dissolved and taken away by the imputation of his death or passive obedience and this before the imputation of the active obedience be made unto us See for this cap. 5. Sect. 2. of the first part of this Discourse Now that which is wholly dissolv'd and taken away needs no further covering in respect of God nor indeed is capable of any 4. The righteousnes or active obedience of Christ is so farre from being a covering of sinne that it is rather a means of the discovery of it and by the light and absolute purity and perfection thereof sets off sinne with the greater sinfullnesse even as the Law it selfe doth Therfore 5. and lastly if it be conceiv'd necessary to place any emphaticall difference in this expression of covering of sinnes from the other two of forgivenes of sin and not imputing sinne I conceive it most agreeable to Scripture notion to assigne this peculiarity of importance to it that by covering of sinne is meant Gods gracious expressing himselfe to a man that hath sin'd especially in a way of outward prosperity and peace It is most probable that by covering of sinne somwhat should be meant which is contrary to that which the Scripture expresseth by a discoverie of sinne Now it is evident from these and many like places more Ezek. 16.57 Ezek. 23.10.29 Job 20.27 Esa 57.12 c. that by discovering of sinne is meant the executing of judgements or inflicting of punishments upon sinners answerable to their sinnes which may wel be called a discovering of sin and wickednes because neither the sinners themselves nor yet others are ordinarily capable of any knowledge or apprehension to purpose of the demerit and vilenesse of sinne but by meanes of the severity of God expressing it selfe in visible judgements upon those that have sinned Therfore by covering of sinne both here and elsewhere is meant nothing else doubtlesse but Gods expressing of himselfe to persons that have sinn'd upon their Repentance in waies of Grace favour and love as if they had not sinned nor provoked him To this purpose when he shews any outward favour or countenance to men as by protecting them from dangers or delivering them out of trouble or the like he is said to justifie them Iustifying the righteous to give him or by giving him according to his righteousnes 1 King 8.32 compare herewith 2 Chron. 6.23 So that here is no shelter or covering for the Doctrine of Imputation in this Scripture Againe SECT 3 those parallell Scriptures Ier. 23.6 and 33.16 are alledged And this is his Name whereby he shall be called the Lord our righteousnesse I answere that neither is there any colour in these words for the pretended imputation Ier. 23.6 and c. 33.16 cleered For First it is not here said that the righteousnesse of the Lord shall be our righteousnesse nor that the righteousnesse of the Lord shall be imputed to us for righteousnesse no here is altum silentium profound silence as concerning any imputation Secondly it is wholly repugnant both to the Grammaticall and Rhetoricall importance of the expression and words as likewise disagreeing from the Scripture phrase and manner of speaking in the like cases to put such a sense or interpretation upon them as this Christ is our righteousnesse by imputation Christ can in no tolerable construction of speech be said to be imputed to us the imputation of a person was never heard of therefore cannot be said to be imputed to us for our righteousnesse But Thirdly and lastly the plaine and direct meaning of the place is this This is his Name whereby he shall be called The Lord our righteousnesse that is He shall be generally acknowledged and celebrated by his people the Jewes for the Prophet speak's particularly of these as is evident in the context as the Greate Author and procurer of that righteousnesse or justification in the sight of God for righteousnesse is very usually put for justification as was noted cap. 3. Sect. 3. of this second part upon which abundance of outward glory peace and prosperitie should be cast upon them This interpretation is agreable to the Scripture phrase and manner of speaking in the like cases For First the attributing or imposition of a Name upon either thing or person often notes the quality or property in either or some benefit redounding from either answerable thereunto (a) Schema est propheticuÌ„ quo nominu quasi peoprij impositione rei aut personae de qua agitur qualitas aut fatum indicetur Med. â— Apocalyps p. 84. Solet Scriptura dicererem quampiam vel personam hoc vel illo nomine vocatum iri non quod habitura sit illud nomen aut tali nomine vulgo appellanda sit sed quod vere ac plane habitura sit rem talâ— nomine significatam Perer. in Gen. p. 848. Sect. 30. His name shall be called wonderfull Counsellor c. Esa 9.6 that is he shall be acknowledged and looked upon by men as an actor and doer of things very strange and excellent as one that is able and ready to give the best advice and counsell to those that shall repaire unto him in difficult cases c. See of like importance and expression Ezek. 48.35 Mat. 1.21.23 Apoc. 8.10 with many others Secondly There is no phrase or expression more familiar in Scriptures quà m effectum praedicare de cansa in resto that is then to attribute an effect to its cause or Author by a verb substantive only or to affirme the effect of the cause directly Thus Christ is said to be our hope 1 Tim. 1.1 To be our life Col. 3.4 To be the resurrection Joh. 11.25 To be our peace Ephes 2.14 To be the glorie of his people Luk 2.32 with many the like meaning that he is Author purchaser or Procurer of all these So when he is said to be our righteousnesse there can no other construction be made of it but this that he is the Author or procurer of our righteousnesse Calvin is expresse for this interpretation of this passage All these expressions saith hee (b) Omnes istâ—â— locutiones peraeque valent justificari nos Dei gratia Christum esse justitiam nostram justitiam morte ac resurrectione Christi nobu acquisitam Calvin in Gal. 3.6 carrie the same sense and meaning that we are iustified by the grace of God that Christ is our righteousnesse that righteousnesse is procured for us by the death and resurrection of Christ c. See more of this interpretation before Cap. 3. Sect. 2. Thirdly and lastly that by righteousnesse in this place is meant that Iustification which stands in remission of sinnes and that by Christs being called the Lord their righteousnesse is only meant that through him God would be reconciled to them and pacified with them as concerning all their provocations appeares from the like tenor of other Scripture passages For usually when God promiseth deliverance and outward prosperity to this people after long and sore
This kind of proposition is frequent in Scripture I am the resurrection saith Christ Ioh. 11.25 The meaning is not that he was properly and formally the resurrection but that he was the cause meanes or Author of the resurrection So Paul saying that Christ is our hope meaneth only that CHRIST is the ground or Author of our hope 1 Tim. 1.1 In like manner when he saith Love is the fulfilling of the Law his meaning only is that a spirituall and unfeigned affection of love is an inward principle of that nature and importance which inclineth and disposeth a man to the performance and practise of all manner of duties required in the Law Therefore to say that the Love of Christ is imputed to men for their fu filling of the Law or for their righteousnesse is ridiculous More might be added by way of answere but the strength of the Objection is small Another thing that happily some will object against the argument propounded is this SECT 4 It is not necessary that men should have all particular acts of righteousnesse qualified with all circumstances answerable to their Callings imputed unto them for their justification It is sufficient if they have a righteousnesse imputed to them which is equivalent to such a righteousnesse To this I Answere two things First they which speake such things doe not consider the severity of the letter the strict and peremptory nature of the Law The Law will not know any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any thing by way of proportion or equivalencie one thing as good as another will not serve the turne The Law must have jot for jot title for title point for point letter for letter every thing to answere in the most exact conformity to it otherwise it hath a curse in a readinesse wherewith to take vengeance on men no life or reward Secondly to impute acts of righteousnesse to a man which are proper to another Calling and wholly disagreeing from that Calling wherein God hath placed him is rather to impute sinne unto him then righteousnesse Because though such acts were righteousnesse to him that wrought them yet if I being in a different Calling should be accounted by God to have done them which is the Law of imputation I must be judged by him as one that had transgressed the bounds of my Calling consequently had sinned Neither is that reason of any value which some alledg SECT 5 to countenance an equivalencie of righteousnesse in this kind instead of a proprietie viz. that God was not punctuall and every waies circumstantiall in inslicting the Curse of the Law upon the transgression of it because they suppose that by those words wherein the Curse of the Law is expressed Thou shalt die the death Gods meaning was that he should die an eternall death literally and not by way of equivalencie Therefore God having notwithstanding inflicted this Curse by way of equivalencie and not in the letter of it why may he not impute a legall righteousnesse unto men that hath only an equivalencie with that righteousnesse which they should have performed though not an exactnesse with it according to the letter For to this I answere First that the very foundation that is layed to build this objection upon is sandy and hath nothing either in Scripture or sound reason to bottome it From the Scriptures nothing that I have read is so much as pretended that way viz that God in those words Thou shalt die the death must of necessity precisely and determinatly meane eternall death according to the letter And by what fire such a spirit as this is will be extracted or drawne out of that body of those words I doe not yet understand If we judge of his intent and meaning in those words by the event of things or manner of execution they were meant determinatly neither of eternall death according to the letter nor yet of an eternall death by way of equivalencie but indifferently of either because it was an eternall death only by way of equivalencie that was inflicted upon Christ for one part of Adam or his posterity but upon the other part which perish it is inflicted according to the letter Secondly upon deeper consideration it will happily be found to be neerer the truth to hold that in those words Thou shalt die the death God his meaning was not at lest determinatly to threaten eternall death either in one kind or other either according to the letter or by way of equivalencie but to have the word Death taken and understood by Adam in the extent of the signification as it indifferently signifieth that evill of the punishment which was represented and knowne unto him by the name of Death without limiting his thoughts to the consideration either of the shorter continuance or of the everlastingnesse of the duration of it For as Scotus well determines in this case Aeternitas non est de ratione poenae peccatis debitae sed peccatores concomitans qui non possunt ut Christus vel cum Christo cluctari 1. Eternitie is not of the nature or essence of the punishment due unto sins but it followes and falls upon sinners who cannot wrastle out as Christ did or with him So then eternity not being essentiall to that punishment or death which God threatned it is no waies necessary that it should be included especially in such a precise and determinate manner as the objection pretendeth in the significatiō of that word wherein the punishmēt is expressed But thirdly and lastly suppose the foundation be gold yet will it be found hay and stubble that is built upon it For what if God should take liberty to varie from the letter of the Curse in the execution of it should threaten eternall death literally and inslict it equivalently this no waies proveth that the creature who was bound to obey the precepts of the Law might take the like liberty to performe one thing instead of another or that God should accept any such payment from them whether made by themselves or by another for them in the nature of a legall payment Indeed having received a full satisfaction for all the transgressions of the Law he may by a second or new Covenant accept of what he pleaseth to estate men in the benefit or blessing of that satisfaction and so that which is thus accepted becomes in this respect to him that performs it and from whose hand it is accepted equivalent to a perfect and compleate legall righteousnesse because it justifieth him in respect of all benefits and privileges of a justification as well as such a righteousnesse would have done But that he should accept on any mans behalfe as a perfect legall righteousnesse the performance of such things which are not required of him neither by the first Covenant of works nor by the second of Grace hath neither correspondence or agreement with the one Covenant or with the other A man me thinks must have a rare faculty to convert any
righteousnesse So Psal 106.30 31. Phineas stood up and executed judgement c. and that viz. act of his was IMPUTED to him for righteousnesse i. received a testimony from God of being a righteous and holy act So againe 2 Cor. 5.19 not IMPUTING their trespasses i. their own trespasses unto them Secondly SECT 5 when a thing is said simply to be imputed as viz. sinne folly and so righteousnesse or the like c. the meaning of the phrase is not to be taken concerning the bare acts of the things as if for example to impute sin to a man signified this to repute the man to whom sin is imputed to have committed a sinfull act or as if to impute folly were simply to charge a man to have done foolishly but the phrase of imputing when it is applyed to things that are evill and attributed to persons that have a power of judicature over those to whom the imputation is made in which posture only to my remembrance the word is found in Scripture signifieth the charging of the guilt or demerit of what is said to be imputed upon the head of the person to whom the imputation is made with an intent of inflicting some condigne punishment upon him So that to impute sinne in Scripture phrase is to charge the guilt of sin upon a man with a purpose to punish him for it Thus Rom. 5.13 Sinne is said not to be IMPUTED whilest there is no Law The meaning cannot be that that act which a man doth whether there be a Law or no Law should not be imputed to him The Law doth not make any act to be imputed or ascribed to a man which might not aswell have bin imputed without it But the meaning is that there is no guilt of any act charged by God upon men nor any punishment inflicted upon men for any thing done by them but only by vertue of the Law prohibiting or restreyning it In which respect the Law is said to be the strength of sinne viz. because it giveth a condemning power against the doer to that which otherwise would have had none 1 Cor. 15.56 So againe Job 24.12 when it is said that God doth not lay folly to the charge of them i impute folly to them that make the soules of the slaine to cry out c. the meaning is not that God doth not repute them to have committed the acts of oppression murder c. For supposeing they did such things it is unpossible but that God should repute them to have done them but the meaning is that God doth not visibly charge the guilt of these sins upon them or inflict punishment for them So 2 Sam. 19.19 When Shimei prayeth David not to IMPUTE wickednesse unto him his meaning is not to desire David not to think he had done wickedly in rayling upon him for himselfe confesseth this in the very next words but that David would not inflict that punishment upon him which that wickednesse deserved This was that non-imputation of wickednesse which Shimei desired of David So when David himselfe pronounceth the man blessed to whom the Lord IMPUTETH not sinne his meaning is not as if there were any man whom the Lord would not repute to have committed those acts of sin which indeed they have committed but that such are blessed upon whom God will not charge the demerit of their sins in the punishment due to them So yet againe to forbeare further citations in this point 2 Cor. 5.19 when God is said not to IMPUTE their sinnes unto men the meaning is not that God should not repute men to have committed such and such sins against him but this that he freely discharged them from the punishment due unto them By all which testimonies and instances from the Scriputres concerning the constant and solemne use and signification of the terme imputing or imputation it is evident that the Mâ—nor Proposition in the Objection viz. that the transgression of the Law is imputable from one mans person to anothers hath no such cleere or certaine soundation in the Scriptures SECT 6 And therfore thirdly and lastly to come home to the instance of the imputation of Adam's sinne to his posterity which is brought for the confirmation of it I answere also First that either to say that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to his posteritie of beleevers or the sin of Adam to his are both expressions at least unknowne to the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures There is neither line nor word nor syllable nor letter nor tittle of any such thing to be found there But that the faith of him that beleeveth is imputed for righteousnesse are words which the Holy Ghost counteth neither errour nor heresie to use But secondly because I would make no exception against words further then necessitie I meane a necessitie of making provision for the truth enforceth I doe not like that any mans words that will take salt and be made savourie by interpretation should be cast out upon the dunghill though I know a man that hath received this measure pressed down heaped up and running over from many gran that there are expressions in Scripture concerning both both the communication of Adams sinne with his posterity and of the righteousnesse of Christ with those that beleeve that will fairely enough beare the terme of imputation if it be rightly understood and according to the use and importance of it in Scripture upon other occasions as we lately cited many instances but as it is commonly taken and understood by many it is no currant language but occasions much error and mistake Concerning Adam's sinne or disobedience SECT 7 many are said to be made sinners by it Rom. 5.19 And so by the obedience of Christ it is said in the same place that many shall be made righteous But now if men will needs exchange language with the Holy Ghost they must see to it that they make him no loser If when they say that Adams sinne is imputed to all unto condemnation their meaning be the same with the Holy Ghosts when he saith that by the disobedience of one many were made sinners there is no harme done to exchange upon such terms is not to rob But it is much to be suspected nay it is too evident by what many of themselves by way of interpretation speake that the Holy Ghost and they are not of one mind touching the imputation or communication of Adams sinne with his posterity but that they differ as much in meaning as in words If when they say that Adams sinne is imputed to all unto condemnation their meaning be plaine and right downe this that the demerit or guilt of Adams sin is charged upon his whole posteritie or that the punishment of Adams sinne redounded and ran over as it were from his person to his whole posterity a maine part of which punishment lyeth in that originall defilement wherin they are all conceived and borne and wherby they are made truly and
justitia justice or righteousnesse but justificatio justification Beza by himselfe and perhaps more agreeable to the Apostles minde then the rest translates it jus the right or Law as it were of the Law And so both Chrysostom a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost ad Ro. 8. â— Serm. 13. and Theophylact b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in Rom. 8.4 of old expound the word not of any obedience of to the Law but of the end scope or intent of the Law viz. justification Paraus following Bezas translation of the word conceives that the Apostle by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or jus legis meanes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or damnatorie sentence of the Law against sinners mentioned cap. 5.16 in which signification of the word that right or power which God hath to condemne sinners unto death is called cap. 1.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where our English render it the iudgement of God the former translation had it the Law of God This exposition of the word though it seemes contrary to that given by Calvin and others mentioned yet will it give out one and the same sense and importance of the place with it as will presently appeare So that if this place were translated with exactnesse to the originall the argument that is now drawne from it for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse would wholly disappeare 6. Neither is it by ten degrees as cleere as the Sun that by the word Law in this Scripture we must of necessitie and with all precisenesse understand the Morall Law We know there are many other acceptions of the word in the writings of this Apostle And that it cannot be here meant precisely of the Morall Law is evident 1º because that impossibility of iustifying men thorugh the weaknesse of the flesh spoken of ver 3. is not confin'd to this Law alone but extends aswell to the other two Ceremoniall and Judiciall except we shall say that though the Morall Law was weake through the flesh and could not iustifie yet the Ceremoniall and Judiciall had a sufficiencie of strength hereunto which is manifestly untrue 2º because the Jewes to whom especially he addresseth himselfe in all his disputations concerning the Law and Iustification thereby built asmuch or more upon the observation of the Ceremoniall Law for their Iustification then of the Morall as was formerly observed Sect. 8. of this Chapter Now its certaine that the Apostle here takes the word Law in the same sense and latitude wherein the Jewes meant it when they contended and argued for Iustification by it otherwise he should not argue with them ad idem nor reach their apprehensions or meaning 3º because the Morall Law suppose it had not bin made weake nor disadvantag'd by the flesh yet could it not by the most exact observation of it have justified men at least not all men and by name not the Jewes who were bound to the observation of the other two aswell as of it and had bin found sinners had they faild in any point of either of these though they had bin absolute in the other Now it is evident that by the righteousnesse or Iustification of the Law in this place the Apostle meanes the righteousnesse or Iustification of such a Law which in it selfe was able to iustifie had it met with a sufficiencie of strength in men answerable to it Therefore he cannot be conceiv'd to speake here determinatly of the Morall Law which had no such abilitie in respect of the Jewes 4º and lastly because the Jewes had bin never the neerer a Iustification by the righteousnesse of the Morall Law imputed from Christ unto them supposing such an imputation being as hath bin said under the transgression of other Lawes So then this consideration also that by the word Law in this â—cripture cannot be meant the Morall Law gives an utter defeat to the attempt that is made upon it for the establishing of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse But 7. SECT 14 and lastly the cleare meaning of the place seem's to be this God sending his owne Sonne c. condemned sinne in the flesh that the righteousnesse or Justification of the Law might be fulfilled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or upon us c. that is that that Iustification or way of making men righteous which the Law that is the writings of Moses held forth and prophecied of unto the world long since viz. by Faith in the Messia that was then to come and to make attonemement for sinne by his blood might be fulfilled in us or upon us that is might be accomplished made good and fully manifested in us or upon us viz. in our Iustification who by our walking not after the flesh but after the Spirit that is by an eminencie of holinesse in our lives above the straine and pitch of men under the Law give testimony unto the world that the Messia or Great Iustifier of men foretold by Moses is indeed come into the world and having suffered for sinne and overcome death hath powred out the Spirit of Grace abundantly upon those that beleeve in him This interpretation especially as farre as concern's the clause in question that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us is confirmed aswell by the sweet proportion and sutablenesse betweene such a fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the Law in those that beleeve and live accordingly as the effect and that sending of Christ in the similitude of sinfull flesh to condemne sinne in the flesh laid downe in the former verse as the meanes or cause thereof Secondly in this interpretation the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fulfilled hath its proper and genuine force and signification which is wholly lost in that exposition which laboureth to finde the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in this place For to be fulfilled in the Scripture properly signifieth the accomplishment making good or full manifestation of a thing which before was under promise or prediction only and as it were in the darke Thirdly that righteousnesse or Iustification which is here called the righteousnesse or Justification of the Law is questionlesse the same righteousnesse which Rom. 3.21 is said to be witnessed by the Law that is by the writings of Moses and by the preaching whereof the Law it selfe is said to be established ver 31. of that Chapter So that in this respect it may very well be called the righteousnesse or Justification of the Law Fourthly and lastly according to the tenor of this interpretation this passage of Scripture is of perfect sympathie and accordance with those Rom. 3.21.22.25 whereas as the other interpretation leadeth it it can neither fiâ—de friend nor fellow in all the Scripture In the former of these last cited Scriptures the Apostle expresseth himselfe thus But now the righteousnesse of God without the Law is manifested being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets even the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Jesus Christ c. In the
