Brown - BS2685 B86 1695

¢ ttfiif. by tom Imput. of Ch. Right. cleared from she N. T. C A P. g. will fay nothing , unlefs he think , this law is precifely & determinatly to be underflood of the Ceremonial law , excluding all others , & efpecially the Moral law, taken as diftintì from judicial and ceremonial. But why Both he fay, that this defcription of the righteoufnefs of the law is taken out of the heart of Ceremonials, Icing in the place cited a both before and after the words , morals are mentioned ? yea that whole Chapt. is taken up, in re- hearfing morals. Except 2. NeiVr it it any wayer agreable to truth , that the kighteoufnefr of Chrifi imputed to beleeverr, should be called`'the end of the moral Law , for no Lary, confdered ffrnplyar fùch, it anycoufe or meaner ofjuflifingaperfon,than by the obj rvation cf it 'elf; d? confèquently juflil4'cationby Chrift cannot be con- ceived to be the end of the moral Law : for nothiri can properly be Paid to be the intent or end ofa thing , but that which in 1ì iy hood may be obtained by it. Now it it impofible that juftifisation by Chrifi should be procured by the moral Law. It may be fàid , with a for more favourable afjïetb to truth , that Clr ifl is the er d of the Ceremonial Law ; yet not fimply confidered , as a Lair, but as comprehending in it fiche filch ufages L rites typifying Chrifl. Anf. (1.,) This whole Exception looketh with a very ill favoured afpea both to truth & modefty : For its (cope & drift is not fo much againft the truth which we maintaine , as againft the Apof le Paul himfelf, & againft the language of the Spirit of ie. Lord; for it faith this in effe&; that either the Apoftle fpoke not truth, or (poke nor good fenfe , when he faid , that Chrifi was the end of the Law : for (to ufe Mr. Goodwins reafon) as nothing can be properly laid to be the In- tent or end ofa thing but that which in likelihood maybe obtained by it; fo nothing can be Paid to be the Intent & end of a Law , but what in like- lihood may be obtained by it : But how can any think , that Chrifl can be, in any likelihood obtained by the Law ? (2.) But we fay not , that juilifica- tion by Chrift is had by the moral Law: yet, why the righteoufnefs of Chrift, confifting in perfe61 obedience to the Law, & in full anfwering of the fame , in all its demands, may not be called the end or fulfulling of the Law , I fee not ; efpecially feing the Apoftle faith exprefly , that Chrifl it the end of the Law for ri hteeufnefs. The queftion being moved about a Righ- teoufnefs, required by the Law, & this not being to be found in Man's obedience, but in Chrift's, who was the end of the Law for righteouf- nefs , the Law bath its full accomplifFement in him alto when He fuffered, & fatiffied the Sanhion of the Law, the Law had fatiffadion, or the Law- giver rather , & the Law its end & accomplishement , Now this Righteouf- nefs of Chrift being imputed tobeleevers, they are thereupon juftified, be the Law is fatiffied. And though the Law becaufe it was weak throuvñ the flesh, could not bring about this righteoufnefs, & this end, in us; yet Chrift having anfwered all the demands of the Law , & given full Sa- tisfaätion both in point of obedience, & in point of Suffering , the Law hath its full accomplishment in Him, & that End, which is here meaned (3) We do not fay, that the Righteoufnefs of Chrift , imputed tobelee- vers, is , or is called, the end of the moral Law : but that Chrilica- me, & was made under the Law , that He might anfwer all the demands there-