as light and heat in the fire, and if sanctified, then surely it would have been demonstrated in an holy and heavenly life. Are they not the manifest signs of the contrary? Do not therefore delude thyself, and think to mock God: if there were baptismal Justification, there was also baptismal Regeneration, and he that is born of God sinneth not, neither can he( viz. so as wholly to give himself up to the service of it, 1 Joh. 3.) because he is born of God, and his seed abideth in him.  
Secondly, Another controverted Distinction is; of an actual Justification from all eternity, and a declarative Justification in time. This is the great Diana of the Antinomians, which hath been at large confuted in my former Treatise. Indeed such a distinction hath unhappily fallen from the pen of some eminent and orthodox Writers, though not improved to such foolish and absurd consequences as the Antinomists do. Howsoever such a distinction hath no foundation in the Scripture which restraineth Justification to the believer, and describes the godly man to be for the present justified, so that formerly he was under the wrath of God, Gods purpose to justify is not Justification, no more then his purpose to glorify is glorification. Neither doth this argue any change in God, but in the creature, for he did immutably from all Eternity will such a change upon the sinner believing; God therefore is not properly said to be altered, but man is. Besides its wholly irrational to make our Justification in this life, to be only declarative, as if God did not indeed pardon sin, but did only manifest that he had done it already from all Eternity; How then can promises of pardon be made good, or well interpnted, which are upon the supposition of our believing and turning to God, that then he will turn away his anger, which by the fore-said position was never upon any elect person, all the while he was in an unregenerate estate, and in the height of his impiety? But enough hath been said to this already.  
Thirdly, The Arminians, and all those who hold a total apostasy from Justification once received, must distinguish of Justification as they do of Election, an absolute Justification, and a conditionate. An absolute is, when God forseeth that a man will persevere and continue to the last in his faith and obedience, upon which provision God doth then absolutely justify him. A conditionate is, of every man believing and repenting, provided, that he persevere in the same: So that as by their Doctrine no man can be absolutely elected till he die, so neither absolutely justified, for he may fall into such sins, as that though formerly justified, yet now condemned, yea to day he may be justified, and to morrow thrown out of that estate. This false and uncomfortable position is maintained by Thompson in his Diatribe, against whom Bishop Abbot hath solidly written, Those that are once justified are never again cast out of his favour, they may want the sense of it; The sun may be in an eclipse, but not removed out of its orb; and as Hooker observeth well in his Discourse of Justification, added to his Ecclesiastical Policy; As Christ once died, but rose again never to die more, death hath no more power over him; so a justified man once allied to God through Jesus Christ, doth from that time forward as necessary live, as Christ himself by whom it is that he doth live. In his judgement therefore, which is also consonant to the Scripture, a justified man can no more cease to live in this state of Justification, then Christ can cease to live in heaven; and the reason is, because of that immortal and indissoluble union which is between Christ the Head, and every believer a member unto him. Thy Justification therefore doth not depend in the continuance of it upon thy strength and thy power: woe be to us, if we had no other support; but it is built on Christ himself, who is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever: So thy Justification also will always be the same, though thou art many times changed with uncertain fears and doubts.  
Fourthly, The great and famous distinction which hath made so much noise in the books of late Writers; is that figment and new invention of the Papists, of a first and second Justification. The first Justification they call that, when a wicked man is at first made holy and righteous, having a supernatural principle of grace infused in him, which doth inherently justify him. A second Justification they call that, whereby a man being already just, doth increase and grow in his righteousness, and so is more justified. For the first Justification, they would persuade us, that they hold it to be onely of grace, when yet they hold such preparatory dispositions that are merits of congruity to obtain it. For the second Justification, they plainly aclowledge, that is obtained by our merits, and the good use of grace already received. By this distinction they think Paul and James may be reconciled. A great difficulty they grant it to be, how to accord both those Apostle, but they think this distinction reconcileth all; Paul( say they) speaks of the first Justification, for that is of an ungodly man, and it is by grace freely. But James speaks of a second Justification, and that is by the works we do. Indeed Becanus Tom. 1. and Tapper Art. 8. speak of a two-fold first Justification; the first Tapper calls, per modum simplicis generationis, or as Becanus, when one is made first that was neither first, or unjust before. Thus, they say, Angels and Adam were justified, there Justification was not of a person ungodly before, but were created in this purity. The second kind of first Justification, they make to be by way of a qualitative alteration, as when that is made hot which was formerly could; so a wicked and ungodly man, he by the grace of God is made just and holy. This, they call, the first Justification. But this distinction, as they explain it, is full of falsehood and reproach to the righteousness of Christ; for both these Justifications are built upon a false foundation, viz. That our inherent righteousness habitual or actual, is that which doth justify us in Gods sight. This( as is to be shewed) is against all those places of Scripture, which proclaim imperfection and defilements adhering to the best works we do. Its contrary to the frame of all the godly mens hearts that ever lived, who prayed against Gods severe entering into judgement with them, knowing Justification in the sight of God, by any thing they can do, is wholly impossible.  
2. This distinction of first and second cannot hold, Because a man is justified in the same manner and way in the whole progress of his life, as at first. Hence Abraham Rom. 4. when yet he did abound with many fruitful works of righteousness, was said to be justified by faith. The Adversaries do aclowledge Paul speaks there of the first Justification, and yet Abraham in whom the Apostle instanceth, was not then made righteous of wicked, for a long while before he had served God in all holinesse.  
3. There cannot be a first and second Justification in the Popish sense, because the first is said to live by faith, Hab. 2. which is three times alleged in the New Testament, and is applied to our Justification, as well as to dependence upon God in outward calamities; yea living by faith in respect of Justification, is the foundation of the other life by faith. Till by faith we live, receiving the favour of God through Christ, we are not able in other conditions to exercise the believing acts of dependence; seeing therefore that the first mans life( his life, not only his first conversion) is by faith, and that in respect of Justification, therefore in the whole progress of his life, he is justified but one way. After thou hast been many years a proficient in the way of godliness, thou art to put forth acts of faith for Justification, as humbly and as feelingly of thy own unworthiness, as at thy very entrance into godliness. Did not Paul when he had ran very far in the race of Christianity, yet forget all that was behind, and desire to be found only in the righteousness which is by faith. So that whereas the Doctrine of Justification is reproached for a Doctrine that breedeth security, pride and negligence in holy duties, There is no Doctrine like that so naturally inclining to increase humility, an holy fear and self-emptinesse, for by this we are taught even in the highest degree of our Sanctification, to look out of ourselves for a better righteousness; we look upon ourselves in the best of our spiritual glory, as so many Jobs on the dunghill, or Lazarusses begging at the rich mans gate; for how can the soul but be filled with great shane and confusion, that seeth nothing but deformity in itself, that dares not by any works he hath done, approach into Gods presence? By Sanctification he hath righteousness indeed inherent, but not perfect: by Justification he hath righteousness perfect, but not inherent. Let this then be settled upon thee, as at first thou wast justified freely by the grace of God: Thou sawest thy bypassed sins compassing thee about, and therefore didst look out of thyself to Christ. Thus it is to be always, though thou hast not the same sins, yea though now thou aboundest with many graces, and hast a large increase in holiness, yet such are the defects and failings accompanying thee in all thou dost, that thou canst not but cry out; Oh let me be covered with a better righteousness then that of mine own!  
4. There cannot be a first and second Justification in the mentioned sense, Because even those who are already reconciled to God, are yet daily to endeavour reconciliation with him. All new sins are apt to make new breaches, and these make, though not new total, yet partial reconciliations. Thus Paul, 2 Cor. 5.19, 20. when he said, God was in Christ reconciling of men to himself, he addresseth his speech even to those that were reconciled, that they would be reconciled to God, that is, they would not onely abide, and continue in that state, but as often as any failings and imperfections did break forth, they would by repentance turn to God, and entreat his favour toward them; an after-reconciliation then is not by any merits or good works of ours, but by the same gracious foundation it was at first wrought. Hence David, Psal. 32. pronounceth it as an universal Proposition, of every man at every time, whether at the first or at the last, Blessed is he, whose iniquities are covered, and his sins not imputed to him. Know then for thy direction( for its a great matter to be rightly informed herein) that all the day, all the year, all thy life long, thou art to be by faith receiving a righteousness without them, as thou dost every moment take in breath. Some have urged that phrase, Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 12.14. implying, that as every day we are to put on our garments to cover our nakedness, so we are to put on Christ for the covering of all our imperfections. This is the difference between man and beast, man comes naked into the world, Peccata de propriis vestiuntur( saith Augustine) and thus it is with man Theologically considered, he comes naked and destitute of all righteousness, and hath no covering of his own, but must be found in the Lord Christ, whose righteousness God judgeth as ours; neither is God deceived at that time, or judgeth otherwise then according to truth; for Christs righteousness is truly ours, though not inherently, When our Divines delight to express this by Jacobs getting the blessing in his elder brothers clothes, Papists reply, That we make God like old Isaac, that through blindness cannot discern what is truth; but to say, the hands are indeed the hands of Christ, but the voice the voice of a sinner. This is wilfully to mistake our words, for we all say, God judgeth as the truth is, neither doth he justify us without a righteousness, onely this is not inherent in us.  
Thus we have discovered the falsehood of that distinction of a first and second Justification, which they may multiply to the hundredth and thousandth Justification as well as the second.  
But there are some learned and Orthodox Writers, that do admit of a first and second Justification, but not in the Popish sense, they utterly abhor that, yet they affirm a first and second Justification. Ludovic. De Dieu in Rom. cap. 8. v 4. a very learned man, is large in asserting this. The first Justification is that acknowledged by the Orthodox, whereby, though sinners in ourselves, yet believing are justified before God. The second, whereby thus justified out of ourselves, we are justified before God in ourselves. The first Justification is the cause of the second, the second is the effect and demonstration of the first. The first is by faith, the second by works, and both are necessary; and if it should be objected, That then we are justified by the works of the Law; he answers, That these works of Sanctification are not the works of the Law ratione originis, for the Spirit of God doth work them, but ratione normae, in respect of the rule by which they are prescribed: And further then( saith he) are we justified by the works of the Law, when they are performed, as the condition of that Covenant: But this opinion looketh not on the Law so, but as its now altered; for the Law is deprived of that dominion it once had, and being subjected to Christ, cannot but praise and approve those works which flow from faith, and are wrought by Gods Spirit, though they be not satisfactorily answerable to the rigorous commands of it: So that by this opinion, when we are first justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ, then afterwards our works are accounted also unto us for righteousness. God justifieth us, as being free from profaneness and hypocrisy, walking sincerely in obedience to his commands; so that though an inherent righteousness be made the foundation of this second Justification, yet it is not from any worth or dignity, proportioned to the rule of holinesse, but from the worth of that imputed righteousness from which it floweth, and through whose dignity it is accepted of, and of this later Justification he makes James to speak, and so reconcileth him with Paul. Its true, other learned men speak something to this purpose; Not only Bucer, who is known to place Justification both in imputed righteousness and inherent, thereby endeavouring a reconciliation with the Papists, for for which Paraeus blameth him as too facile. But Calvin, lib. 3. cap. 17. Sec. 8. It is one thing, saith he, to dispute, what works avail of themselves, another thing What after the righteousness of faith is established, premise remission of sin and Christs perfection, whereby what is imperfect is covered, and then the good works done by believers, Justa censentur, vel( quod idem est) in Justitiam imputantur, are accounted unto righteousness. To this purpose also Zanchy, Tom. 1. de Justif. Thes. when a man is first reconciled to God by faith, then a believer is afterwards accepted of by God, for his good works. Although this be thus asserted, and all the Orthodox do readily grant, That our good works are pleasing to God through Christ, yet that this should be called a second Justification, and that before God, there seemeth to be no ground from the Scripture; for( as you heard) Abraham and David after their first Justification are still said in the some manner to be justified, viz. by faith, not by works. Its true, God doth accept of believers as sincere, that they are not hypocrites, but they are not justified by this; for David crieth out, Psal. 19. Who can understand the errors of his heart? so that there is hypocrisy in the heart of the most upright man for which God might justly condemn him.  
Let the Use then of all this be, to pray to God, that thy mind be kept sound in this main Doctrine: Oh let not any subtle distinctions poison thee! This truth hath an influence into all thy comforts, and into all thy holinesse, therefore admit not the least corruption here. How many ways have the corrupt hearts and heads of men invented for Justification? The Turk hath his way to justify himself before God. The Jew his. The Papist his. The formal Protestant his, and all agree in establishing some righteousness of their own, which can no more stand before Gods judgement then stubble before the fire: such a righteousness may have greater applause in the world, but bring it to God it is abominable. As the eye can endure to look upon a Candle or the stars, but is not able to endure the glorious beams of the Sun.    

SECT. IV. Setteth forth what is not that righteousness whereby a man is Justified.  

SERM. XVII. Sheweth, That every Man is prove to set up a Righteousness of his own, to be Justified by it, and whence it proceeds.  ROM. 10.3. For they being ignorant of Gods Righteousness, and going about to establish their own, have not submitted themselves unto the Righteousness of God. 
HAving discussed the nature of Justification in the general, I shall proceed further in this manner: First, To handle negatively what is not that righteousness, whereby a man is justified, because there are many false righteousnesses exalted for Justification, and shall from this Text in the general, inform how prove we are to seek for a righteousness to justify us, otherwise then God hath appointed.  
The Apostle in the Chapter preceding charged the Jews with heavy and sad things, but that they might not think this spoken from hatred, but love unto them, he doth very passionately insinuate himself into their affections in the beginning of this Chapter, which is expressed quoad affectum, and quoad effectum: in respect of his inward affection, he tells them his hearts desire is toward them, {αβγδ}, which is very emphatical, and as Hierom saith, cannot be translated by one word, unless a man should say Placentia. It was not then every kind of affection, but the top and highest he had towards them.  
Again quoad effectum, his love is seen in his prayer to God for them that they might be saved: Spiritual love is the most active and vigorous. To love a man to his salvation, is more then temporal beneficence whatsoever.  
In the second verse he giveth a reason of these strong desires towards them, he gives them good testimonial Letters, onely he corrects them with a diminution, I bear them record, that they have a zeal, but not according to knowledge. Zeal though never so fervent in matters of Religion, yet if preposterous, if not regulated by Gods Word, is like the strange fire offered upon Gods Altar. Its better, saith Augustine, Claudicare in viâ, then strenuè currere extra viam. The Jews did run, but it was out of the way; They were like a fertile piece of ground, but overgrown with weeds: Had their zeal been right both in respect of its original, and its manner, and its object, and its end; Then Paul would have delighted to have sown his spiritual seed in such prepared ground.  
In the third verse, he instanceth, wherein their blind zeal did hurry them into destruction, and that was in the main point and hinge of their salvation, viz. about their Justification, they set up a righteousness to be justified by, which was directly contrary to the righteousness of God; so that their dangerous miscarriage is expressed in the sin it self, and in the causes of it, the sin itself is not to submit or subject themselves to the righteousness of God; The righteousness by which we are justified, is called Gods righteousness, both because he causeth and procureth it, as also, because its adequately answerable unto his will, and accepted by him, and because it is a righteousness not of a man merely, but of God also, as in time is to be shewed. Now to this righteousness, which with all their hearts and open souls, they should have received, because nothing else could commend them to God, they did not submit themselves, or they were not submitted, such was the rebellion and selffulnesse within them, that they would not rest wholly upon this righteousness. Here not the full stomach, but even the empty loathes the honey-comb, though they had a conceited fullness. This righteousness as its called twice in the Text Gods righteousness, so its illustrated by the opposite {αβγδ}, their own righteousness. Its called their own righteousness, both in respect of the principle from which it did flow, they did those works by the strength of nature without the grace of God, and their own righteousness in respect of the subject and inherencie; for suppose any of the Jews had been with Paul converted, yet they would not with him be found in their own righteousness, but in that which is by faith, Phil. 3. so that the works of grace may be called our own righteousness, when we seek to be justified by them, although in respect of their original they are not ours; as a mans soul is his own soul, though at first infused by God alone. Thus you have their sin.  
The Causes are, first, their ignorance, {αβγδ}; this was not ignorance of the fact, but of the right, neither was it invincible, but wilful and affencted, for they had excellent means to know to the contrary.  
2. There was their pride and wilfulness in this way; they did {αβγδ} earnestly seek and labour to set up their own righteousness, {αβγδ}, from sick and weak persons, who would stand, but through their imbecility fall down immediately, or as a man that would set up an Image, but for want of life it tumbleth down presently; as he said, {αβγδ}, it wants something within; as the Israelites endeavoured to set up their Dagon before the Ark, though that tumbled down before it. Thus these Jews endeavoured to establish their poor, weak and cadaverous righteousness in the presence of Gods glorious, just and holy Majesty, which yet was no more able to stand before him, then stubble before the fire.  
3. There is their rebellion added to their pride, they would not submit themselves; a man naturally is as disobedient to a promise to receive the righteousness offered by faith, as he is to a Command to fulfil the duty thereof. This is good to be observed, thy heart was not once more averse and untoward against the holy commands of God, then now since broken for sin, it is opposite to Gods promises for a righteousness; Not onely our Sanctification, but our Justificafication also finds strong rebellion against it in all our hearts.  
That every man naturally is very prove to set up a righteousness of his own to be justified by it, 
observe. Every man is prove to set up a righteousness of his own.  contrary to that which God hath appointed. Publicans and gross sinners do not more oppose the way of practical godliness, then Pharisaical men do the way of Evangelical righteousness. Not onely righteousness inherent, but imputed also, is extremely contrary to mans corrupt nature; we say, Christ shall not reign over us in respect of his Priestly Office, purchasing a righteousness for us, as well as in his Kingly power enjoining holy Laws to walk by.  
To set this truth before you, I shall discover the {αβγδ} of this Doctrine, that it is so, and then bring the demonstration or the {αβγδ}, why it is so, and the diligent attending to this will not only make you know Justification by Books and by Sermons, but you will feel the power and sweetness of it upon your own heart; for I writ not only to the intellectual part, but the affective also. A Ministers Motto should be, Nusquam doceo ubi non moveo, nusquam moveo ubi non doceo.  
First therefore, 
Th●… pro●…  That its imbred in all to seek after another righteousness for Justification, then what is Evangelical, appeareth, In the corrupt Doctrines and Opinions of all men almost about it. As there were but eight persons preserved in the Ark, when the whole world was drowned; so there are some few preserved in the sound and true Doctrine of Justification, when almost the whole world erreth dangerously, if not damnably about it. As for those that are without the Church, its no wonder, if they, as they reject a Christ, so also the righteousness which comes by him. The Jew, the Turk, the Pagan, all of them approach to God as absolutely considered, and so expect acceptance by those works they do. No wonder if the Jews do so now, for they did of old so, when yet they had the Prophets discovering Gospel-righteousnesse to them, and all their Sacrifices might abundantly convince them, that they had nothing of their own to put any confidence in. Hence God by the Prophet Isaiah threatens, Chap. 51.12. I will declare thy righteousness and thy works, for they shall not profit thee; God will make them ashamed of their righteousness, as well as their sins; Oh this is excellent, when a man is amazed and in an holy manner confounded even at his holinesse, as well as at his offences! Therefore he addeth vers. 13. He that putteth his trust in me( viz. renouncing his righteousness) shall possess the Land; and vers. 15. The high and lofty one that dwells in the high and holy place, doth also dwell with the humble and contrite spirit to revive that. Now, who is this humble and contrite spirit? Even that which goeth out not onely of his sins, but of all his duties and graces, and being ashamed and cast down in himself, is revived only by the grace of God without him. Come we to those within the Church that profess their faith in Christ, and you would think there was an universal consent in this great privilege of Justification. But nothing is more controverted, How much unjustified is the Scripture-Justification of most? What accusations and condemnations of one another about Justification? Insomuch that set some few, even a remnant, aside, comparatively, the whole Christian world, both Doctors and people, learned and unlearned, fasten on a Justification by works; and that which the Apostle doth industriously oppose they labour to bring in, but with many subtle distinctions, and fair disguises: the Papist, the Arminian, the Socinian, the Castellian, the Swinckfeldian, with divers others, all conspire in this, That our righteousness is inherent by which we are justified; most of them make faith and works, some few faith only, as its a gracious act; so that the {αβγδ} credere, the very believing is accounted of by God, as a full, complete, legal righteousness. Now, whence cometh it, that all do so readily join in this falsehood? but because Justification by something in us is so pleasing and connatural to flesh and blood: Its a Doctrine that naturally breedeth in our hearts; and therefore as all men grant the fire to burn, and the sun to shine, because this is evident to sense; No less do all conspire in this, that we must do some thing, work some thing, that by that we may be accepted of by God. So that the universality of such corrupt Doctrines, show what is the root in our heart. These frogs could not breed but from such noisome spawn.  
A second Discovery of our proneness to a Justification that is not Evangelical, is, From the confidence and cordial trust men put in the religious duties they perform. So that what ought to be given to Christ and his righteousness, they attribute to their duties. That look as the Idolater gives that worship and honour to wood and ston, which is due to the wise and holy God only: Thus such hope and confidence do men generally put in the good works they do, which belongs only unto Christ. Our Saviour represents this in the Pharisee, Luke 18. though he giveth God thanks that he is not thus and thus, that he doth pray and fast, yet it is by this working he looks to be accepted. There is not a word of his sin, of his millions of imperfections in every duty he did: But as high as he was in his own thoughts, so low and abominable he was in the sight of God. That is a remarkable expression, Phil. 3.3. We are the Circumcision, who rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, that do renounce all duties and privileges, making the glory and joy of our souls to be in Christ onely: Oh take heed then of this deadly poison, to have a secret trust and rest of soul in the good things thou dost! The ston is not more inclining to fall downward, then thou art to take up thy rest here, and though thou art no profane or ungodly sinner; This heart-confidence in duties performed, is millstone heavy enough to drown thee in the sea. This leprosy did spread itself over the Jewish Nation; this made them set up the works of the Law against Christ; and the generality of Christians are as much formalized, and made Justitiaries as ever they were. This sin devoureth secretly without a noise, as the moth doth cloath, it doth not as gross sins consume like a roaring Lion.  
Thirdly, Men are averse to Evangelical righteousness, in that they are so apt to self-justification, and clearing of themselves, all is clean and good in their eyes. They have good hearts, good works, God is their good God; there is nothing( as they judge) but good in them, when their hearts, if ransacked into by Gods word, is a noisome dunghill; This was the Pharisaical righteousness, Luke 18. Ye are they which justify yourselves. And so the Jews of old, though under Gods grievous judgements, yet would pled with God, as if they were not guilty; they thought Gods ways were hard and inequal: So hard a matter is it to aclowledge sin, and to be willing to be ashamed because of it, whereas the Publican that went away justified, he humbled himself, he bewailed himself a sinner; and certainly then is a man in an hopeful way for Justification, when with Job he abhorreth himself, because of the spiritual sores and ulcers that are all over him, then he is nearest to God, when he sets himself afar off, as not being worthy to come into Gods presence; when, as our Saviour directs, thou setst thyself at the lower end, then will Christ bid thee come up higher: But oh the self-love and self-flattery which reigneth in every man: who is willing to be convinced a sinner, to accuse and arraign himself, as a sinner, to judge and abhor himself, as guilty of all the wrath God threatens in his Word! Oh how hardly is he brought to think himself undone, to see his nakedness and poverty, to aclowledge he is a beast and a devil! No, this will never be done, till God break and soften the heart, and therefore how many are admiring the virtuous and innocent life they have lived, as he did the glorious Babel he had built, and even then, when( as he was) they are near utter confusion?  
Fourthly, Our proneness to a contrary way of Justification then God hath appointed, is seen in that want of an appetite, and heavenly relish, which a gracious heart useth to have in the Doctrine of Justification. Were people spiritualized, sensible of the burden of sin, of the infinite imperfections that cleave to them, of their inability to answer God in any particular; There is no truth in the world would be so acceptable to them as this; for this they would say, The word of God is sweeter then the honey-comb; Why is the Gospel commended by so many admirable Titles, The precious Gospel, the glorious Gospel? but because of the admirable excellency an Evangelical spirit finds in these things. At the first Reformation out of Popery, when this pearl of Justification lay all over covered with dirt and mire, the superstitious Doctrines of Popery, but by the means of those excellent Worthies God raised up, discovered and purified; How many humble, precious and contrite hearts did God also fashion by his grace, that for that truth, above all, in Reformation, did bless and praise God for? For as Calvin well urgeth, What foundation can be laid either for true piety, or solid comfort, if a man in the first place be not satisfied in what relation he stands to God, upon what terms God and he are? Oh but now this manna is loathed! Now many Sermons may be preached, and the auditors very few whose hearts melt, and are ravished within them, while they hear of it, I tell thee, Thou canst not discover a more carnal, dead heart, destitute of Gods Spirit, then to sit like a stock or a ston under the preaching of this truth. Thou wouldst( if heavenly) find all thy bowels move within thee at the approach of this Doctrine unto thee; As they received Christ corporally, crying Hosanna, and saying, Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord; Thus wouldst thou do concerning this Gospel-truth: But thy heart like Nabals is a ston in this case, and thou findest no heavenly excellency in this pearl, because thou art of a swinish nature, and so preferrest thy base lusts before it.  
Fifthly, Our averseness to a Gospel-Justification is discovered by the want of an hunger and thirst after Christ. We have not an high and inestimable value that we put on him; Paul is sick always while he hath not Christ: The Church in the Canticles is not more ravished with her Spouse, then Paul with Christ, 1 Cor. 3.2, 3. He determineth to know nothing but Christ crucified, and Phil. 3.8. He counts all things dung and dross for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ; and whence hath Paul this high esteem of Christ? Even because of the spiritual hunger and thirst that is in him. Never did hungry man long for a morsel of bread, never did Samson long for water through thirst, more then he doth after Christ, because of the spiritual need and want he finds of him. Christ as a mediator propounded in the Scripture, is like the brazen Serpent to a stinged and pained beholder. But the generality of Christians, though they name Christ, and speak of him, yet they do not with the Church run after him in the sweetness of his ointment, Cant. 1.3.  

Why it is so. Whence it is that men are so prove to set up a righteousness of their own.  Thus we have heard this truth discovered by the {αβγδ}, the signs or effects thereof. Let us now consider it in the causes thereof. And  
First, A doctrinal ignorance of some main points in Religion, is that which makes many so mistake in Justification. This you see is the cause in my Text, name as the first of all. Their ignorance in these ensuing particulars, 
I. A doctrinal Ignorance of some points in Religion.  makes men not acquainted with, or careful of a Gospel-Justification.  
1. An ignorance of the pure, holy and just nature of God, that he is a God of such absolute purity, that nothing but absolute holinesse can consist before him; that those things which may even dazzle the eyes of men, are yet but as dung in Gods account, Hab. 1. Thou art of purer eyes then to behold iniquity; See the glorious purity and Majesty of God expressed notably, and mans contemptible vanity respectively, Job 25.5, 6. Job 4.17, 18, 19. Job 15.15, 16. There we see the heavens and Angels themselves are not clean in his eyes, how much less weak and sinful men? He doth not there speak of Apostate Angels, but those that continue in their purity. Now even the Angels themselves are ashamed, though not having the least blemish, they cover their faces, even the noblest part of them, because God is of such infinite Majesty: would not this then debase the most holy man that is, if he did consider what a God he hath to do with? And though men may proudly and vainly dispute about the condignity of their works to Justification, yet when they come to die, and shall think of appearing before so holy a God, they will quickly pull down their top; and if it were possible with Adam to hid themselves from the presence of God, when they shall see their nakedness; certainly if Angels be thus debased, what shall poor, weak, sinful man do?  
2. Ignorance of the purity of the Law, and the exact, strict obligation thereof. Did men consider what that holinesse is, which the Law requireth, that it pronounceth a curse to all that fail but in the least particular, that it will admit of no obedience but what is perfect; then every man must cry out, That they are but dead men, and damned men by the Law: This makes the Apostle so vehemently dispute against those presumptuous conceits of righteousness by the Law; if it be so, then Christ died in vain, and if Christ died in vain, then are we yet in our sins; if therefore men make godliness of such a size and measure as they please, thinking that is all God requireth which they do, no wonder if they go boldly and demand a crown of glory as the reward of their labour; no marvel if they say with that wretched Friar, red mihi vitam aeternam, quam mihi debes, sieve velis, sieve nolis, Give me that eternal life thou owest me, whether thou wilt or no: Oh pestilent mouth to utter such blasphemy that infecteth the very air! How contrary is this to the humble spirit of believers, which hath always in forma pauperis, begged for the glory of heaven? That say spiritually, what Job spake corporally, Naked( of all merits, unless of hell and damnation) came I into the world, and naked( of all merits of glory) shall I go out of the world. Its not then every righteousness, though applauded and admired by men, that the Law doth approve; Was any righteousness more glorious then that of the Pharisees, yet Matth 5. our Saviour pronounceth, That unless ours exceed that, we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven; and Rom. 7. Paul there proclaimeth what high and puffed thoughts he once had, while a Pharisee, he thought to have life by the Law, whereas Augustine said, Da Domine quod jubes,& jube quod vis; Lord, give me to do what thou commandest, and then command what thou wilt: he can bid the Law command what it will, he is ready to obey: Oh but how ashamed and confounded is this Paul, when once he understands what this spiritual and holy Law is, Then the Law revived, and he died, then he was undone, he could not hold up his head any more; then he looked on himself as a Judas, as a Cain, then he seeth every thing prepared to undo him; Then as Paul said in the contrary Rom. 8. The whole Creation groaned for the liberty of the sons of God, So might he say, All the creatures groaned to bear such a wretched sinner, and longed for his perdition: Go then and look into the pure glass of the Law, as James exhorts, Chap. 1.25. and there thou wilt see such spots and blemishes, such deformities upon thee, that thou wilt be a monster in thy own eyes, and not able to endure thyself.  
3. Ignorance of the relics of corruption abiding in us, and conflicting with us, makes us not esteem this Gospel-Justification: For a man might think, and thus many writ in their Books, Though while a man lived in his sins, he needed a Justification by grace that must deliver him, yet when once he hath a supernatural principle, and a divine nature within him, then certainly he needs not such a Gospel justification: but all this is, because they know not the combat of the flesh and the Spirit; they feel not the strugglings of those two twins within them; if they did, they would easily believe there was no appearing but in the wedding garment of Christs righteousness; Then they would consider how truly the Prophet Isaiah said, that not their unrighteousness, but their very righteousnesses were like a menstruous rag, Isa. 64.6. What are our unrighteousnesses and our sins, if our holy things be thus compared to what is most abominable?   

SERM. XVIII. Another great Cause of Mens trusting in their own righteousness, viz. A practical Ignorance or Inconsideration of some Necessary Things relating to our Actions.  ROM. 10.3. For they being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, &c. 
WE mentioned three doctrinal points, the ignorance whereof made men Narcissus-like, fall in love with themselves, wholly rejecting the grace of God without them. I now add some more.  
Therefore in the fourth place, Ignorance, or a not attending to Christ both in his person and office, is that which makes them lay a dead child in the room of a living one, a dead and empty righteousness in stead of that which is efficacious and powerful. Did we truly consider of this great and unspeakable mystery, That God should become Man, and be as a Surety for us, suffering and doing what we should, it would immediately make us abandon our own works, and fly to him only. The Scripture speaks of his Person and Office: of his Person, that he is both God and Man; and without either of these he could not have been a Mediator: And for his Office, the Scripture is plentiful in informing of us, That he was not made man, or became obedient to the cross for his own self, but wholly for us, 2 Cor. 5.21. He was made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God. 1 Cor. 1.30. Who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: So Col. 1.19. It pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell; where the Apostle sheweth at large, that he is the Head of the Church, so that we are complete in him, Chap. 2.10. Why then is it that the Scripture doth represent Christ in a far greater glory then ever Solomon had? Why doth it make him the Ocean of all our joy and hope, the fullness that filleth all our emptiness? but because we should not look for any fullness or completeness in ourselves, but in Christ alone: So that whatsoever in Justification is attributed to thyself, so much is taken from Christ. The Scripture calls Christ often Our righteousness, it mentioneth nothing for our righteousness but him. All the children of God have renounced themselves, and would be found onely in Christ: Why then art thou such an enemy to thy true consolation, as to seek for a righteousness by thy own working? Though the people of God have works of righteousness, yet they have not righteousness of works. If then at any time thy heart be lifted up within thee, humble thyself with the thoughts of Christ; If this be so, then Christ was a Mediator in vain, he was made man in vain,& died in vain: Can we think that Christ came into the world to share the glory of our salvation between man and himself? No, but as the Moral Law is, We are to have no other gods beside him; so the Gospel saith, We are to have no other Mediator but him: Oh then! if thou didst study Christ more, and convince thyself thoroughly of the fullness and sufficiency that is in him, thou wouldst be restless and disquieted within thee, till thou wert centred on Christ; Thou wouldst be as Noahs Dove, that found no settling place, when the waters covered the earth, till she got into the Ark.  
5. Another cause of self-justification, and refusing Christs righteousness, is, The deceit of subtle and crafty distinctions, which corrupt mindes have brought in, so that whereas they dared not immediately and grossly contradict Paul, who doth so professedly dispute against Justification by works, they invent many plausible and specious distinctions, hiding deformed and ugly errors under fair disguises: So that what the Scripture saith of Absoloms battle with David, The wood devoured more then then sword that day, the same may we say, The crooked windings and labyrinths of distinctions loose more souls then open gross errors: Insomuch that they have so many glosses and fair colours, that the simplo are easily deceived, thinking all is well; but the Snake lieth hide under these sweet flowers; for when we do urge, That Paul excludes all works from Justification, and makes an immediate opposition between believing and working, so that he doth not admit of any medium; The Adversaries like Jezabel paint their faces, and look very boldly. Its true, say some, works are excluded, but such as are done by the mere power of nature, such are granted to be wild grapes, and to have no sweetness in them, but the works that are done through grace they are not shut out. Others, Works are excluded, but not the works of the Moral Law, but the Ceremonial onely; they were not to seek Justification by Sacrifices and Circumcision, for now Christ was come, these were antiquated. Others they draw a smaller line, and they say, Works are excluded, yea even the works of grace, but not as works, onely as merits; so that the working is not disputed against, but the merit of working, as if thereby heaven and glory might be demanded by way of debt. Again, Others they say, Works are excluded, but such works as are perfect and fully commensurated to the Law; by such no man can be justified, but through grace and a merciful condescension, our imperfect works are accepted of to our Justification. Thus you see by all these subtle distinctions, men would be thought not to thwart Scripture; Every one saith, Paul is not against me, the Scripture doth mean works in the sense as I mean, I say as the Scripture saith, and grant what that affirmeth. Now by these subtle insinuations, the simplo is enticed, as Solomon speaks of the adulterous woman, into dangerous nets, and is undone before he thinketh any thing. Take heed then of subtle and groundless distinctions, think not to put off the great Judge of the world with them. Its as if a man should cover himself with cobwebs in the midst of a battle, thinking they will serve for a strong harness to defend him against all dangers.  
A sixth cause of this proneness to our own righteousness rather then to Christs, is, From the sublimity and supernaturality of that way of Justification, which the Gospel hath revealed: So that it being several ways supernatural, its no wonder if our hearts naturally do not close with it. As  
1. Its supernatural in the revelation of the truth of it. Had not God revealed such a way of Justification, we should no more have thought of it, then of any other mystery in the Christian Religion: So that as from the Scriptures onely we come to know that there is a Trinity, that God became man, that our bodies shall rise again; Thus from them only we come to know, that we are justified, not by working, though by the most admirable and choice works that can be, but by believing in Christ. Hence Rom. 1.17. The righteousness of God is said to be revealed from faith to faith; Revealed] Therefore all the Aristotles and Platoes in the world never thought of such a way. This then is the cause so many look after a false Justification, and rest their souls upon an unsound and rotten righteousness. The Gospel-righteousnesse, as it is wholly of Gods procuring, so its also of his revealing; and therefore as the other Doctrines of Christian Religion are above our reason, so is this also; we are as hardly persuaded of such a righteousness by Christ, as we are of Christ himself being God and man.  
2. The supernaturality of it is in the contrariety of it to flesh and blood. The truth of it is not only above our understandings, but the practise of it is against our hearts. Adam in the state of integrity looked for Justification by works; so that this Gospel-justification is not onely opposite to man fallen, but man standing also. It was never in mans nature to seek for a Justification by a righteousness without us: Now this contrariety of Gods Justification to our self-justification, is, because in Gods way we are emptied of all things, we are discovered to be beggars, to be undone and damned in ourselves; and the heart of man will never yield to this, till it be broken and contrite, in pieces, losing all its former fashion and figure. This Gospel-Justification being then both for the nature of it, and truth of it, wholly supernatural, its no wonder so few have any discerning of it; they must be Eagle-eyed that can look into this sun. The Apostle Heb. 5.13. sheweth, that even a godly man while a babe, one that is in the beginnings of Christianity, is unskilful in the word of righteousness, i.e. the Gospel, which declareth true righteousness; Therefore this is called strong meat, and fit for those who by reason of use, or an habit and perfection in holinesse have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil: Oh what a long while is it, ere the new convert is directed to this way of Justification! What perplexities? What troubles of heart? What sad temptations do befall him, and all because he is unskilful in this subject, and its the grown Christian who comes to have a discerning spirit in it!  
Seventhly, 
II. Another cause of mens proneness to trust in a righteousness of their own, is, A practical Ignorance or inconsideration of some necessary things relating to our actions.  A practical Ignorance or Inconsideration of some necessary things relating to our actions, is the cause of proneness to a false Justification, as well as a speculative ignorance of the fore-mentioned dogmatical points. If therefore a man did seriously attend to some such practical truths, as are to be mentioned, he would be as much afraid to abide in his own righteousness, as Lot in Sodom, when fire and brimstone were ready to devour. For  
1. Let him consider how great his omission is of the good things he should have done: Oh, who is able to abide, when he shall consider what this command and that required! What duty here and there he ought to have done, and yet failed many times? And certainly, if upon a supposition of doing all, we are commanded, to say, That we are unprofitable servants, God is not bettered, or made more happy by us, how much more when we neglect so many things we ought to do? Hence therefore when the Scripture speaks of the good works the godly have done, yea when they are mentioned to their praise, yet mercy and forgiveness is at the same time desired. Thus when Nehemiah reckoned up the great acts of service he did for God, yet saith, Chap. 13.22. Remember me, O my God, and spare me, according to the greatness of thy mercy. So concerning Onesiphorus, who was truly according to his name Onesiphorus to Paul, 2 Tim. 1.16, 18. for he oft refreshed him, was not ashamed of Pauls chain, yea sought him out very diligently, yet what saith Paul? The Lord show mercy, and the Lord grant he may find mercy of the Lord in that day. You would think Paul had spoken of some great sins of Onesiphorus before; No, but he speaks of his eminent and admirable graces, and yet prayeth thus hearty for mercy which always supposeth misery: If therefore at any time thy heart begins to be lifted up within thee, because thus and thus thou hast done, Oh check thyself with the omission of many thou oughtest to have done: Who is able to hold up his head if God remember the neglect of this and that duty against thee? This consideration will make us to mention Gods righteousness only, and that with great vehemency and assurance of soul, as you have it notably expressed, Isa. 45.25. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory; The seed of Israel is there the spiritual seed, the chosen ones of God, these shall be justified in the Lord, not in their own graces or works they do, and there is the consequent of this, They shall glory, which could never be, if Justification were to be by our own works, for then we had matter rather of shane and confusion within ourselves. And further observe, whereas at vers. 23. its said, Every knee should bow unto God, and tongue swear by him, The main matter wherein his worship is seen, is, Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness. This truth of having righteousness onely in the Lord, hath such a powerful influence upon every godly man, that he shall swear it, and in his worship of God( which is synecdochically expressed by swearing.) This will be the great stay and comfort of his soul, that in God only consists all his righteousness.  
A second thing in our practical miscarriage, whereby we idolize our own righteousness, is, The not considering that if we do any good at any time, its not by our own power, or own strength, but wholly by the grace of God: So that we cannot be justified by this, but rather thereby our own impotency is the more discovered, as is well observed by Mr. Bradshaw in his little Treatise of Justification, That the more we are enabled by grace to do any thing, the more supernatural help we have, the less are we justified in ourselves. Hence the Scripture when it speaks of our Justification always expresseth it passively; we are justified never actively, unless in an ill sense, as Luke 16. when the Pharisees are said to justify themselves. Thus Durand of old well argued, That by no works of Grace could we merit, because the more Grace we had, there was the more obligation of thankfulness to God, we received more gifts from God; So that in the very doing of any good, we ought to be humbled; For from whom comes this power? Who giveth thee this assistance? Let not then any pride, like a dead fly in the box of ointment spoil all. It was the expression of an ancient Writer, As those that draw up pure water, sometimes have frogs come up with the water that make it loathsome: Thus many that are employed in heavenly and great works of God, as the Spirit of God is working in them, so their own human spirit, and corrupt principles co-operate therewith, and thus the comfort of a duty is lost: As the Pharisees did all to be seen of men, and so they had their reward, that was their punishment and their judgement, to have that glory from men, which they wholly looked after: If therefore at any time thou art enabled to believe or repent, know in this thou dost not give to God, but God gives thee: So that it s a pernicious Doctrine which Socinus teacheth, Tract. de Justific. That in Justification, the main thing is to look to those things that are within us, not without us. If this were so, then Paul was foully mistaken, Philip. 3. who would not be found in his own righteousness, but that which is through faith in Christ. Certainly, the clean contrary is most true, That in Justification we are to look more to that which is without us then within us; we are to live spiritually, as we do naturally, as naturally we live by receiving in breath from without; So we spiritually live by receiving in righteousness through Christ: If then all be of Grace, then Justification is not from or by any thing we do.  
Thirdly, We do not practically attend to this also, That when we are enabled by Grace to do any thing that is good, yet as this gracious Action cometh through our hands, it admits of much soil and imperfection. Some have thought it blasphemy to say, The gracious Actions we are enabled unto by Gods Spirit, are imperfect; As if( say they) Gods Spirit did any thing imperfectly, not considering that Paul( Philip. 3.) though he had the Spirit of God dwelling in him, yet accounts all that he did, as dung and dross comparatively to Christs righteousness. Besides, Though the Spirit of God worketh these things in us, yet it is not made one person with us; it doth onely efficiently produce them, not vitally and formally. The Spirit of God doth not believe or repent, though it enableth us to those things; as naturally its not God that eateth, or drinketh, or moveth in us, though by his assistance we are enabled to do all. Further, its a known Rule, That Quicquid recipitur, recipitur ad modum recipientis; Pure water running thorough a foul Pipe, getteth some soil upon it; Excellent Wine will taste of the Cask, if it be not sweet: So that, although the same Action as it cometh from God be perfect, yet as it floweth from us, is vitiated and made imperfect several ways.  
Fourthly, Men do not practically attend to this, Suppose, That by the Grace of God thou dost that which is truly good, yea that is absolutely and perfectly so, yet this is not enough to the Law, because that requireth the universal frame of all good works commanded. As the Apostle James saith, He that breaks one is guilty of all. Its an usual saying, The Law of God is copulative, that is, it requireth the connexion and chaining of all duties together; so that if a man were able to perform one or two good duties in a most absolute manner, yet unless he did persevere in all, he had not the righteousness of the Law. Socinus( Tract. de Justificat.) grants that the Apostle Rom. 4. excludeth works of Justification, not onely as merits, but as they are works; onely he saith, the Apostle means by works the whole congeries or order of all good duties required by the Law, and thus none is justified; but then, he saith, the Apostle James when he attributeth Justification to works, he doth not take works for the universal observance of all Gods commands, but but for the frequent and constant use of them, though accompanied with several failings and omissions: But this will not heal the wound he hath made. Although we grant, That if a man could perfectly and completely fulfil the Law of God in some particular command, yet unless there were a general observation of all, there could not be any subsisting before God: Attend not then to some few particular duties done, though never so eminently and exactly, for unless thou art able to say, Thou hast kept all, and failed not in any one particular, here cannot be any Justification by works.  
Fifthly, If men did practically consider not onely the Omission of many good things, but the commission of many sins daily, this would make them fly out of their selves to a Justification by Christ: For if there be but one sin that may be laid to thy charge, though all thy other life for the future were as perfect as that of the Saints and Angels in Heaven, it could not avail to Justification, because that one sin in the guilt of it would preponderate and weigh down all thy duties, one sin would be more to condemn, then all thy holinesse to save thee, and this is the ground why it behoved us to have such an High-Priest, that was altogether without spot, or blemish, because if he had sins of his own, he could not have satisfied for another: What madness then and blindness doth possess men, that they should endeavour to set up that for a covering, which will indeed be like so many sparks of fire to consume them, like so many briars to tear and rend them? They do in this matter of Justification, as the Jews in their calamities, run from one refuge to another, from a Serpent to a wall tottering that would fall upon them.  
Lastly, Men do not consider, That when they have abstained from sin, that it hath been many times not out of love to God, or hatred to sin, but either because the opportunity hath not been, or else outward fear and shane, and if so, thou art far from a Justification by this. The Israelites many times in their afflictions were kept from sin, but it was something without kept them, as the bounds of the Sea keep in the waters, it was not from any true sanctified principle within: So that if any one do but think of all these particulars, they will quickly melt within, and be afraid of themselves, they will cry out, Woe be unto me in my best condition: What the Psalmist said, Every man at his best is but vanity; The same they will say even of their spiritual condition; and what the Prophet said, All flesh is grass, and the flower thereof fadeth away, The same in some sense, with reference to Justification, they may speak: Even their spiritual Graces are as gross, and fade away, when the scorching beams of the glorious sun of righteousness shall appear. More causes may be discovered of our proneness to be our own Justifiers and Saviours, but they will come in opportunely hereafter.  
And therefore let it be of Exhortation to you, to bewail that self-righteousnesse in you, that averseness to a Gospel-Justification, Why is it that the oil of the Gospel is no more precious to you? Is it not because you are not wounded with the sense of sin? The poor man esteemeth wealth, the pained man ease, the sick man health. Its want and pinching necessities that make men prise mercies: And thus it is here, till our hearers are spiritual, even fainting under spiritual languishing, because of the heavy load of sin, they put no due esteem upon the Lord Christ.  
But thou wilt say, I am well enough, I do not find myself in such an undone estate, I am full and want nothing.  
I answer, Even therefore thou needest all things, therefore thou needest a Justification without thee, because thou thinkest it is within thee: Oh man to be pitied and wept over! Christ wept over Jerusalem, because she was not sensible of her temporal destruction; But oh how few are apprehensive of their spiritual damnation! Let them be brought into temporal wants, they do nothing but think of them, and speak of them; but when in spiritual wants of a righteousness to clothe them, then they are not affencted.  
Let not then this truth leave thee, till it hath had its proper operation upon thee, till thou art in thy sense as wretched as that exposed Infant the Prophet Ezekiel speaks of, Ezek. 16. wallowing in thy blood, full of noisomenesse, and no ways able to make thyself comely, for such ornament God onely puts on thee.   

SERM. XIX. The Necessity of a perfect righteousness: And how destitute all men naturally are of it; With the Grounds thereof.  ROM. 3.10. As it is written, There is none Righteous, no not one. 
WE are pursuing the Negative part, or, What is that righteousness whereby we are not Justified. For this general introductory hath been dispatched, That men are very propense to establish their own righteousness in opposition to that which God hath procured: And here in the Text we see a peremptory and universal exclusion of all men in the world, if considered in their natural estate from such a righteousness, as may justify them before God. For whereas the Apostle distributeth all mankind into Jew and gentle, he sheweth they are both alike impotent and wretched in the matter of Justification: For although at vers. 1, 2. he saith, The Jews advantage is much every way, in respect of the gentle, yet he doth not at vers. 9. contradict himself, when he saith, the Jew is in no wise better then the gentle; for in the former verses he speaks of church-privileges and visible Prerogatives, wherein the Jew highly transcended the gentle; but at the 9th verse, he compareth them together in the great business of Justification, and then the Jew with all his worship and knowledge of the Law, is no better then an ignorant unbelieving gentle. As mountains and high hills may seem great, if compared to the valleys, but if with the heavens, then the hills and valleys are but as a punctum, and all is nothing to them: Even the profane man that is accounted of as a dunghill, and a formal Justiciary, that is admired as a Saint, yet in respect of Justification are both naked and miserable alike, for in Gods sight no man is justified by any works he doth.  
Now that both Jew and gentle are both alike in respect of Justification, the divine Apostle saith, v. 9. That he had proved it before. The word is observed by the learned never to signify to prove a thing, but rather to accuse and charge, to make complaint, and thus it best agreeth here; and the Indictment drawn up against the whole world, even all men of all sorts, is, That they are under sin, both in the condemning power of it, and also the reigning power of it; Under it, which denoteth the weight or load of sin; Under it, which signifieth sins dominion, and their slavery unto it; Under it, so that they are unable to shake off the tyranny of it: Oh that as the Israelites could humble themselves and mourn, when they were under their oppressors, and servants ruled over them; So we could as spiritually prostrate ourselves before God, because of the yoke sin hath put upon us! for we cannot say of sins yoke, as Christ of his, that it is easy and light: Or if it be so for a while, yet at last the burden will be intolerable, making thee to tremble and cry out with Cain, My sins are greater then I can bear. This charge which the Apostle laid upon all mankind, he doth again in the verses following at large prove; for there is nothing so necessary to the diseased person, as to see the danger of his disease: Its the beginning of our heavenly cure, to be strongly convinced of our undone estate: And that the Apostle may not seem to speak out of particular malice, or as if he were some churlish Misanthropos, he brings Scripture for what he saith, As it is written. Now you must know that the verses alleged are from many places in Scripture, Psal. 14. Psal. 53. Psal. 51. Psal. 14. Psal. 36.& Isa. 59. For although in the vulgar Edition all these are added in Psal. 14. yet by the Papists themselves, Pererius and Sasbont, its confessed they are not in the Hebrew, nor in the Septuagint, and Pererius in loc. doth well reprove Lindanus that would from hence prove the Hebrew corrupted by the Jews, for why should they do it in this place, when it related not to Christ? it being only moral matter, and that which is in other places of Scripture. From all these places joined together, we may see what a loathsome leper all mankind is, that the whole world is an hospital of Lazarusses of diseased ulcerous persons. Its good for every one to meditate on them, for none is excluded. Their corruption is set down, first, Universally, then particularly, or by induction of parts, and that negatively and positively: negatively, by denying the graces of the soul, of the mind, none understands God; of the heart and will, there is none that seeketh after God; of the body, They all turned aside, which universal sentence is amplified by sins of words, expressed by their instruments, of throat, tongue, lips and mouths. Their sins of works are expressed Synecdochically by the Ministry and service of their feet, with the effects of them; all which sins are illustrated by a two-fold cause, the fountain of all, want of love to their neighbour, The way of peace, they have not known, and want of fear to God, There is no fear of God before their eyes: So that here you have a most admirable and lively description of man by nature; you see what a beast, what a toad, what a devil he is. Where are they that will advance free-will, pled for the purity of nature, and deny original sin? This is a true faithful looking-glasse to represent every one in, for the words are universal and emphatical, There is none righteous, no not one. Let no man pled an exemption, and think he is not within the compass of this charge, onely the difficulty is, in what sense to explain this; and some there are that take these expressions in an hyperbolical sense, not that every one was thus unrighteous, but because the generality was corrupted. But this cannot stand with the Apostles scope, which is to show, that all mankind was under sin, and could not be justified by works; Therefore if any were excluded from such an indictment, these persons would be justified by works, and so the Apostles inference would not hold {αβγδ}. Others they say, None is righteous, i.e. to such a perfect, absolute righteousness, as the Law requireth. Others, None is righteous, i.e. so as not to commit some sin or other sometimes. But that which is most genuine is, that the Apostle here speaketh of what every man is by nature, that he is thus positively and negatively miserable, as soon as he hath a being; for although the Apostle reckons up actual sins, and such as every one doth not commit, yet because the inclination and propensity of all are to such wickedness, and its not because they are born with less defilement then others, or have more innocent natures then others, but because God puts bounds to mans sins, and he restraineth even where he doth not sanctify. Therefore the expression is universal; As we say, All Toads and Serpents are poisonous, though actually they have not poisoned any. The sense therefore is, That none is righteous, both in respect of Sanctification, because by nature full of sin, and in respect of Justification, and so are not able to endure before the consuming presence of an holy God. To clear this truth, consider  
First, That God made man righteous, 
1. God made man righteous.  he was created like the glorious heavens, there was no spot or blemish in him. Had mankind continued in that integrity, then the contrary would have been true, There is none unrighteous, no not one. The Image of God is said to be in righteousness and true holinesse, Eccles. 7.29. God made man upright, but he hath sought out many inventions. As therefore now since man is fallen, the Apostle shutteth out the righteousness of works; so if he had stood, the righteousness of faith had been excluded. The condition then we were created in, was as full of righteousness as the heavens of stars, then man approached to God as absolutely considered, there was no necessity of a mediator, or an atonement: yet though this was so happy an estate, Divines conclude, that our estate of reparation is more blessed then that of integrity; not only in respect of duration, for Adam totally lost his happiness, but so shall not the believer; but also in respect of that righteousness, whereby he stands justified before God, for though Adams righteousness was inherent and perfect, not stained with the least sin, yet it was a creature-righteousnesse: But ours, though imputed, and not in ourselves, feeling many imperfections, yet its the righteousness of Christ, God and man. Our Justification then is as full of solidity, comfort and joy, as Adams in integrity, yea it far transcends it. 
2. But he presently lost it.   
Secondly, Though God created man with a righteousness, yet he presently lost it, both for himself, and for all his posterity, so that there is not a righteousness to be had by any man living. There is not naturally any such thing in the world: What thunder and lightning should this be in our ears? Every man by nature is in an unjustified estate by God, and that includeth all misery, as Justification doth all happiness: if not justified, God is angry with thee all the day long. Thou hast no peace with God or thy own conscience; thy chamber, thy bed must always be an hell to thee; thou art cursed with all the curses of the Law: Therefore though for the present thou wallowest in thy pleasures and lusts; Thou eatest, and drinkest, and runnest into all excess of riot. Yet there is nothing but condemnation belongs to thee: Oh that men had hearts to consider and tremble at this! How canst thou live a day, yea moment without Justification? Thou art naked and exposed to all the vengeance of God, will not this make thee eat the bread of trembling, and drink the water of astonishment? This righteousness is lost; Thou hast nothing but rags and filth upon thee. God and thy soul are at a vast distance, yea and direct contrariety: Oh that men should not think all other miseries, though never so extreme, to be but small in respect of this want of a righteousness! Yet we can complain under the want of food to nourish us, of clothes to cover us; but who goeth wringing the hands; and bowed down with the head, crying out, I have no righteousness to stand with before God?  
Thirdly, 
3. Yet there is an absolute necessity of having a righteousness.  Though man hath lost a righteousness to be justified by, yet there is an absolute necessity of having one. God cannot love or delight in any thing but righteousness: You have heard how holy, pure and righteous God is, and therefore loveth only such as are righteous, if our prayers and duties be not the performances of righteous persons, God loathes them, whosoever is not according to his holy will, he utterly rejects it, he turneth his eyes from it: Oh that people would meditate on this more! They say, Let us go to the Ordinances, let us pray and hear; but they never think, Where is the righteousness that I must put on to make me accepted? Like the man in the Parable, they venture to come to the feast, though they have not a wedding garment: Men naturally think their holy duties are their righteousness,& they come to do these, expecting thereby to be justified; but oh thy vain and deceived heart! Thy duties are not thy righteousness; but thou needest a righteousness to cover the deformities of them, and to make them accepted. Abels person must first be accepted before his offering can be: So that the sun is not more necessary for the eye to discern objects, or the air for men to live by, then a righteousness is to do all holy duties acceptably in Gods sight. So that this righteousness is to be sought in the first place, without this we build without a foundation, we cannot proceed one step in Christianity without this covering. But as the hand full of earth or dross cannot receive gold; so a man filled with the thoughts and apprehensions of his own righteousness, cannot look out for the true righteousness: All our conditions are like the Church of Laodicea, Revel. 3.17, 18. Who thought her self rich and needed nothing, when indeed she was poor and miserable: Therefore she is counseled to buy eye-pleasing, and to get raiments to clothe her nakedness with. This is all our conditions, we think ourselves full, when we are empty; we judge all well, when if we knew what we are, we should neither sleep nor eat, 
Why no man by nature hath a righteousness to be justified before God.  for the wretchedness we feel ourselves in.  
In the next place, consider the grounds why by nature none have a righteousness to be justified by.  
And the first obvious clear cause of this, is, That original pollution every one is plunged into; so that from the head to the sole of the foot, there is nothing but filth and putrefaction. Hence Ephes. 2.2. by nature we are said to be children of wrath. That is directly contrary to Justification; Howsoever the doctrine of natural pollution hath been questioned by many, yet to every true believer the Scripture and experience makes it of undoubted truth, so that he is as sure he is born full of sin, and a child of wrath, as that he is born at all: And indeed all the misery he is environed with naturally, doth evidently proclaim his birth-pollution. Caelestius the Pelagian being unwilling to deny original sin, yet made it to be res quaestionis, not fidei, a mere controversy, and no Article of faith, against which Augustine did with all his might oppose himself. Erasmus also, though he would not be thought to Pelagianize in this point, yet in his Exposition on Rom. 5. doth labour to enervate those choice and eminent Texts for it, affirming, That Divines in their Theological matters, have done like the Astronomers, who when they were not able to answer many difficulties, invented their Epicycles and eccentrical motions, &c. Thus he thinketh they did about original sin. But who will regard him much, of whom Gerard writeth, that he was bold to affirm, That such was the Authority of the Church to him, that if it should determine Pelagianism or Arianism to be the truth, he would believe it! and indeed had Erasmus been more humbled under the power of original sin, his Discourse would not have been so merely moral as it is, in all his writings little surpassing a Seneca or Plutarch. Here then is the foundation to be laid, He that denieth or extenuateth original sin, must also deny or ex●enuate Christs righteousness; Not that Christ came onely to wash away the guilt of original sin, as some have absurdly taught, but because this is the fountain of all our calamity. By this we are children of wrath, though we had never committed any actual transgression. By this it is, that God is justified in the damnation of Heathens, yea and their Infants also, though they never heard of Christ, or enjoyed the means of grace; How then can they by nature have a righteousness to justify, who are full of sin to condemn? How can they be children of grace who are children of wrath? And truly, he onely will build upon the rock, who diggeth thus deep, even to the bottom of nature defilement; and because this is spiritually discovered, as you see by Paul, Rom. 7. hence the number of those is very few that are able to put a due price upon the Lord Christ and his righteousness. He that would make the way plain for Christ, must begin with the true sense of the depth, breadth and length of original sin; here it is true, That one deep calls upon another; The depth of original sin for the depth of Christs righteousness.  
Secondly, As men are thus wholly become leprous and abominable, so by this defilement they are obnoxious to Gods wrath. There is no more in them then in devils, why they should be justified; See what the Apostle infereth from this large description of their natural pollution, v. 19. That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God. All the world is guilty, {αβγδ}, They all lye at Gods mercy, they are all dead and damned men; and because of this every mouth is stopped, it hath nothing to boast of, yea nothing to pled or say for itself: So that with the man in the Parable, no sooner shall God say to us, How came ye in hither? but we must be speechless: Oh how little is this bewailed by us! We think not that we came into the world so many condemned persons, that every hour all the sentence of wrath may pass upon us. To be born lame, blind or deformed, is judged an heavy calamity; but to come into the world an enemy to God, and God an enemy to us, is not at all regarded.  
Thirdly, No man naturally hath a righteousness to be justified by, because if he abstain from committing any sin, its not from right and holy grounds, and if he do that which is for the substance good, yet it is not from pure ends. We suppose that if a man by nature have a righteousness to be justified by, it must be from something within him; it must be either innate or acquired. Now if we look over all men by nature, we cannot find not one man, no not doing one action, thereby to be accepted of by God: so that if God should make a more condescending proffer in this case, then he did in the matter of sodom to Abraham, it could not obtain an effect. Should God say, If among all mankind considered in and of themselves, you can find fifty righteous actions, I will pardon all mankind for them, fifty could not be found; yea if the Lord should descend from fifty to ten, yet mankind could not be helped. Nay, should we go further, then Abraham thought fit, If amongst all mankind can be found one righteous action, it shall be justified; yet in this case, though all mankind did lye at the stake, there could not be any help found for it; for if sin be not committed, no man naturally can do it from principles of faith and love, or from the renewed Image of God within; its because he wants the opportunity, or some outward restraint is upon him. Was Jeroboam the less guilty, because when he stretched out the arm to hurt the Prophet, that immediately withered, and so he could not accomplish his wicked design? Thus it is with all men naturally, they have the seed of all wickedness in them; every one would be a Judas, a Cain, only God that bounds the Sea that it doth not overflow the banks, doth also limit and bound the wickedness of natural men. Thus also if they do what is good, the Lord doth not account it to them for righteousness, because they never can do any thing to its true and ultimate end, as Augustine often. It was vain glory which made them perform most of their noble employments, and if they did any good action for its particular end, as relieve the necessitous from a compassionatenesse to mans misery, yet they come short of the universal end, which is Gods glory; so that whatsoever doth not ascend as high as this, is to be judged but splendidum peccatum, a glistering sin, and so cannot justify before God.  
Fourthly, No man can naturally be justified before God, because he is born destitute of the knowledge of God, and faith in Christ. Now John 17.2. Its eternal life to know God, and Christ sent as the mediator; and Heb. 11.1. Without faith its impossible to please God. Insomuch that the Scripture every where ascribeth our Justification to Faith. Now take a man as he cometh naturally in the world, let him not hear of the Scriptures, or know of Christ, What would his own natural abilities avail thereunto? And certainly, if though the Gospel be preached, yet so many remain without faith, as Christ complaineth, Who hath believed our Report? What faith would be found amongst men, if there were no Revelation of the Gospei? Man then is born devoid of Justification, and faith to receive it, and that not as he is born destitute of the Arts, no Philosopher, no Physician, for these things he can attain by Education, through the help of those common principles of reason that are in him, whereas for our Justification, and the way thereunto, we have nothing that can co-operate in the least degree of activity.   

