Sermon in Norwich, Sermon
A SERMON PREACHED AT Great S. Maries, in Cambridge.
2 COR. 5.21.
For he made him which knew no ſinne, to be ſinne for vsus; that we ſhould be made the righteouſneſſe of God in him.
FRom the ninth verſe of this Chapter to the eighteenth, the Apoſtle commendeth his faithfulneſſe and ſinceritie in the execution of his function Apoſtolicall. From the eighteenth verſe vntounto the end, hee commendeth the doctrine of the Goſpell, and that by a double argument: the former whereof is taken from the Authour or efficient cauſe, who is, GOD himſelfe: the latter from the effect, to wit, reconciliation betweene God and man; and therefore it is called the Miniſterie of reconciliation. Further this effect is enlarged by ſundry arguments: firſt, from the Authour, who is alſo God himſelfe: ſecondly, from the ſubiect, viz. the World, by a Metonimie of the ſubiect, men liuing in the world; and by a Synecdoche of the whole for the part, the Elect in the world: thirdly, from the forme, viz. the not imputing of ſinne: fourthly, from the adiuuant cauſes, that is, the Miniſters of the word, to whom the diſpenſation of this heauenly ambaſſage is committed, verſe 19. and 20. fiftly, from the meritorious & impulſiue cauſe, which is the worke of Chriſts Mediatorſhippe, in vndertaking the diſcharge of mans ſinne before God. verſe 21.
Wherein three things more particularly are to be conſidered. Firſt, our Sauiour Chriſt, the Redeemer and reconciler of the world, is deſcribed by his adioynt or propertie, which is puritie of nature, and immunitie from ſinne, in theſe words, (Which knew no ſinne.) Secondly, his worke is propounded, whereby hee merited and procured at the hands of his Father, attonement and reconciliation between God and man, in theſe words, (became ſinne for vsus. Thirdly, this work is amplified from the vſe and end of it, which is the iuſtification of a ſinner before God, in the laſt words, (that we might be made the righteouſneſſe of GOD in him.) Thus much ſhall ſuffice to hauehave ſpoken of the coherence, order, and reſolution of theſe wordes.
Now to deſcend to a more particular examination of them, let vsus firſt of all ſearch the true and proper meaning of the wordes, and then proceede to the vſe of doctrine and edification which they ſhall naturally afford.
Firſt, therefore whereas the Apoſtle ſaith, he made him, the meaning is, God the Father in his eternall and vnchangeable counſell, decreed and appointed him which knew no ſinne to become ſinne for vsus, and anſwerably, in fulneſſe of time, ſent his Sonne to take vponupon him fleſh, that is, mans nature, that in the ſame he might worke and ſuffer whatſoeuer was to be done and ſuffered for the accompliſhment of mans redemption. This appeareth to be ſo, both becauſe the outward and external works of God ſtretch themſelues not onelyonly to the diuels themſelues, but to the executions thereof, as alſo becauſe this worke of Redemption and Reconciliation betweene God and man, as it was begun in the decree of God, ſo it was continued in the incarnation of Chriſt, and then finiſhed and accompliſhed when all our ſinne and guilt was laid vponupon him, and he paid the ranſome for them all.
And leaſt this ſhould ſeeme ſtrange and hard to any, that Chriſt being very God ſhould be any way ſubiect or ſubordinate vntounto the decree of God, the Scripture is plaine and pregnant in this point: 1 Pet. 1.20. He was fore-appointed, or fore-ordained from the beginning of the world, viz. to this worke of mediation. And our Sauiour Chriſt himſelfe ſpeaketh plainely, Iohn 6.27. Him hath the Father ſealed, that is, ſigned and ſingled, by ſetting as it were, a ſtamp and marke vponupon him, thereby ſeparating him vntounto this worke.
This we ſhall the better conceiue if wee doe but remember this diſtinction: Chriſt is to be conſidered of vsus two wayes: firſt, abſolutely as he is God, in which reſpect being equall with the Father and the holy Ghoſt, he decreeth & determineth together with them all things that are or come to paſſe in heauen or in earth: ſecondly, with limitation or addition, viz. as hee is God incarnate, God manifeſted in the fleſh, the mediator and reconciler of the world; in which reſpect hee may be truly ſaid to be vnderunder the decree of God, though not in reſpect of his Nature, yet in reſpect of his Office.
Which knew no ſin.] The meaning is not that our Sauiour Chriſt was ignorant of the nature, qualitie and force of ſinne, all our ſinnes being laid vponupon him, but he knew no ſin, to wit, experimentally, eyther inherent in his perſon or practiſed in his life; in a word, he was no ſinner at al, eyther by the guilt of Adams firſt tranſgreſſion, or by the corruption of nature proceeding thence, or by any actual offence committed in all his life. The Scripture is cleere and euident in this point: And firſt for original ſin, that is the guilt and corruption of nature, Lu. 1.35. The Angell Gabriel in his ſalutation to the Virgine Marie, ſaith, that that which ſhall be borne of her, ſhall be holy, that is, pure and free from all ſtaine and contagion of originall ſinne: Hebre. 4.15. Hee was tempted in all things like vntounto vsus, yet without ſinne. And though this were a ſufficient reaſon to exempt our Sauiour Chriſt from all actuall ſinne, yet the Scripture is not wanting in this point alſo, Ioh. 8.46. he cleareth himſelfe from all actuall tranſgreſſion, when hee ſaith, Which of you can conuince or rebuke me of ſinne? And for them both, 1 Pet. 3.18. Chriſt ſuffered, the iuſt for the vniuſt, iuſt in nature, iuſt in actions. Heb. 7.26 Such an high Prieſt it became vsus to hauehave, as is holy, vndefiled, innocent, and ſeparate from ſinners. And the reaſon is rendred in the wordes following, becauſe hee muſt not be like to the high Prieſts of the Law, who being ſinners themſelues, firſt offered ſacrifice for themſelues, and then for the people; but hee muſt be an abſolute and perfect high Prieſt, that he may be in all points an abſolute and a perfect Sauiour.