increase and growth in grace also 2 Peter 3. Twelfthly that notwithstanding al that hath bin said for the vindication of new apprehensions or opinions substantially prooved from the Scriptures yet the Doctrine maintained in the following Discourse hath no need of any sanctuary in this kinde to protect it being nothing but what hath an armie both of ancient and moderne worthies to make it good Insomuch that as touching the two maine points avouched herein viz. the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense specified in the entrance of the Discourse and the non-imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense disclaimed I here make this open ingenuous and solemne profession that what I cannot pregnantly and irrefragably demonstrate to any unpartiall and disengaged judgment to have bin both anciently held and taught by the chiefe Fathers of the Primitive times as likewise by the best and most considerable part at least of the late Reformed Writers Luther Calvin Melancthon Musculus Pareus c at least if their judgements and toâ—chings may be judged of by their writings I will no waies owne but disclaime Onely this I must confesse that few of these Authors alwaies speake so evenly or steadily but that some expressions from their pens are very obnoxious and opportune for a contrary interpretation But my meaning is that take them either in their more frequent and constant expressions or in their more perspicuous and cleere expressions they cannot but by an unprejudicate eye be discerned fairely to sympathize in judgement with the points mentioned As for the contrary opinion it is as Mr. Gataker modestly enough expresseth his judgement to be feared that for more then a few ages together it was unknown to all Antiquitie (a) Verecy ne illa potius quam tuetur ipse quaÌ„que assertores ejusdem nonnulli pro lapide primario insidei pietatisque fundameÌ„tu habent per secula hand pauca antiquitati omni penitus ignota fuerit cum ea quam de Christi morto ae perpessionibus nos tutamur tuÌ„ in Scripturu sacru tum et in antiquoruÌ„ scriptu passim occurrat Mr. Gata in his defeÌ„ce of his Animadversioâ—s upon Piscators and Lucius disp p. 16. This by way of salve for the soare of noveltie The next impeachment of the Discourse was the emptinesse and slender importance use or consequence of it Many it is like will not be farre off from saying of it as Judas said of Maries box of oyntment poured out upon our Saviours head Mat. 26.8 What needeth this wast Here is a great deale of paines bestowed to little purpose Might not men make Heaven and be saved aswell in the contrary opinion which is commonly received and taught as in this whatsoever it be The Author might have imployed himselfe and his time better otherwise Give me leave to ease the discourse and my selfe of this burthen also by tendering these things to consideration First Luk 12 7. that if God be so tender and respectfull of us that even all the haires of our heads are numbred and kept upon accompt by him much more respectfull and tender ought we to be not only of the maine limbs or principall members of his truth Verbum onim â—n est res lovieula ut phanatici hodie putant sed eÌ„ Vnus apex major est coelo et terra Luther in Gal c. 5.12 Nihil putandum exiguum siquidem spiritus Sanctus noluis literu mandare quod non prosit Luther in Gen 12. Maledicta sit chariras comcordia propter quam conservandarâ— periclitars necesse sir verbuÌ„ Dei Luther in Gal. 5. Maledicta sit charitas quae servatur cum jactura Doctrinae fidei cui emnia cedere debent charitas Apostolus Angelus è coelo c. Idim ibid. Pax est omni bello tristior que veritatu et justitiae ruina Constat but even of all the haires of the head thereof I meane those that seeme of smallest consequence and importance that we suffer not the least of them to fall to the ground or to be trampled upon by the foote of negligence or contempt Especially if we consider Secondly that the least haire I meane the least jot or tittle of divine truth is more worth a thousand fold then our whole heads yea then all our heads put together One tittle of the word saith Luther is greater then Heaven and Earth And in another place nothing in the Scriptures is to be thought little in asmuch as the Holy Ghost would not have caused that to be written which should not be profitable which consideration drew from him many such expressions as these Cursed be that charitie and agreement which must be preserved and kept with the danger of the word of God and againe Cursed be that charity which is kept with the losse of the Doctrine of Faith unto which all things must give place charity Apostle Angell from Heaven c. It was the saying of another that that peace is more grievous then any Warre which costs the losse of truth and honesty But the Lord Christ himselfe gives us the best and most certaine account of the infinite worth and value of the least strictures or filings of the word of God in that passage to his Disciples Mat. 5 18 19. Verily I say unto you till Heaven and Earth passe one jot or one title shall in no wise passe from the Law till all things be fulfilled Whosoever therefore shall breake one of these least commandements and shall teach men so he shall be called the least in the Kingdome of Heaven but whosoever shall do and teach them the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven Doubtlesse if God so highly prizeth the anise mint and cummin of his Law as to recompence the tithing of them with such high preferment in the Kingdome of heaven much more or at least every whit as much doth he esteeme the jots and titles the meanest and least considerable things of his Gospell which is his darling and most beloved manifestation of himselfe unto the world And therfore it must needs argu much prophanenesse of heart and great estrangement in minde and spirit from the worth and excellencie of the things of God either to despise the knowledg or to censure a just discussion and examination of the smallest of them as a thing needlesse and of little use Hierom was farre from such a conceit as this when he said In Scripturis me minima differentia omitti debet Nam singuli semenes syllaba apices et puncta plena sunt sensibus Hieronymus that the smallest difference in the Scriptures was not to be lightly passed over because every word syllable title and point are full of sense and meaning Thirdly it is very considerable that misprisions and errors in Divinity aswell as in other arts and Sciences goe as it were by tribes and families so that there is no one error but hath many more link'd in affinitie with
fundamentall yet do they dispose more or lesse unto apostacie and absolute unbeliefe so on the other hand a cleere and sound and comprehensive understanding of any one cariage or passage of the Gospell according to the Scriptures contributes much towards the setling and establishing of the heart and soule in a firme beliefe and confidence of the whole The truth is that the body and frame of the Gospell is so compacted so neerly related in the severall parts and passages of it one thing looking with that favourable and full aspect upon another all things set in that methodicall order of a rationall connexion and consequentiall dependance one upon another that if a man be master in his judgment of any one passage thereof he may by the light and inclination hereof rectifie his thoughts otherwise and worke himselfe on to a cleere discerning and upright understanding of other things Therefore a thorough and full explication of any one point of the Gospell is of precious consequence and use But Sixtly the weightinesse and high importance of the subject of the discourse pleads the usefulnesse and concernment of it with an high hand For what can be of a more rich and solemne concernment to a man then cleerely to see and fully and satisfyingly to understand from the Scriptures how and by what meanes and upon what termes he either is or is to be Justifyed in the sight of God Doubtlesse the prospect of the promised Land from Mount Nebo was not more satisfactory and pleasing unto Moses then a cleere beholding of the Counsell and good pleasure of God touching the justification of a sinner is to the soule and conscience of him that either hopes or desires to be justified Therefore to search and inquire into this with all possible exactnesse cannot seeme needlesse to any man that savours never so little the things of his own peace Add we Seventhly in further prosecution of the same plea that there is no veyne in all the body of the Gospell no point whatsoever in Christian Religion more tender and wherin the least variation from the truth and mind of GOD may endanger the soule then this of Justification An haires breadth of mistake in this is more to be feared then a broad error in other points The truth is that if a man be of a sound and cleere judgement in the Doctrine of Justification and shall so continue he may finde a way into life through the midst of many errors and mistakes in other Articles and arguments of Christian Religion but if he stumbles or enterfires with the counsell of God about his justification he is in danger of perishing for ever neither will the cleerest knowledge of all other mysteries relieve him Behold I Paul say unto you that if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing Gal. 5.2 A small addition we see to the Counsell of God for our justification may cause our part to be taken away out of the Booke of life If an error in other points of Religion as about election reprobation freewill discipline or the like be to be redeemed with thousands doubtlesse an error in justification is to be redeemed with thousands of thousands In so much that all possible exactnesse and diligence in pensiculation of Scriptures and reasons and arguments to lay this corner stone aright in the building of our Faith may rather seeme negligence and loosenesse then any impertinencie or superfluitie of labour And though I have no commission from Heaven to judge that opinion touching the imputation of Christs active obedience which I oppose in the ensuing Treatise to be inconsistent with the favour of God and acceptation unto life and salvation yet in the bowells of Iesus Christ I humbly and heartily and seriously beseech all those that build their comfort and peace upon that foundation seriously to consider and lay to heart these 4 things which I shall very briefly mention desiring their respective inlargments rather in the soules and consciences of those whom they so neerly concerne First that the bridg of Justification by which men must passe and be conveyed over from death unto life is very narrow as hath in effect bin said already so that an heedlesse or carelesse step may be the miscariage and losse of the precious soule for ever Secondly that to promise our selves justification and life in any other way or upon any other termes then upon the expresse word and will of God revealed is to build upon a sandy foundation and may and ought to be abhorred and trembled at by us as the first-borne of presumptions Thirdly and with neerer relation to the great businesse in hand that to seeke justification by the Law is by the determination and sentence of Scripture it selfe no lesse then an abolishing from Christ or a rendring of Christ of none effect to salvation Christ is become of none effect unto you saith Paul whosoever of you are justified by the Law that is that seek or promise unto your selves justification by the works of the Law Gal. 5.4 Fourthly and lastly that that distinction which you commonly make between the Law or workes of the Law as performed by your selves and as performed by another meaning CHRIST to salve the danger as you conceive of your being justified by the Law is but a devise of humane wisdome at the best and no where warranted much lesse necessitated unto in the Scriptures and consequently must needs be a dangerous principle or notion to hazard the everlasting estate and condition of your soules upon I have in the Discourse it selfe and that more then once demonstrated the insufficiencie and danger of this Distinction and withall shewed that the Scriptures doe no where ascribe the Justification of a sinner to the works of the Law no not as performed by Christ himselfe but only unto his death and sufferings Therefore I content my selfe heere only to mention it Eightly and lastly the usefulnesse of the Discourse will abundantly appeare in this The opening and through Discussion of that great and noble Question therein handled concerning the Active and Passive obedience of Christ in Justification hath an influence into many other great and master veynes and passages of the Gospell and tends much to the rectifying and cleering of our judgements in these The difference betweene the two Covenants the communication of Adams sinne to his Posteritie and the equity of Gods proceedings in making the world subject unto death and condemnation thereby the consideration in Faith which makes it justifying the non imputability of the works of the Law to the non-performers of them the necessitie of Christs death the righteousnesse whereby we stand formally just before God with many other particulars of sweet and precious consideration will receive much light and cleering and confirmation hereby So that to charge the Treatise with fruitlesnesse or impertinencie is an accusation framed by the same line of equitie and truth whereby Joseph was accused of incontinencie by his
either by Scripture or sound reason then that which stands either in a communion of his posteritie with him therein or in the propagation of his nature defiled therewith unto them or in that punishment and condemnation which is come upon them by it p. 13 14 15 16. 10. Though Iustification and salvation came unto the world by Christ the second Adam as condemnation and death came by the first yet there are many different considerations betweene the coming and bringing in of salvation by the one and of condemnation by the other p. 16 17 18 19 20 21. 11. That which makes true Faith instrumentall in Iustification is nothing that is essentiall or naturall to it whether descent property or act but somewhat that is extrinsecall and purely adventitious as viz. the force and efficacie of the will good pleasure ordination and covenant of God in that behalfe p. 21 22 23 24 25 26. 12. It hath no foundation either in Scripture or reason to say that Christ by any imputation of sinne was made formally a sinner p. 26. 13. Faith doth not only if at all declare a man to be righteous or in a justified estate but is the very meanes by which Iustification or righteousnesse it obtained p. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33. 14. The sentence or curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death but this death of Christ was a ground or consideration unto God whereupon to dispense with his Law and to let fall or suspend the execution of the penaltie or curse therein threatned as concerning those that beleeve p. 33 34 35 36. CAP. 3. Seven Distinctions propounded and explained necessary for the further understanding of the businesse in question and the cleering of many difficulties incident to it As 1. Iustification is taken in a double sense either actively or passively p. 37 38 39. 2. Iustice or righteousnesse is sometimes in Scripture attributed to God and sometimes to men and in both relations hath a great diversitie and varietie of acceptions p. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45. 3. The righteousnesse or obedience of Christ is twâ—fold or of two kindes the one by Divines called Justitia personae the righteousnesse of his person the other Justitia meriti the righteousnesse of his merit 45 46 47 48 49 50. 4. The terme of Imputing or imputation will admit of nine severall acceptions or significations p. 51 52 53 54 55 56. 5. Obedience unto the morall Law may be said to be required of men in two respects either 1º by way of justification or 2º by way of sanctification p. 57 58. 6. Christ may be said to have kept the Law in reference to our justification two waies either 1º for us or 2º in our stead p. 58. 7. The justification of a sinner though it be but one and the same entire effect yet may it be ascribed unto many and those very different causes respectively according to their severall influences and differing manner of concurrence thereunto p. 59 60. CAP. 4. A delineation or survey of the intire body of Iustification in the severall causes of it according to the tenor of the Conclusions and distinctions laid downe in the two former Chapters P. 61. wherein I. are premised 4 generall rules touching the number nature and propertie of causes in the generall p. 62 63 64 65. 2. Some more particular and speciall kinds of causes comprehended under the 4 generall heads are mentioned and explained p. 65 to p. 77. 3. The causes of Iustification are inquired into As 1. The efficient causes thereof From p. 77 to 84. 2. The finall causes thereof p. 84 85. 3. The materiall cause therof from p. 85 to p. 90. 4. The formall cause thereof from p. 90 to 121. 4. A Description of Iustification raised from the former discussions in the Chapter p. 121. CAP. 5. Scriptures alledged for the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse or active obedience in Justification cleered and answered and the true sense and interpretation of them respectively established according to the judgement of the best Expositors A reason given by the way of mens confidence and impatiencie of contradiction in respect of some opinions above others p. 122 123. The Scriptures urged and answered are 1. From the Old Testament Psal 32 1 2 answered p. 124 125 126. Jer. 23 6 and 33 16. answered p. 127 128. Esa 45.24 answered p. 129 130. Esa 61 10. answered p. 130. to p. 136. where by the way 3 other Scriptures also are opened and cleered as viz. Revâ—â— 19 7 8 p. 134 and Rom. 13 14 with Gal. 3 27 p. 136. 2. From the New Testament As Rom. 3 21 answered p. 136 137. Rom. 3 31 answered p. 137 138 139. Rom. 4 6. answered p. 140 141. Rom. 5 19 answered p. 142. to 145. Rom. 8 4 answered p. 145 to p. 152. Rom. 9 31 32 answered p. 153 to 157. Rom. 10 4 answered p. 157 to 162. 1 Cor. 1 30. answered p. 162 163 164. 2 Cor. 5 21 answered p. 165 to 168. Gal. 3 10 answered p. 168. to 173. CAP 6 Six Arguments against the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse propounded and answered As 1. That such an Imputation impeacheth the truth or justice of God answered p. 175 176 177. 2. That this Imputation maketh Iustification to be by workes answered p. 178 179. 3. That such an Imputation is inconsistent with the free grace of God in Iustification answered p. 179 180 4. That this Imputation ministreth occasion of boasting unto the flesh answered p. 180 181 18â— 183. 5. That such an Jmputation supposeth Justification by somewhat that is imperfect answered p. 183 184 185. 6. That such an Imputation implieth that God should rather receive a righteousnesse from us then we from him in our Iustification answered p. 185 186. The opinion opposed in this Discourse of much more affinity with the master-veyne of Socinian Heresie and that by the verdicts of Pareus Piscator and Mr. Gataker then the opinion maintained in it p. 187 188 189. CAP. 7. The chiefe grounds and Arguments for the Imputation of Christs Active obedience in the sense hitherto opposed proposed and answered As 1. That there is no standing in judgement before God without the imputation of this righteousnesse answered p. 192 193. 2. That justification cannot be by the righteousnesse of another except this imputation be supposed answered p. 194 195. 3. That a true and reall Communion betweene Christ and those that beleeve in him cannot stand except this Imputation be granted answered p. 195 196. 4. That there can be no other reason or necessitie assign'd why Christ should fulfill the Law but only this imputation answered from p. 196 to 207. 5. That we are debtors unto the Law not only in matter of punishment for our transgression but in perfection of obedience also answered p. 208 209 210. 6. That there can be no justification without a perfect righteousnesse nor any such righteousnesse but the righteousnesse
directly and entirely with it Thirdly If the interpretation that is set up against it cannot stand before the circumstance of the context about it Fourthly and lastly when the judgment of able learned and unpartiall men is found in perfect concurrence with it If these considerations be sufficient to furnish out an interpretation with authority and power then shall we need no more Scriptures to vindicate the innocencie of our affirmative viz. that Faith is that which is imputed by God for righteousnesse in Iustification the truth of our negative inseparably accompanying it viz. that the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed but only that one Chapter Rom. 4. For the first SECT 3 the Letter of this Scripture speakes what we affirme plainly and speakes no parable about it yea it speakes it once and twice yea it speakes it the third and fourth time and repenteth not Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes v. 3. Againe but to him that worketh not but beleeveth in him that justifieth the ungodly his Faith is counted unto him for righteousnes ver 5. So againe We say that Faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse ver 9. And yet againe And therefore it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse v. 22. The same phrase and expression is used also ver 23 24. Certainly there is not any truth in Religion not any Article of the Christian beliefe that can boast of the Letter of the Scripture more full expresse and pregnant for it What is maintained in this discourse concerning the imputation of Faith hath all the authority and countenance from the Scriptures that word can lightly give whereas the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in that sense which is magnified by many hath not the least reliefe either from any expresse sound of words or sight of Letter in the Scriptures Secondly for the scope of the place this also rejoyceth in the interpretation given viz. SECT 4 that the word FAITH should be taken properly and in the Letter in all those passages cited and from tropes and metonymies it turneth away Apparent it is to a circumspect Reader that the Apostle's maine intent and drift in this whole discourse of justification extending from the first Chapter of the Epistle to some Chapters following was to hedg up with thornes as it were that false way of Iustification which lay through works and legall performances and so to put men by from so much as attempting to goe or seek that way and withall to open and discover the true way of justification wherein men might not faile to atteyne the Law of righteousnesse as he speaks elsewhere before God that is in plaine speech to make known unto them what they must doe and what God requireth of them to their justification and what he will accept at their hands this way and what not As our Saviours answer was to the Jews asking him what they should do to worke the works of GOD meaning for their justification This saith he is the worke of God i. All the workes of God requireth of you for such a purpose that you beleeve in him whom he hath sent Iohn 6 28 29. So that that which God precisely requires of men to their justification instead of the workes of the Law is FAITH or to beleeve in the proper and formall signification He doth not require of us the righteousnesse of Christ for our Iustification this he required of Christ himselfe for it that which he requires of us for this purpose is our Faith in Christ himselfe not in the righteousnes of Christ that is in the active obedience of Christ as hereafter is shewed Therefore for Paul to have certified or said unto men that the righteousnesse of Christ should be imputed for righteousnesse unto them had been quite beside his scope and purpose in this place which was plainly and directly this as hath been said to make known unto men the counsel and good pleasure of God concerning that which was to be performed by themselves though not by their owne strength to their justification which he affirmeth from place to place to be nothing else but their Faith or beleeving To have said thus unto them that they must be justified by Christ or by Christ's righteousnesse and withall not to have plainly signified what it is that God requires of them to give them part and fellowship in that righteousnesse or justification which is by Christ and without which they could not be justified had bin rather to cast a snare upon them then to have opened a dore of life and peace unto them And therefore he is carefull when he speakes of Iustification or redemption by Christ often to mention Faith as the meanes whereby this redemption is communicated unto men See Rom. 3 25. Rom. 5 1 2. By the light of which and such like expressions the sense and meaning of those Scriptures are to be ruled wherein justification or Redemption by Christ are taught without any expresse mention of Faith as Rom. 3 24. Rom. 5.9 c. as likewise of those wherein justification by Faith is affirmed without expresse mention of Christ or any thing done or suffered by him As Rom. 3 28.30 And here by the way I cannot but reflect a little upon the unsavorinesse and inconsideratnesse of their conceipt who to avoyd the strength of the interpretation given of these Scriptures will needs force themselves contrary to all Interpreters both ancient and moderne that I have yet met with and most apparantly contrary to the most apparant scope of the Apostle throughout this whole disputation to suppose that the Apostle doth not here speake of that Faith of Abraham whereby he was justified or made personally righteous before God but of such a Faith only as God did approve of and commend in him and impute unto him as a particular act of righteousnesse in such a sense as that act of Phineas mentioned Num 25 8. is sayd to have beene imputed to him for righteousnesse Psal 106 31. Alas Paul was now in the heat of his Dispute concerning the great and weighty businesse of Iustification travailing as it were in birth with his Romans tâ—ll he had convincingly satisfied them from the Scriptures that the way of Iustification was not by the workes of the Law but by Faith in Iesus Christ Now how importune and impertinent to this designe had it beene for him to interpose a whole Chapter only to prove that which was never doubted of nor questioned by any To wit that Abraham did well in believing God and was approved by him for it His businesse here was not to argue what was lawfull and what was unlawfull or whether Abraham was justifiable in his act of believing God But to demonstrate and shew how and by what meanes a poore miserable sinner might come to be justified and accounted righteous before God which he clearly and fully demonstrates to be by way of Faith or beleeving from the example of Abraham
whose faith was by God himselfe imputed for righteousnesse unto him that is upon and by the meanes of his Faith he was looked upon by God as a righteous man But the conceit against which we now argue is too weake to beare any great waight of confutation If that yet stickes with any man that Abraham having believed formerly as appeares from his History and thereby justifyed should be said to be justified by a second or after act or believing I answere 1. Be it granted that Abraham believed and was thereby justified before that act of beleeving whereunto this Testimony is subjoyn'd that it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse Gen. 15 6 yet doth it not follow that this testimony should be precisely limited to or only understood of that particular act of his believing whereunto it is subjoyned but it may indifferently relate as well to the first as the last act of his believing yea happily rather to the first then to the last for it is not said in the place cited that Abraham believed the Lord in this particular promise now made or renewed unto him but indefinitely and in the generall that Abraham believed or had believed the Lord and it was imputed or accounted unto him for righteousnesse So that howsoever Abraham was precisely justified by the first act of a sound Faith which ever he put forth yet the testimony or record of his justification by beleeving might be suspended by the Holy Ghost till his Faith became more conspicuous and was further manifested Thus Heb. 11 4. the testimony of Abels righteousnesse by Faith was as it seemes deferred till the manifestation of his Faith by offering such a sacrifice unto God as he did whereas it cannot be thought but that he was a righteous or justified person and that by meanes of his Faith before the offering of that sacrifice So that this Objection is easily answered Besides further answere might be that the intent of the Holy Ghost in this testimony and passage concerning Abraham was not to shew the time when but the manner or meanes how and whereby he was justified Now all succeeding acts of justifying Faith as justifying for there are many acts of a justifying Faith which are not of that kind of act wherby such a Faith justifieth being of the same kind and nature with that primary and first act of beleeving whereby he was justified may in sufficient propriety of speech have the effect of Iustification ascribed as well to them as it is to the first act it selfe As suppose a man hath beene a true beleever in God through Jesus Christ for seven yeares together during which space he hath constantly every day renewed or repeated the very same act of believing wherby he was at the first of a sinner made righteous this mans Iustification or making righteous may according to the frequent tenor of Scripture language be aswel ascribed to any of these after acts of believing as to the first of all it being usuall with Scripture to ascribe effects though not really and actually effected and done to such meanes or actions of men which are apt to produce and effect them Thus he is said to destroy the Temple of God 1 Cor. 3 16. who shall do any thing that endanger 's it or is apt to destroy it The like expression we have Romans 14 15 and verse 20. See also and consider Mat. 16 6. Esther 8 7. Rom. 24. Mat 5 32. with other like places without number Thirdly SECT 5 that interpretation which is set up against it and which contendeth that by the word FAITH or BELEEVING in al those passages cited is meant not Faith properly and formally understood but Faith tropically or metonymically that is the righteousnesse of Christ is clearely overthrowne by many considerations and passages in the context First it colour 's not with any appearance or likelyhood of truth that the Apostle in the great and weighty point of justification wherein doubtlesse he desired if in any Subject beside to speake with his understanding as his owne phrase is that is that what he himselfe conceiveth and understand's may be clearely understood by others should time after time in one place after another without ever explaining himselfe throughout the whole disputation use so strange and harsh and uncouth an expression or figure of Speech as is not to be found in all his writings nor in all the Scriptures besides To say that Faith or beleeving is imputed for righteousnesse but to meane that indeed it is not Faith but the righteousnesse of Christ that is imputed must needs argue the speakers designe to be this the making sure that his meaning should not get out at his mouth If Paul should manage the great point and mystery of justification in such language and phrase of speech as this he might truely say of what he had said herein EDIDI ET NON EDIDI that he had said and not said Secondly it is evident that that Faith or beleeveing which ver 3. is said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse is opposed to works or working ver 5. Now betweene Faith properly taken and workes and so betweene beleeving and working there is a constant opposition in the writings of this Apostle yea and reason it selfe demonstrates an opposition betweene them as occasion will be to shew more at large in the second part of this discourse but betweene the active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ and works neither doth Paul ever make opposition neither would reason have suffered him to have done it Thirdly it is said ver 5. that to him that believeth HIS faith is imputed to him for righteousnesse From which clause it is evident that that Faith whatsoever we understand by it which is imputed for righteousnesse is HIS that is somewhat that may truely and properly be called his before such imputation of it be made unto him Now it cannot be said of the righteousnesse of Christ that that is any mans before the imputation of it be made unto him but Faith properly taken is the beleevers before it be imputed at least in order of nature if not of time Therefore by Faith which is here said to be imputed cannot be meant the righteousnesse of Christ Fourthly SECT 6 if we should grant a trope or metonymie in this place so that by FAITH should be meant the Object of it or the thing that is to be beleeved yet wil it not follow from hence that the righteousnes of Christ should be here said to be imputed but either God himselfe or the promise of God made unto Abraham For it is sayd Abraham beleeved God ver 3. not that he beleeved the righteousnesse of Christ except we set up another trope to maintaine the former and by God will say is meant the righteousnesse of Christ which would be not a trope or figure but rather indeed a monster of speech Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be here said or meant to be imputed for
