An exposition with practicall observations continued upon the twenty-second, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth chapters of the book of Job being the summe of thirty-seven lectures, delivered at Magnus near London Bridge. By Joseph Caryl, preacher of the Word, and pastour of the congregation there.

Vers. 4. How then can man be Justified with God?

The words are an Inference from what he had insisted upon and discoursed before concerning the dominion and feare of God, concerning the number of his Armyes, and the shinings of his light every where: from all which hee concludes, How then can man be Justified with God? As if he had sayd, Seeing God is so dreadfull, seeing hee is an all-powerfull, an all-seeing, and an all-upholding God, how darest thou or any man living, plead with him? or how is it pos∣sible for any man living to stand out with God and live?

How then can man be justified with God?

This question, carrieth a strong denyall, To say, How then can man be Justified with God? is more then barely to say, Man can∣not be Justified with God, How can it be? is not onely thus much, It cannot easily be, it cannot probably be, but it cannot possibly be, or it is Impossible to be; Such questions, how a thing may be? are usually an answer that they cannot be at all. Questions are sometimes put for Information or with desire to be directed, or to have the mystery opened how such things may be. The holy virgin put such a question (Luk. 1.34. when the Angel had told her shee should have a son) Then said Mary unto the An∣gel, how shall this bee, seeing I know not a man? her question did

not Import her denyall of the thing, but her wonder at it, nor did it imply her unbeleefe, as if shee thought it Impossible to be, but her desire to be Informed in the way and manner how it should be, and to that sence shee is answered, The holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most high shall over-shadow thee.

But here (I say) the question, (how can man be Justified with God? is reducible to this plaine negative proposition; Man can∣not be Justified with God: How can man? that is (as the word sig∣nifieth) miserable man, sickly man, weake Impotent man? and it may note not onely the Impotency of his body, but of his spirit. Man is of a weake body at best, and of a more weake and sickly spirit. Master Broughtons translation reacheth both; And why should sorrowfull man plead Justice with the Omnipotent? Man is compassed about with sorrowes, and every man is in himselfe, what Christ was more eminently for us all, a man of sorrowes, and acquainted with griefe (Isa. 53.3.) We take the word in its gene∣ral signification.

How then can man be Justified?

Bildad seemes (as some expound him) by this question, to sus∣pect that Job had asserted a selfe-Justification, and it must be con∣fessed that what he spake at the 23^d Chapter, ver. 10, 11, 12. might give him some colour for that suspicion; Hee knoweth the way that I take, when he hath tryed mee I shall come forth as gold. My foot hath followed his steps, his way have I kept and haue not de∣clined, neither have I gone back from the Commandements of his lips: I have esteemed the words of his mouth more then my necessary food. While Job thus asserted his owne Innocency and Integrity, Bildad might possibly suppose that hee was asserting his owne righteousnesse; and therefore not without some indignation hee expostulates the matter with him, How can man be Justified? that is, pronounced cleane and quit at the Throne of God. Justificati∣on (Considered in the Gospel notion) is that gracious sentence of God, wherein with respect to Christ apprehended by faith, hee absol∣veth the beleever from sin and death, and doth repute him just and righteous unto eternal life. Of this the Apostle treates at large in the 3^d 4^•• and 5^th Chapters of the Epistle to the Romanes, and in that to the Galatians. This doctrine of free justification is the

foundation and corner stone of all our comfort. For whereas there is a double change in the state of a sinner; first, a relative change; secondly, an absolute and reall change. The one is made in sancti∣fication, the other in Justification; Sanctification is a reall change, subduing corruption, destroying the power of sin in us; but Justi∣fication is not a Physicall or real change in the person, it doth not make him that is unrighteous righteous in himselfe, nor is man at all Justified (in this sence) by any selfe-righteousnes, but it is one∣ly a relative change as to his state. To Justifie is a Law-terme, signifying, the pronouncing or declaring of a man righteous: So that Justification is an act of God upon us, or towards us: Sanctifi∣cation is an act of God in us. This blessed Grace of Sanctification alwayes followeth the grace of Justification, as an effect or fruit of it; and though it may easily be distinguished from it, yet it can no more be separated or divided from it, then heate from fire, or motion from life.