The ground of all this is, the extraordinarie and miraculous ſanctification of our Sauiour Chriſt in the womb of the Virgin, wherof there be two parts: the firſt is the ſtay & ſtoppage of the guilt of Adams firſt tranſgreſſion, with the corruption of nature proceeding thence, which was done on this manner: God in the beginning tooke this order touching man, that whatſoeuer good he had, he ſhould hauehave it for himſelf and his poſteritie, and whatſoeuer euill or hurt he brought vponupon himſelfe, that hee ſhould deriue it to eueryevery one of his poſterity deſcending from him, inſomuch as eueryevery father is in ſtead of Adam, to conuey vntounto his childe not onelyonly nature and ſubſtance, but the guilt alſo and corruption of nature: now that this euill might be preuented in Chriſt, God in great wiſdome appointed that he ſhould be immediately conceiued by the holy Ghoſt in the wombe of the Virgin, without any manner generation by man, inſomuch as hee tooke ſubſtance from Marie without the guilt and corruption of nature.
Obiect. If it ſhall be obiected (as the ſpirit of errour hath found one only cauill againſt this cleere truth) that all that are in Adam hauehave ſinned in him but our Sauiour Chriſt was in Adam, ergo.
An. The propoſition is not true, vnleſſe it be thus expounded: All that are in Adam hauehave ſinned in him, ſobeit they deſcend from him by ordinary generation. Rom. 5.12. the holy Ghoſt ſaith, by one man ſinne entered into the world, he doth not ſay from one man, ſignifying that Adam conueyeth the corruption of nature to no more then he doth beget: for the Aſſumption, it muſt be diſtinguiſhed; our Sauiour Chriſt was in Adam not ſimply as other men are, but in part onelyonly, that is, in regard of ſubſtance which hee tooke from Adam, but not in regard of the propagation of nature by ordinarie generation. All other men are from Adam, and by Adam; but hee is from him onelyonly, and not by him, as by a begetter and procreant cauſe.
The ſecond part is the infuſion of holineſſe into the manhoode of Chriſt, ſo farre forth as is meet for the perſon and office of a Mediator.
Became ſinne for vsus.] Theſe words at the firſt ſight may ſeeme to imply a contradiction, but being rightly expounded, all difficultie will eaſily be remoued. Some expound (Sinne) a ſacrifice for ſinne, by a Metonimie of the ſubiect, Sinne being the obiect of ſacrifice, ſpecially of the propitiatory ſacrifice, which was conuerſant about the expiation of ſinne: this expoſition is Orthodoxe, agreeable to the Analogie of Faith, the tenure of Scripture, and the vſe of the word, which often in the Scripture admitteth this trope, as might be ſhewed in many places of the old Teſtament if neede were. Neuertheleſſe it ſeemeth not to be ſo fit and ſutable vntounto this place, & that for two reaſons principally: firſt, becauſe of the Antitheſis here vſed by the Apoſtle, wherein if by one member, viz. Sinne, wee vnderſtand a ſacrifice for ſinne and no more, ſo as our guilt and puniſhment ſhall be tranſlated vntounto Chriſt alone, and not the fault (as Bellarmine and the Rhemiſts would hauehave it) then neceſſarily by righteouſneſſe in the ſecond member wee muſt vnderſtand the reward and fruit of righteouſneſſe, which cannot ſtand; becauſe the very righteouſneſſe it ſelfe is imputed to iuſtification, as afterward we ſhall ſhew. Secondly, it is vnequall and vniuſt; yea, altogether impoſſible, to impoſe our guilt vponupon Chriſt and not our ſinne, becauſe ſinne and guilt goe inſeperably together, and where there is no ſinne, there can be no guilt, therefore that our guilt might be laid vponupon Chriſt, neceſſarily our ſinne muſt after a ſort be made his, and annexed vntounto him, that is, by imputation. Wherefore the more conuenient expoſition, and (as I take it) the better befitting this place, is, if by ſinne we vnderſtand a grieuous and notorious ſinner, the abſtract emphatically noting the haynouſneſſe of the offence. And indeede the offence muſt needes be great, not which he had committed, but which was imputed vntounto him, all the ſinnes of the Elect, their periuries, blaſphemies, adulteries, murthers, oppreſſions and Hereſies being laid vponupon him, ſo that he might iuſtly be termed, and yet without diſgrace vntounto his perſon,Luther. in Gal. 3.13. & Caluin. idem. blaſphemus, periurus, haereticorum haereticiſsimus, (as Luther ſpeaketh.)
Now if any man ſhall reply and ſay theſe are contrary one to another, for Chriſt to be a ſinner, and to be no ſinner, the anſwere is eaſie: there is no contradiction, vnleſſe the ſame reſpect be obſerued in both, hee is verily a ſinner, and verily no ſinner: in a diuers and ſundry conſideration, hee is verily no ſinner properly, perſonally, and by act of inherencie; he is a ſinner truely, yet relatiuely and by act of imputation.
