Chapter 8
Some Passages of the New Testament Confirming the
Imputation
of
Christ’s righteousness, vindicated from the
exceptions of John Goodwine
Having
seen, what countenance the Old Testament gives unto the truth we are asserting;
and having vindicated some of these exceptions from the exceptions of John
Goodwine, we come next to search for confirmation of this truth out of the New
Testament, and I shall here begin with such, as the said author takes notice
of, in order to excepting against them, in his Treatise of justification.
First, Romans 3: 21, 22. But now the righteousness
of God without the Law, is manifested, being witnessed
by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, which is by faith
of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe. But if men would
dispute against this truth, they should except against whole chapters in that
epistle; and dispute against the very scope and design, yea and all the
arguments of the Apostle, who, in the first part of that epistle,
67
is about to confirm and clear that which he sets down
in chapter on verse seventeen, as the sum of the whole Gospel, and clear
demonstration of its being the power of God unto salvation, & c., to
wit, that in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith;
a righteousness revealed, laid open, and offered unto all that hear the Gospel,
that they may lay hold on it by faith: a righteousness revealed from the
true and faithful God, unto our faith (as Ambrose, P. Martyr, and others
understand it) or revealed from faith to faith, that is only to faith,
(as Pareus) or (as Calvin, Beza, Musculus and others) from a weak faith, to
a stronger faith: or rather, to faith first and last, through the
whole of a saint’s life here, as the following words clear it, as it is
written, the just shall live by faith. Yet let us see, what he excepts on page 136.
He
first, supposes that he has proved before, that this passage speaks plainly
for the imputation of faith for righteousness; but no way for the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ, for any such purpose. And, we may have
occasion hereafter to examine his grounds, both from this and other passages,
for the imputation of faith, in opposition to the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness. I shall only say at present, that this righteousness cannot be
faith itself, because it is revealed to faith; and it is called the
righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ; and so not
faith itself. One thing cannot be both the act, and the object of that act. And
what sense would that make, to say, faith is upon
all them that believe.
2. He
says, By the righteousness of God some understand
here His truth and faithfulness, in keeping promise. Answer: But though
God’s righteousness may elsewhere import and signify His faithfulness in
keeping promise; yet that is not the righteousness here understood; for this
suits a guilty sinner; such as the Apostle has been proving, in his foregoing
discourse, both Jews and Gentiles to be; and is such a righteousness as is
requisite to such, as would be justified in God’s sight (verse 20), and cannot
be had by man’s doing the deeds of the Law, by which is the knowledge of sin,
and which therefore renders their case more desperate; and such a
righteousness, as is had by faith, and which is unto all and upon all them that
believe (verses 20, 22) and such a righteousness, as is manifested without the
Law (verse 21.) All which, and much more, which might be mentioned, show, that
some other thing is here understood by the righteousness of God, than His
faithfulness and truth; even the righteousness of God, which is imputed unto,
and bestowed upon all that believe.
3. He
says, Hereby is meant that way, method and means, which God himself hath
found out to justify, or make men righteous: or else that very righteousness,
by which we stand justified, or righteous, in the sight of God. But not the
righteousness of Christ: nor is there the least appearance in the context of
any necessity to take it so. Answer: It is true, the Apostle is here
showing the whole way, method and means of our justification; and particularly,
what that righteousness is, by which poor sinners can stand justified and
righteous in the sight of God; even a righteousness, that is not had by the
works of
68
the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ: and this
sufficiently evinces that the righteousness of God, here spoken of, is the
righteousness of Christ, which faith seeks in, and goes to Christ for, that it
may be imputed; for faith has no other end or errand to Christ, in reference to
a freedom from the wrath and curse of God, but to lay hold on a righteousness,
in which the poor self-condemned sinner may appear before God. Beside that the
following words (verses 24, 25, 26) where the redemption and propitiation of
Christ, which was His surety-righteousness, is mentioned, may satisfy us, as to
what is meant by this righteousness of God. Sure, there is not the least
appearance of Paul’s understanding that Mean and Method, which this Opposer
supposes to be the only method, to wit: That our faith, considered, as our act,
is that: as if that were the righteousness of God, and could constitute us
righteous, in the sight of God, and were a righteousness had without works and
without the Law, and received by all that believe.
Secondly,
Romans
John
Goodwine takes exception: 1. There is no necessity,
that by the Law, in this place, should be meant precisely the moral law; others
understand it as well of the Ceremonial Law. Answer: But sure, Paul’s
doctrine was not for establishing of the Ceremonial Law, in whole, or in part.
The Law, whereof the Apostle is speaking, is that Law, by which both Gentiles
and Jews were convinced of sin, and had their mouths stopped, and were become
guilty before God (verse 19,) and that Law, which makes a discovery of sin
(verse 20 compared with Romans 7: 7), and by the deeds of which no flesh shall
be justified in the sight of God (verses 20, 28). It is that Law, by the works
whereof even Abraham could not be justified, nor David (Romans 4: 1, 2, 6, 7,
8).
2. He
said, It is much more probable, that Paul should here assert the
establishing of the Ceremonial Law, than of the Moral Law: (i.)
Because the Jews were more tender and jealous over the Ceremonial Law, placing
the far greatest part, if not the whole of their hope of justification and
salvation, in the observance thereof. (ii.) Because the doctrine of faith did
not carry any such color of opposition to the Moral,
69
as to the Ceremonial part of their Law. Answer: To imagine, that no Law is here to be
understood, but the Ceremonial Law, is to make the Apostle establish here, what
he destroys elsewhere, particularly in his epistles to the Galatians and
Colossians, and in his whole doctrine: yea this would make the Apostle, to
cross the whole intent and design of the Gospel, which who dare once to have
the least thought of? The Law here plainly signifies that which was the rule of
righteousness and of obedience, and was publicly given unto the Jews for that
end; and by obedience to and observation of which Law, they were expecting
justification and life; as by the young man is manifested, who came to Christ
to enquire what he should do to be saved; and said, he had observed all these,
&c. As to his reasons, they have no force, for: (i.)
The Jews had a zeal for the whole Law, but not according to knowledge, and went
about to establish their own righteousness, which was not in mere ceremonials
but in obedience and full conformity (as they supposed) unto the righteousness,
which they sought after, yea followed and hunted after, Romans 9: 31 and 10: 3.
(ii.) The doctrine of faith carries the same color of opposition to the Moral Law, that it does to the Ceremonial, in the point of
justification. And it is not the doctrine of faith that carries any color of
opposition to the Ceremonial Law; though the doctrine of the Gospel
administration does; otherwise we must say that there was nothing of the
doctrine of faith, under the Law, or that old dispensation.
3. He
says, Though the Moral Law were precisely here understood; yet there is no
necessity to say, that it is established by the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness: for, (i.) some affirm, that the Law is
therefore said to be established by faith, because faith compasses and attains
that righteousness, which the Law sought after, and could not attain. (ii.) The
Moral Law may in this sense be said to be established; because faith purges the
hearts of believers, and so promotes the observation of it. Answer: As for
the first, I do not understand what the meaning of it is. What is that
righteousness, which faith compasses, and the Law sought after, and could not
attain? It would seem to be nothing else but holiness and sanctification: and
if so, the two make but one: and therefore I answer to this also, by saying to
the second —That albeit subordinates can well consist together, and this sense
need not thrust out our sense; yet I judge, this is not the main objection,
that Paul obviates here: he reserves a peculiar place for that hereafter, where
he speaks fully to it (chapters 6 and 7.) But he speaks of the establishing of
the Law, both in its commanding power and sanction; for having spoken so much
of justification by faith in opposition to justification by the Law; and having
said in the foregoing verse that the circumcision shall be justified by
faith, and the uncircumcision through faith: and neither the one, nor the
other by or through the Law; some might have thought, that by his thus crying
up of faith, and speaking so much of it, and only of it, as to justification,
he was quite cashiering and rendering the Law null and void: And therefore he
answers, that he is so far from making the Law void through faith, that he
rather doth establish the same, as was shown above.
70
4. He
says, The Law may be said to be established by faith, in as much as the
threatenings of the Law are by the doctrine of faith declared not to be in
vain, Christ’s sufferings being a full confirmation of the force, efficacy and
authority of the Curse of the Law. Answer: This is so far good: But why
shall not also His obedience be a full confirmation of the force, efficacy and
authority of the commanding power of the Law, —this being principally intended
in the Law, belonging as much, at least, to the establishment thereof, as the
sanction? We assert not the one with an exclusion of the other; but assert the
establishment of both by faith: and thus the Law is by faith fully established,
in all its parts and demands.
5. He
says, The best interpretation is, that by the Law here is meant that part of
the Old Testament which comprehends the writings of Moses, with those other
books, which together with the writings of the Prophets, make up the entire
body thereof, as it was used (verse 21) and in this sense, the Law may most
properly be said to be established by Paul teaching the doctrine of faith,
because it is fully consonant and agreeable to those things, that are written
there. Answer: But this sense is not the same with the sense of the word Law,
verse 21, for the Law there is mentioned, as distinct from the Prophets.