Yet I concave, that Bildad in this place doth not speake of Ju∣stification in that strict Gospel sence, as it imports the pronoun∣cing of a man righteous, for the sake of Christ, or as if he supposed Job looked to be pronounced righteous for his owne sake. But Bildad speakes of Justification here, as to some particular act; As for instance, If any man will contend with God (and that Bil∣dad chargeth Job with) as if God had done him some wrong, or had afflicted him more then was need, is he able to make this plea good, and give proofe of before the Throne of God; How can man be Justified with God?

There is a fourefold understanding of that phrase, with God.

First, Thus; If any man shall presume to referre himselfe to the Judgement of God, shall he be justified? (all at last must ap∣peare before the Judgement of God, whether they will referre themselves to him or no; but) suppose a man referre himselfe to God (as Job had done by appealing to him) can he be Justified? Will God upon the tryall & examination of his cause give Judge∣ment or sentence for him? But in this sence it is possible for a man to be justified with God; and thus Job was justified by God at last against the opinion and censures of his three friends.

Secondly, To be Justified with God, is as much as this, If man come neere to, or set himselfe in the presence of God, shall he be justi∣fied? Man usually lookes upon himselfe at a distance from God,

he looks upon himselfe in his owne light, and so thinkes himselfe righteous; but when he lookes upon himselfe in the light of God, and as one that is neer God; will not all his spots and blemishes then appeare, or rather will not he himselfe appeare all spot and blemish? When he is once with God, will he be any thing with himselfe, but an impure and wretched creature? In this sence Bil∣dad might check Jobs boldnes in desiering to come so neere God, even to his seate, which would but have made him more vile in his owne eyes, and discovered to him his owne impurities, as it did to the Prophet Isayah (Chap. 6.5.) and as it did also to Job him∣selfe, when he attained his wish, and got so neere to God, that he called it a seeing him with his eye (Chap: 42.5.) Then we have not a word more of pleading his cause before God; His mouth was stopt, and he abhorred himselfe, repenting in dust and ashes.

Thirdly, Can man be justified with God? that is, if man com∣pare himselfe with God, an he be justified? one man may com∣pare himselfe with another and be justified. And thus, the f••ith∣full people of God are called righteous and just in Scripture, com∣paratively, to wicked and unrighteous men. But how can any man be just or righteous compared with God, in comparison of whom all our righteousnesse is unrighteous, and our very cleanenes filthy?

Fourthly, To be justified with God, is, against God; that is, if man strive or contend with God, in any thing, as if God were too hard and severe towards him, eyther by withholding good from him, or bringing evill upon him; can man be justifyed in this con∣tention, or will God be found to have done him any wrong? with∣out all question he will not.

From the words taken in a generall sence observe.

Man hath nothing of his owne to Justifie him before God.

There are two things considerable in man; first, his sinne; se∣condly, his righteousnesse; his worst and his best; all grant man cannot be justified by or for his sins, nor can he at all be justifyed in or for his owne righteousnesse. And that upon a twofold ground.

First, Because the best of his righteousnesse is Imperfect; and no Imperfect thing can be a ground of Justification and acceptance with God. For though God doth justifie those who are imperfect,

yet hee never justified any man upon the account of that which is Imperfect. God never tooke cockle-shels for payment, he must have pure gold, and he seeth wel enough what poore stuffe, what base coyne the best of our righteousnesse is, and therefore cannot admit any of it in justification. For the purpose of God is to ex∣alt himselfe in Justice as wel as in mercy by the justification of sin∣ners. And therefore the Apostle sayth (Rom. 3.25, 26.) That God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousnesse (and he is not content to say it once, but saith it againe) To declare, I say, his righteousnesse, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus.