For vsus.] That is, ſo many of vsus as are elected, and doe beleeue: for we may not thinke that our Sauiour Chriſt vndertooke the diſcharge of all mens ſinnes before God, to anſwere and ſatisfie the iuſtice of God for them all; for then why are not all men ſaued? Col. 1.14. In whom we hauehave redemption by his bloud, that is, the remiſſion of ſinnes. Out of which place I reaſon thus: All that are effectually redeemed by Chriſt on Gods part, they hauehave the pardon of their ſins, but all and eueryevery particular ſingular man hauehave not the pardon of their ſinne, ergo, all and eueryevery particular man are not effectually redeemed by Chriſt on Gods part. The propoſition is manifeſt out of the wordes of the text, where redemption and remiſſion of ſinnes, are inſeperably yoaked and coupled together, and reaſon doth enforce the ſame, that where the iuſtice of God is fully ſatisfied, nothing can be further obiected vntounto, or required of the ſinner: & on ſatiſfaction neceſſarily followeth and dependeth the aboliſhment of all ſinne and guilt: for the Aſſumption, that is likewiſe cleere. For if all men had the pardon of their ſins, then ſome who are effectually called, iuſtified, ſanctified and vnited vntounto Chriſt, may totally fall away from grace, and finally periſh, which is a helliſh and vncomfortably doctrine; the reprobates may be members of the Catholike Church, which is a Popiſh doctrine: then the gifts and calling of God ſhould be ſuch, whereof hee did repent him, if the pardon of ſinne once giuen could be fruſtrate and made void. Wherefore thoſe men that hold and teach that our Sauiour Chriſt tooke vponupon him the diſcharge of all mens ſinnes, to appeaſe and pacifie the wrath of God for them all, as well of Caine as of Abel, of Eſau as of Iacob, of Pharaoh as of Moſes, of Iudas as of Peter, of reprobate as of elect, they erre and are greatly deceiued, as might be ſhewed at large, if this Text did giuegive me ſo fit occaſion.
That we.] That is, ſo many of vsus as doe beleeue. Here comes three things to be expounded: firſt, what this righteouſneſſe here mentioned is: ſecondly, why it is called the righteouſneſſe of God: thirdly, how we become it, and it ours. This righteouſneſſe that wee may the better conceiue, wee muſt remember this diſtinction. There is in Chriſt a twofold righteouſneſſe, according to the diuerſitie of his nature; the one is vncreated and infinite, which is the righteouſneſſe of the Deitie, called by Diuines, his eſſentiall righteouſneſſe: the other is created and finite, which is the righteouſneſſe of the humanitie. The former is not here intended or ſpoken of by the Apoſtle, as may appeare by two reaſons: firſt, this righteouſneſſe is infinite, and therefore incommunicable, and if it could be communicated, yet the finite creature were not capable of it, conſidering that that which is infinite, can neither be part nor accident of that which is finite: ſecondly, if wee could be capable of it, wee ſhould be Deified; and then the Apoſtle might more ſitly hauehave ſaid, that wee might be made righteous Gods in him, then the righteouſneſſe of God in him.
Wherefore the dotage of Oſiander, concerning the iuſtification of a ſinner by his eſſentiall righteouſneſſe, is to be abhorred and renounced as blaſphemous hereſie, abſurd and ridiculous euen to common ſenſe. As for the place, 2 Pet. 1.4. where it is ſaid that the faithfull are made partakers of the diuine nature, it maketh nothing for the patronaging of this errour, for by Nature is not meant ſubſtance, but diuine qualities of wiſdome, holines, & righteouſnes, liuelily repreſenting the nature of God, who is wiſdome, holines and righteouſneſſe it ſelfe. The latter is the righteouſnes of the humanity, which is here: which is two-fold, originall, which is the puritie and integritie of his nature, viz. the conformitie of the whole man vntounto the will of God: actuall, which is eyther actiue, which he achiued in fulfilling the Law; or paſſiue in his ſufferings. Now this whole righteouſneſſe is imputed vntounto vsus to iuſtification, as after wee ſhall declare.
In the ſecond place, this righteouſneſſe is called the righteouſneſſe of God, and that for three cauſes: firſt, becauſe God is the ſole Author and giuer of it, Nature doth not afford, neither good education, al that free-will & the good vſe of the gifts of Nature doth or can afford is no more but an outward ciuil righteouſnes before men, which cannot iuſtifie a ſinner before God: ſecondly, God alone accepteth it for & in the behalfe of the ſinner, therby giuing him abſolution from guilt, and title and intereſt vntounto life: thirdly, in reſpect of the ſubiect, becauſe it is in that perſon which is not onelyonly man but alſo God, in whom it is reſerued as in a ſtore-houſe for the vſe of the Church.
Thirdly, this righteouſneſſe becomes ours after this manner; Sinne is that which makes a man vnrighteous and the childe of wrath and vengeance: now in ſinne there are three things hurtfull vntounto man: the firſt is, condemnation or guilt, which is an obligation to puniſhment: the ſecond is actuall diſobedience vntounto the morall Law: the third is, originall corruption, the fountaine of all ſinne: theſe are three deadly wounds and three running ſores in the harts and conſciences of all ſinners.
Contrariwiſe Chriſt Ieſus is perfectly righteous, and in him are three ineſtimable benefits, anſwerable to the three former euils: firſt, the ſufferings of Chriſt vponupon the Croſſe, ſufficient for all mens ſins: ſecondly, the obedience of Chriſt in fulfilling the Law: thirdly, the perfect holineſſe of the humane nature of Chriſt, and theſe are three ſoueraigne medicines to heale all wounded conſciences: and as three running ſtreames of liuing waters to bathe and to ſupple the bruiſed and contrite heart. Now commeth Faith, and firſt layeth hold on the ſufferings or paſſiue obedience of Chriſt, which being imputed and appived to the ſinner, hee is deliuered from guilt and condemnation, and ſo the firſt deadly wound is cured. Againe, Faith layeth hold vponupon his actiue obedience in fulfilling the Law, which being imputed and applyed, the perſon of the ſinner is accepted as perfectly iuſt before God, and ſo the ſecond deadly wound is cured Thirdly, Faith applyeth the holineſſe of his humane nature, called his habituall or originall righteouſneſſe, whereby hee is accepted of God as perfectly holy, and ſo the third deadly wound is cured. And thus we ſee how this righteouſneſſe is become ours, and wee it. And thus much ſhall ſuffice to hauehave ſpoken touching the meaning of the wordes.