And if that part of the Old Testament be meant, which is different from the
book of the prophets, what ground was there to think, that the doctrine of
faith did more seem to cross what was contained in the one, than what was
contained in the other, especially seeing he had said (verse 21) that the
righteousness, he spoke of, was witnessed both by the Law and the Prophets. And
if both should be here understood, seeing the Apostle did fully enough declare
his mind as to that v. 21 what ground is there to think, that he was called
that objection here again? And what imaginable color can be from anything that
the Apostle spoke, in the forgoing words, for such an objection, as this? This
manifestly is nothing but a groundless invention of men, that know not else
what to say.
Thirdly,
in Romans 4: 6, where mention is made of a righteousness imputed without works,
and that as the ground of a man’s blessedness and justification: for it is of
the blessedness of justification that the Apostle is there speaking, and he
shows, that this is attained, not by the works of the Law, but by an imputed
righteousness, which can be none else, than the righteousness of God, spoken of
in the preceding chapter; or of Christ, who wrought the redemption, and was set
forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood.
Against
this he excepts on page 140, saying, If we will needs here understand a
positive legal righteousness, it is much more probable, he should mean a
righteousness consisting of such, or of such an obedience to the Law, as hath
an absolute and perfect agreeableness to every man’s condition and calling
respectively, than the righteousness of Christ, which hath no such property in
it. Answer: The Apostle speaks of a righteousness,
and of a righteousness imputed, and all righteousness must consist in obedience
to the Law, and in full conformity thereto: and seeing it is said to be
imputed, and not by our works, it must of necessity follow, that the Apostle is
to be understood, as speaking of the surety righteousness of Christ. And if the
righteousness of Christ, who
71
gave perfect obedience to the Law, and was constituted
Mediator and Surety by the Father, and as such did give full satisfaction both
in obeying the Law, and in paying the penalty, be not such an obedience to the
Law, as will serve every believer’s turn, where else will the believer find a
more adequate righteousness? Shall we think, that his act of faith, which is
but one act of obedience to the Law, or an act of obedience to one command of
the Law, hath a more perfect and absolute agreeableness to every man’s
condition respectively, than the perfect obedience and righteousness of Christ!
Let such believe this, as can.
2. He
says, The righteousness, which God is said
here to impute, is placed in remission of sins. Answer: That imputation of
righteousness and pardon of sins do inseparably go together,
is true; and that the one proves the other, is also clear from these words. But
it is not proved, nor can it be proved, that imputed righteousness and
remission of sins are the same; seeing it is obvious enough, that righteousness
is one thing, and pardon of sins is another distinct thing. No man will say,
that a pardoned thief is a righteous man; for that were
as much as to say, He was never a thief. It is true, by pardon he is no more
obnoxious to the penalty; the obligation to undergo that being now taken away:
yet that will not evince that he is a righteous man: and there is still a
difference between him, and one that never was chargeable with that guilt: this
man, as to this, is indeed a righteous man, but not the other.
3. He
says, The phrase of imputing righteousness
is best understood by the contrary expression of imputing sin; and this
signifies either to look upon a person, as justly liable to punishment; or to
inflict punishment upon him, in consideration of sin. Therefore doubtless to
impute righteousness imports nothing else, but either to look upon a man as
righteous, or to confer upon him the privileges, belonging to persons truly
righteous. Answer: This is true, if we speak of a person, who is truly
righteous, antecedently unto this imputation; as the sinner is supposed to be
truly a sinner antecedently unto this imputation. But when sin is imputed to a
righteous person, or to one, who, before the imputation, was not guilty, nor
looked upon as a sinner, as sin was imputed to Christ, the Holy and Righteous
One, who knew no sin; and as sin through injustice, was imputed to Naboth, who
was not guilty of what was laid to his charge; imputation, in this case, must
import something else, than either of these two mentioned, and that
antecedently to a holding of that person liable to punishment, or to a
punishing of him, with consideration to that sin. Thus before Christ could be
looked upon, as a person liable to punishment, or could be punished for sin, by
the righteousness of God, sin must first have been imputed to Him, and reckoned
upon His score, and that righteously, because of His undertaking and willingly
submitting to the debt, as Surety: as when Jezebel would have Naboth killed as
a malefactor, she first by injustice and indirect means, made him guilty of
sin, and then held him liable to punishment, and dealt with him accordingly.
So, upon the other hand, when righteousness is imputed to a sinner (s we all
are sinners) before he can be looked upon as a righteous
72
person, or be dealt with, as a righteous person, he
must first have a righteousness imputed to him, and bestowed upon him: for how
can God, whose judgment is according to truth, look upon a person as righteous,
and confer privileges upon him, due only to such as are righteous, who is not
righteous indeed? Must He not first bestow a righteousness
upon him, and reckon a righteousness upon his score, to the end He may be just
and righteous, when He is the justifier of him that believes?
Lastly,
he says, Here is neither peer nor peep of
the least ground or reason to perceive, that by “righteousness,” in this
Scripture, should be meant the “Righteousness of Christ.” Answer: It is
enough that the text says, righteousness is imputed: for the man here
spoken of, has not a righteousness of his own, as the Apostle has proved in the
preceding chapters, and does here take for granted. Therefore this imputed
righteousness must be the righteousness of another; and it must be such a
righteousness of another as can found free remission of sins. And whose
righteousness else can this be, if it be not Christ’s? Is there any third
competitor here imaginable? Must it not be the righteousness of Him, to whom
faith goes out unto and lays hold on, in order to justification? Must it not be
His righteousness, who was the Mediator, who laid down the price of redemption,
and was a propitiation, as He told us in the preceding
chapter? Some men, in alleging a difference between a
righteousness imputed to us sinners, and the righteousness of Christ, as
if there could be any other righteousness imputable to us, except the Surety
righteousness of Christ; as they expressly in this join with Socinians (see
Volkel de vera Relig. lib. 5. cap. 21. p. 565) and
with Papists and Arminians; so they declare themselves utter strangers to the
Gospel; yea greater strangers, than those were, against whom the Apostle wrote,
who took it for granted, that if any righteousness from without, or that was
not by anything which we do, were imputed, it behooved to be the righteousness
of the Mediator: And this, we may conceive, is the reason, why the Apostle does
not say, in so many express words, that it was the righteousness of Christ; for
who could have thought of another?
Fourthly,
in Romans 5: 19, a place with its whole contexture pregnant for our purpose:
for the Apostle is not only here confirming, but also illustrating this whole
matter, from the imputation of Adam’s sin unto his posterity; and after many
various and emphatic expressions, used there anent from verse 12 and forward,
he says here in verse 19, for as by one man’s disobedience, many were made
sinners; so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Socinus
de Servat. lib. 4. cap. 6 is
so bold as to tell us, That he supposes, there is nothing written in the
Scriptures, that has given us a greater occasion of erring, than that
comparison between Adam and Christ, which Paul made and did prosecute at length
here. And he would clear to us the comparison thus, That as by Adam’s sin
and disobedience, it came to pass, that all men were condemned and died; so by
Christ’s righteousness and obedience it came to pass, that they wer absolved, and did live: for Christ by his own
righteousness and obedience, by virtue of the decree of God, did penetrate the
73
heavens, there to reign forever, and there he beget eternal
life and everlasting blessedness both to himself, and to his. How alien this is from the whole of the Apostle’s
discourse, needs not be declared, seeing there is not one word giving the least
hint of the Apostle’s design to be to declare how and what way Christ obtained
power and authority to save: Yet he goes on to tells us, That as Adam’s
fault made him guilty of death, whence it came to pass, that all mankind, that
are procreated of him after that guilt, is obnoxious to death: so Christ by his
righteousness purchased to himself eternal life; whence it comes to pass, that
whoever are procreated of him, partake of this life. But he never once
takes notice, that Paul gives for the ground of all mankind’s becoming guilty
of death, their sinning in him verse 12, even such, as had not sinned
after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, verse 14. Yea, in every verse
this cause is noted, or pointed at: and it being
notour of itself, that if all mankind did sin in Adam, Adam’s sin must be
imputed unto them; so Christ’s righteousness must be imputed unto all his, in
reference to their justification, and that with a much more.
Let us
now see the objection of John Goodwine on page 142 &c. It is not here
(said he) said, that by the imputation of Adam’s disobedience, men are made
formally sinners, but simply sinners, that is, either obnoxious to death and
condemnation, or else sinners by propagation, not imputation. Answer: This
is the same upon the matter, with Bellarmine’s answer de justif. lib. 2. cap. 9. And here we have a
distinction proposed without any explication, to wit, between simply
sinners, and formally sinners: And what can he mean by formally
sinners? Possibly he means that which is otherwise expressed by inherently
sinners. And if so, though Adam’s posterity, so soon as they come to
have a being, have a universal corruption of nature conveyed by propagation.