SERM. XX. Sheweth, That every Man by Nature is Spiritually Impure and Unclean, both in his Person, and in all his Actions, and therefore cannot be Justified by his own Righteousness. And treats of the Salvation of Heathens.  ROM. 3.10. As it is written, There is none Righteous, no not one. 
WE are demonstrating, That none comes into the world with a righteousness by nature, but in the direct contrary with unrighteousness, and all manner of enmity against God, being the children of wrath passively and actively, hating and hated of God.  
To what hath been said, we may add this further discovery, That every man by nature is spiritually impure and unclean, both in his Person, and in all his Actions: And therefore is like the leprous person that was to stand aloof off, and to cry, He was unclean, unclean. In these two things, the impurity of his person, and of all his actions, is summarily comprehended all the filth and pollution of mankind. Now that the person must first be reconciled and made acceptable in Gods sight before any thing he doth can be approved of, 
A mans person must be accepted before his works be approved of.  is plain from Abel, to whose person God had first respect, and then to his offering. And so our Saviour, Matth. 7.18. affirmeth, That a corrupt three cannot bring forth good fruit, and that therefore the three must first be good before any fruit can be good. Now its plain, all men by nature are corrupted Trees, they are bitter fountains, they are a wild stock, till engraffed into Christ: yea Tit. 1.14. They are all over impure and unclean, and thereby every thing becomes unclean to them: Oh then, Where are they that admire and pled for mans righteousness by nature, when the Scripture represents him thus loathsome and abominable! But this defilement is not onely on his person, it redounds and overfloweth to all that he doth; so that a dung-hill may as well cleanse, or pitch may make white, as a man by nature be justified; and from hence it is, that Augustine of old, and our Protestant Writers of late maintain against Papists, That all the works of Heathens, yea of unbelievers, and unregenerate men, are sins; There is not one good action to be found amongst them, which though it may seem a cruel and bloody opinion thus at one blow to make the condition of all mankind with the most glorious actions, to be hopeless; yet it is no more then what the Scripture is plain for, Heb. 1. Without faith it is impossible to please God, so that all men naturally being destitute of faith, are not able to please God in any thing; If they eat, if they drink, yea if they pray, if they come to the Ordinances, in none of these things are they pleasing to God. That fore-mentioned place, Tit. 1.15. doth evince this, Unto the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; All their natural, civil and religious actions are made unclean to them; for their civil actions of their calling, even that which is thought to be most innocent and harmless, yet that is said to be a sin, Prov. 21.4. The ploughing of the wicked is sin; he doth not say, his merchandizing, his buying and selling, wherein may be much fraud and injustice, but his ploughing that is sin, How so? It cannot be from the matter of the action, for that is good and lawful, but from the condition that the natural person is in; he being corrupted, there cometh also a corruption to all his actions; As the plague and pestilence may be conveyed in the sent or smell, though even to the very gold and silver that infected persons have: Oh what confusion should be upon thee, to consider that all the day long, thy works, thy employments have been so much constant sinning against God! Not onely thy profaneness, thy oaths, thy curses, but thy sowing, thy mowing, thy buying, thy selling; Thus the number of thy sins ariseth higher and wider, then ever thou thoughtst of. So true is that of Anselm, Omnis vita infidelium peccatum est,& nihil bonum sine summo bono, yea their religious actions in which they are apt to put all their confidence, and rest on them as the sure ground of their salvation, they are all so many sins as flowing from them, Prov. 21.27. The Sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. See here how God accounts of the religious duties of unregenerate men, they are an abomination; This word is used to show the highest disdain and displeasure God can have, and therefore commonly in the Scripture Idols are called Abominations. Thus even the choicest and most excellent religious duties of any unbeliever, are an abomination to God, and can that which is an abomination justify? Can that which God hateth, as Isa. 1. with the like hatred he doth all the grossest sins that are? Can these reconcile God? Oh be at last convinced! Thy religious duties do not sanctify thy defiled person, but thy defiled person polluteth thy religious duties. This truth was lively represented under the Old Testament, by the legal uncleanness: if a person so guilty meddled with any holy things, they did not take away his uncleanness, but he defiled them; And to this purpose the Prophet Haggie doth notably speak, Chap. 2.12, 13, 14. If a man that was unclean did touch holy things, those holy things were made unclean by him. There is not scarce any truth more fundamentally necessary to make way for Christ, and highly to esteem Justification, then this; when thou shalt consider, that all the day long thou art damning thyself, and whatsoever thou dost, eat or drink, work or pray, all is unclean to thee; for what will amaze and astonish thee if this do not? Thou wilt see thyself like Peters sheet, full of unclean things, and if any thing, this surely will make thee afraid of thyself, and seek out for spiritual relief through Christ. I am unwilling to leave this truth, till every one be practically and cordially convinced of it: Till this foundation be laid, in vain do we build up any thing of Gospel-Justification, only take some salt to season the former truth; When we say, That no men by nature are able to do the least righteous or good action, though the salvation of all mankind doth depend on it.  
This is not to be understood, as if we put no difference between the actions unbelievers do, that it is all one whether an unregenerate man did pray or commit adultery, whether he did outward acts of Justice, or be full of violence and rapine; No such matter is intended: only we say, Their actions may be divided into two kinds; some of them are in their nature vicious and sinful, as to lye, steal, &c. Others are for the matter and substance of them good, onely in respect of circumstances, and other requisite conditions, they become sins: As if an unregenerate man walk justly and righteously to his neighbour, relieve a man in necessity, honour his parents, or preserve the public good before his private, as many Romans did. These actions for the nature of them were good and commanded, but because they failed in many other things, therefore they were sins as to them; for the old Rule is, Malum is ex quolibet defectum, any defect makes an action so far sinful, but Bonum est ex integri causis, good must be of all its causes: goodness is like harmonious music, if any one string jar the harmony is marred; Its like beauty completed of the symmetry of all the parts, if any one part be deformed, the beauty is vitiated, and thus it is in all good actions, let any thing be never so admirable for the nature of it, To give thy body to be burnt, or to suffer Martyrdom, if there be any failing or crack either in the principle, manner or end; Thou hast lost the comfort and the reward of the duty. And thus all men naturally they cannot but be defective in these things,  
1. In the principle from which; Till the three is made good, the fruit is not good, 
Wherein the defect of the actions of all men merely natural lies.  till a man be regenerated and renewed in the image of God he doth nothing supernaturally, so operari sequitur esse.  
2. They are not engraffed in Christ from whom onely we have power to do what is holy, John 15.1. unless we are branches in him we cannot do any thing.  
3. There is a defect in the manner, which yet is the form and life of all moral actions. Its not enough to do that which is good, unless we do it well; it must be been as well as bonum.  
And then lastly, they notoriously miss of the glorious end, to which every action ought ultimately to relate, and that is God himself: So that from these particulars it is, that no man improved to the utmost in his natural abilities can procure a righteousness to be justified by.  
Yea I shall add a third Proposition or demonstration of mans utter impotency in respect of Justification, That he is so far from having a righteousness out of his own bowels to cloath himself with, as the Silk-worm makes her curious web, that he cannot in the least manner dispose or prepare himself thereunto. He cannot do any thing, whereby either to merit or to oblige God to bestow Justification upon him, which must needs stop every mans mouth. It cannot be denied but that there are ordinarily preparatory works upon the soul in order to Justification, such as conviction of sin, sense and feeling of the burden of it, general desires to have some ease; but yet these are neither preparations of mans own strength or power; Neither are they so much as meritorious de congruo of Justification; yea they are not necessary antecedents, for how many have such works upon their souls, have many troubles and anxieties of heart, and yet never obtain this glorious privilege of Justification: So that its plain, no man by his natural strength can any ways prepare or fit himself for this mercy. Howsoever the council of Trent judged this Doctrine to be worthy of an Anathema, yet they might as well have condemned the Scripture itself. Its true, they suppose an Heathen improving his naturals well, for which God will reveal supernaturals and wonderfully make known Christ and Salvation to him, but when they are desired to produce any such one Heathen, they can do it no more then the chemist his Philosophers ston; so that Justification always finds a man unworthy of that favour, yea it meeteth with him in a state wholly opposite to it; and whereas the sinner might justly have looked for damnation, he obtaineth Salvation: So that every justified person hath greater cause to melt under the favour of God, then Saul under Davids had, when yet that wretched man could not but weep to see David spare him, though his great enemy, when he had the opportunity to cut him off: Oh how justly may the soul melt with thankfulness! saying, Oh Lord! Shall all this goodness of thine be shewed to me an enemy? What, not only delivered from hell and all punishment, but admitted also to those eternal joys in heaven? Who can but be amazed at this? Hence the Scripture always attributeth our Justification to the free grace of God, diligently excluding any works we can do; and certainly if in the continuance of our Justification, that be always retained by mere grace, so that no works of ours, though regenerated, and endowed with an heavenly principle within, are causal of it, How much rather are men impotent and undeserving, while abiding under the power of sin, and no ways able, but to do every thing in a sinful manner?  
These things may suffice to witness this truth against all mankind, and let the Scripture be true, though every man be a sinner; yet though Gods word doth thus plainly debase man, as to the point of Justification, There are many that cannot digest this; They will never be persuaded that they are thus all over plunged into sin; What, do nothing, and that all the day long, but treasure up wrath against the day of wrath? Who can bear this Doctrine? Yea there are those that revile this Doctrine, as making God very unmerciful and cruel, damning the far greater part of mankind with their little Infants also in eternal flames, because they believe not in a Christ, of whom many never heard. There are therefore those that have stood up, and pleaded the Heathens case, and said, That they may be justified and saved only by the knowledge of God as a Creator, if so be they walk honestly according to that light they have: Hence they have asserted a Judaical and Ethnical piety, as well as a Christian, and grant a Justification and a Salvation even without a visible Church.  
Not to speak of the heretics Rhetoriani of old, to which many of late have joined themselves, who dogmatized, That every one might be saved in any one way of Religion, though never so opposite to another.  
There are those of greater repute, who have pleaded for the Heathens salvation, although they are divided amongst themselves; for some have said, The just and wise Heathen is justified and saved, but by Christ, though they have no knowledge of him; Even as Infants are saved by Christ, though they do not believe in him. Others, they have said, Reason hath been enough to their Justification, if they obeied the dictates thereof, and asserted, That man is called {αβγδ} because he followeth Christ,( who( say they) is called {αβγδ} because he enlightens every man with reason that cometh into the world.  
Others they grant, Such as are saved have some knowledge of Christ, but an implicit not explicit; They have a readiness of heart to believe whatsoever God shall make known to them, though as yet nothing of Christ is expressly manifested to them.  
In Antiquity, the two that are most famously instanced in for this opinion, are Clemens Alexandrinus and Chrysostome; The former affirming, That Philosophy did by itself justify the Heathens, and that what the Law was to the Jews, the Gospel to Christians, the same Philosophy was to the Gentiles. And as for Chrysostom he saith, To know God, was once enough to salvation, but now its necessary to believe in Christ.  
Concerning the opinion of these Ancients, we may read Causabon Ex. 1a in Baron. who is positive, That they did hold salvation to the Gentiles without the knowledge of Christ. But the learned Vostius Thess. de vict. Gent. dissents, and makes a moderate construction of their words; So also doth Sixtus Senensis( lib. 6. Annot. 51.) a learned Papist concerning Chrysostom. Howsoever this be, its certain that we are naturally very prove to think of the mercy of God so illimited as to reach to the Gentiles also.  
Augustine speaks the heart of every man in this point, Ep. 99. Virtutes Gentilium, quadam indole animi ita delectant, ut eos in quibus haec fuerunt vellemus praecipuè ab inferni cruciatibus liberari, nisi aliter se haberet sensus humanus aliter justitia Creatoris, The virtues of the Gentiles do so naturally delight us, that with all our hearts we would they might be preserved from hell torments, did not an human sense judge one thing, and the justice of a Creator another. In this point therefore we are to lay aside all human reason and natural affections, attending to Gods word onely.  
The Remonstrants in this Question would suspend, as thinking man might hold the affirmative from a principle of commiseration to mankind. Vives and Erasmus are propense to this. Hence Erasmus Praef. ad Tull. office. placeth Tully in heaven, a place so full of glory, that neither Papists or Protestants have dared to set Erasmus himself there. Andradius the Papist did with great animosity pled for the Justification and Salvation of Heathens, whom Chemnitius solidly refuteth. So also Barlaeus, against whom Vedellius wrote that Book, styled De Deo Synagogae. Now although the Apostle say, What have we to do to judge those that are without? yet that doth not hinder, but that we may positively determine, that by Scripture, there is no Justification or Salvation without the Church. And therefore, though some Heathens have shamed Christians by their morality, and have transcended in many practical perfections, yet we cannot say, That thereby they are justified, which hath been already abundantly proved, partly from original sin, and partly from that spiritual impurity thereby cleaving to their persons and actions, as also, because they are without faith, without which there cannot be any acceptation. We grant indeed that many who were not of the visible Church, have been justified, as Job, Melchisedech, the egyptian midwives, and Rahab, with many others. But we say, these had the means of grace one way or other vouchsafed to them, and so were instructed in the true knowledge of God, and thereby were made of the Church. Again, We grant a different degree in the knowledge of God and Christ. Some have more explicit knowledge then others, and God requireth of some a greater measure of knowledge then others, according to the means of grace they do enjoy; yet we say, That none can be justified or saved without the knowledge of God and Christ in some measure or degree; And to the former Arguments, we may add these Texts, Rom. 10.13, 14. where first its said, Whosoever shall call on the Name of the Lord, shall be saved. Now lest it might be thought Heathens and Pagans, they can pray to God, they can call on him, he addeth, this is not acceptable praying, For how shall they call on him, if they do not believe? And how shall they believe in him, of whom they have not heard? &c. Where you see plainly a connexion between acceptable prayers and faith, as also between faith and the Ministry. Another pregnant Text is, Act. 4.12. There is no other way of salvation, or name under heaven by which we can be saved, but by the name of Christ. The name of Christ is Christ known and believed, and there is no other way: So that Heathens cannot be justified one way, and Christians another; For as they that hold the contrary say, The knowledge of God as a Creator is necessary to Justification, otherwise they could not walk thankfully, or consider their duty, the same is to be said concerning Christ also; and certainly if righteousness could have come to the Gentiles by nature, Christ died in vain, was a Mediator in vain, as also the Scripture and Ministry is in vain, seeing absolutely Justification might have been had without them. There is one place much instanced in for the contrary, Act. 10. concerning Cornelius a Centurion, an Heathen soldier; now before he believed in Christ as the messiah, God saith of him, ver. 4. Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. And Peter v. 35. saith, In every Nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him. But the answer is, That this Cornelius, as also the Ethiopian Eunuch, they were not absolute Heathens, they had heard of Christ, and so had the initials of faith already begun in them, although they were directed where to have more full and clearer knowledge; and none can fear God or work righteousness, but he that hath the seminals of faith, and the principles of regeneration within him. Although we also add, That there is a two-fold acceptation, 1. General, whereby God as a Creator doth accept of his creature, and mercifully provide many favours for them, and upon their humiliations, though not truly sanctified, release temporal punishments, as we see in Ahab, and many others. And secondly, There is a gracious acceptance, thereby to ordain to eternal life, to justify and to become reconciled with their persons; This is onely within the Church, and to those therein that truly fear God.  
The Use is deeply to humble us, and to make us lye low before God. Never did the poor cripple lye with more earnestness and vehemency, expecting the Angels descent into the pool, then thou art to wait for the grace of God to justify thee: Oh consider how dreadful it is, to stay a day, a night, a moment in an unjustified condition: for while so, thou hast no peace with God, go from one place to another, still the sentence of condemnation is upon thee! As the Egyptians found all their waters turned into blood, they could not go to brooks, or rivers, or cisterns, but still all was blood: So it is here, all is damnable matter, whether thou eatest or drinkest, whether thou labourest or sleepest, all turns to hell: Oh that men would believe this! How restless and unquiet would they be till being justified they had peace with God?   

SERM. XXI. That none can be Justified by the Works of the Law, though they are done by the Grace of God.  GAL. 3.11. But that no man is Justified by the Law in the sight of God, it is evident: For the Just shall live by Faith. 
IN this Epistle the Apostle vindicateth two things:  
1. His Office and Ministry.  
2. The true Doctrine about Justification against that corrupt error broached by false teachers; that the Law, or the works of it, were either in part or in whole requisite to Justification, that Christ himself was not sufficient to Justification without this additament. In the confuting of which dangerous error, he is full of strong Arguments, and withall observed to be more severe and sharp in his words, then in any other Epistle.  
Tertullian( as Grotius relateth, prologue. in Epist. Gal.) thought this to be the first Epistle he wrote, and that immediately upon his conversion, and therefore thinketh it to be attributed to that fervency and heat which usually accompanieth new converts. But it s rather to be attributed to the greatness and dangerousness of the error, and their pertinacy therein, for he makes the consequent of such opinions, to out the maintainers of them from grace, yea and to make Christs death in vain.  
This error was the more intolerable in the Galatians, because they were not Jews,( to whom happily something might be indulged, because of their education in the Law, and the high esteem of it) but Gentiles newly converted to the faith from their Paganism, and so had not the temptation to dote on the Jewish way, to which they were wholly strangers.  
Now, what is the righteousness of the Law? or to be Justified by the works of it? And what was the true and proper state of the Question between the Apostle and false teachers, will hereafter be more largely declared? In the mean time you may take notice, That among many other choice Arguments, this Text hath one against Justification by the Law.  
So that in the words you have the Proposition to be proved, and the Medium by which he argueth.  
The Proposition hath these parts in it:  
1. The Subject, with the note of universality in a negative way, No man. So that Abraham, David, and the holiest that are, are included in this Subject; in other places, its no flesh, Rom. 3. which is to show the frailty and weakness of all, and that in every respect; for that phrase, All flesh is grass, doth not onely reach to our bodily infirmities and mortality, but even to all the righteousness we have; and therefore John Baptist is to cry this Doctrine above all, as being most preparatory to Christ and his righteousness: yea by David it s said, None living is justified, which is so extensive, that some have thought it reached even to Angels themselves, that they are not justified absolutely by their own righteousness, but the context seemeth to restrain it to man.  
2. There is the predicate or attribute[ Justified] of which enough hath been spoken.  
3. By what, or the cause of it, and that is by the Law. Law is taken sometimes largely for any Doctrine revealed by God, answering the Hebrew word Torah, in which sense our Saviour often quoteth it; or else more particularly for that preceptive part of the Scripture delivered by God unto the Jews, and is usually divided into the Moral, Ceremonial and Judicial Law. Now Law in the Text containeth all these kinds, and is not to be limited to the Ceremonial only, as some would have it.  
Lastly, There is the person before whom this Justification is to be supposed, and that in Gods sight, implying, that though before men they may be justified, by walking very unblamably, yet not before God.  
The second part is the Argument to confirm the Proposition, and that is drawn à repugnantibus, or contrariis; if we are justified by faith, then not by the Law; but we are justified by faith, as he proveth out of Habakkuk, The Just shall live by faith. The strength of this Argument is to be considered in its time. The Observation is,  

observe.  None are justified by the Law; or, None can attain unto a righteousness by the works of the Law in Gods sight.  

None can be justified by the Law of God.  As we have already demonstrated, That none by nature have a righteousness to be justified by: So now we proceed higher, and shall evince, That none by the knowledge of, or obedience unto the Law of God, can be justified: For the Jew he easily thought the Heathen and uncircumcised person had nothing whereby to be accepted of by God; but for himself, he thought the Law, and the works thereof to be so glorious, that in and through them he expected reconciliation with God.  

Considerations tending to clear the point.  To discover this truth, which men of corrupt mindes have greatly clouded; consider these things,  
First, That the Scripture useth several synonimous words or expressions, when it denieth Justification by the Law. Sometimes the Scripture calls it the Law of works, Rom. 3.27. oppositely to the Law of Faith, which is called a Law largely, for no more then doctrine: Now its called the Law of works, because it promiseth life and favour upon no other terms then working or doing; and then of works, not of one or some works, but collectively, all works that are commanded. Therefore the Apostle, immediately before in this Chapter pronounceth a curse unto every one that abideth not in all the things it requireth. And therefore the Apostle doth emphatically call such as seek for a Justification in this way {αβγδ}, They have nothing else to stand upon, they build only on this foundation, they look wholly to what they do; sometimes its expressed absolutely and simply, as here in the Text [ By the Law] sometimes by the Law of Moses, Acts 13.39. sometimes by the righteousness of the Law, Gal. 3.21. sometimes the Law of righteousness, Rom. 9.31. The Jew is there reproved for following the way of righteousness, sometimes a mans own righteousness, Rom. 10.3. And the Apostle addeth, My own righteousness which is of the Law, Phil. 3.9 Sometimes its said works simply, not works of the Law, but works in the general, thereby excluding all, Rom. 4.2. Tit. 3.5. It is therefore good to take notice of the several expressions Gods word useth, when it denieth Justification by the Law, and the rather because every one of these expressions may obviate some subtle distinction or other that Justitiaries have brought in.  
Therefore in the second place, that is a vain and empty distinction, which the Papists alleging Augustine for it, do maintain. They distinguish between Justitia legis, and ex lege, or per legem; The righteousness of the Law, and a righteousness from or by the Law; righteousness of the Law is that which the Law requireth and commandeth; righteousness by the Law, is that which a man doth by the sole direction and command of the Law without any assistance and help of grace by Christ. By this distinction Bellarmine, Pererius, and others think to salue all the Objections that are brought against their Justification by inherent righteousness. For whereas we urge those many Texts that do expressly deny Justification by the works of the Law, and wholly make it impossible for righteousness to come by it, then they immediately run to this refuge of Justitia legis, and ex lege. But this is a roof without any foundation; for every one may observe that the Apostle useth these expressions indifferently, {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, even as on the contrary {αβγδ}, so that as it would be an absurd thing to make a distinction of Justitia fidei, and ex fide, or per fidem, a righteousness of faith, and from, or by faith, no less ridiculous is it to coin such a difference about the Law. Indeed we grant, That the Law hath a righteousness it requireth, and that all believers are subjected to it as a rule; yea its impossible but that they should be under the directive and preceptive power of it: God himself cannot dispense with, or disoblige a creature from loving him with all his heart and soul; yet this righteousness in the perfection of it cannot be attained unto in this life, and therefore is not to be looked upon within the circled of Justification. And certainly to evade such pregnant places of Scripture with such a brittle and aerial distinction as this, as to think cobwebs-harnesse good enough to save against a Cannon-bullet.  

In what sense justification is denied to the works of the Law.  But because great thoughts of heart, and that of the most learned, are in this point, Let us particularly consider, how and in what sense Justification is denied to the works of the Law. And  
First, There is a gross and corrupt interpretation of Socinianizing spirits, That the Law did only require a carnal, external righteousness, and to this was promised onely a temporal and external reward. To this sense Grotius upon the Text, who therefore makes the Law not able to give life, because that was only conversant in an external righteousness, and terrene promises; and thus many have looked upon all the Jews in the Old Testament, as so many Swine feeding on husks, and not at all acquainted with, or delighting in the pearl of Christ. So that by these Doctors, the Law and Christ, works and faith, shall be thus opposed; that in the Old Testament, all things were visible and carnal, both duties and promises, no faith in Christ, no expectation of heaven; but now under the Gospel, All things are become new, the duties more spiritual, and the glory expected eternal. But the Apostle instanceth in Abraham and David for the pattern of our Justification, and makes their Salvation to be by Christ, as well as those that have lived since his coming, hence all their Sacrifices did led to Christ, and their general expectation was of a messiah, though generally they had earthly and carnal thoughts about him, And Christ was even the end of the Law to him that believed. This interpretation therefore may without much difficulty be exploded.  
Secondly, There are those, who say, the works of the Law, to which Justification is denied, is only of the Ceremonial Law. And this hath had many Abettors, as if the Apostle all along in this dispute had argued onely against those that pleaded for a necessity to retain all the Ceremonial Worship, That unless they were circumcised, and observed dayes, and were constant in their Sacrifices, they could not be justified; and truly its no doubt but this is part of that error which the Apostle doth so vehemently dispute against, and for which cause he calls them beggarly elements, Gal. 4.9. Elements( saith Cameron) because the false Teachers in their account judged them the necessary principles and foundation of Religion, as if no spiritual building could be reared, unless these were first laid, but yet beggarly, because they had no worth or dignity in them in respect of Justification. And it must also be granted, that as appeareth by Acts 15. the controversy began at first about this point merely, viz. the necessity of retaining Circumcision, with other legal Rites; and because the necessity of them was pleaded to Justification, Therefore in the Protract of the dispute, it brought in also all works, as well as these, even such as the Moral Law commanded. So that the Apostle pleadeth a Justification in Christ only, or a righteousness of faith against all works of the Law, yea all works absolutely considered, and that it is not to be limited to the Ceremonial Law, or works thereof, appeareth  
1. Because the Law, whose righteousness is excluded, is that which pronounceth a curse to all that continueth not therein, Gal. 3.10. Now this doth more properly belong unto the Moral Law, as the Apostle James urgeth, Chap. 3. He that breaketh one is guilty of all.  
Again, The righteousness of the Law, which is constantly opposed to the righteousness of faith, is that which consists in Do this, Rom. 10.5. Do this and live. Now this also doth immediately belong to the Moral Law.  
Further, That Law is denied in Justification, and the works of it, by which we come to know sin, and are convinced of it; but that is chiefly and properly the Moral Law. This Argument the Apostle expressly useth, Rom. 3.20. None is Justified by the works of the Law, and this is made the reason, Because by the Law is the knowledge of sin. Yea Rom. 7. by the Law sin is said to abound, and to cause more corruptions in a man. That therefore which accidentally procureth more sin, and so more guilt, and matter of condemnation, that cannot be a Justification to us: Now this also is the work of the Moral Law.  
Again, That Law and its works is disputed against, which yet is not to be made voided, is to be established; for the Apostle in all his Objections against the righteousness by it, doth yet still preserve the dignity of the Law that he doth not make it voided. Now its plain, that its true onely of the Moral Law, for the works of the Ceremonial Law, to be Circumcised, to offer Sacrifices, &c. are not now to be done by us, because Christ the body is come; The blossoms fall, when the bud and fruit itself cometh; And therefore, though the same God, who said, Thou shalt not kill, said also, Thou shalt circumcise, Thou shalt Sacrifice, yet the commands of the former sort which are Moral, stand; but these of the later which are Ceremonial, they are abolished. Thus you see not onely a pretended righteousness, by observing the Ceremonial Law, but also by obedience to the Moral Law is shut out from Justification.  
Thirdly, Others therefore they are convinced, That the works of the Moral Law are excluded from Justification; but then such onely as are done by the power of nature, and strength of free-will; As if the zeal of the Apostle were carried out only against such as should hold, that for the goodness of those works they did without the power and help of grace, they were justified: And thus the Papists generally, The works( say they) excluded and disputed against are such as men without the grace of Christ, being acted by their own strength solely do perform. In this Assertion they greatly triumph, thinking it no less then blasphemy, to deny Justification to those works that are done by the grace of God; but also, this is more particularly to be spoken to in that distinct Head, That we are not justified by works of grace under any notion or respect whatsoever; yet something must be said at present to pull this beam out of their eye.  
And first, 
That none can be justified by works of grace.  Those works the Gentiles and Heathens did before their knowledge and faith in Christ, could not properly be said to be the works of the Law, or to have a righteousness of the Law. Now the Apostle proveth, That the Galatians and Romans, they were not justified by the works of the Law, who yet were formerly sinners of the Gentiles, as the Apostle expresseth it. Therefore the Apostles Argument, though it may reach the Jew, yet it would not the gentle; for how could the gentle think, that the works of the Law which he knew not, or heard not of, could justify him? Therefore Romans 2.12. the Apostle distinguisheth of two sorts of men, the Jew and the gentle; The Jew he calls one in the Law, the gentle one without the Law. If then the gentle be one without the Law, and so without the righteousness of it, it cannot be imagined, that the Apostle should so industriously prove, That they were not justified by the Law, or the works of it.  
Secondly, We grant indeed, That none can be justified by the works he doth without the grace of Christ; but the Question is, Whether the Apostle meaneth no more? Whether these are all the works that he excludeth from Justification? And we blame this Interpretation, though having some truth in it, at least in reference to the Jew, as greatly defective in respect of the Apostles main scope. By the works of the Law cannot onely be meant works done by the power of nature, without the grace of Christ, because the Apostle excludeth the works of such as were believers; Therefore its all kind of works, as works. This appeareth in Abraham, who is said to be justified by believing, oppositely to working; Its not spoken of Abraham before his Call, and while living in Idolatry, but a long time after his knowledge of God. If then Abrahams works be shut out, when and while a believer, yea a friend of God, How much more must the works of those, who are in an inferior rank? But of this more hereafter.  
We shall instance in these Galatians, who are reproved for countenancing and abetting of this error; They were not Infidels or Pagans, they had received the Gospel, they had received the Spirit, and had suffered many things for the Gospel; yet the Apostle tells them, That they must not seek to be justified by the works they yet do; The Apostle argueth an impossibility of righteousness by the Law, not merely respectively to what they were once, but at any time, even since their conversion, as well as before their conversion. This is fully evinced by the Argument brought in the Text, No man can be justified by the works of the Law; Why? Because The Just shall live by faith: So then, even the just man, he who is righteous, liveth not by works, but by faith. This Argument had no consequence at all in it, if so be the controversy were understood of men working onely by natural power; for what is the just mans living by faith to a natural man acting in his mere naturals? Whereas if we say, The Apostle excludeth all works, either of unregenerate or regenerate, then this is a very powerful Argument, because the just man as long as he is in this world, must live by faith, and that in the matter of Justification, as well as in other things.  
A man in the progress of Justification is justified still by faith, as well as at first: Hence this Text is again urged for continuance in Justification, as well as the entrance thereunto, Romans 1.17. where in the Gospel the righteousness of God is said to be revealed from faith to faith.  
Fourthly, The Apostle doth not exclude the works of the Law onely done by nature, because this would necessary infer such an opinion to be held by the Galatians, that would be wholly irrational, if not impossible; for these Galatians did receive the Gospel, and believe in Christ, they did expect Justification and Salvation by these; Therefore the Apostle re-mindes them of that great joy they once took in this Doctrine of the Gospel, Gal. 4.15. Where is the blessedness you once spake of? They called it a blessed Gospel, and they were blessed tidings of peace, but their zeal and fervency did abate, since they added their works to Christ. None are ever able with a raised pitch of soul to delight in Christ, that give the least iota or tittle unto works more then the Scripture requireth; Seeing therefore the Galatians did not raze the foundation, or wholly reject Christ, who can think that their opinion was, they could be justified by works done without him? For why did they believe in Christ still? Why did they retain and hold the Gospel for all this corrupt addition, but because they looked for Justification by Christ in part at least? Could they think they were justified without Christ, and then come to Christ to be justified? So that its to conceive an irrational, if not an impossible error, That they who did believe in Christ for Justification at least in part, yet should at the same time think they were or might be justified by works done without Christ. And it may be said, The Apostles Arguments to the contrary were very weak, if they did not hold this, for thus he argueth, If Justification be by the works of the Law, then Christ died in vain, then you are fallen from grace, then Christ profiteth nothing; for how would this follow, if works of grace were excluded? for works of grace did suppose Christs death, do necessary include grace and advantage by Christ; whereas works done solely by natural strength, did necessary exclude Christ and grace. This( I confess) hath some specious colour; but yet the Answer is, That such consequents of the Apostle are very strong, for even those that join works of grace and Christ, works of the Law, and the faith of the Gospel, do ex natura rei, shut Christ out of all; and although they may with their mouths and pens profess Christ and his grace, yet really they deny both. The Galatians indeed did not think or intend to fall from Christ, yet in the nature of the thing, without repentance or recovery, they did fall from him, and deny him; for not to give Christ all that is due to him, to put him off with half is to make him no Christ at all. So that by this we see, its a very high sin,( wherein the zeal of an holy Apostle, otherwise very meek and compassionate) burneth as hot as fire, to put confidence in the works we do, though they be supposed works of grace we do. The Apostle said, If he should give his body to be burnt, and have not charity, it would profit him nothing; but if thou shouldst give thy body to be burnt, and have charity, and that in a great measure, yet if thou put any trust in this, thou deniest Christ, and makest him to die in vain. Indeed there are men who cannot be guilty of this sin, for none ever thought to be justified by the works of sin, and the devil: But there are others again attending to the works of righteousness, and they may quickly swallow down this poison: Therefore let them take heed of establishing to themselves a false righteousness, a Dagon that can never stand before God.   

SERM. XXII. That Justification cannot be attained by the Works of the Law.  GAL. 3.11. But that no man is Justified by the Law in the sight of God, it is evident: For the Just shall live by Faith. 
WE have hitherto shewed what Exposition is made of the works of the Law, and whether in whole or in part such interpretations are to be rejected: and what other senses are given in this matter, may be reduced to one of th●●● heads. As that of Castellio, De Justif. p. 27. when he saith, He dare boldly make this distinction between the righteousness of the Law, and that of faith; The righteousness of the Law is an external obedience coming from a servile fear; The righteousness of faith a virtue of the mind contrary to 'vice, which God gives freely to those that believe, pardoning their bypassed sins.  
Let us therefore consider in the next place, 
Reasons why the works of the Law cannot justify.  Why Justification cannot be by the Law, or righteousness attained by the works of it. And  
First, Because the righteousness of the Law requireth an universal perfection in the subject who is thereby justified. Rom. 10. The righteousness thereof is in Do this and live. Do this] yea this, and this, and all in every iota or tittle, or else there is no life. Therefore such a Justification as this was onely possible to Adam while he continued in his integrity. Christ( say some) was justified in this manner by the works he did, and then the Angels they were justified by their faithful continuance in obedience to God. Now then, if there be not one man to be found since Adams fall, that can pled righteousness by a [ Do this] then he must seek for Justification some other way. This is so evident, that howsoever Papists generally go another way, yet Cajetan Comment. in 3. ad Rom. maketh this difference between the righteousness of God, and the righteousness of the Law. The righteousness of God( saith he to this effect) is that whereby a man is absolutely accounted of as just, both in respect of what is past, as also what is present and to come. The righteousness of the Law is that whereby a man for the present and to come, is accepted of as just, but for the sins past that cannot give a righteousness. There is some truth in this; for suppose that there were such an infusion of righteousness into us, that thereby we are enabled to keep the Law of God perfectly, yet how shall we do for a righteousness for our bypassed ways, before this infusion was? Cajetan therefore in this respect saith right, That the righteousness of God, which is the same with the righteousness of faith and the Gospel, is that w●●reby we are looked upon as just before God, in respect of our former conversation. But this can never be by the Law, for that requireth a perfection from the first to the last. To have once sinned, and but once, though a man could be immediately restored unto integrity again, is to make the righteousness of the Law impossible to us; So that righteousness by the Law, though once possible, yet to us accidentally by our corruption is impossible; and therefore in this life, while we have the relics of corruption, we are to cry out: Oh miserable, naked and poor creatures, as we are! Who will help us to a righteousness to cover our nakedness?  
Secondly, Justification cannot be by the Law, because the Scripture makes Justification by faith and the Law two immediate contraries. If we are justified by faith, we cannot be by the Law; The East and the West may be as soon brought together, as these two kindes of Justifications. This Argument is pressed by the Apostle in my Text, and the verse following, The Law is not of faith; and Rom. 10, The righteousness of the Law, and the righteousness of faith are made two immediate opposites. The Scripture then always speaking of these two, as diametrically opposite, it must necessary follow between the Law and faith, as Christ said of God and Mammon, You cannot serve God and Mammon; so neither can you have the righteousness of the Law and faith together; you may as well serve two contrary Masters, as enjoy these two contrary righteousnesses. Therefore the endeavours of such who would make a righteousness compounded of the Law and faith, is as vain as those who would build Jericho again; and indeed the very nature of them is as immediately contrary as light and darkness, and as inconsistent as the Arctique and Antarctique Pole, for the righteousness of faith supposeth me altogether miserable, wretched in sin, and naked in myself; The righteousness of the Law supposeth perfection and all fullness in me; Now how can a man be both these at the same time?  
Thirdly, righteousness cannot come by the Law, because that nurseth every man by nature, and so is a minister of wrath and condemnation. This Argument the Apostle urged in the verse before my Text, As many as are of the works of the Law, are under a curse: Why? Because it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them. We may then as well expect water from the fire, and sweetness out of gull, as righteousness by the Law; he that runneth to this as a refuge, when Gods anger pursueth him, doth as the man the Prophet speaks of that learned on the wall, and the Serpent bit him. Alas, when Conscience and Justice shall arraign thee, wilt thou pled the Law? That will heap up thy wrath more, that will add more stings to thy guilt. Its observable that Deut. 27.26. when this was pronounced, Cursed is he that continueth not in all the words of the Law to do them, the people were to say, Amen: what was this but to ratify the curse against themselves, onely hereby they were taught to go out of themselves, and to renounce all that righteousness they gloried in, and to seek to him in whom all the promises are Amen, because in the Law all the curses are Amen.  
Fourthly, righteousness cannot come by the Law, because we are justified by an imputed righteousness, whereas the Law requireth a personal inherent righteousness. This seemeth to be very cogent, for whereas with Popish Writers, the righteousness of the Law and of the Gospel differ onely secundum magis and minus, as an Acorn and an Oak, a child and a man, the one imperfect, the other more perfect; its evident by Scripture that these two righteousnesses differ specie, and so cannot by any addition ever be made the same; yea the more perfect and complete our righteousness personal and inherent would be, the less imputed it would be, and so be the farther off from a Gospel-righteousnesse Now that our righteousness is an imputed righteousness, appeareth by the frequent affirmation of it by Paul, and that in one Chapter, Rom 4. and hence also the same Apostle would be found in Christ, not having his own righteousness which is of the Law, Phil. 3. Yea 2 Cor. 5.21. we are sa●d to be made the righteousness of God in him. If then Christ be our righteousness, if his obedience be reckoned as ours, then this is as far distant from a legal righteousness as heaven from earth: But of this more in its due time, because this imputed righteousness is the great thing controverted.  
Fifthly, If the righteousness of the Law justifieth, then Christ died in vain, then grace is abolished, then Christ is become of no effect unto a believer. These are consequences the Apostle himself makes; and although a Galatian might have replied, The consequence is denied, for we believe in Christ, we hold him also necessary to Justification, and faith in him, as well as the works of the Law, yet would not this have satisfied Paul, because if Christ be not wholly received for Justification, he is not received at all: Christ was not made part of righteousness unto us, but righteousness in the whole. And indeed it must needs be a great debasing of Christ, to make his death and sufferings a co-partner only with our works, that Christ with us should make up a complete Saviour. This is so gross an absurdity, that learned Protestants, affirming the Pope to be Antichrist, when assaulted with this Objection, That they believe Christ to be come in the flesh; They believe Christ to be God and man; Its answered, Because they deny Christ in his Offices, especially in this matter of Justification by him, joining works with him, that therefore they may be properly said to deny him. Furthermore upon this account, Christ would have died in vain, if righteousness could come by the Law, for to what purpose did Christ bring a righteousness, if the Law had brought it before? Yea, if this were so, then the contrary to what the Apostle affirmeth, it would prove true, viz. That the Law did invalidate and disannul the Covenant of Grace. Look not then upon this error as mere hay or stubble: No, it cometh too near razing the foundation itself: For although some learned men in this point have laboured, if not to reconcile Protestants and Papists, yet to make it doubtful, Whether the Church of Rome hold a fundamental error? ( Hooker Eccles. Polit. in Treat. of Just.) yet if we consider the Apostles zeal, and his Arguments which he useth against the Galatians, who yet did believe in Christ; The wen seemeth so big that the breasts of charity cannot cover it, yea that it s a Cancer rather which eateth up the life of Christianity.  
Sixthly, If righteousness could come by the Law, then it would by one of these three ways, either because we are able perfectly to fulfil the Law by a personal righteousness, or because the Law condescends from its perfect exactness, and requireth no more then we can do; or though we cannot perfectly obey the Law, yet God will account of, and accept this imperfect obedience, as if it were perfect. But neither of these three ways can righteousness be communicated unto us; not from the first, for he onely fulfilleth the Law that is always without sin, that never committed the least iniquity. Now the Apostle John saith, 1 John 1.10. If we say we have no sin, we make God a liar, and there is no truth in us. The Papist therefore makes God and his Apostle John a liar in this particular. The Law requireth a total perfection, a gradual perfection, and this continually, a perfection subjective, objective and adjunctivè, that Do this and live, is a thunderbolt to strike down every man; None is able to stand before it, For in many things we offend all, and what we do comes not up to the perfection of the rule, and whatsoever is minus quam esse debet, ex vitio est, as Augustine. They must therefore have low thoughts of the Laws perfection, who have such high thoughts of their own graces.  
2. It cannot be that the Law abateth of its exactness, and commensurateth itself to our power, for thus many say, The Law is not such an hard task-master as many make it: Its not such a strict immovable Rule, but like Paul, It becomes all things to all men; it descends to the power and capacity of man, and is no further obligable then mans power doth extend itself: But Paul, Rom. 7. doth aclowledge the spirituality and holinesse of the Law; The obliging power of that, even then when he found nothing but evil present with him; and David doth often commend the perfection of the Law, because it requireth what is every way necessary, not being deficient in any thing: Now seeing its our duty to have what Adam lost, and he losing such an admirable perfection, God requireth this of us still; The debt is due, though we are bankrupts and cannot pay it. Do not then bring down the Law to thy power, but aclowledge thy duty by the Rule; The Rule continueth a Rule, though thou art not able to attain unto it. Indeed sometimes the godly are said to keep the Commandments, and to walk unblamably therein, but that is in respect of sincerity, and because of their study and endeavour after perfection. Its true, the whole heart is sometimes opposed to hypocrisy, and a double heart; but when its joined with those Concomitants, to love God with all the heart, all the soul, and all thy strength; This requireth more then any man can do in this life: especially that the Law obligeth beyond our power, is plain, because we still have sin in us, lusts and sinful motions, as the Apostle complaineth Rom. 7. Now if these were not forbidden by the Law, they could not be sins, for where there is no Law there is no transgression.  
Thirdly and lastly, What is imperfect God doth not own as perfect. This is an evasion which some later Writers much applaud themselves in, they aclowledge, That we are not able to fulfil the Law, they confess we break it in many things; but then they add, God doth graciously through Christ forgive our imperfections, and accepteth of this, as if it were the fulfilling of the Law. Now indeed we grant, That the obedience of the godly, though very drossy, and accompanied with many imperfections, yet through Christ is accepted of, and God looks upon them as true and upright men, not hypocrites and profane; but yet for all this, they are not accepted to Justification; We cannot say, That by these we are justified, for that were to make God to pronounce otherwise then the truth is; How can they be accounted Just by that which is not exactly Justice? Gods Judgement is always according to truth, and he doth not judge of things otherwise then they are. Now if God should account of these as satisfying the Law, and answering the perfection of it when they do not, it would suppose error or mistakes in God,  
Thus you have heard, That righteousness cannot be obtained by the works of the Law, yet to what hath been delivered, its necessary to add some Cautions; for even Paul when he preached this Doctrine was traduced by his enemies, and they inferred many false consequences, gathering thorns of the vine, and thistles of the fig-tree.  
First therefore, Though Justification be not by the righteousness of the Law, yet this is not to condemn it, to make it an useless thing, as if there was no wisdom or goodness of God seen in the manifestation of it. No such matter, We see the Apostle with great indignation rejects such inferences; yea Rom. 7. he giveth this commendation of the Law, That its holy and spiritual, laying the whole blame upon himself, He was carnal and sold under sin; distinguish then between that which floweth from the Law per se, and of its own nature, and that which cometh from it by accident, and through our own corruption. Thus it is, The Law was at first given to Adam to justify him by the works thereof; It would have given life to him; This was the pro●er and intended end of it; but upon mans rebellion, whole mankind is plunged into all sin, and so no more able to obey this Law, then blind men see, or dead men walk. The Law therefore finding us such, is so far from communicating a righteousness to us, that it aggravateth our sin, making it out of measure sinful, and filling us with wrath and guilt; it is we and not the Law that are to be condemned; Excellent food is not to be condemned, but the corrupted stomach that cannot digest, yea which increaseth its disease by it.  
Secondly, This is not so to be understood, as if the Law were wholly abrogated, and of no use to us. It continueth as a Rule, though not as a Covenant by which we are to be justified. Thus the Apostle denieth that he makes voided the Law, Rom. 3.13. yea we establish the Law; Therefore the Apostle, even when he so vehemently argueth against Justification by the Law, doth yet press the duty of the Law. Its one thing to love God, to delight in him, to walk in his Commandments, and another thing to expect Justification by them: This is to mingle heaven and earth, when we confounded Justification and Sanctification: So that the works of the Law may be considered two ways, either in respect of the Command or Direction of the Law to which we are enabled by the Spirit of God sanctifying us; and in this sense we preach the Law, we command the works of the Law, and desire God would writ his Law in your inward parts.  
But then the works of the Law may be secondly considered as the Conditions of our Justification, and whosoever looketh on them thus, he rejects Christ and his grace. This is a dangerous error, when we do the works of the Law for this end, when we love God, endeavour to keep his Commandments, that thereby God may pronounce us righteous.  
Hence in the third place, We must distinguish between the works of that righteousness which the Law requireth, and the righteousness of works. All the people of God make it their business to abound in the works of righteousness. The Scripture commands and encourageth thereunto, but then it doth as much condemn a righteousness of works. We have a remarkable expression, Deut. 6.25. It shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all that God commandeth us; our righteousness, not our righteousness to justify us, but a qualitative righteousness to denominate us so inherently, according to that, He that doth righteousness is righteous, 1 Joh. 3.7. Let not then this Doctrine discourage from that righteousness of life the Law requireth; Say not, What have we to do with the Law and Sanctification? For although it be not appointed to justify, yet it is commanded as the way we should walk in; yea the Law is not onely a directive Rule, but accidentally a School-master to bring to Christ; For when by that we are convinced of sin, and have nothing but despair in ourselves, this driveth us out to Christ, and though it cannot be our Do this and live, yet Christs Do this procureth eternal life; Though we are not justified by our works, yet we are by Christs, and whatsoever the Scripture denieth to us it attributeth to him.  
Fourthly, It cannot be denied but that it is a very hard thing to press the Law as a Rule of righteousness, and not to have it looked upon as a Covenant by which we are made righteous Why should we be bound to follow holinesse, and yet not for this to be justified before God? Hence this confidence in the works we do hath been a sin of old in the Church; The Prophets did most zealously rebuk it, and we see in the beginning of the Christian Church, what entertainment it had both doctrinally and practically. Now what was formerly done in reference to the commands of the Law, is still generally with us respectively to Gospel-duties: Are there not hundreds to one Christian that fiducially rest upon their Christian performances, that look not to Christs-righteousnesse in their duties? Now to such we may say, You who seek to be justified by the duties of the Gospel, you fall from grace, and Christ is become of no effect unto you. This sin is like a moth secretly consuming many thousand without any noise. If the Apostle charge some not to trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God; How much more not to put confidence in thy works but in Christ, for this spiritual confidence in works for Justification, is greater Idolatry then trusting in wealth, because hereby we rest on them for that which is more directly and immediately Gods work, for God only forgiveth sin, and justifieth a man at his Tribunal; and truly, why should there be such voluminous disputations for that righteousness to justify, when the greatest patrons thereof at the close find a misgiving of their hearts? as Bellarmines known Tutissimum est, and Suarez( Disput. de orat.) adviseth him that prayeth, not to think of, or mention his merits in prayer, ob periculum superbiae for fear of pride; what is this but to provide a potion for the diseased, and then to prohibit the taking it for fear of killing him?  
Use of Instruction. How blessed a thing it is to be directed in this point of Justification, to be assured what is that righteousness God will own; Satan hath always by his instruments endeavoured to take away, the live child, and put a dead one in the room. Let that be thought a matter of great moment, in which the Apostle sheweth so much zeal. As the Psalmist said, Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will in the name of God; So let us, some put confidence in the Law, some in their duties, some in good works, some in faith, some in both, but we will trust in Christ, who is the Lord our righteousness; Every thing in the Temple was to be covered with gold, and thus we are to put on the Lord Jesus Christ, that nothing of our nakedness may appear, but Christ may be all in all; live not, die not, but in this covering.   

SERM. XXIII. That the Works of a Godly man done graciously, are not the Condition or a Causa sine qua non of his Justification.  1 COR. 4.4. For I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby Justified. 
AT the close of the precedent Chapter, the Apostle seemed to depress the Office of Christs Ministry in the Church too much, making Apostles and Officers to be servants to the Church, and wholly in reference to it. Lest therefore this should puff up private believers, and make them undervalue or contemn their Officers, he giveth necessary counsel, ver. 1. in this matter: for when the Authority of Church-Officers is despised, then confusion and licentiousness breaks forth. [ Let a man] that is, every man( an Hebraism) of what rank or dignity soever, though of never such abilities and graces, Account, {αβγδ}, that is to account upon an exact and judicious comparing of things together. There ought to be a serious and well-grounded esteem of them.  
Then there is the cause or ground of this account, and that is described in such properties that denote the Ministers dignity, and yet his duty; his duty in that they are {αβγδ}, Ministers, the word doth not signify every kind of service, but that which is most toilsome and laborious, a Metaphor taken from those that row in a boat, so great a care is required in them to bring the ship of Christ safe to the haven; They are also {αβγδ} Stewards, not Lords or Masters, nor called to idleness and vanity in the world. Thus all the names given to Christs Officers they are names of labour more then honour, yet in the second place, There is their dignity also, Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God; What can be more sublime and glorious then this, to be workers with God for mens salvation!  
Having thus declared what men ought to esteem of the Ministers of God, he thereupon sheweth how little he is moved with the thoughts men had of him. Mans judgement is called in the Greek, his day, as among the Latins diem dicere: Though Hierom thought this a phrase peculiar to the Cilicians, yet the learned show that it is an Hebraism. Now the Apostle doth the rather slight mens judgements, because he had a good conscience in the discharge of his Office.  
So that in the words you have Pauls Justification of himself, as to men, and his disclaim of any Justification thereby, as to God. His Justification before men, is in these words, I know nothing by myself; which is not universally to be understood, as if he knew no sin at all in himself; for Rom. 7. he makes sad complaints of corruptions working in him, but he speaks it quoad hoc, in respect of his Ministry he had not been an unfaithful Steward of Divine Mysteries, he was not guilty of any crimes that his adversaries could charge him with; and although he expresseth it negatively( he knew nothing by himself) yet that supposeth a positive and sincere course of his life, both in respect of his Ministry and otherways. But lest this should seem arrogancy and spiritual pride, be renounceth all Justification by the works he did, yet am I not hereby justified.  
Grotius limits the sense too much, as if Justification doth denote only freedom from sin; and in another place speaks superciliously ( Proleg. in Epist. ad Rom.) as if none before him had hit right upon the Explication of the word in Pauls Epistle to the Romans. But in its time, I shall make good, That Justification is more then a bare remission of sin.  
In the last place we have a reason given why Paul is not justified by what he did, because the Lord judgeth him, he who knoweth more sinfulness and corruption by man then the most Eagle-eyed Christian can discern, God is greater then our hearts, and so is acquainted with those errors and failings that the most tender-hearted Christian cannot take notice of.  
This place doth not prove an uncertainty of Justification, as the Papists would infer; for they grant, That Paul knew assuredly by revelation that he was a justified person, onely it strongly evinceth, That Paul, and so no man regenerate is justified by any good works he doth in this life; and so whereas many would evade the power of several places of Scripture, That only works of the Law, or such as are done by our own strength, are excluded: This place is stronger then Samsons new cords, it holds the adversaries so fast, that they know not how to wrest themselves loose.  
That even the most holy and regenerate man is not justified by the works of grace which he doth. 
observe.   
This truth is the more diligently to be asserted, by how much the error that confronts it is more specious and refined, and maintained by such abettors, whose repute is not so easily cast off, as the former we spake of. And that we may keep to the proper point in hand, take notice,  
First, That the Question is not, Whether we are justified by works, though flowing from grace as meritorious or efficient of Justification? This the Opinionists we have to deal with, do reject with indignation. To make works either merits or efficient causes of our Justification before God, they grant, is directly to oppose the Scriptures, yea they seem to be offended with the Orthodox, as giving too much to faith, because its made an instrument of our Justification, therefore they are to be acquitted at least from gross Popery.  
Secondly, Although to maintain faith and obedience to be the conditions, and a causa sine quâ non of our Justification, be the professed and avowed doctrine of the Socinians, yet some of late have asserted the same doctrine, that yet abhor Socinianism; for the Socinians deny Christs Satisfaction, and his righteousness in fulfilling of the Law for us, and so make good works a condition of our Justification, not through and for Christ a Mediator, but from the mere grace of God( as they express it) who hath no such justice as to need a satisfaction by an atonement through Christs blood. Though therefore these later sort of Writers assert the same thing with Socinians, yet upon different grounds.  
Thirdly, Neither is the Question about the necessity of holinesse and sanctification in those that are justified; Justified persons will abound in the fruits of holinesse, that sweet fountain within will also bring forth sweet streams; This good three will bear good fruit; onely the Question is, Upon what account these are required in justified persons? Whether in some causality or concurrence as faith is, onely not with such a degree of excellency? Whether good works be required as well as faith, so that we may say, Justifying Repentance, Justifying Law, as well as Justifying Faith? This is positively and vehemently affirmed by some, but certainly those Arguments and Reasons they bring are too weak to gain-say the torrent of Orthodox Divines. Its good to sail between Antinomianism on the one hand, and this error on the other hand; and while we profligate one error, not to run into another extreme. This therefore I shall( God willing) undertake to prove, That good works are not Conditions, or à causa sine quâ non of our Justification; and although the Abettors of this opinion do give faith the pre-eminence, and make it the principal condition, yet if they will rigidly stand to the Apostle James his words,( which they say, they are much awed with) faith must be less principal, and works be that which giveth life to faith, that it may be enabled to justify; and thus indeed it is affirmed, That works make faith alive, as to the attaimment of its end of Justification. But of this more when we shall show the inconsistency of authors with their own selves, in answering their great Objection taken from the Apostle James.  
I proceed therefore to show, That no godly man is justified by his works, or works though done graciously, yet are not the condition of a mans Justification, as faith is. And  
First, I shall instance in the great pattern and example of our Justification, Abraham, from whom the Apostle concludeth a Justification of all believers in the like manner he was. Now that Abraham was not justified by works, or his working, though a godly man, the Apostle, makes it his whole business to prove, Rom. 4.3, 4, 5. This place is judged by the Orthodox to be very pregnant for Justification without works, even those of a regenerate or godly man; for Abraham, though a godly man, and the Father of the faithful, yet even then when he was godly, was not justified by any works he did, but by faith. This place is the more to be insisted upon, because its the proper seat of Justification. The Apostles scope is expressly to determine how a man is justified, and no learned Lawyer was ever more careful to put in many words in the Deeds that he makes, to exclude all cavils and shifts for the future, then was this divine Apostle diligent to shut out all erroneous glosses, insomuch that we may despair of satisfying that man, who is not convinced from this example: For Bellarmine who useth not to be very ingenuous, doth aclowledge that this is gravis difficultas, for Abrahams works are excluded while he was godly, and in the state of grace. Though this mountain be so strong, yet there are those who set their shoulders to heave it away. What the Papists answer, I shall not much matter; but what others more refined do bring in, is worthy consideration. The works( say they) that are excluded, are works of the Law; the Law requiring a perfect personal righteousness, cannot be fulfilled by any, only Christ satisfied this; and then that we might be partakers of this righteousness, faith and good works are required as the conditions, so that the works of the Law are excluded, not of the Gospel. But this cannot be a solid answer,  
1. Because the Apostle speaketh generally of works in this description of Justification, though in other places he sometimes saith, the works of the Law, yet Abraham could not be instanced in for such works, and therefore the Apostle speaks universally of works, quâ works: Certainly, as they say, its not fit for us to teach the Spirit of God what to say. So this is good counsel in this particular. When we read that the holy Ghost speaks generally of all works, Who are we that we should limit it to some? The Apostle then nameth works, when he treateth on purpose, how we are justified and excludeth them; and this is the more cogent, if we consider the opposition between faith and works. The Apostle directly opposeth the believer and the work, which could never be if Gospel-works were not excluded; nay by this means there could be no contradistinction at all, because faith itself, if considered in Justification as a condition only its respected as a work; How then could the Apostle make such an immediate contrariety between these two? By their interpretation, the believer should be opposed only to some kind of works and faith, not to all, but to some kind of works, which if so, the Apostles Argument had then no necessary consequence.  
Again, That works of all sort are excluded, is plain, if you consider the object of Justification, who it is that is here said to be justified, and that is the ungodly. By the ungodly is one meant that hath not a sufficient and adequate holinesse, so that Abraham, though regenerated, yet as to Justification, is ungodly, he cannot stand before God or endure, if all his imperfections are inquired after. Now certainly, he that fulfilleth the conditions of Justification cannot be called ungodly, for he doth all that which is required: So that this is very considerable, that all those whom God justifieth, he justifieth them not for any thing they have of their own, or any conditions they have performed, but as such who are sinners in a strict examination, and so deserve condemnation, and therefore no works of grace are looked upon.  
Lastly, That all works are excluded, is evident by the Apostles allegation out of David, who makes mans blessedness to be in this, That God imputeth righteousness without works: Who can persuade himself that David excluded only works of the Law, when in his time, that Question which so perplexed the Christian Church in its infancy, was not started? So that the Apostle making this righteousness to be imputed, and that without works, doth counsel a man to exclude all works whatsoever in this great point of Justification; and indeed it is at last confessed, That its faith onely which makes the contract between God and the soul, That good works are not required to this initial consenting unto Christ, so as to make him ours, but in the progress. This is that in effect, which the Papists affirm in other words, That the first Justification is onely by faith, but the second by good works.  
Against this general exclusion of all works is opposed, vers. 4. where the Apostle saith, To him that worketh the reward is of debt; from whence they gather, That works onely which are debts, are excluded: But if this be seriously thought on, it makes strongly against them; for the Apostles Argument is à genere, if it be by works, its of debt. Therefore there are not works of debt, and works of no debt. This supposition would make the Apostle to argue insufficiently and weakly: If our works be of grace and imperfect, then to them the reward is reckoned of debt, though not so much as if they were fully perfect. Neither will it avail to say, That these Gospel-graces cannot be debt, because Gods Spirit enableth us thereunto: For if a man( as Paraeus well urgeth) set two labourers on work, and to one he lends him tools to work, the other brings his own tools, at the close of the day both receive their wages for their labour, not of debt, though one had his tools given him.  
The second Argument may be from the peculiar and express difference that the Scripture giveth between faith and other graces, in respect of Justification: So that faith and good works are not to be considered as concurrent in the same manner, though one primarily, the other secondarily; so that if faith when its said to justify, doth it not as a condition, but in some other peculiar notion, which works are not capable of, then we are not justified by works as well as faith. Now its not lightly to be passed over, That the Scripture still useth a peculiar expression of Faith, which is incommunicable to other graces. Thus Rom. 3.25. Remission of sins is through faith in his blood, Rom. 4.5. Faith is counted for righteousness, Rom. 5.1. Gal. 2.16. and in many other places, still the expression is, Justified by faith; Christ dwells in the heart by faith, Ephes. 3. Believing is receiving of Christ, Joh. 1. Act. 10.43. Remission of sins is received by faith, Act. 26.18. Gal. 3.14. The promise of the Spirit is received by faith: Insomuch that as Christ is the Serpent exalted, so faith is the eyeing of the Serpent, whereby we are healed: That as the mere looking upon the Serpent cured without any other medicinal helps and endeavours: Thus the meet believing on Christ doth justify without other works co-operating therein.  
From these expressions it is that our Orthodox Divines do say, That faith justifieth as its an instrument, laying hold on Christ, so that Christ received by faith is properly that which justifieth, not faith itself, or any dignity in it. This is the hand that receiveth the jewel, which doth enrich us. This Doctrine, though so generally received and avowed by all Protestant Writers, yet of late is rejected among other reasons, Because there cannot be any passive instrument. Now I much wonder that Bellarmine, Becanus, and other subtle jesuits that turned every ston to overthrow faiths instrumentality in Justification, should so far forget their logic and metaphysics, as not to pitch upon this Objection above all, that there cannot be any such thing as a passive instrument. Truly I think, when a man of godly affections broacheth an error, which he taketh to be a truth, he himself is a passive instrument to bring others into errors. If we regard natural causes and moral, we may easily mention many passive instruments: In natural things the throat is a passive instrument of drinking. The Conduit-pipe of conveying water, and twenty such instances men may think of. In morality, taking that largely, there are many passive instruments, nabuchadnezzar and all wicked men are Gods passive instruments. The Serpent by which the Devil deceived Eve, was a passive instrument: and to come nearer to our purpose, Who can deny but that miraculous faith was a passive instrument in doing miracles, for the power of working miracles is infinite, and could not be communicated to a creature no more then the Creation of a world, onely they by resting on Gods power, God wrought these wonderful things by them. But nothing doth so fully represent this, as the opinion of Aristotle and others following him, that intelligere is pati, and so videre, audire, are pati, to understand is to receive, and so to see and hear; the soul doth these by those faculties which are passive instruments therein; and therefore when Bellarmine would prove, That credere and apprehendere were actions and works; Its well answered, That to believe or to lay hold on Christ( The Greek word applied often to faith is {αβγδ}) Though they be Grammatical actions, yet they are naturally passions, as intelligere, videre, are active verbs according to Grammar, but naturally and physically are passions: So that a man in believing is passive, that is, he receiveth Christ for his righteousness: But of a passive instrument more hereafter. Justification is not in giving something to God, but in receiving from him; we do not curiously litigate about the word instrument; by instrumentum we mean no more then medium, whereby the soul receiveth the Gospel-righteousnesse tendered unto it, and those peculiar expressions you heard the Scripture giveth to faith, can evince no less. If therefore faith justify upon a peculiar reason, That that grace onely hath, viz. because it receiveth and applieth Christ our righteousness, then other graces and holy works, having no such capacity cannot justify. As the hand onely, not the eyes or the feet, are the instrument that take alms given to a poor man. This consideration made that learned man Mr Ball, say, How faith and works should be conjoined as concauses in Justification, is impossible to conceive. Treatof the Cov. of Grace, p. 70. And its a mere Sophism to say, That if by faith we receive Christ, and faith is the receiving of Christ, then we receive Christ by receiving; for its not the notion of faith that is properly the instrument receiving, but faith as the habit putting itself into act. So that the meaning is, faith acting or laying hold upon Christ, is the instrument receiving him. Neither is this to give too much to faith, no more then in the faith of miracles, when Christ said to some, Thy faith hath made thee whole, that thereby our Saviour gave any dignity to faith, as if that were the cause of their health.  
The third Argument is, If in the continuance and progress of our Justification, we are justified after the same manner we were at first, then its not by faith and works, but by faith only as distinct to works. The strength of this Argument lieth in this, In granted, The first consent and willingness to receive Christ, is that which justifieth, and good works are required by cooperation thereunto, as opportunity serveth: So that( by the way) it must be confessed, That faith in some doth justify them antecedently to good works, and that some may be so prevented, that their faith could not co-operate with their works; and how will this agree with that discourse they form out of the Apostle James, Chap. 2? But that which I pursue by this Argument is, That in the same manner we were at first justified, we are always justified: But its granted, We are not at first justified by works: Therefore not afterwards. Now this truth; That we are justified at first, as afterwards, will appear by these two Texts of Scripture, Rom. 1.17. where the righteousness of God is said to be revealed from faith to faith. Not to mention the several descants of many upon this place. That which the most solid Interpreters pitch upon is, That in our Justification we begin with faith, and go on in faith; its from faith and to faith, as parallel expressions from strength to strength, from glory to glory. Therefore the Apostles sense is, That in our Justification we proceed not from faith to works, as these must hold, that make works the secondary condition of our Justification, but from faith to faith; by faith we began, and by faith we continue. The second Text is, from the place formerly insisted on, Gal. 3.11. where the Apostle proveth, A just man is not justified by the works of the Law, because he liveth by faith; If then in the progress of our Justification we live by faith on Christ, then are we not justified by works, for why might it not be said as well according to the contrary opinion, That we are justified by works, because the just shall live by his works? But I think this would be very harsh to any tender ear. Neither will that crambe not bis, but decies costa avail, That works of the Law onely are excluded; for works of the Law may be so called, either quoad efficientiam, as if the Law could enable us to what is good, or quoad normam, in respect of the regulative part of it, and thus all the works that regenerate men do, are works of the Law, if they do not murder, if they keep the Sabbath, if they take God for one God, and so put confidence in him. This is a work of the Law; and in this sense Paul said, He delighted in the Law of God in the inward man. And thus that Evangelical righteousness they speak of, is legal in this sense, that is, its according to the rule of the Law: Consider therefore this seriously, take heed of beginning in faith, and ending in works; Do thou go on from faith to faith, not from believing to doing.   

