worketh by love not any faith but that faith which worketh by love Certainty that Faith which Paul defineth or describeth to be a Faith working by love cannot be conceived to be the righteousnesse of Christ and yet this Faith it was in the judgment of this Author that was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse HAYMO about the yeare 840 in Rom. 4 3. Because he beleeved God it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse that is unto remission of sinnes because by that Faith wherewith he beleeved he was made righteous ANSELME Arch-Bishop of Canterbury about the yeare 1090 upon Rom. 4 3. That he meaning Abraham beleeved so strongly was by God imputed for righteousnesse unto him that is c. by this beleeving he was imputed righteous before God From all these testimonies it is apparant that that interpretation of this Scripture which we contend for hath anciently ruled in the Church of God and no man found to open his mouth or lift up his pen against it till it had bin established upon the Throne for above a thousand yeares Come we to the times of Reformation here we shall finde the right and title of it still maintained by men of greatest authority and learning Sec. 12 Christiana justitia est fiducia in filium Dei quae fiducia imputatur ad iustitiam propter Christum Luther ad Gal. 3 6. Deus reputat istam imperfectam fidem ad justitiam perfectam propter Christum in quem coepi credere ibid. LUTHER in Gal. 3 6. Christian righteousnesse is an affiance or faith in the Son of God which affiance is imputed unto righteousnes for Christs sake And in the same place not long after God for Christs sake in whom J have begun to beleeve accompts this my imperfect faith for perfect righteousnes Doubtlesse this Author was for the interpretation given or else his words and he were not of the same mind BUCER upon Rom. 4.3 Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes that is he accounted this FAITH or beleeving Abraham fidem habuit Iehovae et reputavit id ei justitiamâ— hoc est habuit ei pro justitia hanc fidem Credendo igitur id accepit ut Deus cum pro justo haberet Buceâ— Ad Ro. 4 3. Imputari ad justitiam alio modo significat â—d per quod nos ipsi habemur in censu justorum Atque id Paulus tantummodo fidei tribuit c. P. Mart. Ad Rom. 4 3. Quare Abraham credendo nihil aliud quam obla tam sibi gratiam amplectitur ne â—rrita sit Si hoc illi imputatur in justitiam sequitur non aliter esse justum nisi quia Dei bonitate consisus omnia ab ipso sperare audet Calvin ad Rom. 4 3. Fides reputatur in justitiam non quâ—d ullum a nobis meritum afferat sed quia Dei bonitatem apprehendit ibid. in v. 4. for righteousnesse unto him So that by beleeving he obtained this that God esteemed him a righteous man PETER MARTYR declares himselfe of the same judgment upon Rom. 4 3. To be imputed for righteousnesse in another sense signifieth that by which we our selves are reckoned in the number of the righteous And this PAUL attributes to FAITH only CALVIN abetteth the same interpretation with as high a hand as any of his fellowes upon Rom. 4 3 Wherefore Abraham by beleeving doth only imbrace the grace tendred unto him that it might not be in vaine If this be imputed unto him for righteousnesse it followes that he is no otherwise righteous but as trusting or relying upon the goodnesse of God he hath boldnesse to hope for all things from him Againe upon verse 5. Faith is reputed for righteousnesse not because it carieth any merit from us but because it apprehends the goodnesse of God If all this be not home to the point in Question I desire the Reader that desires further satisfaction concerning the judgment of this Author therein to peruse and ponder what he hath commented at large upon the sixt verse of Gal. 3. Whosoever thinks it prejudiciall to Calvin that he should be thought to hold Imputation of Faith in a proper sense for righteousnesse may if he will pittie him and lament over him but without an Index expurgatorius and that in folio can never relieve him In the place last mentioned to omit many other passages and expressions here extant as pregnant for that imputation of Faith which is pleaded for as eyes can looke upon he describes at large that Faith of Abraham which is there said to be imputed for righteousnesse by the nature and property of it and differenceth it from other perswasions that men may have of the truth of God By which cariage of the businesse it is as manifest as manifestation it selfe knowes how to make any thing manifest that his thoughts were never tempted with any insinuation either of a tropicall or metonymicall sense in the word Faith but that the plaine ready and Grammaticall signification was that which he wrought upon Sec. 13 and fram'd his interpretation unto MUSCULUS Commendata debebat esse haec sides non proprâ—e qualitatu sed propositi Dei respectu quo constituit illa credentibus in Christum propter ipsum justitiae loco imputare Musc Loc. de Iustif sect 5 Quid enim fecit Abraham quod imputaretur illi ad justitiam nisi quod credidit Deo Idem Ad Gal. 3 6. Sic de hac Abrahâ— fide loquitur ut manifestum sit disputare ipsum de fide qua non simpliciter Deo sed in Deum creditur Idem in Gen. 15 6. Verum vbi promittenti Deo firmiter credidit est illi ejusmodi fides justitiae loco imputata hoc est obeam fidem justus est a Deo reputatis et ab omnibus deiâ—ctis absolutus ibid. as far as his judgment and learning will reach engageth himselfe for this Imputation also In his common place of Iustification Sect. 5. This Faith should be in high respect and esteeme with us not in regard of the proper quality of it but in regard of the purpose or decree of God whereby he hath decreed for Christs sake to impute it this faith for righteousnesse unto those that beleeve in him The same Author upon Gal. 3 6. What did Abraham that should be imputed unto him for righteousnesse but only this that he beleeved God Words plaine enough to our purpose yet behold from the same pen more plaine then they in another place Vpon Gen. 15 6. you shall finde words of this importance He so speakes of Abrahams Faith that manifest it is that he disputes of that Faith wherewith a man beleeveth not God simply but in or on God Where though he makes a difference betweene beleeving God simply and beleeving in God yet evident it is that if there be either trope or metonymie in the word BELEEVING he was not aware of it because be interprets it of such a Faith as
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
things therein required and so promotes the observation and keeping of it This upon the matter is the interpretation of Musculus (*) Fides verò quoniam justificat credentes corda credentium purgat quod neque Lex apud Iudaos neque Philosophia apud Gentes neque doctrina bonorum operum apud Christianes praestare potest ram non adversatur bonorum operum Doctrinae ut illam magis stabiliat Musculus ad Rom. 3. ult upon the place Pareus likewise admits of it and cites Austin for it also But 4. The Law may be said to be established by the Doctrine of faith inasmuch as the comminations and threatnings of the Law as In the day thou â—atest therof thou shalt die the death and againe Cursed be he that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to doe them c. are by the Doctrine of justification by faith declared not to be in vaine The sufferings of Christ wherby we are justified through faith are a full confirmation of the force efficacie and authority of the curse of the Law being the price of the Redemption of those that beleeve from it Yet 5. and lastly I conceive the better Interpretation of the place to be that by Law the Apostle should meane that part of the Old Testament which comprehendeth the writings of Moses with those other Books which together with the writings of the Prophets make up the intire body thereof For in this sence he had used the word v. 21. where he affirmed the righteousnesse of God to have testimonie of the Law and the Prophets The word is elswhere and that somewhat frequently taken in this signification Now the Law in this sence may most properly be said to be established by Paul â—eaching the Doctrine of faith because this Doctrine is fully consonant and agreeable to those things that are written therein as he sheweth at large in the following Chapter arguing and insisting upon two pregnant testimonies to this purpose the one from Moses the other from David Origen of old made use of this Interpretation (b) Fides confirmas legem quia Christus inquit Moses de me scripsit Qui ergo credit Christo confirmat Legem quiae credit in Christum Origen and Hierome was not far from it (c) Fide lex stabilitur quia fide probamus verum esse quod lex dicit Testamentum testamento legem legi circumcisionem circumcisions successuram Hierony Piscator of later times likewise adhereth to it in his Disputes with Ludovicus Lucius (d) See Mr. Gatakers Animadversions upon these Disputes p. 42. The next Scripture sometimes managed for the imputation we oppose is Rom. 4.6 Even as David declareth the blessednesse of the man to whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works That righteousnesse which God is here said to impute to a man can be no other as is pretended but the righteousnesse of Christ To this I answere First SECT 9 that this Scripture and expression of Gods imputing righteousnesse Rom. 4.6 opened is fully opened and cleered in my Answere to Mr. Walker p. 41. whither the reader is desired to repaire for satisfaction if he desires it Secondly that of the two if we will needs here understand a positive legall righteousnesse it is much more probable the Apostle should meane a righteousnesse consisting of such works or of such an obedience to the Law as hath an absolute and perfect agreeablenesse to every mans condition and calling respectively then the righteousnesse of Christ which hath no such property in it hath bin already represented in this Discourse (a) Cap. 2. Sect. 5. p. 7. Thirdly that righteousnesse which God is said here to impute is by the best Expositors placed in Remission of sins Righteousnesse imputed saith Paraeus (b) Iustitia imputata consistis in gratuita remissione tectione non imputatione peccatoruÌ„ Pareus ad Rom 4.7 p. 371. Hoc sensu justitia imputata dicitur justicia Christi meritorie seu effective quia Christi merito nobisest parta non subjective quia Christo inhaereat Idem ibidem consists in a free remission covering or non-imputation of sinne And a little after shewing in what sense the righteousnesse which is imputed by God unto beleevers may be called the righteousnesse of Christ he expresseth himselfe thus In this sense imputed righteousnesse is called the righteousnesse of Christ viz. by way of merit or effect because it is procured for us by the merit of Christ not because it is subjectively or inherently in Christ many testimonies have bin formerly cited from divers other good Authors of concurrent judgement with him herein We are taught saith Calvin upon the place (c) Postremo doâ—emur hanc quoque remissionem gratuitam esse quia sine operibus imputatur quod et remissionis nomen indicat Calvin in Rom. 4.6 Quarto autem capite ad Romanos primum appellat justitia imputationem nec eam dubitat in remissione peccatorum câ—llocare idem Instit l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 4. that Remission of sinnes is free because it is imputed without workes But Fourthly the phrase of imputing righteousnesse may I conceive be best interpreted and understood by the contrary expression of imputing sinne Opposita juxtase posita magis elucescunt To impute sin signifieth only either to looke upon a person as justly liable to punishment or to inflict punishmeÌ„t upon a person peccati nomine for or in consideration of sin This latter signification I finde more frequent of the two in Authors of best esteeme God imputes sin saith Paraeus (a) Imputat Deus peccatium cum punit non imputat cum non punit sed condonat et tegit quasi non esset Pareus ad Rom. 4.7 when he punisheth and he doth not impute it when he doth not punish but pardoneth c. So Calvin (b) Ergo et peccatorum non recordari est ea non postulare all poenam Idipsum alibidicitur proijcere post tergum delere instar nubis c. non imputare tectumque habere c. Calvin Instit l. 3. c. 4. Sect. 29. vi etiam in Rom. 5.13 maketh the non-imputation of sinne and the not-punishing of sinne of one and the same signification and importance If therefore to impute sinne signifieth only either to hold a man liable to punishment for sinne or to execute and inflict punishment upon him for sinne doubtlesse to imputerighteousnesse importeth nothing else but either to looke upon a man as a righteous person or to conferre upon him and actually invest him with the precious priviledges that belong to persons truely righteous But however Fiftly and lastly here is neither peere nor peepe of the least ground or reason to conceive that by righteousnesse in this Scripture should be meant the righteousnesse of Christ SECT 10 The next Scripture mis-us'd for the imputation aforesaid is that Rom. 5.19 For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners Rom. 5.19 cleered so by the