Secondly, All the righteousnesse wrought by man is a due debt; how can wee acquit our selves from the evill wee have done by any good which we doe, seeing all the good we doe, we ought to have done, though we had never done any evill? When we have done our best we may be ashamed of our doings, we do so poorly. But suppose we had done richly and bravely; suppose our workes (which indeed are full of drosse) were pure gold and silver, were precious stones and Jewels, yet they are already due to God. Wee owe all and all manner of obedience as wee are creatures; And wee can never justifie our selves from our transgressions, by satisfying (could we reach them) our obligations. There is enough in Christ to justifie us, but there is nothing in our selves; All that Christ did was perfect, and Christ was under no obligation to doe any thing, but what he willingly submitted to doe for us. This booke of Job beareth as great a testimony to this truth as any; How often doth Job disclaime all selfe-Justification (Chap. 9.20, 21.) If I justifie my selfe, mine owne mouth shall condemne mee: if I say I am perfect, it shall also prove mee perverse. Though I were perfect, yet would not I know my owne soule, I would despise my life. What can be sayd more fully (to the tenour of the Gospel) for the abasement of selfe, and the advancement of free grace in justi∣fication. He sayd indeed (Chap. 13.18.) Behold now I have or∣dered my cause. I know that I shall be justified. But he never sayd that he should be justified for the cause sake which he had orde∣red. There is a twofold justification.

First, The justification of a man in reference unto some parti∣cular act, or in his cause.

Secondly, The justification of a man in his person. When Job

sayd, I know that I shall be justified, his meaning was, I shall be ju∣stified, in this case, in this buisines, I shall not be cast as an hypo∣crite (for hee alwayes stood upon and stiffely maintained his inte∣grity) or I know I shall be justified in this opinion which I con∣stantly maintaine; That a righteous man may be greatly afflicted by God, while in the meane time hee spareth the unrighteous and the sinner. A man may have much to justifie himselfe by before God, as to a controversie between him and man; but he hath nothing at all to justifie himselfe by as to his state towards God.

Againe, As these words are referred to Jobs complaint of the severity of Gods dealings with him.

Observe.

Whosoever complaines of the dispensations of God towards him, cannot be justified in it.

Thus the Jewes of old complained (Ezek. 18.25.) Ye say the way of the Lord is not equall. But were they justified in this com∣plaint, with God? How doth the Lord expostulate with them, in the next words. Heare O house of Israel, is not my way equall? is not your way unequall. As if he had sayd; All the inequality is on your part, there is none on mine. The wayes of God, how hard and grievous soever they may be (as they were towards Job) yet unequall or unrighteous they can never be. The usuall dealings of God with us are full of mercy, & his severest dealings with us have no want of Justice. How then can man be Justified with God?

Or how then can he be clean that is borne of a woman?

Here's another question of the same tenour, and in the 15^th Chap: ver: 14^th, Eliphaz spake almost in the same termes, What is man that he should be clean? and hee that is borne of a woman that hee should be righteous? Jobs friends beate often upon this poynt, vehemently suspecting that he did over-weene his owne condition, and thought too highly of himselfe. Whereas Job did not onely freely and ingeniously, but with a great deale of holy rhetorique and elegancy confesse against himselfe againe and a∣gaine, that hee neither was nor could be cleane before God; Onely hee would not admit their plea against him, that hee suffe∣red for his uncleanenes, or that hee was uncleane because he suf∣fered.

Master Broughton translates thus; Or, The borne of woman locke to be cleared. We say; How can hee be cleane that is borne of a woman? that is, how can hee have a nature at all cleane, or be altogether cleane in his life, who commeth into the world through a world of uncleanenes? Can the streame be cleane, when the foun∣taine is uncleane? or the product be better then that which is pro∣duced? Man borne of a woman by natural generation (so Bildad is to be understood) comes from an uncleane fountaine, from an impure Original, and therefore, how can he be pure or cleane? What the particular Emphasis and importance of this phrase (To be borne of a woman) is, hath been opened already (Chap: 14.1. Chap: 15.14.) and therefore I referre the reader to those texts for a further Exposition. And shall here onely give out this Observation.

All men borne of a woman by natural generation are impure and uncleane.