SERM. XXIV. More Arguments to prove the former Position.  1 COR. 4.4. For I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby Justified. 
WE proceed to a fourth Argument by which it is to be proved, That we are not justified by works as a condition, or a Causa sine quâ non, and thus it is propounded,  
He that is justified by fulfilling a Condition, though he be thereunto enabled by Grace, yet he is just and righteous in himself. But all justified persons as to Justification are not righteous in themselves, but in Christ their Surety and Mediator. I say, They are righteous as to Justification in their own persons, who fulfil the Conditions of Justification. But the justified person in the Gospel-way, though he have a qualitative righteousness, whereby he is truly and inherently just, yet as to a righteousness of Justification, that is not his own, but anothers; Even the righteousness of the Lord Christ received and made his by faith; Two particulars are comprised in this Argument, and both of them seem so evident, that they need not much proving.  
1. That he which fulfils a Condition on which Justification depends, is righteous in himself; for seeing no more is required but this Condition, and that is supposed to be performed by the man that worketh; Therefore he must needs be righteous in himself; for though this righteousness be originally from Grace, yet it is subjectively a mans righteousness: So that we may call it a mans own righteousness, as Paul doth Phil. 3. and the works of righteousness which we do, Tit. 3.5. So that as the temporal mercies which are given of God to us, we call our own, our own health, our own wealth: Thus the holy graces which we act, though enabled to them by Gods Spirit, and so efficiently are the fruits thereof, yet subjectively and formally, they are our own, our own faith, and our own repentance: So that if we fulfil these Conditions, we are righteous as to Justification by that which is our own and inherent in us: yea, I think, if it be well weighed, it will be found to be a contradiction, to say they are Conditions, and yet a Causa sine qua non, of our Justification: for a Causa sine quâ non is no cause at all; but a Condition in a Covenant strictly taken, hath a moral efficiency, and is a Causa cum quâ, not a Causa sine quâ non. If Adam had stood in his integrity, though that confirmation would have been of grace, yet his works would have been a causal Condition of the blessedness promised. In the Covenant of Grace, though what man doth is by the gift of God, yet look upon the same gift as our duty, and as a Condition, which in our own persons is performed; This infereth some moral efficiency, and so though in words they deny, yet indeed they do exalt works to some kind of Causality: And for a Causa sine quâ non, though good works may be granted to be such in reference to Salvation, yet they cannot be so in respect of Justification, as in the next Argument will appear: For though it be granted, That Justification and an holy purpose to do good works are inseparably joined together, yet every thing that is inseparably concomitant to another thing is not a Causa sine quâ non. A man cannot be but in a place, in an ubi; yet to be in a place, or as they call it ubication, is not a Causa sine quâ non, of a man. What hath been spoken may evince, That he which performeth a Condition to which any privilege is annexed, though enabled by grace, performeth and fulfilleth that in himself, though not of himself.  
The second particular is, That though a believer is just in himself with an inherent righteousness, yet as to Justification, he is righteous in another. I shall onely mention the Texts here, because they are to be improved, when we speak of imputed righteousness: That we are righteous in Christ is clear by that full place, notwithstanding all the violent wrestings of it, 1 Cor. 5.21. Christ was made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. We are made righteousness, and the righteousness of God, but in him: And Phil. 3.9. Be found in him, not having my own righteousness. But Rom. 4. it s made very clear, where all along the Chapter, the Apostle calls it an imputed righteousness,, not that it is putative, or that it is not truly ours, only its not ours inherently, but accounted of by God, as if it were our own personal righteousness: We are not then justified, because we fulfil Gospel-conditions in our own persons, but because we are in Christ, who is made of God our righteousness.  
A fifth Argument is that which so much sounds in all books, If good works be the effect and fruit of our Justification, then they cannot be Conditions, or Causa sine quâ non of our Justification. The Consequence is clear, because such a supposed Condition, or Causa sine quâ non, must be antecedent, and going before. Now the Orthodox bring Augustines known Position, which also may be made good out of Scripture, Bona opera non praecedunt Justificandum, said sequuntur Justificatum; And another to that sense is quoted out of Gregory; Non per opera venitur ad fidem, said per fidem ad opera, faith must go before works▪ Till we are justified, we are not able to do any thing that is good. The Apostle Tit. 1.15. informeth us fully what every man is till justified, They are unclean, and all that they do is unclean. The person must first be reconciled to God before his duties are accepted: God had first respect unto Abel, and then to his offering. Tit. 3.5. Those that have believed must be careful to maintain good works. And Heb. 1. Without faith its impossible to please God. Seeing therefore that Justification is antecedent to an holy life, good works cannot be any Condition of it; and by this we may see, That more things are required to our Salvation, then to our Justification; To the possession of heaven, and the entituling us thereunto; For Justification doth entitle and interest us in that eternal inheritance which is performed by faith; but to be made actual partakers of everlasting happiness, Good works are the way to that kingdom, not the cause of it. Therefore none contend more then the Orthodox Writers for the necessity of good works, and that in respect of Salvation; yet in respect of our Justification, then the Scripture calls them a menstruous rag, and such as are utterly unworthy. Its true, That Justification cannot be continued in a man unless he continue in good works, yet for all that they are not Conditions of his Justification, they are qualifications and determinations of the Subject who is justified, but no Conditions of his Justification. As in the generation of man, though there be organical dispositions and qualifications for the soul, yet they have no causality upon the soul, but that is immediately infused by God. Its a thousand times affirmed by our Divines, Many things are required to the constitution of some Subject, which yet are not either causes or conditions of such and such an effect: Light is necessary required, and dryness, as qualities in fire, ye it burneth as its hot, not as light or dry. To the integral being of a man, are required his head and shoulders, so that the eye could not see, if not seated there, yet a mans shoulders are not the Causa sine quâ non of his seeing. Many things are necessary conjoined together, and yet one is not the Condition of the others effect. So that this Doctrine doth not exclude, but command holy works, onely it giveth faith and works their proper place.  
The sixth Argument, If Justification be by works as a Condition, then one man is more or less justified then another, and those works are required to one mans Justification which are not to another, so that there shall not be two godly men in the world justified alike. For if faith justified as a work, then he who had a stronger faith would be more justified then he that hath a weaker: But even the weakest Christian, who by faith receiveth Christ, is justified as fully as the strongest Christian, because the righteousness of our Justification doth not consist in the activity of our faith, but in the fullness of Christ received by it; so that as Christ is not a fuller Christ to one then to another, so neither is Justification more in one then in another. The Protestant Writers speak no blasphemy, when they say, Mary Magdalen was as much justified before God, as the Virgin Mary; for as the same sun communicates its light to one as well as another, and is not exhausted, if there were more men in the world to make use of its light: So Christ is the same complete treasure of all righteousness to his people, and is not exhausted by communicating himself to all: Insomuch that the weak Christian may comfort himself, saying, Though I have not so much grace, such fullness of holinesse as another, yet I have as full a Saviour as a stronger hath.  
Its true, one man may have more sense and persuasion of his Justification then another, and as was formerly shewed, Justification may be extensively in one more then another, but it cannot be essentially or intensively, which it must necessary be if works be the Condition; for he that performeth the Condition, more or less, receiveth the privilege promised more or less.  
The seventh Argument, This Assertion according to the sense of the late Writers,( that are otherwise Orthodox, for I mean not of Socinians) will bring in a Justification two ways, or make a two-fold Justification, whereof one will be needless For they grant, An imputation of Christs righteousness in respect of the Law, he fulfilled that, and satisfied Gods Justice, that the Law cannot accuse us. And besides this, They make an Evangelical personal Justification, by our own Evangelical works. Now certainly this later is wholly superfluous, for if Christs righteousness be abundantly able to satisfy for all that righteousness which the Law requireth of us, What is the matter that it removeth not all our Evangelical failings, and supply that righteousness also? Surely this is to make the stars shine when the sun is in its full lustre. Thus it may be observed, while men for some seeming difficulty avoid the good known way of truth, they do commonly bring in Assertions of far more difficulty to be received. In this case it s far more easy to maintain one single righteousteousnesse, viz. the obedience of our Lord Christ, then to make two, whereof one shall be imputed and legal, the other Personal and Evangelical. Thus the Socinians, while they pretend the Doctrine of the Trinity impossible to reason, and as that which doth transcend all human faith: Do they not assert a thing as improbable to reason, That Christ should be a constituted God, and God command all such adoration, faith and obedience to be given to him, as belongs to God himself? We hold he is naturally a God; they say, he is a made God. Certainly this later is more incredible. Thus men that do not believe where they ought, commonly believe other things more incredible, and more then they ought.  
Argum. 8. That cannot be a Condition of Justification, which itself needeth Justification; But good works being imperfect, and having much dross cleaving, need a Justification to take that guilt away. Its true, Justification is properly of persons, and of actions indirectly and obliquely, yet when the person is justified, then his actions are accepted of. Now then those things cannot be a Condition of acceptance, which themselves need acceptance: How can we conceive God forgiving sin, and accounting us as righteous for those actions, which in themselves deserve eternal damnation? Its true, the holy actions of a righteous man, may be truly and properly called righteous and good, but because they are not exactly adequate to the rule of righteousness; Therefore it is that in Gods severe judgement, they are damnable. This Question therefore is again and again to be propounded, if good works be the condition of our Justification, How comes the guilt in them that deserveth condemnation to be done away? Is there a further condition required to this condition, and so another to that, with a processus in infinitum? The Popish party and the Castellians are so far convinced of this, that therefore they say, Our good works are perfect. And Castellio makes that prayer for pardon of sin, not to belong to all the godly, but to be upon a supposition, if and when we do sin, then we are to pray for pardon, as the command is To agree with our adversary, viz. if we have one; and Honour thy Father, viz. if we have a Father; so if we do sin, then we must pray for the pardon of it; and for an holy life, he saith, Christ doth as perfectly sanctify us, as he did heal the lame and blind( De Justif. pag. 48) Now( saith he) if a man cured of his lameness, should yet by his unwary walking stumble at some root in the way, should he for this be called a lame man? And therefore in another place, pag 46. he saith, Facessat haec opinio, quae imperfectionem vitium esse statuit, he complaineth of the Orthodox, as holding whatsoever is not perfect is a sin. But we aclowledge a two-fold imperfection, negative or comparative. Thus an Angel, and man created in integrity is comparatively to God imperfect; This is not a sin, because we are not bound to have the perfection of God. But then there is a privative imperfection, when there is not that degree of grace in us which ought to be, and this is a sin, and for the pardon of such sins, we are constantly to pray, and because of this pollution adhering to our best actions it is, that Paul judgeth them dung and dross in reference to Justification, Phil. 3.8. Neither can it be evaded, that Paul meaneth onely those actions and privileges which formerly he enjoyed, for the Apostle speaketh not onely in the past time {αβγδ}, but in the 8th verse he riseth higher to the present time, {αβγδ}, Yea doubtless I do count all things; If therefore the Apostle had not intended the present graces and privileges he enjoyed, his speech had not risen higher, which yet he evidently intended; and in this sense the Prophet Isaiah of old complained, Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags, Isa. 64.6. Isaiah speaks this in the person of the whole Church, and not relating onely to the wicked and ungodly; therefore he useth the word all, and our righteousnesses, respecting that native corruption that cleaveth to every thing we do; not only their unrighteousnesses, but their very righteousnesses were filthy rags. Its true, Calvin forsakes this place in his Comments, as not proving the imperfections of our holy duties; but generally the learned do urge this place, and it doth strongly seem to hold out that truth. And Daniel, Chap. 9.18. speaks fully to this purpose, We present not our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies. This likewise was visibly represented, Exod. 28.38. where Aaron the High-Priest, a type of Christ, was to bear the iniquity of their holy things. Neither is that Argument, so greatly applauded by some, of any strength at all, viz. That if there be imperfection cleaving to every gracious act, then at the same time the soul doth will and nill; That it produceth one act, and a contrary act thereunto at the same time: for this imperfection is herein discovered, because the principles of grace do not act so vigorously and intensely as they ought to do. Therefore being more remiss then God requireth, this defect is a sin; so that there is not required a contrary nolition to what we will in that instant, but its an imperfect volition. Although we may add, that the Apostle Paul, Rom. 7. and Gal 5.17. speaketh of a combat, and a contrary lusting between the flesh and the Spirit, which whether it be instantaneous or successive( though such successive acts are imperceptible) is not here to be disputed.  
Others would avoid this Objection, by saying, That Gospel-graces, which are the Conditions of the Covenant, are reducible to the Law, and so Christ in satisfying the Law doth remove the imperfections cleaving to them: And they judge it absurd to say, That Christ hath satisfied for the sins of the second Covenant, or breaches thereof, which is said to be only final unbelief.  
But this answer may be called Legion, for many errors and contradictions are in it. As  
1. How can justifying faith quà talis in the act of justifying and repentance, be reducible duties to the Law taken strictly? Indeed as it was in a large sense discovered unto the Jews, being the Covenant of Grace, as I have elsewhere proved, ( Vindic. Legis) so it required justifying faith and repentance. But take it in the sense, as the Abettor of this opinion must do, justifying faith and repentance must be called the works of the Law. And then  
2. If so, then the works of the Law are conditions of our Justification; and thus he runneth into the extreme he would avoid.  
But above all, that is not to be endured, That Christ hath not suffered for the breaches of the new Covenant, and that there is no such breach, but final impenitency; for are the defects of our repentance, faith and love in Christ, other then the partial breaches of the Covenant of Grace, our unthankfulness, our unfruitfulness, yea sometimes with Peter our grievous revolts and apostasies? What are these but the sad shakings of our Covenant-interest, though they do not dissolve it? But it is not my purpose to fall on this, because of its impertinency to my matter in hand.  
Argum. 9. If works be a Condition of our Justification, then must the godly soul be filled with perpetual doubts and troubles, whether it be a person justified or no. This doth not follow accidentally through mans perverseness from the fore-named Doctrine, but the very genius of it tends hereunto; for if a Condition be not performed, then the mercy covenanted cannot be claimed: As in faith, If a man doth not believe, he cannot say, Christ with his benefits are his; Thus if he have not works, the Condition is not performed, but still he continueth without this benefit. But for works, How shall I know, when I have the full number of them? whether is the condition of the species or individuums of works? Is not one kind of work omitted when its my duty enough to invalidate my Justification? Will it not be as dangerous to omit that one, as all, seeing that one is required as a Condition? If it be said, That by good works is meant onely a purpose and resolvednesse to do them when occasion is offered; this is to forsake the state of the Question, and the Apostle James who doth industriously prove, That they are works exercised and practised that do justify.  
The last Argument is, That if good works be a Condition of Justification, then none are justified till their death, because to every good work is required perseverance, insomuch that perseverance is that to which the promise is made, Mat. 24.6. He that endureth to the end shall be saved, Heb. 10.38. If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. Thus often Revel. 2.7, 26. To him that overcometh and keepeth my works to the end, &c. So that it is not good works simply, but persevered in, that are required, and therefore no Justification till the end of our dayes, so that we cannot have any peace with God till then. Neither doth it avail to say, Justification is not complete till then, for it cannot be at all till then, because the condition which gives life to all is not till then. Whether perseverance and good works are distinct, are nothing to this purpose. Its certain, Adams and the Angels graces were distinct from perseverance; but howsoever, if perseverance be works persevering, I cannot be justified till this condition be so performed.  
Thus we have asserted this truth by many Arguments, and though any one singly by itself may not convince, yet all together may satisfy. Its now time to answer that great Objection, which seemeth so directly to oppose not only what we have said, but also what the Apostle Paul so plainly and professedly affirmeth; For whereas Paul saith, That Abraham was justified by faith without works; and Gal. 2.16. By faith, and not by works {αβγδ}, The Apostle James, Chap. 2.23, 24. saith, Abraham was justified by works, and in the general, That a man is justified by works, and not by faith onely. So that in outward appearances these two great Apostles speak contradictions, which hath made some deny the caconical Authority of James his Epistle: Yea one said blasphemously Althameirius, Mentiris( Jacobe) in caput tuum. But this is to cut, not untie the knot. The Spirit of God which breathed in all the holy Pen-men cannot dictate any contradictions.  
Therefore that a reconciliation may be admitted, 
Paul& James reconciled.  its necessary that the Apostle James take the word Justification, and the word faith in another sense then the Apostle Paul, and that their scopes in these expressions were upon different grounds. And hitherto the reformed Churches have generally agreed in this particular accord of these places,  
1. That the scope of the Apostle Paul is to treat upon our Justification before God, and what is the instrument and means of obtaining it; and this he doth against those Jewish teachers, That we were justified by the works of the Law. But the Apostle James takes Justification for the declaration and manifestation of it before men, and useth the word faith for a vain title and empty profession of it, herein disputing against carnal gospelers, who from the misunderstanding of Pauls Doctrine did cry down good works, and an holy life as needless, saying, This titular faith was enough; for Paul speaks of some in his dayes, that because he magnified grace so much, would therefore infer, Let us sin that grace may abound; Paul informeth us, That faith onely justifieth, and James what kind of faith it is, even a lively working faith; and certainly that this is James his intent, appeareth vers. 14. What doth it profit, though a man say he hath faith and no works? Is not this to confute such a man that gloried in the name and Profession of Christ, not at all aiming at a godly life? Abraham did not say, he believed, and had no works in this sense. The Apostles instance likewise concerning Charity, doth evidence this, If a man say to one in necessity, Be warmed, and be clothed, but do nothing to relieve him, is this acceptable charity? I forbear more Arguments, because our late Writers are copious in it.  
Its said, They dare not go against the plain words of the Apostle.  
But first, Its not to {αβγδ}, but {αβγδ}, not the words but the sense is to be required, otherwise the Anthropomorphites will be excused, and Lapide, who saith, If God at the last day ask him, Why he believed the bread to be turned into Christs body, he will bring that Text, Hoc est Corpus meum, and if he be deceived, that Text hath deceived him.  
Again, Why should they not be afraid to go from the Apostle Pauls words in this matter?  
Lastly, They are forced to add to the Apostle, for they say, Works justify as the Condition of the Gospel, which the Apostle doth not speak a word of.   

SERM. XXV. That Faith as it is a work, or the {αβγδ} credere is not Imputed unto us for our Righteousness.  ROM. 4.23, 24. 
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him:  
But for us also; to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.  
IN the former part of this Chapter the Apostle had strenuously asserted the manner of our Justification from an instance of Abraham, which having at large pursued, lest any should think that was Abrahams personal privilege, and did not at all belong to us, there seeming a great diversity between Abrahams faith and ours, at the 23th verse he applieth this example to us also, showing that Abraham, and all believers, all that walk in his steps are justified alike. And here we see a full overthrow of that Socinian Doctrine, That we and the godly in the Old Testament are not justified in the same way; If this were so, the Apostles argument from Abraham to us would be nothing to the purpose.  
In the words we have a two-fold use of Gods imputation of Abrahams faith to righteousness. The former is for his own consolation and hope. The other is for us, who, though we have not so great a faith and strong as Abraham had, yet having the same object, viz. Christ the promised seed, we may rejoice as well as he did. Take we therefore these words as they relate to us, we may consider,  
1. The Benefit or privilege spoken of, To whom it shall be imputed, {αβγδ}, The true and proper use of the word is to be handled hereafter, because the full understanding of that is of great concernment; onely for the present observe, the Apostle useth a future verb, to signify the continuation of this mercy in the Church, That as God did, so still he will justify those that shall believe, in the way he justified Abraham; The Benefit is, that their faith shall be imputed for righteousness: In what sense this is to be understood we shall hear anon.  
2. There is the Subject to whom this great privilege shall be made good, and that is to those that do believe: without this hand that heavenly treasure cannot be received. Its not those that work, but that believe.  
3. Here is the Description of this justifying faith from the true and specifical Object of it; for though justifying faith doth believe the whole word of God, the Histories and the threatenings, yet it doth not justify, but as it relates to God in Christ. This justifying faith therefore is described from the fiducial nature of it, He that believeth, {αβγδ}, as its not used among Heathenish Authors; so in the Scripture it denoteth the recubency and fiducial repose that the soul hath in the object believed, though sometimes it be applied to such as did not firmly believe, John 2.2. its described from the object, which is God raising up Christ, Who was delivered for our offences, and rose for our Justification. This expression, saith Paraeus, is brevis and longa, short, because in few words; but long, because its the sum of the Gospel. We see then what is the object of faith in its Justification, viz. Christ crucified, and raised by the Father for the expiation of our sins, and Justification of our persons; faith doth not justify as it is a work, or from any intrinsical dignity in it, but from the object, which is the Lord Christ, it layeth hold upon.  
Whereas then we have formerly shewed, That our Justification is not by works that we do under any notion whatsoever, we now proceed to confute those, who make faith as it is a work, or the {αβγδ} credere to be imputed unto us for our righteousness.  

observe.  That faith, not as it is a work, or for any dignity in itself, but from the object Christ Jesus, doth only justify us.  
This is necessary to be handled with much diligence, because some, though they exclude works, yet make faith to justify as it is a work, and to be in stead of all that legal righteousness, which God required in the Covenant of works, That faith should be in the Covenant of Grace, what works would have been in the Covenant of works.  
Before we come to the argumentative part, take notice of some particulars:  
First, That when faith is all along this Chapter, said to be imputed for righteousness, thereby is meant Justitia personae not facti, an universal righteousness of the person, not of the fact. Some are very pertinacious in the exposition of it this later way, and parallel it with that place, Psal. 106.31. where Phineas executed Justice, and it was accounted to him for righteousness, where all agree, that was a righteousness of the fact; for being it might be doubted, whether he had any call to it or no, God did approve it, and looked on it as a just and righteous act. The like expressions we have Deut. 6.25. and Deut. 24.13. in which places an universal righteousness of the person, so as to be justified before God is not understood. Now that in this Chapter we must necessary interpret the phrase thus, appeareth in that the Apostles scope all along the Chapter is, to show what is that whereby we are justified before God, how we do become blessed, and have our iniquities forgiven us, and if it were not so, we could not be justified as Abraham was, for Abrahams believing, as it was a work cannot be put in practise by us, though our faith may be exercised upon the like objects his was. Neither can it be doubted, whether Abraham did well or no in believing, that therefore it should be accounted a righteous act, and free from any accusation of it. The righteousness then Paul speaks of is so universal, that thereby the person is justified in all points before God.  
Secondly, That this phrase( Faith imputed to righteousness) may have several interpretations, for which there are many parties do strive. And  
1. The Pontificians, they consider faith materially, as it is a bare and naked assent, not formed as yet by charity, and so( they say) faith doth justify dispositivè; They make such a naked assent to be a disposition to our Justification. Now although this Historical or Dogmatical assent be necessary required to Justification, yet this is no disposition to it, seeing even devils and hypocrites have it. Again, They consider faith as it is informed by charity, and so they make it part of our inherent righteousness, and that by it we are formally justified, yea causally and meritoriously, as we are by any other good work. But this proceedeth upon a false supposition, that Justification doth formally consist in that righteousness which is subjectively seated in us, as also from the perverting of the Apostles constant argumentation, from the position of faith to the exclusion of works.  
2. There are others who expound it thus, We are justified by faith, that is, faith as it is a work, is accepted of by God for our Justification, and these are divided into two sorts, first of Socinus, Servetus and others, who make the act of faith to constitute us just before God,( Lubber. contra Bertium, p. 27.) Not that this is done for the merits of Christ, or any satisfaction made to the Father; but these two things they affirm, first, That faith as a work justifieth. Secondly, That it is the mere grace and condescension of God to reckon this faith for our perfect righteousness. This they call Dei gratiosam acceptilationem, accounting that which is lame and imperfect for perfect obedience, for they make faith to be informed by obedience, obedience to be forma fidei, of which afterwards.  
But there are a second sort, and these do pertinaciously assert the {αβγδ} credere to be our righteousness, and that the phrase, Abraham believed, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, is to be understood properly without any Trope at all. The ring-leader of this was Arminius( for I regard not Abailardus) who expressly saith, {αβγδ} credere imputari in justitiam, id; proprio sensu non Metonymicè,( Epist. ad Hippol.) and in other places, Faith is the object of divine imputation; faith as it is an act performed according to the command of the Gospel, is imputed before God for righteousness, and that of mere grace, seeing it is not the righteousness of the Law, and thus Bertius, Vorstius, with many others, as may be seen in Festus Honnius( Speci. Cont. p. 82.) denying it to be considered as an instrument, but as a condition or duty in Justification. And to this purpose a late English Writer hath manifested himself, As God in the first Covenant of works required an absolute and perfect obedience to the whole Law for every mans Justification; So( saith he) in the Covenant of Grace he requireth nothing of man, but onely faith in his son, which faith shall be as available unto him for his full Justification, as a perfect righteousness should have been under the first Covenant. Thus you see what is the sense of these authors, That faith as it is a duty required in the Covenant of Grace, is accepted of by God for all that whole righteousness which we were bound to have; onely it may be wondered, why they should thus attribute it unto faith, seeing Vorstius, Bertius; and others, say, Works are not excluded from Justification, viz. such works as flow from the sincere root of faith, and that the Apostle excludeth onely works of the Law done by our own strength, and such as wherein a constant and perpetual observation of the Law doth consist; and therefore they say, that rule of Augustines, Good works do not precede but follow the person justified, is humanitùs tradita, and never to be admitted, as being not a Scripture-truth, unless by Justification be meant conversion from sins to righteousness. Therefore to reconcile this, they must certainly with the Socinians confounded faith and repentance.  
Lastly, There is a party that expounds this phrase [ Abraham believed, and it was imputed to him for righteousness] not in a proper sense, but a figurative, either a Metonymy, or a Metalepsis; By faith is understood that thing, which faith apprehended and laid hold upon. Thus its often said, Faith justifieth organicè, and relativè, in respect of the object it receiveth, That as the hand receiveth the treasure which makes a man rich; so doth faith receive that Christ, who is made of God our righteousness: So that faith doth not justify from any dignity or worth it hath, no not for the work of apprehension or application of Christ, but merely because of Christ. This is that Interpretation which we conceive to be the most orthodox, grounded upon Scripture, and consented unto generally by the Reformed Churches. Onely I add, should it be granted, that faith is understood properly, yet it will not thereby necessary advantage the Authors we oppose, as is more to be shewed. Its true, with Arminius, Episcopius, and others, its matter of offence to say, Faith justifieth as an instrument, but onely as a condition prescribed by the Evangelical Covenant; and I hearty wish others had not swallowed this Camel.  
Thirdly, When we speak of faith justifying or imputed to righteousness, you may take notice of these two things:  
1. That faith hath its adequate and general object.  
2. Its principal and specifical. The adequate and general object of faith is the whole word of God, consisting of Histories, threatening, Commands, as well as Promises. True faith doth give firm assent to all Gods word, because Divine Authority and Revelation is the form of it. But then the principal and secondary object is the Promises, as the Objectum quo, but Christ in them as the Objectum quod; and faith justifieth not as it believeth the whole word of God, but as it rests on Christ. In the Text it is, On him that raised Christ from the dead, who was delivered for our sins: But because this is controverted, more may be said of it hereafter.  
2. As faith hath a two-fold object, so it hath a two-fold effect. There are the effects of faith ad intra, and the effects of it ad extra. The effects of faith within, are as it respects Christ, and layeth hold on him, in which sense it is often said, to receive, as you formerly heard, and in this respect onely it justifieth; and secondly, There are the effects of it ad extra, as faith puts us upon the exercise of all holy duties, in which sense the Apostle speaks of it in Heb. 11. It was their faith made them have an holy fear, and enabled them to self-denying passages of obedience, but we are not thus to look upon it as working, when we speak of our Justification.  
Therefore in the fourth place, Take heed of confounding faith with obedience, as too many do, our Justification consists in receiving from God, not giving to him; and faith stretcheth out the hand to take, not to give. There is a great deal of difference in these two expressions, or the sense of them, when you say of a poor lame beggar, his hands help, his hands relieve him, and when you speak of a labouring man, who works all the day long for his wages, for the hands of the later relieve him as they work, of the former as they receive: Thus our faith makes us partakers of this excellent privilege, because it receiveth Christ into the heart; whereas if we look upon faith, as obedience, we are taken off from Christ, and look to ourselves; and although it may be granted, That faith is in some sense obedience, yet in the act of Justification it s not considered as obediential. But to speak the truth, the places instanced in for to prove the obedience of faith, are not to the purpose, Rom. 1.5. Rom. 16.26. for faith is not there taken for a grace in the soul, the quâ creditur, as its called, but for the Doctrine of Faith, the Fides quae creditur, the Doctrine which is believed; so that obedience of faith is that obedience which Faith or the Doctrine of God requireth. Thus 2 Corinth. 10 5. there is {αβγδ}, the obedience of Christ, that is, unto Christ, and not Christs obedience subjectively: So 1 Pet. 1.22. The obedience of the truth is that obedience which the truth commands. Therefore, though many, some more openly, some more covertly would have you to consider faith as its an obedience, yet in the matter of Justification, look upon the passivenesse of it onely.  
These things premised, Let us prove this truth, That Faith justifieth not as it is a work, but only from Christ received by it, that faith is not in a proper sense imputed to us for our righteousness. And  
First, This Argument seemeth to be very pregnant, because the Apostle all along this Chapter opposeth faith and works, the believer and the worker. Now his Argument would be of no force, if faith could be considered as a work, yea how absurdly would they make the Apostle to speak, To him that worketh not, but believeth, that is, To him that worketh not, but worketh: And again, Blessed is the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works, that is, a work without works. Abraham believed,( that is) he worked; and thus from hence all along prove, he was not justified by works. Certainly, this is to make the Apostle argue very imperfectly, to make two opposite members in a distinction, and then to argue from one to the exclusion of the other, when yet that is included, can never be made good logic. None then can rationally persuade himself, That when Paul argued against works by faith, that he thought on faith as a work: So that we are not in matter of Justification to rely on our faith, as if for that we were justified.  
Secondly, Faith cannot be imputed unto us for our total and perfect righteousness, because its not a perfect righteousness, nor all the righteousness God requireth. That faith which God commands is but part of our duty, not all our duty, and then what it is, is but imperfect; for we cannot believe perfectly, no more then we can love God, or do other gracious exercises perfectly, We know but in part, and so can believe but in part. The Disciples are often reproved for their little Faith, so that they speak far more consonantly to reason, though they proceed upon a false supposition, who make our faith and works perfect, at least so far as the Word requireth. But now to say, That faith is accounted of by God for our complete righteousness, when acknowledged to be imperfect, and not all the righteousness we ought to do, is to speak a manifest absurdity, for this is to make God to judge otherwise of a thing then it is, and that he doth not account of things as they are. For he shall receive this, as a full debt, which indeed is not a full debt; and like that Steward in the Parable, who though he is commended for wisdom, yet not for honesty, that for an hundred pound debt, bid the debtor writ down fifty. Its therefore both against the wisdom and righteousness of God, to say, He receiveth that for a perfect righteousness, which is not, or imputeth that to be righteousness, which is not so. Neither may we conceive in God any such gracious condescension as to receive an imperfect righteousness for a perfect; for why not as well no righteousness at all for perfect? And why not a merciful pardon also coming from God without any satisfaction, as the Socinians blaspheme. But the Opinionists with whom we have to deal disclaim such things.  
But lest this evasion should entice any away, therefore the third Argument is thus placed, If faith which is imperfect should because of Christs merits be graciously esteemed for an universal righteousness, then Christ did not properly die for persons, but for graces, he did not die that the believer might be saved immediately and properly, but that his faith might be accounted a formal complete righteousness. Now if we observe the Scripture, that speaks universally in this sense, That Christ died for sinners, who believing in him have thereby eternal life; and Rom. 3. Through faith in his blood we have remission of sins; whereas, according to the contrary opinion, the immediate and proper end of Christs death should be to merit at Gods hand, That an imperfect faith should be accounted for a full righteousness, and thus Christ would die not for persons, but for conditions. But is not this to go against the universal stream of the Scripture? Doth that any where make this the end of Christs death, that thereby God should esteem that perfect, which otherwise is not, and not rather wholly for such who being sinners in themselves, yet repenting of, and renouncing all that is theirs, do acquiesce wholly in him as a Mediator.  
The fourth Argument is, If faith should justify as it is a work, then he that believeth more strongly then another, should be more justified then another, and thus our Justification should recipere magis and minus. Its true( you heard) the sense and application of our Justification may admit of degrees, but Justification itself cannot, no more then Christ can be more or less: One eye may see the sun better then another, but the suins light is equal to all. Hence the Apostle argueth from Abrahams believing, accounted to righteousness, to every Christian believing, though never so weak and languishing, which could never be, if faith did justify as a work, for who would not readily reply, Abrahams example is nothing to us, we have not such a faith as Abraham had? You see how the Apostle aggravateth that, as it was a work, Rom. 4. That he staggered not thorough unbelief, but against hope believed in hope; Seeing therefore that Abraham produced such an high act of faith, that if you respect the object believed, or the manner of effecting it, all was very supernatural; This instance could not be brought to all justified persons, whose faith is very weak, and never able to put forth such strength and vigour, unless its Justification was from the object, which is common to the weak Christians faith, a● well as the strong. So that by this we see, if Abrahams faith justified, as it was a work, it could not be brought as an universal Rule for all believers, because many attain not to such an high degree of faith, or else it would plunge many godly persons in despair, as if they could never be justified, because they cannot believe with such strength and fortitude as Abraham did; yea, Is it not the sad temptation which many of Gods children have, That their faith is very weak, they find little stirrings of it; Now what an abyss would the godly Minister cast this soul into, if he should say, Though your faith be true and sincere, yet its not active and strong enough, you must believe equally to Abraham, if you would be justified: were not this to give as they did to Christ, gull in stead of wine to drink?  
Fifthly, If faith justifieth as it is a work, or be accounted for righteousness, then a thing must be an instrument to itself, which is wholly absurd to conceive; for nothing can be instrumentum& instrumentatum, it cannot be the instrument, and the thing received by the instrument, as a mans hand cannot be the treasure it receiveth, The Artificers tools are not the house he makes; the hysops sprinkling of blood in the Jewish Sacrifice, was not the blood or the consecration itself: So faith is not our righteousness, but the means to obtain it. Hence Gal. 3. and Phil. 3. it s called the righteousness by faith, which could not be if faith were the righteousness, as righteousness by the Law did not imply the Law was accounted for righteousness, but the means by which it cometh. So then faith is no more our righteousness, then the mouth is our meat and drink. We have it by faith, it is not faith itself, nothing can be an instrument to obtain itself.   

SERM. XXVI. More Arguments to prove, That Faith as it is a Work, is not Imputed unto us for our righteousness; With Answers to Objections. Also handling the Point of the Instrumentality of Faith.  ROM. 4.23, 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him, &c. 
WE have hitherto asserted this Position, That Faith as it is a work, is not imputed unto us for our righteousness: I shall be the briefer in it, because what Arguments overthrow works in the general, as to the matter of Justification, the same will stand good for faith in particular only, I shall add to the fore-mentioned,  
Therefore in the fifth place, If Faith doth justify as a work, then am I justified by something that is mine, it will be my righteousness, which yet Paul renounceth, Phil. 3.9. Although the godly mans faith be the gift of God, yet it is the believers work. Its man that believeth, and not God, and so the Just is said to live by his faith. Faith therefore though originally coming from God, yet subjectively being a mans own righteousness, must necessary follow, That still the righteousness a man is justified by, is his own, and within him. Now its good to observe, That the Scripture never saith, Faith justifieth in an active sense, but always we are justified by faith in a passive sense; and what may be the reason of this, but that hereby the Scripture would exclude faith as a work? for if it did justify as a work, then it might have properly been said, that faith justifieth: We must not then onely go out of our works, but our faith also. As the hand which Moses stretched out in working of miracles, was struck with the leprosy, to show, that it was no efficacy in his hand, whereby those wonderful things were wrought; So that faith which justifieth, hath even a leprosy, an uncleanness cleaving to it, and therefore as a work cannot justify, because that itself needeth Justification.  
Sixthly, If Faith justify as a work, then its no matter what the object is, so that it be a divine truth. Thus every dogmatical faith must be justifying. The Consequence is evident; for if the power to justify arise not from the object of faith, but from faith as an act exercised, then wheresoever this is put forth, there Justification followeth; whereas we see the Apostle limits this justifying faith to Christ crucified, and Rom. 3.15. Its through faith in his blood. Now, how absurd would it be to say, That I am justified as well by believing that Judas hanged himself, as that Christ was crucified for my offences? Though the adversary wash himself with soap and nitre, yet he cannot get off this spot. Though he would seem to make Christ crucified the object of justifying faith, yea in some sense make faith an instrument to lay hold upon Christ, yet herein they speak plain contradictions to themselves, or else use such words, as Augustine saith the Pelagians of old would the word Grace, and frangendam invidiam. Certainly, if the work of faith justifieth, then wheresoever this work puts itself forth, let the object be what it will be, there must Justification follow; for the work of faith lieth in captivating the understanding and heart, to what truth God hath revealed, because of his authority. And this Obedience or Submission is in one truth as well as in another, in respect of the motive to believe it.  
Seventhly, This Doctrine must needs obscure and diminish the worth and merits of Christ, yea Christ is hereby made onely a remote cause of our righteousness, not the proper and immediate one. For by this opinion, Christ by his death shall purchase at Gods hand, that our faith shall be accounted for a perfect righteousness; so that faith is our immediate, formal and proper righteousness, Christ is onely the remote cause. Thus the Papists say about the righteousness of works, that tincta sanguine Christi, died in the blood of Christ, they justify us. Works are made the immediate cause of our righteousness, Christ the remote one; what they speak of works, to the same sense these speak of faith: But the Scripture saith, We are made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.21. and its a righteousness imputed unto us without works: We are immediately and proximely to appear in Christ, not in ourselves.  
Eighthly, This Position overthroweth the imputation of Christs righteousness unto us, it makes it wholly superfluous and needless, for if faith be the proper righteousness accepted of by God, then Christs righteousness done for me is needless; what need two suins in one orb? If nature, certainly grace doth not multiply entities without necessity, and truly the righteousness of Christ would not in the Scripture have been so commended, had faith been that which justifieth; the crown must be taken from Christ, and put upon the head of faith; for although faith justifieth because of Christ, and he hath purchased it, yet the proxime and immediate cause hath the chiefest glory. That Christs righteousness is imputed to us, and so we in and by that immediately and proximely, stand justified before God, is in its due time to be effectually proved.  
Let us in the next place consider, what Objections are brought, either by Papists, Arminians, or others in this matter; for though upon different grounds, yet they all agree in this, That Faith doth not justify as a means apprehending or laying hold on Christ, that is but Nugae with the Remonstrants. And  
First, They urge very speciously, That the Apostle in this fourth Chapter, doth several times say, Faith is imputed for righteousness, not mentioning Christs righteousness at all. Now say they, This is the proper place and seat of this Doctrine, therefore the Apostle would not use tropical expressions, which would rather obscure then clear the matter. Again, They remind us of Augustines Rule, We must never go from the proper literal sense, unless when manifest necessity doth compel, otherwise we shall turn the Scripture into an Allegory, and make no sure foundation of any point in Christianity; yea( they say) we cannot bring the like instance of any such phrase.  
In these things they are very confident, but for the first it s granted, that this is the proper and most eminent place where Justification is handled, not in all the necessary points of it, onely what is the way, and manner how we are justified, and therefore the Apostle could not speak otherwise then he doth; for seeing the Question between the Jews and Paul was, Whether we are justified by believing or working? Its necessary Paul should conclude by believing. But then for the matter or form of our Justification, that is not directly touched upon in this place. Its not necessary that the Apostle should speak all things requisite to the knowledge of Justification in one place. Paul therefore determineth according to the Question stated, That it is not by working, but by believing that we are justified. But whether this believing be terminated on Christs righteousness, was not in this place to be decided.  
Secondly, It is necessary that faith should be thus understood Metonymically or correlatively from other places of Scripture, as Rom. 5. when its said, By Christs obedience we are made righteous, when Christ is called, The Lord our righteousness, when 1 Cor. 1.30. Christ is said to be made of God our righteousness, and we said to be the righteousness of God in him, 1 Cor. 5.21. These places do evince, that faith cannot be our proper righteousness; for all will aclowledge we do not need two righteousnesses: then if Christ be our righteousness, faith cannot be, and if faith, then Christ cannot be. If it be said, Christ is said to be our righteousness Metonymically, or the cause is put for the effect; We urge their own Rule, they must not depart from the plain letter without necessity. Besides, here they aclowledge such a figurative expression used often in the Scripture, which yet they demanded an instance in before: So that the matter being brought to this, either when its said, Christ is made our righteousness, this must be understood properly; or when faith is said to be imputed for righteousness, this must be understood improperly, or è contra; We say there is great reason of understanding the phrase concerning faith improperly.  
For the Arguments above-mentioned, to which we may add farther these considerations,  
1. That the Scripture saith expressly, Christ is our righteousness, and That we are made the righteousness of God in him, but it doth not say any where, That faith is imputed to righteousness; it saith indeed, Faith is accounted for righteousness to him that believeth, vers. 3, 5, 9, 11, 24. But there is a great difference between these two Propositions, Faith is accounted for righteousness, and Faith is accounted to him that believeth for righteousness, for the one speaks of faith in its own nature, and if used by the Apostle, would greatly have favoured the adversaries cause, as if faith itself had been accounted by God for a perfect righteousness in its own consideration: But now when its said, To be accounted to the believer for righteousness, that may imply no more, then that by his faith he doth obtain a righteousness; as we may say, Such a mans confidence of possessing such wealth to be given him, makes him rich, by that not intending the confidence itself, but his riches the object thereof make him rich.  
2. We cannot take faith properly for righteousness, because in the same Chapter, and in this discourse the Apostle distinguisheth it; Therefore the phrase must be improper, for vers. 11. it s called, The righteousness of faith, and not righteousness faith: So vers. 13. the promise is said to be through the righteousness of faith; for as when it is said, The righteousness of the Law, the meaning is not, that the Law is righteousness, but the means to it: So when its said, The righteousness of faith, the sense is not, that faith is the righteousness, but a means to it: So that the same Apostle, when he saith, Faith is accounted for righteousness to a believer, yet also calling it a righteousness by faith, doth plainly discover that he intends not, that faith is properly accounted for our righteousness, as if that were all we were now bound to do in the Covenant of Grace, but onely that by this faith we are made partakers of Gospel-righteousnesse.  
3. Faith must be understood as it relateth to Christ, not in itself, because that promise, in the believing whereof Abraham is said to be justified, doth directly look upon Christ: for the seed promised, which was the object of Abrahams faith, is directly and expressly interpnted by the Apostle, Gal. 3.16. to be Christ; and in this sense Christ said, Abraham saw his day, and rejoiced; if therefore the object of Abrahams faith was not a bare promise of a temporal seed, but of such a seed in whom all Nations, yea Abraham himself was to be blessed, then it was not faith apprehending, but Christ apprehended that is our righteousness.  
Lastly, It must needs be a figurative expression, because the faith that is mentioned is but one act, though indeed a very famous and remarkable one. Now how improbable is it to say, that one act merely of faith, should stand for all the obedience God requireth, and be as much as if a man had personally fulfilled the whole Law? To make one act of faith, thus the whole Gospel-righteousnesse seemeth to be very irrational. Certainly, though they do much mistake that join faith and works together in our Justification, yet to hold faith as a work justifieth, and to exclude all other works of grace, which yet are required, seemeth to be far more absurd and inconsequential.  
And thus much to the first and second part of their Objection, we must not recede from the literal sense, especially when it is the professed handling of a truth. Although we might further add, That thus Bellarmine argueth for the literal explication of Hoc est Corpus meum, because here Christ intended to give the true knowledge of the Sacrament, and that upon his death, therefore not likely he would darken his speech with figurative expressions.  
As for the third part of their Objection, That we cannot show such like phrases, where faith must be understood thus for the object. To this we answer, That faith is not excluded in the interpretation, but it doth comprehend the object also. We grant that by faith is meant that gracious act of the soul; only what is attributed to it, ariseth not from its work, but from the object. When we speak of Justification its necessary to name that motion of the soul, or means whereby we obtain it, and thus Paul doth: So that faith is not excluded or shut out, but its to be understood as receiving of Christ, whose righteousness doth justify us. Although we may add many such like expressions, as that, Thy faith hath made thee whole; by faith is not meant faith as an act or work, but the power and strength of Christ apprehended by faith, miraculous faith was not so called, as if thereby the person was endowed with an almighty power to work miracles, but because it restend on Christs power: Even as the womans touching of Christs garment did not heal her, but the virtue that came out from him. Thus also we are said to be saved by hope, that is, by the thing hoped for. Its very ordinary in Scripture to attribute that to the habit, or act of the soul, which belongs to the object, which is the Metonymy of the adjunct for the subject; Nothing is more ordinary, so that I need not insist thereon.  
Though these things seem clear, yet it is acknowledged that some Orthodox Interpreters understand faith properly; hence Gomarus in his analytical explication of this place, brings Arguments why we must understand it without any figure, and addeth, If there were a Trope to be admitted, it would be more conveniently in the predicate then in the subject, in righteousness then in faith, in this sense, Faith is imputed to righteousness, that is, the instrumental cause of righteousness. But I rather incline to the more common Interpretation I mentioned.  
The second Argument, That faith justifieth as a work, as a cause or part of our formal righteousness, is from the Papists quiver; for Bellarmine saith, The expressions of justified by faith, denote some causality, and that we give nothing at all to faith, while we make it only an instrument to receive Christs righteousness; For( saith he) who would say to a poor man that hath only stretched out his hands to receive an alms, that his hands made him have the alms? or to a sick man, taking the physic in his hand, who would say, thy hand hath healed thee? Therefore its too little and low, when we expound a man is justified by faith thus, that is, its an hand to receive it, and for this he presseth hard, the Prepositions {αβγδ} &c. by and through; which as when applied to God and Christ, signify causality, so it must also when applied to faith. This seemeth to be a specious Objection.  
But the answer is, That those Prepositions are used divers ways in the Scripture, and so do signify such a causality, as the subject matter requireth: when applied to God and Christ, they signify an efficient and meritorious cause, but in other places they signify onely an instrument or means by which, so Matth. 1.13. Enter through the straight gate. Its said of the Wise men, Matth. 2.12. {αβγδ}, They went by another way, Act. 14.22. Through many afflictions; we might show very many places, where the Preposition {αβγδ} doth not signify any cause, but a means through which, so that there cannot be any strength laid upon the Preposition.  

Whether faith may be called an instrumental cause of justification, and in what sense. A learned Lutheran Agonismae Theol. de Justif. 106.  Onely it may be doubted, Whether faith may be called an instrumental cause of our Justification: For though some do roundly call it so, yet others call it an organon sine quo non. One saith, When Divines speak accurately and exactly, they call it not an instrument but a medium. Pezelius alleged by Fraxinus, Spec. Not. in Armin. cap. 17. de Justif. Not. 7. speaketh thus, Fides correlatè ad Justitiam Christi à Deo oblatam& collatam considerata, non tam operis aut actionis operatoriae rationem habet, quam passionnis& subjecti recipientis, ideoque homines Justitiam recipientes à Deo agi potius, quam agore sunt dicendi. But this Author must understand subjectum quo, not quod; for faith is not the ultimate subject, but man of Justification.  
And certainly when generally its said to be the instrument of our Justification, by that is meant no more then a means appointed by God, in the use whereof we are made partakers of Christs righteousness. In this sense Perkins calls faith Instrumentum supernaturale creatum à Deo in animo hoins, whereby he layeth hold on, and applieth Christs righteousness to himself. This is certain, That whatsoever expressions the Orthodox use about faith in our Justification, they all agree, that this is not from any dignity of faith, or that hereby any thing is attributed to man: yea hereby they say, Man is wholly debased, and wholly outed of himself, Christ being exalted all in all.  
Now because this Assertion of faith justifying instrumentally hath several censures, and that by men of contrary judgement; Bellarmine thinking that thereby we give nothing at all to faith; and others, that we give too much, hecause every instrumental cause is reduced to an efficient; Therefore its good to dig to the root of this matter, and although we have already said enough about faiths passive instrumentality in Justification, yet for further explication sake, let us add some further consideration about Instruments, 
Of Instruments.  and they may be divided into Artificial, Natural and Divine.  
For Artificial 
Artificial.  Instruments, if we thoroughly consider it, we shall find little more then a passive habitude, or respect in them unto that ultimate effect of art, which is intended by the Artificer, and some are more passive then others: some instruments of art, have indeed a causality by a previous disposing and working upon the subject, as when the Saw drawn between the wood doth expel part of it, either formally, as Scotus, or rather efficiently, as Suarez, removing it to another place. In this and the like instances Artificial Instruments have an efficient causality, but they are not called Instruments( as Suarez well observeth) in respect of this previous disposition, but of the ultimate effect of Art, as the Saw and hammer are called instruments, not in respect of the cutting or beating, but of the house or the statue and image, which the Artificer by them accomplisheth: So that if we speak of the Artificial effect intended by the Artificer, they are instruments onely by a passive relation, and therefore whether the Artificer make an image of a beast, or man, its all one to the instrumental tools, they incline not, or determine to one way more then another, which argueth they have no efficiency, as to the effect of art, in which respect they are properly called instruments. But that there are artificial passive instruments appeareth plainly in musical instruments, which are called instruments {αβγδ}, for in most of them its plain there is nothing but a local motion of the strings, and an artificial impression upon them by the hand, and then in respect of the melodious sound, they are thereby made passive instruments: So that I think we may almost generally say, That artificial instruments in respect of the effect of art ultimately intended, are passive instruments, and are so called, not in respect of a causal attingency immediately of that artificial effect, but from a passive relation thereunto.  
In the second place, There are instrumental causes in Nature, 
Natural.  as when the seed of a flower falling to the ground doth instrumentally produce another flower: It cannot be denied but that such, have an intrinsical power to produce such a determinate effect, and such causes as these are to he reduced to the efficient, because they work by an inward connatural ability, but I suppose when Divines call faith an instrumental cause of Justification, they do not mean such a cause.  
Therefore lastly, There are divine instruments, when God by his appointment and will causeth such a thing to be in the use or application of such or such means. Now these may be said to be instruments of such a mercy, not that they have any efficient causality either principal or instrumental, onely the effect is produced not by any virtue of such means used, but because of Gods appointment: and thus faith when it justifieth as an instrument, doth it as a divine, supernatural instrument, not as a natural, which will further appear in handling this Question, Whose instrument it is, whether Gods or mans? I need not say much to this: See Mr black in that solid and learned Tractate of his( Vindic. Foederis, p. 81, 82.) Its there answered, That its both the instrument of God and man, though in a different sense; and to this purpose Doctor Ames( Bellar. Enerv. Tom. quart. pag. 18.) Fides quamvis posset vocari instrumentum Dei, quia Deus justificat nos èx fide& per fidem, propriè tamen est instrumentum nostrum; Its Gods instrument in a large sense, as being that which through his power is created in us, and by which he justifieth us; yet quoad actum exercitum, its properly our instrument, because its we, and not God that believeth. Its Gods instrument in respect of his institution and ordination of it for such an end. Its mans instrument, as that which is exercised and applied by him: yet though man believeth, he doth not justify himself, partly because it doth not justify as a work, but from Christ believed upon; and partly, because Justification doth not follow as a necessary, natural effect of believing, but from the gracious appointment of God, as is to be shewed in answering the next Question. Only by the way you may observe, That Justification is not attributed to faith in the same sense that it is denied to works, for those that pleaded for justification by works, did not look upon works in such an organical and relative sense, but as causes of Justification, and the Apostle excluding them, doth assert faith not absolutely and in the same causality, but respectively to the blood of Christ.  
The last Question may be, If faith justifieth, How doth it come to justify? Is Justification a necessary and natural effect of believing, or comes it merely by the divine appointment or institution of God, as looking upon the brazen Serpent procured healing, not by any inward implanted force, but by the command of God?  
Now to this we answer two things:  
1. That faith doth not necessary and properly produce Justification, as the fire doth burning: So that whosoever doth believe would be justified, though God had appointed no such way, though he had not made such a promise. Therefore its a calumny cast upon the Orthodox, as if they delivered any such thing, and against reason, for no habit can have two immediate proper distinct acts: If therefore to believe be the natural act of that habit, to be justified cannot be. Besides, Justification though it be received by us, yet is a gracious privilege vouchsafed by God as he pleaseth, and so cannot be the natural effect of any thing within us.  
Yet in the second place, Though it be Gods promise and grace to annex Justification to our believing, Our Divines do well say, That faith hath naturally a passive aptitude and fitness in it to receive Christ, which other graces have not. So that although this natural fitness be not a cause, yet the goodness of God makes use of it for such an end. Therefore though one speak confidently, That when causes have a natural power to produce such effects, its improper, if not ridiculous to ascribe such effects to the will and pleasure of God, yet herein is much error and mistake; for we say not, Faith hath a natural power to justify, as the fire to burn( though even such natural causes in their operations are reduced to Gods will)( for when he did not will, the raging fire could not burn those three worthies) but only it hath a passive aptitude from its nature to be ordained by God for such an end, which other graces have not; as the hand hath a natural fitness to receive, which the head, though a more noble part cannot do. As in the matter of the Lords Supper, we say, the form of a Sacrament lieth in the words of Institution, yet it pleased God to take such elements that have a natural fitness to represent the body and blood of Christ; But the bread and wine could not do this sacramentally without an institution: so its here, though faith have such a natural fitness, as to receive and lay hold on Christ, yet that in and by this Justification shall be vouchsafed, is from the appointment of God.  
Thus have we demolished those false ways asserted by many for Justification by faith, and declared the truth with the establishment of it. I shall speak a word to the opinion of a late writer, ( Justification Justified) who rejects all the former senses of Justification by faith, either as a work, or an instrument, and pitcheth upon a notion of his own: having in that whole Sermon asserted many Novelisms, Faith, he saith, justifieth, because its the first grace that doth act upon Christ, and rest upon him for Justification: But where is one word of Scripture attributing Justification to faith, because of this priority? The word of God relates always to the object of faith, not to any such presupposed order. Besides, by this rule a man is not justified after his conversion by any acts of faith, whereby we depend on Christ, for, saith he, it justifieth, because its in order of nature, the first that acts; certainly those frequent acts of faith which the godly after their conversion put forth, are not the first in nature, yet he expressly grants, pag 16. Justification is applied to us upon the renewed acts of faith, yet these renewed acts of faith cannot be the first in order. Again, If it justifieth, because its the first that acts on Christ, then it justifieth as a work, and so fals in with those that he opposeth; If by acting on Christ, he mean receiving( for he speaks very obscurely) then he fals in with those, that say, it justifieth as an instrument, to whom notwithstanding he is an adversary. In the progress of this reason he saith, faith justifieth only in respect of the sense and comfort, and assurance of Justification, which seemeth a great contradiction to a former passage in his Sermon, pag. 2. for he proveth the elect are not justified by God from all eternity: But why not? If faith be onely the sense of our Justification, this supposeth Justification to be before faith, and if it be but an hour before, it may be from eternity as well. Thus with him not only good works but faith also doth follow the person justified.  
Use of Instruction, To give faith its proper place in Justification, not to exalt it too much, nor yet debase it too low, but above all things nourish the actings of it, because this receiveth Christ and Justification. If a labouring man loseth his hands, he is undone, because by them he liveth; faith is this hand: The Israelite that was blind could not look on the brazen Serpent to be healed: faith is this eye; Its faith that enricheth the soul, with one hand receiveth all from God, with the other hand sets all graces on work for God; So that we may with Gerson the Papist in a well explained sense, cry out, Oh faith, thine is the kingdom, thine is the power and glory!   

SERM. XXVII. That the whole Nature of Justification is not comprehended in Remission and forgiveness of sins.  ROM. 4.25. Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our Justification. 
IN the former words we had this truth contained, That Faith, not as it is a work, but because of the object received and applied by it, is accounted to the believer for righteousness. And this 25th vers. will afford pregnant matter, to prove, That remission of sins is not all our Justification. For whereas we have evinced, That neither faith nor works, nor any thing inherent in us, can be our righteousness, by which we are justified.  
We come to grapple with those, who grant our Justification to be without us, and yet for all that hit not the mark, and that which shall be mentioned at this time, is of those, who place the whole Nature of Justification in pardon of sin: So that with them, forgiveness of sin is that onely, and adequately, which maketh us just before God. But this we shall endeavour to overthrow from these words.  
For the understanding whereof we may take notice of a two-fold privilege spoken of, with a two-fold cause; And lastly, The original and fountain, both of the causes and their effects.  
The two-fold cause is Christs death, and Christs resurrection, for although it be true, That Christs merit is limited to the time of his humiliation, yet because his resurrection did manifest his power and conquest over all his enemies( for had he not risen his death had not availed to our happiness) hence it is that Justification is attributed to his resurrection, although we may say, Christs death is the meritorious cause both of remission of sins and Justification, and Christs resurrection is in some sense the efficient cause, because by his rising again the Spirit of God doth make us capable of, and then bestoweth Justification upon us. The two fold benefit is set down in these words,  
First, Christ was delivered for our offences, {αβγδ}, the word signifieth not every light sin, or less fault, but that which is a falling, hereby intimating, that Christ died to take away our great transgressions as well as less: Even as the red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh and the great men, as well as those of more weak and infirm natures: So that hereby we see Christ crucified an expiatory Sacrifice to take away the guilt of our offences.  
The second Benefit is our Justification. This is made a distinct benefit from the former, even as Christs death and resurrection are distinguished, not that one can be divided from the other, onely one is not the other, or at least but a part of it.  
Indeed the Popish Commentators do readily expound Justification for inward renovation, That Christ rose again that we might rise to newness of life, but they cannot show the use of the word in that sense, yet that Justification is more then bare remission, the Apostle doth evidently manifest by the distinguishing of them. Now its greatly agitated by Divines, Why, or in what sense, Justification is thus attributed to Christs resurrection? Some explain it of the exemplar cause, and that two ways:  
1. That as sin hath its death by Christs death, so we are to have our resurrection and acceptation to life by his resurrection, insomuch that Augustine observeth, whatsoever was historically or really fulfilled in Christ, we are to have such a conformity to himself in ourselves: as he was crucified, so we are to be to the world and sin; as he was butted, so we are said to be butted with him in Baptism; and as he rose again, so we in our souls are to arise to all holinesse of life.  
But secondly, Others express this exemplarity after this manner, Christ( say they) in suffering was our Surety, God looked upon him as bearing our sins, and so we were condemned in him. Again, Christ rose as a public and common person from the grave, and was acquitted thereupon from all the offences laid to his charge; and thus we were justified in his Justification.  
Lucius a learned Writer saith, Justification is therefore attributed to Resurrection, because it was the complete and ultimate act of Christs active obedience; and from hence infereth, That Remission of sin is attributed to his passive, and Justification to his active obedience.  
Others expound this of the final cause, That the expiation of our sins was the end of his death, and Justification the end of his resurrection, and this is most probable, Only the meritorious causality in his death, for our forgiveness, and the efficient causality of his Resurrection for our Justification is not to be excluded.  
Lastly, Here is the original of all, he was delivered, viz. by the Father, and he was raised, viz. by the Father. Thus whatsoever benefits comes by Christ, yea Christ himself is made the effect of his Fathers love and mercy to us: So that we have not the least reason to doubt, whether the Father will accept of what the Son hath done for us.  
That which I shall pitch upon in these words is the distinction that is made between pardon of sin and Justification, and so observe,  

observe.  That the whole nature of Justification is not comprehended in remission and forgiveness of sins.  
To clear this, consider first, That there are different opinions, not onely between the Orthodox and their Adversaries, but also amongst the Orthodox themselves in this great privilege of remission of sins; for some make Justification in the whole nature of it to lye in forgiveness of sins. Thus Piscator and Wotton with all diligence set themselves to assert this, and many others, who deny the imputation of Christs active obedience to the believer( I say many) for some though they deny the imputation of Christs active obedience, yet grant Justification to be more then remission, herein forsaking Piscator.( Mr Gatak. Animad in luke.) Bellarmine would charge this upon Calvin, as his different opinion from other Protestants, but it may be easily cleared, that Calvin doth by placing our Justification in remission of sin, onely oppose inherent renovation against the Papists, not the imputed righteousness of Christ, witness his exposition on this Text, beside other places.  
Indeed Vorstius while Orthodox doth say, ( Antibel. de Justif.) If we place Justification only in remission of sins, we may the more easily answer all the Popish Objections, neither shall we then be so obnoxious to their malignant calumnies.  
2. Others they make remission of sin not to be any part, much less the whole of Justification, but the effect and result of it. Thus for the satisfaction of Christ, we being accounted just before God, thereby we come to have remission of sins. There are learned men go this way ( Bradshaw, Gataker.)  
3. The Popish Writers they make remission of sin a concomitant of our Justification, which they place in our internal renovation.  
Lastly, There are those who make remission of sins an integral part of our Justification; for they say, The whole nature of Justification consists in these two parts, remission of sin and imputation of righteousness; which indeed of these hath the priority, is disputed, but that is not much material. And surely if we regard the expressions of the Scripture, this seemeth to have most truth in it, and with these later, I join myself. Neither may it seem such an absurd thing to place Justification in two particulars, as if the form of it ought necessary to be single, for we are not to speak of Justification, as natural forms which consist in indivisibili, but we are to look upon it as a favour and privilege of God, which he vouchsafeth to his children, and to the integral constituting whereof there may be as many ingredients, as God shall put in, neither are imputation of righteousness, and remission of sins so disparate, but that they may well concur to one thing.  