Now followeth the vſe of doctrine. And to omit many other doctrines which might be gathered out of this place, I will content my ſelfe with this one which the wordes doe naturally afford, being almoſt expreſſed in the Text, to wit, hence we are taught what is the formall cauſe of the iuſtification of a ſinner before God, viz. a reciprocall tranſlation of our ſinne vntounto Chriſt, and his righteouſneſſe vntounto vsus, the which comprehendeth the whole forme of Iuſtification: wherein there are two things: firſt, a not imputing of ſin: ſecondly, an imputing of righteouſneſſe; for that our ſinnes may not be imputed vntounto vsus, neceſſarily they muſt be imputed vntounto Chriſt; and that we of ſinners may become iuſt, his righteouſneſſe muſt be imputed vntounto vsus. In a word then, the forme of Iuſtification is the imputation of the perfect obedience of Chriſt vntounto the beleeuer for the remiſſion of ſinnes, and for righteouſneſſe. This point becauſe it is a fundamentall principle, and a maine ground and piller of our religion, and not a little controuerted betweene the church of Rome and vsus, I will ſtand the longer in the handling of it, both that we may be confirmed in the truth of ſo neceſſary doctrine, as alſo armed with the armour of proofe againſt all the aſſaults of the aduerſaries wherewith they ſhall impugne it.
And that wee may proceede in ſome order, wee will conſider theſe three things: firſt, what imputation is: ſecondly, that it is the formall cauſe of the Iuſtification of a ſinner before God: thirdly, we will touch ſome of the principall obiections which are alledged to the contrary by that apoſtaticall and hereticall Church of Rome. And to beginne with the name: Imputation, is a Metaphor, borrowed not from numbers & Arithmetique (as ſome hauehave thought) but from a kinde of contract, called acceptilation; wherein the creditor is content to accept the payment of the ſuretie in the behalfe of the debter, euen as if hee had diſcharged it in his owne perſon. Touching the vſe and acception of the word, it is two-fold in Scriptures: the firſt is, when an inherent qualitie or action proceeding thence, is imputed vntounto reward or puniſhment: for reward, mention is made of it, Rom. 4.4. to him that worketh, the wages are imputed: an example of it wee hauehave in Phinchas, Pſal. 106.31. whoſe worke the Lord imputed vntounto him for righteouſneſſe, that is, hee approued it, accepted it, and rewarded it for the faith of the worker. For puniſhment wee hauehave an inſtance, 2 Sam. 19.19. where the varlet Shimei doth beſeech Dauid on this manner: Let not my Lord impute wickedneſſe vntounto me, that is, let him not inflict the puniſhment of my ſinne vponupon mee. 2. Tim. 4.26. At my firſt anſwering no man aſsiſted mee, but all forſooke me, I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. The ſecond is, when ſomething out of a mans ſelfe is by imputation made his, as though it were inherent in him, or wrought by him: thus it is vſed, Rom. 2.26. Thy vncircumciſion is made Circumciſion if thou beeſt an obſeruer of the Law. So to Philemon, verſe 18. If Oneſimus hath done thee any hurt, impute it to me, or ſet it on my ſcore, I will repay: and in this latter ſenſe we are to ſpeake of it in this place.
Imputation therefore may be thus deſcribed; It is an action of God accepting the all-ſufficient and perfect Obedience of Chriſt, in the behalfe of the beleeuing ſinner, vntounto ſatisfaction and iuſtification. Now then to come to the firſt point, that Imputation thus deſcribed, is the forme of the iuſtification of a ſinner before God, though many arguments might be vſed, yet I will content my ſelfe with theſe two, both which are contained in this Text: the former whereof may be framed thus; After what manner Chriſt became a ſinner, after the ſame manner wee are made iuſt; but hee became a ſinner, not by infuſion of any corrupt qualities into his holy nature (which were blaſphemie once to conceiue) but by imputation of our ſin onelyonly: therefore we are iuſt before God, not by infuſion of any habituall grace into our corrupt natures, but by imputation of his righteouſneſſe onelyonly. This argument is firme and inuincible, and cannot be deluded, being ſo ſurely grounded vponupon this Text If it be replyed (as indeede it is) that if this reaſon of reciprocall imputation be ſo firme, and of ſuch force, why doe not the like conſequents follow of both? to wit, why doth not the imputation of our ſinne vntounto Chriſt, as well bring with it inherent corruption in him, as the imputation of his righteouſneſſe vntounto vsus, inherent grace in vsus. Anſ. The reaſon is farre vnlike; for firſt though ſin be of a very poyſonfull nature, yet there is not the like force and power in ſinne to defile and to pollute, as in grace to purge and to ſanctifie, Rom. 5.15. The gift is not ſo as is the offence, noting that there is more vertue and efficacie in grace to ſanctifie and to ſaue, then in ſinne to defile and to deſtroy. And indeed Grace is like vntounto fire, which though it be for quantitie ſmall, yet for efficacie great: Againe, the humane nature of Chriſt is ſo repleniſhed with holineſſe, that it is not at all capable of ſinne; but mans nature is not ſo ſtained and corrupted with ſinne, but that it is capable of grace being at the firſt created after the Image of God, and afterward againe to be re…ed by Chriſt and therefore conſidering that Chriſt is not ſo capable of ſinne as man is of holines, the reaſon is of no moment. The latter reaſon may be gathered out of the wordes of the Apoſtle, where hee ſaith, That wee might be made the righteouſnes of God in him: Whence I reaſon thus: The righteouſneſſe whereby a ſinner is iuſt before God, is eyther his owne, or the righteouſneſſe of another; but it is not his owne, for the Apoſtle would hauehave ſaid, wee are made the righteouſneſſe of God in our ſelues, and not in him: and thus ſome of the auncient Fathers expounding this place, ſay, that it is not in our ſelues, but in him; not ours, but his: and Chriſoſtome ſaith, that therfore it is called the righteouſnes of God, becauſe it is without all ſtaine and defect, and therefore cannot poſſibly be inherent in vsus, wherefore we may ſafely conclude, that this righteouſneſſe is not reſident in vsus, but receiued from another, and after a ſort made ours, to wit, by imputation.