righteousnesse Yea whereas the Object of Faith as justifying is expressed with great varietie of words and termes in the Scriptures in all this varietie there is not to be found the least mention of the righteousnesse of Christ As if the holy Ghost foreseeing the kindling of this false fire had purposely with-drawne or with-held all fuell that might feed it Sometimes Christ in person is made the Object of this Faith Ioh. 3 16. that whosoever beleeveth in him c. Sometimes Christ in his Doctrine or the Doctrine and word of Christ Ioh. 5 46. Had yee beleeved Moses yee would have beleeved me Sometimes Christ in the relation of his person and that either as he stands related unto God as his Father Ioh 20 31. These things are written that yee might beleeve that Iesus is the Christ the Son of GOD. Or else as he stands related to those ancient promises of God made unto the Nation of the Jewes from time to time before his coming in the flesh concerning a Messia to be given or sent unto them Ioh. 8 24. Except yee beleeve that I am he you shal die in your sins Sometimes thâ—r aising up of Christ from the dead is made the Object of this Faith Rom. 10 9. For if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and shalt beleeve in thy heart that God raised him up from the dead thou shalt be saved Sometimes againe God himselfe is mentioned as the Object of this Faith 1 Pet. 1 21. that your Faith and hope might be in God and Iohn 12 44. He that beleeveth on me beleeveth not on me but on him that sent me Besides many like places Lastly to forbeare further enumeration of particulars in this kind which are of ready observation in the Scriptures Sometimes the record or testimony of God concerning his Son is made the Object of this Faith 1 Iohn 5 10. He that beleeveth not God hath made him a liar because he beleeved not the record God witnessed of his Son c. In all this varietie or diversitie of expressing the Object of Faith as justifying there is no sound or intimation of the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ Not but that the righteousnesse of Christ is and ought to be believed as well as other things that are revealed and written in the Scriptures yea I conceive it to be of nearer concernment to the maine to beleeve this righteousnesse of Christ then the beleeving of many other things besides comprehended in the Scriptures aswell as it But one principall reason why it should not be numbred or reckoned up amongst the objects of Faith as justifying may with great probability be conceived to be this because though it ought to be and cannot but be beleeved by that Faith which justifieth yet it may be beleeved also by such a Faith which is so far from justifying that it denyeth this Christ whose righteousnesse notwithstanding it beleeveth and acknowledgeth to be the Son of God Thus some of his owne Nation the Jewes have given testimony to his righteousnesse and innocency who yet received him not for their Messiah nor believed him to be God And this is the frame and constitution of the Turkish Faith for the most part concerning him at this day Fiftly SECT 6 that Faith which is here said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse ver 3. is that Faith by which he beleeved in God that quickeneth the dead and calleth the things that are not as if they were ver 17. But the righteousnesse of Christ can in no tolerable construction or congruitie of speech be called that Faith by which Abraham beleeved in God that quickeneth the dead c. Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is not that Faith that is here said to be imputed for righteousnesse Sixtly that Faith which was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse ver 3. is that Faith wherein it is said ver 19. that Abraham was not weak and is opposed to doubting of the promise of God through unbeliefe ver 20. But the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be conceived to be that wherein Abraham was not weake neither doth the righteousnesse of Christ carrie any opposition with it to a doubting of the promise of God through unbeliefe being a thing of a differing kind and nature from it But betweene Faith properly taken or a firme believing and a doubting through unbeliefe there is a direct perfect opposition Therefore it is Faith in this sense and not the righteousnesse of Christ that is said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse Sevently that Faith which was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse was that Faith by which he was fully assured that he which had promised was able also to doe it for thus it is described ver 21. and the imputation of faith so described is plainly affirmed ver 22. and therefore it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse But the righteousnesse of Christ is not capable of any such definition or description as this that by it Abraham was fully assured that he that had promised was also able to performe it Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is not that that was imputed for righteousnesse unto Abraham Eightly that which shall be imputed unto us for righteousnesse is said to be our beleeving on him that raised up the Lord Iesus Christ from the dead v. 24. But the righteousnes of Christ is not our believing on him that raised up our Lord Iesus Christ from the dead Therefore it cannot be that that is either said or meant to be imputed unto us for righteousnes Ninthly and lastly whereas the question or point of imputation in Iustification is handled only in this passage of Scripture Rom. 4. for those other places Gal. 3 and Iam. 2 only mention it but insist not at all upon any declaration or explication thereof it is no waies probable but that the Apostle should speake somewhat distinctly and plainely of the nature of it here Otherwise he might seeme rather desirous to have layd a stumbling block in the way of men then written any thing for their learning and comfort If we take the word FAITH or BELEEVING so often used in this Chapter in the proper and plaine signification of it for that Faith whereby a man beleeves in Christ or the promise of God concerning Christ then the tenor of the discourse is as cleare as the day and full of light the streame of the whole Chapter run's limpid and untroubled But if we bring in a tropicall and metonymicall interpretation and by Faith will needs compell Saint Paul to meane the righteousnesse of Christ we cloath the Sun with a Sackcloath and turne Pauls perspicuitie into a greater obscuritie then any light in the Scripture knoweth well how to comfort or relieve The word FAITH being a terme frequently used in the Scripture is yet never found to signifie the righteousnesse of Christ the Holy Ghost never putting this word into that sheath neither is there any either rule in
and therefore the Lord reckoned him a righteous man even for that very acceptation and beleeving But that is not all but likewise be accounteth faith to him for righteousnes because faith doth Sanctifie and make a man righteous c. So that evident it is if there be any such thing as evidence in the writings and opinions of men that this mans thoughts were never so much as tempted to conceit that the Apostle should tropologize or metonymize in the word Faith or beleeving in this Scripture Mr. JOHN FORBS late Pastor of the English Church at Middleburgh a man of knowne gravity pietie and learning in his Treatise of Iustification cap. 28 p. 135. hath these words For faith in this sentence meaning where it is said that faith is imputed unto righteousnesse is in my opinion to be taken properly in that sense whereby in it selfe it is distinguished both from the word whereby it is begotten and from the object of it in the word which is Christ Thus I have cited the authority of many Authors by way of collaterall assurance for the securing the literall and proper interpretation of this Scripture Not that the interpretation it selfe needeth tali auxilio aut defensoribus istis but only to remove that great stumbling stone of the world which lieth in many mens way towards many truths called PREIUDICE CAP. III. Other proofes from Scripture to to establish the former conclusion vindicated likewise from such exceptions as may be layd in against them SEcondly that the active obedience of Christ SECT 1 or his fulfilling the Morall Law was never intended by God to be that righteousnesse wherewith we should be justified in any such way of imputation as is pretended may be I conceive further demonstrated from all such passages in Scripture where the works of the Law are absolutely excluded from justification As Rom. 3 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law So Gal. 2.16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ even we have beleeved in Iesus Christ that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law Againe Rom. 3.20 Therefore by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight Besides other Scriptures of like importance Now if a man be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto him he shall be justified by the works of the Law because that righteousnesse of Christ we now speake of consists of these works as every mans personall righteousnesse should have done had there been a continuance in the first Covenant Therefore this righteousnesse of Christ cannot be imputed to any man for that righteousnesse whereby he is to be justified Neither will these and the like Scriptures be charmed by words of any such glosse or interpretation as this No man shall be justified in the sight of God by the works of the Law viz. as personally wrought by themselves because no mans works will hold out weight and measure with the strictnesse and perfection of the Law But this hinders not but that a man may be justified by the works of the Law as wrought by another supposing this other to be as great in working or obeying as the Law it selfe is in commanding and withall that God is willing to derive these works of his upon us by imputation For to this I answere 4 things First SECT 2 where the holy Ghost delivers a truth simply and indefinitly and in way of a generall or universall conclusion for in materiâ necessariâ as this is propositio indefinita vim obtines universalis as Logicians the best oversees of reason generally resolve us not to be justified by the works of the Law is as much as not to be justified by any works of the Law whatsoever wi hout imposing any necessity upon men either in the same place or else where in the Scriptures to limit or distinguish upon it then for men to interpose with their owne wisdomes and apprehensions by distinctions and limitations and reservations of what they please to over-rule the plaine and expresse meaning and signification of the words is not to teach men obedience and submission unto but to usurp a power and exercise authority over the Scriptures Neither is there any practise so sinfull or opinion so erronous but may find a way to escape the word of the Spirit and to come fairely off from all Scripture censure if they be but permitted to speake for themselves by the mouth of such a distinction Give but the loose Patrons of an implicit Faith liberty to distinguish upon like terms where the Scriptures in the most explicit manner falls foulest upon their implicit Faith they will be able by the attonement of such a distinction to make their peace with the Scriptures He that beleeves not saith our Saviour Mar. 16 16. shall be damned He that beleeves not shall be damned True may these men say He that beleeves not either by himselfe or by another shall be damned but this hinders not but that he that beleeveth as the Church beleeveth may be saved though he knoweth nothing explicitely of what the Church beleeveth the explicit Faith of the Church is sufficient to save him So likewise by the Law of such a distinction the Antinomian Sect amongst us will be able to justify their non-necessitie of personall sanctification or inherent holynesse against those Scriptures that are most pregnant and peremptory for it Without holinesse saith the Apostle Heb. 12 14. no man shall see the Lord True saith the Antinomian without holinesse either in himselfe or in some other no man shall see the Lord but he that is in Christ by Faith hath holinesse in Christ and therefore hath no necessity of it in his owne person Who seeth not that in these and many like cases that might be mentioned that liberty of distinguishing which we implead would plainly beguile the Holy Ghost of his direct intentions and meanings in those and such like Scriptures Therefore when the Scriptures expressely and indefinitly deliver that by the works of the Law no man shall be justified if men will presume to distinguish as hath been said and exclude such works from justification only as performed by our selves but make thē every mans justificatiō as performed by another who tasts not the same spirit of an unwarrātable wisdome in this distinction which ruled in the former Secondly I answere that if the Apostles charge and commission had bin SECT 3 in the delivering the doctrine of justification either to have made or to have given allowance for any such distinction as is contended about betweene the works of the Law as performed by men themselves and the same works of the Law as performed by Christ that those indeed should have no hand in justification but these should be all in all these should be justification it selfe certeinly he should have
bin unfaithfull in this trust and very injurious to these works of Christ in giveing away that place of honour in the opposition which was due unto them to another thing of a far inferior nature to them viz. Faith as it is evident he doth in the Scripture cited Gal. 2. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ He doth not say but by the works of Iesus Christ as if the opposition stood betweene the works of the Law as performed by men and the same works as performed by Christ which in all congruity of reason he should have done had the works of the Law as done by Christ any such preheminence this way above the other and not have ascribed that unto Faith which is somewhat wherein the poore and weake creature hath to do which was the right and prerogative of Christs righteousnesse Doubtlesse Paul was no such enemy to the righteousnesse of Christ as to set up an usurper upon the Throne which belonged to it Thirdly if Pauls intent had bin to have reserved a place in justification for the active righteousnesse of Christ or for the works of the Law as performed by Christ by way of opposition to the same works as performed by men themselves his indefinite expression excluding the works of the Law simply without the least in imation given of any difference of those works either as from the one hand or from the other would have beene of dangerous consequence and as a snare upon men to cause them to passe over the great things of their justification Certainly if Paul had ever digged such a pit as this he would have bin carefull first or last to have fil'd it up againe Fourthly and lastly if by excluding the works of the Law from justification Pauls meaning had been SECT 4 only to exclude these works as done by men themselves but had no intent to exclude them as don by Christ it can at no hand be thought or once imagined but that he would have made use yea made much of such a distinction or reservation himselfe and would have been a glad man if salva veritate Evangelij without trenching upon some Gospel truth he could have come over so neere to his Country-men the Jewes and have closed with them in the great point of justification upon such terms Such a distinction might have been a happy mediator betweene them For what was it that chiefly incensed the Jewes against Paul and the Preaching of the Gospell and the righteousnesse of Faith but that the Law and the observation of it should be passed over and not taken into the great businesse of justification Now if Paul keeping a streight course in the Gospel could have said unto them or treated with them after any such manner as this you have no reason to take offence or to be troubled that I preach justification by Faith in Christ because I do not exclude the righteousnesse or works of your Law no not from having the maine stroke in your justification nay that which I preach concerning Faith is purposely to advance the righteousnesse of the Law and to shew you how you may be justified by it I only Preach you cannot be justified by your owne observation of it because the holinesse excellency and perfection of it is such that you cannot attaine or reach it by your owne strength but God hath sent me to keep it for you by whose observation imputed to you you shall be justified Therefore I am no enemy to your justification by the works of the Law but only teach you that these works are done by another for your justification Who seeth not but by such an interpretation or mitigation of matters as this Paul might have taken off at least a great part of the violent and furious oppositions of the Iewes against him A little of this oyle poured into the wound would have much mollified it and in all likelyhood in time have healed it But Paul it seemes did not like the composition or make of it neither durst he administer any receite of it He cannot be thought to have bin ignorant of this distinction or meanes of mitigation and with as little probabilitie can it be thought that he that could be content not only to be made all things unto all men for their good but even to have been an anathema from Christ to win them to the Gospel would have withheld any such word of reconciliation from them whereby there had been the least hope of gaining them But we do not meet with so much as any one word of this qualification in all his writings which shewes that the difference and distance betweene them was deeper and greater then so The paroxysme or sharpe contention betweene him and them was not whether they were to be justified by the works of the Law either as performed and wrought by themselves or as wrought by another but simply and indefinitly this whether justification were by the works of the Law by whomsoever performed or by Faith as is more then manifest in all the passages in his Epistles wherein this question and dispute is brought upon the stage There is not the least intimation of any difference betweene them this way whether justification should be by the works of the Law either as performed by our selves or as performed by Christ Paul never puts them upon the works of the Law as done by Christ for the matter of their justification which shewes that both he and they though otherwise at as great a distance as can readily be conceived in the point of justification yet in this were both of one mind and one judgment Paul as far from holding Iustification by the works of the Law as performed by Christ as the stubbornest Jewes themselves were But there are two things that haply SECT 5 may be objected against the Answers given and that will seeme to make for the confirmation of that distinction or interpretation which we have so much opposed First that there is a sufficient ground laied even by Paul himselfe upon which to found the forenamed distinction viz. that by excluding the works of the Law from Justification he only excludes them as done by men themselves but not at all as done by Christ Secondly that there is mention also of the works of the Law as done by Christ or which is the same of Christs being made under the Law in one of the chiefest disputes Paul hath concerning Justification The former objection is built upon Tit. 3 5. The latter upon Gal. 4.4 The words of the former Scripture are theise Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had done but according to his mercy he saved us Vpon which words the objection getteth up thus Paul by so precise a rejection of works of righteousnesse done by us that is by our selves plainly implies an admission of these works as done by another for us Where one part or member
the man faith the Law that continueth not in all things c. Therefore a man that hath not been alwaâ—es righteous can never be made righteous by the righteousnesse of the Law imputed or not imputed or howsoever it may be conceived to come upon him Thirdly and lastly I answere if a mans sins be once forgiven him he hath no need of any imputation of any further righteousnesse for his Iustification because forgivenesse of sins reacheth home and amounteth unto a full Iustification with GOD. This is plaine from the words mentioned Rom. 5 16. The guift saith Paul that is the guift of righteousnesse as it is explained in the next verse is of many offences unto Iustification that is when God hath given men their offences or debts or forgiven them for to give a debt or forgive it is all one he hath fully justified them For that righteousnesse which God is said to impute unto men through Faith is nothing else being interpreted but the forgivenesse of sins or the acquiting of them from that death and condemnation which are due unto them And this is all the Iustification the Scripture knowes or speaks of the forgivenesse of our sins or acquitting from condemnation the genuine and proper signification of which word misapprehended hath been a maine occasion of leading many out of the way of Truth in this point A man may in a manner as plainely discerne where mens feet have faild them here as sometimes where a Horse foot hath slip'd upon an ice For reading in Scriptures of the justification of sinners or of men being made just or righteous by Christ they have conceived that such a thing cannot be but by a positive and formall Law righteousnesse somewaies put upon them and there being no such righteousnesse indeed any where to be found but only the righteousnesse of Christ hence they have apprehended that this justification must needs be by this righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto them whereas that righteousnesse which we have by Christ and wherewith we are said to be justified before God by beleeving is only a negative righteousnesse not a positive it is nothing else but a non-imputation of sin which I therefore call a righteousnesse by accompt or interpretation as having the privileges but not the nature and substance of a perfect legall righteousnesse The Scripture shines with as much cleernesse and evidence of this truth SECT 3 as the Sun doth with light when he riseth in his might Rom. 4 6. compared with ver 7 8. Even as David declareth the blessednesse of the man unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works A righteousnesse without works must needs be a negative or privative righteousnesse as is fully expressed in the following verses Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes not sinne You see the imputation of righteousnesse ver 6. is here interpreted to be nothing else but a not imputing of sin And so Calvin upon Rom. 3 21. calls this a definition of the righteousnesse of Faith Beati quorum remissa sunt iniquitates that is Blessed are they whose sinnes are forgiven And not long after Paulus tradit Deum homines iustificare peccata non imputando that is Paul teacheth that God justifieth men by not imputing their sins The like description of this righteousnesse you have 2 Cor. 5. that which ver 19. he calls in God the not-imputing of our sins unto us he calls in us ver 21. a being made the righteousnesse of God in him But most plainely Act. 13.38 39. Be it knowne unto you saith Paul to the Jewes that through this man CHRIST is preached unto you forgivenesse of sins which forgivenesse of sins he immediatly calls their Iustification And by him all that beleeve are iustified from all things from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Moses You see how he expresseth the nature of this Iustification we have by Christ viz. by the way of negative or privative righteousnesse as was said not a positive All that beleeve are iustified from all things that is all sins from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses So that that Iustification which we have by Christ in the Gospel is not a Iustification with righteousnesse properly so called but a Iustification from sinne and from the guilt of sinne and condemnation due to it when Christ said to men and women in the Gospel Thy sins are forgiven thee then he justified them the forgivenesse of their sins was their Iustification This is the most usuall and proper signification of the word Iustifie both in Scriptures SECT 4 and other Authors but in the Scriptures especially not to signifie the giving or bestowing of a complete positive righteousnesse but only an acquitting or discharging and setting a man free from the guilt and penaltie due unto such things as were laied to his charge In the Scripture it is usually opposed to condemning or condemnation He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just both these are abhomination unto the Lord. Prov. 17 15. What is here mâ—ant by justifying the wicked not making them righ eous and just men by putting a morall righteousnesse upon them he that can make a wicked man righteous or just so shall be so far from being an abhomination to the Lord that hee shall shine as the starres in the Firmament for ever and ever Dan. 12.3 Therefore by justifying the wicked in this place can be nothing else meant but the making of them just in the rights and privileges of just men which are freedome from censure punishment and condemnation as appeares by the opposition in the other member of the clause and condemneth the righteous So that by justifying the wicked is nothing else meant but the not-condemning him So Rom. 8 33 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen it is God that justifyeth who shall condemne c. Where you see againe the opposition betweene being justified and condemned See likewise Rom. 5.9 Therefore by justifying is nothing else meant but acquiting from condemnation and so to be justified and to live that is to be freed from death and condemnation are made equivalent or equipollent the one to the other Gal. 3.11 And that no man is justified by the works of the Law it is evident for the iust shal live by Faith that is shal be justified by Faith for otherwise there is no strength in the argument So againe ver 21. If there had bin a Law which could have given life that is could have justified men surely righteousnesse or Iustification should have been by the Law By his knowledge faith Esay c. 53.11 shall my righteous servant iustify many for he shall beare their iniquities that â—s by bearing the punishment or condemnation due unto their sinnes he shall deliver them from punishment This opposition we speake of betweene justification and condemnation is cleere in other Scriptures as Mat