Wherein remission of sins and justification differ.  In the next place, Let us consider wherein remission of sins and Justification do differ. And  
First, They differ as an whole and a part, Justification is the whole, remission is a part; So that as the soul of a man and a man differ, as the whole and the part. Thus doth forgiveness of sin and Justification. Hence the Scripture, as it sometimes describeth Justification by the pardon of sin; so it doth also by the imputing of righteousness, Rom. 14. Neither may they be called the same thing, as the expulsion of darkness and introduction of light, for they are two distinct benefits, and although they are inseparable, yet they are not to be confounded, and although where there is forgiveness of sin, there is imputation of righteousness, yet this makes not them all one, but argueth that inseparable connexion which God hath appointed; Even as remission of sins, and inherent renovation of the soul are individually joined together; Take one away, and you take the other; and yet they are not the same work of God, but two distinct mercies; and the reason why Justification doth comprehend these two, is, because the Apostle makes blessedness to belong to him that is justified, Rom. 4. and Rom. 5.1. Being justified, we have peace with God. Now to have sin merely forgiven, although by Gods gracious appointment it doth de facto bring blessedness, yet this ariseth not simply because sin is forgiven, but because he is accepted of as positively just, and as having done that which the Law requireth, to which onely the blessing of eternal life is promised; for who can deny but that God might have simply pardonned a sinner his sin, and yet for all that have amnihilated him, or continued his life for some thousands of years in temporal happiness, and at last to have ceased to be, and not at all to give eternal life to him. As the Jews had their sins pardonned, were brought back to their country, but not in such Glory, Power and Dignity, as formerly. Thus God( to speak of his absolute Power, and not what he hath promised to do) might have forgiven sin to the humbled sinner, that is, he might have taken off the guilt or obligation to eternal punishment, and yet for all that not set the Crown of Glory upon his head; and whereas it is said, This cometh by Adoption, and not Justification, that is but gratis dictum, and cannot be proved, seeing that the justified man is thereby put into a full possession of Gods favour, and whom he hath justified, he will glorify; and indeed Justification is virtually all other privileges, for they are either Effects, or Concomitants, and Consequents of it.  
Secondly, Justification doth connote a state, and established condition of a man, and therefore is not frequently iterated, although it be continued. A man is not justified many times in a day, though sins be pardonned often in a day. It is true, God doth continue to justify those that believe in him, and if he should cease to do so, they would immediately fall into misery and guilt; but yet God doth not renew or revive our Justification, as if there were an interruption or intermission of it. That Justification doth denote an estate, is plain by comparing it with all the other privileges God vouchsafeth his people: Regeneration and Vocation denote a state the person is put into, so doth Glorification, As therefore Sanctification is one thing, and those auxiliary actings of Gods grace are another thing; So that though we may say, Such a man hath new quickening grace every day, yet we cannot say, He hath a new Regeneration: So it is here, though we may say, That every day the believer, begging the pardon of his daily infirmities, hath a new pardon, yet he hath not a new Justification, because this denominateth the state of a man. Neither can it be said, That pardon of this sin or that sin, puts a man into the state of Gods favour absolutely, but quoad hoc, the pardon of this or that sin doth not make that universal righteousness of the person, whereby he stands acquitted from all. It is true, some learned men call this daily remission of sin, Justificatio particularis; but we are now treating of that universal Justification, whereby the person of a believer stands acquitted, and disobliged from the guilt of all his sins he hath committed, and great is the comfort of a Christian in that his Justification is a state of favour with God, for hence flow many other inestimable benefits and advantages, which the believer is to study out and improve.  
Thirdly, Even amongst men, we see there is a great difference between forgiveness of sin and Justification, one may be where the other is not. As if a man be accused before a Judge falsely for such and such crimes, and he is able to free himself before the Judge, upon this he is justified, and yet we cannot say, his fault was forgiven him. Again, We see in Josephs brethren, and Shimei's reviling of David, there was a forgiveness of their fault, but there was no Justification of them; and although according to Gods gracious order, which he hath now established, he doth not forgive any mans sins properly, whom he doth not justify, that is, accept to eternal life; yet, as was said before, absolutely he might have done otherwise; So because God had vouchsafed one mercy, he was not bound to add more, I say, forgive sins properly, because sometimes in Scripture the taking away of a temporal punishment, is called a forgiveness of sins; and this even wicked men, as Ahab, have been partakers of, at least a delay of the punishment, when yet they have been obnoxious to eternal wrath. Its plain then, they cannot be the same, when one may be, where the other is not.  
Fourthly, They differ in this respect, which is of great concernment, Remission of sin doth onely take away the guilt, or ordination of it to eternal punishment, it doth not remove the sin itself. So that although pardon of sin doth make as if sin had never been in respect of the guilt of it, yet not in respect of the denomination of the Subject. Though David had his sins of murder and adultery pardonned, yet that pardon did not make David a just man in those acts, his murder was truly murder, his adultery was truly adultery, although the guilt and actual condemnation of them was taken away; whereas Justification doth denominate a man just, righteousness is required to Justification, as well as wisdom to make a man wise, health to make a man healthful: a man cannot be justified, viz. truly, without a righteousness: So that a man is not justified, and therefore just, but just and therefore justified. Its true, this righteousness, whereby we are pronounced just, is not in ourselves, because we have sin and corruption abiding in us, but it is purchased for us by the Lord Christ, and what he hath done is accepted of, as if we had done it our own selves.  
Fifthly, Remission of sin and Justification differ in this consideration. In forgiveness of sin there is ablatio mali; in Justification there is collatio boni: when sin is forgiven the eternal evil deserved is removed, but when we are justified eternal good is promised. Neither is it of any strength at all, to say, where all evil is removed in a subject capable all good is introduced. If a man shall not be damned, he must be saved; for this is granted, that they are inseparable, but this doth not follow ex naturâ rei, but extrinsically by the order and appointment of God; for a man might not have been damned, and yet after some enjoyments of pleasures on the earth, have been amnihilated, and never assumed to eternal glory. Certainly, when the Papists tell us of a Limbus Patrum, especially of their Infantum, who are neither damned, or yet ever shall be saved. Our Divines do not argue against it as an impossible thing, that God might not have done so, if he would, but only they say, its against Scripture, and ●ods revealed will, that he will appoint such a third place. This therefore is a perpetual mistake, That because God hath appointed these two inseparably together, freedom from hell, and enjoyment of heaven; Therefore to make them all one, and to be the effect of one act of God, As it is in Sanctification, the removing of spiritual darkness, and vouchsafing spiritual illumination is the same motion, with respect onely to divers terms, and this from a natural and extrinsical necessity, but it is not thus in our Justification, he that is not damned is not from an intrinsical necessity therefore saved, but because God hath joined these things together. When the Papist shall urge, That wheresoever pardon of sin is, there is infusion of righteousness, and shall demand us to give an instance of any such, who were forgiven, and yet not made holy; We answer, That it is freely confessed that both these are necessary concomitants; No man is justified but he is sanctified, yet these are not one act and work of Gods Spirit, but distinct mercies, and wrought in a distinct manner. Thus we may see wherein the difference between these two may be discovered; and that Text Acts 13.38, 39. seemeth to incline this way; for when he had said, That by Christ was forgiveness of sins, he addeth, as a further privilege, And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses. But Daniel speaks more expressly, Chap. 9.24. There the messiah is said to make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness: Whether this be imputed righteousness, I do not here dispute; only you see these are made two distinct benefits, expiation of sin, and bringing in everlasting righteousness. And thus to abolish death, and to bring life and immortality to light, are mentioned as two distinct effects of the Lord Christ our Saviour, 2 Tim. 1.10. And indeed there seemeth to be great reason for it, because its not enough for us that our sins are pardonned, but it behoveth us to bring such a perfect obedience as the Law requireth; Now seeing we in our own persons cannot do this, that our Justification may be complete and full, its necessary his obedience to the Law, should be accounted as ours. But this reason is to be improved more largely, and vindicated from all opposition, when we treat of Christs active obedience.  
Let us therefore take into consideration what choice and special reasons are brought against this Position, 
Reasons against this point examined.  and why its affirmed, That all our Justification is comprised in remission of sin.  
And that which is much pressed upon, is Rom. 4.6, 7, 8. where the Apostle proving, That a righteousness is imputed to us without works; for a confirmation hereof; allegeth a testimony from Davids Psalm, where the man is said to be blessed that hath his sins forgiven him; Now( say they) the Apostles Argument would not be good, if imputation of righteousness, and remission of sin were not all one.  
From this manner of Pauls Argumentation; the Question is, Whether the Apostle give an whole definition of Justification, or describe it onely Synecdochically, one part for the whole? But there seemeth no reason why the Apostle should be here thought to describe all the nature of Justification; its enough if he brings that part of it, which will strongly and clearly prove his purpose. Now the truth Paul was to prove is, That a man is not justified by works, Why? Because David saith, Blessed is the man to whom sin is forgiven, and his iniquities covered; If therefore blessedness lye in remission of sin, in Gods gracious favour without us, then it cannot be in any works we do. Thus the Apostles coherence is clear and evident, but whether this be all the nature of Justification is not material, if remission of sin be in our Justification, though it be not all of it, the Argument abideth firm. Although we may probably conclude, That the Apostle, though he onely mention pardon of sin, yet includeth also imputation of righteousness, because he makes blessedness to consist in this remission: Now blessedness and eternal life is not promised because sin is forgiven merely, but because there is such a righteousness as answereth the Law, Christs doing and suffering being imputed to us, That as blessedness is not in a mee● privation of evil, but positive affluence of all good: So Justification is not a mere blotting out of sin, but investing us with such a righteousness that hath eternal life annexed to it. Neither may we wonder why the Apostle should not mention imputation of righteousness, as well as remission of sins, seeing his scope is not to inform what Justification is, but how we are justified. And again, the mentioning of one must necessary infer the other; for sin cannot be pardonned unless a righteousness accepted of by God be made ours, and because of that therefore our iniquities to be done away; yea some press the very mentioning of imputing of righteousness, vers. 6. as a distinct thing from remission, and yet the Apostle( they say) doth well argue from one to another, because they are inseparably joined together, and he that hath one must necessary have the other: Even( as some say) our Saviour proved the Resurrection of the dead, by proving the Immortality of the soul, because one followeth the other, Mat. 22.32. and although they may seem to be of a different nature, yet one as a part may be well put for the whole, as the soul of a man, or the body of a man is sometimes put for the whole man.  
As for the Papist, who would from Davids testimony prove inherent righteousness to be part of our Justification, because its added [ In whose spirit there is no guile] that cannot be, because it would directly contradict the Apostles intent, which is to prove a righteousness without works; so that those words are brought in, to show the qualification of the subject who is justified, not a part of our Justification.   

SERM. XXVIII.  ROM. 4.25. Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our Justification. 
WE have asserted this truth, That Justification is not wholly comprehended in remission of sin: And did in part answer that famous place the Adversaries so much insist upon, viz. Pauls Argumentation, Rom. 4.6. which( say they) could not be solid were it not built upon this Rock, That imputation of righteousness and remission of sin were all one. nevertheless because this place is accounted of like the Jebusites Fort in Zion, such a strong hold, that if you take that you take all, 2 Sam. 5.6.  
I shall add some further considerations to clear this point, and some other Objections they bring( deferring the rest till we treat of Christs active obedience.) And  
First, Some have thought, That the Apostle doth not argue from the definition to the thing defined, but ab imparium collatione; as if the Apostle had intended thus, If remission of sin be without our works, we are not sufficient of ourselves, by any thing we do to obtain pardon of sin, much less can we think to be justified by any work we perform. Thus Chrysostome who from hence makes Justification to be a greater matter then mere forgiveness. Whether this be a true analytical exposition of the place, I shall not d●spute; onely this is true, which he saith, That Justification is a greater and more noble privilege, then mere forgiveness of sin; and the Reason is, Because pardon of sin doth not make a man just, there must be an imputation of righteousness to do that, and besides the removing of the guilt of sin, we need an entituling of us to eternal glory. Hence to the former Texts mentioned, we may add Acts 26.18. where forgiveness of sins and an inheritance are made two distinct benefits, and so though they always concur together, yet are never to be confounded: So that the foundation the contrary minded lay, is wholly unsound, which is, That by remission of sin we are made righteous, which is not a truth; for( as hath been shewed) all that pardon of sin doth, is to remove the guilt of it, and to take away that actual ordination of it to eternal punishment, it doth not make us righteous, we need an imputation of the righteousness of Christ for this; and although upon the remission of sin followeth eternal life and glory, yet this is not vi consequentis, but consequentiae, its not from any natural resultancy, but from Gods gracious appointment: So that Chrysostome might well argue, If by our works we cannot attain to forgiveness of sin, much less to our Justification.  
But in the second place grant, That the Apostle doth not argue ab imparium collatione, yet there is no necessity he should argue a definitione and definitum, as if the Apostle had here intended a full and plenary definition of Justification. There is no probable Argument for this; for if remission of sin and imputation of righteousness, are inseparable consequents of one another, so that from the nature of the one, we may argue to the nature of the other, This is enough to confirm the Apostles intent, righteousness is imputed without works: Why? because remission of sin which it a part of our righteousness, that we stand justified by, is without works, as David speaks peremptorily: Whereas then its ordinarily objected, That use doth not admit, or can it be a Synecdoche to say, one part is for another, especially when of a different nature.  
It may be answered first, That one part is not here put for another, but a part for the whole, Remission of sin for Justification, part of our righteousness for our whole righteousness, as the soul or the body are sometimes put for the whole man. Or,  
Secondly, Here is not one part put for another onely, because here is an inseparahle conjunction of both these, that one is always where the other is: God never forgiveth sin, where he doth not impute righteousness. Therefore we may well conclude from one to the other, even as the Apostle all along makes Justification by faith, and to be justified by Christ, or by grace, all one, because they are indispensably coupled together.  
Thirdly, Consider to the clearing of this, and all other Objections, That to Justification there is necessary required Justice or righteousness. A man cannot be justified without righteousness, any more then be wise without wisdom, or holy without holinesse: So that Justice is the abstract or form, Justification is the application or communication of it to such a Subject: As learning is a form or quality, but when applied to such a man it denominateth him in the concrete a learned man. Thus it is here, righteousness is the quality, and when this is applied to a man, he is said to be made righteous or justified: Insomuch that there cannot be a true and laudable Justification, where righteousness is not supposed; and hence it is, that Remission of sin and Imputation of righteousness must be two distinct things, for Remission of sins simply as so, doth not give a righteousness. It is true, that is a known saying of the Ancient, Justitia nostra est indulgentia Dei, Our righteousness is Gods indulgence; but that is to be understood, because according to Gods appointment, these two will go together, righteousness and forgiveness of sin, not indeed our own righteousness, but that which God hath appointed for us through Christ.  
Fourthly, Yet to clear this further, take notice, That till we be accounted as righteous, God cannot, God will not in any gracious manner communicate himself to us, he cannot love or delight but in a righteous person. All those promises of a gracious and familiar presence, are still to such as are accounted righteous. Hence those engagements which God is pleased to take upon himself to give everlasting happiness, are always to those persons that have fulfilled the Law. Eternal life cannot be vouchsafed to any, but where the Law hath been fulfilled; Now because we could not do that, therefore Christs obedience is made ours. Hence Rom. 5. By the obedience of Christ many are said to be made righteous. Though therefore the works of the Law are excluded from our Justification in respect of our own persons, yet not as performed by Christ for us; Therefore Christ is called The end of the Law for righteousness to him that believeth, Rom. 10.4. Christ did not come to destroy the Law, neither in the doctrinal part, or in the obligatory part of it. Hence Rom. 8.34. Christ is said to come in the flesh, condemning sin, that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us; for this purpose it is that Gal. 4.4. Christ is said to be under the Law. Now in all these obediences unto the Law, he was not for himself; All that he did and suffered was for us, yea and in our stead: So that though we have not our salvation by that rule, Do this and live, yet Christ procured it for us, by fulfilling that, God being an holy and righteous God, never promised eternal Salvation, but to such as had obeied his Law, either in themselves, or in their Sureties; and if Gods Justice would not dispense with a penal satisfaction to the Law, as they themselves confess against Socinus, Why should he dispense with the true and proper obedience to his Law, seeing that punishment is required, and become due onely per accidence, but obedience is required unto Gods Law primarily, and in itself: God then requiring a perfect righteousness, and promising eternal life onely unto that, its necessary that there should be a Saviour, who should be a Saviour, who should not onely expiate our sin, but bring in a perfect and absolute righteousness. It behoveth the Adversaries of this Doctrine to prove, That God will not dispense with a penal righteousness( if we may so properly call it) but he will with an active righteousness: but of this more in its time.  
Fifthly, If therefore God require a positive righteousness of us, conformable unto his Law, in the perfect obligation of it, then it followeth, that mere remission of sin under any distinction whatsoever, cannot be our righteousness. We cannot be said to be righteous in this sense, as thereby to be interested unto eternal life, unless we have either an inherent or imputed righteousness. The distinctions are brought to clear their Assertion, That a man may be just merely by remission of sin.  
1. They distinguish between a man Just qualitatively and legally. A man that hath his sins pardonned cannot be Just qualitatively, for this supposeth he hath sinned, and therefore is not inherently Just; but then legally righteous a man is said to be, who though he hath offended, yet compensation is made to the Law. Now( say they) in this Evangelical pardon of sin, a man is looked upon in and through Christ his Surety, as having satisfied the Law. Now where the Law cannot accuse, there must needs be righteousness. But although this be specious, yet a man cannot be called legally Just merely because of this Satisfaction made, because Remission of sins, for which this atonement is, doth onely take away the guilt, and the ordination of a man to punishment, as was formerly said, a man is still unjust and a sinner; in respect of the filth and demerit of it, sin doth still abide even when it is pardonned( at least original sin.) Therefore its maintained against Papists, That forgiveness of sin is not the aboli●ion of it, that it doth not take away the Maculam, but the Reatum: If then the sinfulness of original sin remain in a believer, though the guilt of it be taken away, How can eternal happiness belong to such, unless otherwise they be accounted of as perfectly righteous, or having an obedience answerable to the Law? So that Remission of sin doth not make a man legally Just in an absolute and universal sense. Indeed the distinction itself is necessary( though not in that sense the authors propound it,) for the Orthodox maintain against Papists, That we are not Just by a qualitative righteousness, but a legal one; by a legal, meaning the imputed righteousness of Christ, which by Gods appointment is accepted of, as if we had done it in our own persons. But remission of sin is not all this legal righteousness; for though by Christs death Satisfaction be made to the penalty of the Law, yet not to the obedience of it; and to speak properly, a man is not obliged by way of duty to the penalty, but to the command; for we cannot properly say, Its the duty of the devils and impenitent wicked men to be damned.  
Another distinction introduced much to the same purpose is, of a two-fold pardon,  
1. A mere absolute and simplo pardon, such as we are commanded to show unto others, of which the Lords Prayer speaketh.  
Or secondly, A pardon acquired by Satisfaction, and obtained by a just compensation. Now its true( say they) That in mere simplo pardons there cannot be any righteousness, yea the contrary is there supposed, but in pardons by Satisfaction, thus is a righteousness procured: But this will fall to the ground upon the same reason with the former, pardon by Satisfaction would be a complete righteousness, if that were all, which is required; if so be that Christ had procured such an atonement, that the Law should be no longer obliging of us, that we should be free from all obedience, that the Law should cease to be a Law to us, then this Satisfaction would be our full righteousness. But Christ died not for this end, to disoblige us from God, neither though he satisfied the comminatory part of the Law, did he therefore invalidate the mandatory part? And who in reason can think, that because man fallen is redeemed by a Saviour, that therefore the Law should not still continue prescribing obedience unto it? But I must not anticipate myself, for this is to be more fully cleared hereafter.  
Sixthly, Although we say Remission of sin doth not make a man Just, yet it is not necessary that we should assign a third, or a neutral estate of a man, that is neither just nor unjust. For this is perpetually urged, as a grand absurdity, forgiveness takes away the guilt of sin, and freeth from hell, and yet it doth not make a man just, nor entitle to heaven.  
Therefore( say they) a man may be in Gods account, neither a sinner, nor yet a righteous person, neither in the state of death nor life, whereas these are immediate contraries, and so in a subject capable one must necessary be put. As in the air, there must be light or darkness, a man must be either alive or dead. Its true, where the subject is not capable, there neither of these immediate contraries are inherent: A beast is neither just nor unjust; A ston is neither sinful or holy, because these are not subjects susceptible of such qualities; But man is the proper and immediate subject, and therefore we may conclude, If not a sinner, then just; If not to be damned, then to be saved.  
In this Argument they much triumph, this is the Goliahs Sword. But  
First, We do not ( de facto) say, there is or was any such neutral and indifferent state, wherein men were neither righteous nor unrighteous, neither damned or saved. Indeed the Papists they speak of mans pure naturals, such an estate wherein he is neither good nor evil, till by his free-will he made himself so; and thus they say, Adam was created, and therefore original righteousness was supernatural, and put as a bridle to him, to keep the inferior part from rebelling against the superior. And the Socinians they tell us, of a middle and neutral state Adam was created in, which they call innocency, as if he had no more knowledge or understanding in him, then a mere child. And for a middle state between heaven and hell, The Papists do ( de facto) assign, by their Limbus Patrum and Infantum; Yea all those in Antiquity, which are thought to be many, that hold the souls did not go immediately into heaven; and such as of later dayes that maintain Psuchopannuchia, they do hold, That for a time at least there is a state wherein the godly are neither fully happy or miserable. And the Socinians do ( de facto) also give a middle estate between Poenam damni and Sensus, and that is a state of annihilation. Thus you see there have been, and are of late, who thought it no inimaginable thing, to make such an estate actually to be. Now if you change, the Question, and make it not, Whether God hath appointed such a middle state and condition( for it is plain he hath revealed the contrary) but, Whether by his absolute power he could not have done it, there would not a negative answer be hastily returned.  
In the second place, There are many things are not the same in their essence, and yet for their existency are inseparable; so that it would be unreasonable to demand the separation of them. Do not those of the contrary Judgement say, Remission of sin and inward Renovation are not the same things, that they are two distinct benefits? Yet if the Papists should demand of them, that they should assign such a middle estate, of one whose sins are truly pardonned, and yet not inwardly renewed, would not the answer be, They are inseparable in their existence, though distinct in their essence? Thus a substance is really distinguished from its accidents, yet we say against the Papists, that it cannot subsist without them, though they run to Gods power to maintain their miraculous Transubstantiation.  
To instance in a third thing, do not the Orthodox say, That faith alone justifieth, though it be not alone, that it s not Solitaria, though Sola in the act of justifying? This being the truth of God, we matter not the Papist expostulating, Why faith may not be separated from charity? What repugnancy this is for faith being divided from other graces to justify? By these instances we see, that it s no new thing, for several things to be indispensably and individually conjoined together: So that we cannot say, one can be without the other, though we may truly say, one is not the other. Thus though to have sin forgiven, cannot according to the order God hath now established, be without righteousness, yet that is not because they are the same thing in nature.  
Thirdly, But that which we conceive to be the full and plenary answer is, That righteousness and sin, life and death, in the sense controverted, are not immediately and naturally contraries: But in a moral sense, by the appointment and arbitrary Will of God; so that if he had pleased, he might have ordained it otherwise: So that righteousness and sin, though in a Subject capable, are not naturally contrary, as light and darkness is, crooked and strait, natural life and natural death, which in their proper Subjects do necessary infer the existence of one at that time; if it be not day, it must be night; it is not one motion that makes the stick strait, and another not crooked; he that takes life from a man, doth thereby necessary kill him, it cannot be hindered. But it is not thus in the state controverted, because  
In the first place, Remission of sin doth not make a man no sinner, perfect Sanctification doth this, or imputed righteousness. It hath been often said, That by forgiveness of sin a man doth not cease to be a sinner, but to be obnoxious to eternal punishment: So that to be righteous in the controversy, is not to have habitual Holinesse, to which sin is an immediate contrary, but to be judged righteous by the Obedience which another hath done for us. Hence it is, that while a man is accounted of by God, as righteous through Christ, yet at the same time he hath sin and corruption cleaving to him, which God seeth and chastiseth him for: So that, as is to be shewed, it is but a calumny to fasten that Antinomian Position, Of God seeing no sin in his people, upon the Doctrine of Imputed righteousness. This Viper can no more cleave to that, then to the Doctrine of Satisfaction by the death of Christ, as is more largely to be shewed.  
In the second place, Though life and death be contraries in a natural consideration, yet the life and death understood in the controversy, are made contraries onely by Gods appointment, and so they are opposite by an external appointment; for the life we speak of is that heavenly and glorious life which God of his goodness will bestow on those that are his, and therefore cannot follow by natural resultancy upon the death removed, that God hath threatened; for though God in Mercy would not damn a man, yet it doth not necessary follow, That therefore he must give him such a life, as that glorious being in Heaven; for either he might have destroyed him, or if he had perpetuated his life, it might have been, as some Divines say, Adam would have been partaker of, had he continued in Obedience, ( viz.) an happy blessed life here on earth: So that though our life and our death, which are natural, be immediate contraries, yet the eternal death and eternal life are so from the appointment of God only, and then no wonder, seeing they are two distinct benefits, if they be produced by two distinct causes.  
To these things we may add that instance of Adam, which the learned mention; for Adam, though he was not indeed created in a middle neutral estate, but after the Image of God in Holinesse, yet though free from the guilt of sin, he had not a right to eternal life, for that was upon his perfect and persevering Obedience: So that in him we have a clear proof, That a man may be without the guilt of sin, he was not in a state of wrath, and yet he was not entitled to Heaven, and eternal Glory. And this is acknowledged in effect by the Adversary, who saith, That eternal Glory cometh not by Justification, but Adoption, then all their own Arguments will be retorted upon themselves; for by Remission of sin a man is delivered from all evil, and yet this is not enough to make him happy without Adoption: They may as well say, All Adoption lieth in Remission of sin, as well as all Justification. But howsoever they deny this eternal life to be by Justification, yet the Apostle doth expressly attribute it to this privilege, Rom. 5.18. where it is called Justification to life: So that as condemnation doth include eternal death, thus Justification must eternal life.  
I shall conclude this with Admonition, to desire the sense and feeling of this Justification in ourselves, as well as the distinct knowledge of it. What if thou art able to confute all Adversaries, and to free the Truth from all accusation? Thou canst justify this Justification, and yet are not justified thyself: But if thou art made partaker of it, then do thou with all thankfulness and joy break out into the praises of that great God, who hath thus justified thee.    

SECT. V. Of the Imputation of the righteousness of Christ both Passive and Active.  

SERM. XXIX. That a Believers Righteousness is Imputed. Divers Propositions about Imputation of Good and Evil, and of Christs Righteousness in particular.  ROM. 4.11. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the Faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised— that righteousness might be imputed to them also. 
THe Apostle having fully demonstrated, how we are to be justified, he now proceeds to show who they are that are thus justified; he passeth from the Manner to the Subject; for whereas it might be objected, That this instance of Abraham might not at all belong to the Gentiles, because he was circumcsed; in this verse he sheweth, That Abraham received the sign of this righteousness of faith, while he was uncircumcised, and therefore circumcision and uncircumcision did not vary this matter.  
In the words then we have Circumcision described:  
1. From the general nature of it, A sign and seal.  
2. From the signified grace, The righteousness of faith.  
3. From the subject, Abraham received it.  
4. From the exemplarity of this, this did not belong to Abraham alone, but to believers, both circumcised and uncircumcised, That righteousness might be imputed to them also.  
Though learned men do much discuss the former part, founding the true Nature and Definition of Sacraments thereupon, yet my purpose is onely to insist on the last clause, ( viz.) That righteousness may be imputed to them also.  
Wonder not, if for the demonstration of the Nature of Justification, most of my Texts are taken out of this Epistle to the Romans, for here is the proper seat of that Doctrine; and therefore Melancthon was wont to call the Epistle to the Romans, The Confession of the Reformed Churches. Now this fourth Chapter doth expressly speak of an imputed righteousness, its no where so evidently and purposedly treated on, as in this place; for the Apostle doth at least eight times mention this phrase of imputing or accounting righteousness: what is implied in this phrase, shall be opened in handling the Doctrine, which is,  
That the righteousness the believer hath is imputed. It is an accounted or reckoned righteousness to him, it is not that which he hath inherently in himself, but God through Christ doth esteem of him as if he had it, and so deals with him as wholly righteous. This is a Passive righteousness, not an Active righteousness; a righteousness we receive, not that we do. To understand this, consider many Propositions.  
First, That this Doctrine of imputed righteousness is by all erroneous persons judged to be like the abomination of desolation, Howsoever heretical persons contradict one another in other thing, yet against this they are unanimously conspiring. Its well enough known what reproaches and mocks are put upon it by the Popish party, calling it the putative and chimerical righteousness. The Socinians they abominate it. The Castellians flout at it, saying, they have an imputed learning, and imputed modesty, that hold imputed righteousness. The Arminians, though they grant faith to be accounted for righteousness, yet to say, Christs righteousness to be imputed to us, they think to be an Idol of the Protestants brain, and say, Its no where expressed in Scripture. But no wonder that the egyptians( as I may so say) should rise up against it, when the Israelites fight against one another concerning it; of which more in its time. Let this satisfy us, That the Scripture doth thus often mention an imputed righteousness, and therefore should not be matter of reproach, but worthy of all acceptation; and certainly, seeing none of us have such an inherent righteousness within ourselves, as is able to endure before so perfect and holy a God; We ought greatly to rejoice in the goodness and mercy of God, who hath provided such glorious robes for us, that when we were wholly naked and undone, yet hath procured a righteousness for us, that neither men or Angels could bring about.  
Secondly, Consider that the word answering this imputing, is in the Hebrew Chashab, and in the Greek {αβγδ}, of which the sum,( as the learned say comes to this,) That though the words in the general signify to think, to reason, to imagine, &c. yet very frequently it is used to account or reckon by way of computation, as Arithmeticians use to do; so that it is, as it were, a judgement past upon a thing, when all Reasons or Arguments are cast together. And from this its applied to signify any kind of accounting or reckoning; and in this sense, imputation is taken here for Gods esteeming and accounting of us righteous. Therefore when the Osiandrists make imputare, to be as much as the insition or putting of righteousness into us, as amputare is to cut off; or the Papists to make it an infusion of holy qualities, they go as far from the sense of the word, as the East is from the West.  
Thirdly, Although some learned men are very prolix and large in distributing of this imputation, and making several kindes of it, yet that which is most proper and fit to our controversy in hand, is, That to impute, is to account or reckon to a man such a thing, or cause of it, which he hath not, or hath, whether it be good or evil. Imputation doth not always imply an absence, or a want of the thing, as Arminians would have it; nor is it always of that which is good and blessed, it may be of that which is evil, and to be punished, sins are imputed as well as righteousness.  
Now a sin or the evil of it, 
sin may be imputed two ways.  may be imputed two ways:  
1. Justly and righteously, when any man hath indeed committed such a sin that is imputed to him; Cains murder of Abel was imputed to him, and thus every man, till God pardon his sin, it is imputed to him, Psal. 32. All impenitent sinners have their sins imputed to them, though others, or they themselves will not reckon themselves sinners, yet God will; and this imputation of sin after a just manner may be, when a man though he hath not expressly sinned such a sin, yet by interpretation, or some other equivalent respect, he is said to do it. To this purpose may be brought that place discussed so much by Interpreters, Levit. 17.4. where the word saith, That if a man kill any Ox or Lamb for an offering, and doth not bring it to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, blood shall be imputed to that man, he hath  shed blood; That is, say some Expositors, That if a man do not keep to Gods order and command in the Sacrifices and worship he appointed, it is as heinous a sin, as if he had committed murder, as if he had killed a man; and this imputation by way of equivalency, is often amongst men.  
In the second place, There is an imputation of evil, or the cause of it unjustly, when that is accounted upon a mans score, which yet he is not guilty of. Thus David said, They laid to his charge things he never did; and thus evil Judges when they condemn the innocent, as Pilate did Christ, and the Jews charging him with such crimes that he was not guilty of, did impute sin unjustly.  
In the second place, There is an imputing or accounting a good thing unto a man,  
1. Justly and righteously, as when the Apostle saith, Rom. 4. To him that worketh, his reward is reckoned of debt. Thus if there were any perfect fulfillers of the Law, eternal glory would be reckoned unto them, as the just reward of their labours.  
2. There is an imputation of good unjustly and unrighteously, and that is, when an ungodly Judge shall acquit a guilty person against Law, or as when the Israelites did impute all the plenty and abundance they had to their Idolatry, because they did worship the Queen of heaven.  
3. There is an imputation by grace, which is, when righteousness and reward is accounted to an offender, not of debt, but of grace, yet having just and weighty causes for such an absolution and Justification. And this is the proper way of our Gospel-imputation. He that is ungodly( as the Apostle speaketh) Rom. 4. is justified, God doth account him as righteous, though a sinner in himself, not of debt; for, How can he that deserveth to be damned, deserve to be saved, but of mere grace? yet that this grace might have a free passage, and not impeach his justice and holinesse, Christ became an atonement for us, and made himself an expiation for our sins, and hereby God might appear both merciful and just. This is the righteousness imputed, that a believer is wholly to rest upon.  
Fourthly, The Scripture speaketh but of a two-fold imputation, in reference to our matter in hand, an imputation of debt, and an imputation according to grace. This distinction you have Rom. 4.4. To him that worketh the reward is accounted of debt. Though some may think that imputation is here taken improperly, yet that is upon a false supposition, as if imputation did always suppose some indebitum where it was: but that is not so, 2 Tim. 4.16. Paul there prayeth concerning such who forsook him, {αβγδ}, that it be not laid to their charge, that it be not imputed to them. 2. The Apostle mentioneth an imputation of grace, and that is most remarkably seen in the Gospel, our sins being imputed to Christ, and his righteousness to us, God doth not absolutely and simply of mere grace pronounce us righteous, but Christ is become our Surety, and so as in the first Adam we are made sinners; thus in the second Adam we are made righteous; This is the wonderful grace of God, herein were the manifold riches of his wisdom seen, that when we were neither able to satisfy the penalty of the Law, or to bring a conformity to it, Christ interposeth, and is become both redemption and righteousness for us.  
Fifthly, Hence in this Imputation of Christs righteousness unto us, There are these things observable, 
In the Imputation of Christs righteousness these things are observable.   
1. That there is no foundation or cause within us of this Imputation; when God doth account or reckon us as righteous, then he finds not any thing in us, neither is it because of any foundation we have laid, it is wholly from without us, even from Christ; 
Nothing in us wherefore God should account us righteous.  and this should teach us in that great and noble privilege of Justification, to fix our eyes and meditations more without us; What is the reason that every believer is not with the Church in the Canticles ravished with Christ, accounting him as the chiefest of ten thousand, always languishing and breaking in desires after him? Even because we dwell in ourselves, we rest in ourselves, we would have a bottom, whereupon to stand and not be beholding to Christ only: When an earthly Judge shall justify a man, he must have a foundation in the man, else he is an abomination to the Lord: but God, though he doth not justify without a righteousness, yet the foundation thereof is not laid by ourselves, but it is Christ that beareth up all.  
2. It is so far, that there should be any foundation sought for in us, that there is the clean contrary. When God justifieth he might justly condemn, if we regard what is to be found in us, which makes the Apostle call Rom. 4. the subject justified an ungodly man, viz. one that is not absolutely and perfectly righteous: Insomuch that we may justly stand and admire the wisdom of God, who hath taken such a way to justify us, as to keep us in a perpetual fear and trembling: for while looking into ourselves, we see nothing but matter of death and condemnation, God at the same time giveth immortality and glory. This is the reason why the Scripture so often calls it the grace of God, because it is bestowed upon such who are unworthy, and that have nothing in themselves, but the desert of hell, and eternal vengeance.  
3. Hence it is that this Imputation lieth in a relative respect of Gods knowledge and will to us. For seeing that Christ by compact and agreement with the Father, undertook our debt, and promised to expiate sin, and bring about an eternal righteousness, when Christ had fully discharged this undertaking, and nothing more was to be laid to our charge, then doth God the Father judge as, and account us to be righteous; and indeed herein lieth the infinite comfort and consolation of a Christian, that it is God himself who imputeth this righteousness, therefore what he accounteth to be must be, and shall stand, Its God that justifieth, and no condemnation can stand against his counsel.  
4. Though this Imputation be thus relative in Gods purpose towards us, yet it is real, it hath a most sure and solid being. For that is the daily cavilling of the Adversary, as if we made some Idea and mere figment, an Ens that did neither subsist in God, or Christ, or in ourselves. But though it be in Gods mind and will with a relative respect to us, yet it is real and substantial, it is not a mere notion or fancy: for, as you heard, the foundation of it is real, the obedience of Christ; and can there be a surer Rock then this? So the cause of it is real, Gods will and Covenant to accept of what Christ did, as if we ourselves had done it. Its not then fictio Juris, or a mere imagination, but there is a real payment, and a full discharge, which is abundantly able to make us righteous; and although some Divines do divide Imputation into real and rational, making the Gospel-imputation to be a rational or mental Imputation, that is not to be understood, as if hereby they made it a mere fancy or fiction, only we are not really righteous to be justified in ourselves, but its a translation, as it were of Christs righteousness to us, by Gods will and appointment. Let not the believer then, while he would satisfy his soul with this imputed righteousness, be afraid this is onely some pleasing dream, or an human fiction; but let him look upon it as that which stands upon a sure foundation, as the heavens and earth do. For what is it that keeps thee from falling into nothing but Gods Will and Power? And is not the same Will of God far more interested in this imputed righteousness? Fear not then that this beam will break under thy arms: All the believers that ever have or shall be, may lean on this, and not sink under them: Its real, sure and solid, though it be imputed, which doth also appear in the real and lively effects thereof, it brings peace, joy and everlasting consolation to such as partake of it; It makes them glory in tribulations, and triumph over all adversities.  
Sixthly, In this Imputation we are to consider the thing itself, the cause and the effect, for all these are accounted to us. The thing itself is righteousness, what is more necessary then this to a sinner? For if you do respect God, he is holy and righteous, aod loves onely righteousness: if you do regard the Law of God, that commands only righteousness, both in the root and branches; if heaven and glory, that is onely provided for righteous persons. Oh then! What can a poor sinner do without righteousness? This then should rejoice the humbled sinner, that in that very thing he is so much afraid and troubled, God hath provided a remedy. A righteousness thou dost want more then food, raiment, or any earthly comfort in the world, and therefore behold the marvelous kindness of God, who hath thus provided one for thee. 2. There is the cause of this righteousness, and that is Christs obedience, for its no contradiction, That Christs obedience should be both the meritorious cause of our Justification, and our material righteousness likewise, or that matter, which imputed to us, makes us righteous: God then looketh upon us, as if we had done and suffered all that Christ did; and although it seem very harsh to some, to say, That God looketh upon Christs fulfilling the Law, as if we had fulfilled it, and as if we had done complete obedience unto it, yet there is no just reason to be offended at this, no more then to say, That God looked upon us in Christ satisfying his justice, as if we had done it, or thus to say, Christ is our Surety, Christ is the second Adam. And then lastly, The effect of this righteousness is accounted to us, and that is, we have now a right to eternal life, we now have boldness unto the throne of grace, we have liberty to come before God, there is nothing to be objected against us, we may not fear any arrests or accusations: Oh what tongue of men or Angels is able to express the happiness of this man, who hath imputed righteousness! By this imputation they are what Christ their Surety is, God looks upon them as having Christs loveliness and perfumes upon them. This is true, and no Antinomian Positions can be inferred from hence.  
Seventhly, In this Imputation of righteousness, because it is necessary conceived to make a relative change, it hath a term from which and to which; or as some learned men express it, there are two manners of this Imputation, whereof the one is called Negative, the other Positive. The Negative Imputation, is, the not imputing of sin, sin is not charged upon us. The Positive is an affirming or reckoning of righteousness. Thus some would make it the same motion, distinguished only from the several terms it relateth unto. But as we have shewed before, there is no inconvenience, yea a necessity to make remission of sin and imputation of righteousness two distinct things.  
Eighthly, If in this Imputation of righteousness there seem many things absurd to carnal reason, its not therefore to be rejected, as not being the truth of God. The Doctrine of the Trinity, or the Resurrection of the dead, Is it not very incredible to flesh and blood? Yea doth not the Socinian cry down an imputed Satisfaction with as much confidence as these can an imputed righteousness in the sense explained? And therefore the Socinians do equally reject both: Was it ever heard, say they, that another mans innocency or obedience should be accounted unto a man as his own? They will grant that in civil things, another mans money may be accounted as mine, but that another mans obedience should be judged mine, this they abhor. But as the Lord Christ is called Wonderful, Isa. 9. so is every thing in him, and that comes from him, wonderful: his natures are wonderful, his offices, and the effects thereof are exceeding wonderful. Therefore, though the Socinians call it absurdum, impium, intolerabil●, yea as that which doth contain a manner of our Salvation abhorring from the holy Scripture, and all human sense, yet be not staggered at it, for the whole way of our redemption is carried on in a mysterious way. Indeed we are not to make mysteries and wonders, where the Scripture doth not assert them, but when it doth, there we are firmly to adhere to them.  
Ninthly, This Imputation of Christs merits and obedience, is so necessary, that( except the Socinians) it is acknowledged by all in one sense or other. Bellarmine and Becanus, with the other Papists grant, There is in some sense an imputation of Christs righteousness to us; so do the Arminians, yea most of those who deny the active obedience of Christ imputed to us. But this certain sense they allow it in, doth not arise to the full dignity and worth that is to be attributed unto Christ in this particular; for its but a remote or virtual imputation, not a proxime and formal one. They explain themselves thus, That Christs merits are so made ours, that by them we receive grace and power to merit. Thus the Papist. Therefore they grant an application, communication and imputation of what Christ did unto us in this remote sense. So the Arminians with their consociates, They grant an union and communion with Christ, They grant, what Christ did may be applied and imputed to us, but in this sense, that is, for our benefit, for our good; so that through his death either faith should be accounted of as a full righteousness, or else all righteousness be contained in remission of sin. But that his righteousness should be imputed to us, so as to be made ours, and that in his obedience we are to stand perfect before God: This is a Camel to them that they cannot swallow. But when the Apostle, 2 Cor. 15.21. as also Rom. 5.19, &c. makes a comparison between our sins laid on him, and his righteousness made ours, as also a resemblance between the first Adam and the second Adam; this cannot but prove more then a remote or virtual imputation.  
Tenthly, When we say, Christs righteousness is imputed unto us, This is not so to be understood, as if it were made so formally ours, that thereby we could be said to be as righteous as Christ, and be infinitely perfect as he was; Therefore learned writers do willingly abstain from the word formal, or to say, Christs righteousness is our formal righteousness; for although in some sense it may be made good, yet because the expression is obnoxious to much calumny, many do not willingly use it, but rather call this righteousness of Christ made ours, the material cause of our Justification: So that when we say, Christs righteousness is made ours, that is, Its the matter whereby we stand justified in the sight of God. And therefore  
Eleventhly, Christs righteousness is not properly the form of our Justification, but Gods imputation of it. For seeing that Justification is an act of God, it must be something without us that is the form of it, and that is both remission of sin and imputation of righteousness. Its true, many there are both on the right and left hand that rise up against this truth, but what strength they bring will be considered in their Objections.  
Let us from these premises with all thankfulness admire the grace of God, who hath not left us without a righteousness, and that a more noble and worthy one then ever we lost. It is much if our hearts do not always burn like fire in the meditation of it: But it is because we are carnal, sold under sin, not knowing how ill and dreadful our estate is: till therefore that good hour come, wherein God will make known unto us, that dunghill and hell which is within us, we can never esteem this imputed righteousness: Oh pray for that Spirit which shall convince of sin and righteousness also!   

SERM. XXX. The Doctrine of the Imputation of righteousness demonstrated; With Answers to the Objections against it.  ROM. 4.11. That righteousness might be Imputed to them also. 
WE have laid down several Propositions to clear this Doctrine about imputed righteousness; Let us now consider what Arguments may be brought to establish it. And  
First, This present Chapter will evidently confirm it, where Imputation of righteousness is so often mentioned, The Scripture calls it several times an accounted or imputed righteousness: Now if it be an imputed righteousness, it must be either our own or anothers. It cannot be our own for these Reasons.  
1. Because its a righteousness imputed without works; if then it were our own righteousness, it must be by works; but we are passive in our Justification, not active; we are not to look into ourselves, but on Christ without us.  
2. It cannot be our own righteousness imputed, because this is made to be of the like nature with remission of sins. Now its plain, That remission of sin is not any work of ours, but a gracious favour and act of Gods.  
3. It cannot be our righteousness that is imputed, because the subject who is here said to be justified, is called an ungodly man, one that hath not such a perfect and complete righteousness that the Law requireth; if then a man hath it not of his own, it must be anothers that is accounted to him.  
4. It cannot be our righteousness that is imputed, for then it would be an imputation of debt, and not of grace. Thus the Apostle argueth Rom. 4.4. To him that worketh the reward is accounted of debt, not of grace. For although to work be of grace in a sanctified person, yet so far it is of debt, as it is a work done by us. But the Apostle in this point doth attribute all to grace, giving it the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and end of all. If therefore it be not ours that is imputed, whose can it be but Christs? and that it is Christs appeareth by Chap. 5.19. By one mans obedience shall many be made righteous; and at the 24th verse in this Chapter, It shall be imputed to us also, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. Thus this Chapter seemeth to give clear light in this Point. As for those who would make the very work of believing the {αβγδ} credere, to be the imputed righteousness; that hath been sufficiently confuted already. Onely let us hear what may probably be replied. Socinus considers the word {αβγδ}, and saith, the word is either used simpliciter and absolutely in itself, or relatively; if simply in itself, then it signifieth no more then to have an account or regard of a thing, as when God is said not to impute sin, that is, not to take notice of it, not to put it in his account to punish it. And it is readily granted, that the Hebrew word doth sometimes signify thus, as Psal. 8.4. What is man that thou art thus mindful of him? There is the same Hebrew word.  
But in the next place, it may be understood relatively, where the Proposition {αβγδ} in or ad is understood, and then he saith it is not to be translated imputata, but reputata. But this is a mere logomachy, for we take to repute and impute all one in this sense, although indeed when it signifieth to repute or account strictly taken, its put absolutely, as Rom. 6.11. Account yourselves dead to sin, 1 Cor. 4.1. Let a man account or judge of us, as the Ministers of the Gospel. Sanderus the jesuit( Lib. de Justif. pag. 50.) refuseth this translation of the word, because the Apostle when he would use a word to signify impute, he useth a compound word, not a simplo one, as Philem. vers. 18. If he have wronged thee, put that on mine account, {αβγδ}. Thus Romans 5.13. sin {αβγδ}, is not imputed without the Law; but this observation is not universal, for the simplo word is used, where imputation must necessary be understood, as Mark 15.28. He was accounted amongst transgressors, What is that? But sin was imputed to him. Rom. 2.26. His uncircumcision shall be accounted to Circumcision. There is the simplo word {αβγδ}.  
But its further objected, That though righteousness be said to be imputed, yet not Christs righteousness, Proferant vel unum locum, &c. Let them bring but one place, say Bellar. Socinus, where Christs righteousness is said to be imputed.  
To that we answer, That its necessary implied, for righteousness is said to be imputed, and that cannot be our own, as the context hath cleared; and besides, Its Christs obedience by which we are made righteous, yea we are made the righteousness of God in him. And therefore it cannot be any other righteousness but that; and whereas its said, it would be a kind of blasphemy to say, Christs righteousness is imputed to us for righteousness, as if that were not of itself perfect and complete, but needed a gracious imputation or acceptation: This ariseth from a mistake; for we say not, That Christs righteousness is imputed to be a righteousness, as if that of itself were not so, onely there needed some gracious condescension on Gods part to accept of it for us. But we say, its imputed to us for righteousness, that whereas we needed a righteousness, and had none of our own; what Christ did, is as if we had done it in our own persons.  
A second Argument shall be drawn from that notable collation the Apostle makes with Christ the second Adam, and the first Adam, Rom. 5.12, 17, 18. where the Apostle doth thus argue, That as all men are made sinners by Adams sin, so all believers are made righteous by Christs obedience. Now how is Adams sin made ours? Is it not by imputation? Indeed by his sin we come also to have inherent corruption, and this is propagated to every one; and this is called originale peccatum originatum, but then Adams actual sin is ours by imputation, and this is called originale peccatum originans, therefore at vers. 12. its said, In whom we have sinned, or if we translate it, In as much as we have sinned, it comes all to one; Adams sin must needs be ours by imputation; for what reason can be given, why the sins of all Parents are not made their childrens, as well as Adams is made ours? but because of the Covenant made with Adam, and so all mankind in him. Indeed Bellarmine bringeth this Argument against the Orthodox, and he frameth it thus, As through Adam all are made sinners inherently through corruption dwelling in them; so through Christ all are made righteous inherently by an inward renovation of the mind. Now all this may be granted, as part of truth, but the Apostles comparison is to be extended further; Neither doth he so much intend the sin that is in us, as that we were guilty of in Adams disobedience: So that here we see the Apostle mentioning two common persons or representatives, and what they do is to be attributed to all that are contained in them. Thus as Adams imputed sin is the cause of all our inherent corruption; so Christs imputed righteousness is the fountain of all our inward happiness.  
Thirdly, Christs righteousness is made ours, as our sins were made his, and that is onely by imputation. This Argument seemeth to be built on a Rock, even that Text 2 Cor. 5. ult. He was made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him; He was made sin for us; How is that but by imputation? For he was reckoned amongst transgressors, and God laid upon him the iniquity of us all. So that although in himself there was not found any guile, and he was the unspotted Lamb of God, yet as he was our Surety, and bore our sins, so our iniquities were imputed to him, and he bore the wrath of God, because of them.  
If it be said, That by sin is meant a Sacrifice for sin, according to the usual phrase of the Scripture.  
It is answered, first, There is no necessity of taking it in that sense, yea the context seemeth to incline another way, for in the same verse is added, He who knew no sin, he became sin; Now sin in the former place is taken properly, so that the expression would lose its grace; if in the later place it be not also taken properly. Again, sin is opposed to righteousness in the Text, he became sin that we might become righteousness; But sin as it is sin, not as a Sacrifice doth in its proper nature oppose righteousness; Neither doth it at all tend to Christs dishonour to expound it so, seeing the Prophet of old said, God had laid our iniquities upon him, which must necessary be understood of sins as sins; and indeed the more Christ was humbled, debased, and this argued his greater love, and did the more exalt his Mediatorship.  
In the second place, Grant that( sin) be taken for the Sacrifice for sin, yet still the Argument stands valid, For he could not be made a Sacrifice for sin, if sin were not imputed to him. When the Sacrifice of the Old Testament was offered, the laying on of hands upon it, did signify the translation of the sins of the person offering, upon the beast to be sacrificed; and thus it was with Christ, who was typified by those Sacrifices, as the Apostle sheweth at large. Therefore though it be granted, that the sense of this place is, Christ was made a Sacrifice for sin, yet this doth not exclude, but necessary include, that our sins were imputed to him; and indeed, How could it come about, that Christ should be thus bruised and wounded, that he should die such an ignominious death? but because sin was laid to his charge, for death is the wages of sin; seeing therefore he had none of his own, they must be ours; not that therefore Christ was to be denominated a sinner, because he took them upon him, to bear them away.  
Fourthly, Christs righteousness is made ours, because in him only we are accepted. Notably to this doth the Apostle speak, Ephes. 1.6. Wherein he hath made us accepted in his beloved, {αβγδ}; So that it is neither our persons, or our duties absolutely as so, can have any acceptance any further then God looketh upon them through Christ; He is the Altar that sanctifieth all, Revel. 8.3. This is the Incense upon the golden Altar, which was to be added to the prayers of all the Saints. Its therefore very much derogatory to the glorious fullness of Christ, to think that he hath only merited and purchased grace for us, in which, and by which we are to stand justified. No, the very satisfaction and obedience of Christ, must be made ours; We must be looked upon, as if we had done it in our persons. A believer and Christ is to be considered as one mystical person, when God looketh upon us and Christ, as two in this sense, then woe be unto us. All the grace and favour we have is in the beloved.  
Fifthly, The righteousness we have to be justified by, is often called the righteousness of God; Therefore that cannot be any other ways in us, but by imputation. Its often called the righteousness of God, Rom. 1.17. Rom. 10.3. 2 Cor. 5.21. Phil. 3.6. Here we are to have the righteousness of God, and it is opposed to our own righteousness; yea we are said to be made this righteousness of God. Its true, in what sense it is called the righteousness of God, may be controverted, and it is agreed upon by all hands( except Osiander, who had few followers, and his opinion lasted but two years, though Andreas Osiander doth labour to excuse him, and saith, the Orthodox kept communion with him, as if his errors were more in his words, then in his mind) that it is not the essential righteousness of God, whereby he is just in himself. Neither is it the righteousness of God in a causal sense merely, because God is the author of it, for our inherent righteousness is wrought by God, yet it cannot be called the righteousness of God in this sense, because its said to be revealed from him, and we are said to be the righteousness of God in Christ, therefore not in ourselves: its always opposed to the righteousness of the Law, which righteousness is of God in this sense, that he was the author of it in Adam, and doth still begin it in believers, and will consummate it in heaven; therefore its called the righteousness of God, partly, because it is that, which he doth approve of, which can endure his sight; for whereas the Scripture saith, In Gods sight no man can be justified; implying thereby, that before man they may; Therefore this righteousness of God is such as may be brought before his severe Tribunal, such as God himself cannot refuse as imperfect and insufficient: But especially its called the righteousness of God, because it was the righteousness of him who was God as well as man; and therefore 1 Cor. 1. he is said to be made of God righteousness, &c. Neither can this Text be so slightly passed over, as some would; That as Christ is said to be wisdom, because he is the author of it, so of righteousness, because he works inherent righteousness in us, for this is comprehended in that expression, when Christ is said to be made sanctification to us; Therefore righteousness is here taken for another thing then inward holinesse, and if so, it can be no otherwise then thus, Christ is made to us righteousness, because in and through him we are accounted righteous. Now this is so clear, that in the point of Satisfaction, all our adversaries( except Socinians agree) for there we are righteous as to the Law of God, not in ourselves, for we were not able to discharge the penalty, but in another, who was Christ our Surety. The righteousness then of God is in the same sense used, as the blood of God, viz. the righteousness of him who was God and man, and so becoming our full and complete mediator, brought such a righteousness as was not in the world before: for Adams righteousness and the Angels righteousness, cannot be called the righteousness of God, as Christs is: if then it be the righteousness of God, it cannot be ours by infusion or acquisition.  
Sixthly and lastly, Our righteousness must be imputed by which we are justified, because that which is inherent in us, is imperfect, subject to much dross and pollution, and therefore doth provoke and offend God, if strictly and severely examined. It is true, we have an inward righteousness which may be called so truly and properly, yea in some sense perfect, but never so perfect as to be the matter of our Justification, to be that which we may rest upon before God; if therefore our own inherent will not serve, an imputed one must be assigned.  
But I shall no longer be on the affirmative part, because in the Discourse of Christs active obedience many of these things must be reassumed: I shall therefore proceed to answer such Objections as are brought against imputed righteousness, and its good to take notice of this, That the Socinians they oppose all imputed righteousness, whether it be by Satisfaction or Obedience to the Law; so that this use we may make of it, That there is not scarce any one Argument brought by authors against the imputed active obedience of Christ, but the same is urged against the imputed passive obedience of Christ; and when we come to that subject, shall give you the parallesme of the Arguments which are against imputed passive, and imputed active obedience.  
For the present, That which is from Scripture most opposed against this truth, is, those several places of Scripture( and they are almost innumerable, that I need not mention them) wherein believers are called righteous, and God is said to approve of them, and to give them eternal glory in reference to their righteousness, all which looketh as if God did regard inherency and not imputation.  
But to such places as these are, there is a free and ready concession, That all justified persons are renewed, are made righteous, walk in the ways of righteousness, give up themselves as servants to righteousness, and that God makes glorious promises both of this life, and the life to come to that godliness and righteousness which they abound in: But what then? Is it therefore the matter for which they stand justified before God? Doth this righteousness answer the Law of God. Thus both Scripture and experience is against it. Consider Job excellently clearing this, Job 9.2, 3. How should man be just before God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand; and truly for a man to think otherwise, or to bear up himself against God, is called hardening, and such an one shall not prosper: And ver. 15. Though I were righteous( i.e. though I know nothing by myself) yet I would not answer, but make supplication, and the reason of this is laid down v. 20, 21.  
For reasons which they bring, they are like the apple of Sodom, they have a specious colour, but when touched are nothing but dust. And truly it may be great grief of heart, that whereas formerly imputed righteousness was oppugned only by the professed Adversaries of the Reformed Churches; Now from our own selves arise men that with great frowardness oppose it. What uncivil passion doth a late Writer show against this Doctrine of imputed righteousness? calling it to him an unintelligible notion, empty and truthless words and fancies( Justification Justified, pag. 20.) Surely its very uncharitable to make such a number of learned men, pillars in the Church, in all their books to have written, empty and truthless words, and to have delivered unintelligible fancies. But let us see where his strength lieth. And  
1. If the righteousness of Christ be made formally ours, then we are as perfect as Christ, need no more faith or repentance then Christ. To this effect also the great Papists, Bellarmine and others, especially Sanders, is large upon this, that then we should be made equal with Christ. But doth not the weakest and most distempered eye see the feebleness of this consequence? For the righteousness of Christ is not received by us, as if it were subjectively inherent in us, as if there were such a communication of Christs righteousness to us, as the Lutherans say, There is of the divine Attributes to the human nature, to make it infinite, omniscient, &c. but it is imputed to us, so far as we needed it. Its not made ours in the infinity of it, or the extension of it, but according to our necessity; so that we cannot be said to be as righteous as Christ, as perfect as Christ, for we are but the Subjects receiving of his fullness, he is the Agent that communicates of this his fullness to us; Shall we say, the Stars are as glorious as the sun, and have as much light as the sun, because every star shineth with a borrowed light from the sun? But because the Antinomian doth affirm this as a truth naturally deducted from the Doctrine of imputed righteousness; and because the Adversaries also fasten this upon the Orthodox, as an unavoidable consequence, I shall answer it more largely when we come to assert Christs active obedience imputed to us.  
2. Its objected, If Christs righteousness be formally made ours, this would make Gods judgement to be otherwise then according to truth. For( say they) by imputed righteousness we should be pronounced just, and accounted as righteous, when yet we are in ourselves imperfect; and that God should at the same time look upon us, and account us to be both perfect and imperfect, is that which is exceedingly wondered at.  
But( not to say any thing of being made formally righteous by Christs righteousness, which is acknowledged an expression subject to misconstruction) will not this overthrow the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction also? For how can we at the same time be looked upon by God, as having the debt paid in our Surety, and yet in ourselves guilty? How at the same time doth God blot out our sins, and yet sin remaineth in us?  
2. If it be impossible to be accounted imperfect in Sanctification, and yet perfect in Justification, then one of these absurdities must necessary be maintained, either that our Justification is imperfect, and if so, then we can have but imperfect peace and joy, seeing our pardon and righteousness is imperfect, or else our sanctification is perfect, which yet is expressly denied by that Author of the Sermon, pag. 17. Its therefore necessary that God should look upon our sanctification as imperfect, though our Justification be perfect.  
3. Gods judgement is according to righteousness and truth, we be pronounced righteous in Christ, though sinners in ourselves, for there is a righteousness whereby we are made righteous, and this righteousness is by God made ours, we being in the number of those whom Christ undertook to be made a Surety for; So that we are not to account this imputation a mere bare thought in God without any foundation of truth, for as truly and as really as Christ died, and rose again; so real are the benefits which a believer partaketh of by him. Therefore imputation is grounded upon the sure performance of that which Christ undertook for us, and if a tittle of the Law shall not fall to the ground, much less shall any of those benefits he hath purchased. Now there cannot be imagined any way how Christs benefits should be derived to us, but by imputation.  
3. Castellio objects, That this imputed righteousness, or the Doctrine of it is very pleasing to flesh and blood; Every one will in a carnal manner be glad of this, for hereby we shall not be troubled about our own righteousness, we will not much matter how or what we do, because Christ hath done all for us. But this is as th● Papists object against justifying faith, they say, This Doctrine is a ground of all carnal security and presumption, let a man live as he list its but believing, and then he shall be saved.  
Now to all this we answer truly, That the way of faith and imputed righteousness is most contrary to flesh and blood, we see Rom. 10.3. t'has the Jews would not submit to the righteousness of God, but went about to establish their own righteousness, and they spake the natural inclination of all, who said, What shall we do that we might be saved? It was long ere Paul could renounce all the things that were gain to him, and prise the righteousness of Christ onely. Its not then a doctrine pleasing to flesh and blood, but altogether contrary, for it driveth a man into a self-judging, a self-abhorrency, a self-renunciation, and makes Christ to be all in all. By Pharisaical and Popish doctrines we see, that it s more pleasing to flesh and blood to set upon some extraordinary works, and to make them the matter of our righteousness before God. What else is considerable in this Doctrine of imputed righteousness, will be more largely handled hereafter.   

SERM. XXXI. Of the Sufferings of Christ, both in body and soul, as imputed to us for our Righteousness.  ISA. 53.5. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. 
THis Evangelical Prophet doth in this Chapter not so much foretell a prophesy, as punctually describe an history of Christs sufferings. As for the Jews interpretation of this concerning the people of Israel, or Grotius his application of it to Jeremiah, though more sublimely, to Christ, they are with neglect to be passed by: for Mat. 8. 1 Pet. 2. Act. 8.32. do evidently demonstrate this Chapter to be wholly a clear prophesy or rather History of Christ; in so much that our Prophet is like the morning star dispelling the dark shadows of Moses, and showing Christ, the rising Sun.  
In the words you may consider, 1. The corrective or adversative particle, But: this is spoken in opposition to those thoughts which the Jews had concerning Christ, for they judged him to be so smitten of God, and put to death in that extraordinary shameful manner, because God hated him, as if he had been some egregious impostor, and transcendent wicked man: Now saith the Prophet, But it was not so, whatsoever men thought, he was thus wounded for our sins and iniquities. So that in the words we may consider what is derived from us to Christ, and from Christ to us, or the malum ablatum and the bonum collatum. In the evil removed, we may consider the person suffering, the manner how, and the impulsive cause: The person is Christ, as abundantly appears by the foresaid allegations, who was God and man, and so onely could procure our redemption for us. The manner of suffering is expressed in those words, he was wounded, and he was bruised. This signifieth his death to be most sharp and bitter, wherein all his bones were as it were to be contunded into dust. 2. The impulsive cause is said to be for our transgressions. The Hebrew word signifieth the proud and rebellious transgressions of Gods commands: and for our iniquities, that signifieth all sin, any thing that is a perverse declination from the right way. Its not worth the while to confute the Socinian cavil, that would not have the preposition Min, to signify a cause, but a remote occasion. In the good bestowed or procured, there we may consider, the mercy or benefit itself, our peace; that is either generally all good and happiness, as commonly the word signifieth, or particularly peace with God, and in our own conscience. 2. The cause of this, the chastisement was upon him: The word signifieth correction or discipline, it comes from a word that signifieth to learn, but because the dull scholar needeth correction, therefore its applied to chastisements; and here in reference to Christ, it signifieth all that misery and calamity he underwent for our sakes. It followeth, with his stripes we are healed: This is to be understood spiritually, in respect of our guilt, so that the very reading of this text should kindle the fire of love in our hearts to Christ, for bow dear did it cost him to bring about peace for us; our sins wounded him, our sins buffeted him, our sins crucified him: That as Naturalists speak of a bide, which applied to a man sick of the jaundice, takes the disease to her self, and becomes all over that colour, and so death to heal the man; Thus in some respect, Christ took our sins upon him, he was crucified and died as a sinner, when yet no guile was found in his mouth. Thus we have a wonderful exchange, God became man, wisdom was made folly, righteousness was made sin, and life became death. Having therefore shewed that the righteousness we stand justified by before God, is an imputed righteousness and that of Christs, let us first consider the satisfactory righteousness which is made ours, and this is very clearly and emphatically described all along the Chapter, so that we may call it a spiritual crucifix wherein the Lord Christ is evidently set forth crucified before our eyes.  