Obiect. But it is excepted, that it is abſurd in reaſon, that a man ſhold be iuſt by the righteouſneſſe of another, euen as if a man ſhould be wiſe by the wiſedome of another, or learned by the learning of another, or liue by the life of another.
Anſ. This reaſon had ſome colour, if the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt were perſonall, and ſo limited and tied vntounto him, that it could not from him be deriued vntounto others; but it is ſo in him that it may be ours, and conueyed vntounto vsus by imputation: the reaſon is, becauſe Chriſt is a publike perſon, repreſenting all the Elect; yea, the roote and ſtocke of the Elect, euen as Adam was the roote and ſtocke of all mankinde. Looke as therefore the firſt tranſgreſſion of Adam was not his alone, but eueryevery particular mans deſcending from him by generation: euen ſo, the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is not his alone, but pertaines to all the Elect, being by faith vnited vntounto him, and made bone of his bone, and fleſh of his fleſh.
And as the iuyce and ſap which is in the roote of the tree, is made the ſap of the branches by participation: euen ſo the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt being inherent in him as in the head, is made the righteouſneſſe of the members by imputation. And as the Lands and goods of one man are made ouer vntounto another by deed of gift, ſale, exchange, or ſome like conueyance of Law, both for title and vſe: euen ſo, the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, by vertue of the free gift of God, according to the tenure of the Couenant of Grace, is truely and really conueyed vntounto vsus and made ours. Theſe two reaſons are ſufficient grounds, whatſoeuer may be excepted to the contrary, whereupon this concluſion may be raiſed; that the ſole imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, is the forme of the iuſtification of a ſinner before GOD.
Now followeth the third point, viz. the anſwering of thoſe obiections which are alledged to the contrary.
Ob. Firſt of all, it is replyed that Imputation, is a conceit inuented and deuiſed by man, not aboue fifty or ſixty yeeres old, not to be found in Scriptures, or in the ancient and Orthodoxe Writers of the Church.
Anſ. To this many things may be anſwered; firſt, what greater impudencie and bold-hardineſſe can there be, then to contradict the manifeſt and expreſſe teſtimonie of Scripture? for this very Imputation is beat vponupon and repeated no ſeldomer then eleuen times in the fourth Chapter to the Romanes, and it is as ancient as Abraham, of whom it is ſaid, Gen. 15.6. He beleeued God and it was imputed vntounto him for righteouſneſſe: not as the Papiſts falſely interprete it; that Abrahams faith was ſo excellent, that it deſerued the infuſion of habituall grace, but Abraham by faith caſting himſelfe and relying vponupon the promiſe of grace concerning righteouſneſſe, remiſſion of ſins, and life by Chriſt, was iuſtified, or his Faith was imputed vntounto him for righteouſneſſe, Metonimia adiuncti; that is, what his faith apprehended became his righteouſneſſe by imputation. Againe, it is to be found in the beſt and ſoundeſt auncient Writers, Hierome, Anſelme, and Chriſoſtome vponupon this place, who though they doe not expreſſe the word Imputation, yet vſe it in effect; ſaying, that this righteouſneſſe is not in vsus, but in him, as our ſinne is not his but ours, not in him but in vsus, and Chriſoſtome ſaith, it muſt be without all ſtaine & want. So Aug. in tract. 3. in Iohn. & de Sp. & litera, ca. 9. & 26. & Bernard. ſer. 62. in Cant. & ſer. ad milites templi, ca. 11. mors in Chriſto morte fugatur, & Chriſti iuſtitia nohis imputatur. Many more teſtimonies might be alledged to this purpoſe, but qui plura videre cupit, legat Fulconem in reſponſione ad annotationes Rhemenſium ſuper hunc locum. Let then the Rhemiſts mock ſo long as they will, and call this a new no-iuſtice, it is ſufficient for vsus, that it is grounded on Scriptures, and wanteth not the teſtimonie of the Church.