legall righteousnesse put upon him by his Faith This he proveth from the expresse tenor and condition of the Law it selfe which requires a personall observation of the things contained therein by every man that shall live that is that shall be justified thereby But the man that doth them shall live in them the full importance of which clause you shall finde opened in the 8. Chapter of the first part of this Discourse By all that we have reasoned upon the passage of Scripture in hand it is more then double evident that here is no refuge or sanctuary for the preteÌ„ded imputation but rather an high hand of Heaven against it to overthrow it Some further plead that of the same Apostle Phil. 3 9. That I may be found in him not having mine owne righteousnesse c. but we have elswhere (a) In the first part of the Dis course cap. 6. upon a diligent search and inquirie found this Scripture looking a quite contrary way Other Scriptures then these alledged with any face or colour of reason in the cause of that Imputation which I disclaime I verily know none If I did I would not favor my selfe or the cause I maintain in the least by dissembling or suppressing any of them As for those that are consideÌ„t that they see that imputation of Christs righteousnes which we oppose in that and the like Scriptures Deliver me from blood guiltinesse ô God Lob. 41 27. and my tongue shall sing of thy righteousnesse Psal 51.14 and againe in that Do this and live Luk. 10.28 I leave them and their confidence to the convictions of miracles and signes from heaven For doubtlesse as for texts and interpretations they are turned into Stubble with them and reasons demonstrations are esteemed by them but as Leviathan esteemeth yron and brasse that is as straw and rotten wood Iob. 41.27 CAP. VI. VVherin the Arguments against the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense stated in the beginning of the Discourse are propounded and answered THere have bin two opinions the one affirmative the other negative hitherto promiscuously argued and maintained in this Discourse The former pleads the Imputation of Faith in a proper sense for righteousnesse in an unproper as was declared in the beginning The latter denyeth the imputation of Christs active obedience in the letter and formalitie of it in Iustification which expressions likewise have long since bin interpreted and cleered from all ambiguitie We shall now towards the close of our worke distinguish them and answere the arguments or objections against the one and the other apart by themselves I begin with the reasons or arguments urged against the affirmative SECT 1 The first and great argument or objection against the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense taken usually presents it selfe in this or the like shape That which impeacheth the truth or justice of God Object 1 can have no consistence or agreement with the truth But the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense declared impeacheth or trencheth upon the truth and justice of God Ergo The reason of the assumption which is only questionable is rendred thus because if God should impute Faith for righteousnesse he should account that to be a righteousnesse which is none and therein should be untrue or unjust The major proposition in this syllogisme is an anoynted truth and not to be touch'd but it is unequally yok'd the minor being of a contrary Spirit and therefore to be denied And to the proofe or confirmation of it I answere First that this was in effect the plea and argument of that fanatique Spirit of Suencfeldius as it stands upon record in Zanshie (a) Dei tribunal est multo justius quam Iureconsultorum ubi impii non absolvuntur Ergo in Theologia verbum justificandi non juridicâ— pro absolutione est accipiendum sed pro justum integrum gratum Deo reddere Zanch. in Epist l. 1. p. 215. and likewise of the Counsell of Trent as Calvin hath observ'd (b) Iterum enim affirmant nos verè justos esse non tantum reputari Ego contrà c Calvi Antidos ad sess 6. p. 324. to prove that the word Iustification in the Scripture was not to be taken in a juridicall sense viz. for absolution but in a physicall or morall sense for the making or constituting of a man properly and compleatly just or righteous and is the common argument of the Papists for their Justification by inherent grace and works (c) Bellarminus dicit verbo imputandi non significari nudam existimationem sed existimationem cui veritas in reipsa respondear Chamier t. 3. l. 21. c. 13. p. 886. This notwithstanding I conceive it very unjust to charge those that use it either with Swenchfeldianisme or Popery But Secondly neither doth it follow that God should account that for righteousnesse which is no righteousnesse though he should count Faith for righteousnesse For any obedience or action conformable to a righteous Law or rule may truly and oft in Scripture is be called righteousnesse Then stood up Phineas and executed judgement c. and it was counted unto him for righteousnesse c. Psal 106 30. By righteousnesse in this place cannot be meant a conformity or obedience to the whole Law one particular act as this was whatsoever it were cannot beare the appellation of righteousnesse in such a sense Therefore it signifies only a conformity with some particular and speciall precept or rule See the word used much in a like sense Gen. 30.33 2 Cor. 9.9.10 Hebr. 11.33 c. Now then Faith or beleeving being a subjection or obedience to a speciall commandement of God 1 Iohn 3.23 2 Pet. 2.21 Rom. 1.5 c. it may both with truth and in sufficient proprietie of speech be called righteousnesse yea the weakest or most imperfect believing looke what degree of sincerity and truth there is in it so farre it may truly be called and counted righteousnesse yet by righteousnesse in that clause where God is said to impute the Faith of him that beleeveth for righteousnesse SECT 2 Non hoc diciturâ— Deum apud se judicare illos pro quâ—um peocatis universis Christus satisfocit nihil mali unquam commisisse aut boni debiti omisisse sed eodem haberâ— loco quoad mortu reatum et jus ad vitam aeternum acsi nihil vel mâ—li ad misissent vel boni debâ—ti admisissent Gat. Elench p. 35.36 Sâ—e also my answere to Mr. Walker p. 24. 25. c. I do not conceive is meant an act of obedience or conformity to any speciall or particular precept of God Therefore Thirdly when with the Scriptures we affirme that God imputeth or accounteth any mans Faith unto him for righteousnesse we do not meane that God only accounteth such a beleeving for a righteous act unto him much lesse do we meane that he esteemeth it a perfect literall and compleate observation or
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
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
his Children is of that opinion which mainteyneth men to be compleatly righteous by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the letter and formality of it But as sometimes it comes to passe that a man falling into love with a woman that hath a great charge of Children hanging upon her having maried the mother would willingly wrangle or beate the Children out of dores and turne them off to begg so it is often seene that when men have unadvisedly imbraced an opinion seeming in their eye a beautifull and lovely truth and did not at first before they were wedded to it apprehend and consider what rugged and harsh consequences it had attending upon it they shift and turne and winde themselves about every way to quit themselves of that dishonourable charge wherewith they finde themselves by reason of their opinion encumbred withall But how men that will owne an imputation of a perfect righteousnesse can with any tollerable appearance of reason shift off from themselves the opinion of Gods not seeing sin in those that are cloathed with it is I confesse beyond the line of my apprehension If God could see no sinne in Christ because he was perfectly and compleatly righteous how he should see it in any that are as compleatly and perfectly righteous as he and that with the same righteousnesse wherwith he was righteous is a riddle that cannot be made out but by him that plougheth with a better heyfer then yet I have met with any CAP. XVI Propounding a ninth Demonstration against the pretended imputation viz. the confounding of the two Covenants IT is true SECT 1 many that hold the way of imputation are nothing ashamed nor afraide of this consequent the confounding of the two testaments or covenants of God with men that of the works with that of grace and vice versa that of grace with that of works These conceive that God never made more covenants then one with man and that the Gospell is nothing else but a gracious aide or reliefe from God to helpe man out with the performance of the first Covenant of works so that that life and salvation which is said to come by Christ shall in no other sense be said to come by him but only as he fulfilled that Law of works for man which men themselves were not able to fulfill and by imputation as by a deed of guift makes over that his perfect obedience and fulfilling of the Law to those that beleeve so that they in the right of this perfect obedience thus made theirs by imputation shall come to inherit life and salvation according to the strict and rigid tenor of the Covenant of works Doe this and live But as far as I am able to conceive men may aswell say there was no second Adam really differing from the first as no second Covenant differing really from the first and that mount Sina in Arabia is the same mountaine with mount Sion in Judaea and that the Spirit of bondage is the same with the Spirit of Adoption and that Isaak and Ishmael were but the same Child If the second Covenant of Grace were implicitly and tacitly conteyned in the first then the meaning of the first Covenant conceived in those words Doe this and live must be thus Doe this either by thy selfe or by another thy surety and live There is no other way to reconcile them or to reduce them into one and the same Covenant If this were Gods meaning in the first Covenant that keeping the Law either by a man himselfe in person or by another should equally serve the turne and a man should live by either then 1º it must follow that a Mediator was promised before the fall for this Covenant was struck with man in Innocencie 2º that Adam either understood not his Covenant that was made with him or else knew of a surety and redeemer before his fall at least as being in a readinesse for him in case he should fall 3 if keeping the Law either by a mans selfe or by another were in Gods meaning in that Covenant a sufficient meanes of life then any other surety any other Mediator would have made the reconciliation aswell as he that was God and man For God might have created a meere man with abilities to have kept the Law as fully as Adam or any of his posterity was bound to doe 4 and lastly if the fulfilling of the Law by any surety whatsoever were a sufficient meanes of life unto Adam and his then was the death of Christ no waies necessary because Christ had perfectly kept and fulfilled the Law before his death Againe 2 SECT 2 If the first and second Covenant were in substance the same then must the conditions or teâ—ms of agreement in both be the same For the conditions or terms of agreement in a Covenant are as formall and essentiall a part of a Covenant as any other thing belonging to it Though there be the same parties Covenanting and the same things Covenanted for or about yet if there be new articles of agreement it is really a new bargaine and another Covenant Now if the conditions or terms of agreement be the same in both those Covenants then to DOE THIS and TO BELEEVE Faith and works are really the same whereas the Scripture from place to place makes the most irreconcileable opposition betweene them But it may be there are some that are more shie of this consequence that stick not to hold the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense opposed and yet demuire upon an identitie of the two Covenants they doe not conceive this to be the fruite of that wombe Wherefore to prove that the mother hath no wrong at all in having this dead child layed by her side for her owne I thus reason Where the parties covenanting are the same and the things covenanted for the same and the conditions or agreement the same there the Covenants are every waies the same But if the righteousnesse of the Law imputed to us be the agreement or condition of the Now Covenant all the three persons things conditions are the same Therefore the two Covenants first and second the old and the new are every waies the same because as concerning the other two the parties Covenanting and the things covenanted for it is agreed on both sides that they are the same If it be Objected and said That the righteousnesse of the Law imputed from another and personally wrought by a mans selse are two deffering conditions therfore it doth not follow that the Covenants should be the same To this I Answere that the substance of the agreement will still be found the same notwithstanding the works or righteousnesse of the Law are the same by whomsoever wrought If Adam had fulfilled the Law as Christ did he had bin justified by the same righteousnesse wherewith Christ himselfe was righteous If it be yet said that Imputation in the second Covenant which was not in the first makes a reall difference