There was never but one man, the Lord Jesus Christ, borne of a woman who was not uncleane, and he was borne of a woman, not in an ordinary, but miraculous way; The holy Ghost shall come up∣on thee, and the power of the most high shall overshadow thee (Luk. 1.35.) All else borne of a woman have been and are uncleane. It is sayd (Gen. 5.3.) Adam lived an hundred and thirty yeares, and begat a Son in his owne likenes, after his Image, and called his name Seth. Adam begat a son in his owne likenes; what likenes? it is not meant of his outward likenes, of the figure or feature of his body, that was the least part of the likenes there intended, in which his son was borne; every father begets a son in a humane shape; and we say the child is like his father, not onely as having the same specifical nature, but as having the personal figure and proporti∣ons of his father. But when it is sayd, Adam begat a son in his owne likenes, in his Image, the meaning is, he begat a son that was a sinner as himselfe was, and corrupt as himselfe was, even Seth, who was given in the place of Abel. God in the creation made man in his image after his likenes; Man by procreation begets a son, not in Gods image, but in his owne; And that not onely like him in constitution as a man, but in corruption as a sinner. David confesseth of himselfe (Psal. 51.5.) Behold I was shapen in Ini∣quity, and in sin did my mother conceive mee. Some to avoyd the

strength and dint of that text, as to the proofe of the corruption of nature by propagation, put a most corrupt and base glosse up∣on it; As if David had therein onely confessed his parents sin∣fullnes or inordinate affections in begetting and conceaving him; not his owne natural sinfulnes as begotten and conceaved. I know no better argument of the corruption of nature, then such cor∣rupt interpretations of Scripture; For doubtlesse as Bildad here in the Text, so David was acquainted not onely with the doctrine of original sin, and the corruption of nature, but had found and felt the sad effects of it in himselfe, And from that experience could say, I was shapen in iniquity, &c. as also consent to what Bildad saith in this place, What is man that is borne of a woman that hee should be clean? doe but acknowledge that any one is borne ordinarily of a woman, and wee may conclude him to be sinfull and uncleane. That I may make this a litle clearer, I shall touch at three things, which are distinctly considerable in the sin of Adam.

First, That particular act, or fact against the Law, which he committed in eating the forbidden fruit.

Secondly, The legal guilt that flowed from that act, both up∣on his person and upon his posterity.

Thirdly, The naturall Corruption which as a consequent of the former stayned all mankinde. Or there was first the transgres∣sion of the Commandement, which was his eating the forbidden fruit; Secondly, there was the punishment of that transgression, which was death inflicted for eating; thirdly, the depravation of the whole masse of mans nature, by which, as Bildad speaks, Every man borne of a woman is uncleane. And these three fell upon the whole posterity of Adam, or upon all that are borne of a woman in a threefold way.

First, The very act of Adams sin becometh ours, for wee did participate with him, and had, as it were, a hand in it, because wee all were seminally in him; so that when he sinned, wee all sinned being in his loynes long before we were borne, as Levi paid tythes in Abraham before hee was borne (Heb. 7.9.10.) Thus wee all sinned in his sinning, and had a share in that act of his, because hee stood as the roote of mankinde, and as having entred a covenant with God in that capacity. For he sinned, not onely as a single person, but as hee was the representative of all mankinde, and

therefore what hee did we are reckoned as doing the same with him.

Secondly, The guilt of that sin is ours by particular Imputati∣on, as the fact is ours by common participation; for as if Adam had stood in a state of Innocency, that had redounded to us for good, so his fall or sin redoundeth to us for evill.

Thirdly, There is the pravity or corruption of nature, issuing from that first sin, and that is chiefly aymed at in the present text. And this is derived to us by propagation. The defilement of na∣ture descendeth and passeth from generation to generation: there∣fore, how can hee that is borne of a woman be clean? and that defile∣ment hath two things in it.

First, The losse of original purity, or the defaceing and blot∣ting out of the image of God in which man was created.

Secondly, A succession of horrible deformity and disorder, which consisteth, first, in a pronenes to all evill; secondly, in an impotency and weakenes, yea in an aversenes from and enmity a∣gainst all that is good. So then, we have to doe with the very act of Adams sin by participation, with the guilt of it by imputation, and with the filth and deformity of it by propagation: From all which it may wel be questioned, How can hee be cleane that is borne of a woman, and concluded, Every man borne of a woman is un∣cleane.

Notes

• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cal••••ri¦losus aegrotabi∣lis, morbis mor∣ti{que} obno••••lus; sic latini morta∣lem pro homine dicunt.