Yet, that is not what is properly said to be imputed. For that which is imputed
is the guilt of Adam’s sin, whereby they become sinners, that is, guilty
legally, and so obnoxious to punishment, death and condemnation. And this is
enough for us; for as the posterity of Adam have the sin of Adam so imputed to
them, that they become guilty and obnoxious to wrath; so believers have the
righteousness of Christ imputed unto them, and they thereupon are accounted
legally righteous. (2.) While he will not grant, that Adam’s posterity are
sinners by imputation, he joins the Socinians, who turn these words, verse 12, 
not in whom; but because, or whereas,
which the Ethiopic version does better sense, saying, Because that sin is
imputed unto all men, even unto them who know not what is that sin; And the
Arabic turn thus, Seeing all have now sinned: and the Syriac word is Behi,
or Bhi, which may as well be
interpreted in whom, as because. And in several other places,
this preposition so construed , as here in the Greek, has this same import; as
Mark 2: 4, Luke 5: 25 & 11: 22, Romans 6: 21, Philippians 4:10, I
Thessalonians 3: 7. But enough of this here, seeing that
matter is sufficiently cleared by the orthodox, writing against the Socinian;
and we have also spoken of it against the Quakers.
Again
says he, Neither doth the Apostle here oppose unto,
or compare the obedience of Christ, with the obedience of Adam, as one act unto
or with
74
another; but as satisfaction to and with the provocation; or
the remedy to and with the disease. Otherwise he should make sins of omission
to be no disobedience, because omissions are no acts. Answer: The Apostle so compares the obedience of
Christ with the disobedience of Adam, as the satisfaction with the provocation,
or as the remedy with the disease; as that withal and chiefly, he clears up the
manner and way thereof to be by imputation, thus, that as Adam’s sin of
disobedience (which includes both omission and commission, being a violation of
the Law, and the Covenant) was imputed to his posterity, and they hence became
guilty and obnoxious to death, yea and were punished with original corruption,
(which comes by propagation) and the consequences thereof; so Christ’s
obedience, which was full and complete, is imputed unto believers, whereupon
they become righteous, in order to their recovery out of their natural state of
sin and misery.
Further
He says, By that obedience of Christ, whereby it is here said, that many
are, or shall be made righteous, that is justified, we cannot understand that
righteousness of Christ, which consists only in obedience to the Moral Law; but
that satisfactory righteousness, or obedience, which He performed to that
peculiar Law of Mediation, which was imposed upon him, and which chiefly
consisted in his sufferings. Answer: By the obedience of Christ unto the
Law of Mediation, strictly so taken, as distinguished from his obedience to the
Moral Law, believers could not be made righteous, as the posterity of Adam are
made sinners by his disobedience; for that could not be properly imputed, as
this is, as has been shown; as so Paul’s similitude should halt. But (2.) why
is Christ’s obedience to the Law of Mediation set in opposition to his
obedience to the Moral Law, seeing this was a part of that, and
unto this he obliged himself, in undertaking the Mediation. Was He not by the
Law of Mediation bound as well to give obedience to the Law, as to suffer the
penalty? And was he not obliged to both, as Surety, in room and place? And then
why may not both be imputed unto them? (3.) Why should obedience here be thus
restricted to the Law of Mediation? He adds two reasons, but neither are valid. The first is this, Because
otherwise the opposition between Adam’s disobedience, which was but one single
act, and Christ’s obedience, if it were his universal conformity to the Law,
would not hold. Answer: This same Man told us in his former objection, that
Christ’s obedience, in respect of Adam’s disobedience, was considered and
opposed, as the satisfaction to the provocation, and as the remedy to the
disease: now if this be true, Christ made satisfaction for no provocation, but
for that single act of eating the forbidden fruit: and what He did and suffered
should be only a remedy for that one distemper: and if so, how shall the rest
of the provocations and diseases be taken away, or are there no more
provocations and diseases? (2.) Adam’s disobedience was no single act of
disobedience; but a disobedience including the breach of the whole Moral Law:
saith not James, that he who offendeth in
one, is guilty of all? James 2: 10. and prove it
too, in the following verse? The second is this, The
effect that is here attributed to this obedience of Christ, to wit,
justification, or righteous making
75
of many, is constantly appropriated to the death and
blood of Christ. Answer: This that is
attributed to the blood and death of Christ elsewhere, to wit, our
justification, shows, that the death of Christ is not understood exclusively;
for by his death, exclusively considered, we cannot be made righteous; for the
imputation of another’s suffering, though it may exempt from death and
suffering; yet it cannot constitute righteousness, in reference to the
commanding Law. (2.) The death of Christ must not be looked on, as one act of
obedience; but as including all His foregoing acts of obedience, belonging to
his state of humiliation, whereof His death was the crowning piece; and so as
including as His whole suffering; so His whole obedience to the Law, under
which he was made: for He is said to have been obedient unto death, even
unto the death of the cross Philippians 2: 8, not that the death of the
cross was all His obedience, as it was not the whole state of His humiliation,
but the terminating remarkable act thereof; as it was not all His suffering,
His whole life being a life of suffering. (3.) If this obedience be understood of this one act of obedience in His dying, and
justification be looked upon, as the effect of this only, what shall become of
His soul sufferings, while He was in agony in the garden? But
if the act of obedience in His death, include these, why not His whole state of
humiliation? And if it include all this, why not also His obedience to
the Law, seeing His being made under the Law, belongs to His state of
humiliation, as the Apostle tells us in Galatians 4: 4.
He
objects further saying, Suppose, that by the
obedience of Christ, we should here understand, His active obedience to the
Moral Law, yet it will not hence follow, that men must be justified, or made
righteous by it, in such a way of imputation. Answer: If by Christ’s
obedience to the Moral Law, we be made righteous, as the posterity of Adam were
made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, that obedience of Christ must
necessarily be imputed to us, as Adam’s disobedience was imputed to his
posterity: for there is no other way imaginable. Let us hear his reason to the
contrary.
For
certain it is (said he) that that justification or righteous making,
whereof the Apostle speaks in verse 19, is the same with that, which he had
spoken of in verses 16, 17, 18. Now that righteousness in verse 17 is describe
in verse 16 to be the gift (i.e. the forgiveness) of many offenses, i.e. of all
the offenses, whereof a man either does, or shall stand guilty of before God,
unto justification: and evident it is, that that righteousness &c. cannot
stand in the imputation of a fulfilling of the Law. Answer: (1.) Though making
righteous and justification be inseparable; yet they are not
formally one and the same; but righteous making (to wit by imputation) is
antecedent unto justification, and the ground thereof, as becoming sinners is
not formally the same as being condemned, but is prior to it, and the ground
thereof. (2.) That free gift mentioned in verse 16 is not free forgiveness,
but is that, which is opposed to judgment, or guilt, or reatus,
tending to condemnation; and so is the same with that which is called the Grace
of God, and the gift by Grace verse 15, and the gift of righteousness
verse 17, which is in order to justification and free pardon. As therefore the 
, guilt
is not the same with 
condemnation; but tends thereunto; so
neither
76
is the 
the free gift the same with 
justification, but leads thereunto, and
is followed therewith. (3.) Nor can the adversary himself take these words in
verse 16 the free gift is of man offences, to be the same with free
pardon of many offenses, else he must say, that this free pardon goes
before justification and consequently is not justification itself, as he says
elsewhere; for the text says, that the free gift is of many offenses unto
justification; as judgment or was antecedent to condemnation. (4.) So then,
the true meaning is, that the free gift of righteousness hath respect unto many
sins, to the end, that justification and pardon, that follow thereupon, might
be full, while as the guilt, that was imputed to Adam’s posterity, had respect
only to his first breach of the Covenant, for which all were made obnoxious to
condemnation.
Lastly
he says, It is but loose and unsavory
arguing, to reason from a thing simply done, to a determinate manner of doing
it: so is it to reason from being made righteous, to a being made righteous by
imputation. Answer: The particular manner or way how we are made righteous,
is abundantly signified by our being made and constituted righteous by the
righteousness of another, who was our head, representative, and surety: and
that because it can be imagined to be no other way, than by imputation. And
further, the whole discourse of the Apostle here, and particularly the
comparison so much here insisted upon, puts the matter beyond all debate. As
Adam’s sin was imputed to his posterity, whereby all were accounted sinners,
and dealt with as such, even as guilty, by reason of Adam’s act of sin: so
Christ’s righteousness becomes ours by imputation, and we are made righteous
and accounted such and dealt with as such, upon the account thereof. No man can
imagine, how one shall be accounted guilty, as punished as guilty of a sinful
act, done by another, unless the guilt of that sinful act be imputed to him; so
no man can imagine, how one can be accounted righteous, and dealt with as such,
upon the account of the righteousness of another, if that righteousness of the
other be not imputed to him. And beside, this is called a gift, a free
gift, and a free gift of righteousness, and a free gift of
righteousness received, which fully points forth this imputation, which we
contend for.