grace besides Faith they would have carried eternall life after the same manner and with as high an hand as beleeving now doth Naamans leprosie was cureable onely by the waters of Iordan why because the will and decree of God concerning this effect were upon these waters and upon these onely Abana and Pharpar or any other River whatsoever would have done as much had the same decree of God concurred with them When causes have an intrinsecall and naturall power and efficacie to produce their effects it is very improper if not ridiculous to ascribe such effects to the will and good pleasure of God As to say it is the will of God that the grace of patience should make a man patient or the grace of humility should make a man humble or that such an element as we call fire should burne or the like though there be a truth in them yet there is so little savour or weight of truth in them that such sayings are not worthy the holy Ghost and neither these nor any of their fellowes of like importance to be found in the whole Booke of God So to say that it is the Will of God that beleeving in Christ should justifie and so save men if beleeving in Christ simply as it is beleeving in Christ did it were an eccentricall expression and no where to be parallell'd in the Scriptures I might adde many other Scriptures as Ioh. 1.12 where it is said that to those that received Christ i. that beleeved in him God gave the power or prerogative to be his Sonnes i. decreed that such should be Sonnes unto him and by vertue of such a decree really made them such upon their beleeving which clearely shewes that beleeving in Christ as such doth not make a Son of God but receives this power or prerogative by especiall guift from God which gift might have beene given to any other grace as well as beleeving So Eph. 2.8 By grace ye are saved through Faith viz. in Christ therefore Faith doth not save simply as or because Christ is the object of it but by the efficacie and force of that gracious and good pleasure of God whereby he hath covenanted with his creature that such a Faith shall save it which good pleasure or Covenant of God with men concerning Faith is called Rom. 3.27 the Law of Faith which Law is that which gives it that strength and power which it now hath to justifie and save It were easie to make this pile of Scriptures large but those that have beene touched are sufficient to shew which way they generally incline in this particular Neither is that common plea SECT 18 which is so frequently insisted upon to prove the contrary viz. that Faith justifieth in relation to its object or as it receiveth and apprehendeth Christ or Christs righteousnesse or the like of any value if it be duely considered The strength of the argument is usually bound up in this similitude As the hand is said to enrich a man because it receives the money or treasure whereby he is inriched so Faith must needs be said to justifie because it receives Christ who is our righteousnesse and by whom we are justified To this I answer that it is not simply the taking silver or gold with the hand that enricheth a man no nor the silver or gold so taken that simply enricheth him A man may be never the richer for receiving great summes of money of silver and gold nay a man may be much the poorer and more miserable for receiving or taking money if he receives or takes it contrary to the Lawes As when a thiefe breakes into an house and takes away much treasure with him or puts forth his hand to take a mans purse by the high-wayes side his hand in these cases cannot be said to make him rich because it receives treasure neither doth the treasure so received make him rich but poore and miserable because now he is obnoxious to the sentence of the Law and ownes his life and all he is worth besides unto it Therefore if a mans hand enricheth him by receiving that which doth enrich him it doth it not simply as it receiveth it for then it should doe it alwayes and in all cases whatsoever but it doth it by vertue of that Law or agreement of the state where he lives which secureth a man in the quiet possession and enjoyment of such money or treasure as hee lawfully receives to his owne use So though Christ be a treasure of righteousnesse and justification in himselfe it doth not presently follow that whosoever takes hold on him or beleeves in him should presently be made righteous or justified by him but here must intervene some Law Covenant or Decree from God to establish and authorize such a beleeving or laying hold on him to be a mans righteousnesse or justification Wee doe not suppose they can but for argument sake we will suppose that if the Devills should beleeve on Christ hoping or expecting to be justified by him as men doe who beleeving are justified yet they should be never the nearer any justification by him though he be a treasure of righteousnesse Why because God hath made no Law Promise Covenant or agreement with them that they should be justified by Faith therefore if it were possible for them to beleeve as men doe yet Christ would be no more any righteousnesse unto them than now he is Much more might be said and may be said elsewhere for the evidencing of this Conclusion but here I would hasten In the meane time I desire to explaine my selfe a little further touching this Conclusion onely in two words When I denie that Faith justifieth in its relation to its object or as it layeth hold on Christ I am farre from saying or conceiving that any Faith should justifie but that onely which layeth hold on Christ yea I grant and verily beleeve that whereas there are many other acts of Faith besides beleeving or laying hold on Christ as viz. to comfort and strengthen and purifie the hearts of those that beleeve and the like yet that decree or good pleasure of God which I conceive makes Faith justifying concurres with it towards this great effect onely in that act of laying hold on Christ and not in any of the other So that in this sence I grant hold that Faith may be said to justifie as it layeth hold of Christ comparatively viz. as this act of Faith is distinguished from those other acts which it likewise produceth it doth not justifie either as it comforts or as it purifies the heart c. but onely as it relateth to Christ and layeth hold on him This onely is that which I deny that this act of Faith whereby it receiveth or layeth hold on Christ hath that in the nature or inherently in it or any otherwise or by any other meanes then from the will and good pleasure of God which makes it availeable unto justification It hath no foundation
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
deliver them out of trouble or the like And this doubtlesse is the most frequent signification of the word of all other Thus Psal 145.7 They shall abundantly utter the memory of thy great goodnesse and shall sing of thy righteousnesse that is of thy clemency and grace towards thy people So Psal 51.14 Mica 6.5 besides other places without number Fourthly that gracious purpose and intent of God towards his elect for giving them saving Faith in due time is sometimes called the righteousnesse of God Thus 2 Pet. 1.1 those beleevers to whom Peter writes are said to have obteyned like precious Faith with him through the righteousnesse of God c. Fiftly that which is of most concernment to the question in hand by the righteousnesse of God is sometimes meant that Iustification or that way method or meanes of Iustification whereby God Iustifieth and makes men righteous Thus Rom. 3.21 The righteousnesse of God which is without the Law i. that way and course which God hath found out for the Justification or making men righteous which consists not in the observation or works of the Law is said to be manifested being witnessed by the Law i. the writeings of Moses and the Prophets So the verse following the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ In the like sense the word is also used Rom 1.17 Rom. 10.3 In all which places with their fellowes by the righteousnesse of God is meant that Iustification or way of making men righteous which God himselfe out of his speciall wisdome and grace hath found out and recommended unto the world as being farre differing from that way of Iustification which the wisdome of the flesh and the thoughts of men run so much upon viz. by workes and observation of the Law In the same kind of expression mens owne righteousnesse signifies Rom. 10.3 that way or meanes by which they intend or seeke to be Iustified Some Divines of great worth and fame affirme Iustitiae veâ—abulum in Scripturis se mper notas Dei bonitatem Miseriâ—ordians salutem redemptionem nunquam vere adhibetur ad id significandum quod vulgo iustitiam dicimus neÌ„pe affectum illum quo Deus ad scelera et peccata vindicanda propendet irae iudicij vocabula ad hoc significandum potius adhibentur Cameron Myroth in ve 21. cap. 3. ad Rom. p. 178. that the word Iustitia Justice or righteousnesse in Scripture never signifieth that which is commonly called Justice in God that is that nature or affection in God which inclineth him to punish or take vengeance on sinne this they say is usually expressed by those terms wrath and judgment but either the goodnesse mercy and salvation of God or the like But whether this observation will stand or no I make some question For in the sixt place I conceive that sometimes that very affection in God mentioned viz. his severity against sinne and sinners is expressed by this word righteousnesse In this sense the word I conceive may well be taken Rom. 3.25.26 c. that he i God might be Iust and a Iustifier of him which is of the Faith of Iesus that is that God might appeare and be declared to be a severe Judge and punisher of sinne and yet iustifie and acquit all those from sinne who beleeve in Iesus Christ Seventhly Christ himselfe sometimes seemes to be called the righteousnesse of God as Esa 42.21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousnesse sake So Esa 51.5 c. Now Christ may be called the righteousnesse of God because he is the great Author or Mediator of that righteousnesse or Iustification which God vouchsafeth unto the world Lastly the society and company of those that are made righteous or iustified by God through Christ are called the righteousnesse of God 2 Cor. 5.21 of which phrase we shall speake further in this Distinction Againe 2º this word Iustice or righteousnesse SECT 3 when applied to men sometimes signifieth that generall frame of the heart or soule consisting of all those holy dispositions and affections which are found in some degree in every true-borne child of God In this sense God himselfe attributeth righteousnesse unto Noah Gen. 7.1 Thee have I seene righteous c. In this sense righteousnesse is opposed to the corrupt and sinfull frame of the heart in the estate of unregeneratenesse and a righteous man to an unregenerate man This sense is obvious in Scripture Secondly the fruits works or actions arising from such a frame of heart are sometimes called righteousnesse Thus it is used Act. 10.35 1 Ioh. 3.7 and elsewhere Thirdly that particular and speciall disposition which inclineth a man to deale uprightly and according to the rules of equity with all men and is opposed to fraud violence oppression c. together with the worke and fruite of such a disposition sometimes goeth under the Name of Iustice or righteousnesse See Gen. 30.33 Deut. 1.16 Esa 33 15. besides many other places Fourthly and with more concernment to the point in hand Iustification it selfe in the passive sense declared in the former distinction is sometimes by a metonymie of the cause for the effect expressed by the word righteousnesse Thus Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse i. Justification come by the Law i. by the works of the Law then Christ is dead in vaine So Rom. 10 4. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse i. for Justification to them that beleeve So ver 5. Moses describeth the righteousnesse which is of the Law c. i. sheweth wherein that Justification consisteth which is to be attained by the Law if men will seeke to be justified by it So againe Ro. 5 17 The guift of righteousnesse i. of Justification and ver 18 by the righteousnesse of one c. i. by the iustifying of one as the former translation reads it and that I conceive more agreeably to the originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather by one iustifying i. by one procurement of Iustification the gift came upon all men viz. that beleeve unto Iustification of life meaning that Christ by one and the same meanes used for the iustifying of men purchased and procured the Justification of all those that should beleeve be they never so many and that such a Iustification which shall be accompanied with salvation See more instances of this signification of the word Rom. 8.4 Rom. 9.30 Rom. 10.10 1 Cor. 1.30 c. with divers others Thus also in the same propriety of speech to make righteous and to iustify are but the same as to make wicked and to condemne Compare Rom. 5. ver 19. with ver 18. Fiftly sometimes Christ himselfe is by an ellipsis of the efficient or procuring cause very usually in Scripture called the righteousnesse of men i. the Author or procurer of their Justification or righteousnesse as Ier. 23.6 33.16 c. In the same figure of speech he is elsewhere called our hope our life our sanctification our redemption c.