which stands in any perfection of vertues sanctification Somwhat before the former words alledged Nos verò quod dat admittimus reciprocart inter se justificationem et remissionem peccatorum i. We admit of what he Bellarmine grants that justification and remission of sins are one and the else same thing And againe pag. 908. Remissio peccatorum est justitia imputata i. Forgivenesse of sins is that righteousnesse that is imputed to us Stephanus Fabritius to like purpose coâ—menting upon Psal 32.1 desines justification thus Justificatio est actio Dei quà eum qui in Christum mediatorem credit ex solà gratià et misericordi propter satisfactionem et meritum Christi à peccat is absolvit et justum ac innocentem pronunciat i. Justification is an act of God whereby of his meere grace and mercy for the satisfaction and merit of Christ he absolves him from his sins that beleeveth in Christ the Mediator and pronounceth him just and innocent Lastly Amesius upon the same Psalme and verse makes remission of sins and justification terms equipollent and reciprocall Descriptio beatitudinis petiturà causa efficiente et continente quae est remissio peecatorum vel justificatio cum ejus effectis c. i. The description of blessednesse is drawn from the efficient and holding cause thereof which is Forgivenesse of sins or Iustification with its effects It were easie I presume for him that hath leisure SECT 8 to traverse the writings of these and other Reformed Divines to make the pile farre greater of such passages as these Therfore certainly they are very injurious not onely to the names and reputations of these worthy lights in the Church of God who deny them fellowship and communion in so glorious a truth and would force upon them in the very face of their own solemne declarations of themselves to the contrary an opinion so inconsistent with the streame of the Scripture and all sound reason but to the truth it selfe also by seeking to represent it to the eyes and consciences of men as a Beacon upon a hill or as a Sparrow upon the house top alone by it selfe destitute of Friends and helpers when as it dwells in the midst of its own people and hath many of the very choyce of those holy and faithfull and chosen ones that are with the Lamb against the Beast to stand for it So that those odious aspersions of Popery and Arminianisme are Vipers that wil easily shake into the fire when the time of shaking comes This for a 4th Demonstration of our Conclusion from the Scriptures CAP. VI. Conteining a Fift Argument or proofe from Scripture for clearing the Assertion FIftly SECT 1 I conceive that a cleare opening of that Scripture Philip. 39. will yield us plenty of further light for the discovery of that truth we seek after in the obscurity of our present Controversie The words are And be found in him not having mine own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the Faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God through Faith In the former verse the Apostle professeth what strange effects the excellency of the knowledge of Christ had wrought in him it had caused him to count all things losse which somtimes he had esteemed the greatest gaine and the best treasure yea to despoyle himselfe as it were with a spirit of deep indignation of all those formerly beloved and rich-esteemed ornaments which were unto him as chaines of gold about his neck and as he then thought highly commended him and made him glorious in the sight of God and men he means his Pharisaicall righteousnesse and legall observations his Jewish prerogatives c. he was now so farre transformed by the renewing of his mind by the light of the knowledge of Christ shining in unto him that he looked upon all his former glory as upon dung and smelt a favour of death in those things which had bin his only confidence and hope before of life and peace Now the reason why he favoured himselfe all that might be in these under-thoughts and avileing apprehensions of his former things and layed on load in this kind all he could he declares to be this that he might win Christ or make gain and advantage of him How this his desire or intent of gaining Christ might be accomplished he expresseth thus And may be found in him Observe he doth not say that he may be found in his righteousnesse much lesse in his righteousnesse imputed to him but simply in himselfe That he might be found in him which is an usuall expression in Scripture of the spirituall estate and condition of a beleever viz. to be in Christ Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Iesus So cap. 16.7 Who also were in Christ before me i. were beleevers c. What it is to be found in Christ or how it must be with him if he be found in him viz. when his time is come for he speaks here of the future of the time of his breaking up as it were by death he expresseth 1. negatively thus not having mine own righteousnesse yet not simply and alltogether no righteousnesse that may in no sence be called his own but precisely and determinately no such righteousnesse of his own which stands in works of the Law Such a righteousnesse of his own he must be sure not to have i. not to trust to or to shroud and shelter himselfe under from the stroke of Gods justice 2º affirmatively thus but that i that righteousnesse which is through the Faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by Faith Here is not the least jot or tittle of any mention not the least whispering breathing or intimation of any righteousnesse he should have by the imputation of the righteousnes of Christ no nor of any righteousnesse by or through the righteousnesse of Christ but only such a righteousnes as is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through Faith of Christ or by beleeving in him Now because such a righteousnesse as this wherein is nothing more required of men SECT 2 but only Faith in Christ might seeme a slender and tickle righteousnesse to adventure so great a weight as the precious soule upon and comes far short of that righteousnesse of a mans owne which he might make out by the works of the Law the Apostle addes by way of commendation of this righteousnesse to uphold the credit and esteeme of it in the hearts and consciences of men that it is the righteousnesse of God i. a righteousnesse which God himselfe hath found out and which he will owne and countenance and account for righteousnesse unto men and no other but this Even the righteousnesse of God saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in Faith i. which comes and accrues and is derived upon a man by Faith The mentioning of this righteousnesse the second time as being or standing in Faith is doubtlesse emphaticall One reason
Joseph gave Gen. 41.32 why Pharohs dreame was doubled by God unto him was to shew that the thing was established by God so the reason why Paul mentions the second time so immediatly upon the former the consistence or standing of this righteousnesse in and by Faith in all likely hood was this to shew that this righteousnesse certainly will carry it notwithstanding all the unlikelyhood and seeming imperfections of it and that the thing is fully concluded and established with God accordingly Or as it is often in speech betweene man and man when a man hath spoken that which seems improbable to him to whom it is spoken and may be conceived that the Speaker was mistaken in his words and would correct himselfe if he considered what he said it is usuall in such a case if he that spake spake advisedly and be able to make good what he said and meanes to stand to it to speake the same thing over againe and so to confirme and ratifie that which was spoken against both the unlikelyhood of the thing and the unbeliefe of the hearer It is a passage I conceive carried by some such rule as this which the Apostle hath in the following Chapter ver 4. Rejoyce in the Lord alwaies Now because these Philipians were under great trialls and afflictions and so might think it was no time for them to rejoyce in and that Paul had forgotten himselfe and the condition they were in to speake to them of rejoycing therefore to shew that he knew well enough what he said and that he had weighed his words sufficiently before he put them downe and that there was no other cause but why they should rejoyce in the Lord notwithstanding the fiery triall that was upon them he redoubles the words of his exhortation Rejoyce in the Lord alwaies and againe I say rejoyce So Paul here having once affirmed that the righteousnesse wherein he desired to be found was the righteousnesse which is by the Faith of Christ least he should seeme to have spoken that which he would not stand to or that which he would upon second thoughts retract he speakes the same words in effect the second time and avouceth that very righteousnesse which is by Faith to be that righteousnesse that he would stand to and desired to be found with If Paul had had any mind or inclination at all to have placed the righteousnesse by which he was to be justified in the righteousnesse of Christ imputed here was even a tempting occasion and opportunity to have drawne him into expressions of himselfe that way But we see here is loud speaking againe and againe of the righteousnesse of Faith but altum silentium profound silence of any righteousnesse from the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ This for a fift proofe from Scripture CAP. VII VVherein the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse is further cleered from the Scriptures SIxtly SECT 1 that that which God imputes for righteousnesse in Iustification is not the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe in the sense refused in the first Chapter of this discourse but Faith in Christ I conceive may be cleerely wrought out and evicted out of all those Scriptures where Iustification is ascribed unto Faith Not to heap up places in this kind which are confessedly many Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith c. Romans 3 28. So againe Romans 5.1 Therefore we being justified by FAITH c. All confesse that MEN are justifyed by Faith and indeed the conclusion thus far is greater then can be gaine-said The pregnant letter of the Scripture is too hard for any mans contradiction Now when men say and professe according to the Scriptures that Faith iustifieth I demand what is it they meane by Faith do they not meane their beleeving or the Act of Faith usually so called and expressed which by the assistance of of the Holy Ghost is raised within them and put forth by them If by Faith in this case they meane any thing besides either the habit or act of beleeving I confesse my soule hath not yet entred into their secret The Scriptures in the matter of Iustification seeme rather to speake of that which we call the act of beleeving then of the habit and so learned Dâ—vines as far as I have observed generally conceive Now for men to say and to professe themselves that Faith justifieth and yet to condemne it for an error in another that shall say and hold that it is an act of Faith that justifieth hath in my apprehension as much inconsistencie of reason in it as if a man should grant that Hierusalem once was the joy of the whole Earth and yet should censure him that should say that the Citie Hierusalem was ever so or that should grant that Paul laboured in the Gospel more then all the Apostles but would not endure him that should say that Paul the Apostle did so As Hierusalem and the Citie Hierusalem are the same and Paul and Paul the Apostle the same so are Faith and the act of Faith but the same and if one justifieth certainly the other justifieth also It may be it will be here said SECT 2 that they which confesse that Faith justifieth doe not meane or conceive of it as divided or severed from it's object CHRIST No more did ever any man that had but the first fruits of reason given him for his allowance For a man to say that he seeth and yet to affirme that when he seeth he seeth nothing is to professe open enmitie against common sense and reason Neither is it any other in him whosoever he be that shall conceive of any act of Faith that is not exercised or acted upon its object either Christ in person or Christ in promise or the like It is unpossible that any man should beleeve but that he must beleeve something or in some person and so when any man speakes of Faith or beleeving he must of necessity imply the object with or in the Act though he names only the Act and not the object as the usuall manner of the Scripture expression is where Faith or beleeving is 40 times mentioned without addition of the object Christ or the promise of God in Christ or any thing equivalent to either Secondly it may be it will be said that when men professe and say that Faith iustifieth their meaning only is that Faith justifieth instrumentally and not otherwise To this I answere neither hath any thing more bin said hitherto by me neither is any thing intended to be said in the sequel but according to the rule of this position Faith justifieth instrumentally But thirdly it may be it will be yet further obiected and said SECT 3 that when men confesse that Faith iustifieth their meaning is that it Iustifieth as it takes hold of Christs righteousnesse I Answere if this also should be granted but the Scripture as hath bin said never mentioneth or describeth justifying Faith under any such consideration yet it
forgivenesse of a mans own sins and imputation of Christs righteousnesse if it should be true yet is it no wayes necessary neither is it any waies apparent that these are parts of the same whole of one and the same iustification neither is there any thing expresly delivered in any part of the Scripture to establish it Therfore it is no wayes probable even in these respects that when Paul placeth a mans righteousnesse before God in the forgivenesse of his sinnes that he should doe it by the figure Synecdoche onely mentioning one part and implying another Againe SECT 8 2. if forgivenesse of sins be but a part and the worser halfe of our iustification then when the Scripture saith We are iustified by his blood as Rom 5.9 the interpretation must be we are justified by halfe through his blood but the better of our iustification must come another way For by his blood or death we cannot have his active righteousnesse imputed to us So where it is said againe vers 16. that the guift viz. of righteousnesse by Christ is of many offences unto iustification if the guift of many offences iâ— the forgivenesse of a mans sins will not amount to a iustification without the imputation of a legall righteousnesse joyned with it we must give a checke to Pauls pen as the High Priests did unto Pilate Joh. 16.21 Write not the King of the Iewes but that he said I am the King of the Jewes So must we say unto Paul doe not write that the guift is of many offences unto Iustification but the guift is of many offences and of many acts of righteousnesse too imputed to Iustification Pauls pen had made more hast then good speed as we say to come at Iustification before its time And thus we must draw blood instead of milke out of many other Scriptures besides these to nourish that opinion of the imputation of a formall righteousnesse for Iustification if you meane to keep it alive for the sincere milk of the word will not nourish it Thirdly that forgivenesse of sinnes is a mans entire and compleat Iustification and that there is no such further piece or part of it as is pretended concerning the imputation of Christs righteousnesse will appeare from hence because that end for which this imputed righteousnesse of Christ is thus brought into the businesse of iustification viz. to be the right or title of the iustified to their heavenly inheritance is otherwise supplyed by the wisdome and counsell of God and that in a way more Euangelicall and of more sweetnesse and deernesse to the children of God viz. by the grace of adoption or Son-ship as we shall further shew God willing in the reason following Fourthly SECT 9 if men will have the active righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto them for one part of their iustification by it selfe and the passive obedience or death of Christ for another part by it selfe and so separate and divide the benefit of his active obedience from that which we have by his passive in Iustification this is a method or course to destroy and lose both the benefit of the one and of the other For if men substract the righteousnesse of his life upon a conceit that that will doe them service alone which it will not doe as we shall see afterwards then must they want it in his death or in his blood and so that wil be ineffectuall too If it had bin possible under the Law for a man to have separated those qualifications which God required in the Beast for sacrifice as viz. the Sex the soundnesse spotlessenesse c. from the Beast it selfe neither would these qualifications separated from the sacrifice have bin of any use to the man neither would the Beast without these have made a sacrifice of acceptation So neither will the active obedience of Christ profit men if they separate it from the passive Joh. 12.24 neither will the passive it selfe be found it selfe In the cleansing of the Leâ—e the blood of the flame Syarrow was to â—e joyned and mixed with pure water in an â—â— then vessell and the person cleansed to be sprinkled with â—â—th Lev. 14.4.5.6 that is an attonement or expiation for sinne according to the will and purpose of God except we bring in the active to it For as it is most true which the Apostle affirmes Heb. 9 22. Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sinnes so is it as true that without shedding of righteous blood there is no remission neither And howsoever the personall union of the humane nature with the Godhead in the person of Christ was the great qualification requisite in his person to make the sacrifice of himselfe compleatly satisfactory for the sinne of the world yet was it as God willing we shall hereafter demonstrate more at large but a remote qualification in this respect there being a necessity not onely in respect of the decree and purpose of God but of other ends and conveniences also that this qualification we now speake of the fullfilling of the Law should intervene and come between that union and his sacrifice In the mean time whilest I would not have the active obedience of Christ separated from the passive nor againe the passive from the active in respect of this common and joynt effect of forgivenesse of sins or justification ariseing from a concurrence of them both yet would I not have Christ in his mystery tumbled up together on a heap for this would be to deface the beauty and excellencie of that wisdome which shines forth gloriously in the face thereof I would have every thing that Christ was and every thing that Christ did and every thing that Christ suffered to be distinguished not only in themselves but also in their proper and immediate effects respectively ariseing and flowing from them severally A pluralitie of causes may meet together in one and the same effect and yet the diversitie and difference of their severall operations and influences contributing towards the raiseing and produceing of such an effect may easily be distinguished and apprehended The goodnesse of the soyle the labour of the Oxe the Plough the seed that is sowne the Husbandmans paines in ploughing in sowing his skill in both the raine given from heaven to water that which is sowne all these and such like meet together in one joynt and common effect at the time of Harvest viz. the Husbandmans benefit or increase Yet is there scarce any man so much a stranger to the method and principles of Husbandry but can assigne to every one of these causes their proper and speciall effect though all meeting together in that great and common effect we speake of the soyle is for one purpose the Oxe for another the Plough for a third c. So is it true that all that Christ was and all that he did and all that he suffered meet together in that great and common effect the salvation of them that beleeve
applyed by the said efficients is the matter or materiall part of it So in the justification of a sinner neither is God himselfe who is the principall efficient of this effect of justification neither is Faith which is the iustrumentall efficient of it for God is said in Scripture to justifie men by or through it Rom. 3.30 which for the most part are symptomaticall particles of the instrumentall-efficient cause neither is the righteousnesse of Christ which is the meritorious effiâ—ient cause of it none of these are either matter or forme or any constituting cause of iustification but only remission of sins or absolution from punishment as the sorme applyed unto or put upon the matter and the matter or subject it selfe whereunto this forme is applyed by all the 3 efficients spoken of according to their severall and distinct manner of working viz. the person of the beleever This Argument to him that understands and will seriously consider that unchangable Law mentioned of the 4. kinds rally acknowledged by the contrary-minded themselves in this Controversie But that Christ should be reputed before God to have sinned in me seems unto me an assertion so uncouth and un-Christian that a Christian had need to borrow the eares of a Pagan to hear it with patience However the untruth of it is thus made manifest If Christ be reputed before God to have sinned in me he must be reputed to have had a being in me for as operatio consequitur esse i. the operation of a thing follows and depends upon the being of it so he that supposeth or reputeth a person to have done any thing either good or evill in another must necessarily suppose or repute him to have had a being there But what being Christ should be reputed by God to have had in me being yet an unbeleever is a speculation too high for me to attaine unto Againe Argum. 14 SECT 2 against this supposed imputation I oppose this consideration If the active obedience of Christ be imputed unto me in my justification then is the passive imputed also For there can be no sufficient reason given why the one should be taken and the other left Neither are the adversaries themselves partiall in this point to the one above the other they generally allow place for both in their imputation But that the death or sufferings of Christ are not in the letter and formalitie of them imputed unto me I thus demonstrate If the death and sufferings of Christ be imputed unto me then may I be accounted or reputed to have died and suffered in Christ But I can at no hand be reputed to have died or suffered in Christ Therefore the death and sufferings of Christ are not imputed unto me I meane still in the letter and formality of them as I would be understood in the maâ—or proposition also The reason of the sequel in that proposition is evident from the former argument To have any thing imputed to a man in the letter and formality of it and to be reputed and taken as the doer or sufferer of what is so imputed are termini aequipollentes et sese mutuò explicantes are expressions that differ not in sense but relieve one the other in their significations The Reason of the minor that no man is to be conceived or said to have suffered in Christ is this because in Christ we are justisied and absolved from punishment and therefore cannot be said to have been punished in him He hath made us freely accepted in his beloved Ephes 16. Therefore he poured not out his wrath upon us in his beloved And by his stripes we are healed which is contrary to being wounded or punished 1 Pet. 224. And to say that we suffered or were punished in Christ is in effect to unsay or gainsay what the Gospell every where speaketh touching our Redemption and deâ—iverance from punishment by Christ In what sence the sufferings of Christ may be said to be imputed tobeleevers is 〈◊〉 plained in the Second part cap. 3. Sect. 7. He that knoweth how to reconcile these two may undertake to make light and darknesse friends and needs not feare miscarying in his designe that God should freely forgive us our sinnes and yet punish us for them and that to the full which must be said by those that will say we were punished in Christ If Christ were punished for us or in our stead which is the Scripture language 2 Cor. 5.21 who made him sinne for us doubtlesse we our selves can in no sense wherein words and truth will agree be said to be punished or to have suffered in him One Reason more and no more of this Chapter If the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense so oft-expressed be imputed to us Argum. 15 SECT 3 then are we justifyed at least in part by the Ceremoniall Law This consequence is too good to be denyed because part of that righteousnesse which Christ wrought stood in obedience to the Ceremoniall Law he was circumcised kept the Passeover c. Therfore if the righteousnesse of Christ be imputed unto us in the letter and formality of it that part of his righteousnesse which stood in obedience ceremoniall must be imputed also But that we are not justified either in whole or in part by the Ceremoniall Law is a truth so neare scituate to every mans apprehension that it needs not be brought neerer by force of argumentation If it be replyed that there is no necessity that any part of his righteousnesse Ceremoniall should be imputed because his morall righteousnesse is sufficient for imputation To this I answere First there is no warrant or rule in Scripture thus to rend and teare in pieces the one halfe from the other that which was one entire and compleat righteousnesse in Christ and to take which part we please to our selves and leave the other as a cast piece Secondly if that part only of the righteousnesse of Christ which stood in his obedience to the Morall Law be imputed unto us for righteousnesse in our justification then will there not be found the same way or meanes of justification for the whole body of Christ but the beleeving Jewes before Christs death must be made righteous or justified with one kind of righteousnesse and the Gentiles with another For the Jewes before the death of Christ had a necessitie of both parts of this righteousnesse to be imputed to them in their justification supposing their justification had stood in such an imputation as some stand up to maintaine aswell ceremoniall as morall But that the Jewes should be justified with one kind of righteousnesse and the Gentiles with another as there is no colour of reason that I know to maintaine so there is substance and strength of Scripture to oppose Rom. 3.22.30 Thirdly and lastly that righteousnesse of Christ which is called Morall if separated and divided from the other part which is Ceremoniall was not a compleat and perfect righteousnesse in him because it
I answere if the will and pleasure of God be to make no imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ but upon the condition of Faith intervening then is it evident that this righteousnes is not imputed unto justification to any man because the condition of faith must necessarily intervene and come betweene So that if this righteousnes of Christ were as our Adversaries would have it imputed unto men yet it must be onely towards Iustification not unto it for by their own affirmation it is faith that hath the next and most immediat connexion therewith Secondly if God suspends the imputation of Christs righteousnes upon the performance of the condition of faith and then makes this imputation then faith doth not take hold of the righteousnes of Christ imputed but first takes bold of it and then the imputation followeth after Which 1. is contrary to the expresse judgement of some of the learnedest of their owne party Who affirme this imputation of Christs righteousnes by God to precede the condition of faith or act of beleeving in men a Deus primum imputat satisfactionem Christi deinde in nobis efficit sidem quā illamimputatam applicemus Vrsinus Cat. part 2 Qu. 60. sect 5. Fides ex parte nostra hanc justitiam Sic sia Deo imputatam apprehendit solummodoet applicat Dr. Prid. Lect. 5. de Instificat Sect. 11. Secondle if faith should first take hold of the righteousnes of Christ before it be imputed and then the act of Gods imputation should supervene upon it and the beleever not be justified till this act of Gods imputation had passed upon him then must it be conceived that a man may have the righteousnes of Christ upon him by faith and yet not be justified by it For if the will of God be not to impute the righteousnes of Christ unto Iustification but upon the condition of faith performed and this condition is performed by laying hold on the righteousnes of Christ not yet imputed by faith it evidently followeth that a man may lay hold on the righteousnes of Christ by faith and yet want that which is essentiality requisite to his Iustification according to this opinion viz. Gods imputation of this righteousnes unto him which as the opinion teacheth followeth the apprehension therof by faith and is not precedaneous to it Againe SECT 6 yet once more for the imputation of Faith in the sence insisted upon I plead the Apostles plea and Argument Rom. 4. That which was imputed to Abraham for righteousnes in his Iustification Argum. 24 is imputed to other beleevers also But the Faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righteousnes c. Ergo. Whether both these Propositions in the direct sence here implyed and with relation to the conclusion issuing from between them as they are here layd down be not the genuine and unwrested Doctrine of the Apostle Paul and that over and over in that 4th chapter to the Romans and whether the choycest learning aswell ancient as moderne hath not sealed and subscribed hereunto I referre the Reader to a diligent perusal of the second Chapter of this discourse for his satisfaction where likewise he may see the ashes of the contrary interpretation consumed and burnt up with the fire of the triall So that I conceive here needeth no addition of any thing to strengthen either the one Proposition or the other above what hath bin there delivered CAP. XXI Wherein the last reason against the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse viz. the non-imputability of the Law is propounded and maintained IF the righteousnes of the Law be not imputable Argum. 25 SECT 1 or deriveable in the letter and formality of it from one mans person to another then cannot the righteousnes of Christ be imputed to any man in Iustification after any such manner The consequence cannot lightly be denyed by him that will but grant light not to be darknesse Therfore I assume But the righteousnes of the Law is not imputable from one mans person to another Therfore the righteousnes of Christ is not imputable much lesse imputed to any man in his Iustification This Argument was mentioned in our Scripture proofes cap. 8. where you shall find it built upon that Foundation of truth Gal. 3.12 The reason or ground of which non-imputability or untransferiblenesse of the Law-righteousnesse we found expresse in the very tenour and plaine words of the Law it selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the very man that hath done them shall live by them and no other From which inference or addition no mans understanding can with reason abstaine But it is like we must here againe prepare to battaile and shall be assaulted with this Objection SECT 2 If the transgression of the Law be imputable from one mans person to another Object then may the righteousnesse of the Law be imputed also after the same manner For what should cause a difference between the one and the other in this respect But that the transgression of the Law is imputable from one mans person to another is evident from hence because the sinne of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit is imputed to his posterity Ab actu ad potentiam validissima est consequentia Ergo. Give me leave to deliver my last Argument out of the hand of this Objection and so we shall draw towards a Conclusion of this first part In my answer I shall addresse my selfe to both the Propositions but chiefly insist upon the instance that is brought to prove the Minor to demonstrate the insufficiencie and impertinencie of that for that purpose For the former Proposition not to let passe incerta procert◠that which is weake with the credit and reputation of strength I answere therfore to it that the consequence in it is not so tight and pregnant as happily is conceived or as the confidence of the demand annexed by way of confirmation seems to import The imputablenesse of the transgression of the Law were it granted is no concluding demonstration of the like imputablenesse of the righteousnesse or obedience performed unto it and then this Proposition will not be found any such Oracle of truth First in the tenour of the Law there is no such emphaticall restraint of the guilt or punishment due unto the transgression of it to the person of the transgressor as ther is of the reward promised to the observation of it to the person of the observer as we heard in the clause cited from Gal. 3.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. the very man that hath done them shall live by them It is no where found on the other hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the very man that transgresseth them shall die for his transgression As if God in giving the Law had left unto himselfe a libertie and scope to derive and carry the guilt and punishment due to the transgression of the Law as far as he pleased but had no intent to extend the reward promised to the fulfilling