Doct. That the sufferings of Christ are imputed to us for our righteousness.  That the sufferings of Christ are imputed to us for our righteousness. This is genuinely deduced from the text, for our iniquities are laid upon him, he was bruised for our iniquities, and we were healed and reconciled to God by this means. The sufferings of Christ as satisfying Gods justice for our sins, are our legal righteousness, its as if we ourselves in our own persons had made a compensation.  
To open this, let us take notice of all the other emphatical expressions that are used by the Prophet in this Chapter, for we are not only speculatively, but affectionately and practically to meditate on them; and the Prophet doth so often mention it, as if he in the Old Testament, like Paul in the New, desired to know nothing but Christ crucified. At v. 6. we have a notable phrase, The Lord hath made the iniquity of us all to meet on him; where you see, 1. its Gods act, that all our sins should be laid on him, here is nothing done against Gods will. 2. Its the iniquity of us all, all the sins of the elect people of God, let them be great sins or small, there is not one but it is laid on Christ. And then 3. They are made to meet on him; the word is taken from many streams of water, that violently meet in one place, and so will bear down every thing before them; thus all our sins in the guilt of them, were made to meet on Christ, that had he been mere man, they would have overwhelmed him over and over again, but being God as well as man, he could with samson rise up and break these cords. Thus you see the sharpest stings that all our sins could put forth, were run into him, but by this he overcame sin. At the fourth verse, there is likewise a pregnant expression, Surely he hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows. By griefs and sorrows are meant sin with all the consequents of it, and the two Hebrew words Nasa and especially Saball signify to lift up a thing, to bear, to endure and carry a thing upon the shoulder as Porters do, and by consequent to take it quiter away. This place is alleged, Mat. 8.15. and 1 Pet. 2.24. but the application of it by the Evangelist Matthew, to the healing of diseases hath caused a twofold difficulty; 1. As if the Prophet spake only of bodily diseases and infirmities. 2. As if the bearing of them was not by imputation, for our diseases were not imputed to him, but only by removing and taking away; but seeing the Apostle Peter doth apply it to sins, and the Evangelist to bodily diseases, we may say, that the Prophet speaks principally and most directly of sin, but secondarily and less principally of bodily diseases, because they are the effect and fruit of sin, so that we may say in some sense, He took all our bodily infirmities upon him, because he took our sins upon him; and howsoever the Learned observe that the Hebrew word Nasa may signify the ablation of a thing, which yet is not derived or imputed to him, as God himself is said to take away sin, Exod. 34.7. yet no place can be or is brought, no not by the Socinians, though so diligent to search in this matter, where Saball doth signify to take away, but always is used to bear and to carry. So that this later word doth necessary imply a derivation and imputation of our sins upon him; they lay as an heavy burden upon him: Heb. 1.3. Christ is said to bear up, or uphold all things, but that is done easily by his power, there is no difficulty in it; only to bear sin, that was so great a weight and burden, that with great agonies and conflicts, he labours with it; he bore that burden which sinketh all the devils and damned men into hell. No less considerable is vers. 10. It pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to grief: This relates not only to death, but to all those anxieties and troubles which he endured in his soul: and it is observable, how the Scripture doth not refer this merely to Gods permission, as if he suffered wicked men to procure his death, but here is an higher design and purpose of God; therefore in the Hebrew it's Chaphits, which signifieth Gods good pleasure, his {αβγδ}, wherein he taketh great delight: so that whereas we might be offended to think that Gods son, innocent and free from all iniquity, should be subjected to so much misery and violence, this may satisfy us, that it was the just and righteous will of God, wherein his good pleasure did show itself, for hereby he would create for himself the greatest glory that could be: further more, whereas this death of Christ might be accounted only a glorious Martyrdom or a transcendent example of patience, as the Socinians cavil; We have the nature of his death described in the word Asham, which word in its first and proper signification doth denote to sin and offend, and by a Metonymy is used for a sacrifice, whereby the sin of the offendor is expiated, as piaculum among the Latins: So that we are to look on Christs death, as that which is propitiatory, and expiatory of all that guilt which belongs to us. We may not pass by ver. 11. where the work of our redemption is called the travel of his soul, which cannot but denote the great misery and affliction he endured to purchase our peace. It was said to the woman, that in sorrow she should bring forth, and thus it was also in Christ, it behoved him in great grief and trouble both of soul and body, to bring forth this glorious salvation, which is to be bestowed on those that are his; and whereas it is said, that by the knowledge, i.e. by the faith of Christ many shall be justified, observe the reason given, for he shall bear their iniquities. This makes it plain that we are justified or constituted and pronounced righteous, because Christ did bear our sins. The last verse is considerable, where the willingness and readiness of Christ is described, He hath poured out his soul unto death. This denoteth how freely and gladly he offered up himself, though the bruising and wounding was so great, though his calamities were thus inexpressible, yet he poureth out his soul. Oh what a shane and trembling should this be to us, who find our hearts so dead and dull, so listless many times to that which is our duty; Shall Christ pour out his soul to death, and shalt not thou pour it out to prayer and to love Christ? Yea this death is called v.g. deaths in the plural number, to aggravate it, as if it were many deaths he died, even as many as there are elect people, who without this redeemer were to die in their own person. 
Conclusions from the foregoing Scriptures.  The sum of these glorious and full texts concerning Christs sufferings ariseth to these particulars.  
1. That Christ suffered in a most painful and grievous manner. The Schoolmen determine that Christ endured more grief, then all the sorrows of all the men in the world put together: this is certain the Scripture by these several expressions doth evidence, that his pain and sorrow was unspeakable: and if we read the Evangelists describing what affections were upon him both before and at his sufferings, we shall readily yield they were no less, then what were foretold.  
2. That these sorrows and afflictions were in his soul as well as in his body: For its impossible that the body of a man should be pained and afflicted, but the soul must also be sensible of it, because of the near conjunction of soul and body. Therefore in all sorrow and grief, the soul is the principal, the body instrumental; that as the soul seeth by the eye, heareth by the ear, so it is grieved and pained by the body, as Tertullian well, In carne,& cum carne,& per carnem agitur ab animâ, quod agitur in cord. Christ then could not suffer in his body, but he must necessary suffer in his soul.  
3. This suffering in his soul, was not only that which arose from conjunction with his body, but also more immediately from the apprehension of Gods displeasure for our sins, in whose room be stood. This indeed is denied, and so a great part of Christs passive righteousness imputed to us is destroyed; but as is to be shewed, Christ died not a mere simplo death, as Martyrs, or as ordinary men, but as a surety, as a curse for us, and as satisfying the justice of God, and therefore there were immediate sufferings in his soul, though without sin: hence we read of those great agonies and troubles that were in his mind, before he had pain in his body any way.  
4. Hence Christs death is to be looked upon as a peculiar extraordinary thing; that as there is no person ever was like him, God and man, so no death like his, being an atonement to God, to satisfy his justice, to reconcile God. This satisfactory efficacy in Christs death, we have at large shewed already.  
Therefore in the fifth place, It is from this compensatory virtue in Christs death, that he is made our righteousness. That whereas God was offended, death was deserved; and we wholly impossible to pacify God, he became our Mediator and surety, making this blessed and happy exchange that our sins should be laid on him, and his righteousness communicated to us: and in this sense all Papists will yield, tha● Christs righteousness is imputed unto us, that is, that Christ by his death satisfied the justice of God, and so what he did was as if we had done it, he paid the debt, and so by this mean● we are made righteous. Neither may it stumble us, that Christ is but once called a Surety, Heb. 7.22. when yet we lay the whole foundation of this exchange upon that, for once is enough; and besides, there are other expressions which are equivalent to it. Now to this satisfactory righteousness of Christ, by way of imputation, there are two arguments brought, which were not treated of before, at least the first.  
The first is this, It stands not, say they, with the truth and holiness of God, that an innocent man should suffer for the nocent. How can we think, say they, that Christ should be thus bruised and wounded for us sinners and wicked men, whenas he was altogether pure, and unspotted? Doth not God himself say, The soul that sinneth, that shall die.  
But in the first place, seeing that it must needs be acknowledged that Christ died such a shameful and painful death as he did, and further that he was innocent, so that no guile was found in his mouth; yea Pilate his judge acquitted him: it must therefore follow that an innocent man was put to death; he that died had no cause of death, no not in any way: So that Christs sufferings were not like Jobs, whom God did by his sovereign power afflict by way of trial, for though this was not done for any particular sin of Jobs, yet he was not without sin: Though Job was not thus chastised propter peccatum, yet it was not sine peccato: But in Christ all his sufferings were, if we respect his own person, causeless, he had no sin for which any of those calamities could be brought upon him, therefore it must be for our sins: and hence the Socinians themselves are forced to aclowledge, that though Christ did not suffer for our sins as the impulsive or meritorious cause, yet he did for them as the occasion, because by his death he left us an example, and withall received power to do away our sins, if no more be granted but this, it will necessary follow that an innocent person did suffer for a nocent.  
2. It is so far from being repugnant to Gods goodness, that the Scripture aggravateth this consideration, that whereas he himself was without sin, yet he would undertake the punishment of sinners, 1 Pet. 2.21. 1 Pet. 3.18. Christ once suffered for sinners, the just for the unjust: and 1 Cor. 5.21. He who knew no sin, became sin for us: So that if Christ had not been innocent, it would have been wholly impossible for him to have wrought our redemption, and herein the Scripture prefereth Christ before the legal high Priest, that he was to offer for his own sins, as well as of the people; but Christ was unspotted and altogether holy.  
3. That which may wholly satisfy this objection, is, That it is no injustice or cruelty for an innocent person to suffer for a nocent, as Christ did, provided there be these conditions: 1. That the person suffering be of the same nature and kind with those for whom he suffers, for seeing that it was man whom God had threatened, its necessary it should be one of mankind that must suffer: Not an Angel, if it had been possible for him to be our mediator. 2. Its no injustice, if the innocent person be willing, if this be not laid upon him contrary to his desire; but we see in Christ an earnest readiness of heart to undertake all our grief, he desireth it as the greatest good that could befall him: Hence its said, He poured out his soul an offering for sin; so that as sometimes the Scripture speaks of God designing and appointing him thereunto, so at other times it saith, He gave himself a ransom for our sins: and Behold I come to do thy will O God, yea he was straightened till he did it. Thus you see this was not against his will, yea it was that which he greatly desired.  
4. It is no cruelty, if the innocent party be able to bear and endure all that sorrow which shall be laid upon him. Indeed to lay an heavy load upon such weak shoulders as will break under the burden, is unmercifulness: but Christ was able to go through all. Though he was in agonies, yet he cried My God; and though he was dead and butted, yet even from thence by his own power he could raise himself.  
Lastly, Its no injustice, If by the sufferings of an innocent person there can be wrought a greater good, and more glory to God, then his mere suffering is an evil: But thus it is here, by Christs dying for the ungodly, the greatest glory and honour is brought to God, that ever was or can be; insomuch that God himself could not demonstrate a greater effect of his love, nor could there be a more open way to advance his glory. Therefore in some sense we may say, the affliction and death itself was justly laid upon Christ, not in respect of men, for they did it wickedly, and maliciously, so that there was no human reason or law to put him to death; but if we do regard Gods will, and the Covenant made between the Father and the Son, then it was just, that if Christ would be a Surety for sinners, and satisfy what Gods justice and the Law did require, that he must die such a death as was threatened to sin.  
The second Argument hath greater difficulty in it, and many other inferior difficulties are contained in it: If Christs sufferings by way of satisfaction be our imputed righteousness, then he must suffer all that we were doomd unto; for by what reason he was bound to die, which was one part of the curse threatened, by the same reason he was bound to suffer all the other parts of the curse denounced: Now the other parts were chiefly a spiritual and an eternal death, which seemeth not applicable to Christ without blasphemy: so that its very difficult to decide what sufferings they are which Christ satisfied God with, and are made our righteousness. As for the Socinians they take away the foundation of the question, so that we are not to engage with them: But even amongst those that hold Christs satisfaction by his sufferings, there are different opinions: That which is weakest and most absurd of all is, of those that hold his sufferings onely spiritual; that what he endured as our Surety for us, it was only affliction and trouble in his soul: but this doth so directly confront Scripture, that it may be wondered how any can have such a thought, seeing every where almost his death is instanced in as a ransom and sacrifice for our sins. Neither is the argument of any validity which they bring, That if Christ satisfied by his death, then we could not die, or if we did die, then we should be copartners with him in his work of redemption. But this may be retorted on themselves, who hold Christ satisfaction only in his soul: for, do not many of the children of God feel the terrors of God upon their souls? do not they often conflict with Gods anger, though Christ felt these upon his soul? and are the godly when they feel this, copartners with Christ in the work of our redemption? The godly therefore though they die, yet it is not to the same end and purpose which Christ did, for they die not to satisfy Gods wrath, or to appease his justice, but their death is made a blessing unto them, and a sure passage to eternal Life.  
Therefore dismissing these, there are a numerous part rise up, that hold Christs sufferings by way of satisfaction was onely in his body. Indeed they will grant Christ suffered in his soul, by sympathy or conjunction from the body, for its impossible if a man be living and sensible, but that when the body suffers, the soul also should suffer therewith. But this they peremptorily deny, that Christ suffered in his soul relatively to our sin, as if he apprehended the wrath of God due to our iniquities, so as to tremble and to be in those grievous agonies because of such an apprehension. The Papists they generally go this way, limiting his sufferings to his body. In former times amongst the Orthodox this was controverted amongst themselves, as appeareth by Bishop Bilsons book on this subject, who is also industriously for the negative, that Christ suffered not in his soul in the sense specified; And now very lately this opinion is revived, that Christs body offered on the across was the satisfactory oblation, and that he suffered not in his soul in the mentioned sense. There is a book whose scope is to assert this, and overthrow the contrary,[ Pinchin of the meritorious price of mans Redemption, and a Sermon lately printed to justify that opinion.] But it may be made good by Scripture, That the sufferings of Christ, wherein satisfaction to Gods justice doth consist, and which are our righteousness, are both of soul and body: So that Christ while he made an atonement for our sins, was not only bruised and crucified in his body, but in his soul also was without the sense of that joy and comfort, which otherwise he had, and that because of our sins laid on him, though all this was without the least sin in him.   

SERM. XXXII. Sheweth, By Propositions and Arguments, That the whole Manhood of Christ suffered in Body and Soul, because of the Anger of God due to Sinners.  ISA. 53.5. But he was wounded for our iniquities, &c. 
OUr work is to answer that great and weighty Objection concerning the manner of Christs sufferings: For if Christs sufferings were a legal righteousness, and he was bound to undergo the punishment that was due to us, then( saith the Opponent) he must suffer the pains of the damned, then he must have been guilty of despair and blasphemy, as the damned are.  
We have declared the different opinions of learned authors in this matter; That which was concluded on as the truth, was, That the whole manhood of Christ suffered in body and soul, and in his soul not merely by conjunction or sympathy with his body, or because of a natural death merely, but chiefly because of the anger of God due to sinners, whose person he sustained. And before I bring the Arguments for to prove this, I shall lay down several Propositions to state the Question, and to clear the truth, by which all contrary Objections may be answered: So that I shall not in a formal manner mention them, because I intend not to be long on this point.  
First, Concerning the sufferings of Christ, men have been very prove to run into several errors. The Arians of old they argued against the Deity of Christ, because he thus suffered. How could God( say they) be sorrowful and grieved? How could Christ be God, and yet complain God had forsaken him? Some of the Ancients answering this Argument, and thinking it indecent and unseemly for Christ to be thus troubled, did say, That Christ did not suffer these things in reference to himself, but for us; he did not grieve for himself, but for us, as if these affections in Christ were not so much in his own person, as our person; but this is to overthrow the letter of the Scripture; for as he was indeed man, so he was indeed sorrowful and grieved: As he was really crucified, so was he also in Agonies, crying out, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me? Thus these give too little: Others they have gone too far, making the very Divine Nature itself to suffer, but that is impossible. Bellarmine and Maldonat cry out, That we should shut our ears against the blasphemy of Calvinists in this particular, who say, Christ suffered the pains of the damned in his soul, and that this was his descending into hell. But if Maldonat had remembered his own Rule, when he expounds those words of Christ [ My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?] he would not have been so censorious.[ come. in Mat. 26.] He allegeth very hard speeches of some of the Fathers, which if rigidly examined would be intolerable doctrine, and yet he can say, Bonos Autores benignè interpretari decet. But for Calvin, he doth not onely wrest, but falsify his words: For whereas Calvin is brought to say, That vox desperationis did elabi from Christ, This is a calumny, for that is brought in by way of an Objection, its not Calvins assertion; and besides [ harmony. Evangel. in cap. 26. Matth.] Vox desperationis is not desperatio, he doth not say, Christ despaired, yea its his whole drift in that place to free Christ from the least sinful perturbation; Though, he saith, they are too frigid and could that expound Christs sufferings of his body only; This, he saith, is to make Christ a redeemer of the body onely, and not of the soul. Its true, there are some expressions in Calvin that happily may be incommodious, and obnoxious to cavil, as when he saith, that prayer of Christ [ If it be possible, let this Cup pass away] was not meditata, and that it came from him subitò, which he corrected; for though these are well excused by the Orthodox, yet malicious enemies think they have thereby cause to triumph. But no man that reads Calvin can aclowledge any other but an admirable dexterity in interpreting of Scripture, which made Stapleton himself call him, Suavissimus Scripturae interpres; and truly in his Exposition of those Texts, which describe Christs sufferings, he doth excellently show, That those great fears and troubles which Christ felt, must needs be more then from the apprehension of mere death, even a conflict with the anger of God, and the effects thereof. Therefore though he saith, Christ did luctari cum desperatione, yet for all that he overcame all those temptations. As for the opinion of those who say, Christ suffered the pains of the damned; and if Bishop Bilsons Refuter said, That Christ suffered as much terror in his soul as any reprobate could, These passages are again corrected by those Authors, For they say, That they aclowledge Christ was all this while free from sin, and that there was not the least blemish in his pure and unspotted soul. But to avoid all calumnies, its best to keep ourselves to the Scripture.  
Onely in the second place, Take notice of this, That the lower Christ is debased in working out our salvation, the more is he honoured and glorified. Any kind of debasement that the Scripture giveth to Christ, and that in general words, we are to expound as largely as they signify, so that we do not attribute sin to him. As when the Prophet saith, He was bruised and wounded for our iniquities, God laid all our sins upon him, We are to interpret this of his soul as well as his body, for seeing the Scripture speaketh it generally, we are so to expound it; Therefore seeing the scope of the Scripture is to amplify and aggravate the sorrows of Christ, we are to enlarge them as far as may be, so that thereby we involve him in no sin; Therefore that fear of some, to say, Christ was truly troubled, that he was indeed in such agonies; and so of others, that will admit of no agonies and conflicts in the soul, with Gods wrath for our sins, is a dishonouring of Christ, while they think to honour him; for as it would be a dishonour to say, he was not man, he was not in a state of humiliation, he was not crucified; so likewise that he was not grievously tempted in his soul, though without sin. Ambrose spake better, Confidenter tristitiam nomino, quia cricem praedico. And again, Non crubesco fateri, quod Christus magna voice non erubescit profiteri.  
Thirdly, In this Doctrine of Christs suffering the wrath of God for our sins, we are not to measure Christ after our own selves, who cannot have any strugglings and agonies of soul without some sin adhering. Grant that Christ did onely fear death, yet no man could fear it so, but that some imperfection or irregularity would cleave to it. Now in all those troubles Christ felt in his soul, there was a two-fold difference to be made between him and a mere man. For  
1. Whatsoever fears and agonies were in Christ, they were voluntary, he had a command over them, both in respect of their rise, their progress and duration; so that it was not with him as with us, who are carried captive and overwhelmed whether we will or no, by those passions that move us, John 11.33. its said Christ {αβγδ}, we translate it, He was troubled, but in the Original it is, He troubled himself. Thus all the afflictions and grief of soul, which were upon him were voluntary, he had a power to command these winds and waves to be still when he pleased. Even as he had power over his life to lay it down, and take it up, so of his grief and temptations, so that because they were under his voluntary government and disposing, there could be no sin in them. Augustine saith well, He took these troubles not conditionis necessitate, but miserationis voluntate, not by any condition necessitating him thereunto, but a willing and merciful condescension.  
2. Another difference is in respect of the original from whence these affections flow, for they came from Christs pure, holy and undefiled nature: So that whatsoever commotion and troubles might be in Christs soul, yet they were always holy, for from such a pure fountain could come no other but pure streams: Even as water in a pure glass, though ye shake it never so much, yet it is pure and clear. But now man being originally corrupted, and so having some mud and filth in the bottom of his soul, he is never shaken and moved, but some impurity and defilement will rise up; Do not then judge of Christ according to what we find in ourselves? Certainly we could not endure such agonies, we could not have said, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me? But there would have been some gradual diffidence, some sinful impatience.  
Fourthly, That which was the greatest and most eminent in Christs soul, while he suffered, was not the fear of death, but a want of that joy and comfort, or the sense and feeling of Gods favour and help. This was the sting in his sufferings, as we shall prove anon. I am now onely to explain it, because the Adversaries will not understand the sense of the Orthodox, but take up the words of hell, and the torments of the damned, and a second death; as if hereby all blasphemy were uttered against Christ; but we say, That Christs sufferings, and those extreme agonies in his soul did arise from a greater cause then mere death, it was because of our sins laid upon him; and so as in our stead did undergo our punishment so far as it implied no sin, and this was for a season to be destitute of all inward comfort, to want those comfortable apprehensions of Gods favour and protection, which the Divine Nature did for a while deny, that so in his human Nature he might go through the work of our Redemption. To open this, you must know, That though Christ was God and man, yet the Divine Nature did not always put forth such glorious and resplendent effects, as it could do, but did as it pleased cohibit and restrain them, otherwise Christ could not have been in a state of humiliation and suffering for us; We read Matth. 17.2. That Christ was transfigured, his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as light. What was this but the Divine Nature communicating and diffusing such glory to the manhood? and had it not been for that economy or dispensation, that Christ must be in a despised, servile and ignominious condition, he would have been always in such glory. Therefore that was not a miracle, for Christ to be so transfigured, his humiliation and debasement was a miracle, for thereby was suspended that glory and lustre, which according to the natural course, would have been derived from the Godhead to his human Nature. Therefore its no more contradiction for Christ at the same time to have faith in God, and yet to want the sense of comfort, then to know God was his Father that would support him, and deliver him, yet to be in such extreme fears and agonies, as they confess he was in, because of his death: So that by what means they can reconcile these two together, so can we his faith in God, and yet want of the sense of Gods favour in these temptations; And whereas it might be said, That the want of Gods favour is a sin; that is wholly denied, for the mere want of the sense of Gods love is not intrinsically a sin: Even in the people of God, mere and simplo absence, or want of the favour of God, by some desertions which they are in, merely for trial and exploration, is not a sin. Indeed a godly man can very difficultly be in a spiritual temptation, complaining God hath left him, but there is sin accompanying such a complaint, because we for the most part procure such spiritual desertions by our own fault, and being weak in faith do many times offend against the promises of God, but it was not thus in Christ. Its true, as every thing almost in Christ was a miracle, that he was God and man, that he should be born in such an extraordinary manner, so likewise that he should suffer in such a transcendent way. This sun of righteousness suffered an Eclip●● by the interposition of our sins, and though he was sensible of, and struggled with the anger of God due to us, in whose stead he appeared, yet in all this he was not overcome, or did he give place to any temptation for a moment.  
Fifthly, Though this spiritual dereliction be not to be limited to an external forsaking and leaving of him into the hand of the Jews, yet we are not to enlarge it unto every kind of forsaking, as if Christ were forsaken of God in every respect, as the damned in hell are, but only so far that way might be given for Christ in soul and body, to accomplish our redemption by his sufferings. For as Christ would not call for a Legion of Angels externally to protect him in his neccessity; so neither would he have at that time those inward joys and comfortable apprehensions, that so he might drink of that bitter cup which was prepared for him, because of our sins: Christ could not have been in those natural fears and afflictions, had not the Divine Nature given place; So neither in this spiritual desertion; But this desertion was not universal, and in every respect. For  
1. There was not a dissolution of the hypostatical Union, no not in death itself; for although the soul was separated from the body, yet the Divinity all that while was neither divided from soul or body, he did not then cease to be God, though in such an abyss of grief. Nor  
2. Was it a dereliction in respect of graces, as if God did so leave his human Nature, that it was deprived thereby of faith and hope, or love of God: how low so ever he was debased, yet still the Scripture saith, his temptations were without sin in him; and this all those Divines do aclowledge, that yet use these expressions, That his soul suffered death, and that he endured the pains of the damned: he was not then forsaken of God in respect of any gracious qualification.  
3. It was not a total desertion in respect of every part; for although Christ in respect of his sense and feeling, cried out of this forsaking, yet in respect of his mind and will, he had confidence in God, and knew that God would carry him through that great agony he was exercised with.  
4. It was not a final dereliction; all this forsaking was but for a time, he had before and after more comfortable apprehensions; for formerly, when he had  told his Disciples, That all would forsake him, and leave him alone, he corrects that speech, I am not alone, but my Father is with me, John 16.32. This he spake before the temptation, but in the temptation he had not that comfortable sense of his presence.  
Sixthly, In this controversy therefore we must necessary consider Christ as sustaining two Persons, his own and ours. In his own Person he was altogether holy and innocent, free from all sin, and most beloved of his Father, from whom no show of anger could appear, if considered in his own Person. But then, if he be considered as bearing our person, in which respect he is called our Surety, Heb. 7.2. and our sins laid upon him; So he apprehended the anger of God, and was to satisfy the Justice of God, by bearing that punishment which was due to us. Therefore that Argument is very weak, which would prove Christ not to bear Gods wrath, because he was always beloved of his Father: For this is true in respect of his own Person: but then as covenanting for us, so he was to conflict with Gods anger; for why was it, that though beloved of God, and most innocent, that he should suffer death, and that so painful, that the Adversaries aclowledge it to be the extremest suffering that could be in a way of grief and pain? But only for our sins, because he stood in our stead; and as the Javelin which was run at David missed him, and stuck fast in the wall; So the anger of God which was to have run on us with all violence, by Christs interposing of himself, passed by us, and fell on him.  
These Propositions thus cleared, you may by the help of their light answer all contrary Objections; I therefore proceed by positive Arguments to confirm this truth; for its very profitable in regard of the practical use which may be made thereof, 
Arguments to prove that Christ suffered the anger of God in his soul as well as in his body.  to know that Christ suffered in his soul, and that the anger of God, as well as in his body. And  
The first Argument is founded on Gal. 3.13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us, &c. Thus we form it, The curse of the Law did reach to the terrors of the soul, as well as to the pains of the body: But Christ was made the curse of the Law for us; he doth not say, Christ was made accursed, but {αβγδ}, a curse in the abstract, to show how greatly he was accursed in this death; Neither may you say, This execration was in respect of men, that men judged him execrable, for his enemies looked upon him as worse then barrabas; but this curse is in respect of God, as appeareth by the testimony alleged out of Deut. 21.23. for though the Apostle intending the sense, and not the words, omits the mention of God; yet in the foresaid place of Deuteronomy it is, He that is hanged is accursed of God. This is universally true, for though innocent and holy Martyrs have been hanged on the three, and so their persons were accepted of and beloved, yet the kind of death was made by God amongst the Jews an accursed death, partly in a civil and political sense, such a death being inflicted onely for atrocious and heinous sins; partly in a typical sense, to prefigure Christs death: So that as the lifting up of the brazen Serpent was a type of Christ crucified, so that kind of death amongst the Jews in a particular manner accursed by God, called in the Hebrew The curse of God likewise in the abstract, was typical and prefigurative of Christs death.  
If it be said, That this curse was onely in his bodily suffering that manner of death.  
I answer, That cannot be all, for its called the curse of the Law that Christ was made, and such as he redeemeth us from, and that is not onely of the body. And again, its such a curse that is opposed to the blessing of Abraham, and that was sp●ritual in the soul as well as the body: So that unless they will say, The Law cursed the body only, they must not limit Christs being made a curse for us to his bodily sufferings. Indeed the Scripture doth often instance in that, excluding his sufferings of his soul, but because his bodily suffering was most visible to the eye, though in other places it speaks in the general, not naming his blood, as when its said, It behoved Christ to suffer, and so to enter into glory, Luk. 9.22. & alibi.  
A second Argument from the threatening, Genes. 2.17. In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die. This place is brought by all the Orthodox against the Socinians, to prove the necessity of Christs death by way of an Atonement and Satisfaction to Gods justice; for seeing how God threatened upon mans sin, that he should die, and the verity and the justice of God will not suffer this to be violated, therefore it behoved Christ to come and to be a Sacrifice for sin. Now by death is meant not onely a merely bodily death, but all other spiritual punishments of the soul; Therefore by what reason the justice of God did require he should suffer in his body, the same did require he should suffer in his soul; for what reason can be given, why God should release one part of the debt more then the other? If it be said, that because Christs death was the death of him who was God as well as man, it had an infinite value, and therefore the sufferings of his body were equivalent to those sufferings which we should have had in our souls.  
I answer, The mere and absolute infinity of a price, is not enough to satisfy, unless it be commensurated to the sentence that is adjudged by him, who is to be satisfied: for why is it that with the Papists we dare not say, one drop of Christs blood had been enough to satisfy for us, seeing it had an infinite dignity in it, but because it was not answerable to Gods sentence which required death? So we may say, The infinite value in Christs mere bodily suffering was not enough, because the sentence required more satisfaction. But if you say, The death of the soul implieth sin, despair, and all such impiety as cannot without blasphemy be attributed to Christ. I answer, The punishments of sin in the soul, are either such as are mere sin, such as unbelief, privation of the image of God. Or  
2. Such as are punishments and sins too: such are the despair and blasphemy of the damned in hell, with the gnawing worm of conscience in them. And  
Lastly, Such as are merely punishments, such are the mere want of Gods favour for a time, sad conflicts and agonies arising in the soul hereupon. Now these, though in us they would necessary produce sin, yet in Christ they did not, because of his pure nature: Therefore though the threatening doth not infer Christ should die in his soul in a sinful manner, yet as far as the threatening could be accomplished in Christs soul without sin, it did behove him to endure, that so the justice of God may be satisfied.  
A third Argument is taken from the relation Christ stood in, while he suffered, he died not simply in relation to his own person, he was our Surety, and he died for us in our stead; and thus the Prophet saith, All our sins were laid on him; It behoved therefore our Surety to suffer all that we should have suffered, as far as there was a consistency with his holy nature; And the Adversaries to Christs sufferings in his soul, do upon this Argument reject his propitiatory death, because if so( say they) he must then suffer the pains of the damned. To which the Orthodox reply, That he suffered them equivalently, his holy nature would not suffer him to receive any sinful infirmities, but he was tempted in all things like us, onely without sin; compare those places, Heb. 2.17, 18. Heb 4.15. where Christ was to be tempted in all things like us, in spiritual temptations as well as temporal; not that he was to endure every individual temptation in his soul, no more then every individual pain in his body, only in the general it behoved him to be thus tempted, that so he might have compassion on his members in their temptations.  
The last Argument is, from the remarkable description of those sufferings which were antecedent and concomitant to his death. The Evangelists expressions are so remarkable, that it s a wonder any should think that it was only the fear of death, that should thus possess him, Mat. 26. Luk. 22. Before his death, the Evangelists record, that Christ said, His soul was heavy to death.  
1. His soul, this sorrow it was in his will, as Maldonat and Melchiar Canus grant, though Papists. The greatest grief that could be did seize upon his will, and therefore it was his natural will that desired the Cup might pass away, though with submission to Gods will, and then his soul was {αβγδ}, sorrowful round about, and that even to death, yea its said, he began {αβγδ}, to be astonished and {αβγδ} to faint away; insomuch that an Angel came to comfort him, yea for anguish great drops of blood fell from him to the ground, and in his time of suffering, he cried out, My God, Why hast thou forsaken? I do not say, No Martyr, but no man scarce ever shewed such fear of death, and shall we think Christ was put into this anguish had there not been a greater cause then death only? add to these Heb. 5.7. Neither can those of a contrary mind give a good reason, why the Martyrs should show such courage, and Christ manifest such extraordinary agonies, but that our sins were laid on him, but they felt the pardon of them.  
This Doctrine hath a three-fold cord of practical matter, which should not be broken.  
1. To take notice and be astonished at his love, who gave himself thus to suffer in his soul; all his bodily pains did not amount to the least of his souls grief.  
2. To detest sin, and to see the heavy nature of it, that cannot be expiated without so much sorrow. And  
Lastly, Of gratitude and thankfulness to Christ: Oh what strong obligations are upon us, to part with every thing for his sake, who was willing thus to be wounded and bruised for us! No wonder Paul crieth out, He desireth to know nothing but Christ crucified.   

SERM. XXXIII. Whether Christ while on earth, did truly and properly obey the will of God.  ROM. 5.19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners: so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 
THe Apostle at the close of ver. 14. doth begin an admirable comparison or collation, between the first Adam, and Christ the second. It was the wicked opinion of the Manichees, that they asserted two principles, one good, the fountain of all good, the other evil, the cause of all evil: But here in a good sense we see described two different or contrary originals to mankind; the one is of sin with all the evil consequents thereof: the other of grace, with the admirable effects thereof. Now Adams offence and Christs obedience are compared in their nature, their force and efficacy, and lastly their ends: But the Apostle, as he sheweth their agreement, so also he giveth their disparity and disagreement, making the righteousness of Christ to be more abounding to Justification, then Adams sin could be to condemnation. The Text I have pitched on, is a summary repetition of all that had been said, and a brief collection of their agreement together: In the former part you have the {αβγδ}, As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners. The Apostle calls Adams sin sometimes {αβγδ}, and that very properly, because it was such a fall that brought ruin to him and to all his posterity; in this verse it s called {αβγδ}, for disobedience was remark●●le in that sin; yea whereas disobedience in a general sense is in every sin, some have thought, that the spiritual nature of this sin was disobedience; that as pride or uncleanness are specifical sins, thus Adams sin was disobedience. The Apodosis is, So by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.  
In the words you have the person compared, One, that is Christ: he doth not say one man, as before, though that be necessary implied. 2. The matter in which the comparison is instituted, by one mans obedience, {αβγδ}; that which he called {αβγδ} before, is here called {αβγδ}. 3. The effects or end of this, Many shall be made righteous. Many, this is opposed to that One, by whom obedience was performed; so that the Dispute about universality of Redemption or Grace, is wholly impertinent to this Text and those preceding, for many and all are not compared in respect of mankind, but in respect of the original or root, which is One,( shall be made righteous.) This is not to be understood of inherent righteousness, but imputed; and although it be in the future tense, that doth not signify the complete and perfect making of us righteous in heaven, as Pareus would have, but the continual and daily efficacy of Christs obedience upon all the godly, who shall be in their successive generations to the end of the world, as Beza most solidly.  
Now whether this obedience of Christ be to be limited onely to that free and willing offering of himself to die for us, or to be taken largely for that whole course of life which was spent in obeying of the law and will of God, is disputed by interpreters. Those that deny the imputation of Christs active obedience, limit it only to that specifical and particular obedience of Christ in his death. But those of a contrary way take it largely, for all the obedience of Christ, which he accomplished both in doing and suffering. With these I join as conceiving they have the truth of God on their side: and from what Objections they bring, I shall fully vindicate this Text, when in order of method I am to establish my Arguments for the affirmative: 
Reasons why the imputation of Christs obedience is not to be limited to that which Divines usually call passive.  Onely for the present, That obedience is not to be limited to that which Divines call usually passive, may appear from these Reasons.  
1. The sense of the Scripture when it speaks generally, is not to be limited unless necessity compel. If the Apostle say, obedience in the general, who may say, it was not all, but some?  
2. The antithesis or opposition may evince it. Adams disobedience was an action dissonant, or contrary to the Law of God: Therefore Christs obedience must be a conformity to the Law.  
3. Because this obedience is called, v. 18. Christs righteousness. Now the sufferings of Christ are never called in Scripture his righteousness: They are indeed our righteousness, but not his, whereas his obedience is his own righteousness as well as ours; and indeed the very word Obedience, doth properly denote a conformity to the Law.  
4. Because by this obedience, v. 17. we are said to have the gift of righteousness, and thereby reign in life. Now Christs suffering for us is but part of that righteousness, neither is eternal life promised merely to a man because his sin is pardonned, but because he hath that perfect holinesse the Law requireth, as hath been and shall be( God willing) more at large proved.  
5. Because the Apostle at other times speaking of Christs obedience, doth make that of his death but one particular act or instance of it. Phil. 2.8. Christ is there said to become obedient unto death, his obedience was terminated in that which doth necessary presuppose that it was demonstrated in other things before, from the matter or nature wherein this comparison is made, viz. obedience: Observe,  

observe.  First, That Christ, while in the daies of his flesh here on earth, did truly and properly obey God the Father. He was in a state of obedience; that as Adams sin was truly and properly disobedience, so was the conformity of Christs actions unto the Law of God, truly and properly obedience.  
Having already shewed, that the sufferings of Christ are made our righteousness: Now we are arrived at that noble and famous Question, Whether that obedience of his he performed while on earth to Gods Law, 〈◇〉 part of our righteousness also: That as we are looked upon as s●●●●●ying the penalty of the Law in Christ suffering, so also as perfectly fulfilling the Law in Christs obedience. And because this cannot be clearly determined, unless we first know the nature of Christs obedience in the general, with the divisions thereof, therefore I have laid down this first Proposition,  
That Christ while on the earth, did truly and properly obey the will of God.  
And to manifest the truth hereof, consider these ensuing Propositions.  
First, It may seem very difficult to explain how it was possible that Christ should in a true and formal sense be said to obey, and that from two considerations: 1. His hypostatical union; and 2. That unction of God, which he did receive. For the former, seeing his human nature was united to the godhead in one person, so that there was but one suppositum, and that divinum, How could Christ be said to obey? for if we cannot say that God did obey, no more may we say Christ could obey, seeing he is the Person God-man: But of this more is to be said in answering the Objection, and this Question will then be discussed, Whether the hypostatical union doth absolve Christ from any obligation to the Law: so that we may not say of him, as we do of all men, that they are bound to keep the Law of God. The second ground of this difficulty is, because of the unction Christ received, God is said to anoint him with oil above his fellows, and he did not receive the Spirit in measure. If then his inward habitual grace was so overflowing, how could he be said to obey, because obedience is properly where there is liberty? now not only the Hypostatical union, but this spiritual Unction put him into a state of impeccability: if therefore Christ could do no otherwise then he did, for who may say he might have refused to take our condition upon him, or to have forsaken our suretyship, when he had once undertaken it, if then he could not sin, how could he be said to obey?  
Second Propos. This difficulty hath so extremely perplexed some, that they have run●●● to gross and scandalous assertions, especially some Schoolmen, they have granted these Propositions as true, Christus potuit peccare, and Christus potuit damnari,( Durand. lib. 3. sent. distin. 12. quae. 2.) certainly every Christian must reject this as blasphemous. Others they run to a miracle in this case,( Molina. 1. par. quaes. 14. pag. 235.) That as it was a miracle in Christ, that though he enjoyed the favour and light of Gods face beatifically, yet at the same time( which naturally is impossible) it should be so ordered by divine power, that he should have the highest degree of sorrow in his will; so its no less wonder, that Christ, by a faciall vision and intuitive beholding of God in a comprehensive and blessed manner, was not so determined and absolutely necessitated, but that he did obey God freely. If you ask the reason why they run into such extravagancies, its because they receive this as an immovable axiom, standing as firm as heaven, That there cannot be any obedience, but where there is liberty, and there cannot be any liberty, but where there is a power to do good or evil. But that which they account as a rock, is altogether sandy, for learned men make it clear, that such an indifferency is not necessary to liberty, yea posse peccare doth not arise from liberty, but mutability and vertibility; seeing therefore liberty is a perfection, we must necessary attribute it to Christ, and it did arise from the perfection of his holiness, that he could not but obey; and whereas Adam had liberty; and therein a power to sin, this was because Adam was made mutable, so that his power to sin did not arise from his liberty, but his changeableness. Let it not then trouble us to say, How could Christ be said to obey, seeing he could do no otherwise? for to be able to sin is not constitutive of, or ingredient to liberty. Christ had a willing and ready dominion over his acts, and in this was his liberty. That Christ did not, or could not but obey, did not arise from a natural necessity determining him, as the fire doth burn or the sun shine, but from the glorious perfection of his holy Nature. This doctrine about Christs obedience doth also trouble the Remonstrants, who plow with the same Heifer that the jesuits do, and therefore they say,( Apolog. pro Confessi●●ag. 188.) That Christs obedience was of another nature then ours; Christ( say they) obeied the will of his Father, not as we do, under the commination of eternal death, if we do not obey; God forbid: but as an ambassador his King, or as a beloved son his father, when a King or a father commit any honourable employment or service to him, that he may perform it, adding a promise of a most munificent remuneration if he will undertake it freely and for his sake; therefore, they say, Christ might not have undertaken this office of a Surety, or when he had undertaken it, he might have relinquished it, or he might not have delighted in the reward promised. Thus they are forced into precipices, that are driven by that enamoured doctrine of indifferency and indeterminateness ingredient to all liberty. Its true indeed, Christ might have refused to have been our Surety, if it had been of necessity, it could not be by the Scripture so magnified to be of grace. It was a free and spontaneous offering of himself, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God; and although he had an infinite love to Gods glory, yet that did not necessitate him to undertake to redeem mankind, more then the apostate Angels. But when Christ had once agreed with the Father, and accepted of this Office, then he could not subterfuge, nor did it stand with his faithfulness and holiness to relinquish it. They were then given by the Father to him, John 17. as his charge and as his trust, and therefore he could not be found unfaithful therein: Christ did obey the Father, though such was his perfection and immutable holinesse, that he could not do otherwise.  
Third Propos. Notwithstanding this position, that Christ did truly and properly obey, yet you must understand it in a right sense, for in some considerations Christ could not be said to obey: for in Christ we are to consider two Natures, his Divine and his human: in respect of his Divine Nature, he could not be subject to the Father, for so he was of the same equal Nature, and indeed its a contradiction to say, that God can be bound to obey, for that would imply he was not God, that there was a greater and more supreme then He.  
Again, Christ may be considered in respect of his personal subsistence, and that being Divine, in that respect he could not be said to be obedient or subject to any Law. The Arians were condemned for holding Christ in respect of his suppositum, to be subject to a Law, for they made this only an human subsistency. The Nestorians also, because they affirmed Christ had a twofold suppositality, Divine and human, and in respect of his human to be subjected, were likewise condemned. If therefore Christ be considered in respect of his subsistency, this being wholly Divine, so that he is a Divine and not an human suppositum or person subsisting, then he cannot be said properly to obey: And upon this account it is that Divines of great note, will not yield to the adversaries of Christs active obedience, that he was bound to the Law of God for himself, but that he was above the Law, and therefore what he did, he did wholly for us, being no more bound to obey the Law, then to suffer: for seeing( they say) that Laws are properly given not to natures, but to persons subsisting, and Christ was Divine, as a person subsisting, therefore he could not be under a Law: But how far this hath truth, is in time to be discussed: and we proceed to a  
Fourth Propos. That Christ considered as a man, and in respect of his human nature, might, and did properly obey; and if we believe Christ to be a man it must needs be so: for seeing the human nature of Christ had not a supreme essential and infinite holiness, in which sense Christ said, Mat. 19.17. None is good but God, it was impossible that it should be above all rule of holiness, and though a creature, yet not subjected to the rule of all holiness, which is Gods increated will, and therefore when Christ is called the servant of God, its a proper and not a metaphorical speech, as when he is called a vine and a door: and indeed to deny obedience to Christ, as he was man, is to overthrow our whole Redemption. Neither may we look upon Christ in the state of a mediator, as the Remonstrants say an ambassador or a beloved son, as if there were only a mutual and friendly agreement between the Father and the son, but there was a subordination and humiliation, in which sense Christ calls the Father Lord, and he calls him his servant.  
But in the fifth place, Christ was in this obedient way to the Father, only while he was in the flesh, I say, while he was in the flesh, not as if Christ had now deposited his human nature, or were not still man, but alluding to the Apostle, Heb. 5.7. when he saith, Christ in the daies of his flesh offered up prayers and supplications with tears; so that though a son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. So that the human nature of Christ, while in the state of humiliation, did properly and truly obey the Law of God: And in this sense Christ saith, his Father is greater then he, John 14.28. not only in respect of his human nature, but also of that state of humiliation he was in; he was not yet exalted to that glory, to sit at the right hand of God, and to be in visible Majesty and glory equal to God the Father; and this may be part of the meaning of that place, 2 Cor. 5.16. Henceforth know we not Christ after the flesh, though we have known him so: That is, we look upon him now as risen again, as glorified, as becoming a new Christ, as it were, he is now exalted, and not subject to those frailties, nor in that state of humiliation as we once knew him to be in. The human nature therefore of Christ, while in the state of humiliation was subject to the Law of God, and so capable of obedience: This is to be observed, for Christ might have taken our nature upon him in a glorified way, and not in a servile: To be above the Law, and not made under the Law. As the human nature of Christ now is in heaven, it doth not cease to be a creature; yet we cannot say, Christ is there in a state of obedience; for although the human nature of Christ doth love God, and delight in him, yet it doth not this from subjection but from perfection. The holiness it puts forth in heaven, is not so much to be considered as a duty, but as part of that beatitude and glory it hath: Its obedience not formally but materially; to be sure its not such as to which a promise is made. Those that deny Christs active obedience imputed to us, because it was a debt which every creature oweth to God, and so he was obliged to this, may do well to consider, that the human nature of Christ, though glorified in heaven, is yet a creature, but the holy actions thereof are not by way of a duty so properly, but are parts of its blessedness. But of this more in its time.  
Sixth Propos. It may not then be denied, that Christ in respect of his human nature, while in the state of humiliation, was truly subjected to the Law, and so under obedience: a twofold law he was subjected unto, one general, whereby he obeied that Law which was common to all other men with him. in which sense, Mat. 5. he saith, he came to fulfil the Law, which was not only by doctrinal exposition of it, but by practical obedience to it, yea not onely the Moral Law, but even the Ceremonial Law also, which although it was given to sinners, and denoted some kind of expiation, yet Christ subjected himself to it, not for himself, but for us, who were sinners, that so the {αβγδ}, the righteousness of all the Law of God might be fulfilled in us. The particular Law he was subject unto, was that peculiar precept of dying for us. Now that Christ was truly obedient unto the Father, and subjected thus to the Law, may appear partly by those texts wherein his obedience is spoken of, Phil. 2.8. and Heb. 5.7. and Isa. 53. where he is called Gods righteous servant, partly and more principally in that God is said to command him, and he is said to keep his commands.  
Hence Propos. 7. Christs obedience was truly so, because it was done to his Fathers command, which was truly and really a command, Act. 7.37. compared with Deut. 18.18. So Christ doth often call his Fathers will, in the work of our Redemption, a command, John 12. John. 14. John 15.10. If you keep my Commandments ye shall abide in my love, as I keep my Fathers Command, and abide in his. Neither may these texts be expounded of a permission and not a command, for if so, then Christ might as well not have been our Redeemer as our Redeemer, yea he might have deserted it, after he had begun it, without any sin at all: But this could not be, for had not a Law or command required this of Christ, his righteousness which he wrought for us could not be called {αβγδ}; neither could Christ himself, or we in him, be said to be dead to the Law, if that had not been satisfied; yea then Christ could not have said that notable profession, Psal. 40.7, 8, 9. My ears hast thou opened; Behold I come to do thy will O God: Thy Law is within my heart. As then the commands Christ gave his Disciples were truly and properly commands, not permissions, or bare insinuations of a will, so was that which Christ had of the Father, for in that of John 15.18. he makes them of the same nature.  
Propos. 8. Though Christs obedience was properly to a command, yet this command was not imposed on him to the same ends as it is on men, for a command is given us for direction, to instruct the mind, and to quicken or stir up the heart; but Christ needed neither of these, for his mind was fully endowed with all knowledge, and his heart was full of all ready affections to do Gods will; therefore he said it was his meat and drink to do his Fathers will. No hungry or thirsty man could more desire the relieving of those appetites, then he longed to do his Fathers command: If you ask whether this command had a threatening to it, for if not to obey would have been a sin, then eternal death would have followed, and so the commination of damnation would have been by way of addition to the command imposed on him, as it is on us, But that is not necessary, for the command was not given to him, to stir and quicken him up to his duty, as it is to us, but for other ends: Yea a learned Divine( Cloppen. syntag. pag. 469.) doth aclowledge, that Christ was under the commination of the Law, but yet this did not strike any terror into Christ, because the threatening in itself doth only inform of Gods hatred against sin, it doth not inflict terror but by accident, supposing a man to be fallen by sin. Therefore Adam in the state of integrity had a threatening joined to that explanatory command, which yet could not strike terror into him, till he had sinned. Indeed this did inform him, how much God hated such transgression, and so thereby might inflame him to hate sin the more: But of this more, when we consider how Christ was under the Law. And certainly, the more we consider that Christ was in an obediential way, and became like a servant subject to God: As it did more debase him, so it ought to stir us up to more thankfulness, and to make us say of every Law of Christ, which he did of that will of God to be our Redeemer, Behold, I come to do thy will, thy Law is within my heart.   

SERM. XXXIV. Divers Propositions tending to clear the Point of The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ. And the Point truly stated.  ROM. 5.19. So by the Obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 
WE proceed to a second Observation from these words, viz.  

observe.  That by Christs Obedience all believers are made righteous. That Christ was in a true and proper state of Obedience hath been demonstrated.  
The next thing to be considered is, The relation of it to us, and that is in those words, We are made righteous by it. A man may be made righteous two ways, either legally by imputation, that which our Surety hath done being accounted to us; or qualitatively and inherently, by having the inward principles of righteousness, and acting accordingly. Popish Interpreters, they expound it this later way, and some other that are Orthodox, but without cause. Stapleton[ antidote. in loc.] thinketh there is a great advantage for their opinion of inherent righteousness in the words {αβγδ}, which( saith he) implieth a true and real righteousness, not an imputed one; and wonders at Beza, that he should pass over the signification of this expression, who otherwise is very curious about words: Therefore he addeth two places where this word is used for his purpose, Mat. 24.47. His master shall {αβγδ}, appoint or set over all his goods; So James 4.4. Whosoever will be a friend of the world, {αβγδ}, he is an enemy of God; that is( saith Stapleton) he is not by imputation, but really so. But this is easily answered, Though the Greek word be not {αβγδ}, but {αβγδ}, yet its the same sense; Even as with the Apostle John, who never useth the word {αβγδ}, to justify, yet hath an equivalent one, which is, not to come into judgement, what is that but Pauls to be justified? and thus to be made righteous is to be constituted, pronounced& dealt with as righteous; Therfore in the verse before its called Justification of life, and is opposed to {αβγδ} condemnation. Besides, this is the wilful and gross mistake of Stapleton and his fellows, that they oppose true real righteousness, to imputed, which the Orthodox again and again disavow: Imputed righteousness and inherent differ not in their truth and reality, one is as true and as real a righteousness as another, but in the manner of communication or participation. We say, its as impossible to be made righteous without righteousness, as to be healthful without health, to be wise without wisdom; onely we say, its not necessary this righteousness should be inherent, it may be by anothers obedience procured for us, and so judged as if we had done it. Indeed there are some things that do necessary import an inherency in the Subject, and such things cannot be imputed, as health doth imply a necessity in existency, but righteousness is of another nature; we may in Law be acquitted by anothers satisfaction, or by the obedience of a Surety pronounced to have obeied the Law, and here is no contradiction in this; and that this must necessary be so interpnted here, appeareth by the opposition. By Adams disobedience we were made sinners, not only by propagation, but by imputation; Adams sin was ours by imputation; It was not onely the private personal sin of Adam, but the public transgression of all. Thus Christs obedience was the obedience of all those he did undertake for. Its true, the imputed sin of Adam to all mankind, did cause inherent corruption in all; and thus we also grant, That the imputed righteousness of Christ doth work in us inherent righteousness, but this is not that by which we are freed from condemnation. And as for the use of the word {αβγδ}, the place he first instanceth in maketh against him, for to that we may add others of the like nature, Luk. 12.14. Act. 6.3. Tit. 1.5. where the word signifieth a legal constituting and appointing of a person to some office or employment: and thus it doth in this place signify a legal constituting and making of us just, that whereas before the Law did in every thing accuse us, we are now acquitted and declared righteous.  
Thus you see the Text vindicated, and this Proposition genuinely built thereon, That a believer is made righteous, not by his own, but by Christs obedience, and it hath been cleared, by obedience is meant in a general sense, his conformity to the whole Law and will of God, not that particular obedience onely manifested in his death on the cross. And thus Calvin upon this place, We could not be made righteous, unless we bring the perfect obedience of the Law, and that we cannot, but Christ must do it for us: So that it is to be wondered he should be brought in the number of those who are against Christs active obedience in this controversy, seeing he doth in so many places aver it. 
Propositions to clear the point.   
Before we come to establish this truth, some Propositions must be laid down to clear it. As  
First, That the obedience of Christ hath in this later age( by reason of different opinions newly raised) been divided into active and passive, calling his active that which was in obedience to the command of the Law, and his passive that which was in satisfying the penalty of it. Now this distinction hath been rejected upon two grounds:  
The first( for which well it might) was for the absurd impropriety of it, calling it passive obedience, 
A censure of the terms active and passive obedience.  as if we should say active passion, for passion quâ passion, or a mere suffering of punishment cannot be any satisfaction, or merit any reward. There must be an obediential resignation of a mans self, with readiness and cheerfulness to suffer, else it cannot be available; and therefore to speak properly, All obedience is active; even thus when it is in things to be suffered. Therefore more suitably to the Scripture we may say, The obedience of his Passion, then passive obedience: Yea, Divines say, That all the actions of Christ had passion in them, and all his passions actions in them, from the very beginning to the end his obedience was with suffering, and his suffering with obedience. Others reject this distinction, as being the Engine of the Remonstrants to divide and rent the Orthodox asunder. Thus Lubbertus[ contra Bert.& contra Vorst.] doth several times disclaim it, attempting to be a Conciliator in the controversy, though inclining to the Doctrine of passive obedience only. But whether they were the authors or the fomentors of it, it lieth upon him to make good. Now although it be thus rejected, yet for distinction sake, and because these terms are now generally used, I shall give them the titles of active and passive obedience of Christ, although I think, it were better to avoid them, and in stead thereof to say, the whole humiliation of Christ in all the particular acts thereof are made over to us for our righteousness.  
Secondly, You may take notice, that this controversy at least under these terms, is but of late originals. Not but that the Doctrine of Christs active obedience imputed unto us, was asserted in Antiquity, as learned men show, but the controversy was not then agitated. The Lutherans, Meisner, Brockman, Himelius, &c. make Piscator to be the first author of this opinion, That Christs passive obedience is onely imputed to us for righteousness. But Lucius a learned Writer in this controversy, and appearing for the active obedience of Christ, saith[ apud got. Animad. parts prioris. Sect. 1. p. 15.] That the controversy first began amongst the Lutherans between George Kargius( against whom Gomarus hath defended the truth) and his colleagues, which controversy was proposed to the Divines of Wittenburg to be discussed and decided, who gave in their judgement for the active obedience of Christ, yet amongst the Calvinists some did embrace it, as Olevian, from whom, as being his Master, Piscator sucked it, and afterwards with much animosity propugned it, and since some few have gone that way. So that for any to say, Vulgar unstudied Divines( except some few) do maintain the active obedience of Christ in the sense afterwards to be mentioned, is out of fear to vulgarity to run into singularity: For generally all the Lutheran Divines do make the active obedience of Christ with the passive, to be our complete righteousness; And for the Calvinists, Beza Annot. in cap. 5. ad Rom. v. 17. Junius Tom. 1. Thes. de Justif. Polanus Symph. Cattol. cap. 12. Thes. 10. Grynaeus, Gomarus, Wallaeus, Lucius, Andraeas Rivetus, Cocceius, Cloppenhugius, Amesius, &c. Insomuch that Vorstius said truly to Lubbertus, that it was the opinion of the chiefest Doctors of the Reformed Church[ Vorst. 52. apud Sybrand.] Neither may those English Divines be called Vulgar, who have professedly avouched it, Perkins[ Reformed catholic] Davenant, Downame[ of Justification] and others. Its true, we are not in matter of Doctrine primarily to look to any men or confessions, this is to call some men masters on earth: And Durand saith well, Omnis homo dimittens rationem propter authoritatem humanam, incidit in insipientiam bestialem. But yet when a Doctrine is decried either by the paucity or illiteratenesse of the patrons thereof, then its necessary to show who have not been ashamed to appear in public for it. Its true, some( though but few comparatively) have appeared against Christs active obedience, and some of them acknowledged to be men of eminent worth. But as Augustine of old to the Maniches spake excellently well in controverted matters, Nemo nostrum dicat, jam se invenisse veritatem, sic eam quaeramus quasi ab utrisque nesciatur. Thus let all considerations of men and Antiquity be a while seposited, as if the truth were already found out to our hands; but let us by the Scripture and Arguments deducible from it, so search for it, as if hitherto neither party had attained unto it.  
Only the third Proposition may be to advertise, That even amongst those who oppose the imputation of Christs active obedience, in the sense to be mentioned, there is a difference. Piscator and those that rigidly follow him, limit our righteousness onely to Christs death, as the whole and complete matter of our satisfaction; and as for his active obedience, they make that onely a qualification in him, who is the Mediator: They do not say, It was needless, or that in some sense it was not for our good, onely they affirm the proper and immediate effect of it, was to fit and dispose him to be our Mediator, and this they understand of his habitual holinesse, and not onely so, but of his actual also, which seemeth to be very strange Doctrine; for by this it will follow( as is to be more largely shewed) that Christ was not a qualified or fit Mediator for us, till he had accomplished the last act of his obedience; for if it be onely to qualify him to be our mediator, then till he had fulfilled all his actual obedience, he could not have been our Mediator and Surety. Others they would have the controversy butted; and Ursin, Paraeus, Lubbertus, though they be produced against Christs active obedience, yet they take upon them to be Conciliators, rather then to join to either party. Paraeus is said[ Lubbert. contra Bertium, pag. 25] to call the Disputes about the active and passive obedience of Christ inanes rixas, but I cannot in my Edition find those expressions; indeed he limits the obedience in my Text to that of Christs death( of which more afterwards.) Yet he grants, That Christ fulfilled the general Law, and that special Law also of a Redeemer. To be sure Paraeus[ Comment. in Heb. 5.8.] saith, Some dispute about the active and passive obedience of Christ, Quidni utraque? Why are we not justified by both? And very remarkable at the 9th verse of the 5th Chapter of the Hebrews, he addeth, That the effect of our salvation doth not flow from any part of his actions or passions, but from the whole work of Redemption most fully accomplished by him. Therefore we are not to divide Christ, or distracted faith, seeking one part of our righteousness in his birth, another in habitual sanctity, another in integrity of life, another in obedience of death. To this last I fully subscribe, but how it will consist with their other Positions, I see not. Others[ M. Brad. of Justif. cap. 13. M. Gatak. Animad. pag. 2.] distinguish of Christs obedience, his legal obedience, and his servile: His legal obedience was that which consisted in conformity to the Law, and flowing from his most pure nature: His servile obedience is that which was done by him as in a state of humiliation; for Christ, though he took our nature upon him might have been immediately received into heaven, and so not have subjected himself to the Law in that debased manner as he did. So that these learned Authors do not make that actual obedience to be a qualification of him for to make an atonement for us by his death. But grant these particular acts of his obedience are imputed to us, and make up our complete righteousness with his sufferings. Thus we see the dissent amongst those, that yet deny the imputation of Christs active obedience to us for our righteousness. But yet because these Authors do grant the imputation of Christs obedience in some sense, and deny in it other, Therefore  
A fourth Proposition is, That the full understanding of this truth, lieth in a right explication of the manner how we are made partakers of Christs righteousness. We are in the dark, and cannot avoid confusion till we separate the light from the darkness, by declaring in what way we are advantaged by Christs righteousness; for seeing an imputation of Christs obedience in his doings, as well as his sufferings unto us, is acknowledged by all the Orthodox, yea and by Papists themselves; therefore here is the difficulty to know, how its imputed, and how its not. Now we may conceive this imputation possible two ways:  
1. That which is called by some virtually in opposition to formally, that is, when the whole obedience of Christ is made ours, that is, say they, for our good, for our benefit and advantage, but not so as to be our righteousness itself. And thus some hold no other imputation of it, but in this sense, that all which Christ did, yea and all that he had, even his whole being was for our great advantage. Though the instance will not hold every way, yet it may well represent it, when Paul said, He suffered for the Churches sake, the meaning is not, as if Pauls sufferings were imputed to the Church, as Christs were, only they did tend to the good of the Church many ways: So, say they, Christs habitual and actual holinesse did in many respects tend to our spiritual good, to our Justification, but are not any part of our righteousness. Here is an imputation granted, but in a very remote way.  
Others, and they are Popish writers, grant an imputation in this sense, that his merits and satisfaction are communicated and applied to us, so that thereby we are enabled to fulfil the Law perfectly, and to satisfy God: So that Christs righteousness which he did, is not made our righteousness, but its the cause or merit of our righteousness, and therefore Christ is our righteousness with them, as David calls God often, his strength and his salvation, in a causal sense. Thus they grant an imputation in this sense, as if we should say, a mans money is accounted for his food and raiment, not that he feedeth on his money, or weareth his money, but because by this he he can procure them: So say they, Christs righteousness and obedience, its not that in which immediately we appear before God, and look to be justified by, but it procureth and obtaineth a righteousness for us.  
Others, they say, There is an imputation of Christs obedience, and its part of our righteousness, but then they will not yield, that it should be so particularly applied to us, as that it should be equivalent to our keeping of the Law, or we might be said to fulfil the Law in him. Here is an imputation likewise of Christs active obedience, but none rise up to that fullness as the fourth and last explication doth, which positively determine, That Christs active obedience is in the same way required as his passive: So that as in Christ suffering we were looked upon by God, as suffering in him: So by Christs obeying of the Law we were beholded, as fulfilling the Law in him: Insomuch that the active obedience is in the same manner imputed to us, as the passive; and the foundation laid down by them, is this, That a passive righteousness is not all the righteousness we are bound to have: Its not enough to have satisfied the penalty of the Law. There is a perfect obedience still expected from us: So that he who would appear in an universal complete righteousness before God, must bring not only a satisfaction to the punishment, but a conformity to the Law, and they judge it a great derogating from Christ, and making him but half a Saviour, to affirm otherwise; and certainly if we do attend to what was our duty, and what the Office was Christ undertook for us, it seemeth to be very clear, that both the active and passive obedience of Christ, must concur to make up our complete righteousness. Though some Divines call it our formal righteousness, yet( as hath been said) because that expression is subject to logical disputes, we may call it our legal righteousness, or that matter whereby we stand justified, completely before God: the one is not enough without the other.  
Fifthly, It must be considered, That even amongst those that hold our Justification by Christs active righteousness, there are differences also. For there is a three-fold righteousness in Christ, 1. That which is essential, as he is God. 2, His habitual. 3. His actual. For his essential righteousness, as God; none have appeared to hold the imputation of that, but Osiander, and what followers he had, which opinion was almost like Jonah's gourd, that did presently whither, and is by many Arguments confuted by Calvin, and therefore I shall not stand on that.  
2. There is his habitual righteousness, and some affirm this to be imputed to us for our righteousness to cover our original and habitual corruption. But some deny this, as thinking that rather qualifying and constituting of him, and so no more imputable to us, then his natures are; for this innate holinesse was only praesuppositivè and materialiter in him, as the Schools use to express such things, and was of the same consideration with his being and subsistency. Therefore  
3. There is his actual obedience, whereby in an expressed manner he conformed himself to the Law of God, whatsoever it was either general and natural, which all men were obliged unto, or more special and positive, which the Jews and children of Abraham were bound unto; or yet more particular of a Redeemer and a Saviour, which he himself onely was obliged unto. This actual conformity unto the Law of God thus specified, is that righteousness( say others) which is made ours, and by his obedience unto it we are made righteous.  
These Propositions thus stated, 
Arguments for the imputation of Christs active obedience.  the first Argument for the imputation of Christs righteousness, is to be established upon this Text; for its a pregnant place, and speaks directly and positively what is contended for, viz. That by Christs obedience a believer is made righteous, whereas in other places Justification is attributed to his blood, 
From the Text Rom. 5.19.  here it is to his obedience, and that in a general unlimited sense. That this Argument may stand valid, its good to vindicate it from all exceptions; some have said that its meant of inherent righteousness, as if to be made righteous was to be inwardly sanctified: but that hath been refused. Others, they limit this obedience, to the particular obedience of Christ, which was demonstrated in dying for us: This hath also been removed by several reasons.  
Let us therefore consider what Arguments they have to move them to this interpretation. And  
1. Its said, That which is here name in the Text, The obedience of one, is vers. 18, called one righteousness: Now if it was but one righteousness, that cannot be applied to the several acts of righteousness, which Christ performed in his life time.  
To this we answer, That it is readily granted, that verse 17. and 18. it may be, if we regard the original, as well one offence, as the offence of one: Therefore its so in the Margint of the Bible; and indeed as Beza well notes, If it were not so in vers. 17. there would seem to be a needless redundancy; for thus its translated, by one mans offence {αβγδ}, Death reigned by one; the later {αβγδ} seems to be tautological, unless you understand the former by one offence, not one mans offence. Therefore an emphatical expression is to be put upon those passages, by that offence of one, and by that righteousness of one. But though this be granted in those verses, yet this Text doth expressly name man, By one mans disobedience, and by the obedience of one( though man be not in the Original, yet a person is supposed) So that we must forsake the very letter of the Scripture if we expound it so.  
In the next place, its further pleaded, That we must understand it onely of Christs obedience in his death, because of the opposition between Adams disobedience and Christs obedience. Now( say they) as Adams disobedience, which did condemn us, was one sin; so Christs obedience which must justify us, is but one act of obedience.  
But first, There is not the same reason of Adams disobedience and Christs obedience in every thing; and certainly the Apostle maketh a great dissimilitude as well as agreement, and it may seem even in this very thing at vers. 17. for there the Apostle makes it one sin that brought death, but its the abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness that brings life. The opposition lieth between Adams one sin, and Christs abundance of righteousness.  
Again, There is not the same reason, because one sin is enough to condemn; but more then one act of obedience is required to justify; hence we say, Though Adam condemned all, yea the greater part of man shall be actually damned, and Christ he justifieth and saveth but a few, yet Christ the second Adam is more potent then the first, because there is required more efficacy to save one, then is to condemn many; as there is to restore one man to life, more then to kill many.  
Furthermore, Christs obedience may be called one, even as Adams disobedience; for as Divines say, His sin was not one single, simplo sin, but many sins, were ingredient therein, which made it to be a very heinous transgression: Thus Christs whole obedience, is but one entire and complete obedience consisting of many acts, even as the adversaries must aclowledge Christs sufferings was one complete obedience integrated of many particular kindes of sufferings, for it was not one numerical suffering that procured our Redemption, he suffered from men and from God, in his body and in his soul, extreme grief and torment in his body, as also the sense of Gods wrath in his soul, as Piscator doth aclowledge.   