Fifthly,
Romans 8: 3, 4 For what the Law could not
do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son, in the
likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the
righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us. The Law could not help a
sinner from under the Curse, nor unto the recompense of reward, because it was
weak through the flesh, through the sin and corruption of man, whereby he could
not give right and full obedience thereunto. And therefore God sent His Son, in
the likeness of sinful flesh, who by His obedience and suffering, in His state
of humiliation, took away the sting of death, and the strength of sin, by
satisfying all the demands of the Law, the whole 
, the jus
and right of the Law, which consisted in yielding full and perfect
obedience, and in making full satisfaction for the violation committed: for the
Law said, cursed is every one, that continues not in all things, which are
written therein, to do them
77
Deuteronomy 27: 26, Galatians 3: 13. And the
righteousness, which is of the law, is, that the man, who doeth these
things, shall live by them. And this was so ordered, that the righteousness
of the Law, the of the Law, the jus and demand
of the Law mentioned, might be fulfilled in us, that is, in our nature,
by the Redeemer and Surety, who did and suffered all this in and for His own.
The Ethiopic version is a clear commentary, and when we were impotent to do
the commands of the Law, God sent His own Son for that sin, who took on our
body of sin, and condemned sin itself in our body, that He might justify us,
and be propitious unto us, and that so He might fulfill the work of the
commands of the Law for them, who walk in the Law of the Holy Spirit. Let
us now see what John Goodwine objects (p. 145 &c.)
He
says, (1.) Some understand this rather of sanctification, than of
justification; and by the fulfilling of the righteousness of the Law, that
evangelical obedience to the precepts thereof, which all those, that truly
believe in Christ, do in part perform, and desire and strive to perform more
perfectly. Answer: Gospel justification and Gospel sanctification agree
well together, and Christ is the true foundation and cause of both. But that
this is to be understood rather of justification appears hence. (1.) That this
is a further explication and confirmation of what was said in verse 1, There is therefore now no condemnation to them,
which are in Christ Jesus (2.) All that measure of sanctification which the
saints through grace attain unto here, cannot be called a fulfilling of the
righteousness of the Law, the Laws demands are not thereby satisfied; for it
calls for perfect obedience, which none of the sanctified can give. (3.) If
this were understood of sanctification, why are these words added, who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit?
He said, By righteousness of the Law, which is here
said to be fulfilled in believers, cannot be meant the righteousness or active
obedience of Christ imputed, because it must of necessity be such a
righteousness and such a fulfilling, as may be apprehended as a proper and
suitable effect of Christ’s condemning sin in the flesh, as the particle 
declares. But it is impossible that the active
obedience of Christ, or the imputation of it, should be any proper effect of
condemning sin in the flesh, that is of the abolishing or taking away the
guilt, or the accusing and condemning power of sin; for when the guilt of sin
is purged away, there is needed no other righteousness, nor imputation of
righteousness for justification. Answer: (1.) Christ’s obedience and
suffering need not be distinguished, both being done in His state of
humiliation, and belonging thereto, and both being necessary to answer the
demand of the Law, which we did lie under: Christ performed both, to the end of
the whole , or jus
and right of the Law might be fulfilled in us, and for us, by this
Surety. And before guilt be purged away, we must have
both imputed to us; for justification by faith must not make the Law void, but
rather establish it. (2.) Neither is this verse 4 to be looked on, as holding
forth the end of that, which did immediately precede in the end of verse 3, or
of Christ’s condemning sin in the flesh; but rather as a further end of God’s
sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh; or as a comprehensive end of
all that was mentioned before.
78
3. He
says, The clause “…in them…” still notes
either a subjective inhesion of some things in persons, or else some kind of
efficiency. But the righteousness of Christ is subjectively and inherently in Himself only; nor are we the workers of this righteousness.
Answer: Though the righteousness of Christ be subjected in Him only, and
wrought by Him alone: yet the same being imputed unto believers, the
righteousness of the Law may be said to be fulfilled in them because by faith
they are in Christ, and Christ is in them: and in them, is as much, as for
them, or upon them, or on their account (as this same person
hereafter grants, in a like case) and so it is accepted of God for all ends, as
if it were performed by them; and so it is fulfilled in our nature, for, for
this end, He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.
He
says, If by righteousness of the Law we understand that entire obedience,
which every believer, according to the great variety of their several
conditions, callings and relations stand bound to perform, it cannot be said to
be fulfilled in them, by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness: for every
believer is bound to many more particular acts, than can be found in all that
golden catalogue of works of righteousness performed by Christ. Answer: If
the works of righteousness, performed by Christ, shall not be a complete
righteousness, that can satisfy the demands of the Law, where shall believers
get a complete righteousness? Shall their poor imperfect obedience, where with
themselves are not satisfied, but complain much of, and mourn for, be a more
perfect and complete fulfilling of the righteousness of the Law, than was the
perfect obedience of Christ, with which the Father was well pleased? Or shall
the single and weak act of their faith (as this author says) be a more entire
fulfilling of the of the Law, than the catalogue of the
works of righteousness, performed by Christ? What probable ground is there for
this imagination? (2.) Christ’s obedience was perfect, and the Law-giver was
satisfied therewith, and accepted of it, in the behalf of all the chosen ones,
and all their defects and sins, in their various conditions, callings and
relations, were done away by the satisfaction made by Christ: so that the of the Law was perfectly fulfilled, in their
behalf, and this being imputed unto them and received by faith, no more is
requisite unto a stating of them into a state of pardon and right to glory.
5. He
says, The word signifies not obedience to or conformity
with the Law, but rather that justification, which was the end and intent of
the Law, or rather that jus, or right, or Law (as it were) of the Law.
Answer: But all this will not weaken our argument: for that right, jus,
or demand of the Law was, as to us now sinners, both satisfaction for
transgressions committed, and full and complete obedience; and till both were
done and performed, there could be no justification of sinners: and so this
rather establishes than hurts the doctrine of imputation, whatever he may
imagine.
He
says, By the word Law, cannot necessarily be
understood the Moral Law for 1. The weakness of the Law extends also to the
judicial and Ceremonial. 2. The Jews, to whom he
specially addresses himself, in all this disputation, built as
79
much on the observation of the Ceremonial Law. 3. The Moral Law, though perfectly observed, could not have
justified all men, at least not the Jews, who were obliged to the observation
of other Laws. 4. The imputation of the observation of
the Moral Law would not have served for the justification of the Jews, who were
under the transgression of other Laws.
Answer: It will satisfy us, if by the Law be here understood, that universal
rule of righteousness, which God prescribed unto men, and that certainly is the
Moral law, whereof, as to the Jews, the Ceremonial and judicial were a part, or
were reduced unto: and particularly the Ceremonial Law, being God’s instituted
worship, they were obliged to observe it by virtue of the second command. and thus both the
exception, and all the reasons confirming it, evanish: for (1.) we take not the
Law here so narrowly, as to exclude the other Laws, which God gave to the Jews,
seeing they are all reduced thereunto, and comprehended thereunder. (2.) Paul
is here mainly writing for information of the Gentiles, the Church of Rome; and
though there might be some Jews among them, and what he says may be also for
their use: yet this will not prove that by the Law, he understands any
other, than that perfect rule of righteousness, which God gave unto them,
comprehending these other Laws, as appendices thereof. (3.) The Moral Law, thus
taken, if observed, could have justified even Jews, if we suppose they had not
been born sinners. (4.) Christ having fulfilled all righteousness, His
righteousness was an observation of this universal law: and therefore the
imputation thereof can serve for the justification both of Jews and Gentiles.
Lastly
he says, The clear meaning of the place seems to be this, that that
justification, or way of making men righteous, which the writings of Moses
prophesied of long since, to wit, by faith in the Messiah, might be
accomplished, made good, and fully manifested in us, or upon us, viz. in our
justification, who by an eminency of holiness in our lives, above the strain
and pitch of men under the Law, give testimony unto the world, that the
Messiah, the great justifier, is indeed come into the world, and having
suffered for sin and overcome death, hath poured out the Spirit of Grace
abundantly upon those that believe. Answer: (1.) To take the Law here for
the mere writings of Moses, and then to interpret the fulfilling thereof, as is
here done, is to exclude the witness of the Prophets, which Paul expressly
mentions in Romans did properly signify jus, right,
or Law of the Law, now I pray, what is this , this
jus, right, of Moses’ writings? And how is that or righteousness fulfilled? (6.) What then can
be meant by the weakness of Moses’ writings, or how could they be said to be weak
through the flesh? (7.) And how could God be said,
by this interpretation, to send His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
because Moses’ writings were weak through the flesh? (8.) I see hen, in us
may import the same that upon us imports, though it was objected against
formerly,
80
as we heard. (9.) It seems by this interpretation, that
there was no eminency of holiness or walking after the Spirit, among those, who
were under the Law; which is utterly false (10.) Christ, by His coming, did not
only fulfill Moses’ writings, but also all the predictions and prophecies, many
of which are elsewhere to be found, than in Moses’ writings. Yet to fortify
this audacious and groundless interpretation—
He
tells us 1. That this interpretation (as far at least, as concerns the
clause in question, ‘…that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in
us…’) is confirmed by the sweet proportion between, such a fulfilling &c.
as the effect, and the sending of Christ &c. as the cause or means thereof.