To proceede further, Imputation is not a meere deuice, but a very thing; for it is a relation, that is, an ordination, or application of that which the Logitians call the fundament vntounto his terme, or of the relatiue vntounto his correlatiue, for example: In Imputation the fundament is the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt; the terme is the perſon of the beleeuer; and the relation is the mercy of God, or the action of God mercifully accepting the perfect righteouſneſſe of Chriſt in the behalfe of the beleeuer. Now this is not a fiction: and if a relation be nothing, how ſhall wee diſtinguiſh the perſons in Trinitie, who though they ſubſiſt all in one infinite, & vndiuided eſſence, yet are three really diſtinguiſhed by an incōmunicable propertie, which is nothing elſe but a relation? Again, if a relation be nothing, what ſhall be the internall forme of a Sacrament? is it any other but a relation or proportion betweene the ſigne and the thing ſignified? And if a relation be nothing, many a man is vniuſtly adiudged and condemned to dye, both in the Courts of men, and in the court of Conſcience, before God: for why doe men daily dye the death of the body, and the death of the ſoule, is it not becauſe they are guiltie? And if ſin had not guiltineſſe annexed vntounto it as an inſeparable propertie thereof, men might at their pleaſures breake and tranſgreſſe both the Lawes of God and of men, and neuer be obnoxious to puniſhment: for it is not ſin, but guilt that bindes ouer vntounto puniſhment: now what elſe is this guilt but a relation? and if the imputation of Adams ſin vntounto vsus be ſomething, why ſhould not the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe be alſo ſomething, and not a meere figment as they would make it? Nay, Relations (as the Schoole-men ſpeak, though they be minimae entitatis, yet are they maximae efficaciae.
To conclude this point, behold what iniurie this Antichriſtian Synagogue doth offer vntounto our Sauiour Chriſt: the Pope forſooth, by vertue of the keyes, hath power to diſpenſe and apply the merits of one man to another, inſomuch as all his Indulgences are imputatiue, but Chriſt hath not this power. What is this elſe, but to deny vntounto the Head, that which they allow vntounto the members? and to giuegive to their miniſteriall head, that which they denie vntounto the imperiall, as they fooliſhly diſtinguiſh? But not content with this, they pleade further for themſelues, ſaying, that there is no neceſſitie of the imputation of righteouſneſſe, becauſe wee are iuſtified by an inherent righteouſneſſe, receiued from Chriſt by infuſion: this they labour to confirme by teſtimonie of Scripture, principally out of Rom. 5.18. As by the offence of one man many dye; out of which place they reaſon thus: As the imputatiue diſobedience of Adam did truly print into the nature of man, corruption and ſinne, and not putatiuely onelyonly, as they ſpeake: ſo the imputatiue obedience of Chriſt, doth print into the nature of man holineſſe & grace, and notiby imputation onelyonly. This argument they take to be ſo firme and ſo ſtrong that it admitteth no anſwere, which notwithſtanding, being well weighed is of no moment: for if all were graunted, nothing could be proued, vnleſſe it could be ſhewed that this righteouſnes printed in our natures, and reſident in vsus, were that whereby a ſinner is iuſtified before God, which cannot be, as is manifeſt by this reaſon: That righteouſneſſe which muſt abſolue and acquite a ſinner before God, muſt be abſolute and perfect, and in all points anſwerable and correſpondent vntounto the rigour and extremitie of the morall Law; but our inherent righteouſneſſe is not ſuch, nay,Pſal. 143.2 Dan. 9.18. it is imperfect in this life, and therfore Dauid and Daniel durſt not oppoſe it to the ſeuere examination of gods iudgement ſeat, but renounced it, and relyed themſelues onelyonly vponupon the meer mercy of God, & merit of Chriſt, and ſo hauehave the Saints of God done from time to time.
Paul, 1 Cor. 4.4. Though he had a great meaſure of this inherent righteouſneſſe, yet teſtifieth plainely, that hee is not thereby iuſtified; and S. Iohn telleth vsus,1 Ioh. 3.11 that it is mingled and blemiſhed with ſinne in this life; and if any man think otherwiſe, he is no better then a lyar and an hypocrite. But let all be granted which this place in ſhew of wordes, and according to their interpretation, will or can afford, it ſerueth as much to ſtabliſh iuſtification by imputation, as by inherencie; yea, and more rather, by how much the cauſe is of greater force then the effect: for as the imputatiue ſinne of Adam was the cauſe of inherent corruption in mans nature; euen ſo the imputatiue righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is the cauſe of inherent grace in the faithfull. And now to take this weapon out of their hands, which they hauehave drawne (as it were) to cut the throate of Imputation, it may fitly be retorted vponupon their owne heads on this manner: As the imputatiue diſobedience of Adam was ſufficient to make all men guiltie and culpable of condemnation before God, though it left behinde it no print or impreſſion of corruption in the nature of man: euen ſo, the imputatiue righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is ſufficient to diſcharge and abſolue vsus of this guilt, though it ſhould bring with it no inherent righteouſneſſe in vsus.
Ob. Further, they reaſon for themſelues out of Dan. 9.24. the righteouſneſſe of the Meſſias is an eternall righteouſneſſe, but this imputatiue righteouſneſſe ceaſeth at the end of this life: ergo.
An. Though the act of imputation of righteouſneſſe ceaſeth after death, becauſe there is no remiſſion of ſins this life ended, yet the righteouſneſſe imputed abideth ſtill, and ſtandeth a man in ſtead to diſcharge and ſet him free from all the ſins of his life by-paſt, which otherwiſe the Lord might require at his hands. Againe, it remaineth in an inſeparable fruit and effect of it, which is perfect holineſſe, to wit, a conformitie of the whole man vntounto the will of God.
Thus being deſtitute of Scriptures, they flye vntounto reaſon, pleading for themſelues in this manner.
Obiect. Chriſt, the ſecond Adam, did reſtore no more then the firſt Adam loſt; but the firſt Adam neuer had, and therefore could neuer loſe this imputatiue righteouſneſſe: ergo.