SERM. XXXV. Arguments to prove the Imputation of Christs active obedience to us for our Justification.  ROM. 5.19. So by the Obedience of one shall many be made Righteous. 
THere are further assaults to get this strong hold out of our hands: But this we are to maintain, That by the whole obedience of Christ, we are made righteous. Let us therefore consider what further Answers are brought to this Argument. And in the next place, its said,  
By obedience is meant only passive obedience, because the Scripture in other places doth always attribute our Justification and Redemption to Christs death: Therefore it must be so understood here. This is judged a strong Answer and likely to prevail.  
But 1. The Scripture doth not always attribute our Justification or Salvation to his death; for cap. 4. v. 25. it s there given to his resurrection, He rose again for our Justification: and at the 18th verse of this Chapter, its said, By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all to Justification of life: yea Phil. 2.8. the work of our Redemption is wrought by Christ in the whole state of his humiliation, Being in the form of ae servant, and obedient unto death, even the death of the across: Where all that obedience he shewed unto God, antecedently to his death is taken notice of; and what is it to be redeemed from the curse of the Law, but to be justified? yet that Gal. 4.4. is attributed unto Christs being under the Law; so that we see Christs death is not every where expressed as the cause of our Justification and Redemption.  
2. Its granted, that in very many places our Justification, and forgiveness of sins is attributed to the death of Christ, but not exclusively or negatively, so as to deny the other acts of his obedience, but because in this was demonstrated most eminently his obedience, as also his love to us: We are then by his death to understand, all that course of humiliation he did so willingly undergo, which was at last consummated in his death. And this may well satisfy the Piscatorians, for seeing they hold that it was not merely Christs death that was an atonement, but as laid down by him who in his soul was fully apprehensive of the wrath of God against sin; so that those sufferings in his soul made the greatest part of a sacrifice for our sins, it must needs follow, that by death they cannot barely mean death, but something more. And as the strict adhering to the words death and blood, would exclude the sufferings of his soul, so all his other sufferings, which yet the Scripture takes great notice of, the reproaches and revilings he endured, but especially those agonies and great conflicts he had, while in the garden with his Disciples, that were before his death. It is a good rule and of use in this case, In Homogeneis connexis& subordinatis unius inclusio non est alterius exclusio. But its good to follow the Scripture in the universal extent of it in describing all that is done for us by Christ: some remove his active obedience, restraining it to his passive; others they detruncate his passive obedience, taking away the greatest part of that, and limit it to a bodily suffering: Then come others at the last, and they take away even his bodily suffering also, as to be any imputed righteousness to us by way of satisfaction to the justice of God, so that its dangerous to remove those Land marks the Scripture hath set us; when you once begin to take any part away of Christs humiliation, as not imputed to us, its hard to say where you will stay: and its again and again to be considered, whether by the same reason you take away part, you do not remove all; certainly the Socinian thinketh by the same blow to beat down all.  
The next Answer that is run unto as a sanctuary, is, That the opposition seemeth to necessitate us, that we restrain it to passive obedience only: for thus they observe, As the disobedience by Adam was not a transgression of the moral and general Law, which did bind him as a man, but it was a special command by way of trial, and obliging only in that case: so the obedience of Christ must be not to the moral and general Law, but to some special command, which was to be a mediator, and so to die for us. But its well observed by the Antagonists, that the Apostle makes the opposition between Adams disobedience, and Christs obedience, as the disease and the remedy, and so we must look for a contrariety, not an identity at least in the manner of curing, otherwise we must say it behoved Christ to have a command about the eating or not eating of the fruit of some three, that so the obedience and disobedience might have agreed. Every one seeth absurdity in this inference. In the second place, Adam in transgressing that positive special command, did at the same time sin against the general and moral Law, its impossible to break any positive precept, and not to break the general Law of God; for the moral Law of God requireth obedience unto him in whatsoever he shall require, only positive commands may specify or institute some matter or medium, which was not expressly commanded by the moral Law. Thus all the ceremonial worship which was introduced by positive precepts, yet is reduced to the second Commandment.  
As for those who say that Adam could not have transgressed the moral Law, because that was written in his heart, and he was made perfect. 
Rep.  Such argue so feebly, that no answer is necessary, yet ex abundanti, we may tell them, that though Adam was created perfect, yet mutable and changeable: Besides by this argument he could not break a positive Law neither, for to sin against any kind of Law, and especially in such a matter as Adam did, must needs argue he did degenerate and fall from his perfection. Furthermore, Adams sin was not only in the actual eating of the forbidden fruit, but it was in unbelief, and distinct in Gods Word, and many other sins were either internally antecedent to the eating, or concomitant of it, which could not but be transgressions of the moral Law. And thus on the contrary it was with Christs obedience, for he did not only obey that special Law of a mediator, but the whole Law of God which we are obliged to, for the special was in some sense included in the general, and he who undertaketh to bring us to a perfect and plenary righteousness, must not only satisfy the Law, but obey it also: But of this more when we consider that text, Gal. 4. of Christs being under the Law, and thereby redeeming us.  
They bring a third Answer to enervate this Argument: for it is said, That we prove from a general expression of obtaining such a thing, a determinate manner of obtaining it, which cannot be any good way of reasoning. It doth not follow, that because Peter died, that therefore he died of such a disease, or was slain by the sword: so neither here doth it hold, that because we are made righteous by Christs obedience, that therefore his active obedience is accounted as if we had done: for we may be made righteous otherways.  

Rep.  But 1. Not only the general, but the determinate manner is contained in the argument, for we are made righteous by Christs obedience, as we are sinners by Adams disobedience, and that is by imputation: believers in Christ are m●de righteous, as we in Adam are made sinners. Thus the Apostle doth not onely declare the benefit, but the manner of communicating it to us; for its a great part of the Apostles scope to show how by Adam we come to die, and how by Christ we come to live.  
2. If there were as many ways to be made righteous, as there are for men to die; here might be some pretence to escape the force of the Argument: but there are but two ways mentioned by the Scripture, Imputed and Inherent, or our righteousness, and the righteousness of God; a righteousness of faith and of works: so that if we are not constituted inherently righteous as to the matter of Justification by Christs obedience, its necessary it must be by imputation. And although men imagine several senses and ways of imputation of righteousness, yet that is no more to be regarded in this point, then in other Doctrinal Controversies, when the Orthodox seeing those many texts of Scripture, which speak of Christs dying for us, to prove a satisfactory atonement unto the justice of God, by this death, and that it is in our stead, as if we had suffered: If a Socinian caviller should say, that they argue from a general to a determinate manner, Christ might die for example and for doctrine, not for satisfaction, or there may be a metaphoricall and improper redeeming, would this be admitted as of any validity? no certainly: For its not enough to put many senses and interpretations upon the place, and then to say, The Scripture doth not prove it, unless it specify such or such a sense: This is to make it impossi●le to prove any thing almost in a determinate sense out of the Scripture, against an heretical interpretation.  
Lastly, They seek to the shadow of that opinion, That Adams sin is not ours by imputation, and if this can be made good, then they think the foundation of the Argument is razed; for thus they affirm, that Adams actual sin of eating the forbidden fruit is not made ours by imputation, but Adam sinning, and thereby losing the Image of God, we descending of him, as the root, have by natural propagation, an unclean nature: For who can bring an unclean thing out of a clean? Thus we sinned in Adam, not by imputation, but because he being the original, and soarce of all mankind, the fountain was polluted and thereby all the streams.  
To Answer this fully would require a large Tractate; It cannot be denied but the objection is very considerable, and of great consequence: for Austin said well,( lib. de peccato Origi. cap. 14.) That in the cause of those two men, Adam and Christ, whereof by the one we are sold under sin, and by the other we are redeemed from sin, the Christian faith doth properly consist. That we are made sinners by Adams disobedience, is so plainly and positively set down in this text, that none can deny it: But how we are, that is controverted. The Pelagians of old, understood it by imitation only: but because infants die, which yet could not imitate Adam, therefore that hath been easily refuted.  
Others interpret to be a sinner, to be guilty; as sin is often put for guilt, and so they will not yield, that we have properly the sin of Adam made ours, only we are sub reatu, not culpâ, under guilt, not sin by him.  
Others, they grant we are made sinners by him, but inherently, by natural propagation.  
Lastly, Those that seem to have the truth on their sides, affirm, that we are not only made sinful by him, being born of him that was an unclean root, but that also his very actual transgression was made ours: That his sin was not only Adams personal actual sin, but also by Covenant and imputation the sin of all mankind. Its true that custom and use in the Church of God, doth now call that only Original sin, which every one hath as soon as he is born, but yet Adams first actual transgression may be called Original sin, in an active sin, as being the cause of that original passive sin in us; now if this be so, then as Adams actual disobedience was ours by imputation, so Christs obedience is also ours in the like manner. Its true, some will hardly admit this, therefore Peltanus a jesuit,( lib. de Origin. peccato, pag. 110, 111.) refuseth this opinion, which Catharinus and Piglius defended, for this reason amongst others, because, saith he, it doth plainly favour their error, who in this age urge the figment of imputed righteousness. But Adam is not to be considered only as a root and a natural principle, but as a public person, with whom God made a Covenant for himself and his posterity, that upon his persevering obedience, he and his posterity should be established in holiness and life, but upon his disobedience, he and all his should be deprived of both. Now Adam who was then a public Person, and a common Trustee, as it were, for all mankind disobeying, we became sinners, not only by natural propagation, but by imputation. The Covenant makes it to be our act as well as his, and this may appear to be true by these Reasons. First, Because the Apostle in this Chapter, ver. 12. saith, that in him all have sinned, whether it be in whom, or for that, all will come to one issue. All sinned in him, or because he sinned all sinned, which cannot be understood of any other, but Adams actual disobedience. Now to say, All sinned in him, is more then to say, All are made sinners by him: The one denoteth an act, the other an habitual qualification. If it were only said, We are made sinners by him, that might enforce no more then what the opponents affirm, viz that by descent from him we have inherent pollution, that doth really constitute us sinners; but when we are so made sinners, that thereby we did sin in him, we were peccantes, as well as peccatores: This cannot be any other way but by imputation, or some compact. 2. If it were by natural propagation only that we are made sinners by Adam, then there is no reason to attribute all to Adam, to one man, and to that one offence, for we may as well charge it upon all other immediate parents, as well as he. If you look only to natural descent, and set aside the Covenant and Imputation, then there is no difference between Adam and other parents, it might be as well said, we sinned in many men, as in one; and we might as well say, by any other mans disobedience we are made sinners, as by Adams. Again, If it were not by imputation, but natural propagation, Why should that one disobedience of Adams be mentioned more then other sins? Why should not all those sins after his fall be pitched upon, as well as that offence onely? Is not all this because in that particular command Adam was a public person, and so covenanted with, and what he did was the act of all mankind? as what the Master of a Society doth, if impowred thereunto, is the act of all the Society. Lastly, It must be by imputation, not natural descent, because if Adam had not fallen, all Divines agree that not only himself, but his posterity had been crwoned with immortality and life. Indeed what kind of life and blessedness it would have been is controverted, but immortality and blessedness in the general is concluded on by all. Now Adams posterity could not be made partakers of righteousness and blessedness, by mere natural propagation, there must be a Covenant necessary presupposed to make this good; and it was at the mere good pleasure of God, whether he would convey such glorious privileges or not: So that the Covenant God made with Adam, is that which takes all his posterity with him, and makes, as Austin said, Omnes homines ille unus homo, all men that one man: And therefore its observed that Adam is used both for Eve and Adam also, as being collectively all mankind. Now if we come to speak of Christ, and our being made righteous by him, it will hold more strongly that his obedience must be ours by imputation, for he is not our natural root as Adam was to mankind; what Christ did for us cannot become ours but by a Covenant and agreement, therefore some are made righteous by it, and not others; so that as by his passive obedience we are made righteous by imputation, and by a Covenant, thus it is also by his active obedience. And thus I have at last vindicated this first Argument, taken from the collation and comparison with the first and second Adam, from the many Objections I have any where red or observed against it.  

II. Arguments from Mat. 5.17, 18. Rom. 8.3.  A second Argument to prove the imputation of Christs active obedience unto us, shall be from those several texts, which say, Christ either came to fulfil the Law, or that by him the righteousness of the Law was fulfilled in us, that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness: That he was made under the Law to redeem us. These texts will strongly evince, That Christs active obedience and fulfilling the Law was for us, as well as the satisfying the penalty of it. Let us take the texts in order: The first is Mat. 5.17, 18. I am come not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it, {αβγδ}, Beza makes it a metaphor from untying bonds and losing them, because the Law is a bond to duty. Piscator makes it a metaphor from a building, if you loosen the foundation, the whole fabric will fall. Which ways soever you take it, this is plain that Christ came not to destroy or overthrow the Law, but to fulfil it: To see the force of this text, consider  
1. That it s undeniable by the Law, is meant chiefly, if not solely, the moral Law. So that whereas in other places, the evasion commonly is, that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial Law, because they were shadows, and he the body: This cannot be so here, for he doth plainly instance in the moral Law, at the 21. verse, and so along the Chapter: Its true, he saith, he came not to destroy the Prophets neither, but to fulfil them also, and that is, because whatsoever they had prophesied concerning him did come to pass: But this doth not weaken, yea it rather confirmeth, that as he fulfilled the Prophets every way they could be fulfilled; so he did also the Law every way that could be fulfilled.  
2. There may be a twofold fulfilling of the Law, meant in this expression. 1. A doctrinal fulfilling of it, by giving the true and pure meaning of it, against those corrupt glosses that were put upon it by the Pharisees. 2. A practical and obediential fulfilling of it, by a conformity to the command of it: Now Christ did fulfil the Law both ways, by a doctrinal interpretation of it, that is plain in the text; and by obedience, that is easily made good, as part of the sense, to fulfil the Law, as appeareth, vers. 19. For when our Saviour had said he came to fulfil the Law, he confirmeth it by two arguments: First, The immutability and perpetuity of the Law. Secondly, The danger and punishment of him, who shall break it, and that is not by false doctrine only but by disobedience: Therefore he saith, Whosoever shall break one of these commands, and teach men so to do. So that disobedience is one way of breaking the Law, and corrupt interpretation of it another way. Therefore our Saviour came to fulfil it by his true doctrine, and by his holy life; and this is acknowledged by Piscator, who upon this place saith, that Christ fulfilled the Law in himself and in us; in himself by the love of God, and in us, which he maketh true several ways. First, By working faith in us, whereby we lay hold upon Christ, who by his death removed the curse of the Law. Secondly, By enabling us to obey the Law in some measure: and thirdly, By chastising and afflicting of us when we go astray. But this seemeth not much to the purpose, though there may be some truth in it, for here lieth the Question, Whether Christ did obedientially fulfil the Law for us or not, or for himself only; if for us, as the Scripture makes the salvation of his people, the ground of all that he did and suffered, then we have enough for our purpose out of the text. Its true, they distinguish between obeying pro nobis, in our stead, and propter nos, for our good. Even as the Socinians distinguish between Christs dying for us, and in our stead; but the same reasons which persuade to understand ( for us) in matter of his death, to be in stead of us, will also concerning his obedience, as is more to be shewed. Its said likewise, that Christ obeied the Law for himself, his human nature being a creature, was by the obligation of the moral Law, bound to love God, and do those acts which are commanded therein, and so being due upon that ground, could not be imputed to us, as his sufferings could not have been made ours, if he had been bound to suffer for himself, but the discussing of this, will be most proper, when this Objection is brought in.  
I therefore proceed to a second text, and that is Rom. 8.3. That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us. Here we see plainly the great end why Christ came into the world, it was to condemn sin; you have also the occasion of this, it was because the Law was impossible to us, we could not fulfil it, because of the adhering corruptions to us. Lastly, Here is the effect of this condemnation of sin through Christ, That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us. The {αβγδ}: Many thoughts there are about the sense or meaning of the word {αβγδ}: I willingly go along with those that render it the Jus, the right and power of the Law, that which the Law might require at our hands. This is fulfilled in us, so that whatsoever the Law could demand, that through Christ is accomplished in us. Now the right of the Law was in requiring two things: First, Satisfaction to the penalty of it, for that being broken there cannot be any hope till the justice of God be satisfied. But that is not all: Secondly, The right of the Law is to require perfect obedience, without which we cannot inherit life, and both these must be done for us in and by Christ; so that this {αβγδ} was fulfilled in us, by Christs sufferings, and by his obedience. Its true some understand this of sanctification, because it followeth, Who walk not after the flesh but the spirit; but as the Apostle at the 5th verse brought this expression as a qualification of those who had no condemnation, so he seemeth in this verse to make it in those who have the righteousness of the Law fulfilled in them;& if it were to be understood of sanctification, it would not be so properly spoken in the passive sense, for so we do rather fulfil the Law actively, though imperfectly, rather then have it fulfilled passively in us: I wonder therefore at Gomarus, an eminent and learned Author, with great assurance& diligence propugning Christs active obedience, that he should in his analytical Expositions on this place, quit this Interpretation, and understand it of sanctification: His reason is no ways cogent, Because( saith he) the text saith, this righteousness is fulfilled in us, and not in Christ; but it is acknowledged by the Opponents, that the satisfaction of the penalty of the Law, is part of this {αβγδ}, which is also accomplished by Christ and in Christ for us; yet in the text its not said to be fulfilled in Christ. Therefore its enough that the Apostle had in the verse before, mentioned the end of Christs coming into the flesh, and so in and through that we come to have the righteousness of the Law fulfilled in us: Certainly the patient and willing suffering of the punishment of the Law, cannot be said to be all the righteousness the Law requireth.   

SERM. XXXVI. More Reasons to prove the Imputation of Christs Active Obedience to Believers.  ROM. 5.19. So by the Obedience of one shall ma●y be made righteous. 
THe third and fourth verses of the eighth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, have been brought in to establish this truth, That Christs obedience to the whole Law of God is made righteousness to us. The righteousness of the Law by Christ, is fulfilled, though not by us, yet in us. I have not observed any considerable Replies to this Objection, but what I meet with shall be Animadverted upon. Two things are said to this Text:  
First, That it would not be any rational inference, from Christs condemning sin in the flesh, to conclude, that his perfect obedience is made ours, but rather the clean contrary, for if sin be taken away, what need we have a righteousness imputed unto us.  
But this is no strong Answer, for we grant indeed that in the third verse, Christ is there said to condemn sin, and that by oblation of himself as a sacrifice, for so that {αβγδ} is to be rendered, as Ludovic. de Deiu doth excellently clear that place, which hath so tortured Interpreters; he well sheweth that the Septuagint use the phrase {αβγδ}, for a distinct kind of sacrifice to the Holocausts, as appears, Levit. 5.7. and so it is used by the Apostle, Heb. 10.6, 8. Burnt offerings, and {αβγδ}, sacrifices for sin thou hast no pleasure in. Its true then that the Apostle speaketh of Christs offering himself a sacrifice and an atonement for sin, and this admirable benefit doth hereby accrue to the Believer, that sin is condemned; he speaks of it as a person that now is disabled from accusing or laying any thing to our charge, sin cannot accuse us any longer: Oh glorious privilege, sin that did condemn all others, is now condemned itself. We say a condemned person in Law cannot give in any witness, how wonderfully may faith improve this to quiet and comfort the conscience: Doth sin accuse thee, doth that threaten condemnation to thee? say, Christ hath condemned it, that now it hath no more power to accuse: and as if this were not enough( as indeed it is not) there is a second benefit, that the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us by this means. Christ did not only by his sufferings remove the curse, but by his absolute conformity to the command of the Law, hath obtained for us a perfect obedience, so that the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us. This followeth most genuinely, yea and necessary; for the righteousness of the Law could not be fulfilled in us, unless we had either by inherency or imputation, a perfect obedience made ours. Seeing therefore the Law cannot of itself allow or approve of any thing, but what is perfect, that cannot be said to be fulfilled, unless there be an absolute and full conformity to it. So that by Christ, the Law which was our enemy, is now reconciled to us; and that which did once curse us, cannot but bless and approve of us, because it cannot reject, but approve the obedience of Christ.  
A second Reply is made, That by fulfilling should be meant the accomplishment of such a righteousness, as the Law had foretold of, and so its paralleled with that place where the Law is said to give witness of this righteousness, Rom. 3. and so its said, this is the most proper use of the word {αβγδ} in the Scripture for the accomplishment or full manifestation of any thing that was under a promise or prediction.  
But this will appear easily to be a mere evasion; for when the word is used to fulfil, in that sense there is added {αβγδ}, and the like; now bear is no such thing here, but its like the expression Rom. 13.8. He that loveth {αβγδ}, hath fulfilled the Law. And Gal. 5.14. The Law {αβγδ} is fulfilled in one word: Even as Romans 13.10. Love is said to be {αβγδ} the fulfilling of the Law.  
A third Text is, Rom. 10.3. where Christ is said to be the end of the Law for righteousness to him that believeth. Did not men obscure the Text with Interpretations, and so put a veil on it, the light of it would easily appear to this purpose; That whereas the Law had this for an end, to bring men to perfect obedience, and so to obtain Justification thereby, this through mans corruption being made impossible, yet through Christ the end of the Law is established, and so the Law is not destroyed, nor the intent of the Law-giver frustrated, for Christ is the end of it to him that believeth, and that for righteousness.  
I shall not insist long on this, because I have some where else handled this. Its true, some understand this of the Ceremonial Law, and so make Christ the end abolishing not accomplishing, the finis interficiens, not perficiens, the finis consumens, not consummans; but seeing the Apostle argueth against the Jews, who sought to establish their own righteousness by the Law, we must take it in as large a sense as they did, and they thought by all the works they did to any kind of Law God had commanded to be justified thereby: For although the dispute about Justification began at first by the ceremonial Rites, yet afterwards it extended to all the works of the Law, as plainly appeareth by Pauls arguments. Therefore the Apostle at the 5th verse describeth the righteousness of the Law, by doing those things, and so a man shall live; now they were not bound to do the things of the ceremonial Law only, but the moral Law also.  
Again, If this were to be understood of the ceremonial Law only, that Christ came to abolish that Mosaical administration, and so was the end of righteousness in that respect, then it would follow, That Christ was onely righteousness in this sense to the believing Jew, not to the gentle; for the believing gentle was not bound to that ceremonial Law, neither did Christ abolish it as to them, seeing they were never under it. Certainly by this means, all we that are believers of the Gentiles can have no comfort in Christs being the end of the Law for righteousness. But see the Apostle speaking universally, Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to him that believeth.  
Some understand this of the moral Law, and say, Christ was the end of it, because the Law did convince of sin, and show us our impotency, and so drive us to seek unto Christ; but this is a secondary use of the Law, and by accident merely, otherwise the Law would have been the Ministry of life as well as the Gospel. The primary use of the Law, and that which is intended per se, is to bring unto a perfect and complete obedience. Look then on Christ, not only as the end of the ceremonial, but also the moral Law, and what obedience thereunto is defective in thee, see it completed in Christ.  
The last Text under this second kind of Argument alleged for the imputation of Christs active obedience, shall be that famous and notable one, Galat. 4.4, 5. where Christ is said to be made under the Law, that he might redeem us from the curse of the Law; He was made under the Law, both in respect of the mandatory part of it, and also the comminatory part of it. The Apostle doth there describe his being made of a woman, and made under the Law, to be the ground of our redemption from the curse of it.  
If it be said, Christ was under the obediential part of the Law for himself, and not for us.  
That is to be discussed in answering that Objection wherein the Adversary puts so much confidence. Piscator would render {αβγδ}, born under the Law, but if that be granted, it would not much avail him, for still he was under the Law; but that must not be granted, for his birth is expressed in, that, when he is said to be made of a woman. That which hath the greater colour is, That to be under the Law, doth imply to be under the curse of it, not the obedience, as when the godly are said not to be under the Law, but under grace: So that by this interpretation, it will reach onely to Christs death, as Gal. 3.13. but the phrase is not to be thus straightened, for we must take it in the same sense, as the Jews urged it, against whom the Apostle manageth this Epistle. Now when they desired to be under the Law, none can say, they intended to be under the condemning power and curse of the Law only. Tell me( saith the Apostle at vers. 21.) ye that desire to be under the Law; certainly they did not desire to be under the curse of the Law: Therefore the Apostle would take them off from seeking Justification by the works of any Law, and look wholly upon Christ, as both obeying and suffering for them. And thus we have ended those Texts that are brought under one head for a second Argument.  
We proceed to a third, and that shall consist of such Texts as make us to be righteous in Christ, 
Argument from such texts as make us to be righteous in Christ, and not in ourselves, 2 Cor. 5.21.  and not in ourselves, to be accepted of in him, to be complete in him, and that we are to be found in him: All which do teach us thus much, That our righteousness is of and in Christ. It is what he hath done for us, and not what we ourselves do; and its good to adhere to these, because hereby Christ will be the more exalted.  
The first Text is, 2 Cor. 5.21. He who knew no sin, is made sin for us, that we may be the righteousness of God in him. I have discussed this Text already, when I proved an imputed righteousness: Therefore briefly take notice of these three things in the verse.  
1. We are made the righteousness of God, all believers are distributively made the righteousness of God, that is, not onely the righteousness which God hath procured, or which is accepted of by God, but a righteousness that is not a mere mans, therefore its said in him, who was both God and man, otherwise it might have been a righteousness of God in us.  
2. Its said, A righteousness of God in him, to denote, That though it be ours by imputation, yet its subjectively in him. Not that this righteousness, as it is in him, is made ours, so that we should have the righteousness of a Mediator, and an infinite righteousness, but so far as we stood in need of it; Of which more in the Objections: Its then our righteousness by imputation, but in Christ, not in ourselves. And  
3. Consider the comparison, We are made the righteousness of God in Christ, as he was made sin for us. Not indeed in every respect; for in several particulars there is a dissimilitude, but as to the matter intended by the Apostle, which is to show, that as our sins laid on him, made him die, and endure the wrath of God, when yet he had no sins of his own, so his righteousness is made ours, when we had not that of our own which could answer the Law. But because I have spoken of this already, I proceed to a second, and that is,  
Ephes. 1.6. He hath made us accepted of in the beloved. To be accepted of, implieth the end for which, and that is to eternal life, yea and for the present our persons and duties are also accepted of, but it is still in him. Now, seeing God is so holy and righteous that nothing can be accepted of with him to such eternal glory, but what is completely holy, therefore that supposeth our acceptation to be grounded upon his obedience. And thus that known comparison of our appearance in Christs righteousness, as Jacob did in his elder brothers clothes, doth suppose, that we are covered with Christs righteousness, as with a garment. To have sin pardonned by the passive obedience of Christ, is but a limited and restrained acceptation, viz. quoad hoc, so far as not to incur eternal judgement; but this Text speaks of an universal acceptation, even so to be received into the favour of God, as thereby to partake of all the glorious privileges God hath promised in his Word. This Text will more confirm it, if you join Col. 2.10. where believers are said to be complete in him, as in Christ their head. Thus as in him we are risen, as in him we sit in heavenly places; so in him we satisfy the justice of God, and in him we fulfil the Law. By virtue of this mystical union all that Christ hath is made ours, and what he did we are accounted of as to do it. Therefore the Church is called Christ, because of the intimate communion with him, 1 Cor. 12.12. Christ and believers make one mystical person, as what the natural or political head doth in that relation, all the proportionable members are said to do. Therefore Aquinas said truly, Opera Christi habent se ad membra, sicut opera hoins constituti in gratiâ ad seipsum, If a man be holy, then his hands, his eyes, his mind, his will and affections are holy. Thus what Christ did as our head, is imputatively ours; for in these things he was a public person, and acted in our behalf, not that he repented for us, and believed with a justifying faith for us, as some have fond imagined; for these things, though graces in themselves, yet necessarily argue some imperfection in the subject where they are.  
To these Texts we may add the practical, and experimental way which Paul took for comfort, when he would set himself before Gods Tribunal, and that is Phil 3.9. To be found in him, not having his own righteousness, but the righteousness which is of God by faith. To be found in him, that doth notably imply, when the Law and Justice of God shall make enquiry after Paul, he would not, though so great an Apostle, and one who had laboured more then them all, yet he would not be found in himself. And certainly thus it is, as Contarenus an ingenuous Papist in this controversy hath well observed, The more grace and holinesse any man have attained unto, the more humble and modest they are in themselves, and the higher esteem they have of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Not but that they indeed grow more godly, onely hereby they see their own failings more, and the greater necessity of Christ, they are pleased in themselves less, and are more contented and satisfied in Christ. Its he that lived for them, and he that died for them, Christ is all in all. Neither do they divide and separate Christs life and his death, but by faith receive whole Christ in all that he undertook for them.  
A fourth Argument is taken from such places where Christ is expressly called our righteousness, and is said to be made of our righteousness, Jerem. 23.6. Jer. 33.16. 1 Cor. 1.30. 
Arguments from such Scriptures where Christ is expressly called our righteousness, Jer. 23.6.& 33.16. 1 Cor. 1.30.  and which is very remarkable, he is said to bring in an everlasting righteousness, Dan. 9 24. All these places are very emphatical, and not easily to be put by as some think they may. For the first  
Jer. 23.6. it is plain at the 5th verse, that he whose name shall be called the Lord our righteousness is Christ, and that he doth not speak of God the Father for us at the 5th verse, he describeth his human nature; so in this 6th he declareth his Divine Nature, he is called Jehovah, which is never directly and properly attributed unto any creature, as the Orthodox prove against Socinians.  
2. As his two Natures are described, so also his Mediatory Office in that attribute, our righteousness; this is the righteousness of the Gospel, and that which Christ is made to us.  
3. There is the believers thankful acknowledgement and profession of it, He shall be called. To be called doth signify not only the being of a thing, but the famous publishing and notifying of it: Every believer shall know where his strength lieth, where his comfort and righteousness is treasured up, and that is in Christ, who is both the Branch and the Jehovah; This is most genuine, if we do regard the scope of the Prophet, and is received by the current of Interpreters, yet Grotius upon the place, applieth it to Judah, and not to Christ, as if the sense were, The name that Judah shall be called by, &c. and by righteousness doth understand( as sometimes the word is) beneficence and mercy; but every one may see this is to compel Scripture to go whether it would not.  
The second Text is almost like this, if not the same, Jerem. 33.16. This is the name whereby she shall be called, The Lord our righteousness. Grotius thinketh this will confirm his interpretation of the former, for here, saith he, the city shall be called thus, and there the people of Judah, there is the Masculine Gender, here is the Feminine; but suppose it should be granted, that the right interpretation is, She shall be called( as our Translators do) yet Lapide's observation upon the place would much confirm the truth we contend for, That such is the union between Christ and the Church, that there is a communion unto it of all the good things Christ hath; and in 1 Corinth. 1.30. We are said( that is, the Church) to be the righteousness of God in Christ: Even as Christ maketh the persecution of the Church to reach to him, Saul, Saul, Why persecutest thou me? Thus Paul on the other side, Galat. 2.20. I no longer live, but Christ in me. If then Christ be the Lord our righteousness, and this title is given her, for the near communion she hath with Christ who is her righteousness, then this doth greatly make for the imputation of Christs righteousness unto us. But that translation which Junius gives seemeth to be more consonant to the former place, and so makes both this and that alike, which is thus, And he that shall call her, is the Lord our righteousness: So that Christ the righteousness of the Church is here said to call his people to him.  
The third Text confirming this, is 1 Cor. 1.30. We are of Christ, who is made of God to us, righteousness; Here you see He is righteousness, He is made righteousness, and he is made righteousness of God, and that to us, his righteousness was not for himself, but for us, and he is made it to us. To these places the Adversaries of imputation in the sense stated, though differing amongst themselves, yet all agree to give this answer, That Christ is made our righteousness causally and effectively, that is, he is the Author and cause of our righteousness: Even as God is often called by David, his strength, and his hope, yea and so Christ likewise is called, there being nothing so ordinary( say they) as to denominate an efficient with that title, which is effected or wrought by him: and indeed its granted, That this answer might prevail, if the Scripture did not in other places manifest a nearer union between Christ and his people, then of a mere bare efficient; Christ is not onely made the cause of believers graces, but they are said to be in him, and to be made one with him, and he is their Surety and Mediator, which doth imply a nearer union, then a mere outward cause. Therefore I subjoined these Texts to the former Argument of Christs Union with his people, that so the strength of them may be supported: And indeed the very phrase to be made righteousness being distinct from that of being made Sanctification, must needs have some other sense, then of causality, for that is implied, in being made Sanctification to us, that is, the author of all inherent righteousness. Therefore to be made righteousness to us, must be of some other righteousness then is inherent in us.  
I add onely one Text more, which speaks very strongly to this matter, and that is Daniel 9.24. where it is prophesied, that by the Messiah shall be brought in this two-fold benefit; First, An Expiation of sin. Secondly, An Everlasting righteousness. I shall not spend time to confute Junius his Exposition, who understands these two things not as Benefits procured by Christ, but as duties imposed upon the Jews in their conversion, to expiate sin by repentance, and by faith to lay hold on this righteousness which is everlasting. Therefore to pass that by.  
Here first we see, That remission of sin is not all the righteousness that Christ brings in.  
Secondly, That the righteousness which a believer hath, is by Christ: So that as its not the believers tears that wash away his sins, but Christs blood; so neither is it the believers duties or graces, that make him in this sense righteous, but what Christ did for us. Therefore its a righteousness that Christ brings in. As there was no remission of sin, but that which Christ brought in; So no righteousness which he doth not also bring in, and this is called everlasting righteousness, because though imputed righteousness, shall cease in heaven, yet the praise and glory of all shall be in reference to that: Even as Christ, though he will perfectly sanctify us in Heaven, yet shall not loose the honour and glory of that Mediatorship, which once he accomplished on earth.  
The fifth Argument, is taken from those places which represent Christ in the relation of a Mediator and a Surety for us, 
Argument from those Scriptures that represent Christ in the relation of a Mediator and Surety,& made our peace, not by power but righteousness.  and that he did not come to make our peace with God potentiâ, but Justitiâ; by power, but righteousness; As Augustine often, for if it be disputed about Gods power( you have heard some affirming, to whom yet I cannot give my consent) that God might have forgiven sin without any satisfaction at all; but suppose he would have sin pardonned in a way of Justice, and not sole and mere mercy, it was necessary that Christ should die. This we urge for his active obedience also, Heb. 7.22. Christ is there made a Surety. This seemeth to carry more in it then a Saviour or Redeemer; for by this suretyship he becometh in our stead, and so is to perform for us what we ought to do; Solomon giveth great caution against suretyship amongst men, he that keepeth off from it is sure, and yet there the danger is only in being liable to pecuniary debts and outward misery: But oh the great love and condescension of Christ, who would become Surety for us, so as to die for us, to endure the wrath of God for us, and to fulfil all those acts of obedience in a servile and debased way, as he did! If then we would know whether Christs active obedience be imputed to us, let us consider what we were bound to do, and yet could never be able to perform, and then what it did behove our Surety to do for us.   

SERM. XXXVII. The fore-going Argument prosecuted, and some more added.  ROM. 5.19. So by the Obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 
THe Argument in hand, to prove the imputation of Christs active obedience, is taken from the Office and relation Christ hath put himself into for us, and that is, to be a Mediator and a Surety. Christ is called our Mediator often, 1 Tim. 2.5. Heb. 8.6. Heb. 9.15. Heb. 12.24. but he is called a Surety once only, Heb. 7.22. The Socinian cavilleth at the word Mediator, and would not understand thereby a Mediator of reconciliation by way of atonement, but an Interpreter, or a bare Messenger declaring the will of God; But the contexts where Christ is so called do evidence more then so, howsoever the word Surety that will constringe the heretic that he cannot evade; For a Surety( properly so taken) is one that receiveth the obligation upon himself, when the principal or debtor is notable to pay ( Silvest Sum. Tit. fideiussum) So that whatsoever the debt is, that the Surety engaged is bound to perform; Christ then being our Surety, all that obligation which lay upon us, is derived to him.  
Now first, this is plain, That Christ would fulfil all that righteousness which did belong to him; otherwise he would have been an imperfect Surety; for as those who are arrested by God in their own persons, shall not go out of prison till they have paid the last farthing; so neither would the justice of God set Christ at liberty, till every farthing of our debt was discharged. Hence Matth. 3.15. when John Baptist refused to baptize Christ, he saith, Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. It becometh us] that is, John in his office, and Christ in his office, it behoved Christ in his way to fulfil all that righteousness that did belong to a Christ to do, as it doth to any man in his particular relation: Now in the Text we see, that submitting himself to Baptism, it was part of the righteousness which he did fulfil, as also to be circumcised, to have an offering for him, as for others; here we may justly wonder, why Christ should be baptized, seeing that Baptism in the proper nature of it, signifieth remission of sins, the Seal of which could not belong unto Christ? Many give several reasons of it, which seem to be very remote; That which appeareth to be most genuine is, That Baptism, though it doth in particular seal the pardon of sin, yet in the general its only obsignative of the favour of God to us, and our communion with him, therefore ordinarily said to be the seal of the Covenant of Grace, and in this signification Christ might well submit to it. But why is it called righteousness in Christ to do it? I do not with Grotius take righteousness here for condecency and fitness; but truly and properly righteousness, as being the fulfilling of his duty, he being now made man, and so under the Law for us, for although it be {αβγδ}, yet that doth many times signify a necessary duty, Ephes. 5.3. 1 Tim. 2.10. and it must be so here, because the Baptism of John was instituted by God, and as it was not a mere condecency, but a duty in John to administer; so also it was in Christ, who subjected himself to be a member of the Church, and thereby was obliged to be baptized, as others were. Hence Luk. 7.31. the neglect of Johns Baptism is called The rejection of the council or command of God. From this particular then I gather, That whatsoever righteousness did lye upon Christ to fulfil, That it behoved him to do.  
Therefore in the second place, Let us take notice of what righteousness he was obliged unto by being our Surety. And  
1. That he was bound to make an atonement by his death for us, is acknowledged by all the Orthodox. Indeed the Socinian makes it not only an absurd thing, but abhorrent from all reason, that an innocent man should suffer death for the nocent, and be provoketh to the light of nature, and Heathens in this point. Its true, this is a Question disputed in the civil Law, Whether an innocent man may suffer corporal punishment for another. Covarruvias a man of great learning and various reading, doth pithily but shortly handle it.[ Covarr. Nariar. resolute. Tom. 2. lib. 2. cap. 8.] Its confessed by all, That a man though innocent may willingly give himself to suffer for another in pecuniary punishments, and such outward losses. Its also granted, That God may punish those that are innocent at least, not nocent, for the sins of those that are nocent. Not to speak of Gods Law, commanding the beast to be killed that was instrumental to wickedness, though the beast was not guilty of sin. Thus that learned author instanceth out of Budeus, who hath it out of Demosthenes, that even animate and inanimate creatures that had been instrumental to a mans death, were formerly by the Athenians indicted and condemned by Dracoes Laws. Not to speak of this( I say) its plain by Scripture, that God threatens to visit the sins of Parents upon their children, even to the fourth generation. How this is consistent with Ezekiel 18.18, 19. is not my work here to examine. Its enough for my purpose, that God saith, he will punish parents sins upon their children; and we see he did it in Dathans and Abirams case, as also in the children of sodom and Gomorrah, in Achans case, and Sauls seven sons, who were hanged for their fathers wickedness. Neither can it be limited, as some would, that God punisheth parents sins upon the children, when they imitate their fathers in their wickedness, for the instances mentioned show the clean contrary. And besides, it would not then have been said for their fathers sins, but their own. Thus the people of whom David said, These sheep, what have they done? were punished for Davids sin. Now although even Infants and others that were thus punished, were not absolutely innocent, but had corruption in them, for which they deserved any punishment God should inflict on them; yet as to this particular of their fathers sins they were innocent. So that it s granted by all, That God may inflict misery upon him that is innocent, and this must be granted by the Socinian, unless he will deny Scripture, That Christ, though innocent, yet was greatly afflicted, dying an ignominious and reproachful death; onely they make Christs sufferings for a less matter, then we do; We say, It was to satisfy the justice of God; they onely to confirm his Doctrine, which miracles could have done as well: So that its not our Doctrine but theirs, that makes God put Christ to those bitter agonies, and that needlessly, or for little cause at all.  
Being thus cleared by Scripture, what God may do, we need not care what mans reason can object; and indeed it must be granted, That by the civil Law, no man can lawfully that is innocent, submit himself to die in the stead of the nocent; he may suffer loss of money, and such kind of damages he may sustain, but not to be mutilated in members, or to lose life. Therefore though the stories of Heathens do speak much of such things, yet its hard to justify them; no, not that of Zaleucus, in putting out one of his eyes, for the reason given by Casuists is, because no man is Lord or Master of his own life, or his own members, and therefore cannot by voluntary consent deprive himself of them for another; But this doth not hold in Christs case, for John 10. he saith, He had {αβγδ} right and power to lay down his life; he was Lord of his life, and so could give it up as an expiatory atonement for us, and therefore being our Surety he was bound unto it. Thus its clear for his passive obedience. And  
In the second place, By the same principles and reasons, its no less clear for his active obedience. Therefore Grotius is compelled to aclowledge, That Christs satisfaction was by the holy actions he did, as well as by his sufferings, and brings this Text, By the obedience of one many shall be made righteous.[ De Satisfac. cap. 6. pag. 97.] And certainly its no more against reason, That the virtue or obedience of another should be imputed unto us, then his sufferings. Seeing therefore that we had an obligation upon us to bring perfect obedience to the Law, it behoved our Surety to perform it for us; neither can it be rationally imagined, why his impletive obedience of the commands of the Law should be more dispensed with then the solutive of the punishment of it. Now the debtor or principal failing, not onely in satisfaction to the punishment, but perfect obedience to the Law, it behoveth our Surety, if he will fulfil all righteousness, to accomplish both for us,& as to suffer in our stead, so to obey in our stead: otherw●se we take but an half Christ, and he loseth much of his honour, and we much of our comfort. Its therefore our duty to look upon Christ doing as well as suffering, not to oppose or separate these from one another: And certainly as Bonaventure said, about the controversy concerning free-will and grace, Tutius erratur, &c. Its safe to err( if we must err) by giving too much to grace, then too little: So its less danger, seeing the Scripture propounds Christ to be such a rich and plentiful Saviour to give too much to him, then too little. We had better be found maintaining this, that Christ did more for us then he did, then affirming him to do less for us then he did. Though indeed we are not willingly to run into any error, for the genuine effect of that cannot be to the praise and honour of God.  
In the third place, To understand better how much Christ is obliged for us as a Surety, its good to take notice, That there passed a kind of Covenant and Agreement between the Father and the son concerning our Redemption. I do not speak of the Covenant of Grace, which God made with man fallen, I cannot by any means subscribe to their opinion, who hold this was made with Christ, but of a particular Covenant with Christ to be the mediator; for thus the Scripture represents the Father stipulating and agreeing with the son, that if he will lay down his life for such, and will become their Surety, to make up all the breaches that their sins have made, then he shall see of the travail of his soul, and he shall be satisfied, Isa. 53.10, 11. so Psalm. 40.7. Christ is there brought in as a Surety, offering himself for us, and readily accepting of Gods will in this matter. We see then the Father enjoining or requiring, and the son accepting of this work, and upon this he is called Gods Servant, and his ears are said to be opened. Hence Isai. 42.1, 6. Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my elect in whom my soul delighteth; I will give thee for a Covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; yea this agreement seemeth to be confirmed with an oath, Heb. 7.28. and for this service Christ is required, Psal. 2.8. To ask of God, and he will give him the Heathen for his inheritance: So that the Church of God is given Christ, as a reward of that obedience, which he shewed in accepting of the Office of a Surety for us. This stipulation is made by a learned man to be that council of peace, Zec. 6.13. which is said to be between the Lord, and the man whose name is the Branch. Though others by both do understand Jew and gentle. And for this agreement it is, that Christ is called the second Adam; for as with the first Adam God plighted a Covenant concerning him and his posterity, if he did not fall; So also did he indent with Christ and his seed concerning eternal life to be obtained by him. Its true, there are men that speak very contemptibly of both these Covenants, making the former at least, if not the later, to be ridiculous and absurd, as if it were no better then that Stipulatio de Hippocentauro, spoken of in the civil Law [ Covar.] But I suppose such a Covenant hath sufficiently been demonstrated out of the Scriptures.  
In the fourth place, Such an agreement and stipulation being made between the Father and the son, our sins are laid upon him, and his obedience and sufferings are made ours; so that in this controversy we are to look upon Christ in the nearest, but spiritual union that can be. Its not enough to say, Christ is the cause of our righteousness, but he is made our righteousness, Christ received by faith is the matter of our Evangelical righteousness; so that Christ doth otherwise procure our righteousness whereby we are justified, then he doth the grace of our inward Vocation and Regeneration, for he is not the matter of that: we cannot say, Christ received by faith is the matter of our Vocation and Regeneration, as we may say he is of our Justification. The Father works holinesse in us, the Spirit worketh holinesse in us, yet we cannot say, These are made righteousness to us, whereby we are justified, because neither of them did interpose to be a Surety for us; Hence by reason of this Union, Christ calls the sins of those whom he is to redeem, his sins, Psalm 40.12. Its Christ that speaks there, though it was also true of David as the type in another sense, Mine iniquities have taken hold on me; our iniquities are called Christs iniquities; Therefore Heb. 9.28. Christ is there said to come a second time without sin, implying his first coming was with sin, not indeed inhering in him, but imputed to him, so that he was to bear them away. Thus his righteousness and obedience is made ours, and both his obedience and sufferings were not onely for us, but in our stead he accomplished all, as undertaking our obligation upon him.  
Yet in the fifth place, We must thus understand the communication of Christs obedience to us in those things onely wherein we were obliged. We cannot say, That many things Christ did, are our obedience, and are imputed to us. The miracles that Christ wrought, though they were for our good, yet they were not imputed to us as our righteousness; and the reason is, because we had no obligation upon us to these things, and therefore Christ acted as our Surety in those things onely wherein we were obliged, whatsoever other things he might do as God, or occasionally as man, or as a mediator; These things though they had their direct and proper benefit accrueing to us, yet we cannot say, Christ did them as in our stead: Even as with Adam, it was not every personal action that he did, that was imputed to us, we did not eat or drink in Adam, as we sinned in him, but that onely in which the Covenant consisted. And thus have we finished the fifth Argument: we were the larger upon it, because this is the foundation of all, and all the other Arguments are at last to be reduced to this, this giveth life and strength to all the rest.  
The sixth Argument shall be taken from the perpetuity and immutability of the Law: 
Argument from the perpetuity and immutability of the Law.  God will not give eternal life, but upon a Do this. This righteousness will be for ever required, as the condition of happiness, Levit. 18.5. Ezek. 20.11. Mat. 5.18. and whereas it might be thought by the Apostles Arguments, that he did overthrow the Law, he disclaimeth such inferences, Rom. 3.31. Yea( saith he) we establish the Law, the righteousness of faith doth not dissolve that. These places prove the immutability of the Law, both in the preceptive part of it, it doth and will require perfect obedience, as also in regard of the promise of eternal life: Insomuch that learned and great Authors say, [ Beza, Junius, Perkins.] That we may claim eternal life, ex formulâ foederis, Hoc fac& vives, Do this and live; but I see no necessity of granting that, because the Law required it in our persons, and so it is not our doing, but Christs doing for us by which we live: Its the same righteousness we and Adam in his state of Integrity are justified by, in respect of the nature and substance of it, onely the manner of communication of it is different, in Adam it was inherent, in us it is imputed: Therefore the Leyden Divines do well observe, [ Synop. puri. Theol. de Justificat.] That the righteousness of faith, or the righteousness of the Gospel and the Law, are not absolutely and simply contrary one to another; we are not justified contrary to the Law, onely in respect of us, there is such an opposition, that he who is justified by one cannot be by the other, not that they are two distinct righteousnesses every way, but two opposite ways of communicating the same righteousness, that righteousness we formerly had in us, is now in Christ our Surety, and we by faith are made partakers of it; Therefore its wholly a mistake to think, that the Apostle argueth against Justification by works, or righteousness by the Law, as fulfilled by Christ for us, for his purpose is to establish it so, onely he bends himself against those that sought for this righteousness of the Law in themselves, whether without the grace of God, or with it. The Apostle then doth not absolutely and universally argue against the righteousness of the Law, but the endeavouring to find this in ourselves, and not in Christ. And indeed this must be so, because the primary work of Christ our Surety was, to perform that obedience of the Law we were obliged unto; and secondarily to remove our punishment, which was due to us by the transgression of the Law: So that if we consider the stipulation that Christ made with the Father to be our Surety, his active obedience was the main and principal: Even as all Law-givers regard more the obedience of their Laws, then Satisfaction to the penalty; and indeed if we duly consider it, God himself cannot take off the obligation from us, no more then he can cease to be our God and Creator; for obedience is founded necessary in the subjection of a creature unto its Creator.  
A seventh Argument may be from the typical prefigurations of their active obedience by Christ. Indeed there is a later Writer [ Forbes] that useth this Argument the contrary way, We are not( saith he) justified by the Active obedience of Christ, but the Passive onely, because all the legal Types were of that onely. But I urge on the contrary, There were prefigurative Types of his Active obedience; Therefore that concurreth to our Justification. Although there is no strength in that Argument, to say, Such things were not in Christ, because there was no Type of it; but we need not run to that in Exodus 28.36, 38. we there read plainly of the pure gold that was to be on Aaron, with this engraven on it, HOLINESSE TO THE LORD, and this was, That the children of Israel might be accepted of in all their holy things: the pure and excellent Garments of the High-Priest, as also his Washings and Purifications did manifest this; yea in the Lamb that was sacrificed there was required, that it should be without spot and blemish, which integrity was considered as part of the Sacrifice; and this the Apostle considereth as part in Christs Sacrifice, 1 Peter 1.19. The precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot. The precious blood of Christ] there is his Passive obedience; Without spot or blemish] there is his Active. This purity was not a qualification of the Sacrifice, but a constitutive ingredient into it. To be without blemish, {αβγδ}, that required no defect in the parts, and {αβγδ}, that required no spot or streaked colour upon it. The Incense also that was offered on the Altar, denoted Christs Active obedience, which makes the duties of all the godly accepted, as appeareth Rev. 8.3, 4.  
The eighth Argument shall be from the object of our justifying Faith, which is the Person of Christ, or whole Christ. Hence its so often called Faith in him, or in his Name, and believing in him; If then whole Christ be the object of our Faith justifying, we are not to look to his sufferings merely, to his blood or death, nor to his birth or works onely, but to take whole Christ, as the adequate object of our Faith; and certainly, the limiting of our Justification to his Passive obedience, divides Christ, and takes off much from his whole Person as the mediator, and rests on part of that righteousness which we have by him.  
Lastly, The Doctrine which holds the imputation of both Obedience active and Passive, tends more to Christs honour and our comfort. Its true, we must not honour Christ, or take comfort upon feigned opinions of our own; neither may we argue, This( we think) honours Christ, and will bring comfort: Therefore its true; But when we see the scope of the Scripture is to exalt Christ, not in his own Person so much, as our mediator, and to commend his love, by how much the more he was debased for us; As also, to comfort us by the proper fullness that is in him, for every want and temptation we have, then finding many particular Texts subservient to that general scope, we may with the more confidence and comfort assert the latitude of all his obedience for us: For the Scripture doth not onely speak of Grace, but riches of Grace, and superabounding Grace by him, and that he became poor that we might be rich; so that they extenuate it, who limit it onely to a Satisfaction of the penalty of the Law, and will not admit an obediential righteousness to the commands of it. Certainly, the temptation of a godly man doth not onely lye about the pardon of his sin, but the defect and imperfection of his obedience. Therefore Beza( in his Confessio Fidei, cap. 28.) amongst other strong temptations of Satan, whereby he assaults the godly, makes this one, That we have not in us the righteousness which God justly requireth of us. Its not enough to have satisfied for sin, but God also requireth perfect obedience. Now in this temptation, he directs the believer to the other treasure of Christ, beside Satisfaction, which is his most absolute and perfect righteousness, which by Faith applied, we are in Christ accepted of, as co-heirs with him. Hence also he saith, Pag. 63. The Law and the Gospel differ not in respect of that righteousness we are to be clothed with, if we would have eternal life, but only in the manner of participation of it.   

SERM. XXXVIII. Arguments against the Imputation of Christs Active Obedience, answered.  ROM. 5.19. So by the Obedience of one shall many be made Righteous. 
ITs Lactantius his Observation, That erroneous persons do usually set themselves destruere aliena, rather then astruere propria, to overthrow other mens opinions rather then establish their own. And thus indeed the Socinians are remarkable herein, whose greatest work in all their writings is to destroy and demolish what the Orthodox have built, little attending to establish their own Doctrines. Seeing therefore the more noble and worthy part hath been dispatched by us, viz. the argumentative asserting of Christs Active Obedience, as well as his Passive, as to our Evangelical righteousness; Its our work in the next place, to consider and weigh the contrary Arguments, some of which seem to have great colour of reason and strength with them. And the first shall be that which they judge palmarious, and the chiefest of their Scripture-Arguments, and that is,  

The contrary Arguments examined.  The Scripture attributing our Justification every where to the blood of Christ, it makes our redemption to be by his death onely. So Piscator argueth,( 2. Vol. Thes. de Justif.) The Scripture attributeth our remission of sin and salvation, onely to Christs death, therefore onely by it are we justified. To this we may reduce Forbes his Argument, concerning the Sacraments of Baptism, and especially of the Lords Supper, that they represent onely the passive obedience of Christ, and these being in their Institution the seals of the righteousness of faith, must necessary infer, that our righteousness is only by Christs sufferings.  
Now although we have formerly answered sufficiently to this, as it was an Argument brought to limit the obedience mentioned in the Text, only to passive obedience, yet something more is to be replied to it, because they put so much confidence in it. And  
First, They put the word Sola in the Argument, which the Scripture doth not; They say, by Christs passive obedience alone, but the Scripture useth no such limiting or exclusive particle. If our Protestant Writers had not upon better ground said, Solâ fide, by faith alone we are justified, they would have been justly obnoxious to the Popish censure. When therefore the Scripture doth so often mention Christs death, this is not to be understood exclusively to his antecedaneous obedience, but synecdochically, by a chief part of it intending the whole; for as we formerly shewed, the Scripture attributes it sometimes to other things, especially Phil. 2. there is the whole course of his obedience from his birth to his death, mentioned as the ground of our salvation; and to these former places, I shall add all such Texts, as make the whole person, even Christ himself the ground of our reconciliation, not restraining the person to his sufferings, but making the whole person to be the matter or object of our acceptance with God, Rom. 3.25. Whom God set forth to be a propitiation. So 2 Corinth. 5. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and Christ was made sin for us. John 1. As many as received him; and in many places, Christ speaks of himself in his whole person, that he is life, that he is the bread of life, That he who believeth in him shall never die: So that to speak properly, not the death of Christ, but Christ himself is the object of our Justification: Neither are we to seek it either in his active, or in his passive obedience by dividing or distinguishing of them, but in Christ himself.  
Secondly, Even the Adversaries must aclowledge from their own principles, that by death we are to mean other things besides that, for otherwise his sufferings before in the Garden would be excluded, wherein Christ seemed to be more afflicted then in death itself, as also the sufferings of his soul under the sense of Gods anger, which yet many of the opponents aclowledge; yea there are those that confess all the servile acts of Christs obedience to be part of his satisfactory righteousness; and if death be not understood synecdochically, they must be all excluded; it is therefore of necessity that we must look upon Christs death, not as oppositely to his former acts of obedience, but because this was the ultimate and most signal expression of it, therefore doth the Scripture so often mention it.  
And as for the Sacraments, though they may visibly in a more peculiar manner represent Christ as suffering for us, yet most Divines say, That our communion sealed in them, is not properly with those actions of Christ, but Christ himself: So that in every Sacrament, its Christ himself we put on, and its Christ himself that we are more engraffed into: Hence John 3.14, 15. Christ dying on the cross is resembled to the Serpent lifted up, and whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. Thus the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood sacramentally, is nothing but believing in him, and receiving whole Christ primarily, and all his benefits flowing from him by consequence. Its therefore a great mistake to oppose Christs death to his active obedience; for Christs sufferings, merely as so, do not make an atonement for us, but as they were the effects of his obedience, and of his love to God and man; Therefore we are to look on Christs death, as an obediential act, which was the consummation of all his former obedience, yea if we thoroughly search to the root of the matter, it was not so much his external sufferings, as the inward promptitude of his will to die for us, that was meritorious, and this will he had as soon as he came into the world. Therefore that very place so much insisted on by the opponents, is a pregnant instance against them, Heb. 10.10. By the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all; because that [ once] is not spoken determinatively, as if then, and onely then our consummation of happiness was attained, but its expressed oppositely to the frequent repetition of the Sacrifices in the Old Testament: and that we are not to restrain this blessedness of ours to the time of his death, appeareth vers. 5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared for me— Lo I come to do thy will( O God.) By this its plain we are not to look so much to Christs death, as his will to die, for that external act had no merit in it, simply as so, without Christs will; and Christs will is not to be considered as immediate before his death, but as soon as ever he came into the world. And although we are not curiously to inquire when began the time of Christs meriting for us, yet we see by that expression( when he cometh into the world, even then it is, to do thy will, O God) that this must needs be very early, and by this will which he had as soon as he came into the world, we are said to be sanctified; and therefore as Suarez( though a jesuit) yet speaks more soundly in this particular, then many others who pretend to greater Orthodoxy, when out of Aquinas he sheweth, That by the Covenant and appointment of God its brought about, that the whole life of Christ should be ordained for the obtaining of a full right, as it were of one merit to be consummated in his death.( Suarez De Christo Quaest. 19. Disp. 39.) So that our proper duty is not to divide his active or passive obedience, or to attribute his holinesse to one end, and his sufferings to another, but to look upon his whole life and death, as that full and integral righteousness, whereby we stand justified before God. And thus much for the first Objection.  
The second Argument brought against the imputation of Christs active obedience in the sense controverted, is taken from the debt and obligation that lay upon Christ in respect of his human nature to obey the Moral Law of God. From whence they argue, That which Christ was bound to do for himself, that cannot be imputed to us for our righteeusnesse, but Christ in respect of his human nature was bound to obey the Moral Law for himself: Therefore it cannot be imputed to us. Even( say they) as if Christ had been bound to suffer for himself, his sufferings could not have been a Propitiatory Atonement for us. This is one of the principal Arguments insisted on: Christ as a man, and as a member of the Jewish Church was obliged to an actual conformity in obedience to them, and therefore it was not for us, but himself, that he did so obey.  
This Argument deserveth a large discussion, for a great part of the cause will be gained if this be cleared. And  
1. There are Divines of very great name, that do wholly deny that Christ was bound to the Moral Law, because though his human Nature was a creature, yet because the personal subsistence of it was Divine, and Laws being given not to Natures, but to Persons, therefore it was that he was not bound to obey any Law; and indeed it must be acknowledged, that the whole order of nature was inverted in Christ: Every thing in him was a miracle, he was a Lord of the Law, and yet obedient to it, he was both a Viator and a Comprehensor: so that it s no wonder if those things which are easily granted of pure mere men be denied of Christ, who though man, yet had a Divine Subsistency. But whether this hypostatical Union did absolutely free him from an obligation to the Moral Law, I much doubt, for still his human nature did abide a creature, and the will of a creature cannot be the supreme Law, therfore it had an obligation upon it, and if this be not so, it will be hard to say, how Christ could obey, for actiones are suppositorum also, actions are of persons properly, and not of natures, and so by this means we shall make it impossible for Christ to be our Redeemer and Surety. We must therefore necessary conclude that Christ was obliged to keep the Moral Law, not indeed as God, nor in respect of his personal Subsistence, but as man; For its an undeniable Rule, amongst the learned, that what doth belong to either of the Natures of Christ, is yet attributed to the whole person, by {αβγδ}, the communication of properties: So that as Christ himself said of himself, while on earth, John 3.13. That the son of man is in Heaven; and Acts 20.28. God is said to purchase the Church by his own blood, which expressions are true by the communication of properties: So also its true, when we say, Christ was bound to keep the Moral Law, that is, in respect of his human Nature: Neither is it necessary to put in that limitation always( as a man) in our speeches, for we see the Scripture speaking so often of Christ, without limiting either to his human or divine Nature, because common reason will make us apprehended, in respect of which nature it is, that such a thing is affirmed of him; Therefore let us grant, that Christ as man was bound to obey a Law.  
In the next place, Let us consider what Law he was obliged unto. And  
1. There is that which is called by some, the Eternal Law, or Law of Nature, whereby things intrinsically good are commanded, and intrinsically evil are prohibited; such are, to love God, not to lye, &c. Now even to this Law say some eminent Divines, Christ was not bound, because the hypostatical Union did exempt him, for this they think as absurd, as if a man should say, Christ was subject to himself, or Christ was bound to obey himself. Therefore though they will grant, That Christ could not lye, could not but love God, yet this did not arise from an obligation of any Law he was under, but from the perfection of his Nature: Even as God himself cannot sin, not because he is under a Law, seeing his Will is the Rule of all goodness, but because of the infinite holinesse which is in him. But I cannot subscribe to this, because( as was said before) the personal Union doth not exempt the human Nature of Christ from being a creature, neither doth he cease to be man; And therefore seeing his human Will was not the supreme Rule of holinesse, its necessary it should be conformed to that which was supreme: Hence he said, Not my will, but thine be done; and although it be true, that it s the person that is the principle of actions, and to whom Laws are made, yet mediately they extend to Natures also. The person or suppositum is the principium quod, the principle that doth act, but the Natures in Christ, are the principium quo, the principle by which the person doth work. So that I shall not deny, but that Christ as a man was obliged to this Law, yet there is no consequence at all, that therefore this obedience of his may not be imputed to us.  
In the next place, there is the civil or political Law, under which I comprehend the command of obedience to parents, though that also may be called natural, and so it is in respect of mere man, but I think it was positive onely in respect of Christ; and here the Question is, Whether Christ was bound to obey these Laws? Onely take notice( as is more to be shewed) that an obligation may arise two ways:  
1. From the nature of the thing antecedently to a mans consent.  
2. From supposition only, supposing a former consent to such and such a condition, then he having engaged thereunto, by that means he hath induced an obligation upon himself, as between man and man: Though a friend be not bound to be Surety for another, or to pay his debts, yet if once he hath undertaken it, then he is obliged, not from any intrinsical cause, but by an extrinsical supposition.  
To apply this to our purpose, when we question, Whether Christ was bound to obey the mentioned Laws? We speak not of an obligation by supposition; for when he had once voluntarily made himself under such a Law, then he was bound thereby; but of an intrinsical obligation arising from the nature of the thing, Whether Christ was bound to obey his Parents, or the civil Magistrate, as other men are? or, Whether the obedience he did show was onely voluntary, and for our example, and concerning his subjection to his Mother Mary? Certainly, even in that Law of honouring Parents there was a great difference between Christ and a mere man; Therefore we read, when his Mother( John 3.3.)  told him, they had no wine, that Jesus said to her, Woman( not mother) What have I to do with thee? my hour is not yet come: So again, Luke 2.48. when his mother said, son, Why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing: he said unto them, Wist ye not that I must be about my Fathers business? These expressions do argue some independency in Christ, more then in a mere natural son; for although Levi is commended for not knowing father and mother; yea in Christs cause we are to hate father and mother, yet our Saviour seemeth to insinuate more in himself then this. Its true, its said at the 51. verse, that Christ went down with his parents to Nazareth, and was subject to them; but the ground is not set down whether it was a voluntary subjection, or necessary from a natural obligation. Certainly, it could not be a natural obligation, as to Joseph, who was his father only,( as it was supposed) or his legal father amongst men; and in respect of his mother, although he was born of her, and made of a woman, in respect of his bodily substance, yet seeing her conception was in a miraculous and extraordinary way, we cannot say, that she was his mother in such a manner as ordinarily mothers are to their children: This is to show, that though Christ was subject to his Parents, yet there was not such a natural obligation upon him, as is on mere men, but it was in a great measure, though I cannot say universally voluntary, I say universally, because so far as she was his true mother, and he her true real Son, so far the natural honouring Parents did extend to him. There is no less doubt about the civil Magistrate, Whether Christ as man was bound to obey him; for when they came to demand Tribute of him, our Saviours Argument seemeth to carry it, that he was free, Matth. 17.26. a difficult place it is, that hath occasioned much debate upon it. Its granted by all, That quoad factum and usum did subject himself to the Magistrate, did pay Tribute, did not refuse to appear before their Judgement, acknowledged Pilate had power over him: But the Question is, Whether there was an obligation upon him as he was man to do thus? Or, Was it a mere voluntary privation of the use of that right which he had? To this there are several Answers, which arise from several springs; for there are those that say, Christ as man by his lineal descent had the true and proper right to the Kingdom of Judaea, that the sceptre did belong to him, as being the next successor, onely he did voluntarily abstain from the claim and exercise of this right; so that when he was taxed with others, and paid Tribute, this he did, not as bound to it, but relinquishing or suspending his right. But there must be many doubtful conjectures cleared ere this can be positively asserted. The Popish parasites upon a carnal design to advance the Pope above all civil power, say, That Christ as man had the direct and absolute dominion over all the Kingdoms and Nations of the world, and that by a three-fold title, 1. Of his personal Union. 2. By Merit. 3. By Redemption. So that by this right, Christ, if he would, might have deposed all the powers that then ruled, and have taken their privileges into his own hand; he had this dominion, they say, in habitu, though he did not put it forth in actu secundo. But this is contrary to Scripture; for Christ saith, John 20. His Kingdom is not of this world; neither was such a privilege any ways proper or accommodated to his Mediatory Office, howsoever by this opinion Christ was not obliged to obey any civil Magistrate, because all temporal Jurisdiction did belong to him, as a superior. In the third place, Spalato( l. 6. de Repub. Eccl. cap. 1.) acknowledged to be a learned man, though in a large Discourse, he is very vehement against such fawning Positions of some Papists, yet affirmeth, That it cannot be said sine blasphemia haereticali, that Christ as man was subject to the civil power, or that Caesar and Pilate had any right over him even as man: The reason he proceedeth upon is, That the right of civil power doth not extend to humanities in the abstract, but to persons, and therefore Pilate did not only sin by unjust judgement condemning the innocent, but also by an usurped judgement, exercising jurisdiction over him, who was not over him. Its true, he will not grant Pilates judgement was usurped, for he had right upon a lawful presumption, because Pilate was not bound to know that Christ was God, as well as man, or that his human Nature did subsist in the Divine Person. But this is infirm, for Pilate being the Judge, as he was bound to know, Whether Christ was innocent or no, so having the opportunity and means of knowledge, he was bound to have believed in him as the messiah, Not to be too long on this, we may conclude, That Christ did truly subject himself unto civil powers, and was obliged thereunto as man, taking such a servile form upon him, as he did; onely this subjection and obedience was voluntary, in that he was not necessitated, but voluntarily took our nature upon him in such a subjected way for our everlasting good: Even as he voluntarily took a passable body, subject to thirst and weariness, yea pains and death itself for our sakes: So that although he might have been made man, and yet not put himself into such bodily infirmities, or moral subjection and debasement; yet when once he hath thus subjected himself, then there is an obligation upon him.  
A further doubt may be made about the positive precepts, which God gave the people of the Jews, to be circumcised, and perform those ceremonial precepts God gave the people of Israel; for Piscator he saith, Christ was bound to these as being an Israelite, and so it was his duty to be circumcised, which accordingly he was in reference to his own obligation. Others that deny the active obedience of Christ in our sense, do grant, that he was not bound to these, but they were part of that Mediatory Law Christ had imposed on him.   