Answer: But before this proportion appear to be so sweet, it must be shown to
us, what proportion there is hereby kept with the manifest scope of the
Apostle, which is to clear and explain, how there is now no condemnation to
them, which are in Christ Jesus, notwithstanding of the weakness of the Law,
through the flesh. As also it must be shown to us, what interest these words, for
what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, have, or
can have, in this interpretation: for a proportion, that suits not all the
parts of the text, is but a disproportion, being a plain perversion of the true
meaning of the words.
He
tells us 2. In this interpretation the word 
‘fulfilled’ has its proper and genuine force,
which is to signify the accomplishment, making good,
or full manifestation of a thing, which before was only promised, or foretold.
Answer: Not only the verb 
and (?) is often taken in another sense than
is here alleged, as we see in Romans 13: 8 and Galatians is used, to import some other thing, than
a fulfilling of what was promised, as we see in II Corinthians 10: 6, when
your obedience is fulfilled, that is, perfected, established and confirmed.
So John
He
tells us 3. The righteousness of the Law here must be the same with that
mentioned in Romans 3: 21, 31. Answer: The righteousness of the Law here,
is the Law’s 
, jus,
right and demand, which was satisfied by what Christ, the Surety, did and
suffered. But that righteousness, mentioned in Romans
He
tells us 4. By this interpretation, this passage is of perfect sympathy
those Romans 3: 21, 22, 25. Answer: This also will
make for us, as appears by our foregoing vindication, where this gloss was
rejected: and I wonder, how he could imagine such a perfect agreement, seeing
there mention is made of the Prophets, as well as of the Law, giving countenance
to Gospel Justification: but here by his interpretation, only the Law of Moses
is understood: where then will he make his harmony appear? And what would
81
he hence infer? 1. (Says he,) That
the righteousness of God, that is, the way that God holds for justification of
men, stands in remission of sins. Answer: Of this we have hithertill seen
neither peer nor peep: pardon of sins hath no affinity with the legis, the righteousness of the Law. Says
he, That this righteousness or justification
of his is witnessed, that is, asserted and vindicated by the law, that is, the
writings of Moses. Answer: Neither is righteousness and justification one
and the same thing, as we said above, nor are the writings of Moses all the law
and Prophets. Neither is witnessed by the Law, the same, with fulfilling
of the Law. 3. Says he, That this way
was not manifested, declared, or fulfilled, that is, fully revealed to the
bottom and foundation of it, till the coming of Christ, and dying for sin. Answer:
Whatever truth be in this, there is no foundation for it here, but in his
imagination, as is manifest from what is said. And thus this place is
vindicated.
Sixthly,
he mentions next, that he may except against, Romans
He says
1. That by the ‘law of righteousness’ here cannot be meant the moral law, or
any law: for God had presented them with the gift of all these so that they
needed not have sought after them. Answer: But Calvin thinks there is a
hypallage here, and the law of righteousness is put for the righteousness
of the law. And if we take the law of righteousness here for the law
of that law (as he himself spoke
82
above) that is that form of righteousness and holiness,
which the law called for, will not this satisfy? But the matter is plain, their
fault was, that they sought after a righteousness, by their own obedience to
the law; and neglected that righteousness, which the Gentiles attained by faith,
viz. the righteousness of Christ, at whom they stumbled, verses 32, 33, and the
righteousness of God, of which they were wholly ignorant, Romans 10: 3. This
was not a simple endeavor of keeping the law (as he hints in the following
words, where he would preoccupy this objection; and then tell us, that this
study could be no cause of their coming short of righteousness, as Christians
are never further off from justification, by keeping the commands of God) but a
proposing of that design of attaining a righteousness by their own works,
whereby alone they might be justified. And when Christians endeavor after
holiness, but not from Gospel-principles, nor upon Gospel grounds; but to the
end they may attain unto a righteousness of their own, by their works of obedience;
they prejudge themselves of justification: for thus they do not lay hold on
Christ, but reject Him, and stumble at that stumbling stone, that is at Christ,
who is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes, Romans
10: 4.
2. He says, neither Calvin, nor any other restrain the law to
the moral law. Answer: Nor do we so restrain it to that law, strictly so
taken; but comprehend thereby all that God prescribed for a righteousness; and
this is the moral law, in it full sense; the ceremonial and judicial being
parts thereof and appendices thereto.
3. He
says, There is no reason to limit this to
the moral law only, for the Jews sought righteousness by the ceremonial also.
Answer: This is but the same with the former; and we have told him, that the
ceremonial law was then enjoined by the moral law; and so the moral law did
comprehend it, so long as the ceremonial law was not repealed. And whatever law
it was, their seeking of righteousness by it, and their refusing of Christ and
his righteousness went together; and they so pursued after it, that they sought
righteousness by their obedience to it; and did not seek by faith after
Christ’s righteousness, nor would they submit thereunto.
4. He
says, The righteousness of the moral law
alone, suppose they should have attained to it by believing, could have stood
them in no stead, they being bound also to the observation of the ceremonial
law. Answer: This has been answered before. Christ fulfilled all
righteousness, and satisfied that law of righteousness, which was an universal
rule of righteousness; and so comprehended the ceremonial laws, so long as they
were in force: so that if they had forsaken their own righteousness, and
embraced by faith the righteousness of Christ, they had been certainly saved; and the imputation of this
righteousness had made them up.
Lastly
he says, The clear sense is, that the ‘law of righteousness’ is
justification itself, or righteousness simply and indefinitely taken, which the
Jews seeking to attain to by the works of the law, that is, by themselves, and
the merits of their doings, and not by faith in Jesus Christ, lost God’s favor
and perished in their sins. Answer: (1.) That the Jews sought after
justification by the merits of their own works, otherwise than merits are
included in all works,
83
is not manifest, in this place. (2.) Otherwise this may
pass for part of the sense, for by faith he understands the act of faith
itself, as our righteousness, and not the righteousness of Christ, which faith
lays hold on, or faith as laying hold on and receiving a surety-righteousness,
which is here imported, when the contrary is expressed of the Jews, and of them
it is said, that they stumbled at the stumbling stone; and in the next
chapter it is said, they would not submit themselves unto the righteousness
of God. What he adds, as a confirmation of this interpretation, is to no
purpose, for he speaks nothing to clear the main thing in doubt; but all is to
prove, that by the law of righteousness, righteousness is meant; which is not
denied: and withal he takes for granted, what is not proved, and has been
denied, viz. that righteousness and justification are one and the same thing.
Seventhly, Romans 10: 3, 4. A passage cleat and pregnant for
our purpose, where the Apostle is but prosecuting the same purpose, as to the
Jews, and showing whence their disappointment and missing of that came, which
they so earnestly endeavored after, viz. a righteousness by which they might be
justified before God: for (says the Apostle) they being ignorant of
God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have
not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God: for Christ is the end
of the Law for righteousness to everyone that believeth. There is a righteousness
called God’s righteousness, which is opposed to, and inconsistent with
men’s own righteousness, that is, all that is done by them in conformity to the
law of God, as a righteousness, whereupon to be justified: yea, so great is
this opposition, that whoever labors most to establish and set on foot his own
righteousness, or to seek after a righteousness by his own performances, is
furthest from the righteousness of God, as being both ignorant thereof, and in
pride refusing to submit thereunto. This righteousness of God is explained in
verse 4 to be the end of the law, that is, the full righteousness, which the
law, in its primitive institution, called for, and which is the accomplishment
of the law’s design, as proposed to be a rule of righteousness, and the
condition of life promised, upon the performance thereof. And Christ is said
to be this end of the law for righteousness. He, by yielding perfect
obedience, hath brought forth a righteousness, in which the Law hath its end,
and Christ is this, to everyone that believeth, the righteousness being
made over unto them, who believe, and by faith lay hold on Him; which, because
the Gentiles did, they therefore attained to this righteousness, Romans 9: 30.
Mr.
Goodwine, page 137 &c., excepteth several ways, 1.
There is (says he) no color of reason, that by the
law here should be meant precisely and determinately the moral law; because the
Jews never dreamed of justification by this law only, but chiefly by the
ceremonial law. Besides, in verse 5 he cites that description, which Moses
gives of the righteousness of the law not out of any passage of the moral law;
but out of the heart, as it were of the ceremonial law, Leviticus 18: 5.
Answer: The first part of this exception has been often answered: we take not
the moral law so precisely and determinately, as not to include, as parts or
appendices, all other laws given by God. And the last part of this exception
84
will say nothing, unless he thinks, this law is precisely
and determinately to be understood of the ceremonial law, excluding all others,
and especially the moral law, taken as distinct from judicial and ceremonial.