Justification that it is purposely required of men and it only by him that the freenesse of his grace in their Iustification might take place and be established thereby Rom. 4.16 Therefore it is by Faith that it might be by Grace And in reason how can a guift be conceived to be more freely given then when nothing more is required of him to whō it is given then that he receives it Now beleeving is nothing else being interpreted but a receiving of that righteousnesse or Iustification which God giveth in and with his Sonne Iesus Christ As many as received him c. Joh. 1.12 that is as it is explained in the end of the verse as many as beleeved in his Name So that in the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense so oft explained there is not the least appearance of any prejudice at all to the freenesse of grace in Iustification And thus we are fairly delivered out of the hand of this objection also A fourth is this Object 4 That which ministreth occasion to the flesh of boasting in it selfe SECT 5 is no waies consonant to the tenor and truth of the Gospell But the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense claimed ministreth this occasion of boasting unto the flesh Ergo. This syllogisme also as touching the matter of it halts right downe on the minor proposition For certaine it is that there is no occasion nor indeed colour of occasion of boasting ministred to the flesh by that opinion which maintaines the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense avouched For First suppose the worke or act of beleeving which is so imputed for righteousnesse be a mans own work or act which is all the colour that can be pretended why the imputation of it for righteousnesse should be an occasion of boasting to the flesh yet it is so by guift and by the meere grace and donation of another viz. God This the Apostle determines in expresse words Ephes 2.8 By grace ye are saved through Faith and that not of your selves it is the guift of God that is that Faith by which ye are saved is the guift of God See likewise Philip. 1.29 1 Cor. 2.12 1 Cor. 3.6 with many other places of like importance Now then since a man hath nothing doth nothing in beleeving but what he receiveth from another all occasion or pretence of boasting is cut off by this even according to the Apostles own rule and reasoning 1 Cor. 4.7 What hast thou that thou hast not received and if thou hast received it why gloriest or boastest thou as though thou hadst not received evidently implying that no man hath any just cause or pretence of boasting I meane in or of himselfe for any thing but only of that which he hath of his own and from himselfe Let the thing be never so glorious and excellent if he hath received it from another hee hath cause onely to boast and glorie in him from whom he hath received it but not at all in himselfe If God miracluosly should raise up Children unto Abraham of the stones of the Earth had these stones being now made men and men of the greatest worth and excellencie any cause or pretence of glorying in themselves concerning that dignity and honour which is now come upon them No more hath any flesh the least cause or colour of boasting in it selfe how great or excellent soever the act of Faith may be conceived to be or how great and rich soever the privileges may be which depend upon it because it is given unto them by another it is the glory of the giver and the comfort only or blessednesse of the receiver But Secondly SECT 5 suppose the act of believing were from a mans selfe or in part from a mans selfe yet hath he no cause to boast in himselfe that God should be pleased to impute it unto him for righteousnesse in the sense we embrace Because that weight of glory those high and excellent things which attend upon Faith and are given to it are not given to it for any worth or dignity that is found in it as we have heretofore cleerely demonstrated but by the most free gracious and good pleasure of God If a King for taking a pin of a mans sleeve should raise his House and make him honourable in the State and give him thousands to maintaine it were it not a ridiculous thing for such a man to goe up and down and bragg of the pin of his sleeve Alasse for all this honour and greatnesse that he is come unto he is beholding to the grace and bounty of his Prince and nothing at all to the pin in his sleeve He might have had twenty pins in his sleeve and yet never have bin worth twenty pence had he not met with such a royall and magnificent disposition in him that so rewarded him This is the case of Faith in respect of those great things which depend upon it though a Beleever hath the forgivenesse of sinnes and the love and favor of God given him upon it and right and title to the Kingdome of Heaven c. yet all this is no ground or pretence at all why any man should boast of himselfe or of his Faith though it were from himselfe which yet we absolutly deny because if this Faith had not met with a God of infinite grace bounty and magnificence we might have bin miserable and accursed for all our Faith and beleeving whatsoever Yea by the Apostles own rule when God is pleased to chuse weake and foolish things to confound the mighty all occasion of boasting is cut off from the flesh Indeed if men had fulfilled the Law and bin justified that way there had bin some pretence for boasting or glorying in themselves First because such a righteousnesse had held some proportion at least with the reward that should have bin given to it Rom. 4.4 To him that worketh saith Paul that is that keepeth the Law the wages or reward is counted not by favor but of debt God should have given them no more then what they had at least in some sort deserved Secondly because if they had made out their happinesse that way they had done it out of themselves that is out of the strength of those abilities which were essentiall to their natures and in the strictest and most proper sense that can be spoken of or applied to a creature their owne Both which being apparantly wanting in Faith or in the Act of beleeving there can be no colour or pretence of boasting for the flesh though it be imputed by God for righteousnesse as hath bin explained So that this objection also vanisheth into nothing Fiftly SECT 6 I have somewhere met with such a reasoning as this against the point in hand Object If Faith be imputed unto us for righteousnesse then are we justified by that which is unperfect and which it selfe needs a justification for no mans Faith is perfect in this life But
there is no justification to be looked for before God by that which is unperfect but only by that which is perfect c. Ergo. To the Major Proposition I answere Answere by distinguishing that clause in the consequent or latter part of it then are we justified by that which is unperfect c. These words may have a double sense or meaning as either that we are justified without the concurrence of any thing that is simply perfect to our justification or that somewhat that is comparatively weake and unperfect may somewaies concurre and contribute towards our Iustification If the former sense be intended the proposition is absolutly false and the consequence to be denied it doth not follow If Faith be imputed for righteousnesse in the sense given then is there nothing that is perfect required as necessary unto Iustification this inconsequence is notorious Yea the truth is that the imputing of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense of the discourse presupposteth somewhat if not more things then one that is absolutly perfect as absolutly necessary unto Iustification Had not the Lord Christ who is perfect himselfe even as perfect as perfection it selfe could make him made a perfect attonement for sinne there had bin no place for the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse yea there had bin no place so much as for the being either of such a Faith or of any righteousnesse or Iustification at all for men For it is thorough the attonement made by Christ for us that either we beleeve in him or in God through him and it is through the same attonement also that God iustifieth us upon our beleeving that is imputes our Faith unto us for righteousnesse in the sense argued If the said clause be meant in the latter sense viz. that somwhat that is weake and unperfect may somtimes concurre or conduce towards Iustification so the Proposition is granted but then the Minor goes to wreck For Justification before God may be expected and looked for though that Faith whereby we beleeve yea and that Minister of the Gospell by whom we beleeve be both weake and unperfect and yet both these we know are somewaies contributorie towards Iustification Except yee beleeve that I am hee you shall die in your sinnes c. Joh. 8.24 and consequently never be iustified We have beleeved in Christ Iesus that we might be iustified c. Gal. 2.16 And that the Minister of the Gospell hath or at least may have his part or hand in our Iustification is evident How shall they beleeve in him of whom they have not heard and how shall they heare without a Preacher Rom. 10.14 He that hath any influence into our Faith or the working and raising that in the soule is somewaies instrumentall and helpfull towards our Iustification But neither doth our Iustification before God depend upon the perfection of our Faith but upon the truth of it neither doth the truth of our Faith depend upon the perfection of him by whom we beleeve but upon the truth of what he teacheth and delivereth unto us for that end So that the light of this truth shines on every hand that men may be iustified ministerially and instrumentally by things that are weake and unperfect Therefore this objection also is no better then his fellowes Sixtly Object 6 Some have opposed the imputation of Faith which we pleade for with this reason SECT 8 If Faith be imputed unto us for righteousnesse in the sense expressed then God should rather receive a righteousnesse from us then we from him in our Iustification But God doth not receive a righteousnesse from us but we from him in Iustification Ergo. I answere that in this syllogisme Answere the Major Proposition is guilty of the error and falshood in the conclusion For it no waies followes upon that imputation of Faith for righteousnesse which we defend that God should either receive a righteousnesse from us or that we should receive none from him in our Iustification Because First Gods imputing Faith for righteousnesse unto us in the sense which hitherto we have aided doth no waies imply or import that Faith is a righteousnesse properly so called but only that God by the meanes thereof and upon the tender of it looks upon us as righteous yet not as made either meritoriously or formally righteous by it but as having fulfilled and performed that condition or covenant upon the fulfilling and performance whereof hee hath covenanted and promised to make us righteous meritoriously by the death and sufferings of his own Sonne formally with the pardon and remission of all our sinnes Secondly Suppose such a position or inference as this lay in the bowells of what we hold that Faith were a proper righteousnesse yet neither would this argue that therefore God should receive a righteousnesse from us in our Iustification For we rather receive our Faith from God as was layd down in Answere to the fourth objection for our Iustification then God from us in our Iustification though I grant that in a sense a farre off and with much adoe it may haply be made a truth that God receives our Faith from us in Iustification But Thirdly and lastly that that imputation of Faith for righteousnesse which is protected by us supposeth a righteousnesse given unto and received by men from God in Iustification and consequently is farre from denying it is evident from hence because it could not be truly said that God doth impute Faith for righteousnesse unto any man excâ—pt he should make him righteous upon his beleeving Now as it is impossible possible that a man should be made righteous without a righteousnesse in one kinde or other so is it unpossible also that that righteousnesse wherewith a man is made righteous in Iustification should be given or be derived upon him from any other but from God alone For this righteousnesse as hath bin already proov'd at large can be none other but forgivenesse of sinnes and who can forgive sinnes but God alone And by this time the fire of this objection also I conceive is turn'd into smoke Some other exceptions I confesse there are against this Imputation we hold forth SECT 9 of lighter consideration but some of these if not the whole thripp of them I have Answered at large in my Answere to Mr. Walker now Printed by some as it seemes at the unreasonable importunity of my Antagonists Socinianisme Discovered c. which called for it and for 7 times more with open mouth and with multiplicitie of requests made of forged cavillations and ragged raylings But complaints I consider are here but impertinencies If the Reader please to set in about pag 32 of that Discourse and read on hee shall finde severall objections more such as they are against the Imputation in hand attended with their Answeres like mad-men with sober for feare of doing harme Aud as for those viperous and malignant imputations rather then objections of Socinianisme Arminianisme c. against the
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