SERM. XXXIX. That Christ was truly and properly subject to the Law of God, both general and particular: And that he suffered in obedience both to the natural and positive Law.  ROM. 5.19. So by the Obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 
THe Answering of this Question will be of the same affinity with the former. As Christ was not necessitated to be man, so neither to subject himself to that positive obedience; yea though as man he might not have submitted himself unto it: for if this subjection did necessary follow his human nature, then still Christ would be bound to such an obedience, for he doth not cease to be a man though glorified in heaven. This obligation then of Christ in the daies of his flesh to be circumcised, and to observe such positive precepts as were commanded the Jews, did arise because of that voluntary resignation of himself to be made under the Law, which God should give his people, though in respect of his Divine nature he was Lord of that Law. Hence it was that he did observe the Sabbath, and although he did those things which his adversaries judged to be a breach of the Sabbath, yet he vindicated those passages, because they were the duties of charity and necessity: Its true he saith, The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath, Matth. 12.8. but that may be understood because he who was the Son of man, was also God, and so there is the communication of properties; or else in a general way, that the Sabbath was made for man, and therefore in cases of necessity a man was not obliged to such duties, as ordinarily are required. And certainly, that our Saviour was obliged by the Law, as others were,( though also with great dissimilitude) doth appear in that he challengeth his adversaries, Which of you can accuse me of sin, and what evil have I done? Implying, that if he had broken the Law, they might justly have accused him: He doth not at any time pled an exemption from the Law, or that it was made for mere men, but not for him who was God and man, but still acknowledgeth an obligation upon him; and although in paying of tribute he pleaded his freedom, that is, if absolutely considered, if it had pleased him, he might not so have debased himself; yet supposing he would become man in such a way for our redemption, then he did voluntarily take this obligation upon him, which appeareth in that expression to Peter, when he yieldeth to pay, that he may give no offence, Matth. 17.27. which supposeth that there was an obligation upon Christ as man, not to give just offence or scandal, otherwise if Christ had stood upon his absolute exemption from all Laws, there was no cause to regard the matter of offence. Thus our Saviour, Matth. 4.10. when the devil tempted him to such things as were unlawful, he repels him by such arguments as are taken from those duties that belong to a man. Thus Christ made that command, Thou shalt not temp: the Lord thy God, to belong to him: So Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, Christ appropriates to himself; by which it appeareth that Christ looked upon it as his duty to worship and serve God according to those ways that God had commanded others.  
But against this there are Learned men that Object, Christ( say they) could not, no not in respect of his human nature, be obliged to the positive worship and ceremonial Law of the Jews, because he was not truly and properly a child of Abraham, because he was not in the loins of Abraham, as other Jews were, even as he was not in Adam; therefore though Adam was under a common Covenant for himself and his posterity, yet this Law did not bind Christ as it did all mankind, for then Christ should have sinned in Adam, as well as the rest of mankind. Thus it is also in respect of Abraham, seeing he was not contained in Abraham, properly, neither was of Adam, quoad seminalem rationem, but corpulentam substantiam: Therefore it could not be, that those positive precepts should reach to Christ. And further, such precepts are made to those that do imply imperfection in them, for the ceremonial Law did signify the expiation of sin.  
Now though this be very specious, yet it will not hold:  
For 1. it s granted even by them that Christ did actually submit himself to the observation of those positive precepts. They grant the Factum, but not the Jus, the observation, not the obligation. But their Objection will fall on themselves, Why should Christ submit to that, which in the institution of it did denote imperfection and sin in the subject obliged?  
2. Their Arguments prove, that Christ was not obliged to put himself in such a condition that required such subjection, but when once he had resigned himself unto it, then he was bound not indeed properly for himself, but for us, as he was not made man for himself, but for us. Christ being circumcised did thereby make himself a debtor to keep the whole Law, not for himself but for us; Its true those that deny this obligation of Christ, say, that passage of Pauls, He that is circumcised becomes a debtor to keep the whole Law, is to be meant only of mere man, not of Christ, who was not seminally in Abraham. But first, The Scripture calls Christ, the seed of Abraham; he is that seed in whom all the Nations of the earth are to be blessed. And secondly, Being a true man, though not in that ordinary propagation, he was thereby a member of the Jewish Church; even as if God had raised up children to Abraham out of stones, they would have been Abrahams children in the Scriptures sense, though not by natural propagation from him. Christ then being true man, yea and ejusdem speciei with other men, in respect of his human nature, he was obliged to such a worship of God, as was then appointed for all men, who should serve him according to his will. Hence it is that John 4. he puts himself in the number of the Jewish members, when he saith to the woman of Samaria in the plural number, we worship what we know. So that it was his duty, as man, to worship God: And therefore we read so often of his praying unto God, and that with so much fervency; for although he could as God do whatsoever he pleased, as appeareth by his working of miracles, and so needed not to pray any more then God himself, yet as man it was his duty to pray unto God; Prayer being by Divine ordination, the means by which God had decreed to bestow on him that glory he was to partake of: So that as its said, it behoved him to suffer, and then enter into glory, Luke 22. thus it behoved him to pray, and so receive that exaltation of his person. Hence Psal. ●. its said, Ask of me, and I will give thee the inheritance of the earth. He was bound to ask and seek for it by prayer at Gods hands; and John 17. he doth there make a large prayer, which is for to accomplish and effect all those things either for himself or his Church, that he had merited at Gods hands. By all this it appeareth, that Christ having once subjected himself in this way as he did, there was an obligation upon him to comform himself unto those positive precepts, and that he did observe those commands not merely for example, but from obligation and duty as he was a man in that debased way.  
3. The next and last thing to be debated about the Laws Christ was obedient unto, is, 
Whether Christs obedience was to a peculiar command laid upon him.  Whether there was a peculiar Law or Commandment laid upon him to be our redeemer and to die for us. And to this we have formerly answered, that Christ was truly and strictly under a command, and that what he did was properly and truly called obedience. We shewed many places, wherein Christ himself called it a command, not a mere bare insinuation of Gods will, but a strict command, and indeed otherwise it could not have been obedience, unless materialiter, as its said, the glorified Saints in heaven do, to whom properly no command is made; they being now no longer viatores, or travellers to heaven, but at their journeys end; and so comprehensores of that Crown of glory laid up for them: So that although they love God and delight in him, yet( say some) this is obedience materialiter, not formaliter. But that Christs obedience was formally so, appeareth, in that otherwise he could not have merited, neither could he have been our Surety to take our obligation upon him.  
This then being granted, there is a further and a more difficult Question arising from the former, 
Whether Christs obedience to die for us was to a natural or positive command.  viz. Whether Christs obedience in dying for us, was to a natural or a positive command: That is, Whether Christ in undertaking our redemption, was bound by a mere voluntary positive precept, such as God made to Abraham to offer up his son Isaac: or whether it was from that moral Law, to love God with all his heart and soul, and his neighbour as himself. There are Learned men that say, Christ being once made man, he was bound as a man from love to Gods glory, and to his neighbour, to lay down his life for mans salvation: And this they think will hold the more firmly, if we suppose it revealed to the human nature by the Father, that he will not save man any other way. Then say they, as it is a mans duty in some cases to lay down his bodily life to save the spiritual life of another, and the Apostle saith, we are to lay down our life for the Brethren, 1 John 3.16. so it was Christs duty as man, being no other could do it but he, and he was only qualified for it by his debasing of himself both in life and death to procure our salvation. Neither is that thought any considerable Objection, though it be a duty to a mere man, because the salvation of anothers soul is a greater good then the bodily life of another; whereas Christ temporal life being the life of him who was God also, did serve to be more worth then the salvation of all mens souls. This( I say) is not considerable, because Christs life was not absolutely lost, it was only for a little time that his soul and body was separated, though his Deity was not from either of them. Thus these authors think, that as in some cases the moral Law doth bind to be Martyrs, and to lose our lives for the confession of faith, and edification of others; so it was also a command upon Christ, that God having decreed to save man no other way, but in mercy and justice joined together, and there being no other in the world but he that could do it so, but he who was God and man; therefore the love to Gods glory and mans good, was requiring him to become a Surety for us. Neither will this take off from the free love and grace of Christ thus in living and dying for us, because it was wholly from his mere goodness to put himself in such a condition of suffering for us, in so much that absolutely he was free to do otherwise. This obligation ariseth only from the supposition, that he will become man for us; and certainly if Moses, but especially Paul could arise to such a measure of love, as to say, he could desire to be an Anathema for the good of his brethren in the flesh, Rom. 9.3. no wonder if Christ did absolutely submit himself to be made a curse for us, out of love to Gods glory, and the salvation of man.  
But if we speak exactly and properly, we must say, 
Sol.  That command imposed on Christ to die for us, was reducible partly to the moral Law, and partly to a positive and special command. It was a positive and special command in this sense, because this duty of dying for mans salvation, could not be enjoined any mere man, for that could not be his duty, which was intrinsically impossible for any man, though possessed with so much perfection as mans nature was capable of. And besides, it must in this sense also be positive, because it was in Gods gracious good pleasure, whether he would open a way or no for the salvation of a sinner, and whether he would accept of a Surety or not. But whatsoever is commanded by the moral Law primarily and directly, its from its own nature intrinsically good and just; and therefore said not to be just because commanded, but commanded because just. And indeed if it were not so, all the grace of God would be evacuated that is seen in our Redemption: For then God should necessary will, That Christ should be our Redeemer, and Christ also be necessitated to undertake this Office upon him; so that so far that here is a particular way commanded, whereby our salvation is to be accomplished, this is altogether positive. But in the second place, If we do regard the root and fountain from whence Christ as man, was thus willing to be subjected to this command, that must needs arise from the moral Law; for seeing the Law doth require even of Christ as man, to love God and man perfectly; hence we may say that eminenter and virtualiter, though not forma●●ter it was required by the moral Law. It was by a special command that there should be such a way enjoined to demonstrate Christs love; yea it was a way ordained by the infinite wisdom and goodness of God: it was wholly supernatural both in the institution and revelation of it; yet when that way was made known to Christ as man and imposed on him, it was from the moral Law he submitted to it; the moral Law in the general commanding this, that whatsoever God shall require or appoint as an instance to demonstrate love to him, that we are bound to do: So that it is here in this respect, as in the Command, Thou shalt do no murder, &c. This Law did oblige Adam, though while in the state of integrity there could be no object about which such a prohibition could be conversant. But when through sin, such temptations are, then the moral Law is put forth into actual exercise: So that it is very great weakness to say, Christ was not bound to die for us, no nor any to be Martyrs by the moral Law, because that was given to man in integrity, for the command doth oblige, not only to what was then, but also to what new occasions or objects shall rise afterwards. Thus by the moral L●w we are commanded to love our enemies, to believe in Jesus Christ; for though these objects were not in the state of Integrity, yet when they shall be propounded, they are commanded by virtue of that old Law. Hence our Divines do well demonstrate against the Socinians, that Christ enjoined no new moral duty, only did interpret the Law in a more spiritual and large extension, then the Pharisees had done. Thus we may say of that personal command to the young man, to sell all he had, though it was in respect of the matter, special and personal, yet in respect of the original and root, it was from the command of God, which requireth us to love God with all our strength. Its true, the Apostle John, 1. cap. 3.16. doth press the duty of laying down our lives for the Brethren, because of Christs doing so for us, which is a new motive that the moral Law strictly taken, did not know: but its ordinary in Scripture to press an old duty, from some new and special consideration. Thus they are commanded to have one God for their God, because he brought them out of Egypt. This holds also in that exploratory command to Abraham about killing his son, it was special and positive in respect of the matter commanded, yet when once commanded, it was from the moral Law he should obey. Thus it is also in Christs dying for us, the matter and the way was wholly of free-grace; but when once determined and appointed by God, that this way and no other way he would have man saved, and it being supposed that Christ would become man for us, then that command of love did rule in Christs heart: and therefore Psal. 40. he saith, Behold I come to do thy will. Thy Law is within my heart. Neither will it follow from hence that Christ as man was bound absolutely to will and procure the salvation of all men, because his human will was directed and circumscribed by the Divine. Thus we have at large discussed this noble point, that hath so much influence into this controversy, concerning Christs subjection to a Law, wherein I have closed with those that do hold Christ as man was subjected to a Law. And therefore do wonder at those, though great Pillars that will answer the Argument proposed, and put all upon this issue, That Christ was not bound to obey any Law, and therefore what he did way of obedience it was wholly for us, not that any obligation lay upon him.  
Before we dismiss this Point, let us consider what is objected to this Doctrine: And first its said, Christ though he be a man, yet being one person, and that Divine, he could not be subjected to a Law any more then God himself.  
To this it is Answered, That its true that Christ, both in respect of his Divine nature, as also of his personality, is not bound by any Law, but in respect of his human nature: and its an acknowledged rule in Divinity, That by reason of the communication of the properties, we may predicate that of Christs Person in the concrete, which belongs to him only because of one of his Natures. Thus we say Christ died, Christ suffered; certainly this is more then to say, Christ was subject to a Law, and all is true, because of his human nature, which was the principium quo of these things.  
If it be said, that Laws are given to persons, not to natures, to men, not to humanities in the abstract,  
Its answered, First, This is not universally true, for the separated souls damned in hell, do yet sin against the Law of God in that they hate him, and rage at him, when yet they are not subsisting persons.  
But secondly, Commands are given primarily to persons, but secondarily and remotely to natures, and therefore though the Law did not immediately, yet mediately it did extend to Christs human nature.  
It is further objected, That Christ needed not any command, because he had a perfect inclination within to what is good and holy. Besides to a command there is enjoined threatening, and so it would be thus, that if Christ did forsake or fail in his trust, he would be a sinner, and so guilty of condemnation.  
But two things may be replied to this, 1. That commands were not given to Christ as they are to mere men, who need direction and quickening to their duty: Therefore such additaments of encouragement, or commination were not necessary to him.  
2. It may be granted that even such comminations were added to the commands, yet they made no impression of terror upon Christ, who was not subject to any failing, and therefore were only to inform how much God did hate or dislike the contrary to what he commanded, not that they supposed any necessity of such spurs to Christ for the performing of what was imposed.   

SERM. XL. Some Objections Answered, and Distinctions Examined, concerning the Obedience of Christ.  ROM. 5.19. So by the Obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 
CHrist( we have heard) was truly and properly subject to a Law, and that both general, which concerneth every man, and also particular, which did relate to him as Mediator.  
There is one Doubt more to be removed ere we proceed, and that is, How it could be called a command imposed on Christ to die for us, seeing that his death did depend upon the wicked and corrupt wils of other men, and he was not bound to kill himself: Therefore that seemeth not to be a command to him, the effecting whereof was to be by the wickedness of others.  
But this is easily resolved, That the command upon Christ was to walk in such a way, and to do that work of God on earth, which he had commanded, not to shrink or fly from duty, in the accomplishing whereof the malice of his enemies would be stirred up to put him to death, and when that hour was come, Christ would not decline it.  
Thus I have been large in discussing this Answer, which many learned men give; but upon the weighing of it, it seemeth to be too light. Though this deep searching into the particulars of it, is very profitable to give light in the controversy.  
I proceed therefore to a second Answer to the grand Objection, which was, That Christ being obliged to the Law for himself, could not fulfil it for us, it was paying his own debt, and so could not thereby discharge ours.  
A second Answer, which seemeth to carry more truth and solidity with it, is, That Christ, though when he assumed the human nature, he was thereby indispensably subjected to the Law of God, yet because he did freely and voluntarily become man, and so put himself of his own accord into a state of subjection, therefore we may absolutely and truly say, Christ was free from the Law, and this may fully satisfy the Objection. Its denied, that if we speak simply and absolutely Christ was obliged by the Law, because this obligation comes by supposition, and upon a mere voluntary dispensation; for as he was not made man for himself, so neither made under the Law for himself; he did not become man, that he might obey the Law for his own good, but all this was for us. Hence Isa. 9. To us a son is born; and the Angel  told the shepherds, Luke 1. To you is a Saviour born, therefore he had his Name Jesus, not in reference to himself, but to save his people from their sins, Thus also Galat. 4. His being made of a woman, and made under the Law, are put together, with the final cause, why? Not for himself, but to redeem us from the curse of the Law: So that if we speak absolutely, we may say, Christ was not bound by the Law, because he did of his mere accord put himself into this subjection; and although while he is in this way of submission, he is bound to obey, yet that is but an hypothetical and conditional obligation: Even as being made man he was bound to suffer for us; for although it was his mere goodness to undertake the Office of our Redeemer, yet when once he had taken up that will and resolution, Behold, I come to do thy will, O God, then it was necessary he should suffer for us. Therefore the Scripture puts a {αβγδ} an oportet upon it, It behoved him to suffer, and so to enter into glory, Luk. 22. Then its his duty to drink of this Cup, and it cannot pass away. Therefore Christ was no more obliged to obey the Law for us, then to suffer for us: for it was his voluntary giving up of himself to this work, only when it was once undertaken, it was necessary he should accomplish it, otherwise he would have been unfaithful in his trust. Therefore these are unclean and unsavoury positions of the Arminians, who say, Christ might have relinquished this Office of Mediatorship, he might not have delighted in the glory set before him. No, such was his holy perfection, that he had an immutable necessity, though not a natural one, to fulfil his Fathers will. Its then in this case, as the Schoolmen say about the liberty of the will, when the will hath formally determined itself to will, and doth produce such a volition, it cannot do otherwise, for the old Rule is, Quicquid est, quando est, necesse est esse: yet, they say, That act of the will is free, and the will hath not lost its liberty, though determined. Thus seeing Christ was not originally necessitated to take our nature upon him, and the Scripture attributeth it always to his love, therefore it is that we may say with Calvin, he was immunis, exempt from the Law: So that although Christ was as man bound to the Law, yet there was a vast difference between him and us, because Christ became man voluntarily, we necessary and antecedently to our wils, and which is the signal difference, Christ became man, not for himself, or to have eternal life and glory by any obedience, but for us: So that we cannot distinguish of a righteousness which Christ had for himself merely, and another he had for us. And this brings in the examination of some distinctions. As  
First, Of a legal Obedience, and a servile Obedience. 
An examination of some Distinctions.  A legal obedience they call that which Christ as man was bound to put forth, even his conformity to the whole Moral Law. Servile obedience they call that which Christ demonstrated in respect of that special command of his Mediatorship: For( say they) though he was bound as a creature to obey the Moral Law of God, yet he was not obliged in such a low, debased manner, both by doing and suffering to procure our Salvation.  
This distinction hath some truth in it, onely its insufficient and imperfect, as it is managed by the learned authors of it to serve their opinion. And  
1. Take notice, that this opinion doth not Piscatorize, For our Justification is not hereby limited to the mere death of Christ, but all that obedience he shewed in his life time, subserviently to the Law of his Mediatorship, both active and passive, do make up our complete, satisfactory righteousness. So that all active obedience is not excluded, but what is supposed not to be an act of humiliation.  
But first, This distinction is built upon a metaphysical abstraction or notional precision of respective formalities. Its true indeed, Christ might from his very birth have been in such a condition, as the glorified Saints shall be. Its the opinion of some Schoolmen and others, that Christ would have been incarnated, though Adam had not fallen, because it was such a glorious mystery, and desirable in itself, without any respect to sin: Onely( they say) then Christ would not have come in a passable body, and then he would not have been in a meriting way, neither would his obedience have had any penality or debasement in it. Whether this be true or no, its not material; onely we grant, That Christ might have taken our nature in a glorious and immortal manner; but de facto, Christ did not, yea the Scripture revealeth no other end of his coming into the world, but to be our Saviour, and makes his very Incarnation, and all that he did to be in reference to us: So that howsoever in a mans understanding there may be made such precisive respects, yet in reality, there was no legal act of Christs obedience, but it was servile, Phil. 2. The Apostle expresseth the whole state of his humiliation, to be in the form of a servant. Its therefore in vain to dispute of an absolute power, when the ordinary power is in question. The controversy is not, Whether Christ might not have performed legal acts of obedience, that would not have been imputed unto us? But whether he actually did submit himself in that humbled manner to obey the Law for himself, or others? So that Christs legal obedience, but not poenall or servile, is an Ens in intellectu; Its Rosa in hyeme, as in respect of this controversy.  
If with Piscator it be said, That this legal obedience did wholly belong to Christ himself.  
I answer, That it did behove him no more to be under the Law, then to be made of a woman, yet certainly he was not obliged to be made man for his own self.  
And again, There is no repugnancy, as is to be shewed, that the same obedience should be under one title due and required, and under another title or end to be wholly voluntary and undue.  
2. This distinction then in a well-seasoned sense, may be approved of, that Christs obedience as it was penal, was part of our righteousness( and de facto it was not otherwise) but not as legal; though the members of the distinction are not opposite; for legal obedience may be servile, and servile legal; servile is not here taken in the sense, as we call servile fear: Christ had no such obedience, he did not obey in a servile manner, merely out of fear; but its called servile, because it was done by him, who was in the form and condition of a servant, and it being servile obedience in this denomination it was also legal: So that this division faileth in the known Rule of logic; The same obedience is legal in respect of the Rule, and servile in respect of the person accomplishing it.  
3. This distinction is not stood to, or any ways improved by the Authors, or at least very inconsiderably in the protract of the Dispute; for when such Texts are urged, That the righteousness of the Law may be fulfilled in us; Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness, or Christ was made under the Law; They run up not to the Sanctuary of this distinction, neither do they seem to aclowledge the impletive obedience of the Law by conformity unto it, though in an humbled manner, but mention altogether the Satisfaction of the penalty of it, by suffering the curse annexed to the transgression of it: So that all along the controversy, I can find little use made of it; The passive obedience is often mentioned, but the servile active to the Law of God is very seldom, if at all taken notice of.  
4. This distinction will be overthrown by their own principles, and so breedeth that in its own bowels which will destroy itself: for thus we may argue ad homines, Christ by his offering up of himself satisfied the penalty of the Law; the Law hath no more to accuse, and where there is no accusation, there is an acquittance; then if so, what need was there of his active, servile obedience in the whole course of his life, What need that go to make up part of our satisfactory righteousness, when the other was enough, and took away the whole guilt of sin? If satisfying of the punishment of the Law be enough, what needeth the active obedience of Christ either to the Moral, or to the Positive Laws concur to our righteousness? So that this servile obedience being necessary distributed into active and passive, whatsoever Arguments are brought against the active obedience of Christ in the sense affirmed by us, will also militate against the sense affirmed by them: Insomuch that the truth we pled for, will quickly have the victory, if we set that opinion on one hand, which limits our righteousness onely to the sufferings of Christ; and that opinion on the other hand which holds Christs servile obedience to concur also to make our complete righteousness. These two will necessary conflict so long together, that a third will go away with the victory.  
Lastly, This distinction brought in by learned opponents, doth not at all contradict that truth we pled for, and therefore is wholly impertinently brought to the state of the Question; For those that pled for the imputation of Christs active obedience to the Law of God, either general or special, do grant, That this obedience was wholly servile and debased, that Christ was in a state of humiliation, and not of glorification, while he thus submitted himself: Therefore it may be wondered, why its brought into this controversy, seeing its acknowledged by all, That Christ even while he did obey any Law of God was in the form of a servant, all his obedience was in a debased way, and the lower he submitted himself, the greater was his love to us. Therefore though once it was vehemently disputed[ Vid. Suarez. in Thom. de Incar. Christi, Quaest. 20. Dis. 44.] Whether Christ be called the servant of God the Father? yet we conclude, there was no just ground for the denial of it, seeing that the Scripture speaks so positively therein.  
A second Distinction comes to be examined, that is framed by some who appear against the truth we pled for, and that is of some affinity with the former, though with some difference, They distinguish of Christs legal Obedience, and his Mediatorial Obedience; His legal Obedience they call that which was given to the Law as he was man, in the same obligation as it did reach to others; His Mediatory Obedience they call that which he did as God-man in accomplishing our Redemption for us. But this distinction splits at a Rock, as well as the former.  
For first, It opposeth those things which are the same; legal Obedience and Mediatorial obedience, as to our controversy are the same, onely denominated from several respects: The same obedience is Mediatory, because done by him, who is the Mediator, and the same is also legal, because conformable to the Law of God: Even as the same works which the regenerate do, may be called the works of the Spirit, and the works of the Law; of the Spirit, because he is the efficient and author of them, and of the Law, because they are commensurated to that as a Rule. So that this Distinction doth opponere componenda, It behoved our Mediator to fulfil the Law for us; and this Obedience is Mediatory, as it respects the Person from whom it floweth; and legal, as it relates to the Rule according to which it ought to be done.  
Secondly, As it faileth in exact distinguishing; so it is also very ambiguous, and is such a distinction that itself needeth a distinction, Tacere, negare,& obscurè respondere idem sunt, is a Rule in the Civil Law; for it may be called Mediatory obedience, formally as it comes from Christ the efficient thereof, or materially, as that which Christ did. Now its true, Christs Mediatorial Obedience is not imputed unto us for righteousness, formally as coming from him, for so we should be Mediators and Saviours, but materially, that is, what Christ did that is imputed to us, as if we had done it: So that when we say, Christs Mediatory Obedience is imputed unto us, its not the meaning, as if we were reputed of by God, as the efficients who did it, but as the subjects receiving of it, and applied to us.  
Thirdly, This distinction proceedeth upon two false and rotten foundations, as if Christ in obeying the Law did act as a mere man, whereas Galat. 4. He was made under the Law, that he might redeem us from the curse of the Law, which could not be by his mere human Nature, yea this would be to overthrow that meritorious worth which was on those actions he did for us.  
And the second rotten foundation is, that the Law Christ was under when working our salvation, was not the Moral Law, or Law of works, but a particular special Law imposed on him as mediator: Now this is clearly confuted by that fore-mentioned Text, Christ was made under the Law, that he might redeem us from the curse of the Law; but it was the curse of the Moral Law he was to redeem us from, therefore it was the Moral Law he was made under. Besides, By what Law Christ was made a curse for us, that he was under: but he was only by the Moral Law, and not that special Law of a mediator, made a curse for us: Therefore the Law he submitted to, was that Law which was in common with us and him. Its true, we have granted a special command to be imposed on him, viz. to be our mediator, which did not belong to us, or oblige us; but we also have proved, that this Law did oblige him to fulfil all that we were bound to do, whereof obedience to the Moral Law was a very great part, and of which he said, It was written in his heart.  
To conclude, the sum of this second Answer to that grand Objection is, That Christ absolutely and universally considered, was not obliged to be under the Law, no more then to be made of a woman, or to die for us. This obligation ariseth conditionally, upon his voluntary subjection to such a Condition. And this( I conceive) doth clearly and fully Answer the Objection propounded, yet that the evidence may( if possibly) be more convincing, I shall  
In the third place Answer, by way of additional explication to the former, in this manner, That though Christ simply and absolutely, as man, might be obliged by the Law, yet as our Surety and undertaking for us in a fidejussorial manner, so his obligation was wholly voluntary and free; for we may conceive of Christ two ways:  
1. As acting and obeying in his single Person.  
2. As acting as our Surety and Undertaker. The former Condition is onely in our understanding, and imagined as possible onely; for Christ was not incarnated or made under the Law for himself, but for us: So that although we may conceive,  
First, Christs being made man, and thereby an absolute obligation to obey God for himself.  
And then secondly, A voluntary stipulation, and an agreement with the Father, to become obedient for us, yet this Distinction will be onely in our understanding; and we shall make two signa rationis, whereof one is prius, and the other posterius; But in reality and existency, Christ never had his human being, but it was under confederation for us. This is then that which we affirm, That suppose Christ to be made a man, and thereby absolutely obliged to fulfil the Law for himself, yet that he should enter into agreement with the Father, to obey it as a Surety, for such a term of years upon the earth, and thereby to procure Salvation for a sinner undone otherwise: This, I say, is wholly gracious and voluntary, and Christ was not obliged to it as a man. In this respect it is, that Christ is called the second Adam, because of the Covenant he is under for his people: So that as the first Adam, though he was bound in his own person to obey the Law of God, yet was capable of a new obligation for his posterity upon a new title: So that at the same time, if he had continued, his obedience would have been accountable, both to himself and to his posterity. Thus it was with Christ, if we grant, That as man he was bound to obey the Law, yet as a Surety for us in such a way, he did take the same obligation upon him by another title and consideration: And this truth is made evident thus, If Christ because man was bound to obey the Law, as he did, while on earth, then he was still bound to do so, while he is in heaven, because he doth not cease to be man there; and if obedience do follow upon Christs human Nature inseparably, as they say, then though in heaven he was obliged to do, as once upon the earth: Grant it therefore, That Christ as man was bound to fulfil the Law, yet to do it in such a manner, by way of a Covenant with the Father for such a space of time, this is that he was not obliged unto, and so this was wholly voluntary. The Apostle notably urgeth this, Heb. 2.7. Thou hast made him {αβγδ} for a little time( as the best Interpreters expound) lower then Angels. This {αβγδ}, this short time of his inferiority and debasement under the Law for us, is that which Christ stipulated for, and to which he was not absolutely as man obliged unto. And thus have we finished the second Objection, wherein we have been very large, because herein did seem to lye the strength of Samson, and when that is discovered, the other Objections will the more easily yield themselves.   

SERM. XLI. A further dispute for the Imputation of Christs active obedience.  ROM. 5.19. So by the Obedience of one shall many be made Righteous. 
WE proceed to a third Argument against the imputation of Christs active obedience; and its thus urged: If the active obedience be imputed, then the passive is made wholly useless: for seeing by that we are made perfectly righteous, and accounted of as those who have fulfilled the Law, what need any further righteousness? Thus( say they) Christs death is made to be in vain.  
But certainly the weakness and nakedness of this Argument is so visible, that with Adam, it may justly run to hid itself, for several things are to be answered. First, the consequence is wholly denied, for there is a necessity both of active and passive obedience. Christs obedience to the Law, did not supply the virtue of his death, no more then his death did the efficacy of his obedience; so that both his active and passive obedience do concur to make up one integral complete legal righteousness; for the Law requiring both these, it behoved our Surety to fulfil them both: Insomuch that if we could have had a perfect righteousness conformable to the Law, de novo, and not have satisfied the punishment, our debt would not have been discharged, we had still been in our sins.  

Rep.  But( its replied) that righteousness is perfect or not, if not perfect, this would be to dishonour Christ; if perfect, yea a righteousness of an infinite worth, then it might serve for all.  
To this I answer, The whole righteousness Christ purchased for us, is a full and a perfect righteousness, to which nothing can be added to make it more perfect: yet this total righteousness consists of parts which complete it, which parts have their partial perfection, but not the perfection of the whole. Neither is this any dishonour to Christ to say, that part of his righteousness hath not the perfection of the whole, no more then to say, his human nature, though it was perfect in its way, had not the perfection of the whole person. Every righteous act of Christ was perfect with that respective partial perfection it needed, and altogether made a total and full perfection. This distinction the opponents must aclowledge even in their passive obedience, for why did not the sufferings of Christs soul bring righteousness enough, why not any pain in his body, as well as death? did not Christ suffer with perfection in these? was there any deficiency in any respect? No certainly, but those partial sufferings were perfect with their respective limited perfection, though no single suffering did amount to that righteousness which his whole sufferings did. Therefore we cannot properly say, any particular work or suffering of Christ was imperfect, though it had not the total righteousness imputed to us, because that is properly said to be imperfect, which wants something its bound to have: A man is not called imperfect( unless negatively) because he is not like God or the Angels, because man is not bound to have those perfections. And thus it is here, Christs particular acts and sufferings singly and severally taken, were not bound to have that completeness and perfection, which when conjoined, they were possessed with. This is like the Popish argument against the perfection of the Scriptures, for( say they) they are either a perfect rule in the whole, or in the parts of them; if in the parts, then one Book of the canonical Scripture is enough, and the other superfluous; if in the whole only, then the parts are imperfect, because they do not sufficiently and completely direct to salvation. To this the Learned reply, That the whole Canon is a perfect rule, perfectione totali, and the several parts, perfectione partiali: Every part hath its respective perfection, though not that of the whole Canon.  
But it may be further said, 
Rep.  Whatsoever Christ did had an infinite perfection, because of the dignity of the person, and so might be equivalent to any other things.  
I answer, This will overthrow the greatest part of his passive obedience also; Why did not those drops of blood in the garden serve for death by way of equivalency, seeing there was infinite worth in them? and so that position be made good, That one drop of our Saviours blood was enough to redeem the whole world: Certainly the answer they must give to this, we also must make use of, viz. That infiniteness of worth simply as so, is not enough for satisfaction and merit, but it must be such as is according to the Covenant and contract that is made. Now the Covenant with man being perfect obedience, and if fallen, satisfaction by suffering: That only could be compensatory, which had these substantials in it; so that although the infinite dignity of the person might be equivalent to many accidentals in the Covenant; yet the substantials and essentials cannot be dispensed with, but must be as it were paid in kind.  
2. We may retort on the opponents, If the passive obedience be all the satisfactory righteousness we needed, then his active obedience was wholly useless: why should they be more afraid to shut out his passive obedience, then his active? Certainly if we consider the thing seriously, as God in propounding the Law did intend active obedience, primarily, so that is most acceptable in itself: To satisfy the penalty of the Law is only occasional and accidental: Seeing therefore God did in the first place require this of us, and through the punishment be suffered, Gods end was not obtained by the Law; therefore we should rather fear to make his active obedience useless then his passive; especially seeing that his passive obedience is indeed to be looked upon as no other, then the ultimate and consummate act of his obedience begun in his life time.  
It may be said, That Christs active obedience is not made useless, because hereby we have an excellent example and pattern of holiness to walk by.  
Its answered, That cannot be thought rationally a sufficient ground for Christ being made man, to subject himself under a Law, merely to give example: Not to say that this would make Christs life wholly useless to all the people of God that lived before him, for he could not be an example to them, no, nor properly to any but those that lived with him on the earth, that did hear and see all the wonderful words and works he did. Its true, he is propounded as an example; we are to be patient and full of love as he was, but yet it is a very low consideration to make this the only end of his holy life. The Socinians they will grant, that though Christs death was not propitiatory, yet it was exemplary: But we reply, This is a very mean esteem they put upon Christs sufferings, that he should submit himself to them for to be an example only, or to witness the truth merely. Besides, we may argue against this exemplary life only, as they do against the imputation of Christs righteousness: Christ( say they) had not the righteousness of a Magistrate, of an Husband, of a Wife, for he was not in those relations, therefore his obedience could not be imputed to such as were in those relations. This Objection is to be answered in its time; its weakly urged against the truth we pled for, but strongly urged against such, who make his holy life useful only, because exemplary, for seeing he left no example of his conversation in such a relation, how could he be a pattern to those that were placed therein?  
If it be further said, that Christs active obedience is not useless, nor do they reject it, because its for our good, though it be not imputed to us: Even his birth, and his natures were for our good, yet they were not imputed to us as ours, neither was he born in our stead, or made man and God in our room. And indeed this is a main altar they catch hold upon, thinking none dare draw them off from thence. They distinguish of Christs obedience, pro nobis, and 'vice nostri; or propter nos, and pro nobis: They grant that Christs obedience was for us, that is, for our good: It did qualify him to be our Redeemer, so that had we not had such an High Priest, as was holy, undefiled and separate from sinners, he could not have accomplished our salvation for us.  
This is speciously spoken, and gives something to Christ as our Surety, but not enough: They make it only qualificative of his person, not constitutive of our righteousness. That this is not enough to a Surety, appeareth a pari, from Christs passive obedience. The Socinians do all along readily grant, that Christ died for us: They say his death was propter nos, for our good, he would not have died but for us; and so they make mans benefit the final cause of his sufferings, only they will not yield, that he died in our room, that he did it in stead of us, and so suffered what we were obnoxious unto. And although they would elude those prepositions {αβγδ} yea {αβγδ} also, making them to signify only the final cause; yet the Orthodox press this, that he died as a Surety: Now he that death as a Surety, doth it not only for the good of another, but in the stead of another, taking the obligation of the debtor upon himself. As it is thus in his passive obedience, so also in his active. To obey the Law of God for our good only, is not enough; so one godly man may do it for another: Parents do obey Gods commands for the good of their children, Magistrates for the good of their subjects; but Christs obedience was more, it was a fidejusticial obedience, it was the obedience of an undertaker for us; and therefore it must not only be for our good, but in our stead. Thus when the Martyrs, especially Paul, suffered for the Elect, it was toto genere different from Christs sufferings for them; the one was only for the good of the Church, the other was in the Churches stead; so Christs obedience and the obedience of Christians, who are commanded to make their light to shine before others, do differ in their whole kind, for a Christians obedience is profitable unto others, but its not as Christ is vicarious and impletive of the Law in stead of others: Therefore this distinction comes too short, and gives not that full glory to him, which belongs to him as our Surety.  
This truth is further vexed, for its further urged by a late Writer, ( Wendelin. Christi. Theol. lib. cap. 25.) That Christ must be only under the Law for our good, and not in our stead, because though made man for our good( saith he) yet afterwards when he was made man, then he was a man for himself, and so for himself he had need to eat and drink, because he took a body obnoxious to such infirmities as ours are.  
To this again we Answer, that without doubt, such a distinction is to be acknowledged in Christ, that somethings were in him only qualifying his person, and somethings were properly ingredient unto and constitutive of our righteousness. The former was to be considered only praesuppositivè and materialiter( as we said the Schools speak) The later formaliter, and immediatè; of the former sort are his two natures, his Godhead and his manhood, these two were conjoined in one person for our good, and they did qualify his person to be our Redeemer, he must be medius before he can be mediator, he was God for our good, but not God in our stead; he was man for our good, but not in our stead. As it is thus to be granted in respect of his natures, so also in those actions which he did upon other considerations, then as a Mediator, for many things it behoved a Mediator to do, which yet he did not as Mediator. Thus his eating and drinking to preserve his natural life, it behoved him to do thus; for Thou shalt not tempt the Lord, is urged by our Saviour against the devils temptation for himself as well as for other men. Now his eating and drinking, though they were actiones mediatoris, yet not actiones mediatoriae: That is, though Christ the Mediator did all these things for our good, yet they were not part of that Mediatoriall righteousness for which he stood engaged, only were required of him remotè and materialiter, as that without which he could not accomplish his mediatory righteousness. Therefore there is great difference to be made between such actions, which were requisite to keep him up in the being of a Mediator, and those that were part of his Mediatorship. Its reported of Paulinus, that he made himself a captive or servant to redeem another. Now although while he was in that slavery, his eating and drinking, thereby preserving his natural life, was for the good of that captive whom he redeemed; yet they were not imputed in the same manner, as those peculiar works of slavery and service, which he was bound to do every day: Or if one had undertaken to Pharaoh, that he would constantly perform an Israelites task for him every day, and make such a number of bricks, though the person so undertaking must necessary eat and drink, else he could not labour, yet his eating and drinking would not be imputed to the Israelite, as that peculiar accomplishing of such a task as the Israelite was bound unto. Thus it is in our case, our Lord and Saviour became in a form of a servant for us, undertook to redeem us by performing that work we were bound unto: Now his eating and drinking, that was to preserve his bodily life, and although it was for our good, yet it was not for us in the same manner, as the obedience of the Law, in the duties whereof he accomplished that obligation which was upon us, let us then distinguish between those notions which were requisite to qualify him as a Mediator, and which were part of his Mediatorship; for though our salvation may be attributed to both of them, yet not in the same manner, for the former are required of him as conditions in his person, the later as ingredients to our righteousness: The former he did pro se,& pro nobis: The later loco nostri. We then do grant the necessity of this distinction, only we blame them for making his active obedience, to be no more then a condition requisite to his being, and so its concurrent to our righteousness no other ways, then his natural actions, or some miraculous actions, which he did indeed for our good, thereby demonstrating he was the true messiah, but he did them not as our Surety: neither could they be called Sponsorious obedience: So that we may speak of these things, as Divines do about the merit of Christ, Christ( we say) hath merited the sanctification of our human nature, but he merited not that we should be men, that comes not by Christs death: Its only materialiter, and per modum substracti. This being supposed, Christ merited the sanctification of our natures, as also all other supernatural privileges.  
2. We must not upon any terms grant that all the active obedience of Christ which he did as a man, was for himself, for this will necessary overthrow Christs merit for us in his life time. It will assert that Christ did not by his holy life merit salvation for us, but make it wholly in reference to himself: and therefore I cannot subscribe to that position I meet with ( Buchol. Wegel. disput. de obedientia &c. cum succinctis stricturis) in answer to a fifth reason propounded, viz. That it is not necessary that Christ by fulfilling the commands of the moral Law, should merit any thing for himself or us, any more then Angels, seeing every rational creature doth by virtue of creation owe unto God, whatsoever that Law requireth of any one. This seemeth to take away all Christs meritorious obedience for us, as in reference to the moral Law. But to discuss it more narrowly.  
1. Its ambiguously spoken, that it was not necessary Christ by fulfilling the Law, should merit for us; for there is a twofold necessity, First, Absolute and simplo, and thus indeed it was not necessary, no more then it was that he should be man, or being man, that he should converse with us in that manner he did upon the earth. But secondly, there is an hypothetical necessity, which ariseth from Gods ordination and appointment of him to be our Mediator, or from the stipulation and agreement between the Father and the Son, to procure our Redemption, and thus it was necessary that he should merit by his obedience for us.  
2. It doth impertinently confounded Angels and Christ together in this matter, for Angels they are now in termino, they partake of heaven and happiness, and so are not capable of any reward for what they do, being instated in it already; whereas Christ, though he had right to eternal glory and happiness, yet he put himself into a condition wherein he might merit for us: And therefore  
3. This assertion is not clear, because it doth not distinguish of those two conditions, viatores and comprehensores. The Saints glorified in heaven, yea Christ now exalted in glory, doth still retain his human nature, and thereby is still a creature, and they do from that inward perfection obey the Law of God materially, though not formally. But there was another consideration both of them and Christ, while they were here on earth. Although it be acknowledged, that Christ, while bodily on the earth, was a comprehensor, yet it is as generally confessed likewise, he was a viator. I will not entangle the Reader with Scholastical intricacies, that are so industriously, but unprofitably vented in this matter. This seemeth to be clear, that though Christ had a right to all happiness, and that from his personal union, yet he put himself voluntarily in such a condition, that he might be under a promise with God, which was by that stipulation mentioned Isa. 53. If he did pour out his soul an offering for sin, he should see the travel of his soul and be satisfied: And by reason of this promise, upon the fulfilling of what he undertook, he was capable of merit, if not for himself, yet for us; so that Christ though in respect of his human nature even in heaven, he be obliged to love God, yet he is not there in a state of merit, as he was on earth, because no longer under a promise and stipulation; and thus the glorified Saints and Angels, though they love God and do his will, yet its but obedience only materially, because no more under a promise of reward, and is not so much looked upon as their duty, as it is their part of blessedness: even as to praise God, and rejoice in him is not so much considered as a duty required by the Law, but as part of that glorious blessedness they are made partakers of. Therefore that assertion is dark and cloudy, because it makes no distinction of a rational creature, whether it be in viâ, or in patriâ, whether under a promise or not.  
Yea fourthly, It puts those two things together, which are of a very different consideration, and that is Christ meriting for himself or for us: For there are some Learned and sound Divines, Calvin especially, that deny Christ merited for himself, yet I know none, till of late, that question whether he merited for man or no.   

SERM. XLII. In Answering the last Objection, is discussed, Whether and how far Christ was bound to Obey and Suffer for himself: And shewed that the same Arguments which are brought against the Active Obedience of Christ, make as much against his Passive.  ROM. 5.19. So by the Obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 
ALthough it seemeth far more probable that Christ merited that great Exaltation of himself, as Mediator, which the Scripture so much speaks of by his humiliation here on earth, and yet even that exalted glory he did not so much look upon as his good, as the Churches over which he was thus constituted to be a glorious Head. No doubt but while on the earth he was King and Head of his Church, as the Orthodox maintain against Socinians, yet after his Resurrection there was a further possession of glory then before, his body that formerly was passable, being now made glorious. As for the glory of his Divine Nature he doth not pray for the possessing of that, John 17. seeing he had it from the beginning with the Father, but onely for the manifestation of it. But his Mediatory glory, that he was fully invested into upon his Resurrection, and this seemeth more consonant to Scripture, especially that known place, Phil. 2.9. Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, &c. For although it is true, that the phrase may denote no more then a mere consequence, or the order that was appointed between his obedience and glory, yet the whole context doth rather favour that Exposition, which makes it as a reward merited by his obedience; and indeed, if we grant, that stipulation and agreement between the Father and the son, concerning the redemption of mankind; I cannot see how it can be denied, that Christ merited for himself, seeing the Father promised him not only a seed and inheritance, but his glorious Dominion and Majesty thereby, although( as was said) even this glory of Christ did tend to our good and comfort: Neither hath that Argument any strength to the contrary, That Christ by the personal union had right to all, and so no glory or blessedness could be denied him; for its no absurdity to say, That Christ might have right to this glory upon a two-fold Title; 1. By personal Union. 2. By obedience: Even as the son of some great Monarch may have a right to his kingdom both by inheritance or succession, and then further by conquest overcoming his subjects, who have risen up rebelliously against him: and this makes more for the glory and honour of Christ, that he would be lifted up to this glory by his humiliation, when it had been no robbery to have taken it otherways. It was not then out of indigency or necessity that Christ would partake of this glory in a meritorious way of obedience, but by voluntary condescension, the more to commend his love to us therein. Howsoever let Christs meriting for himself be wholly laid aside, yet that he should not merit for us by his holy life, but only in his death, I think is such a Novelism that the Church of God, though under many declensions and eclipses, scarce ever was infested with; for who can persuade himself that Christ should be made man, made under the Law, and he in such a state of humiliation about thirty years, and not all that while be meriting for us, but in that short time of his death? Is it not strange, that he who was made man to be our Mediator, yet should perform no Mediatorial act, till the time of his sufferings? Certainly the Scripture represents Christ our Mediator in all that he did, as well as in what he suffered; for although some things in his life were but accessary and adjuvant, yet the principal and main things of his life were constitutive of our righteousness; neither do we advance Christ as we ought, if we look upon his obedience, not as fide-jussorial, but singly and privately for himself. Hence Phil. 2.6, 7. the Apostle takes notice of all that obedience of his, which he shewed even from the beginning of his being in the form of a servant, until the death of the cross; and Heb. 10.7. There that will of his, which he had upon his coming into the world, is made the foundation of all that after-obedience which he shewed until the oblation of himself. And here in my Text, the Apostle attributed our righteousness to his obedience indefinitely and universally without limiting it to the time of his death. Hence also in Isai. 53. where there is so clear a prophesy of his Mediatorship, mention is not onely made of his sufferings, but his holy life, By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, vers. 11. and vers. 9. he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth; And the Apostle Peter considers, That it was the Just who suffered for the unjust, 1 Pet. 3.18 I see is disputed by Divines, Whether Christ performed any Mediatorial acts before his incarnation?[ Vide Rivet, in Hosea. cap. 12.] The Question is not, Whether the fruit of his Mediatorship did not extend to all before Christs birth? For all the Orthodox confess that: But, Whether he could perform any acts of his Mediatory Office, till he was made man, seeing he was Mediator in both his Natures, and its acknowledged that in respect of his Priestly Office he could not do any Mediatorial acts, but in his Prophetical he did? But now we see it disputed, Whether Christ when made man did execute Mediatorial acts till the time of his oblation? and not only disputed but concluded, That the holinesse of his life was not meritorious for us. Certainly, that place John 17.4. might be enough to convince, where Christ saith, I have finished the work thou gavest me to do, relating to the whole obedience of his life, as well as respecting his death, and therefore having discharged his whole work, he prayeth for his glorification.  
I shall add one thing more worthy of consideration, if this be admitted as true, That Christ did not merit for us by his active obedience to the Moral Law, because he was subject thereunto for himself as a creature, Whether this once yielded unto will not also overthrow the merit of his Passive Obedience? For Durand.[ lib. 3. Distinct. 21. Quaest. 2.] a Schoolman of no mean note, doth upon this account affirm, That Christ did not satisfy the Justice of God by his death, properly and exactly, because his human Nature having received so many mercies from God being a creature, that it could never recompense God enough for itself in respect of those favours received. He proceedeth upon this Rule, That there is the same reason of obligation, for satisfaction in respect of sin committed, and of recompense in respect of benefit received. He that cannot exactly and rigidly do the later, cannot rigidly do the former. Now Christ as man received those inestimable mercies and favours both of Nature and Grace, as the personal Union, habitual Holinesse, &c. that he could not requited this goodness of God to him: Thereupon he maketh a distinction of satisfaction, answerable to that which the Schools have of merit. A Satisfaction de condigno, when there is a just and equal proportion between the fault committed, and the satisfaction proffered; or a satisfaction de congruo, which is, when there is no just proportion in this case of offence, only the friendship and love of the party injured, doth accept of that which of itself is not equivalent.  
This distinction is much like that of Vorstius his Divine acceptilation which he speaks of in this case. Now observe the ground why he makes Christs satisfaction by his passive obedience to be no more then a satisfaction de congruo, or a merciful acceptation of that as equivalent, which is not so indeed. It is upon this ground, because Christ as a man received such benefits from God, that let him do or suffer never so great things, yet he could not compensate for the benefits he himself received. According to that of Aristotle, which he allegeth 8o Ethic. That no man can render equivalent to the gods and his parents. I do not examine the truth and solidity of this Argument, only I desire the opponents to answer it by their principles, and this will appear still the more effectual against them, if that Position be acknowledged, which some Divines of great note affirm, That God by reason of the supreme dominion and power he hath over any creature, may impose exquisite and unspeakable torments on a rational creature per modum simplicis cruciatus, though not per modum poenae, which doth necessary presuppose sin. To be sure, we see God from his dominion he had over Job, exercising of him with wonderful sorrows and anguishes; and although Job was not without sin, yet they were not inflicted for sin, but upon trial; If then God may without any wrong lay any trouble upon the creature, as a creature, and that is bound patiently to bear it, yea and all those sufferings cannot be equivalent to that goodness and love of God which the creature partaketh of; Would not the refractory man say, That whatsoever Christ as man suffered, yet because in those sufferings he was supported and corroborated by God, he could not merit, because what he had was received from above, and so he was by way of thankfulness obliged to return it to God again.  
Again, There is another Position by the same Schoolmen, which will much press the adversary, and makes against the passive obedience, as well as the active, and that is from the necessity of Christs death; for this he affirmeth[ Lib. 3. Distinct. 17. Quaest. 1.] That Christ would naturally have grown old and died, as other men, if so be that he had not been violently put to death; He grounds this upon that acknowledgement, that Christ took mans nature upon him in a passable way, and so all those defects which do necessary and indeclinably concomitate mans nature in such a way. Now then I thus argue, If Christ taking our passable nature upon him, was obnoxious to death, as well as to be hungry and thirsty, and to be weary, then there was the same obligation upon him in respect of death, as of obedience to the Law, and as his being a rational creature did necessary oblige him to obey the Law; so being made man like unto us in all infirmities( sin onely excepted) he was also obnoxious to a necessity of dying.  
If to all this it be said, That though it be granted, Christ was obnoxious to death, yet not in such a manner, and so circumstantiated, and in that respect it might be satisfactory.  
It is as easily answered, That though Christ as man was obliged to the duty of the Moral Law, yet that he should submit himself to it in such a manner, for such a determinate space of time upon the earth; this was wholly free and voluntary, and so in this respect might be meritorious for us. I entreat the Reader to take notice, that I do no ways approve of this Discourse of Durands, onely its brought ad hominem, to have them seriously weigh, Whether the same principles that deny the meritoriousnesse of Christs active obedience, do not also tend to the overthrow of the Satisfactory Nature of his passive, for the falsehood of this Schoolmans position lieth in this, as if Christs Satisfaction in the virtue of it was merely of man, and not of him who was God as well as man; and therefore though a pure mere man suffering, could not satisfy God, among other reasons, for that of Durands, because all his support and strength he had from God; yet he that is God as well as man is by that infinite worth redounding from the person to the actions he did, fully enabled to make exact and complete Satisfaction This false supposition maketh others also deny the imputation of Christs active obedience, as appearech by the author of that Book, called, The Price of Mans Redemption, where he distinguisheth Christs legal obedience from his Mediatorial, and makes that to be done by him as a man, as if Christs actions did not come from him as he was a person, God-man, though the formal principles by which they were effected, were either his Divine or human Nature. Although therefore it be granted, That Christ as man was obliged to the Moral Law, yet what action he did in reference thereunto, being the action of him that was God as well as man, it was of infinite worth for us, especially it being intended and applied by our Saviour for that end.  
Before I finish this particular, it will not be altogether impertinent to consider, What is the true Doctrine about Christs death, whether it was natural, or merely miraculous?  
Some( you have heard) affirm, That Christ because he took our passable Nature upon him, would have died, though he had not been violently put to death. For( say they) as the Personal Union did not prohibit a violent death, no more would it a natural; and as it was no reproach or dishonour to Christ to die a violent death, no more would it have been to die a natural one.  
Another late Writer, [ Pinchin, Price of Redemption] among other new and wonderful opinions, asserts this also, That Christs death was wholly miraculous, that all the Romans and Jews could not put him to death, but he did voluntary dissolve that union of the soul and body himself; so that he did not by those pains die as other men from the principles of nature, but by his own voluntary concurrence. But this is directly contrary to Scripture, Acts 3.15. 1 thessaly. 2.15. where they are charged expressly to have killed Christ, and that as they did the other Prophets. Its true, there were many wonders about Christs death, and in some sense it might be said to be miraculous, but not so as therefore it should be denied to be also in some sense natural: Therefore the truth lieth between these two extremes; for though Christ took our Nature upon him with the principles of death, yet it may not be said, he would have died naturally, if they had not crucified him; for that is said to be future, not which is to be so according to the second and inferior causes, but what is according to the singular Will and appointment of God: Now God had appointed his death for no other end but to be by way of a voluntary oblation for us, which it could not be if it had been the tribute of Nature: Neither do the principles of dying argue death necessary, for Enoch and Elias were in mortal natures, yet they did not actually die, and at the last day many shall not die, but have an equivalent change: Even as we may say, The body of Christ in the grave could not putrifie or corrupt, because of Gods singular will about the speedy Resurrection of it; for its said, He would not suffer his holy One to see corruption: So that its unjustifiable to say, Christ would have died naturally, if he had not been put to that violent death; and though Christ was hungry and weary, yet we never read that he was sick. Nay, Divines say, he could not be any ways capable of any bodily sickness. But yet on the other side, its an error to say, Christs death was wholly miraculous, that by the punishment of the cross, with the pains thereof, there was not a natural death. Neither could his enemies kill him; for although this be true in respect of his Divine Nature, so that he could have hindered all the men of the world from killing of him: So that in respect of his Divine Will, he said, He had power to lay down his life, and to raise it again; yet seeing his Divine Nature did leave the human Nature in its operations to its self, without which our Redemption could not be accomplished; in this dereliction his death did proceed from natural principles, even as his hunger and weariness. Its true, Christ did not die against his human will, for with that he willingly accepted of the death imposed on him; yet for all that we may not say he killed himself, or was his own executioner. And thus much occasionally.  
That which I chiefly intended, is to examine, Whether some Arguments that militate against the Active Obedience, do not also rise up against the Passive. And we may take notice, That Bernard( Epist. 190.) writing against Abilardus, the first that ever appeared to deny the Satisfactory Propitiation by Christs death, making it onely exemplary, doth oppose him, not onely by asserting the redeeming power in Christs death, but the imputation also of his righteous obedience: Hence are those expressions, Assignata est ei aliena justitia qui caruit suâ, Anothers righteousness is assigned to him, who wanted one of his own. Again, Justum me dixerim said illius Justitiâ; quaenam ipsa? finis legis Christus ad Justitiam omni credenti, I will call myself righteous, but by his righteousness; And what is that? Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to him that believeth. Lastly, That it is very clear, Si mea traducta culpa, cur non& mea indulta Justitia?& merely mihi tutior donata, quam si inherens, If Adams sin can by traduction be made mine, why not righteousness be also indulged and imputed to me? Certainly righteousness thus given is more safe then what is inherent. This righteousness is not onely to be limited to his death, but to his whole conversation in the world for us.  
Its time to hasten to a fourth Argument, and that is thus managed, If Christ obeied the Law in our stead, then we are not bound to obey it, for a two-fold obedience to the same Law is superfluous.  
But this will not hold the respondent long; for its readily granted, That obedience is not required of us to the same end, and for the same purpose that it was of Christ: Christ obeied the Law for our Justification, but we by way of gratitude, and to testify our thankfulness: Even as in the Passive Obedience of Christ, Christ suffered pains and death to atone and reconcile God, nevertheless we die, and are exercised with many afflictions, but not to the same end for which Christ suffered: his sufferings were propitiatory, but so are not ours.  
This Answer is true and solid, yet there is endeavour to demolish it; For( say they) We are not bound to the obedience of gratitude, if Christ hath fulfilled all obedience for us; For the moral Law requiring gratitude, and Christ fulfilling that for us, we cannot be obliged to Obedience either in respect of Justification or Gratitude.  
To fully satisfy this, Its not so safe to aclowledge Obedience a duty onely by way of Gratitude, but that simply it s required by the Law still as Obedience, Love as Love, Zeal as Zeal, &c. Onely these are not required as ingredients to our Justification, but as the means and way wherein onely we can be partakers of the benefit of Christs active Obedience. For although Christ did fulfil the Law for such who are his, yet this is not imputed and accounted immediately unto every one, but its applied in that way and order, which God hath appointed; and that order is to communicate the benefit of his active Obedience to none but such, who shall by faith receive him, and obedientially walk in his commands; For Christ did nothing for us to encourage sin, or nourish security. And thus it is in his passive Obedience, Christ laid down his life as a ransom and price for his, yet not so as they are thereby immediately acquitted from all guilt, but the efficacy of it is communicated unto such as take the way he hath prescribed; so that neither active or passive Obedience of Christ, do any good but to such who apply it in that way God hath commanded: The effects of Christs death being not immediately accomplished upon any, but mediately according to those instituted means he hath required.   