But why does he say, that this description of the righteousness of the law is
taken out of the heart of ceremonials, seeing in the place cited,
both before and after the words, morals are mentioned? Yea, that whole chapter
is taken up, in rehearsing morals.
Exception 2. Neither is it any ways agreeable to the
truth, that the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers, should be called
the end of the moral law, for no law, considered simply as such, is any cause
or means of justifying a person, than by observation of it itself; and
consequently justification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of the
moral law: for nothing can properly be said to be the intent or end of a thing,
but that which in likelihood may be obtained by it. Now it is impossible that
justification by Christ should be procured by the moral law. It may be said,
with a far more favorable aspect to the truth, that Christ is the end of the
ceremonial law; yet not simply considered, as a law, but as comprehending in it
such and such usages and rites typifying Christ. (1.) This whole exception
looks with a very ill favored aspect both to truth and modesty: For its scope
and drift is not so much against the truth which we maintain, as against the
Apostle Paul himself, and against the language of the Spirit of the Lord; for
it says this in effect; that either the Apostle spoke not truth, or spoke not
in good sense, when he said, that Christ was the end of the Law: for (to
use Mr. Goodwine’s reason) as nothing can be properly said to be the intent or
end of a thing but that which in likelihood may be obtained by it; so nothing
can be said to be the intent and end of a law, but what in likelihood may be
obtained by it: But how can any think, that Christ can be, in any likelihood
obtained by the law? (2.) But we say not, that justification by Christ is had
by the moral law: yet, why the righteousness of Christ, consisting in perfect
obedience to the law, and in full answering of the same, in all its demands,
may not be called the end or fulfilling of the law, I see not; especially
seeing the Apostle says expressly, that Christ is the end of the Law for
righteousness. The question being moved about a righteousness, required by
the Law, and this not being to be found in man’s obedience, but in Christ’s,
who was the end of the law for righteousness, the law hath its full
accomplishment in him also when he suffered, and satisfied the sanction of the
law, the law had satisfaction, or the Law-giver rather, and the Law its end and
accomplishment. Now this righteousness of Christ being
imputed to believers, they are thereupon justified, and the Law is satisfied.
And though the Law because it was weak through the flesh, could not bring about
this righteousness, and this end, in us; yet Christ having answered all the
demands of the law, and given full satisfaction both in point of obedience, and
in point of suffering, the Law hath its full accomplishment in Him, and that
end, which is here meant. (3.) We do not say, that the righteousness of Christ,
imputed to believers, is, or is called, the end of the moral law: but that
Christ came, and was made under the Law, that He might answer all the demands
85
thereof; and both satisfy for its violation, and yield
perfect obedience unto its commands; and so fulfill it in all points: So that
it had its end and accomplishment in and through him, and what he did and suffered:
and that he submitted himself hereunto, that he might make up a righteousness,
wherewith the law should be satisfied, for the justification of believers.
(4.)
Though the moral law, nor no law, considered in itself, can be any cause or
means of justifying a person, otherwise than by the observation of itself; and
though justification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of moral law:
yet in Christ’s obedience and suffering, the Law may be said to have received
its accomplishment and satisfaction; and thereby a complete righteousness may
be said to be obtained for all believers.
Exception 3. The Greek expositors make Christ in this
sense, to be called ‘the end of the law for righteousness,’ because he
performed, or exhibited unto them that, which the law propounded to itself, as
its end, and would have performed, but could not, to wit, their justification.
Answer: Seeing the law propounded their justification, as its end, only by the
perfect observation of itself, or by a full and perfect conformity unto it,
Christ cannot be called Christ cannot be called the end or accomplishment of
the law, unless he had performed all that, which the law required: nor could he
be called the end of the law for righteousness, unless he had fully
satisfied the law; and thereby made up a righteousness, in the behalf, and for
the behoove of believers, to whom it being imputed, they might be accepted, and
justified upon the account thereof. And this righteousness, where with the law
was satisfied, and wherein it had its full accomplishment, is, I grant,
exhibited in the Gospel, to the end, that all, who would be justified, may lay
hold on it, receive it, and rest upon it, as the only righteousness, in and
through which they desire to be accepted, and to stand before God, the
righteous judge.
Exception 4. Some conceive, that Christ is said to be the
end of the law, &c., because the law, by convincing men of sin, and
exacting of them a righteousness, which it doth not enable them to perform; and
again by threatening and condemning them for want of it, it doth as good as
lead them by the hand to Christ by whom they are freely justified. But neither
doth this seem to be the meaning of the place. Answer: Seeing he himself is
not satisfied with this interpretation, he might have forborne to have added
it. But as for the interpretation itself, I judge the thing said to be true,
and that it hath a subordinate aspect unto what we have said; and holds forth
part of the truth; though it be not a plain and full exposition of the place:
for there is mention made here of a righteousness of God, which the Jews
neither understood, nor would submit unto: but in opposition to this they went
about to establish their own righteousness, that is, to seek after a
righteousness by their own works, or by their own obedience to the law; and
therefore did miss their end: for this righteousness, which they were seeking
after, and which they could not attain unto, by all their acts of obedience;
that is, a righteousness, that was a perfect obedience and conformity to the
law, and withal a sufficient compensation and satisfaction for the breaches of
the Law, already committed, was only to be
86
found in Christ, who is the end of the Law for
righteousness, that is, made full satisfaction for the breaches committed, and
performed complete and perfect obedience, which the Law did principally require
(whatever other accidental ends it might have had, or the Law-giver in
promulgating it, and accompanying it with other things, as to the nation of the
Jews) because for this end was the law, as a law, given by the Law-giver, that
subjects might walk according to the same, and that they might become thereby
righteous, and have a right to the reward promised, by fulfilling this
condition of the covenant. Now, when these ends (or this end, putting these
together as one) were only attained by what Christ did and suffered, the Jews,
who stumbled at this stumbling stone, and rejected this righteousness of God,
could never be justified by all their own acts of obedience to the law, how
zealously so ever they should have sought after a righteousness thereby.
Exception 6. (The 5th we pass, because he lays no
weight on it himself.) The plain and direct meaning is, that the law, that
is, the whole Mosaic dispensation was for that end given by God to the Jews,
that whilst it did continue, it might instruct and teach them, concerning the Messiah,
who was yet to come, and by his death to make atonement for their sins, that so
they might believe in Him accordingly and be justified: and further that in
time, that Nation might be trained up and prepared for the Messiah himself, and
that economy and perfection of worship and service, which He should bring with
him, and establish in the world at his coming. Answer: What was said to the
two foregoing exceptions, may serve for an answer to this: for whatever truth
may be in this; yet it is no true sense and exposition of the place; because
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes; and
so to the Gentiles, as well as to the Jews; whereas this gloss limits and
restricts all to the Jews. (2.) There is nothing here, keeping correspondence with
what is said, verse 3, touching their going about to establish their own
righteousness and refusing to submit unto the righteousness of God. (3.) The
righteousness of the Law, described by Moses, and here cited in verse 5, hath
no interest in the Mosaic economy, as given for the mentioned end to the Jews.
(4.) If Christ made an atonement for sins, and was to
be believed in accordingly, by such as would be justified, then that atonement
was to be made over unto them and reckoned upon their score, to the end they
might be justified upon the account thereof. (5.) The text says,
that Christ was the end of the law for righteousness; and so was to
bring in everlasting righteousness, as well as to make atonement for sins, Daniel
9: 24. (6.)The perfection of that service and worship, which Christ was to
establish at His coming, was a clearer manifestation of the Gospel of the Grace
of God, whereby the righteousness of God, or the surety-righteousness of
Christ, was imputed unto believers, and received by faith, in order to justification,
as the whole Gospel declares.
He
labors to confirm this gloss with two reasons, 1. Because
the Jews sought righteousness and self-justification, as of the moral law.
2. Because Christ is held forth; as the end of this dispensation, II
Corinthians
87
no other interpretation of this passage, that can have
place. And besides, that whole economy did point out and lead them to the
Messiah, that in Him they might find that, which they were seeking after by
their own works, and all in vain; even the righteousness of God, which will
sufficiently cloth all believers, and both keep them from wrath due for sin, and
give them a right to glory. So that even this sense, if rightly understood,
doth rather strengthen than hurt imputed righteousness.
Eighthly,
I Corinthians 1: 30 is excepted against by him on page 162 &c. To which we
may add verses 29 and 31, which will help to clear the matter. That no flesh
should glory in His presence: but of Him ye are in Christ Jesus, who of God is
made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. That
according as it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. All
the work of God in and about His chosen ones, is so contrived, that no flesh
should have ground to glory in the presence of God; but that he, who glorieth,
should glory in the Lord: and therefore He hath made Christ to be all things to
them, that they stand in need of, in order to their everlasting enjoyment of
Himself; and particularly, Christ is said to be made of God to us (among other
things, which our necessity calls for) righteousness, answering His name
the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, Jeremiah 23: 6. And a righteousness He cannot be
made unto us, any other way, than by clothing us (who are naked and have no
righteousness of our own) with a righteousness; that is, by imputing to us His
righteousness, that we may thereby become righteous, and be looked upon, as
such, and so be accepted of God, and justified.