Anſ. The propoſition is falſe; for Chriſt, as hee was eueryevery way farre more excellent then Adam was, ſo he is far more liberall in conferring grace, and in beſtowing his gifts, then Adam was prodigall in loſing them, and in depriuing himſelfe and his poſteritie of them, and therfore vouchſafed many more and greater gifts vntounto vsus, then Adam euer loſt: for firſt, Adam neuer had iuſtifying Faith, neyther indeede was it neceſſary in that eſtate: hee beleeued in God, but hee knew not, neyther beleeued in the Meſſias; but Chriſt hath vouchſafed vsus this ſupernaturall gift of iuſtifying Faith. Againe, Adam had not the grace of confirmation and finall perſeuerance, and therfore being tempted, ſell though the free motion of his owne will: but wee hauehave the ſecond grace, that is, of corroboration, whereby wee are preſerued in the ſtate of grace, which is the priuiledge of the ſtate of redemption, before the ſtate of innocencie. Adam had power to hauehave ſtood, if hee would, but hee had no power to will that hee could, but we by the bleſſing of God hauehave in ſome part, both the poſſe and the velle, inſomuch as it is not poſſible for vsus, being once in the ſtate of grace, eyther totally to fall, or finally to periſh. For the Aſſumption: Adam had the ſame righteouſnes for ſubſtance which we hauehave, but not in one and the ſame manner: Adam had it reſident in his perſon by inherencie, but wee hauehave it out of our ſelues from another by imputation.
Now being deſtitute both of Scriptures and reaſon, they try another way, if not to ſtabliſh their own ſuppoſed righteouſnes, yet to bring our doctrine of imputation into contempt, and therefore they ſearch their wits, labouring by all meanes to faſten ſome groſſe abſurdities vponupon it, but all in vaine. Firſt therefore, they reaſon thus: If the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt be the righteouſneſſe of a ſinner, then eueryevery ſinner that beleeueth is as righteous as Chriſt, and conſequently a Sauiour; both which are abſurd: the ground of this argument is, becauſe the ſelfe-ſame perfect righteouſneſſe, which is in Chriſt, both for parts and degrees, is made his by imputation, the which is neceſſary, becauſe the righteouſneſſe which iuſtifieth muſt be abſolute, and in all points anſwerable vntounto the morall Law. For the anſwering of this, firſt, conſider the abſurditie of this kinde of reaſoning in the like inſtances: If the light of the Sunne be the light of the Ayre, then the Ayre is as lightſome as the Sunne, and conſequently the Sunne it ſelfe, that is, the fountaine of light and heate. If the heate of the fire be the heate of a mans hand, then the hand is as hot as the fire. If the water of the fountaine be the water of the riuer, then the riuer is the fountaine, or as copious and cleere as the fountaine. Who can endure to heare this idle and fooliſh talking, for it deſerueth not the name of reaſoning? nay, whoſe eares doe not glow to heare it? But to ſatisfie this cauill and ſophiſtication more fully, both the conſequents of the Propoſition are falſe. For firſt, though the ſame righteouſneſſe which is in Chriſt be made ours, yet not in the ſame manner: in him it is inherent, as in his proper ſubiect; in vsus it is not reſident, but after a ſort annexed vntounto vsus, to wit, by imputation: Againe, though it were in vsus as it is in him, yet it ſhould not be equall in both.
Obiect. But it will be ſaid, it is alike perfect in both, therefore equall in both.
Anſ. It followeth not; for the difference of inequalitie ariſeth not of the righteouſneſſe it ſelfe, which of it ſelfe, and by it ſelfe conſidered, neyther admitteth decreaſe nor increaſe; but from the diuerſitie of the ſubiect: for being in Chriſt, it is not the righteouſnes of a bare creature, but of him alſo that is the Creator; yea, of God himſelfe, for whom Chriſt ſuffered, God ſuffered; when Chriſt obeyed, God obeyed, inſomuch as this righteouſneſſe is of infinite merit, price, value and dignitie, to ſatisfie for the whole world; yea, of ten thouſand worlds, if it were therto appointed by God: but in man it is the righteouſneſſe of a bare creature, and no more: the diuerſitie therefore of the ſubiect doth adde great excellencie vntounto it, though the thing for ſubſtance be the ſame in both.
To explane this by this compariſon: The ſame righteouſneſſe which is in Chriſt, is in the good Angell, and as perfect both for ſubſtance and degree, ſhall wee therefore reaſon, that the good Angell is as righteous as Chriſt? nothing leſſe: and why? becauſe the righteouſneſſe of the one is but the righteouſneſſe of the creature, the other is beſides, the righteouſneſſe of the Creator. The other conſequent is farre more vnreaſonable, for though the infinite merit of Chriſt be imputed to the ſinner, yet not infinitely, but ſo farre forth as it ſerueth to ſatisfie the iuſtice of God, and to make him righteous before God.
To make this plaine by a familiar compariſon: The whole light of the Sunne is communicated to one ſtar, yet not wholy, but with a quatenus, ſo farre forth as it cauſeth the ſaid Starre to ſhine.
Obiect. Further, they would inferre a ſecond abſurditie: If we be righteous by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed, then hee is a ſinner by the imputation of our ſinne, and conſequently the childe of the Diuell, which is blaſphemie once to remember.
Anſ. We may ſafely and without indignitie vntounto the holy perſon of our Sauiour Chriſt, & according to the tenure of this Scripture, terme him a ſinner, yet not properly, but relatiuely only, as we ſhewed before: neither doth it hence follow that he is become the childe of the Diuell, for a man may be properly and perſonally a ſinner, and yet not the childe of the Diuell; much more then imputatiuely: but this diabolicall title, Saint Iohn giueth onelyonly to thoſe that commit ſin, that is, wholy addict themſelues to the practiſe of ſinne, with full conſent of will, and with delight, and make an Art and occupation of ſinning, and keepe a courſe therein: for the children of God, though they be ſinfull, yet they are not the Sonnes of the Diuell, but the adopted Sonnes and daughters of God.