of it beyond the person of the fulfiller Some indeed conceive that Adams standing in obedience to the Law had bin the standing and perpetuall confirmation in grace of all his posterity If this opinion could be made to appeare any thing more then conjecturall Divinitie I grant that then in respect of the intent and purpose of God the righteousnesse of the Law had been as imputable as the transgression of it but this will not prove it such in the nature of it but only by way of Covenant and so the consequence in the proposition will still languish and be infirme But though I can be confident with Paul to call Christ the last Adam 1 Cor. 15.45 Yet I am somwhat tender to call Adam the first Christ To say that Adam by his righteousnesse should have merited the justification of himselfe and all his posterity is I take it to make him somwhat more then a figure of him that was to come But to say that by his transgression he merited the condemnation both of himselfe and posterity is no such hard saying I conceive in the cares of any man Therefore however the righteousnesse of the Law is not as imputable as the transgression of it Secondly whereas demand was made SECT 3 by way of absolute confirmation of that former proposition what should make any such difference betweene the obedience of the Law and the transgression of the Law that the former should not be as imputable as the latter the obedience as the transgression I answere there may be this conceived as a ground of difference betweene them in that respect Sinne or disobedience to a Law is ever greater in ratione demeriti in way of demerit or desert of punishment then obedience or subjection to a Law is in ratione meriti in deserving a reward One that takes a purse or murders a man by the high way side deserveth to receive more in punishment then a thousand deserve in reward that suffer men to travaile peaceably by them Though he that dishonestly refuseth to pay a debt where it is due may deservedly be cast into prison yet it doth not follow that he that keeps touch and payeth at his day deserves to be exalted to a Throne So might Adam by his transgression of the Law merit death and condemnation to himselfe and posterity and yet not have merited life and salvation to both by his obedience The reason of which difference is evident because if he had obeyed and kept the Law he had only done that which was his duty to doe and this by our Saviours rule Luk 17.10 makes but an unprofitable servant i. I conceive is no ground to demand or challenge any great matters at his masters hand except it be by Covenant or promise from him Adams obedience to the Law was a debt due unto God from him severall waies and in sundry respects or considerations First God was his soveraigne Lord and had absolut power over him to command him what service or obedience he pleased Secondly he was his maker and Creator and had given him his being and in this respect had full right and title to imploy him as he pleased Thirdly God had bin liberall and exceeding bountifull unto him many waies he created him in his owne image and likenesse furnished him with principles of righteousnesse made him Lord over the works of his hand placed him in a Paradise of all delight and contentment In all these respects Adam was a debtor yea and more then a debtor unto God of that obedience unto his Law which he required of him Now the greater debtor Adam was unto God the more and greater bands and ingagements were upon him to make good that obedience which God required of him to his Law the lesse meritorious had this obedience bin in case Adam had stood and performed it and the more demeritorious also was his transgression and disobedience Therefore that consequence in the major proposition of the objection If the transgression of the Law be imputable then is the obedience imputable also is so farre from being legitimate and solid that the imputablenesse of the transgression of it rather overthroweth the imputablenesse of the obedience of it then any waies proveth or establisheth it For the more imputable that is punishable the transgression of it is the lesse imputable that is rewardable is the obedience of it So that you see now we have touch'd the hollow of the right thigh of the Objection how it halts right downe upon it And you see withall how we might fairely and honestly discharge our selves from having any thing more to doe with the Minor Proposition or with the instance of the imputation of Adam's sin which was insisted upon for the proofe of it because if either Proposition be disabled the glory of the whole Argument is layed in the dust Notwithstanding because the imputation of Adams sinne to his posteritie as it is ordinarily phrased is conceived to be a master veyne in this Controversie and is frequently produced to prove the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by way of analogie or proportion I shall be willing to lay downe with as much brevitie and plainenesse as I can how and in what sense onely either the Scriptures themselves or sound reason will countenance the notion of that imputation The issue will be that neither the one nor the other will be found either to owne or favour any other imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity then we have hitherto granted of Christs righteousnesse to those that beleeve The righteousnesse of Christ is imputed i. is made over or given to those that beleeve not in the letter or formality of it as hath bin often said but in blessings priviledges and benefits purchased of God by the merit or mediation of it So the sinne of Adam is imputed to his posterity not in the letter and formality of it which is the imputation commonly urged but in the demerit of it i. in the curse or punishment due to it which is the imputation commonly urged but in the demerit of it i. in the curse or punishment due to it or deserved by it Therfore as concerning this imputation of Adams sin I answere First the Scripture no where affirms either the imputation of Adams sin to his posterity or of the righteousnesse of Christ to those that beleeve neither is the phrase or manner of such speaking any waies agreeable to the Dialect or language of the Holy Ghost For still in the Scriptures whersoever the word or term of IMPUTING is used it is only applyed unto or spoken of somthing of the same persons to whom the imputation is said to be made and never to my remembrance to or of any thing of anothers Rom. 4.3 Abraham beleeved God and it was IMPUTED to him for righteousnesse i. his own beleeving was imputed to him not another mans So verse 5. But to him that worketh not but beleeveth His Faith is IMPUTED to him for
God over the creature is plainly asserted though perhaps in terms somwhat harder then many eares will well beare but in the latter there is only a cold and hungry pretence alledged to beare out one of the greatest and most weighty acts of judgement that ever God exercised Of the two it is lesse dishonourable to a Prince or Monarch to professe a power above Law then to exercise it under a pretence of justice And what is there more in the imputation of Adams sinne to make the punishment of it upon all his posterity an act of justice in God or to ease the conceit of absolute Sovereigntie then if there were no such imputation at all Or suppose God should repute me to have sin'd in Adam and because he so reputeth me shall execute judgement upon me in case I did not so sinne as God reputeth me to have done it had bin altogether as much justice in God to have punished me without any such reputing me to have sinned as with it But in case I did sinne as the Scripture testifieth to my face I did now there is no necessity or occason why God should impute Adams sinne unto me to make me capable of punishment the imputation of this my owne sinne is abundantly sufficient Besides suppose I could not be truly said to have sinned my selfe being yet in the loynes of Adam and so my owne sinne not to be imputed unto me yet my communion with Adam in his nature or my neere relation to him being one of his children and posterity upon the former supposition that Adams sin was not punishable to the height in the punishment of his person only is a full and sufficient ground to beare out the justice of God in laying all that punishment upon me he hath done But of all conceits or apprehensions in this point that hath the least consistencie with sobernes and truth which makes the impuputation of the act of Adams sin which act was more from God then from Adam as hath bin said though the sinfulnes of this act was wholly from Adam and not at all from God to his posterity to be the reason and ground of that fore punishment wherin they are all included involved as if Gods reputing a world of men to have done that which indeed was from himselfe and therfore could at no hand be sinfull were a sufficient ground in justice equitiâ— to bring the guilt of everlasting death and wrath upon them The summe of all that â—ath bin reasoned at large in this Chapter SECT 16 amounteth to this 1. that the imputablenes of the transgression of the Law were it granted from one person to another doth not necessarily evince the like imputability of the obedience of the Law 2. that in Scripture there is nothing said to be imputed unto any man but that which was his before the imputation 3. that to impute doth never signifie the bare ascribing or setting over any act good or bad unto any man but a suitable dealing by the person to whom the imputation is made according either to the merit or demerit of such an act 4. that therfore neither the act of any mans obedience nor disobedience to the Law can either in Scripture language or propriety of speech be said to be imputed to any other then to the persons themselves obeying and disobeying 5. That the Scriptures are altogether silent concerning the imputation of Adams sin to his posterity 6. That reason it self fully demonstrates any such imputation to be no sufficient or tollerable ground or reason why God in a way of justice and equity might involve Adams posterity with his person in the punishment due to his sin 7. and lastly that there are other grounds herof both more agreeable to reason to the rules principles of common justice equity so that there is not so much as the least degree of any necessity to bring the Imputation of Adams sin in the sence pressed by our adversaries for their turns upoÌ„ this theatre The Conclusion resulting from the constellation of these particulars is easily discerned to be this that the Imputation of Adams sin to his posterity is no better Argument to prove the imputation of Christs righteousnes in the sence questioned to beleevers then the imputation of Christs righteousnes is to prove the imputation of Adams sin and that neither the one nor the other in the sence urged and opposed have any firm footing either in reason or Religion The end of the first part THE SECOND PART CAP. I. Wherein is contained a briefe proposall of the Particulars in this Second Part. HAving brought forth our strength both of Scripture and Reason seconded in both with sufficient authorities of men of best esteeme as well to overthrow the conclusion set up by the Adversary in the Question debated as to establish that which we have undertaken for and oppose against it it remaines that for the making good the ground which we have gotten we should disarme our enemies and take away those weapons from them wherein they trust by answering those Scriptures and Reasons which are usually chosen for the service of this warrefare and whereby some endeavour as well to build up what we have laboured hitherto to throw downe as to cast downe what we have to built up The truth is that no cause or truth reigneth in fulnesse of glorie and peace till all the enemies thereof be either reconciled or put under his feete In consideration whereof I shall no wayes smoother or dissemble any objection of the adverse party as farre as I know they have yet pleaded or can conceive they may possibly plead yet further for themselves in the point depending nor seeke to gaine the least advantage to my selfe by cutting the haire or diminishing the strength of any argument I shall propound against my selfe to answer but rather on the other side shall shew all fairenesse and faithfulnesse in relieving my adversaries in their oversights and as farre as my ability extendeth endeavour to supply that which is wanting on their part in maintenance of the cause they have undertaken I shall therefore in this Second Part of my Worke first lay downe and prove with all convenient briefenesse that may be some conclusions which have speciall relation to the Question depending and will give a further light of insight therein and which will be as foundations or grounds to frame answers upon to severall objections that are or may be made against the decision maintained in this Discourse 2. I shall lay downe and open some distinctions which will make a cleare and lightsome way for the truth through the darkenesse of many difficulties which seeme to oppose it on every side as well from the Scriptures as reasoning otherwise 3. I shall lay downe the nature and purport of Iustification in the severall causes and carriages thereof according to the Scriptures as farre as I am able to conceive 4. I shall briefely propound and answer the
loose and false and deservedly so esteemed by all men notwithstanding her union and communion with an husband of upright affections neither doth the union and communion which the rest of the members of the body have with the head necessarily require that whatsoever the Head hath or doth should be imputed to all the members respectively The eyes which are in the head are not imputed to the hands or feete nor the eares which grow upon the head imputed to the heeles nor the actions or naturall functions of seeing and hearing the one performed by the eyes the other by the eares imputed to the armes or legges so that these should be said either to see or to heare as they doe In like manner there is not the least shew or colour of pretence to build a necessity of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to beleevers upon that union and communion which they have with him or to conclude and inferre that because beleevers have union and communion with Christ therefore his righteousnesse must be theirs in such a sence that they may have the denomination of righteous therefrom or be constituted and made righteous therewith May it not be said with as much reason that because beleevers have union and communion with Christ therefore his soule and his body must needs be imputed to them yea and his wisedome and his power and his glory imputed to them also so that they are esteemed by God as wise as powerfull as glorious by vertue of such imputation as Christ himselfe is That union and communion which beleevers have with Christ SECT 10 are sufficiently yea abundantly salved and made good in these and such like particulars 1. By vertue of this union and communion with him they are actuall members of that mysticall and blessed body or society whereof he is the head 2. They are partakers of the same spirit with him who dwelleth in them as he dwelleth in Christ himself 3. They have communion fellowship in the same fruits and effects of the Spirit with him 4. By vertue of this union and communion with him they have part and fellowship in that Redemption which he hath purchased with his blood 5. They have speciall interest in that infinite wisedome and power of his as in all other perfections and excellent endowments of his person whereby he is both every wayes able and alwayes ready and willing to doe marvellously for them and to advance the things of their peace 6. they have a compleate right and title to that immortall and undefiled inheritance which is reserved in the heavens 7. They have communion and fellowship with God himselfe and speciall interest in his love 8. And lastly they have communion and fellowship one with another and are dearely and deepely interessed in the mutuall affections one of another besides many other rich priviledges of like nature and of very precious concernment So that to deny the imputation of Christs righteousnes is no more to deny or any wayes to obscure their union communion with Christ than to deny that the miracles which Christ wrought are imputed to us or than to deny that a man seeth with his hands or healeth with his heeles is a denying that the members of the body have any connexion union or communion with the head The sinne in of Adam is no where in Scripture said to be imputed to his posterity Conclusi 9 SECT 11 neither can any other imputation thereof be proved either by Scripture or sound reason than that which stands either in a communion of all his posteritie with him therin the second Adam only excepted who for divers reasons was an exempt person or els in a propagation of his nature defiled therewith or lastly in that punishment or condemnation that is come upon the world by it But as for any such imputation of it by vertue whereof precisely considered and simply as an act of Gods justice all his posterity should be constituted and made formally sinners neither doe the Scriptures acknowledge nor sound reason admit The former clause of this Conclusion is unquestionable The Scriptures wheresoever they speake of Adams sin and the relation of it to his posterity wholly abstaine from the terme of imputation neither doe they use any other word or phrase in this Argument of like signification and importance with it at least in that notion and sence wherein it is so frequently used by many in this controversie But first they acknowledge a communion betweene Adam and his posterity except the before excepted in this sin in respect whereof the sinne may as well be attributed to any and to all of his posterity as to Adam himselfe as Abrahams act of paying tythes to Melchizedeth is ascribed to Levie being in his loynes as well as to Abraham himselfe And to say as the thing is saith the Holy Ghost Heb. 7.9 Levie also which receiveth tythes paied tythes in Abraham The truth and propriety of which saying he makes good by this demonstration in the next words For he was yet in the loynes of his Father Abraham when Melchizedech met him It is not here said that Abrahams paying tythes was imputed to Levie but that Levie himselfe payed tythes in that act of Abrahams as well as Abraham So that this act of paying tythes was as well Levies act as Abrahams and is imputed to him not as Abrahams act but as his owne In like manner the Scripture plainely affirmeth that all Adams posterity sinn'd in Adam in that first sinne of his especially Rom. 5.12 but it no where affirmeth that Adams sinne is imputed to them Their owne sinne in Adam may with good propriety of speech and safety of truth be said to be imputed to them but that Adams sinne otherwise than as it is or was theirs as well as his by reason of that subsistance and being they had in him or in his loynes should be imputed to them hath neither ground in Scripture nor consistence either with reason or truth That old rule in Metaphysiques SECT 12 Operatio rei consequitur esse rei i. the Acts or operations of things still follow the being of things and are proportionable and suteable thereunto is sound and rationall and of perfect agreement with that Scripture Reason cited from Heb. 7.10 There are severall kinds of beings and subsistences of things A thing may have its being either in causis or extra causas i. either in the causes of it onely or out of the causes viz. when it is actually produced and in a compleate being Againe those things that have their beings onely in their causes may have their being either in their supernaturall causes onely as the counsell purpose and power of God or in the naturall causes also that is when such things have an actuall and compleate being which according to the common course of nature and providence are able and apt to produce them Thus in Winter the Rose may be said to have a being in the roote
Conclus 12 either in the Scriptures or Reasons to say SECT 19 that Christ by any imputation of sinne was made formally a sinner nor that sinne in any other sence should be said to be imputed to him then as the punishment due unto it was inflicted on him I shall not neede to insist upon the justification of this Conclusion partly because it hath beene sufficiently argued and cleered in the former part of this Treatise a Cap. 19. Sect. 1.2 but chiefely because it is given in with both hands by the chiefe masters of that way of Imputation which we oppose Christ saith Bishop Downham b Tract of Iustifica p. 40. was made sinne or a sinner by our sinnes not formally God forbid but by imputation c. And Bishop Davenant c De Iustit Habit â—â—einhaerent Desp c. 24. p. 33. Voluit Christus peccata ita in se suscipere ut non inde peccator sed hostia pro peccato constitueretur idem p. 333. calls it a thing repugnant to the salvation of men and blasphemous once to imagine that Christ should be made wicked i. formally a sinner by any imputation of sinne to him And a little before hee makes the impuâ—ation of sinne to Christ to stand in the translation of the punishment of sinne and curse of the Law upon him And in another place Christ was willing so farre to take our sinnes upon him not as to be made a sinner hereby but onely a sacrifice for sinne So that if the men with whom wee have to doe in this businesse of imputation would but stand their owne ground and walke peaceably with their owne principles wee should soone comprimize For their great maxime is that in that manner wherein our sinnes are imputed unto Christ in the same Christs righteousnesse is imputed unto us If so then are not we made formally righteous by any righteousnesse of Christ imputed to us because Christ is not made formally a sinner by any sinne of ours imputed to him Conclusi 13 SECT 20 Faith doth not onely if at all declare a man to be righteous or in a justified estate but is the very meanes by which Justification or righteousnesse is obtained so that no man is to be reputed nor indeede is a person justified in the sight of God specially if we speake of yeares of discretion untill hee obtaines this grace of justification by beleeving This is the constant Doctrine of the Scriptures and there is not one of many of our Reformed Divines that doe oppose it He that beleeveth not saith our Saviour himselfe Mar. 16.16 shall be damned If Justification were in order of time before faith it might very possibly be that many might escape damnation who yet never beleeved because they might die in that interim of time which is supposed to lie betweene a mans justification and his beleeving The like argument might be framed from that passage also Ioh. 8.24 Except you beleeve that I am he you shall die in your sinnes But there are other texts of Scripture so pregnant for this truth that there is no rising up with reason against them Therfore we conclude saith the Apostle that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3.28 That which hee had laboured hitherto and laboureth on in some Chapters following to prove was not how or by what meanes a man might know or be declared either to himselfe or others that he is a justified person but how and by what meanes he might come to be justified These two are of a very farre differing consideration and importance It is of a thousand times more concernement to a man to be justified than to know that he is justified Besides if the Apostles scope and intent here had beene to argue the declaration or to propound the meanes of a discovery or manifestation of a person justified and not simply to prove and shew how and by what meanes justification it selfe is to be attained there can no reason be given either why he should have excluded the workes of the Law or insisted upon Faith rather than many other graces as love patience c. especially why he should have insisted on Faith onely without the association of other graces For it is certaine that obedience to the Law and so love patience temperance humilitie c. are as effectuall nay have a preheminence above Faith it selfe for the discovery of a man in the estate of Justification Shew me thy faith by thy workes and I will shew thee my faith by my workes Iam. 2.18 Therefore workes are more easie to be seene and more apt for discovery or manifestation then Faith for that which discovereth or maketh things manifest is light Ephes 5.13 whereas that which needs manifestation is darkenesse in comparison and therefore the more unfit and uncapable of being a meanes for the discovery and manifestation of other things So elsewhere love is represented as a grace of speciall use and service this way I meane for the discovery and manifestation of justification or of a man in a justified condition but is never mentioned as of any use for justification it selfe Wee know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brethren 1 Iohn 3.14 The Scripture doth not any where ascribe the like discoverie of justification unto Faith but justification it selfe it ascribeth unto Faith againe and againe Therefore being justified by Faith c. Rom. 5.1 So ver 2. so Gal. 3.8 The Scriptures foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles by faith c. It would make a sence very unsavoury and weake to carry the interpretation of these words thus The Scriptures foreseeing that God would declare by Faith that the Gentiles were justified neither would such a sence any wayes accommodate that which followeth But I hasten SECT 21 passing over many places wherein Justification it selfe not the discovery of Justification is attributed unto Faith and conclude with that one testimony Gal. 2.16 We knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Iesus Christ Even we have beleeved in Iesus Christ that wee might be justified by the faith of Christ c. not because we were righteous or justified or that we might know our selves to be justified but that we might be justified by the faith of Iesus If the Apostle should here speak of a declarative justification there is no relation why he should have excluded the workes of the Law these being every whit of as declarative an importance this way as beleeving it selfe nay above it as we proved before and the Scripture it selfe plainely intimates Little children saith Iohn let no man deceive you He that doth righteousnesse is righteous c. i. is thereby viz. by his doing righteousnesse declared to be righteous or a person justified it is no where said in such a sence that he that beleeveth is righteous Therefore it is evident that the opposition which