imputation of Christs righteousnesse that is God justifies a beleever for Christs righteousnesse sake and not for any righteousnesse of his owne Such an imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ as this is is no way denyed or once questioned And thus such passages as those in Calvin Nos gratis justificat Deus Christi obedientiam nobis imputando i. God freely justifieth us by imputing the obedience of Christ unto us and againe Homo non inse ipso justus est sed quia Christi justitia imputatione cum illo communicatur Instit l. 3 c. 17 ss 23. i. A man is not righteous in himselfe but because the righteousnesse of Christ is communicated or Imputed unto him by imputation These and such like expressions in this Author are to be interpreted by such passages as these which are frequent also in the same Author Christus suaobedientia gratiam nobis apud Patrem acquifivit promeritus est Instit l. 2 c. 17. ss 30. 1. Christ by his obedience procured and merited for us grace or favor with God the Father And againe l. 3 c. 14. ss 17. Christus per suam obedientiam nobis justitiam acquisivit i. Christ by his obedience procured or purchased righteousnesse for us And againe in Gal. 3 6. Omnes istae locutiones peraequè valent justificari nos Dei gratia Christum esse justitiam nostraÌ„ justitiaÌ„ morte resurrectione Christi nobis acquisitaÌ„ c. i. All such expressions as these import the same thing that we are justified by the grace of God that Christ is our righteousnes that righteousnes was procured for us by the death and resurrection of Christ c. By al which passages and many more of like Importance that might be produced out of the same Author it is fully evideÌ„t that when he mentioneth any imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in Iustification his meaning is only that the righteousnesse of Christ meaning chiefly his passive obedience or righteousnesse haply not excluding his active is the meritorious cause of our Iustification and hath procured and purchased this for us at Gods hand that upon our believing wee should be accompted righteous by him or which is but the same that our Faith should be imputed for righteousnesse to us To which purpose hee speakes yet more significantly and expressely in the place last mentioned in Gal. 3 6. Quum autom justitiam in se repositam non habeant homines imputatione hanc adipiscuntur i. Men not having any righteousnesse lodged â—n themselves they obtaine it by imputation which Imputation he thus explicates and interprets quia Deus fidem illis fert acceptam pro justitia because saith he God doth Impute or accompt their faith unto them for righteousnesse Divers like passages might be drawne together out of other Authors which must be seasoned with the same salt of Interpretation to be made savory and meete for Spirituall nourishment In the Homilies of our owne Church SECT 4 there are some passages that mention the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse in Iustification for the genuine sense whereof if we consult with the eleventh Article of Religion which is concerning Iustification and is framed with all possible exactnesse this way that so few words are capable of that will directly lead us to the same Interpretation of them we are accompted righteous before God saith our Article only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ by faith and not for our owne works or deservings Where â— it is to be observed that we are not said to be constituted and made righteous before God in Iustification though such an expression may in a sense be admitted but only that we are accompted or reputed such 2. It is not said that we are accounted righteous with the righteousnesse of our Lord and Saviour no nor yet with his merits but only thus we are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord by Faith i. The merit of Christ or of his righteousnesse hath so farre prevaled with God on our behalfe that by or upon our Faith we shall be accounted righteous before him which in effect is the same truth we maintaine viz. that God for Christs sake or Christs merits sake doth impute our faith for righteousnesse unto us requiring nothing more at our hands for Iustification And thus Musculus expresseth himselfe roundly Fides reputatur in justitiam propter Christum Faith is accounted for righteousnesse for Christs sake And againe Commendata debet esse haec fides c. quaÌ„ constituit credentibus in Christum propter ipsum justitiae loco imputare Loc. Com. de Iustif sect 5 i. This faith ought to be esteemed of us c. which God purposeth for Christs sake to impute for righteousnesse to those that beleeve in him So Luther also ad Gal. 3.6 Deus reputat istam imperfectam fidem ad justitiam perfectam propter Christum i. God for Christs sake accounts this imperfect faith for perfect righteousnesse And Chamier calls remission of sinnes that righteousnesse which is imputed unto us Remissio peccatorum est justitia imputatat 3 l. 21. c. 19. ss 10. And Vrsinus Idem sunt justificatio remissio peccatorum Cat. part 2. Qu. 60 ss 3. Therefore wheresoever whether in the Homilies of our own Church or in other Authors we meet with any such expression as of the righteousnesse of Christ imputed in Iustification we must not understand this righteousnesse in the Letter proprietie or formalitie of it but in the Spirit or merit of it to be imputed Iustificamur per Iustitiam Christi non personae qua ipse est vestitus sed meriti quae suos vestit nobis imputatam Dr. Prideaux Lect. 5 ss 11. And this manner of speech to put the name of a thing in the proprietie of it instead of the valew worth benefit or returne of it is both usuall and familiar in ordinary passage of discourse amongst us and very frequent in the Scriptures When we say a Merchant grew rich by such or such a Commoditie our meaning is that he grew rich by the game or returne he made of the commodity He may be enriched by the Commodity and yet have never a whâ—t of it with him or under his hand So when we say such a man grew rich by his place or Office our meaning plainly is but this that he grew rich by such gaines or matters of profit as his place or Office afforded him we do not meane that his place or Office it self was his riches So may it be said that we are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ and yet not have the righteousnesse it selfe upon us by imputation or otherwise but only a righteousnesse procured or purchased by it really and essentially differing from it viz. remission of sinnes as will appeare in due time Thus in the Scriptures themselves there is no figure or forme of speech more frequent then to name the thing it selfe in the propriety of it in
and tendred it unto him to require it for righteousnes or instead of righteousnes and not to accept it for righteousnes when it is brought unto him would be as apparant a breach of Covenant with God as it would be in a rich Creditor that should compound and agree with his poore Debtors for twelve pence in the pound or the like but when they brought the money to him should refuse to take it upon any such termes or to discharge them of their debt and give them out their bands Secondly SECT 6 when we deny the Imputation of Christs righteousnes in Justification we neither deny the righteousnes of Christ in it selfe we rather suppose and establish it Neither 2 do we deny the absolute necessity of it both to the Justification and salvation of a sinner Neither 3 do we deny a meritorious efficiency or causality in this righteousnes in respect of the Iustification of a sinner but verily believe and conceive that God justifieth all that are justified not simply and barely for Christs sake or for his righteousnes sake for a man may do a thing for his sake whom he much loves and respects though he hath not otherwise deserved it at his hands but for the merits sake of Christs righteousnesse there being a full and reall consideration in this righteousnes of Christ I meane his death or passive righteousnes chiefly why God should justifie those that believe in him But 4 and lastly that which we deny in denying the Imputation of Christs righteousnes is this that God should looke upon a believing sinner in his Iustification and account of him as one that had himselfe don all that Christ did in obedience to the Morall Law and hereupon pronounce or account him righteous or which is the same that God should Impute unto him those particular acts of obedience which Christ performed ◠the nature and proprietie of them so that he should stand as righteous before God as Christ himselfe or which is the same righteous with the selfe same righteousnesse wherewith Christ was righteous and so God make himselfe countable unto him for such obedience imputed in as great matters of reward as he would have beene for the like obedience personally performed by himselfe In a word this is that which we deny this is that which we affirme concerning the righteousnes of Christ in the Iustification of a sinner that God cloaths no man with the letter of it but every man that believes with the Spirit of it that is that this righteousnes of Christ is not that that is imputed unto any man for righteousnes but is that for which righteousnes is imputed to every man that believeth A Justified persō may in such a sense be said to be cloathed with Christs righteousnes as Pauls necessities were relieved supplied by his hands Act. 20 34. These hands saith he have ministred unto my necessities PAVL neither eate his fingers nor spun out the flesh of his hands into cloathing and yet was both fed and cloathed with them so may a believer be said to be cloathed with the righteousnes of Christ and yet the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe not be his cloathing but only that which procured this cloathing unto him and so Calvin calls that cloathing of righteousnes wherewith a beleever is clad in his justification justitiam morte resurrectione Christi acquisitam a righteousnes procured or purchased by the death and refurrection of Christ This righteousnes of Christ may be said to be the righteousnes of a beleever in such a construction of speech as the knowledg of God and of Christ is said to be eternall life Ioh. 17 3. viz in way of causalitie not in the formalitie of it And againe the righteousnesse of a Beleever in his Iustification may be termed the righteousnesse of Christ in such a sense as the favor of God in deliverance out of trouble is called a mans righteousnesse Iob 33 26. or as a bond servant under the Law is said by God himselfe to be his Masters money Exo. 21 21. because he was bought with his money or as the Nation and people of the Jewes is often in the Scriptures called Iacob they were not Iacob in the proprietie of his person but in his discent and propagation So may the righteousnesse of a Beleever be called the righteousnesse of Christ viz. in the fructification of it because it is a righteousnesse descended from it and issuing as it were out of the loynes of it What hath beene affirmed and what hath been denyed in the Question We come now to prove and to demonstrate the truth of both 1. from the authority of the Scriptures 2. from the grounds of reason as for the third kind of proofe or confirmation consent of Authors we shall not assigne a peculiar place for that by it selfe but enterlace our other proofes occasionally with such testimonyes as we have received from learned and judicious men for confirmation of the point to be discussed the greatest part whereof notwithstanding you shall meete with in the second and fift Chapters CAP. II. VVherein the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse is proved from the Scriptures and the interpretation of those Scriptures confirmed both by reason and authority aswell of ancient as moderne Divines VVHat it is that is imputed for righteousnesse in Iustification all the wisdome or learning under Heaven is not so fit or able to determine as the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture being the great Secretary of Heaven and privie to all the waies and counsells of God and therefore there is none to him to take up any difference or to comprimise betweene the Controverters about any Subject in Religion All the difficulty and question is because though he speaks upon the house top yet many times and many things he interprets in the eare All the Christian world either know's or readily may know what he speakes in the Scriptures but what his meaning and intent is in many things there delivered he leaveth unto men to debate and make out amongst them To some indeed he reveales the secret of his counsaile the Spirit of his Letter in some particulars but because these are not marked in the forehead therefore their thoughts and apprehensions though the true begotten of the spirit of truth are yet in common esteeme but like other mens till God himselfe shall please to make the difference by causing a clearer light of evidence and conviction to arise upon them yea many times the nearer the truth the further off from the approbation of many and sometimes even of those that are the greatest pretenders to the truth Foure things there are especially SECT 2 that much commend an interpretation when they are found in conjunction and establish it like that King upon his Throne Prov. 30 31. against whom there is no riseing up First if the Letter or Grammar of the Scripture will fairely and strongly beare it Secondly If the scope of the place will close
properly notes the act not the object of beleeving Againe afterwards in the same place But when he firmly beleeved God promising that very Faith was imputed to him in the place or stead of righteousnesse that is he was of God reputed righteous for that Faith and absolved from all his sins BULLINGER likewise gives the same right hand of fellowship to the same interpretation upon Rom. Concredidit se Abraham Deo et illud ipsum illi pro justitia imputatum est Bulling ad Ro. 4. Imputatum est illi adjustitiam c. hoc est illa ipsa Abrahae fides ipsi adjustiam imputata est cum ad huc ageret in praputio Idem ad Gal. 3 6. Credidit Abraham Deo et impuravit ei scilicet Deus hanc fidem pro justitia Gualt Ad Rom. 4.4 Imputavit ei justitiam quod est fidem giatam habuit adeo ut justum ex eo haberet justitia imputativa Aret. ad Rom. 4. Fides tam firma et pia pro justitia Abrahamo imputata est Aret. ad Rom. 4 22. 4 Abraham committed himselfe unto God by beleeving and this very thing was imputed unto him for righteousnesse And the second time upon Gal. 3 6. It was imputed unto him for righteousnesse that is that very Faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righteousnesse whilst he was yet uncircumcised GUALTER comes behind none of the former in avouching the Grammaticall against the Rhetoricall interpretation upon Rom. 4.4 Abraham beleeved God and he viz. God imputed unto him THIS FAITH for righteousnesse ARETIUS no whit digresseth from the former expositions upon Rom. 4. He imputed righteousnesse unto him which is as much as to say he so far accepted or thought well of his faith as thereupon to accompt him righteous with an imputative righteousnesse Where note by the way he doth not call an imputative or imputed righteousnesse any thing that is a righteousnesse properly so called any righteousnesse that should be in one person inherently and become anothers by imputation neither do I remember the phrase of an imputed righteousnesse in that sense in any classique Author but by an imputative righteousnesse he meanes somewhat imputed or accounted by God for righteousnesse which literally and in strictnesse of consideration is not such Againe the same Author more plainly and succinctly upon ver 22. of the same Chapter A faith so firme and pious was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse Illud credere ei imputatum est ad justitiam vel pro vera justitia Illyr ad Ro. 4.3 Et paulo post Mendica illa fites apprehendeus Christi justiciam imputata ipsi est loco propriae justitiae ILLYRICUS forsakes not his fellow-interpreters in this point Vpon Rom. 4 3. That same beleeving was imputed unto him for righteousnesse And afterwards That same poore begging faith apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ was imputed unto him instead of a proper righteousnesse PELLICAN â—s breakes not this ranke Credidit simpliciter verbo Dei et non postulavit signum a Dâ—mino et imputabat cam sidem ipsi Abrahae Deus pro justitia qua creditur propersus Deus in nostrum bonum Pelican to Gen. 15.6 Fides qua promittentâ— Deo credidit Abâ—aham et fuit ad justitiam imputata Hunnius ad â—om 4 3. Hic agitur de eo quod ipsi imputatum est nempe de ipsius side â—re ad Rom. 4.3 Eum quan vis justitia carenteÌ„ numeravitque pro justo habuit in justitâ— loco quod promissiones firma fide ample â—us est I câ—mel et Iun. Not. in Gen. 15.6 Intelligimus fideâ— nomine acqutesâ—â—ntiam Abrahâ—e non in se sunvâ— mâ—titu sed in Dei promissione et benevolentia Par. ad Ro. 4.3 Vpon Gen. 15 6. Abraham simply beleeved the word of God and