Obiect. But it will be ſaid, that Chriſt in vsus is become a committer of ſinne, becauſe our commiſſions are imputed vntounto him; why may not he therefore be termed filius diaboli, at the leaſt by imputation?
Anſ. To this I anſwere: howſoeuer our ſinne is in regard of the guilt and puniſhment tranſlated vntounto Chriſt, yet no further, and therfore theſe conſequents of filius irae, which agreeth onelyonly to them that are partakers of Adams ſinnes, and filius diaboli, which agreeth onelyonly to them that perſonally worke and practiſe ſinne, cannot be extended to him who is onelyonly relatiuely a ſinner.
Obiect. If wee by this righteouſneſſe imputed, be made filij Dei, then why ſhould not hee by imputation of our ſinnes be made filius Diaboli?
Anſ. The reaſon is not alike, he is not at all capable of the one, but we are capable of the other: neither is it neceſſary that eueryevery conſequent and property of ſinne, which it hath and bringeth with it in vsus, ſhould be tranſlated vntounto Chriſt: for it cannot be proued by Scripture that he tooke any more vponupon him then the guilt, fault, and puniſhment of our ſinnes.
To make this plaine by compariſon: The debt of one man is imputed vntounto another, viz. the Suretie, and yet not the conſequent of the debt, for the debt in the debter hath banqueruptneſſe annexed vntounto it, which it hath not in the ſurety, being an able man: ſo our ſinnes in vsus hauehave many titles and conſequents annexed vntounto them, mentioned in the Scripture, which cannot be faſtned vponupon Chriſt, and it were great iniurie to impute them vntounto him, as it is great iniquitie for the debter beſides his debt to impute alſo his banqueruptnes vntounto the ſurety: nay, if the debter ſhal but call his pledge, or terme him a banquerupt imputatiuely, in regard of his proper debt tranſlated vntounto the other, hee ſhall offer him no ſmall iniurie and diſgrace, and teſtifie his vnthankefull minde: how much leſſe may this vile title either imputatiuely or falſely be aſcribed vntounto Chriſt, without great diſgrace and diſhonour to his perſon? inaſmuch as that onelyonly the Scripture teſtifieth to be imputed vntounto him, which falleth vnderunder ſinne, viz. fault, guilt, puniſhment, and not all that followeth vponupon it in vsus.
But how then is that title taken from vsus? doe we ſtill after iuſtification remaine the ſonnes of the Diuell? nothing leſſe: for wee are become the adopted Sonnes of God in Chriſt. Now that which giueth vsus the right of adoption doth aboliſh the former title, which is not the imputation of this diabolicall title from vsus vntounto Chriſt, but the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe vntounto vsus, whereby wee are become no ſonnes of the Diuell, but Sonnes of God.
And to conclude, this very blaſphemy, which they doe ſo much feare and abhorre, may (will they, nill they) be faſtned vponupon their doctrine of Iuſtification: for if wee be iuſtified by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt infuſed, then hee is a ſinner by our ſinne and corruption infuſed, and ſo ſhall become indeede filius diaboli, or elſe the Apoſtles Antitheſis fals to the ground, which to the iudgement of any indifferent man is firme and ſure.
Ob. It is further replyed that vponupon this doctrine of Imputation it will follow, that God ſhal pronounce a falſe iudgement, viz. him to be iuſt, who is indeede vniuſt, and a ſinner, euen as if a man ſhould ſalue vp a wound, and draw ouer a skin ouer that which is feſtered and corrupted within: or as if one ſhould build a Tombe, paint it, and make it glorious without, there being nothing within but rottenneſſe, ſtinke, and dead mens bones.
Anſ. The conſequent alſo is falſe, for God doth pronounce no man iuſt, whom he doth not make iuſt at the very ſame inſtant, euen in himſelfe: for by the ſelfe-ſame act wherby a man is iuſtified, hee is alſo ſanctified, and by the ſame iuſtice and no other; for that which is imputed to iuſtifie, is alſo infuſed to ſanctifie, and is inherent in vsus, at the leaſt, in the fruit and efficacie of it. To explane this further; the perſon who is iuſtified, ceaſeth to be a ſinner in regard of guilt wholy, and in regard of the corruption of nature alſo in part, which though it be not altogether aboliſhed, yet it receiueth a deadly wound in the very act and inſtant, and neuer raigneth after; yea, to proceede further, at the very ſame time, and in the ſame act, hee is preſently ſanctified, and therfore worthily eſteemed and adiudged of God, holy and iuſt preſently, I ſay, in regard of all the parts and ſubſtance of holineſſe, which is afterward to receiue his accompliſhment by degrees in this life, and in death, to be wholy conſummate and finiſhed.
Ob. Laſtly, they vrge and ſay, that it cannot ſtand with Gods iuſtice, to iuſtifie and abſolue a ſinner: for Prou. 17.15. To iuſtifie the wicked, and to condemne the iuſt, both theſe are abhominable to the Lord.
Anſ. Indeed to iuſtifie the wicked perſon, and to acquite him in iudgement without all manner of ſatisfaction made eyther by himſelfe or ſome other, were iniuſtice. But God which iuſtifieth the vngodly, as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh, Rom. 4.5. doth acquite and abſolue them for the all-ſufficient ſatisfaction of Chriſt, and they though they be wicked and vngodly before their iuſtification, yet in it, and by it, they become righteous both before God, and alſo in themſelues in part. (*⁎*)
FINIS.