SERM. XLIII. More Objections Answered, and the Doctrine cleared from antinomianism.  ROM. 5.19. So by the Obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 
I Hasten to a fifth Argument, which indeed is not so much an Objection as a calumny: for this innocent truth of the imputation of Christs active obedience is arraigned for manifest confederacy with that Antinomian dotage, and poisonous doctrine, that God seeth no sin in believers. Yea its positively asserted to be as genuine issue of the doctrine we pled for, as Ishmael was of Hagar: And it is not an enemy that doth our Doctrine this wrong, one of the Jesuitish profession; but even a familiar friend: Though its a wonder men should be in earnest, when they object thus; for certainly they must with the Adder, stop their ears that they may not hear what the Orthodox say in this matter.  
They discourse thus, If Christs perfect righteousness be made ours, so that we be as righteous as Christ is, then God seeth sin no more in us, then he doth in Christ.  
To this several things are responsible. 1. There is a calumniating mistake interposed in the Argument, as if it were asserted. That a man by imputed righteousness, is as righteous as Christ. This is the frequent reviling of our Doctrine, by Popish Writers. The Orthodox renounce any such consequence, and will not suffer such a Viper to fasten on them. Its one thing to say, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to a believer, and another thing that he is as righteous as Christ. For 1. Christs righteousness is not imputed to us, according to that latitude and infinite worth it is in Christ, but according to our necessity and want. 2. Christs righteousness is in Christ personally and inherently, and so denominateth him from an intrinsical ground, but it is in us only by imputation and account, and that according as we receive it by faith, which is imperfect and full of wavering. 3. Its in Christ efficiently, so that he is the Author and procurer of it. It is in us only as the subjects who do receive it. This and much more is to be said to manifest the weakness of that position( We are as righteous as Christ.) But more of this in answering the Popish Argument.  
2. In answer to this charge, we say, that the Socinian doth in like manner argue against satisfaction by the passive obedience of Christ in his death; for thus they argue, Where the whole debt is paid, there remaineth no more debt, but Christ by his death hath paid the whole debt, therefore there remaineth no more. What is this, but that God can see no sin in that for whom Christ hath satisfied? for sin is the debt and all that is discharged; God will not require the payment of the same debt twice. Thus( say they) the doctrine of Christs satisfaction opens a door to all impiety, and makes all holiness needless. Now what is answered to this in behalf of the passive obedience, may as truly and fully be improved likewise for active obedience.  
But 3. we may say to the opponents, Why do they not pull this beam out of their own eye first; for this if it be a chain of Iron, will bind them as well as any. They themselves do aclowledge a satisfactory righteousness by Christs death; and upon this account they pled against the active obedience, because when the penalty of the Law is removed, and all sin of omission and commission satisfied for, there remaineth no more accusation of the Law; the Law is perfectly satisfied, and therefore can no more condemn. Then certainly, where the Law cannot accuse, there sin cannot be imputed: So that the two opinions about active and passive obedience differ not in this, Whether the Law be perfectly satisfied, and an infinite atonement made, but only Whether the passive doth solely concur, or active and passive both.  
Therefore in the fourth place, the true and solid Answer, to vindicate the Doctrine of active and passive obedience from such uncharitable consequences, is, That the imputation of Christs doing and suffering for us, is not absolute and immediately taking place, without any order or means, but God hath so ordained the communication of this rich and infinite treasure, that whosoever believeth and walketh holily is made partaker hereof; and therefore this righteousness is received ad modum recipientis: now the faith of the best believer is subject to paraliticall shakings, every one may cry out, Lord I believe, help my unbelief. The cruse we bring is not large enough to hold all the oil, for as Divines say, even of the blessed and glorified Saints in heaven, though made perfect, yet that they do not know, love, or rejoice in God, comprehensively, as much as God enjoyeth himself: How much more is it true, that no godly man in this life, who hath imperfections mingled with all his graces, can truly and fully receive Christ, quoad ultimum quod sic, so that no more of Christ is to be received? Though therefore the righteousness imputed be perfect, yet the receiving and participation of it is imperfect; and as we say in sanctification against Papists, Though good works in respect of the Spirit of God or grace from which they flow are perfect, yet in respect of us, who do subordinately act, they receive imperfection; so though the obedience of Christ, as it is accomplished by him be every way perfect, and hath no sin in it, yet as we receive it there is much imperfection in us, and so God must needs see sin in us, while we do stretch out our hands to lay hold on it; Though by the imputation of Christs righteousness, then this weakness is so covered, that it s not imputed to us. Therefore when the Antinomian would illustrate their dangerous opinion, as flowing from Christs imputed obedience, from a similitude of a read glass, by which every thing in the glass is represented to be read, and nothing then can appear otherwise then read, so God seeth nothing but the righteousness of Christ in his people, and therefore no sin, but they are as righteous as Christ. This halteth down right, and is not to the purpose, for therefore doth the matter contained in a read glass seem read, because the medium is indispositum, there is not a fit medium to convey the species of the object, so that in such seeing, the visive faculty is deceived, and apprehends things otherwise then they are: But we cannot without blasphemy attribute such imperfections to God, for God seeth all things as they are with an intuitive knowledge; there cannot be any indisposed medium to his eye; to him darkness and light are all one, therefore he cannot but see the imperfect graces, and other sins of his people which are in them, notwithstanding this imputation: only he doth not so see them, as to punish them being already satisfied for in Christ. But the Antinomian doth not only deny a judicial seeing of them, but even an intuitive: Of which error I have elsewhere spoken more largely, ( Vindic. Legis.)  
2. Though Christs perfect obedience be imputed, God doth see sin in Believers, because this righteousness is not inherent in them. Therefore they confounded imputation and inherency, who would gather thorns of this Vine, and turn this fish into a serpent; If so be that imputation did take away the inherent filth of our natures, then God would no more see sin in us, then he doth in the glorified Saints of heaven. But with this imputation is consistent these relics of corruption, which sometimes also are very active, and which God takes notice of in his people, and for which he doth in this life chastise them: Though therefore the imputed righteousness of Christ be as truly ours, as if it were inherent, yet it is not inherent, and so what corruption doth abide in us, God cannot but see it. And that this may be the more transparent, let us call in the  
Sixth Argument, which is an arrow out of the Popish quiver, although seconded by others, If Christs righteousness be made ours formally, as if we had his righteousness, then are we as righteous as Christ, then are we Mediators and Redeemers. Yea this is seconded by those who do not Romanize. Christs righteousness is Mediatory( so its pleaded) fitted, and proper only for him, who is God and man, so that it is incommunicable to any man; its high presumption for any mortal man, to conceit he appeareth in Christs Robes: This is transcendent robbery to make ourselves equal with Christ, &c.  
Thus at large Popish Writers and others expatiate in the decrying of this imputed righteousness, grossly mistaking all the while the sense in which this imputed obedience is maintained, and therefore let us Answer the Objection united together, though from different Authors, with different principles.  
First, To be made formally righteous with Christs righteousness is an ambiguous and deceitful expression; and certainly the opponents seem to take formally in a physical sense, as a form inwardly denominating a man, as a man is said to be wise by wisdom, to be healthful by health. Thus they attribute to us, as if we asserted a man absolutely just in ourselves by such an imputed righteousness. Whereas this sense is wholly renounced by Protestant Writers, as a contradiction, therefore many Learned authors refuse the word formal, and say, Christs righteousness is the matter of our Evangelicall righteousness, which received by faith, we are thereby made righteous: Although there are very worthy and pious Writers that do grant the word formaliter, for they say, this formality is not in us, but in reputatione divina, so that we are not to conceive of it as a Physical, but Civil or Legal formality; as when it is said a prisoner is acquitted, the formality of this lieth not in any thing inherent in the prisoner, but in the Judges absolution: so when a believer is constituted, First, It is not by any thing infused in him, but what is accounted by Covenant through Christ unto him. And if men were not captious in this sense, we might safely and roundly affirm, that by Christs obedience imputed to us, we are formally made righteous; for even amongst the Papists themselves there are acknowledged extrinsical forms that do give a denomination to the object, as when such a thing is said to be known or seen, here is a denomination from an extrinsical form, yea its the general opinion of many Schoolmen, that a man might be accepted of by God, graciously, though there be no inward change or infusion of holiness in him: Now in such cases supposed, a man would have been said to be accepted of and beloved by God from a mere extrinsical respect; So that the foundation of this mistake lieth herein, that they will not distinguish between an absolute physical form, informing its subject, and a moral, relative, state in a man, which receiveth its denominations from some extrinsical causes. It may then, if the phrase be understood civiliter and legaliter, not physice, be granted that we are made formally righteous by Christs obedience imputed unto us; although to avoid needless contentions, which men are so prove to make, for peace sake, its called rather the matter of our righteousness. Secondly, And though this be granted, yet it doth not follow, that we are as righteous as Christ, for the reasons briefly mentioned before, and now more properly to be insisted on.  
For first, This is not imputed to every believer, 
Though Christs righteousness be imputed to us, yet we are not as righteous as Christ.  according to the dignity and worth that it hath, as formally abiding in Christ, but according to the necessity and exigence of sinful man; so that it is to be conceived in the manner of an universal and infinite Treasure, which makes rich every poor man interested therein, though not one of them hath all the Treasure communicated to him, but respectively and distributively for his use: Or as the sun filleth every star with its proper respective light, yet is not thereby made as glorious as the sun: So that Christs righteousness, as ●n Christ, and as imputed, differ; for it is in Christ as the subject naturally recipient of it; it is in us according to our necessity, that partake of it by faith.  
Secondly, Its in Christ as the efficient, and he that doth work it; it is in us as the passive subject for whom its prepared, insomuch that its abhorrent from all reason, to say, that because Christs obedience is imputed to us, therefore we are Redeemers and Saviours; but in a passive sense, therefore we are redeemed and saved: Insomuch that none say Christs obedience is imputed unto us, in such a sense as that we should be said to be the efficients of that righteousness, but that we should be the passive subjects receiving the benefit of it. And indeed if there be not some kind of imputation of what Christ suffered for us, how can it be said, that Christ died for us, that he was a Surety for us. This is so evident and clear, that Bellarmine himself confesseth that Christs merits are imputed unto u●, because they are given to us, and we may offer them up to God the Father for our sins, because Christ took upon him the burden of satisfying God for us, and reconciling of us to the Father: In this sense( saith he) the Protestants opinion would be right; though he addeth, Quamvis modus loquendi in scriptures,& Patribus, aut nunquam, aut rarissime inveniatur: Which later clause makes the whole saying like new wine in the old bottle, it breaketh and marreth all. Only thus far we have a confession, that Christs satisfactory righteousness is so given to us, that we may offer it to the Father for ourselves. Now will it follow that because its given to us, therefore we are as righteous as Christ, and we are Redeemers?  
In the third place, consider, That there is a distinction between the obedience itself, and the manner of application of it: though the obedience imputed, be of infinite worth and dignity, yet the application of it is in a finite and limited manner. If a Jewel of rich price be laid down for many captives, there is a great difference between the price of the Jewel and the application of it: The application of it is particular and respective, not according to the whole worth of the Jewel, for one man, especially this application being made with much imperfection and weakness. But to lay the axe to the root of the three, that it may never grow more,  
Lastly take notice, That this whole Argument is built upon the sand, for in Christ there is his Office, and the righteousness acquired or purchased by his Office: Now we do not say, his Office is imputed to us, nor so is his Mediatory obedience, as its the execution of his Office imputed to us, but the righteousness he merits and obtains by this; so that though Christ be our Surety, yet we are not thereby made Sureties: That is ridiculous to say, the debtor is made a Surety, because the Surety undertakes for him. Christs Office of Mediatorship is incommunicable, but the righteousness acquitted by it is to be communicated to every member of his. Therefore we grant it would be blasphemy for any to conceit he appeareth in Christs robes: In this sense, we justly blame the Papists for making Angels and Saints Mediators: They hold Christ merited and satisfied, that we might merit and satisfy: This is to hold the imputation of Christs Mediatorial Office, unto a creature, which no doubt Christ is jealous of; but the truth we pled for is as distant from this as light from darkness. Its not the Office, nor the executory acts thereof that are imputed to us, but that righteousness which is the effect and fruit of these. And this may more then suffice for this Objection.  
In the sixth place, its objected, That the active obedience of Christ cannot be imputed to every believer for their legal righteousness, because Christ did not perform such a righteousness as was fitted for every person and every relation. Christ would not act as a Magistrate, how then shall a Magistrate have righteousness imputed? Christ did not perform the duties of many relations, such as a Wife, a Servant, &c. and therefore how shall they stand justified by the legal obedience of Christ, when that righteousness of his was not conformable to that part of the moral Law which concerned them in their relations? To this also I may add a further Objection, though of the same affinity, Infants dying need not the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, for seeing no actual obedience was required of them, therefore they needed not the imputation of such a righteousness.  
To Answer this, first take notice also, that the Socinian doth thus argue against the passive satisfactory obedience of Christ, which yet the Learned opponents do cordially abominate; and what Answer they would shape to their Objection, will serve for this. The Socinian argueth, Christ did not die as a Surety in our stead, for then he must have suffered all that we ought to do; but he did not suffer eternal torments: and as for a temporal death( saith he) then he was bound to suffer as many individual deaths, as every man was to die. Therefore in the second place its truly Answered, That as Christ in suffering death for us, was not thereby bound to suffer every kind of death or sickness, which yet is the curse of the Law for sin, but death in the substance of it, so neither was Christ bound to obey for every relation, but its enough that he fulfilled the Law by loving of God, and his neighbour, which is made the sum and substance of the Moral. If a Surety pay the debtors sum of money he oweth( suppose an 100Ib) in gold, and not in so many several shillings or other pieces of silver, he is by the Civil Law discharged of his debt. As therefore it would be ridiculous to say, that a man afflicted with the gout, or troubled with any other infirmity, could take no comfort from Christ, in respect of sin the cause of it, because Christ never had any such distemper or pain; for its enough that by his death he overcame sin in all the particular effects of it. Thus every Christian in his several relations may support himself from that obedience which Christ did perform to the substance of the Law: for as in his sufferings, the dignity of his person made up the accidentals by equivalency, especially in such things as were inconsistent with his person, as despair, &c. so in the accidentals of obedience, the dignity of Christs substantial obedience did make compensation, especially in such things as were incompatible to his Mediatorship: As to be a woman, or wife, to be a temporal Magistrate, these things were not consistent with that Office of a Mediator, he had undertaken: and seeing by the adversaries themselves it is acknowledged, that love is virtually and eminently the fulfilling of the Law, what need any further dispute? If it be said, that the Law holds no {αβγδ}, it must have eye for eye, &c. will not this overthrow his passive obedience as well? for what he suffered was not every way idem, or the same which the Law required: But the weakness of this will be discovered in the next Objection, only what hath been said for several relations, the duties whereof Christ never performed, will also answer the doubt about infants, Christ obedience being communicated to every subject, according to the necessity of it.   

SERM. XLIV. More Objections Answered.  ROM. 5.19. So by the Obedience of one shall many be made Righteous. 
I Meet with a seventh Objection against the Imputation of Christs active Obedience in the sense contended for, which is managed in this manner, This Doctrine( its said) supposeth us to have been in Christ, at least in a legal title, before we did believe, or were born, and that not only in a general and conditional sense, as all men, but in a special, as the Justified. And to this purpose it is again urged, That this opinion seemeth to ascribe to God a mistaking judgement, or to esteem us to have been in Christ when we were not, and to have done and suffered in him, what we did not.  
To Answer this, First, by the way, I fear a snake is in this grass, else I cannot understand that passage; All men are in Christ in a general and conditional sense; I doubt if this be opened, some viperous brood may be discovered: Will not this make Christ a conditional Head, and his death a conditional death? and so if closely pursued assert at last, That though Christ died, yet not one man might be justified. Besides, Is there any condition required in the person to be justified, that is not the fruit and effect of Christs death? Did not Christ die to sanctify us, as John 17.18. as well as to justify us? Are not faith and repentance purchased by Christs death as well as gospel-privileges? Did Christ die for believers, if they did believe; for true penitents, if they did repent? I might enlarge myself in this, to show how useless and helpless this Assertion is, either doctrinally to evade any difficulty( for which yet it seemeth at first it was invented) or practically to give any true solid comfort, doubting about the particularity of the benefit by Christs death: But this would be to err from my scope.  
In the second place therefore I come to the Argument, as relating to my work in hand; and here I must freely aclowledge, that I see not the least shadow of any such consequence, viz. That the Imputation of Christs actual obedience doth suppose us to be actually justified in him before we had a being. Its true, the Antinomians they use to make such non sequiturs, but not so much, as I remember, from Christs actual obedience, as his passive. Therefore some of them urge, That because its said, God laid on him the iniquities of us all, and he bore our sins upon the cross, from that time every believer was actually justified( though others of that way carry it as high as to eternity itself:) So that this is no more a genuine issue of the Doctrine of the imputation of Christs active obedience, then of his passive; and indeed if it could be fastened upon either, it would more consonantly follow from his passive obedience. Hence the Socinian argueth from the Doctrine of Christs death as a ransom and price, that all men shall be saved; For( say they) when the price is paid, and accepted of, its injustice to afflict the Debtor any more.  
But thirdly, There are eminently learned men, that are deservedly reckoned in the number of the Orthodox, that do positively hold, That the members of Christ were formally justified in him, before they had a being; as we say, All were formally made sinners in Adam, before they had a natural being. Though I have elsewhere modestly given in reasons for my dissent herein, and as yet am not convinced to approve of it, or subscribe to it.  
Therefore in the last place, the true and proper Answer is, That though Christs active obedience be imputed to us, yet it is in such a way and manner as God hath appointed: Even as although Christ died for the remission of our sins, yet this is not actually applied to any, but in the Method God hath ordained, so it is with his active obedience, for these effects of his death do not flow from it by way of a natural resultancy, for then all would be justified, all would be saved, but according to that ordered way which is appointed in Scripture: So that in this particular the passive obedience and active are all one; neither doth this Argument oppose one more then the other: Neither can any mistake be attributed to God by the opinion of active obedience, more then passive; for God doth not account these things as ours, but when they are ours; when God looks upon us as fulfilling the Law in Christ, its a truth, and we do so; only its by a civil and legal account, or rather its by that gracious Covenant which the Father made with Christ our Surety, by which means we may in ordine gratiae, say of Christ, which Christ said in ordine naturae, of his Father, All mine are thine, and thine are are mine, though with much disproportion and dissimilitude.  
The eighth Objection deserveth more serious consideration, viz. That the opinion of imputation of the active obedience of Christ, supposeth Christ to have paid the Idem, and not the Tantundem, whereas its thought, that Christ only paid the value, and not the same debt that was due.  
But first, I cannot see the naturality of this consequence, yea its thought by the Opponents the clean contrary; for we heard one Argument objected against this active obedience, was, because Christ did not perform the duties of all several relations, not of a wife, or a servant, or a Magistrate; and therefore such an imputation could not justify those who were so related; for the Law requireth that of them, which Christ never did. Thus you see this Doctrine of Christs active obedience is assaulted, because it doth not make Christ pay the Idem, and yet how it is arraigned, for making Christ to pay the same, and not the value.  
2. I conceive it is very dangerous to assert, That Christ paid the same rigidly every way, as also to affirm, that he did no ways pay the same, but what was equivalent: That Christ did not rigidly pay the same in every respect is plain, because he died but one death, whereas every sinner was bound to die his particular death, so that Christ was to have died as many deaths, as they in particular, had not his own served for all, and so his death was but for a season, not eternal, whereas that which the sinner should have suffered would have been eternal. Now eternal duration was equivalently made up by the dignity of the person. Thus it was also for Christs active obedience, those particular duties which were required in several relations, were equivalently made up by his summary obedience in his love to God and man, it being impossible that this love should be diversified in all respects; for Christ could not be a man and a woman, a servant and a Magistrate at the same time: So that as he was tempted like us in all things, sin onely excepted, thus he did obey like us in all things, onely such things excepted, that did suppose such an imperfection as was incompatible with his Mediatorship, or else did include an impediment or hindrance of it. It is then granted, That in circumstantials or accidentals, as also in such things which would have argued either sin or some impediment to his mediatory Office, there was not the Idem paid, but the Tantundem, and necessity compels to this, for he could not in such a condition have accomplished our redemption. But if we speak of the Substantials and Essentials, which the Law required or threatened, then we must take heed of a Tantundem, lest it prove no satisfaction at all at last; for grant that the Law in the threatening part, and in the preceptive part, was not substantially completed by Christ, then what need any Satisfaction at all? Justice was to be satisfied, because the Law was to be satisfied: if then the Law be abrogated or changed, so that the penalty required is not necessary to be born, nor the duty it commanded necessary to be fulfilled, I see not thus why Christs death should be called a Satisfaction: Therefore it is we speak of the Substantials of the preceptive and comminative part of the Law, we must hold that Christ paid the Idem, I do not mean numero, but specie, the same in kind that the Law required of us; and therefore it was, that though Christ in his Agonies did sweat drops of blood, yet this was not Satisfaction, because the Law required death; and thus though Christ died, yet his death could not be equivalent, or in the room of active obedience to the Law, because that required actual righteousness, as well as bearing the penalty. Again, If Christ did not pay the same in kind, but Tantundem, then the verity of the Law, and the veracity of the Law-giver fals to the ground; Why is it that the Law is said to be established, that no iota or tittle of it shall pass away, unless because though it be not fulfilled in us, yet it is in our Surety? Why is it said, That none can be justified by the Law, but because the Law still requireth perfect and complete holinesse? we must not then think that the Law either in the preceptive or threatening part is changed and altered from what it was once. Furthermore it s of necessity, that Christ must pay the Idem in the Substantials of the Law, because the learned Opponents do grant, That God did not abrogate or repeal that Law, In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die the death; If then it was neither abrogated nor repealed, but admitted of a relaxation, then certainly the Idem in specie was paid by Christ; and if this be granted in the penalty of it, in respect of Christs passive obedience, I confess I cannot yet see why it should not also be yielded in respect of the active obedience; For why should that Law stand immovable, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things the Law required, and therefore Christ must be made a curse, and not that Law also, Do this and live, and therefore Christ must do this as well as suffer this for us, if we would live: And this will be still the more undeniable, if we consider, that Christ came into the world as a Surety for us: So that what he did, though it was out of grace and favour to us, yet he was pleased to make it his obligation and debt for us, ere he would discharge it. As for that crambe so often boiled, That if Christ paid the Idem, then he must despair and suffer the worm of conscience, &c. We have answered enough already; onely we may add, that if it be thoroughly considered, despair as it is a sin, is not in the damned in hell, neither can it be: for if we take it privatively, as opposite to the grace of hope, in which sense it is a sin, so the damned do not despair, for there is no promise of grace to them, and so its not their duty to hope, being they are now no longer under the day of Salvation; so that their despair is not a sin. Indeed if we take despair negatively for being without all hope, so they do despair, but that is not their sin, seeing God hath manifested there is no more hope for them, but part of that eternal misery which is in hell. Therefore it is not necessary, that if Christ suffered the threatening for us he should despair.  
But in the second place, It was necessary Christ should suffer the threatening for us, so far as it could be without sin, for otherwise he could not be our mediator, but he himself would have needed a mediator: Now to despair privatively is a sin, and Christ could never be in a Condition wherein he could say there was no hope for him, because as he had power to lay down his life, so also to take it up again; and as for the spiritual death of sin, which was in the threatening, it could not stand with the holinesse and perfection of Christ to bear that; neither was it necessary, seeing that we did bear that in our own persons, being by nature dead in sins. The sum is this, That there was a mitigation in that threatening, though the Law said, Thou shalt die, yet it did not exclude another, it was not thou, and no other in thy room: therefore the wisdom of God found a way, whereby the Law for the matter of it might be preserved, and the mitigation was in respect of the person; so that alius solvit not aliud solvitur, its another that dischargeth the debt, but it is not another debt if we speak of substantials.  

Doubt.  To clear this, one doubt may be moved, If Christ did thus satisfy the Law, and so the Justice of God, then it was necessary that he should do or suffer no more then the Law required, but Christs satisfaction was superabundant, and able to save more then it doth save, and was more pleasing to God in the way of obedience, then all our sins did displease God in the way of disobedience.  
The Answer to this is, 
Sol.  That if we respect the substance of Christs obedience and sufferings, he did no more then the Law required; The love of the Father would not suffer that more sufferings should be imposed on him then Justice required: but if we regard circumstantials, as the dignity of his Person, and the cause of his sufferings, or servile obedience, so he did more then the Law required; for the Law did not require that the man who died should be God also, or that he should be without sin, who thus suffered. Its true, The Law of a mediator required so, but that was not incumbent on him as mediator, which did not belong to us, and therefore the Apostle sheweth, Romans 5. that the grace of God by Christ, in respect of Justification is far more then the sin of Adam in respect of condemnation.  
In the ninth place, Against this imputation of Christs active obedience, is objected two things, First, That by the same reason our sins should be imputed to Christ, and so he constituted a sinner, as we are righteous. And then secondly, This would make two formal causes of our Justification, viz. Remission of sin, and Imputation of righteousness.  
But we need not insist long on these; for the first is frequently agitated in the controversy between Papists and Protestants, and is already sufficiently discussed, so that there needs not much after-disquisition. For  
First, Though our sins be imputed to Christ, yet he cannot properly be called a sinner, because to be a sinner in the common ordinary use of the word, doth denote some inherent pravity and pollution. Thus when sin is defined to be a transgression of the Law, it supposeth the subject in whom it is to err from the Rule: Some denominations are from extrinsical respects; some from intrinsical motives; and thus for the most part the word sinner connoteth some inherency of defilement: Even as learned men observe, when they speak of the peenal infirmities of Christs Nature, they say not contraxit, said assumpsit, he assumed them, not contracted them, because to contract an infirmity, doth properly and rigidly denote so to take a thing, as to take the curse of it, and the natural inherent connexion of sin, and such penalties. But to assume human infirmities, that denoteth onely he did partake of them in what manner and measure he pleased: Therefore because the word sins doth commonly sound in our ears, as one that hath some pollution inexistent: Hence the consequence of denomination to be a sinner, may justly be denied to imputation of sin, for this would confounded imputation and inhesion, making them the same thing.  
But secondly, If we will not manifestly confront plain and direct places of Scripture, we must needs grant, That our sins were imputed to him; for though Isa. 53. 2 Cor. 5. ult. 1 Peter 2.24. speak not of the word Imputation, yet they speak plainly the sense of that we mean by it in this controversy, Our sins are laid upon him, he bore our sins, He was made sin; and if this were not so, Why, or, How could Christ die, and that in such an accursed manner by the Law? Death and curses are the wages of sin; now these fell not upon Christ for his own sin, therefore it must be for imputed sin; And thus though that exposition be granted, he was made sin for us, that is, a Sacrifice for sin, yet it will evince this truth, for he could not be a Sacrifice for sin, or be a Surety to expiate it, if it were not laid upon him, and he reputed of as so in his sufferings, though in himself holy and unspotted: So that as it is with us, though we have the imputation of Christs righteousness, yet inherently we have filth, and the remainders of corruption; so though our sins were imputed unto Christ, yet inwardly and inherently he was absolutely holy and innocent.  
Thirdly, Whereas its said, That with us imputation and inherency do not differ in reality, but onely quoad modum, he that is by imputation righteous, is as truly and as really righteous, as he that is inherently so; and therefore Christ must be as truly and really a sinner by imputation, as if it were by inhesion, its readily answered, That there is not the same reason of imputation of sin to Christ, as there is of his righteousness to us; for sin was imputed to him, onely according to his will, as a Surety to destroy and overcome it; Therefore he bore them, not so as to abide on him, but as to take them away: Even as he touched the unclean person( not as others, who thereby would be made unclean) but to remove and take away the leprosy: But the righteousness of Christ is communicated unto us, so as to abide on us, and to constitute us righteous thereby, Christ then being our Surety, and so undertaking the debt of our sin, to discharge and cancel it, he cannot be thereby reputed a sinner, but a vanquisher and conqueror of sin; and by this we see the weakness of that additional and auxiliary Argument, We are by Adams sin imputed, made formally and truly sinners, Why then should not Christ by our sins imputed? for every eye may see a vast difference between the imputation of Adams sin to us, and ours to Christ: To Christ it was imputed, so that by this imputation he was to remove it; and he assumed this imputation voluntarily, thereby to destroy it; whereas Adams sin is not only imputed to us by a natural necessity, supposing Gods antecedaneous appointment, but it is also so imputed to us, as to abide on us, to continue upon us. The sum is, That though our sins be imputed to Christ, yet he is not thereby constituted a sinner, as if for himself he suffered, or had offended God by this imputation.   

SERM. XLV. More Objections answered, with Antidotes against Prejudice.  ROM. 5.19. So by the Obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 
AS for the second branch of the Objection propounded, viz. That this is to make a two-fold formal cause of our Justification, I have already sufficiently answered to the pretended absurdity thereof, yet that there may be full and heaped measure, I shall mustard-seed; so that( as they say) Mantissae loco, I farther answer,  
First, That from the Doctrine of the imputation of Christs active obedience, it doth not necessary follow, that there must be a two-fold formal cause of our Justification; for there are eminent and learned men, who do clearly and fully assert the imputation of Christs active obedience, and withall affirm, That remission of sin is the effect and fruit of this imputation, adding withall that our whole Justification consists in our remission of sin, the fruit of imputation, and that imputation of Christs righteousness, is not a part, but cause of our Justification; So that with these, this Argument is as easily rejected, as it is obtruded.  
That solid and learned author Wallaeus( Epistol. ad Dupinum.) being asked his judgement about Piscators opinion, as also the imputation of Christs active obedience, makes a threefold opinion amongst Writers in this point.  
First, Of those who hold the imputation of Christs passive righteousness, and the effect thereof, remission of sin, the first part of Justification; and the imputation of Christs active righteousness, the effect whereof is acceptance to eternal life, and this is made the second part of Justification, and this opinion he saith is Beza's.  
The second opinion holds the imputation of Christs active and passive righteousness: The effect whereof is said to be remission of sins, which is our whole Justification. This he ascribeth to Calvin.  
The third opinion affirmeth, the imputation of Christs passive righteousness onely, the effect whereof is said to be the remission of sins, which with them also is our whole Justification. And this is Piscators.  
Now Wallaeus, though he thinketh the first and the second do not oppose one another, yet he adhereth to the second, as that which he judgeth most simplo, and not too subtly distinguishing causes and effects about Christs death. So that we see by this, that learned men may hold the imputation of Christs active obedience, and yet not make Justification to have a two-fold formal cause: For( say they) our Justification consists onely in remission of sins, which is the effect of the said imputation. And by the way, you may take notice of the weakness of that Argument so much insisted on by many, That Calvin did not hold the imputation of Christs active obedience, because he made Justification to consist wholly in remission of sins: For it may be granted, That Calvin held both, and yet did not contradict himself, making the imputation of Christs active obedience to be the cause; and remission of sin, which he affirmeth to be our whole Justification, to be the effect thereof. Although( as I have shewed formerly) I cannot see any absurdity in asserting a two-fold formal cause of our Justification, provided that they be not of a different nature and consideration.  
To conclude this matter, We do not say, That Christs active obedience and passive, are the formal cause of our Justification; but the matter that is imputed to us thereunto, and indeed to speak properly, if we call them the formal cause, yet we cannot exactly say, of our Justification, but of our Evangelical righteousness; for Justification that is an action of God, which requireth a righteousness. This righteousness being Evangelical, consists of the active and passive obedience of Christ, which by the Covenant of grace is made ours, and God dealeth with us accordingly.  
That I may at last come to an end, I shall encounter with the greatest, and most difficult of all their Objections; and if this may receive a true and solid Answer, all the rest will fall in that.  
Its this, The Law bindeth either in respect of obedience, or in respect of penalty, If then there be not obedience to the Law, yet if the penalty be satisfied, then the Law can no more accuse, then we must needs stand justified: So that they will grant, Christ is our righteousness, they aclowledge the Law must be satisfied, and that is( say they) by Christs passive obedience; for if Christs death hath taken away the guilt, and yet we not accepted to eternal life, then there must be a medium between a man just and unjust, and that when the subject is properly capable of one of the contrary qualities, which is said to be as absurd, as if one thing were required to make a stick straight, and another thing not crooked.  
Two considerable points are in this Objection, and therefore made two distinct Arguments by some.  
The first is concerning the latitude or extension of the obligation of the Law, whether it bind to obedience and punishment disjunctively or copulatively.  
The second is, when all the penalty is removed by a satisfactory righteousness through Christs death, Whether thereby ipso facto, without any imputation of a further righteousness, there be not an immediate right to eternal life.  
For the former part Echart the Lutheran, who wrote a peculiar book against Piscator in this controversy, doth therein ( Resp. ad decim. Arg.) show, That Piscator did disclaim that Argument( though most of his fellows fervently propugne it) and grants, That the Law doth require both of us; obedience, as being our Lord and Master; and punishment, as being our Judge, who is to punish transgressors.  
The true and solid Answer indeed to the former part is, That if we speak of man abiding in the state of integrity, so the Law did require onely obedience; for punishment it could not demand any, seeing there was no transgression, but if we consider man fallen, so the Law requireth both obedience and punishment; obedience properly and immediately, but punishment occasionally and indirectly: whereas then its said, That if the Law be satisfied in respect of the penal part, that then it requireth no more, and hath all the righteousness it expresseth, that is not upon any terms to be admitted: For Christ while he satisfied the Law in dying for us, did not answer the primary and principal end of the Law, which was To do this and live; but by his exact and perfect conformity unto it. So that this Argument proceedeth upon a mistake, as if it were all one to the Law, whether the debt of obedience, or the debt of punishment were paid; for certainly its the debt of obedience the Law doth principally aim at, and when the debt of punishment is paid, the debt of obedience is not thereby abrogated; for if it were so, then a man could not be said still to sin, because Christ hath satisfied the punishment: But its so clear, that none ever yet denied it, that we do sin, and whence is that? but because of that debt of obedience, which the Law still requireth. Neither is a man just by a bare suffering of the punishment of the Law, a● is to be shewed.  
Come we then to that which seemeth to be so hard a knot, that cannot be untied, and that is, If Christs blood doth cleanse us from all sin, then there needeth no imputation of a further righteousness, for seeing mans nature is a subject immediately susceptible, either of righteousness or unrighteousness, as the air is of darkness or light; if so be all his sins be so washed away, that his unrighteousness is removed, then it must necessary follow, he is accounted of by God as righteous.  
This hath exercised the Orthodox, so that they have given different Answers.  
Some distinguish of sins, There are sins of omission and sins of commission: Now( say they) by Christs death we are freed from the sins of commission, but not omission; the sins of omission are covered by the active obedience of Christ. But I shall not adhere to this, partly, because the Scripture speaks universally, when it saith, our sins are purged away by the blood of Christ; and partly, because in every sin of commission, there is something of omission. I shall not here discuss that opinion of Cajetan, and some other Schoolmen, affirming, That the formal nature of a sin of commission, is some real and positive thing: Onely I shall at this time take it for granted, That in every sin of commission, let it be conceived never so positive, yet there must be an {αβγδ}, a privative omission of some rectitude that ought to be in it.  
Others they distinguish of the guilt of sin, they make it two-fold, the one is poena damni, as we deserve by it to be excluded from heaven; the other poena sensus, as by it we deserve all misery to be inflicted upon us: Now( say they) by Christs passive obedience the guilt of sin, quoad poenam sensus, is taken away, and by his active obedience the guilt of sin, quoad poenam damni is removed: Neither, they say, is this Objection to the contrary, That in every rational creature this two-fold respect of guilt is always conjoined together, for this is from Gods Decree without, and so they are thereby inseparable, yet for all that distinct. As a Captive that is freed out of prison, and restored to his former honours; or a child offending his father, upon reconciliation hath his punishment removed, and his right to the inheritance bestowed on him.  
In the third place, there is a distinction made concerning Christs death. It is( say they) to be considered either quâ poena, as a punishment, or quâ actio, as an action proceeding from the love of God: Now if we consider it in the former respect, so its said to purge away sins of commission, and the punishment of sense; if in the later, so it takes away the sins of omission, and removeth the punishment of loss. But although there is truth in these distinctions, yet because the Scripture speaks absolutely and plainly in this matter, I think it not convenient to entangle the truth with these perplexities, nor to make so many distinctions and parcels in what Christ did for us; but look upon the whole course of his obedience, the last act whereof is eminently demonstrated in his death, as that which is the matter of our righteousness: So that its not necessary to adapt deliverance from sin and hell to his death, or interest to eternal life and glory to his obedience: For although its plain, that those are two distinct mercies in themselves, as hath been shewed, and might have been separated one from another; yet now supposing the appointment, and blessed order which God hath established, they can never be disjoined, and so no wonder if one be put often for the other. Although( I say) this be plain, yet the Scripture speaking of things as they are, and not what they might have been, and so not distinguishing, where yet in intellectual abstractions we may make a difference( as appeareth in expressions about Gods providence respectively to evil actions, attributing them unto God indefinitely, when yet in our understanding, we must necessary distinguish between the action and the obliquity of the action) its more consonant, to the Scripture custom, to say, that by Christ all sins under every differential respect, and all guilt under any notion is fully washed away by the Lord Christ, Neither may we limit this either to his obedience in his life, or to his sufferings at his death, but unto the whole course of his subjection unto the Law of God; so that the full and satisfying Answer to this Objection is, That it s granted, all sins of omission and commission, as also all punishment, whether damni or sensus is removed by Christ blood; But we say, That by Christs blood, or his death, is not excluded, but necessary included all his other parts of active obedience. This Interpretation we have already vindicated sufficiently; and certainly that place, Philip. 2. where Christs obedience is mentioned even unto the death of the cross, doth compel a man to aclowledge that not onely obedience in his death, but all his former antecedaneous obedience eve● unto death, is part of that satisfactory righteousness which Christ obtained for us: So that this doth still deceive the learned opponents, that they look upon Christs death as oppositely to his active obedience, whereas the Scripture takes notice of it as the last and most signal act of his obedience conjunctly with all his former expressions thereof: So that we are not from thence to compute this Mediatory obedience, as if hitherto he had been obeying for himself, but to behold the ultimate consummating thereof in his death. The sum of all this is, That Christs active obedience disjoined from his passive, is but part of that righteousness the Law requireth of man fallen; and also his passive obedience separated from his active is still but part: Therefore that we may have a complete and full righteousness, it behoved us to have such a Surety who did perform both the debt of obedience, and also the debt of punishment for us.  
So that from the Answer thus delivered, there is no necessity of falling upon that debate, Whether there be a middle estate between Justus and Injustus,( viz.) non Justus, yet because its so vehemently urged, I have already said enough to that matter; onely let me add, That the removing of sin, and bestowing righteousness, is not like the taking away the crookedness of the line, and making it strait; for its plain, that is done by the same physical motion; whereas I have shewed, That God might have pardonned sin to a man, and yet not bestowed upon him such eternal Glory as he hath promised; So that eternal Glory followeth upon the pardon of sin, not by a natural causality, or resultancy, but by the gracious appointment and order of God, or if there should be some natural concomitancy, yet that instance would not fitly resemble it, but this, When a man opens the window, and lets in light, the opening of the window, and the introduction of light proceed from two different principles, though the one followeth necessary upon the other: So that let it be granted, That if sin be removed, righteousness must necessary come in, yet that doth not follow, that its by the same motion: No, there may be one principle to remove sin as the obex and impediment, another to introduce and communicate the righteousness itself.  
If still it be urged, That a solution of the punishment of the Law is righteousness enough,  
I Answer, First, Let us not be afraid, lest we be made too rich, too righteous in Christ, Why should we be so industrious to straighten the righteousness Christ hath obtained for us, when the scope of the Scripture is to lengthen and heighten it as much as may be?  
Secondly, Even amongst men, none do account a mere suffering of the punishment of the Law, the righteousness of it; especially, when there are many superadded favours and privileges of Grace promised to him, that doth not offend; Christ died not onely to redeem us out of prison, but to invest us with all glorious dignity and honour. Now the taking of the punishment doth not by a natural consequence entitle to all that honour and dignity that the Scripture promiseth.  
Lastly, This is not wholly inconsiderable, that if the payment of the punishment of the Law, be all the righteousness Christ hath purchased for us, then we had a more noble and perfect righteousness in Adam, then Christ hath recovered for us, when yet Romans 5. the Apostle makes the Grace and Gift by the second Adam far transcending the sin and guilt which came by the first Adam. The consequence is clear, because Adams righteousness was a positive, and full conformity to the Law of God: But the righteousness Christ hath purchased for us, according to the sense of the Opponents, is onely a penal righteousness; The punishment is thereby removed, but obedience is not introduced.  
Thus we have examined wherein the strength of those that dissent in this Point doth lye: Did I apprehended any thing else material, I would not wave the discussion of it, for its truth and the glory of Christ that we should aim at in these conflicts.  
Now because not Arguments, 
Antidotes against prejudice.  but prejudices do sometimes obstruct the truth, I shall conclude all with some few Antidotes against them. As first, In the deciding of this controversy attend not the specious, and fair pretences of human reason, for every thing of Christ is paradoxall to that; His Natures, his Offices, and his Passive Obedience in a satisfactory way to Gods Justice; and as the Socinians decry it as a thing against reason, for an innocent man to suffer in stead of a nocent; so they do not less exclaim against a righteousness, because of anothers righteousness. This both Papists and Socinians rise up against, whereas we do not say, That a believer is righteous, because Christ is righteous, but because his righteousness, being our Surety, is made ours by Gods accounting of it to us; neither is it against presidents either in Scripture or human authors, to have virtuous and laudable actions of some men, meritorious unto others that relate unto them.  
Secondly, Consider whether this Doctrine doth not indeed give more Glory and Honour to Christ; For seeing he came into the world as a Surety for us, and so not under his own personal obligation, but a voluntary assumed one, The more he did for us, the greater was his Glory: and as it would not be honour enough to him to say, He died for our good, unless we affirm, in our stead: So neither that he obeied the Law for our good, unless also we affirm, in our room.  
Thirdly, Let this be seriously weighed, as hath been often hinted, Whether the same Arguments that destroy the active obedience of Christ, would not, if managed in a further way seem to overthrow the passive. Its far from me to charge such consequences upon many of the learned Antagonists, onely its seriously to be considered, Whether that necessity which is pleaded for by the Orthodox in respect of Christs satisfactory passive obedience, will not also as strongly interpose for his active: Doth not the Law of God, the justice of God equally relate to one as well as the other? And  
Lastly, Doth not this provide more for the full consolation of a believer? Are a godly mans temptations only about the punishment of the Law, who shall satisfy that, and not for the pure and holy obligation of the Law, who shall answer that? Let us be afraid to take off in the least manner, either from Christs glory, or the believers comfort.    
FINIS.   

AN ALPHABETICAL TABLE.  

A  
Abraham. 

OF Gods command to him to kill his son, how just it was, p. 30  
That men are justified as he was, p. 197    
Accept. 

Gods Accepting of man two-fold, General, Special, p. 195    
Accusations. 

Accusations from God, the Law, the Devil, Conscience and Men, all taken off by Justification, p. 125    
Action, Act. 

Whether any one Mediatory Action of Christ sufficiently satisfied God, p. 98, 413  
That all the Actions of unregenerate men a●e sins, p. 187    
Adam. 

The similitude and dissimilitude between Adam and Christ, p. 348  
Whether Adam did or could have transgressed the Moral Law, p. 352  
Different opinions about our being sinners by Adam, p. 354  
Adams sin ours, not only by Propagation but Imputation, p. 355    
Afflictions. 

The necessity of them, p. 34  
Their usefulness, p. 35    
Anger. 

Of the Anger of God against sin, p. 55    
Appetite. 

Of spiritual Appetite to the doctrine of Justification, p. 161     

B  
Baptism. 

OF Baptism, p. 144     

C  
Christ. 

CHrists Obedience, whether it were due to God for himself, or for us, p. 89 

See Obedience.  
Its infinite worth.  
See Satisfaction.    
Whether the infinite Dignity derived from the Person of Christ to his Actions be a Physical entity, or a Moral relation, p. 97  
Of Christs Active and Passive Obeence. See Obedience and Imputation.  
Of Christ crucified. 

It was a demonstration of Gods justice and anger against sin, p. 53  
Christs Title to Kingdoms while in the state of Humiliation discussed p. 390      
Command. See Law.  
Condition. 

Whether works are a Condition, or a Causa sine qua non of a mans Justification. p. 217  
The nature of a Condition in a Covenant. p. 228  
That it is a Causa cum qua, not a Causa sine qua non, ibid.    
Conscience. 

Of the Consciences persuasion of Gods Righteousness, p. 7  
The accusations of Conscience, p. 127  
Of peace of Conscience, p. 128    
Corruption of Nature. 

Of the Corruption of all men, p. 178    
Covenant. 

Of the Covenant of God made with Adam, and how far all mankind was included in it, p. 355  
Of the Covenant between God and Christ. p. 376     

D  
Death. 

THe Death of Christ sufficient for all, p. 71 

Whether it was Natural or merely Miraculous, p. 426      
Desertion. 

Of Christs Desertion, p. 323    
Devil. 

That the Devil is Gods jailor, p. 69    
Distinctions. 

Distinctions about Justification examined and attested or cashiered, viz. 

A Justification 

Active, p. 136  
Passive, p. 136  
Lawful, p. 137  
Sinful, p. 137  
Absolute, p. 139  
Comparative, p. 139  
In foro Dei ibid.  
Conscientiae, ibid.  
Universal, p. 141  
Particular, p. 141  
Of the Person, ibid.  
The Cause ibid.  
Before God, p. 142  
Men, p. 218  
Baptismal persons grown up, p. 143  
From Eternity, p. 146  
Declarative in time, p. 146  
Absolute, ibid  
Conditional, ibid  
First, p. 147  
Second, p. 151  
Justitia Legis p. 19  
Per Legem, p. 19      
Also Distinguish between 

The works of that Righteousness the Law requireth p. 214  
And the righteousness of works, p. 214  
Christs fulfilling the Law, p. 232  
And our own Evangelical Obedience, p. 232  
A Legal Obedience, p. 412  
Servile Obedience, p. 412  
A perfection, and ib.  
The perfection of the whole ib.  
Christs obedience itself,& p. 436  
The manner of Application of it, p. 436  
And the Office of Christ, ibid.  
And the Righteousness he merited by it, ibid.  
Absolute pardon, and p. 278  
Acquired by Satisfaction, p. 278      
Divine Nature. 

The Divine Nature in Christ did not always put forth such glorious and resplendent effects as it could do, p. 321     

E  
Effects. 

THe Effects of Gods Mercy and Justice, p. 17    
Eternity. 

Eternity not of the Essence of death, but accidental, p. 73     

F  
Faith. 

FAith as a work excluded from justifying, p. 122  
Of a weak Faith, and a strong, p. 132  
How Faith justifieth, whether in an active or passive sense, p. 137, 224, 250  
The difference between Faith and other graces in respect of Justification, p. 223  
Of the Instrumentality of Faith, p. 224  
That Faith as it is a work, or the {αβγδ} credere, is not imputed to us for our Justification, p. 238  
Faith imputed for Righteousness, the several interpretations of it, p. 241 

The true one asserted, p. 251    
Of the object of Faith, Adequate and General, Principal and Specifical. p. 243  
Of Faiths two-fold effect. p. 244  
Whether Faith may be called an instrumental cause of Justification, p. 256.  
Whether Justification be a natural effect of believing, or comes it merely by the Divine appointment or institution of God, p. 259    
Forgiving. Forgiveness. 

Of Gods Forgiving and mans, and how they differ, p. 67  
That the whole nature of Justification is not comprehended in Forgiveness of sin, p. 262    
Form. 

Whether the Form or Nature of Justification be twofold, p. 133    
Forsaken. 

In what sense Christ was Forsaken, p. 322     

G  
GOD. 

GOD without Accidents, Parts, or Composition, p. 13  
His absolute Power, p. 14  
And sovereignty, p. 30, 31  
His Righteousness.  
See Righteousness.  
Of the just and righteous Nature of God punishing sin, p. 104  
Whether he might pardon sin without Satisfaction, p. 14  
His love to Righteousness in the creature, p. 19  
His will a Law to himself, p. 33  
Of his willing of sin, p. 40    
Good. 

Good things Natural, p. 13  
Positive, p. 13    
Good Works, See Works.   

H  
Habitual. 

HAbitual or inherent Righteousness doth not justify us before God. p. 148    
Hard. 

Hard things for men to determine, p. 15    
Harden. 

Of Gods hardening mens hearts, p. 44    
Heathen. 

That the best works of Heathens are sins. p. 187 

Whether they may be saved dying such, p. 192       

I  
James. 

James and Paul reconciled, p. 237    
Immanent. 

Whether Justification be an Immanent or transient act of Gods, p. 137    
Imputed. 

That Justification though Imputed yet is a real privilege, p. 135  
How faith is said to be Imputed, p. 141  
That a believers righteousness is Imputed, p. 285, 295  
The signification of the word Imputed, p. 286  
sin may be Imputed two ways, p. 287  
How many ways good may be Imputed to a man, p. 288    
Imputation. 

Of the Imputation of Christs righteousness. 

The need we have of it, there being nothing in us wherefore God should account us righteous, p. 289  
But the contrary, ib.  
That it is relative, p. 290  
Yet real, ibid.    
Concerning Imputation: 



1. The Thing, p. 291  
2. The Cause, p. 291  
3. The Effect, p. 291    
Its term from which, and to which, p. 292  
That it s contrary to carnal reason, yet acknowledged by all Christians in one sense or other, except Socinians. p. 293  
That it makes not a man as righteous as Christ, p. 294    
Christs righteousness not the form of our Justification, but Gods Imputing of it, ib.  
Objections against Imputed righteousness, answered, p. 305  
Of the Imputation of Christs sufferings for our Justification, p. 306 

And of his active obedience, p. 338  
The Arguments against it answered, p. 382      
Impotency. 

Of mans utter Impotency in respect of Justification, p. 190    
Israelites. 

The Israelites stolen not from the Egyptians, p. 31    
Justice. See Righteousness.  
Justice. 

The Justice of God declared in our Justification, p. 91 

Fully satisfied with Christs obedience, p. 95    
Whether punitive Justice was so natural to God, supposing sin to be, that he could not remit it without satisfaction, p. 104    
Justified. 

None Justified without a complete righteousness.  
That Christ was not, nor needed to be Justified, p. 124  
That a man is but once Justified, though often pardonned, p. 267  
That Justified persons are justified alike, p. 231, 247  
That a man is Justified in the same manner and way in the whole progress of his life, as at first, p. 148  
That a man is not Justified by inherent righteousness, p. 148 

Nor by works of the Law done by mere natural men, p. 187  
Nor by the works of the Law done by the grace of God, p. 196, 207  
Nor by works as a Condition, or a Causa sine qua non, p. 217  
Nor by the Imputation of faith as it is a work, or the {αβγδ} credere.    
The time when a man is Justified, p. 122    
Justification. 

The Causes of Justification, p. 50 

The final Cause distributed into the finis cujus, and the finis cvi, p. 50, 80    
What Justification is, p. 115 

The signification of the word, ib.  
That its to absolve a man, and not put righteousness into him, p. 116  
Yet never is without the Sanctification of our Natures, p. 122    
Justification by the Law a non ens p. 222, 

By Christ a supernatural way, p. 168    
That the whole nature of Justification is not comprehended in forgiveness of sin, p. 262, 266  
The Description of Justification, p. 122 

Whether it be an Immanent, or a transient Act of Gods, ib.    
The time when a man is Justified, p. 122 

Not from Eternity, but when he believes, ibid.    
God, i.e. all the three Persons Justifieth a man, ib. 

The freeness of it, ib.  
Meritorious Cause of it, ib.  
Extent of it, p. 125  
Answering all accusations, ib.    
Whether Gods act of Justifying be nothing but the grant of it in the Gospel, p. 129  
In what sense it may be said that Justification is completed at one instant, and in what sense iterated p. 130  
Whether to assert the Imputation of Christs two righteousnesses do not infer two formal Causes of our Justification, p. 445     

L  
Law. 

THe accusations of it, p. 126  
In what sense Justification is denied to the works of the Law, p. 200 

Reasons why it cannot justify, p. 207    
That the Law required only an external righteousness, to which was promised a temporal reward, refuted, p. 200  
That the works of the Law to which justification is denied, is meant only of the Ceremonial Law, refuted, p. 201  
The usefulness and excellency of the Law, p. 213  
Of Christs obedience to the Law. See Obedience.  
Whether Christ fulfilled the Law obedientially for himself, or for us. p. 358, 402. 420  
How it could be called a Law or command imposed on Christ to die for us, seeing his death did depend on the wicked and corrupt wils of other men, p. 401  
That we are bound to obey the Law notwithstanding Christs obeying of it, p. 428     

M  
mankind. 

ALl mankind plunged in sin, and cursed by the Law, p. 53  
And devoid of righteousness, p. 180, 182    
Merited. 

Whether Christ Merited for himself, p. 421    
Misery. 

The Misery of all men by Nature, p. 182     

N  
Natural. 

NAtural, p. 104  
Natural vindicative justice natural in God, p. 108  
Natural men are spiritually unclean both in their Persons and Actions, p. 186    
Necessity. 

Necessity distinguished, p. 104  
Two-fold, p. 418     

O  
Obedience. 

OBedience of Christ, how far for himself, and how far for us, p. 89, 386  
A censure, and yet an allowance of the terms Active and Passive Obedience, p. 341  
That the Obedience of Christ is not to be limited to that which Divines call Passive, p. 330 

Passive Obedience, See Sufferings.    
That Christ while on the earth, did truly and properly Obey God the Father, p. 330 

The difficulty of understanding it. ibid.  
In what sense he did so, p. 333    
Of the Imputation of Christs active Obedience, p. 338  
The Novelty and pedigree of the contrary Doctrine to the Imputation of Christs Active Obedience, p. 341 

And the Differences that are among the adversaries to it about it, p. 343  
Also the Differences that are among the Asserters of it, about it, p. 346  
Arguments for it, p. 347  
Arguments against it, answered, p. 382    
Whether Christ was bound to Obey his Parents and the Civil Magistrate, as other men are, p. 388  
That in that Law of Obeying Parents there was a great difference between Christ and other men, p. 388  
The necessity of both Active and Passive Obedience, p. 411    
Objections. 

Objections against the Imputation of Christs righteousness answered, p. 305 

And against the Imputation of his sufferings in particular. p. 312  
And against the Imputation of his active obedience, p. 382      
Obligation. 

An Obligation may arise two ways    
Omission. 

Of sins of Omission, p. 169    
Original. 

Of Original corruption, p. 182    
Own. 

Of mans Own righteousness, how prove all men are to set up a righteousness of their Own, p. 157     

P  
Pardon. 

WHerein Pardon of sin and justification differ, p. 266 

That it is but a part of justification, ibid    
That a man is often pardonned, but not often justified, p. 267    
Paul. 

Paul and James reconciled, p. 237, 151    
Permission. 

Of Gods Permissive will about sin, p. 40    
Political. 

Of Political righteousness. p. 6    
Poverty. 

How the righteous may be in a Poor Condition, and yet God be righteous, p. 34    
Prayer. 

When we Pray to God not to deal with us according to his justice, we must not mean Gods Attribute of justness, but the effects of it, p. 15    
Prejudice. 

Antidotes against Prejudice, p. 455    
Price. 

The Price Christ paid sufficient for all, p. 71 

And yet God is just though he save not all, p. 72 

See Satisfaction.        
Promises. 

Promises Absolute, p. 34  
Conditional, p. 34    
Providence. 

The Providence of God about sin, p. 39  
Of Gods Providential Government of the world, p. 7    
Punish. 

Punishment of sin proceeds from the Nature of God. p. 109     

R  
Real. 

THat justification though imputed is a Real privilege, p. 135    
Redemption. 

Why it was necessary our Redemption should be by way of justice, p. 101    
Regeneration. 

Of Baptismal Regeneration, p. 144    
Remission. 

See Pardon.    
Repent. 

Whether Christ Repented and believed for us, p. 123    
Reproaches. 

Reproaches, Comfort against them, p. 128    
Reward. 

Of Reward of merit, p. 17  
and of promise, p. 17    
Righteousness. 

Righteousness in God. 

Its divers acceptations, p. 3  
Is two-fold, Universal p. 4  
And Particular, p. 4  
His particular Righteousness threefold.  
Righteousness properly attributed unto God, p. 5, 7 

We judge of it by his Word, p. 10  
That it is essential unto him, p. 12  
Is the Rule of all Righteousness, p. 13  
Its taken three ways in Scripture, p. 15  
That a corrective or vindicative justice in God is Natural and Essential to him, p. 108    
That Gods righteousness appeareth in three things, p. 23 

Is vindicated from many Objections, p. 29. to 48  
How many ways it s taken in Pauls Epistles, p. 51    
Of the righteousness of Gods word and works, p. 81  
That the righteousness in Angels and men is a demonstration of Gods righteousness, p. 8  
Of the righteousness that is in Gods people, p. 20 

Its Nature, Parts, p. 21, 22  
Gods love to them, p. 24    
That all men have lost their righteousness in which man was created, p. 180  
That the righteousness of the best will not justify them, p. 24  
The necessity of having a righteousness, p. 181, 285    
righteousness of Christ. 

Why its called the righteousness of God, p. 156, 300 

The perfection of it, p. 412    
Whether it being imputed make us formally Righteous, p. 434  
Whether the righteousness of justification and sin, are naturally contraries, p. 281 

See Satisfaction and Obedience.         

S  
Sacraments. 

THe efficacy of Sacraments, p. 145    
Satisfaction. 

Of Christs Satisfaction to Divine Justice. 

Arguments for it, p. 57  
It lessons not the grace of God p. 65  
Hinders not but necessitates good works in us, p. 68    
Who was Satisfied, or received the price? p. 69, 87  
The difference between merit and Satisfaction, p. 85  
What is required to proper Satisfaction, p. 68  
That Christs Satisfaction had all the properties of merit and Satisfaction, p. 85 

Was copious p. 91  
And plentiful p. 91  
Perfect, p. 93  
And more Satisfactory to God then all the sins of the Elect are displeasing to him, p. 95  
Whence the obedience of Christ became so Satisfactory, p. 97  
Whether Christ paid the Idem or the Tantundem of what was due, p. 441      
satisfy. 

That no mere creature could satisfy Gods Justice for sin, p. 99    
Scripture. 

Scriptures seemingly opposite to each other about Gods righteousness reconciled, p. 29    
Seek. 

Why God Seeks to man first to be reconciled, p. 56    
Sin. 

Gods hatred of sin, p. 23 

Gods providence about it, p. 39    
That sin is aggravated by Christs Death, p. 78  
Sorrow for sin, p. 131  
The malum Creaturae, And p. 96  
The malum Dei of sin, p. 96 

Its infinite Evil and Guilt, p. 102  
Whether God could pardon it without Satisfaction, p. 104 106    
Sins of 

Omission, p. 169  
Commission, p. 173    
That God sees sin in believers, p. 433    
Sins. 

Whether the imputation of our sins to Christ make him a sinner, p. 445    
Socinian. 

The great Socinian Errors, p. 56    
Soul. 

Of Christs sufferings in his Soul, p. 324    
State. 

The State of all by Nature, p. 54    
Steal. 

That the Israelites did not Steal from the Egyptians, p. 31    
Subject. 

That Christ was truly and properly Subject to the Law of God both general and Particular. And that he suffered in Obedience both to the natural and Positive Law of God, p. 392    
Sufferings. 

Of Christs Sufferings, p. 73, 306  
That it was not needful he should Suffer the eternal torments of hell p. 73  
How what he could not Suffer was made up, ibid  
The greatness of his Sufferings, p. 73, 306  
That he Suffered in his Soul through Gods displeasure at our sins, p. 73, 306  
That he Suffered in his soul as well as his body, p. 316, 324  
Whether Christ Suffered the same that we should have done, or that which was equivalent, p. 74  
How due and voluntary his Sufferings were, p. 89 

That Christs Death was a peculiar, extraordinary thing, p. 311    
The several Errors of men about Christs Sufferings, p. 317  
The Difference between Christs Sufferings, Agonies, and ours, p. 319  
That the fear of Death was not the eminentest part of his Suffering in his soul: but a want of the sense and feeling of Gods favour and help, p. 320 

How far and in what respects Christ was of God forsaken, p. 322    
That in his Sufferings he sustained two Persons, his own, and ours, p. 324    
Surety. 

That Christ was our Surety, p. 373 

And what he was to do as such ibid.& p. 375       

T  
Trinity. 

HOw all three Persons in the Trinity were concerned in Satisfaction for sin, p. 69, 75     

V  
Union. 

UNion with Christ, p. 131     

w  
Will. 

THe Will of God about sin, p. 40    
Word of God. 

Its Purity and Holiness, p. 23    
Works. 

The necessity of good Works, notwithstanding Christs Satisfaction, p. 67  
That it s impossible to be justified by the Covenant of Works, or Works of the Law, p. 200, 207.& 222  
Or by such Works as are done by the grace of God, p. 203, 219  
Or by Works as a Condition, or Causa sine qua non, p. 217  
That good Works follow Justification, p. 229 

Go before Salvation, p. 230  
And need a Justification, p. 232      
World. 

Of Gods providential Government of the World, p. 7    
Wrath, See Anger.   

Z  
Zaleucus. 

ZAleucus a story of him, p. 69     
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 3. l. 1. r. {αβγδ}. p. 8. l. ult. r. punitive. p. 12. l. 37. for that r. yet. p. 52. l. 28. r. punitive. p. 54. l. 12. r. desert. p. 55. l. 9. for relation r. rebellion. p. 87. l. 31. r. its not absurd. p. 99. l. 19. r. Stancarus.& l. 36. next jesuit, add in his. p. 104. l. 14. r. punitive. p. 115. l. 5. r. hobbs de cive. p. 148. l. 12. r. Just twice. p. 149. l. 2. r. Just. p. 156. l. 16. r. {αβγδ}. p. 173. l. 6. for of r. from. p. 188. l. 4. deal though. p. 200. l. 12. is to think. p. 223. l. 24. for not r. and that. p. 237. l. 11. r. that said. p. 325. l. 16. r. mere. p. 352. l. 10. for distinct r. distrust.& l. 29. r. done it.   

Burgess of Justification. Part II.