i. the Author and procurer of all these respectively Sixtly by a metonymy of the cause for the effect or of the antecedent for the consequent a common dialect also in Scriptures aswell the benefits and rewards of a mans righteousnesse in the first and third acception of the word as the blessings and privileges which accompany that righteousnesse which we have by the merits of Christ in our Iustification are sometimes expressed by the terme righteousnesse Thus Iob 33.26 God will render unto man his righteousnesse i. will recompence and reward every mans uprightnesse and integrity with sutable blessings and expressions of his love So Psal 112.9 His righteousnesse remaineth for ever i. the praise and other rewards of his righteousnesse shall be durable and lasting So Gal. 5.5 We through the Spirit waite for the hope of the righteousnesse of Faith i. for the great and royall privileges promised by God and accordingly hoped for by us to that Iustification which is by Faith in Iesus Christ See the first Chapter of the former part of this discourse Sect. 4. p. 12. c. Seventhly the word righteousnesse in some construction of words with it hath no precise or proper signification distinct and apart from the word with which it is joyned but together with that word makes a sense or signification of one and the same thing Thus in the phrase of imputing righteousnesse Rom. 4.6.11 c. the word imputing See impedit ira c. p. 43. doth not signifie one thing and righteousnesse another but together they signifie one and the same act of God which we call free iustifying So that to impute righteousnesse is nothing else but freely to iustifie and righteousnesse imputed free iustification passive It is thâ—â— in many idio m's and proprieties of languages In that Hebrew phrase of covering the feet Iudg. 3.24 1 Sam. 24.3 Neither of the words are to be taken in any proper or peculiar signification but together they signifie one and the same thing and that differing from the proper signification of either of the words Many other instances might be given in severall phrases or formes of speech the true sense and meaning whereof is not to be gathered from the proper signification which the words have severally in other constructions but from the concurrence and joynt aspect of them in that phrase Thus the Scripture phrase of going in to a woman is not to be interpreted according to the significations of the words in other sentences or constructions of speech but according to the importance which they still joyntly have when they are found together Eightly and lastly the word righteousnesse according to the propriety of the Hebrew stongue which often useth abstracts for concretes signifieth sometimes a Society or company of righteous or iustifiedones sometimes of just or upright ones In the former sense you have it 2 Cor. 5.21 That we should be made the righteousnesse of God in him i. a company of righteous or iustified persons made such by God through Iesus Christ In the latter sense you have it Esa 60.17 where God promiseth to his Church and people to make their exactors righteousnesse i. a generation or company of men that should deale righteously and fairely with them In this dialect of speech poverty for so it is in the originall is put for a company of poore men 2 Kings 24.14 So Captivity for a company of Captives 2 Chr. 28.5 Deut. 21.10 and in sundry other places So againe circumcision for circumcised Phil. 3.3 election for elected Rom. 11.7 with the like So that aswell in studying as arguing the Question in hand great care must be had that we be not intangled and lose our selves in this multiplicitie of significations of this word righteousnesse which is a word almost of continuall use and occurrence in the businesse of Iustification and yet of such an ambiguous and different signification and importance Distincti 3 See sect 4. See Pareus De Iusti Christi Active et Passive p. 180. D. Prideaux Lect. 5. de Iustifi p. 162. Mr. Eradshaw Iustifica p. 68 69. c. Mr. Forbez Iustificate 25. p. 111 112 c that without much heedfulnesse it may occasion much stumbling and miscariage in our understanding The righteousnesse or obedience of Christ is twofold oâ— of two kindes the one Divines call Iustitia personae the righteousnesse of his person the other Iustitia meriti the righteousnesse of his merit The terms of Active and Passive wherein this Distinction is commonly conceived are not altogether so proper because even in that obedience which we call Passive Christ was in some sort active as willingly and freely submitting himselfe unto it Notwithstanding the Distinction might passe well enough in these termes Obedientia Christi duplex â—st altera quam vi legus communu qua creatura rationalus verus homo cum esset altera quam vi legude mediatione peculiarus sive pacti de redemptionis negotio initi quam neris humani Mediator et Redemptor Dro Patri debuâ—t et exhibuit Gataker against Gomarus p. 4. See further p. 15. 〈◊〉 p. 25. ibid. The righteousnesse of his person is that whereby he iustifyeth himselfe only or is himselfe righteous the righteonsnesse of his merit is that whereby he iustifyeth others The former consisteth partly of that integrity of nature which was in him partly of that obedience which he performed to the morall Law or that Law which is generally imposed upon all men The latter of that obedience or subjection which he performed to that peculiar Law of Mediator-ship which was imposed upon him alone and never upon any man besides For it is evident that Christ both did and suffered many things not simply as he was man but as he was Mediator especially his voluntary submission of himselfe unto death for the ransome and attonement of the world was the fulfilling of the great commandement in the peculiar Law of Mediator-ship being no waies bound by any precept in the Morall Law thereunto If Christ had been bound as man or by the Morall Law to die for the sinnes of men his death had bin ineffectuall for others For certaine it is that no man dischargeth another mans debt Qui obedientiae activae aut sanctitati nativae meritum justitla ascribunt morrem Christi sine dubie innnem reddunt Pareus De Iustic Christi Activ and Pass p. 181.182 c. by paying his owne and our Saviour himselfe injoyneth his Disciples when they should doe only that which was commanded them though they should do this to the uttermost yet to say that they were unprofitable Servants they had done but that which was their duty to doe Luk 17.10 Besides hee that maintaineth that Christ was bound by the moral Law to die for the sinnes of men saith in effect that if he had not died he had bin a sinner and deserved to have bin punished himselfe and so extenuateth and abaseth to the dust the
Iustic Habit. c. 28. p. 364. Argum. 3. Mr. Bradshaw Iustific p. 67.72 c. Bish Downham Iustificâ— c. 1. c. 2 Section 9. of those that are or at least sometimes seeme to be of opposite judgement in the maine of the controversie depending I thus leave it Onely I desire to remember you of the Item Pareus gives (c) De Iustic Christi Act et Pass p. 180. out of his observation touching this Dictinction that the neglect hereof causeth much confusion and encumbreth the Doctrine of Iustification with many difficulties and inconveniences and renders it hardly defensible against the Papists and other adversaries to the truth of it Therefore in managing the present Question about imputation speciall care must be had that we neither use our selves nor admit from others these words the righteousnesse of Christ but with an eye to this Distinction A thing may be said to be imputed to a man in severall respects and considerations First Distinct 4 SECT 7 a man 's owne acts whether good orâ—evill may be said to be imputed to him when he himselfe and none other is simply and without reference either to reward or punishment either reputed or pronounced the doer of them This sense of imputation is not unproper yet do I not remember the word any where in the Scriptures so used But in this sense aswell the Active as Passive obedience of Christ are by God imputed to Christ himselfe and to no other and the sinnes of beleevers themselves to themselves that have committed them respectively and to none other Secondly a mans doings whether good or evill may be said to be imputed to him when he is either actually rewarded or punished because of them or else is look'd upon by the Judge as one that shall in due time either be rewarded or punished for such doings except some reasonable and just occasion shall in the meane time intervene to alter either of these purposes concerning him In this sense Shimei maketh request to David that he would not impute folly to him that is that he would not punish him for that foolish act of his reviling him So the sinnes of unbelievers may be sayd to be imputed to them when either they are punished by God in this world or else cast into Hell for them In this sense also the sinnes of the elect themselves before they beleeve may be said to be imputed to them because they are looked upon by God as persons yet liable to condemnation for their sinnes and that should in time actually be condemned except by the precious benefit and advantage of Gods patience and long sufferance towards them they should come truely to beleeve in Iesus Christ before death Thirdly Another mans trespasse or offence may be said to be imputed unto us when either we are challenged or look'd upon as advisors counsellors or furtherers of him thereunto or otherwise are hardly dealt with or punished as if we had bin accessary in some such way And so another mans vertue learning valor and well-deserving in any kind may be said to be imputed unto him who is conceived or look'd upon as the chiefe Author teacher or incourager of the other in any of these In this sense the faire and hopefull cariage of King Ioash towards the beginning of his Reigne may be imputed to Iehojada the Priest 2 King 12.2 with 2 Ch. 24.2 Thus the knowledge and courage which were found in Peter and Iohn are in effect imputed to Christ himselfe by the Priests and Rulers Act. 4.13 In this sense also the victory won by the valor and courage of the Souldiers is oft imputed to the Generall or chiefe Commander Fourthly one mans sinne and so his vertuous act may be said to be imputed to another when this other through ignorance or mistake is look'd upon as the man that had performed either the one or the other and is either censured or punished or else honoured or rewarded accordingly In this sense King Porsenna's hostile attempt against the Romans may be said to have bin imputed unto his Scribe or Officer by Scaevola when upon a mistake he slew him supposing him to have bin the King I do not remember any instance for this sense of the word imputation in the Scriptures Therefore Fiftly one mans wickednesse or ill deserts may be said to be imputed unto others when they are any waies punished or worse dealt with in consideration thereof as on the contrary a mans worth vertue or well-deservings in any kind may be said to be imputed to others as viz. his children kinsfolke friends c. when they are considered and well dealt with in any kind because of their relation unto such a man In this sense David may be said to have imputed Ionathans kindnesse unto Mephibosheth his Sonne when he preferred him to honour in consideration thereof and so the wicked act of those that accused Daniel and caused him to be cast into the Lyons Den may be said to have bin imputed unto their wives and children by the King when he caused them also to be cast into the Lyons Den for it Dan. 6 24. So the sinne of Achan to his house and Family Ios 7. and the sinne of Dathan and Abiram to their wives and Children Num. 16. In this sense likewise Paul willeth Philemon to impute to him for so the word signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil. ver 18. any wrong or injury that his servant Onesimus had done him meaning that he was willing and ready to make satisfaction for it In this sense of imputation and in this only the sinnes of men may be said to be imputed unto Christ viz. because he suffered the things which he did suffer in consideration of them and these sufferings of his againe may be said to be imputed unto us because we are rewarded that is justified saved in consideration of them But that either our sinnes should be therefore said to be imputed unto Christ because he is reputed by God to have committed them or that his righteousnesse whether active or passive should be therefore said to be imputed to us because we are reputed by God to have done or suffered the one or the other (a) In this sense the imputation aswell of the Passive as Active obedience of Christ are elswhere denied in this Treatise See Part 1. c. 10 Sect. 4 c. hath neither footing nor foundation either in Scripture or reason Sixtly taking the word imputation in a large sense SECT 8 that also may be said to be imputed to a man which essentially and directly conduceth either to the benefit or punishment which accrueth unto him from that which is more properly and immediatly imputed to him In this sense when the wife or children of a man that hath well deserved of a state or Family are any waies rewarded or well dealt with in consideration of his desert not only the deserts themselves but his ingenuous and liberall education together with his
exactnesse ever after to the worlds end without the least failing in the least point of obedience thereunto the condition of a legall justification being that a man must continue à carcere ad metas from the very first entrance upon his being to the last end thereof in all things that are written in the Law to doe them so that the least trip or stumbling throughout all his course wholly dissolves and overthrowes such a justification Secondly because God hath opened another way for the justification of sinners viz. Faith in Jesus Christ and certaine it is that he never sets up one way against another or one ordinance against another so that what he intends should be effected by one he should intend to be effected by another also as hath bin argued and proved more at large in the former part of this Treatise (a) cap. 12. Sect. 2. c. Therefore to affirme that the fulfilling of the Law is required of any man either by himselfe or by another in his stead for his justification is to affirme either that a man that hath sin'd hath not sin'd or that which God hath said he hath unsaid Christ may be said to have kept the Law Distincti 6 SECT 11 in reference to our justification two waies or in a double sense either 1º for us or 2º in our stead In the former sense it may be admitted that Christ kept the Law for our justification but not in the latter The former sense only imports that this obedience of his had an influence into our justification and did contribute that which was of absolute necessity thereunto which hath bin explained and granted and in part proved formerly The latter sense imports that the keeping of the Law was primarily required of every man for his justification since the fall and that God in respect of the personall disabilities of men for such performance in reference to such an end sent his Sonne Iesus Christ to performe it in their roomes and places Which supposition stands convict of a manifest untruth in the former Distinction and elswhere in this Treatise (a) Part 1. cap. Sect. Distincti 7. SECT 12 The Iustification of a sinner I meane Passive though it be but one and the same entire effect yet may it be ascribed to many and those very diffâ—rent causes respectively according to their severall influences and differing manner of concurrence thereunto God may be said to iustifie Christ may be said to iustifie yea the Holy Ghost in a true and proper sense may be said to iustifie Faith may be said to iustify the Minister may be said to iustifie as well as to save 1 Tim. 4.16 remission of sinnes may be said to iustifie c. Whatsoever contributeth any thing more or lesse either in a superior or inferior way towards the raising and producing any effect the effect it selfe may not onely according to truth but in ordinary propriety of speaking be ascribed unto it It is as true to say and not unproper that the sling in Davids hand or the smooth stone which he slang or his act of slinging killed Goliah as to say that David himselfe killed him though it 's true David was the principall efficient in this action and the other were but inferior and instrumentall So that to reason thus Christ iustifies therefore Faith doth not iustifie or thus Christ is our righteousnesse therefore Faith is not our righteousnesse or remission of sinnes is not our righteousnesse c. is as if a man should argue after this manner It is God that maketh rich therefore money maketh not rich or a diligent hand maketh not rich which yet is a truth and is affirmed by the Holy Ghost aswell as the other Or thus It is God that purifieth the heart therefore man purifieth it not neither doth Faith purifie it nor doe afflictions purifie c. Or thus The Physician recovered the sick therefore his Physique did not recover him It is a weake reasoning à positione causae principalis ad remotionem accessorie Christ may Justifie and Faith may justifie and remission of sinnes may justifie yea Christ doth not iustifie without Faith nor without remission of sinnes more then either oâ— these iustifie without Christ though it be true Christ iustifieth after a manner peculiar to himselfe and Faith and Remission of sinnes each of them after a manner proper to it selfe and the manner of Iustification which is proper to Christ is more excellent and of superior consideration to the manner wherein either Faith or Remission of sinnes Iustifie Therefore the argument doth not follow from the affirmation of Iustification by Christ to the negation of the same Iustification by Faith or any other thing but it well fâ—llowes from the affirmation of the peculiar manner of Iustification which is proper to Christ to the negation of the same manner as belonging either to Faith or to Remission of sinnes or any thing besides This arguing is substantiall Christ Justifieth by way of merit or satisfaction or attonement for sinne therefore neither Faith nor remission of sinnes nor any thing else iustifieth either by way of merit satisfaction or attonement Therefore care must be had to distinguish the simple act from the peculiar manner of Iustification CAP. IIII. Conteyning a briefe Delineation or survey of the intire body of Justification in the severall causes of it according to the tenour of the Conclusions and Distinctions layd downe in the two former Chapters AS well to give a full and free accompt of mine owne judgement SECT 1 and of what I conceive and hold touching the great businesse of Iustification and the whole cariage of it in the Scriptures and counsaile of God as also to furnish my Reader with some further and cleerâ—r light whereby to comprehend the darknesse and to discover the insufficiency and weaknesse of those arguments that either are brought from the Scriptures or otherwise framed against the maine Conclusion defended in this Treatise I thought it not amisse to inlarge the Discourse by one Chapter the more wherein to delineate and represent according to the modell of my weake insight into so great a mystery that faire piece or frame wherein the grace justice and wisdome of God have sweetly conspired for the justification of a poore sinner And because the perfect knowledge hereof I meane of the gracious designe of God in and about the Iustification of a sinner depends upon the knowledge and right apprehension of the severall causes concurring and contributing thereunto as indeed the true knowledg of all thâ—ngs whatsoever ariseth from the knowledge of the causes thereof I desire leave to premise some few generall rules touching the number nature and property of causes in generall but only such which are generally acknowledged and subscribed unto by sober men that have had their wits exercised in discerning things agreeable to reason and who can be no waies suspected as partiall or any waies engaged either on the right hand or
description of this cause given of Iustification is God himselfe Father Son and Holy Ghost considered is one and the same simple and intire essence though this act of justification as that of creation and some others besides is in special manner appropriated to the first person of the three the Father as other acts are to the other two persons Redemption to the Son Sanctification to the Holy Ghost c. in both which notwithstanding all the three persons being but one and the same intâ—re and undivided essence must needs be interesâ—ed Thus Rom. 8.33 where it is said that it is God that justifieth it is meant by way of appropriation of God the Father because there is mention made of Christ the second person immediately it is Christ that is dead c. Now that God is that kinde of cause of Iustification which hath bin attributed to him and no other is evident from the description of this cause formerly layd downe Sect. 4. of this Chapter For 1º that he is a cause of Iustification is the consent of all men without exception besides the Scripture lately cited Rom. 8. is full and pregnant this way It is God that justifieth 2º that he is neither the matter nor the forme of Iustification is sufficiently evident of it selfe neither did ever any man affirme either the one or the other of him and besides we shall cleere this further when we come to inquire after these causes 3º that he is not the end or finall cause of Iustification appeares from that property or condition of this cause mentioned Sect. 3. viz that it is to be atteyned or receive it's being by meanes of that thing whereof it is the end which cannot be verified of God or his being in respect of Iustification inasmuch as these no way depend upon it This likewise will further appeare when we come to lay downe the finall cause Therefore 4º and lastly he must of necessity be the efficient cause of Iustification there being no fift kinde of cause whereunto he should be reduced Secondly SECT 10 that he is the principall efficient cause and not instrumentall is evident also because he is not assum'd acted or made use of by any other in or about the justification of a sinner but himselfe projecteth the whole frame and cariage of all things yea and manageth and maketh use of all things instrumentally concurring or belonging thereunto It is God that justifieth the Gentiles by or through Faith Gal. 3.8 so Rom. 3.30 c. God maketh use of Faith and so of his word and of the Ministers of his word to produce Faith in the hearts of men and consequently to justifie them but none of these can be said to act or make use of God in or about this great effect Thirdly that he is the Naturall efficient cause of Iustification according to the notion and description of this cause given Sect. 5. is evident because in the exercising or putting forth this act of Iustification he acteth and worketh out of that authority and power which are essentiall and connaturall to him and not out of any superadded or acquired principle of art or otherwise whereof he is wholly uncapable It is true he is moved to the exercise of this act of â—ustifying men by somewhat that is extrinsecall and not essentiall to him viz. the intercession of the death and sufferings of Christ yet the act it selfe in the exercise of it proceeds by vertue of that authority and power which are estentiall to him as hath bin said No creature can be said to justifie or forgive any man his sinnes no not by Christ but God alone Who can forgive sinnes but God onely Mar. 2.7 Fourthly SECT 11 the Morall or internall impulsive cause of Iustification as it is an act of God is that infinite love goodnesse mercy sweetnesse and graciousnesse in God himselfe towards his poore creature Man looked upon as miserable and lying under condemnation for sinne This was the moving and procuring cause of the guift of Christ and his death and sufferings from him and consequently of that justification which is procured and purchased by Christ and his sufferings So God loved the world that hee gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever beleeveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life viz by Iustification through him Ioh. 3.16 Fiftly the externall Morall or impulsive efficient cause of this act of God is the Lord Iesus Christ himselfe in or through his death and sufferings or which is the same the death and sufferings of Iesus Christ God looking upon Christ as such and so great a sufferer for the sinnes of men is thereby strengthened and provoked to deliver those that beleeve in him from their sinnes and that condemnation which is due unto them i. to justifie them The Scripture is cleere in laying downe this cause Even as God for Christs sake freely forgave you viz. your sinnes i. justified you Ephe. 4.32 Those words for Christs sake are a plaine and perfect character of that kinde of cause we now speake of This with the former i. both internall and externall impussive or moving causes are joyn'd together Rom. 3.24 And are justified freely by his grace here is the inward impulsive cause of Justification through the Redemption that is in Christ Iesus viz. by meanes of his death and sufferings here is the outward moving cause we speake of Neither can the Death and sufferings of Christ with any shew of reason or with any tolerable construction or congruitie of speaking be referred to any other cause in the businesse of justification but the impulsive only He that would make Christ the instrumentall cause of Iustification (a) Mr. Walker Socinian discovered c. p. 138. discovers himselfe to be no great Gamaliel in this learning and had need thrust his Faith out of doores as he doth in many places and not suffer it to have any thing at all to doe about his Iustification least his Christ and his Faith should be corrivalls and contend for preheminence therein And yet more repugnant to reason is it to make either Christ himselfe or any righteousnesse of his whatsoever either the matter or materiall cause of Justification which yet the Socinian Discoverer doth (b) Ibid. p. 139 or the forme or formall cause thereof which is done by some others But that is a streyne of unreasonablenesse above all the rest to make either Christ or his righteousnesse both the formall and materiall cause too of this great act of God we speake of the Justification of a sinner these causes being of so opposite a nature and different consideration as hath bin described and yet even this conceit also hath found enterteynment with some To this kinde of cause we now speake of must be reduced also the active or personall righteousnesse of Christ as farre as it hath any influence into or any waies operates towards the justificatioÌ„ of a siner For though it be not satisfactory
simply and directly in it selfe nor contributing any thing immediatly by way of merit towards the Iustification of a sinner the reasons whereof have bin formerâ—y given So that God is not thereby provoked or mov'd to justify any man yet falling in conjunction with that other righteousnesse of Christ which we call passive and making his blood to be the blood of a Lamb undefiled and without spot 1 Pet. 1.19 it cannot be denied but that here and in this consideration it hath some kinde of an impulsive and moving efficiencie towards Iustification qualifying in part the sacrifice of Christ for that fullnesse and height of acceptation with God The great misery of the poore creature man lying under condemnation for sinne cannot properly be conceived or call'd any cause of his justification yet is it somewaies reducible to this externall impulsive cause in hand inasmuch as that goodnesse and graciousnesse of God we spake of was hereby occasioned and moved to take some course for it's Iustification and salvation Concerning Faith SECT 12 the generall and uniforme Doctrine of Reformed Authors gives it for an instrumentall efficient cause of Iustification which is the sixt and last kinde of efficient we shall insist upon and so it hath bin more then once represented in this Treatise yet we meet with many expressions concerning Faith even in the best and most approved writers which doe not so much sympathize with the instrumentall as the impulsive efficient Thus Musculus speaking of Abraham (a) Ob eam â—dem sâ— qua promittenti Deo sirmiter credidit justus est a Deo reputatus Musc in Gen. 15. ver 6. saith that he was reputed righteous by God FOR that Faith whereby he firmly beleeved God promising Aretius thus (b) Imputavit ei justitiam quod est fidem gratam habuit adeo ut justum eum haberet justitia imputativa Aret. ad Rom. 4. God imputed righteousnesse to Abraham that is accepted his Faith and againe a Faith so firme and pious was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse In all which expressions with many others both in these and other Authors of like importance there seemes rather an impulsive or perswasive then an instrumentall efficiencie ascribed unto Faith The Scriptures themselves also in respect of other favors blessings and deliverances vouchsafed by God unto Beleevers seeme at least in many places to ascribe rather an impulsive then instrumentall efficiencie unto Faith in the procuring of them So Daniel was brought out of the Denne and no manner of hurt was found upon him BECAUSE he beleeved in God Dan. 6.23 In like manner the Prophet Hanani to King Asa The Ethiopians and the Lubims were they not a great host with Charets and horsemen exceeding many yet BECAUSE then didst rest upon the Lord he delivered them into thine hand 2 Chr. 16.8 See Jer. 39.18.2 Chr 31.18 c. 14 11. with many others Notwithstanding elsewhere this Faith of Beleevers the Holy Ghost makes rather instrumentall then impulsive and that in respect of such favors also Mâ—ny instances whereof are found in that one Chapter Heb. 11. By Faith they passed through the Red Sea ver 29. By Faith the walls of Iericho fell downe 39. Againe ver 33. it is sayd concerning Gideon Barak Sampson c. that through Faith they subdued Kingdomes wrought righteousnesse stopped the mouthes of Lyons quenched the violence of fire c. For reconciling this seeming difference in the Scriptures it may be said that the instrumentall and impulsive efficients are not so opposite but that sometimes and in some cases the instrumentall cause may put on the consideration of an impulsive also and aswell move a man to doe a thing as assist him or be made use of by him in the doing it Thus a competent strength of men may aswell move a King to give battaile to an enemy as assist him in the battaile and obteyning the victory So a Carpenter or other artificer having tooles or instruments thereafter may be perswaded or moved by them in part to undertake some piece of worke which otherwise they would not And thus Faith I conceive may in different respects be look'd upon either as an instrumentall or as an impulsive cause in Iustification As it is a ground or reason why God justifieth one man when he justifieth not another for the beleever is alwaies iustifyed and that because he is a beleever and the unbeleever not so it hath the nature of an impulsive cause againe as it is subservient to the counsell or decree of God concerning Iustification and is accordingly made use of by him in the act of Iustification for he is said to iustify men by and through Faith Rom. 3 30 c. it puts on the nature and consideration of an instrumentall cause properly so called True it is Faith is not an impulsive or moving cause in Iustification of the same kinde nor after the same manner that Christ and his sufferings are these are impulsive and moving in a superior way by way of merit and consequently of Iustification simply and therefore are at no hand to be reckoned amongst the instrumentall causes thereof whereas Faith moveth only in an inferior and under way and by such a motion wherewith causes properly instrumentall sometimes move as hath bin said and therefore mooveth not properly to Iustification or to Iustification simply but comparatiuely that is to the Iustification of such and such men viz that doe beleeve Other causes there are instrumentally inservient unto Iustification as viz. the word of God that is preached the preaching it selfe of this word the Minister by whom this word is preached the sight apprehending or understanding of this word the operation or worke of the Holy Ghost by which this word is made effectuall in the heart and soule of a beleever and generally whatsoever tendeth or contributeth towards the worke of Faith in the soule may be called instrumentall in or about Iustification according to the importance of the old maxime Quod est causa causae est etiam causa causatâ— But how the Sacraments should become instrumentall causes or meanes of Iustification must be knowne by inquiring at the Oracle at Rome for neither the Scriptures nor the Reformed Religion have any of this learning in them This briefly for the efficient câ—uses of Iustification which is the first generall head of causes among the foure Secondly SECT 13 concerning the finall causes of Justification all parties as farre as I know are upon the matter agreed also For though one may discover and put upon accompt more intermediate or subordinate ends or finall causes hereof then another yet no man denieth at least can with reason deny but that the Glory of God which is the generall great and sovereigne end of all things whatsoever hath the preheminence also amongst and above all the ends of Iustification that can be named or enter into the heart of man to conceive The great subordinate end and which lies fairest and fullest