Exception 1. Christ is no other way said to be made
righteousness, then He is said to be made wisdom, &c. Therefore we may as
well plead for the imputation of His wisdom, or His sanctification: there is no
more intimation made of the imputation of the one then of the other.
Answer: This is but the old exception of Socinus part 4 de Servant, cap.5., and of Volkel. De vera
Relig. cap.21.p.566. and it stands upon this only ground, that Christ is made
all these particulars to us here mentioned, after one and the same manner: and
what that manner is, should be declared: and of necessity it must be a very
general one, otherwise it shall not agree to all these particulars. Therefore
Socinus hath devised a very general manner of way, saying in the place cited: That
all this signifies nothing else, than that we have attained to that by God’s
providence, through Christ, that we are become wise, holy and redeemed before
God: and that therefore Christ is said to be righteousness to us,
because through the providence of God by Christ, we have attained to be just
before God. But this general way makes us not one whit wiser. Volkelius, in
the place cited, gives us no relief, but only tells us, That Christ is said
to be made all these to us; because he was the cause of all these; and because
God, by his means, made us wise and holy, and will at length redeem us.
Bellarmine condescends to tell us, that He is said to be our righteousness,
because he is the efficient cause thereof. But how that is, he does not
explain: But Bellarmine’s next answer is to some better purpose; Christ
(says he) is said to be our righteousness because he satisfied the Father
for us; and doth so give and communicate that satisfaction to us, when he
justifies us, that it may be called
88
our satisfaction and righteousness. (2.) Such as oppose us here, do (and must necessarily
so do) speak of this matter, as id righteousness and sanctification were on and
the same thing; and so give us here a most needless tautology. And others, who
will not yield to imputed righteousness, and yet will grant a difference
between righteousness and sanctification, must tell us distinctly, how He is
the one, and how He is the other, to His chosen ones. (3.) Wisdom and
sanctification are of a different nature from righteousness; for righteousness
cannot be here taken for inherent grace and holiness; for then it should be the
same with sanctification, and so there must needs be here a tautology; and withal
no perfect enumeration of the several great things, we stand in need of, and
Christ is made to be unto us of God: and seeing they are different, there is
ground to say, that He is not to us righteousness, the same way that He is
sanctification; sanctification is wrought in us by His Spirit; but so is not
righteousness; for if we had a righteousness wrought in us, we should be
justified by virtue thereof, and upon the account thereof: and if we be
justified by a righteousness within us, we are justified by our own works, and
by the law, contrary to all the Apostle’s dispute, and contrary to what precedes
and follows the words under consideration; for then he who glories might glory
in himself, and not in the Lord alone. (4.) All these particulars here
mentioned, we must have or find in Christ, as the Ethiopic version has it, and
each, according to its nature. And withal we must be made partakers and
possessors of them all, according as the nature of the benefit will admit: and
therefore, as Christ is forthcoming to His chosen ones, for wisdom, so as they
may really become wise, for sanctification, that they may become holy; and for
redemption, that they may be redeemed: so is He forthcoming to his own for
righteousness, that they may be justified: for though righteousness and justification
be not one and the same, as our Excepter often alleges; yet they have constant
respect to each other, and are inseparable, in our case. If then we find a
righteousness in Christ, for justification, that righteousness must be made
ours, and this being a righteousness, that is not our own, before it be made
our own, it must be imputed to us, that we may be there by justified.
He adds, Suppose, Christ were made righteousness
unto us by imputation: yet this special manner of his being righteousness to
us, must be made out by other Scriptures, than this: as because a rich man hath
silver and gold and jewels in possession, it will not follow, that he hath
silver in one chest, and gold in another, jewels in a third. Answer: Christ’s
being made righteousness to us, who have no righteousness of our own, in order
to our justification, says, that the righteousness, we have from Him, can be no
other ways ours than by imputation, for it cannot be wrought in us, else it
should be the same with holiness and sanctification. And therefore the similitude
of gold, silver, and jewels is not worth a straw, in this case; because the dissimilitude
is obvious.
Exception 2. The meaning only is this, that Christ is
made, ordained of God, to be the author, or sole means, by way of merit of our
justification. Answer: (1.) According to his former exception, it will
follow hence, that He works
89
not holiness and wisdom in us, by His word and Spirit;
but only is the means thereof, by way of merit: for he will have Christ to be
all these particulars to us, one and the same way. (2.) This differs little
from the answer of Schlightingius cont. Meisnerum, p 250. who
says, It is enough that Christ’s righteousness be the cause of our
justification: and Christ may be said to be made righteousness to us, because
His righteousness redounds to our good and justification. (3.) It is not
said, that Christ is made justification to us; but it is said, He is
made righteousness to us, and though it is true, that He hath merited our
justification; yet when He is said to be made of God righteousness to us, it is
apparent, that He bestows a righteousness upon us, in order to justification,
or He must be righteousness to us, ere we be justified: and how shall we
partake of His righteousness, if not by imputation? (4.) Christ cannot be the
author, or sole means, by way of merit, of our justification, till we have a
righteousness; that is, He must be the sole author and means of a
righteousness; for we must not say, that he hath merited, that we shall be
justified without a righteousness, it being an abomination to the Lord, that
even a terrene judge should justify one, that hath no righteousness. If then He
hath merited, that we shall be justified by having a righteousness, that
righteousness must be within us, or without us: if within us, then He hath
merited, that we shall be justified by the works of righteousness, which we do,
and by the law, and by the works of the law, contrary to the whole Gospel: If
without us, then it must either be Christ’s own righteousness, or the
righteousness of some other. It cannot be the righteousness of any other, as
will easily be granted: and if it be Christ’s righteousness, it must be imputed
to us, to the end it may be ours, and we justified thereby: and this is the
thing we press.
He
adds, to confirm this sense, that righteousness is very frequently used for
justification. Answer: Thus he gains nothing: for (1.) That will not prove, that it is so used here. (2.) And though it did
import justification here; yet seeing there is no justification before God,
without a righteousness, it would say, that Christ were our righteousness too,
or that He merited a righteousness for us: and what is that righteousness, that
He hath procured, that we shall have, in order to our justification? Is it the
righteousness of our own works? Then He hath merited, that our works shall
merit justification; and why not also glorification? Is not his to overturn the
whole Gospel?
He
adds, 2. Righteousness or justification, which believers have in or by
Christ, is still attributed unto His death and sufferings, and never to His
active obedience. Answer: But he has forgotten what is said, Romans
Exception 3. This will not say, that Christ’s active obedience
only is imputed; or that he only, by his active obedience, is made
righteousness to us. Answer: I plead
90
not for the sole imputation of Christ’s active
obedience, but for the imputation of Christ’s whole surety-righteousness, that
is, His complete obedience and suffering, or of what He did and suffered in
answering all the demands of the law, which we were lying under.
Exception 4. Many sound and able expositors are for this
sense; understanding nothing by this, but our justification, or righteous
making by Him; some placing this justification in remission of sins; some
ascribing it to the sufferings of Christ. Answer: We could also cite sound
and able expositors for our sense, and bringing in besides the general verdict
of such, as write against Socinians, and Papists, and others also: but this is
not our present work. (2.) Justification and righteous-making are not one and
the same. If we be made righteous by Him, it must be by His righteousness: and
if we be made righteous by His righteousness, it must be imputed to us. (3.)
That justification is nothing but remission of sins, is not yet proved. (4.) We
have heard Paul say, that by the obedience of one (i.e. Christ) (in
opposition to the disobedience of Adam, whereby all his posterity were made
sinners) many are made righteous, Romans
Ninthly, II Corinthians 5: 21 For
he hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the
righteousness of God in Him. This is added, as a confirmation and further
explication of what was said, verse 18, 19. Concerning the reconciliation of a
sinful world unto God, in and through Christ, and of God’s imputing their
trespasses unto them. As if he had said, all our salvation, and all the way how
it is brought about, is of God, who, in and through Christ, reconciles the
sinful world of His own chosen ones to Himself, and pardons their sins, by
laying them all on Christ, and making Him bear the guilt and punishment of all;
that the chosen ones might be made partakers of that righteousness, and have it
imputed unto them, as their sins were imputed unto Christ; and so become the
righteousness of God in Him, or by being in Him, and united to Him. This place
is pregnant and full of proof: so that the whole matter cannot be more clearly and
emphatically expressed, than it is here held forth. Yet Mr. Goodwine labors to
darken it with his exceptions, page 164 &c. Let us hear him.