required not a signe of the Lord and God imputed THAT VERY Faith unto Abraham himselfe for righteousnes whereby GOD is inclineable or propense to doe us good HUNNIUS another Reformed Divine sets to his seale that the avouched interpretation is true On Rom. 4.3 The faith whereby Abraham beleeved GOD promising was imputed unto him for righteousnesse BEâ—A himselfe upon the same Scripture is as deep in the same way as any Here â—aâ—th he the businesse is concerning that that was imputed unto him viz his faith JUNIUS and TREMEILIUS are likewise of the former conspiracie aginst the tropicall interpretation On Gen. 15 6. God esteemed or accounted him for righteous though wanting righteousnesse wherewith to stand before God and reckoned this in the stead or place of righteousnesse that he imbraced the promise with a firme beliefe PARAEUS the last we shall name of forreigne Divines dealeth out this interpretation as freely as his fellowes On Rom. 4.3 We understand by the name or word FAITH which is said to be impuâ—ed unto Abraham for righteousnesse Abraham's acquietation or resting â—ot in himselfe or in his owne merits but in the promise and graciousnesse of God Neither are there wanong from amongst our selves men of soundest learning and jâ—dgment holding forth the light oâ— the same interpretation a so Doctor ROBERT ABBOT â—â—â—â—wards Bishop of Saâ—um in his Apologie against Bishop SECT 15 Part 1 c p. 9. not far from the beginning Hâ—vingâ—e downe those passages of the Apostâ—e Rom. 4 5 and 6. he addeth as followeth In which words we see how the Apostle affiâ—meth accordingly as I said an Imputation of righteousnesse without works which he expresseth to be The repuâ—ing of Faith for righteousnesse for that thereby we obtaine remission and forgivenesse of sinnes Againe not long after for in the imputation of righteousnesse without works what is it that is reputed for righteousnesse Faith saith the Apostle is reputed for righteousnesse Tell us then Mr. Bishop is faith with you reputed for righteousnesse without works Spit out man and tell us whether in your first or second justification you hold that a man for his faith is reputed righteous c. with more of like importance in the page following He that will undertake to divide bâ—â—weene this Author and the opinion we contend for must be more severe then to give a man leave to be of his owne minde Dr. PRESTON also maketh himselfe a stranger to the tropicall interpretation of this Scripture and imbraceth that which is litterall and proper without scruple or question In his Treatise of Gods Allsufficiency pag 12 13. In this sense faith is said to be accounted or imputed for righteousnesse Abraham beleeved God Gen. 15. God indeed made the same proposition that he doth here for substance he tells him what be would do for him and saith the text Abraham beleeved God and it was counted unto him for righteousnesse Now it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse chiefly in this sense as it is interpreted Rom 4 that his very taking of the promise and his accepting of the Covenant in that he did receive that which God gave that put him within the Covenant
is the act of Faith that Iustifieth As when a man putteth forth his arme and reacheth a pot or cup with drink in it wherewith he quencheth his thirst he may be said to quench his thirst instrumentally by reaching out his arme because this was a meanes to procure it So let men put what meaning or interpretation they please upon their words when they professe and acknowledg that it is Faith that Iustifieth if they meane at all as they say they must meane that it is the Act of Faith that Iustifieth because both that Faith by which a man beleeves in Christ is an act of Faith and againe that Faith by which a man is instrumentally Iustified is an act of Faith and that Faith that layeth hold upon the righteousnesse of Christ is an act of Faith too Therefore let men turne themselves any way and which way they please and make their words to fall either to the North or towards the South if they meane as they say that faith indeed Iustifieth they must meane that it is the act of faith that Iustifieth And when themselves will say that faith Iustifieth and yet will condemne it for an error in another that the act of faith should Iustify they cannot escape the hands of this dilemma but one of the horns will gore them either it must follow that they doe not meane as they say or that they condemne their owne opinion and meaning in another most true it is that it is far from truth to say that faith iustifyeth as it is an act and as far from truth it is to say that it is not the act of faith that Iustifieth If it be yet further replyed and said SECT 4 that when men say we are justified by Faith their meaning is that we are justified by that which faith apprehendeth and this is farre from saying that Faith is imputed for righteousnesse To this I Answer 1. if their meaning be simply and without limitation so that we are justified by that which Faith apprehendeth when they say we are justified by Faith then they speake more truth then they are aware of and as it seems more then they intend to speake For that Faith justifieth is most true but that whatsoever Faith apprehendeth should justifie hath no fellowship with truth no not so much as in appearance For By Faith we understand or apprehend the worlds were made Heb. 11.3 yet no man will say that the creation of the world justifies men Secondly if men ascribe justification in every respect and consideration to that which Faith apprehendeth they utterly overthrow that which generally they professe viz. the instrumentall justification of faith For if any thing that faith apprehendeth justifieth every way both materially and formally and meritoriously and principally and instrumentally c. Faith shall justifie no wayes and so when men say they are justified by Faith their meaning must be they are not at al justified by Faith but by some other thing Therfore of necessity it is that Faith must justifie some way if it iustifieth any way it must of neceility be by imputation or account from God for righteousnes because it is all that God requires of men to their iustification instead of the righteousnesse of the Law The fore if God shall not impute or account it unto them for this righteousnesse it would stand them in no stead at all to their iustificaetion because there is nothing usefull or availeable to any holy or saving purpose whatsoever but only to that whereâ—â— to God hath assigned it If God in the new Covenant of the Gospell requires faith in Christ for our iustification instead of the righteousnesse of the Law in the old and this Faith will not passe in account with him for such righteousnesse both his Commandement and Covenant for beleeving and the obedience it selfe of beleeving will both become voyd and of none effect the intire benefit of them being suspended upon the gracious pleasure and purpose of God in the designation of them to their end CAP. VIII Conteining the last proofe from Scripture for the Non-imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sence controverted THere is yet one Scripture remaining happily amongst many more that have not yet manifested themselves in this Controversie that seems yea I verily beleeve SECT 1 doth more then seem quite to overthrow and take away that which must be the groundworke and foundation to set this imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ upon if ever it stands viz. the imputability or transferiblenesse of it from one to another If the Scriptures doe not only no where establish but in any place absolutely deny a possibility of the translation or removing of the righteousnesse of Christ from one person to another this will strike the fatall stroke in deciding this Question This I conceive will be evicted with a pregnancie irrefragable from that Scripture Gal. 3.12 And the Law is not of Faith but the man that doth them shall live in them This Scripture doth not barely and simply deny a deceivablenesle or possibility of translation of the righteousnesse of the Law from one person to another but denies it emphatically and with the utmost advantage of a deniall For it denies a possibility of it to be done even by that hand expresly and by name I meane the hand of faith which was the ikelyest hand under Heaven to have done it if the nature of the thing to be done had not resisted the doing of it The Apostle denyeth unto faith it selfe the office and power of being a Mediatrix in this case to derive or carry over the righteousnesse of the Law from one person to another By which it appeareth also that he had an intent particularly to make the righteousnesse of the Law as performed by Christ himselfe uncapable of this translation or imputation because faith never pretended nor ever could have ground or colour to pretend a deriving or translating of any other legall righteousnesse from one person to another for Justification but only that which was performed by Christ If there were any thing in all the world that could have done the thing that is pleaded for Faith indeed hath the preheminence of likely hood to do it because it doth derive a righteousnesse from one to another such a righteousnesse as is deriveable an imputative righteousnesse you may call it because it is such by account or interpretation I meane remission of sins this Faith derives from Christ upon him that beleeveth but for a righteousnesse of the Law it cannot derive because such a righteousnesse is not deriveable Let the words and scope of the Scripture mentionedbe narrowly examined SECT 2 and all this that hath been said will be found in the bowells of it And the Law is not of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the man that doth them shall live in them or if you would translate the emphasis also which is in the originall thus the very doer of them the
man shall live The former clause after Pauls succinct and presse manner of expressing himselfe is very briefe and therefore somewhat obscure in it selfe but the latter clause easeth the burden of the dificulty and casteth a sufficient light upon it Whereunto if we adde but the dependance and reference that this verse hath upon the former Pauls meaning will bee found as cleere as the noone day Therefore when he saith the Law is not of faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the originall by or out of faith his meaning can be no other but this that the righteousnesse of the Law doth not arise or come upon any man out of his Faith or by his beleeving or that no man is made partaker of a legall righteousnesse by beleeving but saith he the very doer the man he shall live in or by them He proves the truth of the former clause from the expresse tenor of the Law or legall righteousnesse as standing in full opposition to any derivation of it from one to another even by Faith it selfe As if he should say no legall righteousnesse can come upon any man by beleeving because it is only the man himselfe that doth the things of the Law that shall be justified and live by them the righteousnesse of the Law never goeth further in the propriety or formalitie of it to the justification of any man then to the person of him that fulfills the Law That by the word Law in this place is meant the righteousnesse or fulfilling of the Law besides that there can hardly be made any reasonable interpretation of the clause if this word be taken in any other sense may appeare by the like acception of the same word the Law in other passages of this Apostle when it is used upon like occasion Rom. 4.13 for the promise was not to Abraham or his seed through the LAW i. through the righteousnes of or obedience unto the Law viz. that it should be obtained and enjoyed by any such righteousnesse as is evident by the opposition in the following clause but through the righteousnesse of faith i. this promise was not made unto him and his seed that the benefit and blessing of it should be obtained by the former but by the latter righteousnesse The word is againe used in the same signification in the very next verse For if they that be of the Law be heires i. that are for the righteousnesse of the LAVV. and will stand to be justified by that besides other places without number The scope likewise of the place and the dependence of the clause with the former ver SECT 3 apparantly evinceth this interpretation The Apostle in the former verse had delivered it for a truth that no man could be justified in the sight of God by the Law i. by the righteousnesse or works of the Law for this reason because the Scripture saith that the just shall live by faith Now because this consequence might seeme somewhat doubtfull and insuâ—ficient lying open to some such exception against it as this what though the just doe or must live by faith may they not be justified by the works of the Law too and live by them also may not the righteousnesse of the Law be made over unto them by faith and so compound righteousnesse be made for them of both together No saith Paul the Law is not of faith there can be no legal righteousnesse derived or drawn upon men by faith and that for this reason because such a righteousnesse is by the expresse letter and tenor of the Law consined and appropriated to the person of him that fulfills it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man himselfe that doth them shall live by them q. d. there is a repugnancy and contradiction in it ex naturarei in the very nature and effence of the thing that the righteousnesse of the Law should â—ver be removed or caried over from one mans person to another though it were attempted by the hand of Faith it selfe God never intended that the Law and faith should meet together to jumble up a justification for any man And whereas it is frequently charged as a matter of deep prejudice upon the opinion laboured for in this discourse that it magnityeth faith above measure and makes an Idol of it the truth is that the contrary opinion which ascribes to it a power of transferring a legall righteousnesse â—â—â—gnifieth it 7 times more and ascribes a power even of impossibilities to it Faith may boast of many great things otherwise and may remove mountaines but for removing any legall righteousnesse in the sense we speake of it must let that alone for ever There is a greater contrariety and indisposition in the severall natures of faith and the Law in respect of mixing or working together to make up a Iustification then was betweene the lion and Clay in Nebuchadnezzars vision Dan. 2.43 though in other things they well agree Repugnantia legis et fidei est saith Calvin in Gal. 3.12 in causa justificationis facilius enim aquam igni copulabis quam haec duo concilies homines fide et lege esse justos 1. There is a repugnancie betweene the Law and faith in the matter of Iustification and a man may sooner couple fire and water together then make these two agree that men are righteous by faith and yet by the Law too Consonant to this Scripture last opened is that Rom. 4.14 For if they which are of the Law be heires faith is made voyde and the promise is made of none effect Where you see as full and as irreconcileable an opposition betweene the righteousnesse of the Law and the righteousnesse of faith in respect of justification as is betweene East and West it is unpossible they should be brought together There is a greater gulfe fixed betweene them then was betweene Abraham and Dives faith cannot go over to the righteousnesse of the Law to joyne with that in Iustification neither can the righteousnesse of the Law bee brought over unto faith What reason there may bee conceived for this Non-imputabilitie of the righteousnesse of the Law See Cap. 21 we shall have a faire opportunity to declare in the prosecution of our grounds and reasons for the point we favor in this discourse which is the next thing we hast unto CAP. IX Wherein the first ground or argument for the conclusion undertaken is propounded and established HAving considered with as much diligence and faithfulnesse as frailty would permit how the Scriptures stand affected and incline in the controversie depending we are lead in the next place by the hand of a plaine and familiar method to propound such Arguments and considerations for the confirmation of the premisses as reason and sobriety of thoughts about the stated Question have suggested My first ground and argument to prove that the righteousnesse of Christ in the sence now under dispute viz. in the letter and proprietie of it cannot be imputed unto any for their