afflictions aâ— he doth in the former part of this verse and in the two verses following he maketh mention of his grace and favour towards them in the free pardon of their sinnes and of his being pacified towards them these notwithstanding Which grace and favour of his in being reconciled unto them expressing it selfe in abundance of outward peace and glory is oft called his righteousnesse because he confers it upon them and sometimes their righteousnesse because they receive it from him Compare Esa 45.8.24.25 Esa 46.13 Esa 48.18 Esa 51.5.6.8 Esa 54.17 Ier. 50.20.19 Jer. 51.10 c. with many others Some have digg'd for the treasure of imputation in the field of that Scripture Esay 45.24 SECT 4 Surely shall one say in the Lord have I righteousnesse and strength But First to omit the severall readings Esa 45.24 answered and interpretations accordingly of this Scripture which shew that it is no pregnant foundation to build so disputable a point of Faith upon I answere that neither is here the least ayre or breathing of that imputation so much wondred after nor do I finde any intimation given of any such businesse here by any Expositors I can meet with Secondly the plaine and direct meaning of the place is doubtlesse this to shew that when God should communicate the knowledge of himselfe in his Sonne Iesus Christ unto the world whereof he spake in the words immediatly precedent they should generally have this resentment of the meanes of their salvation and peace viz. that they receive them of the free grace and donation of God by Iesus Christ and not of themselves or by the merit of their own righteousnesse which was a veyne of leven where with the greatest part of the Jewish lump was for the present levened So that for a man to say In the Lord I have righteousnesse imports only a profession made by him of his free Iustification and salvation by God in and through Christ As it followeth ver 25. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified And this also is upon the matter Calvins Exposition upon the place who writeth thus Because righteousnesse and strength are the two maine points of our salvation the faithfull acknowledge God to be the Author of both in them c. The last Scripture that I know produced from the old Testament SECT 5 with any face or colour of reason at all for the imputation contended for and against is that Esa 61.10 I will greatly reioyce in the Lord my soule shall be ioyfull in my God for he hath cloathed me with the garments of salvation he hath covered me with the robe of righteousnesse Esa 61.10 opened and ceared c. These garments of salvation and robe of righteousnesse are conceived to be the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to beleevers and as a robe or garment put upon them wherein and whereby they stand iustifyed in the sight of God But I answere First that this cloathing with the garments of salvation and covering with the robe of righteousnesse are expressions concerning chiefly if not solely the Church of the Jewes in their restauration and deliverance from the captivity of Babylon if not from that greater captivity under which they lie at this day as the whole cariage of the Chapter from the begining to the end Suscipit inse vates perso am Ecclesiae Sionu Babylone liberata c. Muscu in Esa 61.10 maketh it fully manifest And so Musculus with other learned Expositors carrie the interpretation of this verse with the particulars contained in it The Prophet saith he taketh upon him the person of the Church of Sion delivered from Babylon c. And a little after coming to expound those metaphoricall clauses mentioned he hath or as he rendreth it when he shall have cloathed me with the garments of salvation and covered we with the robe of righteousnesse he writeth as followeth The meaning is Sensus est cum servaverit et redemos it me justitiamque suam id est singularem probitatem et bonitatem erga me declaraverit c. ibid. when he shall save and redeeme and declare his righteousnesse that is his faithfulnesse and goodnesse towards me c. So that by cleathing with garments of salvation and covering with a robe of righteousnesse is not meant any inward or spirituall blessing or privilege wherewith God should gratifie or inrich his Church as Iustification by Christ is but an externall and temporall Neither by the robe of righteousnesse are we to understand the whole and entire obedience of Christ to the morall Law there being neither word syllable letter or tittle any waies leading or inducing to such an interpretation but the effect of the righteousnesse that is of the truth and faithfulnesse or else of the goodnesse and graciousnesse of God both which are usually expressed in the Scriptures by the word righteousnesse as was before observed cap. 3. Sect. 2. viz. their deliverance from their captivitie together with their peace and safety and many other sweet and comfortable priviledges thereupon Secondly if we carrie these metaphors of garments and robe in a spirituall way and understand them of Iustification by Christ the promise that is supposed to be conteyned in them and a promise doubtlesse there is though conceived in the common propheticall streyne of the time past to shew the certainty of it to be equall to things that are already done and to be made unto the Church will not be sutable or proper thereunto Because the Church of Christ is already and at all times cloathed with the robe of the righteousnesse of Christ in such a sense that is is in a justifyed condition by him Yea her Iustification by Christ is that which gives her her very being as she is his Church Therefore for God to promise unto those that are already justified by Christ a robe of righteousnesse by which they should be justified is as if he should promise Heaven to his elect Angells who are already fully possessed thereof and confirmed in their possession or promise reasonable soules to men who cannot be men without them So that doubtlesse it is no spirituall privilege at least not Iustification by Christ of all other that is here promised to the Church of God But Thirdly and lastly if we understand the passage now under consideration of an externall deliverance as we heard Musculus and other Interpreters doe the metaphor will be found sweet and lively SECT 6 and very emphaticall yea and consonant to the speech and language of the Scripture elsewhere We know it was a custome among the Jewes and there are few Nations I conceive but have somewhat of it more or lesse to attire habit and cloath themselves sutably to their present conditions They had sackcloath to weare in times of mourning and they had garments too proper for times of joy and gladnesse I forbeare to cite Scriptures for the confirmation of this because they are obvious Now
then when God promiseth to cloath his Church being yet in bondage and miserie with the garments of salvation he implieth that for the present they were cloathed like exiles and prisoners and captives that is that they were in these conditions and so subject to all the inconveniences and miseries incident to them But he will change their garments that is alter their estates and conditions of servants he will make them free of banished he will make them possessors of their own land of poore he will make them rich of vile and contemptible he will make them honourable c. The full and entire happinesse of which new condition the Prophet by the figure synecdoche expresseth by the change of their garments according to the usuall manner of the Scripture which often signifieth the estate or condition by the garments proper to it As Junius hath well observed in his annotations upon Esay 22.17 (a) Dignitas ut ab insignibus vestimentis cognoscitur ita Synecdochicâ—egrave in Scripturis designatur vestirnentorum appellatione Iunius Annot. in Esa 22.17 As ominencie of place or office saith he is known by garments sutable and proper to it so is it in the Scriptures by a synecdoche often signified and expressed thereby As when GOD threatened Shebna with the losse of his great Place and with Captivity and that he would put his servant Eliakim into it he expresseth this investiture of Eliakim into this new condition or office thus And I will cloath him with thy Robe and strengthen him with thy Girdle Esa 22.21 To passe by all other Scriptures wherein the observation of Iunius mentioned might be exemplified the Booke of the Revelation represents unto us both the dignitie of Christ himselfe and likewise of his Saints after the same manner by robes and garments and that more then once or twice And in the midst of the 7 Candlesticks one like unto the Sonne of man cloathed with a garment down unto the feet Revel 1.13 This represents the great dignitie of Christ In like manner the honour of his Saints and faithfull ones is thus expressed cap. 3 4 5. And they shall walke with me in white for they are worthy He that overcommeth shall be cloathed in white array c. So the dignitie of the 24 Elders is represented by their cloathing in white rayment cap. 4.4 Againe the whole multitude of Saints out of all Nations are said to stand before the Lamb cloathed with long white robes robes I conceive of the same importance with these robes of salvation in Esa and Palmes in their hands cap. 7.9 â—o also cap. 19 14. where it is said that it was granted to the Lambs wife the Church that she should be arrayed with pure white linnen and shineing which is said to be the righteousnesse of the Saints cap. Revel 19.7 8. cleered and answered by the way 19.7.8 it is evident that nothing is spoken or meant concerning Iustification by Christ or his righteousnesse but only that great honour and reward is hereby signified which Christ was now pleased to conferre upon his Church and Saints who were justified by him long before The pure fine and shining linnen is said to be the righteousnesse of the Saints to shew that the greate glory honour and dignitie which Christ now conferreth upon his Church is the gracious and bountifull reward of her Husband by him given unto her in consideration and remembrance of her righteousnesse that is her holinesse faithfulnesse zeale constancie c. under the persecution of the Beast and great Apostacie of the Christian world It is an usuall manner of speech in Scripture to expresse the reward of a thing by the Name of the thing it selfe whereof it is a reward Thus Numb 22.7 the Elders of Midian and Moab are said to have departed having Divinations for so it is in the originall in their hand that is the money or reward of Divinations So 2 Sam. 4.10 Good tidings is put for the reward of good tidings Againe Revel 13.10 Here is the patience and Faith of the Saints that is the reward and recompence of the patience and faithfull cleaving of the Saints unto Christ when they shall see vengeance executed upon their enemies and themselves made Actors in it Many other instances in this kinde have I remember bin else where in this Treatise (a) Part 1. c. 1. Sect. 4. drawne together So the pure and shining linnen that is the bright glory wherewith the Church is now invested is said to be the righteousnesse of the Saints because it is the reward of it This to be the plaine and direct meaning of the place might be further argued from that ratiocinative particle FOR For the linnen is the righteousnesse c. In which words it is evident that there is a reason given of the grant made to the Church mentioned in the former part of the verse viz. that she should be so arrayed or cloathed that is dignified this reason is said to be the righteousnesse of the Saints It is as if it had bin said that the Lamb's wife should be thus gloriously recompenced is nothing but that which well agreeth with the righteousnesse and bounty of God who thus liberally and bountifully rewardeth and returneth his righteousnesse into his bosome as he had promised This place doubtlesse parallel's with that cap. 3.4 These shall walke with me in white for they are worthy The worthinesse of the one and the righteousnesse of the other are but the same and both are assign'd as the reason of the honour done unto them The riches jâ—llitie and prosperous condition whilst it lasted of Babylon or Rome is likewise expressed by the metaphor of garments And that great Citie that was cloathed in fine linnen and purple and scarlet c. Revel 18.16 By all which Scriptures diligently compared with many more of like expression that might be added it is more then manifest that by those metaphors of garments and robes in Esa there is nothing meant touching the inward and spirituall condition of the Church much lesse his Iustification by the active righteousnesse of Christ imputed And indeed it may seeme very strange to build a dogmaticall point of Faith upon figurative and metaphoricall expressions there being no plaine or to pregnant Scripture confirme or warrant it As for those expressions in Paul of putting on Christ Induere ChristuÌ„ hic significat virtute spiritus ejus vndique nos muniri qua idonei ad omnes sanctitatis partes reddamur Calvin in Rom. 13.14 Quemadmodum quotquot circuÌ„ciduntur MoseÌ„ induunt hoc est Mosis se profitentur esse discipulos ut secuÌ„duÌ„ illius institutionem ambulent ita qui baptizantur Christum induunt profitentes se illius discipulos c. Musculus in Gal. 3.27 Rom. 13.14 Gal. 3.27 c. there is neither of them speaks of Justification but the former of sanctification and the latter of profession both which if they were not apparant enough unto any man
obedience of one shal many be made righteous Hence it is argued that as by the imputation of Adams disobedience men are made formally sinners in like manner by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse men are made formally righteous To this I answere First that somewhat hath bin already delivered in this Discourse touching the sense and meaning of this Scripture as likewise touching the includencie and insufficiencie of this argument See Part 1. c. 21. Sect. 2.3 c. Secondly it is not here said that by the imputation of Adams disobedience men are made formally sinners but simply sinners that is either obnoxious to death and condemnation as Bishop Davenant (c) Certum est illam ipsamactualem inobedientiam nobis imputari ita ut per eam stemus damnati c. Bish Daven de Iusti Act. c. p. 363. with some others interpret and as the word sinner is often used in Scriptures d 1 Kin. 1.21 Pro. 6.29 Psal 109.7 c. or else sinners by propagation not imputation as Augustine e Proinde Apostolus cum illud peccatum ac mortem commemoraret quae ab uno in omnes propagatione transissent eum Principemposuit à quo propagatio generis humani sumpsit exordium August de Peccat Mer. Rem l. 1. c. 9. vi etiam c. 13. c. c. 15. Apostolus opponit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adami non ut actionem actioni sed ut satisfactionem culpae ut remedium morbo Pareus de Iustic Christi Act â—et Pass p. 173. of old and Peter Martyr and Musculus of late with divers others as may be seene at large in their Commentaries upon this Scripture So that according to either of these interpretations of the word sinners here is neither little nor much for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse so much urged and contended for Thirdly neither doth the Apostle here oppose unto or compare the obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam as one act unto or with another but as satisfaction to and with the provocation or the remedie to and with the disease Otherwise he should make sinnes of omission to be no disobedience because omissions are no acts And Adams transgression did not only stand in the commission of evill but in the omission of that which was good also Therefore Fourthly 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 righteousnesse of Christ which consists only in his obedience to the morall Law but that satisfactorie righteousnesse or obedience which he performed to that peculiar Law of Mediation which was imposed upon him and which chiefly consisted in his sufferings See for this what hath bin already laid down cap. 3. of this latter part Sect. 4. p. 45. And for this Exposition of the word obedience in this place there is as great a vote and voyce of Interpreters both ancient and moderne as for any one Scripture I know which hath the least degree of difficultie in it And for the most part they compare this place with that Philip. 2.8 where it is said of Christ that he humbled himselfe and became obedient unto death c. making both Scriptures to speake but of one and the same obedience Theophylact a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theop. in Rom. 5.19 Peter Martyr (b) Docat quodnam fuerat illud bonum quod per unum Christum Iesum salutem hominibus recuperavit Illud autem ait fuisse Christo obedientiam de qua scribens ad Philippenses c. P. Mart. ad Rom. 5.19 And a little after Quae verba docet id quod Apostolus ait per obedientiam Christi qua nostracausa mortem subiit c. Calvin (c) Quum pronunciat no Christi obedientia constitui justos hinc colligimus Christum eo quod Patri satisfecerit justitiam nobis comparasse Calv. ad Rom. 5.19 Musculus (d) His verbis aperit de qua justitia Christi loquatur videlicet de illius obedientia de qua legis Philip. 2 Musculus ad Rom. 5 19 Eadem fere habent Pareus Piscator Gualterus in locum Pareus Piscator Gualter and of our own Mr. Gataker (e) Vterque locus Rom 5 19 Philip. 3.8 intelligendus est de obedientia quam mediationis legi peculiari Christus exhibuit c. Mr Gatak in Elench Gomar p. 49. are men of this interpretation Amongst whom Pareus gives two reasons of this his Exposition The first is the antithesis or opposition which the Apostle makes betweene the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ which saith he will not constare if by the obedience of Christ we understand vniversalem ejus conformitatem cum lege that is his universall conformitie with the Law the disobedience of Adam being but singularis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a singular and particular transgression But his latter and greater reason is the effect which is here attributed to this obedience of Christ viz. the justification or righteous-making of many which saith he the Apostle hitherto hath constantly vindicated or appropriated to the death and blood of Christ yea and the whole Scripture throughout teacheth our Faith to seeke its righteousnesse in this obedience of his So that all this while here is nothing at all appeares for the countenancing of that imputation of the active obedience of Christ which takes so deeply with the thoughts of many 5. Suppose that by the obedience of Christ we should here contrary to the generall current aswell of Interpreters as the Scriptures themselves understand that active righteousnesse or obedience which he performed to the Morall Law yet will it not follow from hence that therfore men must be justified or made righteous by it in such a way of imputation as is contended for For certaine it is that that justification or righteous-making which the Apostle speaks of in this 19. verse is the same with that which he had spoken of v. 16 17 18. Now that righteousnesse as he calls it v. 17. is described v. 16. to be the guift i. the forgivenesse of many offences i. of all the offences whereof a man either doth or shall stand guilty before God unto justification and evident it is that that righteousnesse or justification which stands in the guift or forgivenesse of offences or sinnes cannot stand in the imputation of an observation or fulfilling of the Law 6. and lastly it is but a loose and very unsavourie kind of arguing to reason from a thing simply done to a determinate manner of doing it If a man should argue thus Peter was slaine with death therfore he was slaine by a Beast or therfore he was slaine with a Dagger were there the least shaddow or appearance of the certainty of the Couclusion in the premises So when the Apostle simply and barely affirmes that by the obedience of Christ men are made
it selfe So Rom. 3.27 By the Law of Faith faith it selfe and againe Rom. 8.2 by the Law of sinne and death he means sinne and death simply For none of these have any Law properly so called onely the word Law added to them seems to represent them under a more emphaticall and weighty consideration 2. When this Apostle speaks of the righteousnesse of the Law elsewhere he never useth this hypallage to call it the Law of righteousnesse but still in plaine and direct language The righteousnesse of the Law See Rom. 2.26 Rom. 8.4 3. This exposition makes the double antithesis or opposition which the Apostle apparently makes between the Gentiles v. 30. and the Jewes v. 31. pregnant cleere and full wheras any other interpretation dissolves the strength and darkens the light of them The Gentiles saith he v. 30 followed not after righteousnesse that is had no thoughts of took no care or course for any justification before God But Israel v. 31. sought after the Law of righteousnesse that is propounded unto themselves as a busines of maine importance a righteousnesse or justification in the sight of God and ran a course of means such as it was to obteyne it Againe The Gentiles saith he v. 30. attained unto righteousnesse that is unto justification in the sight of God many of them have bin justified and saved But Israel could not attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse v. 31. that is could not compasse a justification of themselves in the sight of God as the Gentiles did The strict Law of opposition enforceth this or the like interpretation 4. And lastly that by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel could not attaine unto he meanes righteousnes simply or justification in the sight of God appeares from the latter reason or latter part of the reason which he renders v. 3◠of Israels miscarriage and falling short in this kind Wherfore saith he could not Israel attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse which he followed after because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the works of the Law If by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel is said to have sought after we understand the righteousnesse or obedience of the Law the reason which is here assigned by the Holy Ghost at least in part why they could not atain it viz. because they sought it by the works of the Law will be very incongruous and absurd For what savour either of reason or truth is there in it to say that a man therfore cannot attaine the righteousnesse or obedience of the Law because he seeks to attaine it by the works of the Law But to say that a man cannot attaine unto righteousnesse or justification before God if or because he seeks it by the works of the Law hath perfect consistence with both I mean both with reason and truth Lastly I might further strengthen this exposition with the Authority of Theophylact if need were who expounds that clause v. 31. they could not attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse of a simple and plaine non-justification a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in Rom. 9.31 The next Scripture proofe and last out of this Epistle to the Romans which is frequently alledged for the supposed Imputation is Rom. 10.4 The words these For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnes to every one that beleeveth Therfore say the Masters of that way of Imputation which we desire to hedge up with thorns the righteousnes of Christ or the obedience performed by him to the Morall Law is imputed to those that beleeve for their righteousnes But neither doth this Scripture know any such imputation more then its fellows For 1. Rom. 10.4 answered There is not the least resemblance or colour of reason that by the Law in this place should be meant precisely and determinately the Morall Law because as was both lately and formerly observed the Jews with whom chiefly the Apostle grapples in this place as is evident from the beginning of the chapter never so much as dreamt of justification by the Moral Law only but chiefly by the Ceremoniall Neither doth Calvin or any other Interpreter that yet I have met with understand the place of the Morall Law Besides it is evident from that which immediately follows v. 5. that he doth not speake here of the Morall Law for there he citeth that description which Moses giveth of the righteousnesse of the Law not out of any part or passage of the Morall Law but out of the heart and midd'st as it were of the Ceremoniall Law Those words the man which doth these things shall live by them wherein he placeth Moses's description of the righteousnesse which is of the Law are taken from Levit. 18.5 and are in speciall manner spoken of the Ceremonialls and Judicialls For thus the words lye ye shall therfore keep my Statutes and my Judgements which if a man doe he shall live in them Therfore doubtlesse the Apostle doth not speake here of the Morall Law Secondly SECT 19 neither is it any waies agreeable to truth that the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to beleevers suppose such an imputation were simply granted should be called the end of the Morall Law For doubtlesse no Law whatsoever considered simply as a Law is any cause or meanes of justifying a person in any other way or by any other meanes then by the observation of it selfe and consequently Iustification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of the Morall Law For nothing can properly be said to be the intent or end of a thing but only that which in reason and likelyhood may be procured and obtained by it Now there is an utter and evident impossibilitie that Justification by Christ should be procured or attained by the Morall Law Neither obedience nor disobedience thereunto hath any relation of causalitie to such an effect a man being never the neerer Justification by Christ either for the one or for the other It may be said with farre a more favourable aspect both upon reason and truth that Christ is the end of the Ceremoniall Law and yet not of this neither considered simply as a Law but as comprehending in it such and such usages or rites wherein Christ and Iustification by his blood were typified and resembled and which were to expire and to lose the binding power of a Law which it had before upon Christs coming As for the observation or transgression of this Law neither the one nor the other contributed any thing more towards any mans Iustification by Christ then the observation or transgression of the Morall Law did or doth Nay the observation both of the one and the other though very unperfect and lame have bin a stumbling block in the way of many and cast them quite off from Iustification by Christ as the Apostle implieth ver 3. Therefore Thirdly the Greek Expositors as Chrysostom a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Hom. 17. in Rom.