Exception 1. Here is nothing said, touching any
imputation of our sins to Christ: and consequently here can be nothing to build
a reciprocal imputation of His righteousness unto us upon. Answer: If that
expression of God making Christ to be sin who knew no sin, and that for
us, will not enforce an imputation of our sins to Christ, it must be so only
with such, as will hold fast their opinion, let Scripture speak what it will to
the contrary: for when it is said, that Christ, who knew no sin, i.e.
was guilty of no sin, by committing of it, in thought, word or deed; was yet made
sin by God, and that for us, what words can be imagined, that shall
more emphatically express this imputation? And the Greek commentators (whom our
adversary doth often cite, when he finds it anything to his advantage) give the
meaning to be, that he was made a great sinner, and was handled, as if He
had been the worst of sinners, even very wickedness itself. And Isaiah
tells us, 53: 6, That the Lord laid all our iniquities
on Him, or caused them to meet in one upon Him. And nothing
91
can be alleged against this, except it be said, the
meaning is, He was made an offering or sacrifice for sin. But this is so
far from weakening the truth, concerning the imputation of our sins to Christ,
that it abundantly confirms it: for there was a real imputation of the guilt of
the sinner upon the sacrifice, as is expressly said, Leviticus 
is no where in the New Testament so taken) it
must needs be granted, that guilt was transferred upon Him, in order to His
becoming a sacrifice for sin: justice could not exact upon Him, if it had not
been so, He having been free of all sin and guilt, in His own person.
Exception 2. Some of the most judicious and learned
assistants of the way of this imputation, absolutely reject this equality or reciprocation
of imputation between the sins of believers unto Christ, and the righteousness
of Christ unto them. There is not the same force and power of our
unrighteousness to make Christ unrighteous; which is of His righteousness to
make believers righteous. Therefore we are not made formally righteous by such an
imputation. Answer: We willingly grant several differences, beside what is
mentioned: yet this agreement and correspondence (which is all we seek) is
manifest, that, as Christ, who knew no sin, as to Himself, was made sin, or had
the guilt of sin laid upon Him, and was handled by justice as a sinner legally:
so we, who have no righteousness of our own, have Christ’s righteousness
imputed to us, and bestowed upon us; and upon the account thereof are dealt
with as legally righteous. We do not speak of Christ’s obedience only; but
assert the imputation of His sufferings too. Nor do we say, that we are hereby
made formally righteous, if the term formally import inherently; but
that by the imputation thereof to us, we are accounted and looked upon by God
as righteous formally in a legal sense; and as such are accepted of God and
justified.
Exception 3. There is not so much, as the face or
appearance, in this place of any comparison between Christ’s being made sin for
us, and our being made the righteousness of God, in Him; but only the latter is
affirmed, as the end, consequent, or effect of the former. Answer: Though
the latter be a consequent of the former; yet every word holds forth a
comparison, or correspondence; Christ made sin, and we become righteous, or
righteous in Him: Christ knew no sin, and yet was made sin; and we, who were
sinners and rebels, standing in need of reconciliation (as the preceding words
evidence, and as is undeniable) are made righteous.
Exception 4. That the weight of that particle, ‘in Him,’
should be by the imputation of His active obedience unto us, hath neither
instance or parallel expression
92
in Scripture, nor rule in Grammar, nor figure in
rhetoric, to make probable in the lowest or lightest degree. Answer: We plead not solely for the imputation of
Christ’s active obedience, as is said; but for the imputation of His whole
surety-righteousness. And though these words in Him, that denote
believers union with Him, as the ground of their interest in His righteousness,
should not be asserted, to import this imputation: yet the words, that we
might be made the righteousness of God, will be a rock, whereupon imputation
may stand: for they hold this forth unto us, that as God made Christ sin by
imputation; so He make us righteousness, yea the righteousness of God, by imputation.
Exception 5. The clear meaning is this, that God for that
end made Christ sin, that is, an offering or sacrifice for sin, for us, that we
might be made the righteousness of God in Him, that is, that we might be
justified, or made a society or remnant of righteous ones, after that peculiar
manner of justification, which God hath established, through that sacrifice of
His Son. Answer: When Christ was made an offering for sin, the guilt of sin
was laid upon Him, even the guilt of our sin. And if we be justified, or made a
society of justified ones, we must be made a society of righteous ones: and if
we be made a society of righteous ones, we must first have a righteousness;
seeing we have not a righteousness of our own, we must have a righteousness
made over to us, as being in Christ, it must be the righteousness of God. So
that though this interpretation be very far fetched, and hath no countenance
from the words, and destroys the cohesion of these words with the former, as
also the reason, that is contained in them, adduced for confirmation of what
was said, verse 19, yet it cannot destroy the doctrine of Imputation; but must
contribute to its support, though a little more remotely.
He
labors to give strength to this his interpretation by alleging 1. That it is
a frequent Scripture expression, to call the sin-offering, or the sacrifice for
sin, by the name of sin simply, as Exodus 29: 14 and 30: 10, Leviticus 5: 6,
16, 18, 19; 7: 1, 2, 7; 9: 7. Ezekiel 44: 27; 45: 19, 23, Hosea 4: 8
Answer: Though it be true, that the Hebrew words 
do sometimes signify sin, and
sometimes, an offering for sin: yet the Greek word doth always signify sin in the New
Testament and the seventy do not use this Greek word in the places cited,
except Exodus 29: 14, and there, in the version that is in the Biblia Polyglot. Lond. it is in
the Genitive case 
of sin: and the Chaldean paraphrase
calls it an expiation targ. Jonath. & Haeros. say, it is a sin, and so
doth the (?) version: and the Samaritan Version turns it that is for sin;
and the Arabic, an expiation. But further, though it were granted to be
so taken here; yet our cause would hereby suffer no prejudice; but be rather
confirmed, as was lately shown. And when the same word used to express a
sacrifice for sin, which signifies sin itself, we may hence be confirmed in
this, that that sacrifice for sin hath guilt laid upon it, before it can be a
sacrifice for sin; and it must be sin, in respect of this, before it be a due
sacrifice, or oblation for sin. And therefore Christ must have been sin,
93
in law, by imputation, or have the guilt of sin laid
upon Him, before He could be a fit sacrifice for sin.
He
alleges 2. To express a number of justified or righteous persons by the
abstract term of righteousness, is very agreeable to
the Scripture dialect, in other places, as poverty for poor, captivity for
captives. Answer: (1.) Yet no one instance can be given, where the word
righteousness hath this import. (2.) But however, as was said, these justified,
or righteous persons, must be righteous, else they cannot make up such a
company; as captivity can never signify a company of men, that are not
captives; nor poverty a company of persons that are not poor. So that this
company of righteous ones must needs be righteous, and that in order to
justification: and seeing they have no righteousness of their own, for in
themselves they are ungodly, they must have a righteousness
by imputation. (3.) Why should they be called the righteousness of God,
according to this interpretation? And how is the opposition here observed,
between Christ’s being made sin, and their
being made the righteousness of God in Him? But this man, by this
interpretation, transgresses all lines of correspondence.
He
alleges 3. That addition ‘of God’ imports, that that righteousness or
justification, which believers obtain by the sacrifice of Christ, is not only
righteousness of God’s free donation, but of His special procurement and
contrivement for them. Answer: (1.) Righteousness and justification are not
one and the same, how oft so ever he name them as
synonymous. (2.) We grant, that the righteousness and the justification, which
believers obtain, are both God’s free gift and His contrivement: But
notwithstanding hereof, yea so much the rather, is there a righteousness
imputed to them, and the righteousness of Christ, who is God, and a
righteousness, which will be accepted of God, whose judgment is according to
truth, as a sufficient ground, whereupon to pronounce such, as in themselves
are ungodly, to be righteous, and so to justify them.
He alleges
4. That by the grammatical construction and dependence of the latter clause,
‘our being made the righteousness of God in Christ,’ upon the former, it is
evident, that in the latter such an effect must of necessity be signified,
which may answer that cause, to wit, the death of Christ for us; and this is
deliverance from guilt and punishment of sin, not the imputation of His active
obedience. Answer: as Christ’s death
could not be separated from His Obedience, which is thereby presupposed, His
death being a sacrifice of one, who is made under the Law, and was obedient
thereunto unto death, and that in the room and stead of His own; so the
imputation of righteousness to us should not be separated from the imputation
of His sufferings, both being necessarily required unto sinners, who had
sinned, and yet remained under the obligation of the Law, in order to their
acceptance with God, and justification.
He
alleges 5. The Scriptures, when they speak of the sufferings of Christ, as a
cause, in respect of justification, never ascribe any other effect unto them,
but only, either the remission of sins, deliverance from wrath, redemption, or
the like. Answer: As the Scriptures making so frequent mention of the
sufferings
94
of Christ, do not exclude His obedience; so neither do
they exclude the imputation of His obedience, in order to our justification,
and receiving a right to glory: yea they make our being constituted righteous,
an effect of His obedience; and righteousness or righteous-making is
accompanied with justification. So that though the Scriptures speak sometimes more
expressly of the sufferings, and sometimes more expressly of the obedience of
Christ, according to the exigency of the cause handled; yet both are
inseparable, as a cause; and so is our righteousness and justification
inseparable, as the full effect.