yea many of them meet by the way in the justification of such before they come to their journeys end yet to justifie the wonderfull and deep wisdome of God as we ought to doe in bringing about this great work of the salvation of the world we must enquire after and find out peculiar and distinct reasons and ends for all that variety of things which is to be found in or about Christ as why he should be God and why he should be Man what both the one and the other of these peculiarly contributes towards the salvation of men why he should be born why born of a Virgin why he should grow up and live till he came to the perfect stature and age of a man why he should be circumcised why fullfill the Law why preach the Gospell before his death why at last he should suffer death why die upon the Crosse why hee should be buried why hee should rise againe c. with many more particulars of like nature that might be mentioned all which have their speciall and peculiar working towards the great worke of salvation as in a benigne constellation every Staire gives out his peculiar influence by himselfe As all Rivers fall into the Sea and meet there in one though the course of their waters lie from all parts under Heaven from the East and from the West from North and South So whatever Christ was and whatever he did spake and suffered though they are things much differing in themselves and in their immediate and proper effects yet they all meet and center in that common and glorious effect the salvation of those that beleeve And for men not to distinguish these in due manner aswell in their effects and purposes as in their natures is not only to confound themselves but which is worse to confound that most exquisite and admirably-beautifull frame of the Gospell and as it were of a defenced City to make a ruinous heap From the guilt of which confusion-making in the Gospell how unpossible it is fairely to acquit such an imputation of Christs righteousnesse as hitherto we have opposed will further appeare in the reasons ensuing Fiftly and lastly if remission of sinnes be but a part of justification SECT 10 and the imputation of Christs righteousnesse must be added as another part of it to make it perfect and compleat then must the formall cause of one and the same effect be double the absurdity which Calvin as we heard truly charged upon the Trent Councellors and Bellarmine as falsely recharged upon him yea that which makes the absurditie swell yet higher one and the same formality or formall part of a thing which is ever most simple and indivissible shall be compacted and compounded of two things not only of a differing but of a diverse yea and of an opposite importance and consideration as the sequell of the businesse rightly interpreted will make manifest For where there is a perfect and compleat righteousnesse imputed as the righteousnesse of Christ is and must be apprehended there is no place for remission of sinnes CAP. XII A fourth reason against the pretended Imputation it frustrates the grace of Adoption MY fourth ground against the supposed imputation of Christs righteousnesse I dispose in this Syllogisme That which dissolves and takes away the necessity and use of that sweet and Euangellicall grace of Adoption SECT 1 cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hold a streight course with the truth of the Gospell But this imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense controverted dissolves and takes away the necessity c. of Adoption Ergo. The proposition I conceive will be yeelded sine sanguine et sudore otherwise the sword of the Spirit the word of God would soone command it The Scriptures speake much of the grace of Adoption or Sonship of beleevers being made the Children and Sonnes of God That we might receive the Adoption of Sons Gal. 4.5 And because yee are Sonnes ver 6. Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Sonne c. ver 7. To passe by other places without number Joh. 1.12 But as many as received him to them hee gave power or prerogative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be made or to become the Sonnes of God Doubtlesse this grace or prerogative of Adoption and Sonne-ship is not given unto men by God in vaine not for the sweet sound only that the letter or name of Adoption makes in the cares it hath relation to some further matter of moment and consequence depending thereon It is given as an immediate capacitie or qualification to those that beleeve to make them capable of their everlasting inheritance their Son-ship is the proper and next ground of that investiture unto them The Scriptures are in nothing more expresse then this If we be Children then also heires even heires of God and heires annexed with Christ Rom. 8.17 So againe Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Son if a Son then an heire of God through Christ Gal. 4 7. As if he should say we are therefore made Sonnes or adopted to be Sonnes that so by right of this Sonship we might be heires of God and by the right of this Heyr-ship come to inherit that immortall undefiled inheritance which fadeth not away with Iesus Christ himselfe The reason or strength of that inference or consequence If Sonnes then Heires seems to stand in this because though amongst men all that are Sons are not Heires if we speake of Sonnes by nature but only he that is the first borne yet Sonship by Adoption I conceive hath alwaies respect to an inheritance a man never adopteth a child but with an intent or purpose to make him his heire So that though in the case of Son-ship by nature it will not follow If Sons then heires yet in the case of Adoption it will And this we know is the case and condition of Beleevers they are Sons of God not by nature but by Adoption Vnlesse perhaps we will rather conceive the reason of the inference to lye in this that the Apostle argueth and concludeth upon the supposition of this truth that the Kingdome of Heaven or that inheritance which God hath provided for his Saints is of another nature and hath a preheminence and perfection above any earthly inheritance as in a thousand other respects so particularly in this that it may be injoyed possessed and inherited by all the Children of God though in number never so many upon such terms that every one may enjoy and possesse the whole and no mans portion or possession here suffers any losse or diminution at all though all his Brethren enjoy the same Portion and possession with him And in this respect haply with some others it may be caâ—ed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the inheritance of the Saints IN LIGHT Colos 1.12 The light of the Sun we know is of that nature and property that it is enjoyed by the whole world and by all the Inhabitants of the
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
Christ could not have bin our justification either in whole or in part in case it had bin performed by our selves is evident from hence because man being once fallen by sinning against the Law and made obnoxious to condemnation can never be raised or recovered againe by ten thousand observations of this Law The Law was able to have given life had it alwaies bin fulfilled and never broken but unto him that had once failed in the observation of it though he had bin made able to have kept it ten times afterward it had no power at all to give either life or justification The guilt of that sinne wherin he had once sinned could never have bin purged by any Law-righteousnesse noactive obedience whatsoever would ever have bin an attonement for him Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sinnes Heb. 9.22 Let me joyne another argument of the same lineage and stock with the former That which men are not bound by any Law or command of God to doe in their owne persons Argum. 22 SECT 3 for their justification cannot be imputed from another to any such end But men are not bound by any Law or command from God to observe the Moral Law for their justificatiō Therefore the observation of it cannot be imputed unto them from any other for any such end The reason of the major proposition if the conclusion sticks there is because imputation in the sense it is still taken by our adversaries in this controversie must be found out and ordained by God to supplie personall defects and inabilities But where there is no Law or command given unto men to obey there can be no personall defect It is no sinne or defect in any man not to obey where he hath no command and consequently there is no place nor occasion for any imputation to supplie it For the minor there is both substance and appearance enough of truth in it to privilege it from being a proposition of any further contention or strife Most evident it is from the whole course and current of the Scriptures that man in his lapsed condition since the fall had not the Law of works or the observation of the Morall Law imposed upon him for his justification before God but the Law of Faith only The morall Law as it hath received a new authority and establishment from Christ obligeth and bindeth the conscience under the Gospell to the observation thereof by way of dutie and thankfulnesse unto God but neither now nor at any time since the fall did it ever bind any man to the practise of it for his justification And therfore where it is said Rom. 2.13 that the hearers of the Law are not just before God but the doers of the Law shal be justified the meaning is not as if God exacted the strict observing of the Law for their iustification or that none should be iustified without such an observance but either 1º the words may be conceived spoken in a kind of ironie as if God did deride the hope and confidence of all those that should stand upon any such doing of the Law for their instification A man that promiseth a reward or matter of benefit upon such termes and conditions which he knoweth will never be performed by him that undertakes the performance of them rather derides the pride and ignorance of his presumption then really intends the collation of what he seemes so to promise To this interpretation Beza much inclineth in his marginall note upon that clause Or else 2º the meaning of those words the doers of the Law shall be iustified may be only this that God will accept justifie and save only such who out of a sincere and sound Faith towards him by his Christ shall addresse themselves to serve and please him in a way of obedience to his Lawes In this sense which I rather conceive to be the expresse intent of the Apostle in the words the doing of the Law is mentioned not as the meanes or meritorious cause of the iustification adjoyning but either as a condition sine quinon without which iustification is not to be expected or rather as an outward signe and manifestation of the persons that shall be iustified but in another way viz. by Faith Thirdly and lastly by the Law in this place the doers whereof as is said shall be iustified is not meant the Morall Law only which restreyned signification was simply necessary to have given the clause any colour of opposition or contradiction to the proposition mentioned but the whole Mosaicall dispensation consisting according to the common distribution of Ceremonialls moralls and judicialls The observation of all which no man I think ever affirmed to have bin imposed by God upon men for their justification But I feare we stand too long about oyling a wheele which would run merrily enough without it Let us rather heare the voyce of a new argument speaking Jf God requires only Faith of men to their justification then he imputes this Faith unto them thereunto Argum. 23 SECT 4 But God requires only Faith to justification Ergo. The consequence in the Maior Proposition is blamelesse for this reason because to impute unto iustsfication and to accept unto justification are somwhat differing in sound but nothing at all in sence and signification Now if God should require faith of men and onely Faith to their Iustification and not accept it thereunto he should make a bargaine or Covenant with men and refuse to stand to it when he had done his overtures would be faire and gracious but his intentions would be to seek and no where in Scriptures to be found If it be here replyed and said that though God requires onely faith of men to their justification yet he requires somwhat more and besides at the hand of another thereunto therfore that which he imputes unto men for their justification is not necessarily that which he requires of themselves but rather that which he requires of another for them To this I answer if it were the righteousnesse of Christ which is presumed to be the thing required of another and not the faith that is required of themselves that God imputes for righteousnesse unto them in their justification then may this righteousnesse of Christ be imputed for this end and purpose before yea and without the faith of any man For it is certaine that the Faith of men addes no vertue or vaiue to the righteousnesse of Christ therfore if this be that which God imputeth for righteousnesse in justification it may be imputed aswell without faith as with it and so men might be justified without beleeving Neither will it help in this case to say SECT 5 that imputation followeth the will and pleasure of God and therfore the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed unto any but to him that beleeveth because the will and pleasure of God is not to make imputation of it in any other way or upon any other terms For To this
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