Theophylact b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in Rom. 10.4 Sect. 20 and Theodoret make Christ in this sense to be called by the Apostle the end of the Law for righteousnesse unto those that beleeve viz. because hee performed or exhibited unto them that which the Law propounded to it selfe as its end and would have performed but could not viz. their Iustification But Fourthly some Interpreters conceive that Christ in this sense is said to be the end of the Law for righteousnesse to him that beleeveth because the Law by convincing men of sinne and exacting of them a righteousnesse which it doth not enable them to performe and againe by threatning and condemning them for the want of it it doth as good as lead them by the hand unto Christ by whom they are freely justified This Exposition calls Musculus Master (a) Nam finis Legis est Christus Intelligendum est quod Lex ad Christum ducit Dum enim peccatum revelar arguit ac damnat justiciamque exigit quamnon praestat nihil aliud agit quam quod ad Christum ducit per quem justificemur gratis Musc in Rom. 10.4 and Calvin in one touch upon the place is not farre from it (b) Id autem fieri nequit quin omni justicia spoliats peccati agnitione confusi ab ipso justiciam gratuitam petamus Calvin in Rom. 10.4 But neither doth this seem to be the meaning of the place however because it maketh not at all against us in the present controversie we shall not at present insist upon any refutation of it Fiftly some think Christ is therefore called the end of the Law because by his coming in the flesh and by his sacrifice of himselfe he put an end to the Law and Mosaicall dispensation Both Musculus and Parous mention this exposition but name not the Author This exposition is a truth but doubtlesse not a true exposition Therefore Sixtly and lastly the plaine and direct meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture seemes to be this Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that beleeveth that is the Law meaning the whole Mosaicall Oeconomie or dispensation which is the frequent signification of the word Law in the writings of this Apostle as was formerly observed and exemplified was therefore and for that end and purpose given by God unto the Jewes his people 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 attonement for their sinnes that so they might beleeve in him accordingly and be justified and further that in time that people and Nation might be trained up nurtured and prepared for the Messia himselfe and that oeconomie and perfection of the worship and service of God which he should bring with him and establisheth in the world at his coming This interpretation including the whole Mosaicall administration within the meaning of the word Law was both Chrysostoms of old c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Rom. 10.4 and is Mr. Gatakers d Verum ego potius Christum finem legu ea ratione simpliciter dictum existimo quia Lex revera Dei populo lata est quae ad Messiam illu viam pramuniret quod erat ministerij Mosaici munus pracipuum Gatak Elench Gomar p. 53. yet living amongst us and Parcus likewise is large in the vindication and explication of it and Calvin himselfe a Indicat eâ—am legis praposterum Interpretem esse qui per cjus opera justificari quaerit quaniam in hoc lexdata est quo nos ad aâ—â—ara justitiam manuduceret Imo quicquid doceat Lex â—uicquid pracipiat quiequid promittaet semper Christum habet pro scepo ergo â—n ipsum dirigendae sunt omnes Partes c Cal. in Ro. 10.4 in his commentary upon the place seemes very inclineable to it This interpretation might be further confirmed First from the cariage and tenor of the context it selfe For doubtlesse the Apostles meaning is that Christ should be the end of that Law for righteousnesse by the observation whereof as being their own righteousnesse ver 3 the Jewes against whom he here reasons sought to be justified Now it hath bin often said and once at least sufficiently prooved that the Jewes sought righteousnesse and selfe Iustification afwell from the observation of the Ceremoniall as of the Morall Law Secondly from the full consent and entire sympathy of other Scriptures of like propension and phrase 2 Cor. 3.13 It is said that the Children of Israel could not stedfastly looke to the end of that which is abolished that is of the whole ministerie or dispensation of Moses as is evident from the cariage of the whole Chapter Now what was the end of this dispensation but CHRIST and Iustification by him So Gal. 3.24 Wherefore the Law was our Schoolemaster unto Christ that we might be justified by Faith By the Law in this place cannot be meant the Morall Law the whole series of the context from ver 13 to 25. riseth up against such an interpretation neither is there any Expositor I know that so understands it but by the Law which is here said to be our Schoolemaster unto Christ is unquestionably meant the whole frame or body of the administration of Moses yet with a more peculiar reference to the Ceremoniall part of it See Mr. Gatakers judgement touching this Scripture in his little Tract against Gomarus p. 54.54 and againe in his Scripta adversaria as he call's them p. 43. of the first part and p. 96. of the second together with Mr. Perkins upon the place Thus at last we have I suppose abundantly vindicated the Non-imputation of the Active obedience of Christ in the sense controverted out of the hand of all those reasonings and pleadings that are usually or that readily I thinke can be build upon the Epistle to the Romans wherein notwithstanding the greatest part of the strength and confidence of our Adversaries lyeth And therefore I shall make bold to accoÌ„modate the Reader with more brevity ingiving answere to those other Scriptures which yet remain The next of which SECT 22 is that 1 Cor. 1.30 But yee are of him in Christ Iesus who of God is made unto us wisdome anarighteousnesse and sanctification and Redemption Because Christ is heresaid to be made righteousnesse unto us by God it is argued that therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed us But to this I answer that here is a little or lesse colour for the deemed imputation then in any of the former Scriptures For First 1 Cor. 1.30 answered Christ is here no otherwise nor after any other manner affirmed to be or to be made righteousnes unto us then he is to be made wisdome or sanctification unto us Therefore there is no more ground to conclude from hence the imputation of Christs righteousnesse for our righteousnesse then of his wisdome for our wisdome or
his sanctification for our sanctification And if it be a weake and unsavourie inference from this place to conclude that we are wise with the same wisdome wherewith Christ was wise being imputed unto us it must needs be a bird of the same feather to infer that we are righteous with the same righteousnesse wherewith Christ was righteous being imputed to us Here is no more mention or intimation of the imputation of the one then of the other Suppose Christ were made righteousnesse unto us by the imputation of that righteousnesse of his which men so much contend for yet there is nothing more evident then that this speciall manner of his being made righteousnesse must be made good otherwise and from other Scriptures and cannot at all be prooved from this place As because a rich man hath silver and gold and jewells in his possession or keeping it doth not follow that therefore he hath silver in one Chest and gold in another or jewells in a third because he may possibly have them al in one the same From generall expressions particular modifications of things can never be prooved Therefore Secondly when Christ is said to be made righteousnesse unto us the meaning only is that he is made or ordained by God to be the Author or sole meanes by way of merit of our Iustification purchased and procured for us by his death and sufferings This Exposition is strengthened First the word righteousnesse SECT 23 is very frequently used by this Apostle for Iustification as hath bin often observ'd See particularly the third Chap. of this second part Sect. 2. Secondly that righteousnesse or Iustification which beleevers have in or by Christ is still attributed in the Scriptures to the death and sufferings of Christ as hath bin formerly observed (a) See cap. 2. of this latter part Sect. 7. p. 9.10 and never to his righteousnesse or active obedience 3. Neither is it true according to the principles of the men themselves who professe enmity to us in the point depending that Christ by his active obedience only should be made righteousnesse or justification unto us Therfore they forsake their own guides when they seek for the imputation of this righteousnesse unto us out of this place 4. And lastly the interpretation given hath the concurrent judgement of many sound and able Expositors for it who by Christs being made righteousnes unto us understand nothing else but our justification or righteous-making by him some placeing this justification in the forgivenesse of our sinnes some ascribeing it to the satisfaction that is the sufferings of Christ none of them either ascribeing the purchase of it to his active obedience or placing it in the imputation of this unto us Let Chrysostome a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Hom. 5. in 1. ad Corin. and Theophylact b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et mox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in 1 Cor. 1.30 be consulted with upon the place and of later times Pomeranus (c) Quierg◠in nobis peccatores sumus in ipso et per ipsum justi sumus non imputate propter ipsum nobis peccate Pomeran and Piscator (d) Iusticia id est cujus satisfactions nobu donata atque imputata justi sumus Piscator in 1 Cor. 1.30 Mr. Gataker likewise p. 47. of his little Tract against Gomarus rejects that interpretation as wanting aswell colour as substance of truth which seeketh to establish the imputation of the active obedience of Christ upon this Scripture Bernard as he is cited by a Great Master of the way of Imputation though against (e) Bishop Downham Tract of Iustific p. 223. Sect. 4. SECT 24. himselfe is expresse and full over and over for that sence of the place which we maintain Christ saith he as Bishop Downham translates him was made unto us wisdome in preaching justice or righteousnesse in absolution of sins c. Againe enlighten mine eyes that I may be wise remember not the sinnes of my youth and my ignorances and I am just Yet againe He was made unto us of God wisdome teaching prudence justice forgiving sins c. They only are wise who are instructed by his Doctrine they onely just who of his mercy have obtained parden of sinne In all this variety of expression it is observable that he still placeth that righteousnesse or justification which Christ is made unto us in the remission or pardon of our sins Which with the premisses upon this Scripture duly considered I presume no imputation of the active obedience of Christ will be any more urged or contended for from hence The next Scripture that is much sollicited by some to speake a good word in the cause of the aforesaid imputation is 2 Cor. 5.21 For he hath made him to be sinne for us who knew no sinne that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him From hence they inferre that as our sins are imputed unto Christ so Christs righteousnesse meaning his active obedience or else they doe not hold to the point is imputed unto us Of all the Scriptures which men take up for the plea of the imputation opposed Mr. Gataker hath well observ'd this is most pregnant and cleere against themselves (a) Quid ser◠clarius contiase producere poterat quam illud 2 Cor. 5.21 Gataker in Elench contra Gomar p. 48 2 Cor. 5.21 cleared But for Answere 1. There is no footing in this Scripture for the inference drawn from it here is nothing said touching any imputation of our sinnes to Christ and consequently here can be nothing to build a reciprocall imputation of his righteousnesse unto us upon As for that expression of Christs being made sinne for us it imports no such imputation as men suppose as will appeare presently 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 sinnes of beleevers unto Christ and the righteousnesse of Christ unto them There is not the same force or power saith Bishop Davenant (b) Non est eadem vi◠nostra injustietae ad efficiendum Christum injustum iniquum qua est obedientiae ejus et justiciae ad constituendos fideles justos et innocentes Bishop Dauenaut De Iust Habit. c. p. 332. Christus ita volute peccata in se suscipcre ut non inde peccater sed hostia pro peccato constitueretur ibidem p. 333. of our unrighteousnesse to make Christ unrighteous which is of his righteousnes to make those that beleeve righteous and innocent See more to this purpose in the second Chapter of this Discourse Sect. 19. p. 26. So that according to their own principles if the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ be no otherwise imputed unto us then our sinnes are imputed unto him we are not made formally righteous by such an imputation 3. Neither is there so much as the face or
must needs be the formall cause thereof otherwise it must be said either a man is formally just by some righteousnesse of his own or which he hath not received from God or else that he is not made righteous in or by his Iustification but afterwards The minor is the assertion of the Holy Ghost almost in terminis Rom. 4. For that which ver 6. is called Gods imputing righteousnesse ver 7. is interpreted to be his forgiving iniquities and covering sinne Seventhly If remission of sinnes reacheth home unto and be given unto men by God for their Iustification then is it the formall cause thereof This is evident because by the formall cause of Iustification we meane nothing else as hath bin often said but Iustification passive or that guift which by God is given unto men and by them received accordingly in and by that act of his whereby he iustifieth them So that if remission of sinnes be that which is given unto sinners by God for or unto their Iustification it must of necessitie be conceived to be the formall cause thereof Therefore I assume but remission of sinnes is given by God unto men for their Iustification and reacheth home unto it Therefore it must needs be the formall cause thereof This latter proposition againe is in effect and well nigh in terms nothing but what the Holy Ghost himselfe affirmeth Rom. 5.16 And not as it was by one that sinned so is the guift for the iudgment was by one unto condemnation but the free guift is of many offences unto Justification that is God by the free guift that is by the free forgivenesse of mens sinnes doth fully justify them The free guift of offences or the forgivenesse of sins could not be said to be unto Iustification except a man were fully and entirely justifyed thereby Lastly if remission of sinnes and the non-imputing of sinne to those that have sinned be expressions of one and the same importance and signifie the same privilege estate or condition of a person iustified then is remission of sinnes the formall cause of Iustification The strength of this consequence lieth in this that the Holy Ghost describeth or interpreteth the righteousnesse which God imputeth in Iustification by the non-imputation of sinne This is evident by comparing Rom. 4.6 with ver 8. And it was prooâ—ed before in the sixt argument that the righteousnesse imputed by God in Iustification must of necessity be the formall cause thereof Therefore it undeniably followes that if remission of sinnes and the non-imputing of sinne be expressions of one and the same condition that remission of sinnes is the formall cause of Iustification Now that the importance of these two expressions is but one and the same is apparant enough without proofe For what doth God more or otherwise in remitting sinne then he doth in not imputing it or what doth he more or otherwise in the not-imputing of sinne then he doth in remitting it Not to impute sinne to him that hath sinned can implie nothing else but not to charge the demerit or guilt thereof upon him and what doth remission of sinnes import either more or lesse And hence doubtlesse it is that David sets the same Crowne of the same blessednesse upon the head of the one and the other Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven whose sinne is covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquitie c. Psal 32.1.2 Rom. 4.7.8 Much might be further argued both from the Scriptures and otherwise SECT 34 for the cleering and countenancing of this opinion which placeth formall justification in Remission of sinnes but inasmuch as this tasque hath bin learnedly and throughly performed by another (a) Mr. Wotton De Reconciltat Part 1 lib. 2. c. 3.4.5.6.7.8 though in another languag and to ease the present discourse of length and tediousnesse what we may without any sensible de râ—ment to the cause undertaken I forbeare And the rather because whatsoever I am able to conceive may possibly with any colour or pretext of reason be objected against the opinion hath for the most part bin already answered or cleered or else will be found answered in the two following Chapters As First Object 1 That Remission of sinnes is no true or compleate righteousnesse ou shall finde satisfaction touching this in the second Chap. of this latter part in the 4 Conclusion Sect. 4. Secondly Object 2 That the righteousnesse of Christ is to be joyned with remission of sinnes to make the compleate forme of Iustification See this cleered at large Cap. 11. of the first part Thirdly Object 3 That Remission of sinnes is the consequent or effect of Iustification and therefore not the formall cause See whereof to make a sufficient answere to this Sect. 8. and Sect. 29. of this Chapter where it is fully prooved that the formall cause of Iustification must needs be the consequent of Iustification that is of that act of God whereby he justifieth Fourthly that the righteousnesse of Christ imputed is this formall cause Object 4 you shall finde this counter-argued Sect. 23 24 25 26 27. of this Chapter Fiftly Object 5 that the imputation of this righteousnesse is the formall cause The inconsistencie of this with the truth is evicted Sect. 22. of this Chapter Sixtly Object 6 That the communion that is betweene Christ and beleevers is this formall cause How little communion this hath with the truth hath bin shewed at large Section 18 19 20 21. of this Chapter Seventhly That Iustification may be Object 7 where there is no remission of sinnes and remission of sinnes where there is no justification See the opinion set cleere of this objection in the latter end of Sect. 1. of the 3 Chap. of this second part as also Sect. 29. of this present Chapter What further may be objected I doe not for the present apprehend but ready and willing I am to take any thing into a serious and unpartiall consideration that shall be tendred unto me as matter of further question or difficultie in the businesse In the meane time out of all that which hath bin reasoned at large in this Chapter concerning justification and the severall causes thereof some such description of it as this may be framed wherein the attentive Reader may observe either all or the greatest part of the causes insisted upon briefly comprehended Justification is an act of God whereby having out of his owne unspeakable free grace and goodnesse towards poore miserable sinners given his only begotten Sonne Jesus Christ to make attonement or satisfaction for them by his death in consideration of this attonement freely pardoneth and remitteth the sinnes of all those that beleeve in him through Jesus Christ preached or otherwise revealed by the Holy Ghost unto them CAP. V. VVhere in the Scriptures alledged for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse or active obedience in Justification are cleered and answered and the true sense and interpretation of them respectively established according to
the judgment of the best Expositors of the Protestant party ALL errour and mistake in matters of Christian Religion SECT 1 is occasioned either in the conception or continuance or both by somwhat which God in the Scriptures hath well said but is by men not well understood And as Gregory long since well observ'd it in matter of practise (a) Cum vitium virtus putatur culpa fine meâ—n cumulatur Greg Do Paster Cur. l 3. c. 1. that when men conceive of sinne under the notion of a duty there it is committed with an high hand and without measure the reason whereof is because conscience and concupiscence are then in conjunction which for the most part are in opposition about the committing of sin whereby the course of it is somwhat broken and impaired so it is likewise in point of judgement when men conceive of their by-thoughts and misapprehensions as countenanced from Heaven in the Scriptures their confidence lifts up it selfe very high and the mildest contradiction is little lesse then an abhomination unto them The reason whereof I conceive to be this the opinion in this case being their owne must needs have a strong and perfect sympathie with all the powers of nature yet unsanctified and so must needs engage these and then againe being look'd upon as a truth of a divine parentage and issuing from God by means of this apprehension it engageth all the powers of Grace and of the new man also to contend for it And thus what by the nature and substance of it on the one hand being erronious and sinfull and what by the appearance and shew of it on the other hand being as if it were indeed spirituall and divine it is apt to transport a man with an extasie of zeale even above himselfe for the maintenance of it and to inspire him with resolutions of sacrificeing credit Name estate friends himselfe upon the honour and service of it in case it be opposed Now amongst many signes that might be given of an opinion of that very frame and constitution we speak of darknesse for substance and light in appearance this is one of frequent observation when the maintainers of it are ambitious to heap up citations of Scripture proofes without end and to overwhelm their adversaries with Divine testimonies For as the saying is Nusquam est qui ubique est he that is every where is no where so it is much to be suspected that such an opinion is no where in the Scriptures which is pretended to be every where When men sharke about for Scriptures and cannot find those that willingly and freely offer themselves in the service of an opinion but labour and toyle as it were in the fire to redeem the defect of full and pregnant proofes with multitudes and numbers of such as they can find it is a ground of much suspicion that the opinion is not of God but of men The Scriptures are many which are mustered up by the Masters of that way of Imputation which we oppose for the service of their opinion but amongst them all there is not one that comes roundly on or that speaketh plainly or directly to the businesse in hand which is a plaine signe that it is not indeed they that speak at all but the spirit of the men that speaketh in them whatsoever they seem to speake in this kind I make no question but I shall be able to give a thorough and perfect accompt of what I now affirme by a particular examination of the Scriptures themselves alledged in that behalfe The greatest part of them I conceive have bin occasionally touch'd already and in part cleered in this discourse But because a true and solid understanding of them carryes the maine stroke in the Question and controversie depending I thought good to assigne an intire Chapter for the interpretation and solution of them so that the Reader may more readily know where to find and whither to repaire for explication of them al together I begin with those usually alledged from the old Testament which are not many The first place is Psal SECT 2 32.1 Blessed is the man whose transgression is forgiven Psal 32.1 2. Answered whose sinne is covered Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not transgression c. The covering of sin mentioned in the middle clause is by some conceived to be the righteousnes or active obedience of Christ which God imputing to beleevers covereth all their sinnes therewith To this I Answer 1. That some of our best Expositors conceive all the three expressions here mentioned to be but synonymous i. of one and the same signification and importance and yet with all conceive this variety to be emphaticall and to note that abundance of Grace in God whereby our sins are forgiven Doctor Ames in his sixt Document upon this Psalme carryes the tenour of these passages thus (a) Magâ—a est Dei gratia qua peccata nostra remittuntur Hoc eo ipso innuitur quod taÌ„ emphatica repetitione et quasi congerie verborum declaraâ—ar quia rei tantae nulla sufflcis Orationis forma Amesius in Psal 32. Document 6. Et â—ex Gratia Dei abundans est ad â—mnia peccata tollenda levat tegit et non imputat And Luther in his Summarie of the Psalme is not farre from it (b) Iustitia nostra propriè est remissio peccatorum seu ut loquitur Psalmus peccata non imputare peccata regere Luther in Summ. Ps 32. Peccatorum remissionem tribus loquendi generibus exprimit quae tamen omnia in idem cadunt Sâ—ph Fabrit in Psal 32. Parcus likewise on Rom. 47. is of the same judgement and cites Ambrose with him 2. For those two expressions not-imputing of sin and covering of sinne Calvin holds them to be the same in sence and signification and that they are of the same importance with those other Scripture phrases where God is said not to remember sinne to blot it out to cast it behind his backe or into the depths of the Sea and the like and moreover cites Augustine as his Predecessour in this Interpretation (c) Peccatorum non recordari est ea non postulare ad poenam Id ipsum alibi dicitur proij ere post tergum delere in star nubu demergere in profundum maris non imputare tectumque habere Certè si punit Deus peccata imputat Si vindicat recordatur si ad judicium vocat tecta non habet c. Atque in hune moduâ— interpretatur Augustin claru verbis c. Calvin Inst lib. 3 c 4. So that none of all these with twenâ—y more that might be put to them never dreamt of the righteousnesse of Christ lying so close under this covering of sin 3. Neither can sinne be said to be covered with the righteousnes i. the active obedience of Christ since according to the grounds and principles of that very opinion against which we argue sinne is wholly