on the left in the Disputes agitated in this Discourse The first rule I lay downe concernes the number of causes in generall Rule 1 and is this There are foure and but foure generall heads fountaines or kind of causes whereunto and under which all and all manner of causes be they never so many or various which any waies conduce or contribute towards the raising of any effect or new being may be reduced and comprehended These are usually knowne and called by these names 1º the efficient 2º the finall 3º the materiall 4º the formall The sufficiencie of which division of causes in generall might easily be argued and made good by demonstration but that it hath beene done by many before me and besides hath now for many ages by-gone bin admitted by men of reason and learning into the same honour of unquestionable truth with their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. their first and most undoubted principles of Reason Rule 2 My second rule respects the different habitude or relation in generall SECT 2 betweene the two former and the two latter causes as they were named towards their effects and is this The efficient and finall causes do never ingredi compositum i. are never any part any thing of the substance of the effect produced but are alwaies extrinsecall thereunto and have their beings distinct from it As on the other hand the materiall and formall causes are alwaies intrinsecall to the effect and together make up as it were the intire substance and essence of it As for example The Carpenter who is the efficient cause of the House that is built and so his Axe Saw Hammer c. are no parts of the house neither is the conveniencie or accommodation of the dweller or owner which is the finall cause of the House any part of it which appeares thus because the house may stand and be the same house that it is though the Carpenter that made it be dead and though it had neither dweller nor owner belonging to it But the tymber Brick stone c. which are the materiall cause of it and the order or method wherein they are contrived and wrought together in the building by the workman which is the formall cause are the essentiall and constituting parts of the house so that if either of these should be altered or taken away the house it selfe must be altered and taken away with them My third Rule toucheth the absolute incapacitie in every one of these causes Rule 3 of any more relations then one in respect of one and the same effect and proceeds after this manner No one thing or cause whatsoever can put on more habitudes or relations of causalitie then one in respect of one and the same effect As for example that which is the efficient cause of a thing can never be the formall nor the materiall nor finall cause of it So againe that which is the materiall cause of a thing cannot be the formall cause of that whereof it is the materiall nor yet the efficient or finall and there is the same consideration of them all Neither the Carpenter nor his skill nor his Ax nor his Hammer which are all efficients can be the matter of the house he builds with them neither can the tymber or stones which are the materiall cause of it be the efficient cause also c. It is true in some cases and in an unproper and metaphoricall sense the same person that in one consideration is the efficient cause of a thing may in another consideration be the finall cause of it As when a Carpenter builds an house for himselfe to dwell in in a sense he may be called both the efficient and finall cause of this house But this is an unproper expression and according to Grammaticall and expresse importance of the words not consonant to truth For if we speake properly the Carpenter cannot in this case be said to be the finall cause of his house because the nature and propriety of the finall cause is to receive it's being by and from that whereof it is the cause and not to have a subsistence and being before it as the Carpenter hath before the building of his house Therefore the finall cause of the house under instance is the Carpenters conveniencie of dwelling which is a thing of another nature and farre differing from his person The like interpretation must rule to make exactnesse of truth of that common saying in Divinity that God is the efficient and finall cause or end of all things (a) See sect 6 of this c. which the Scripture expresseth by calling him Alpha and Omega Revel 1. But for the rule it selfe last layd downe if rightly understood it is universally and unquestionably true that one and the same thing cannot possibly stand in more relations of causality then one to one and the same effect no more then one and the same point of Heaven can be both East and West or North and South in respect of the same Country or place The 4th and last Rule I desire to lay downe Rule 4 SECT 3 concerns the multiplicitie of divisions whereof the 4 generall heads of Causes mentioned are capable The rule I deliver in these words Though there be but foure kindes or heads of causes in the generall yet under every one of these heads there are severall species of causes comprehended and though all these under kindes or particular species of causes agree together in that common nature of causality which is expressed in that general head under which they are respectively and severally comprehended yet have they speciall and particular differences and those very considerable one from another betweene themselves To prosecute all the distinctions or divisions of causes that are found in Authors or otherwise might be thought upon would be to cast oyle upon the flames and make the Reader double wearier of the length of his discourse then he is already I shall therefore instance and that as briefly as may be in some few which I conceive have speciall relation to the businesse in hand and without the knowledg whereof the Doctrine of Iustification can hardly be thoroughly and cleerely understood The first generall head of causes which we called the Efficient admits of more divisions and subdivisions and conteynes more species of causes under it which are yet all efficients then any of the other yea then all the other three together The truth is that there is such an endlesse varietie of the kindes of efficient causes â—hat it is very difficult to finde them all out or to give fitting names to many that may more easily be found It shall suffice for our present occasion to mention some few divisions of them First of efficient causes some are principall SECT 4 others lesse principall The principall efficient cause is that which worketh independently and from it selfe I speake now in respect of created causes only because otherwise all causes whatsoever have a dependance upon
the third and last sense the severall parts of whitenesse that are in the wall as the whitenesse that is above and the whitenesse that is beneath that which is on the right hand and that which is on the left with that which is in the midst are the matter of that area or whole extent of whitenesse which is in the wall In this sense the three lines whereof a triangle is made is said to be the matter of the triangle and letters and syllables to be the matter of a word and words the matter of a sentence c. But there is no accident whatsoever that hath any matter properly so called nor any actioÌ„ any other matter properly or unproperly or however called but only the subject matter or object on which it is acted and wherein it is terminated and received What hath been said concerning this materiall cause is dilligently to be remembred and carried along with us to the businesse of Justification because it much concern's one veyne of the Question or controversie depending The fourth and last head of causes SECT 8 was that which is called the Forme or formall cause of a thing This cause is divided or distinguished into that which is properly and that which is improperly so called The forme properly so called is that cause which together with the matter properly so called constitutes and makes up a substantiall compounded body This kinde of forme is alwaies it selfe a substance and not an accident and still the more noble or principall part of that body which it informeth The particular species of it are not knowne but onely by the properties and operations which flow from them respectively The forme or formall cause of a thing unproperly so called which is that kinde of forme wherewith only we have to doe in the businesse of Iustification is allwaies a thing of that inferior nature or being which we call accidentall or adjunctive Because it is still susteyned in ir's being in some other nature which is substantiall and hath no subsistence in or by it selfe yet hath not this forme the denomination of a forme alwaies in regard of the subject wherein it hath it's being and to which it gives a kinde of being also as learning gives a man his being learned c. but in regard of that action or motion whereby it is introduced into the subject and is therefore called the forme of an action motion or alteration not because it gives any other kinde of being to any of these for it rather receives it's being from them but only a being knowne and distinguished from all other actions or motions whatsoever For actions or motions as calefaction frigefaction and so Redemption Iustification salvation c. are severally knowne and distinguished one from another and so from every other action or motion whatsoever besides by that proper forme impression or alteration which they introduce and make in their subjects or objects about which they are exercised and acted respectively as the heat or warmth which is caused in my hand by the fire maketh that action of the fire by which it is caused not simply to be but to be known to be that action which we call calefaction or warming and none other iâ— beiâ—g unpossible that such a forme or impressiâ—n as heate is should be introduced into any subject but by such an action as calefaction or warming is In this case the heate which is caused in my hand may be called the forme of calefaction not because it gives a being unto it which is the proper notion and consideration of a forme but rather because it receives it's being from it and so gives it a manifestation or distinction from other actions which is one property of a forme properly so called according to the knowne maxime in Logique which teacheth us that the forme includes or presupposeth 3 things 1º the being of a thing 2º the distinction of it 3º the operation of it (a) Posita forma tria ponuntur 1 esse res 2 distinctio rei 3 operatio rei And doubtlesse the terme or notion of a forme can in no other respect or at least in none so proper be ascribed unto actions or motions as in this viz. because those qualities impressions alterations relations c. which they cause and produce in their subjects have this analogie or proportion with formes properly so called that they give distinction unto them as these do to those things or natures which they informe though in another respect they be opposite to them as hath bin said formes properly called still giving a being to the things whereof they are formes whereas these formes appropriated to actions alwaies receive their beings from them So then to aske or inquire concerning the forme of any action as Iustification Redemption or the like what it is is but to aske what is the name nature property or condition of that effect impression or alteration which is immediately and precisely caused and produced by it in that subject matter whether person or thing whereon it is acted Thus to aske what is the forme of that action which we call frigefaction or cold-making is but to aske what the name and nature of that impression or alteration is which is caused thereby in that subject whereon it worketh And that happily may be one maine reason of the difficulty which is apprehended and of the intricatenesse and confusion that are found amongst many writers touching the forme of Iustification because the formes of Actions are seldome made matter of Question or inquirie either in Philosophie or Divinity or in any other Art or Science as farre as my weake learning and memory have taken notice neither do I remember for the present any Question on foote at this day touching either the matter or especially the forme of any action but only this of Iustification Nor have I met with any which do so much as plainely perspicuously and distinctly declare and explicate what they meane by this forme of Iustification whereby it may I conceive easily come to passe that Authors may be at a losse one of another and scarce one of many cleerely understand the minde and meaning either of his fellow or his opposite in this point Having with what convenient brevity we could SECT 9 discoursed and layd downe the number nature and kinds of causes so farre as I conceived the knowledge and consideration of them necessary to a distinct explication and understanding of the Doctrine of IustificatioÌ„ as it lies in the veines of the Scriptures Come we now roundly and cheerefully on to draw up the Doctrine it selfe according to the direction and importance of what hath bin delivered herein I begin with the efficient causes of Iustification which are many and those of very different consideration Haply it will not be necessary if possible to insist upon all that stand in this relation of causalitie unto it The Principall naturall efficient cause according 〈◊〉 the
in view to the sight of all men is the advancement of the creature or persons iustifyed to that exceeding height of glory and endlesse happinesse in the intire and satisfying injoyment of God which himselfe was graciously pleased to ordeyne them unto from the beginning and to prepare and make them meet for in time Besides these two there might be diverse other more appropriate and particular ends both in respect of God the Iustifier and the elect of God the Iustified assigned as in respect of God the manifestation of his abundant pardoning grace or mercie tempered with justice c. in respect of the creature Iustifyed deliverance from wrath or punishment due to sinne a way making unto Adoption and fatherlike grace and acceptation with God with all the sweet privileges and blessings depending hereon c. but because there is no question or controversie stirring about these and the Doctrine of Justification may be competently knowne and understood without a particular enumeration of them I forbeare to make it matter of further labour to the Reader to insist upon them The chiefe contention and dispute amongst Reformed Divines in the businesse of Iustification SECT 14 is about the two causes that are yet behinde viz. the materiall and the formall but especially about the latter Therefore Thirdly Mr. Walker Socinianisme discovered c. p. 139. concerning the matter or materiall cause of Justification the Socinian Diseoverer with some others conceive they cast a spirit of honour upon the righteousnesse and satisfaction of Christ by setling this relation of causalitie in respect of Iustification upon them but doubtlesse much upon the like terms of mistake with those mentioned by our Saviour Ioh. 16.2 who should thinke that they did God service when they killed his best servants For First by making these the matter See Part 1. c. 17. Sect. 1.2 c. or materiall cause of Iustification they devest and spoyle them of the honour of that causalitie which is proper and peculiar to them and 7 times more honourable then that which is this way attributed to them viz. of that causalitie which we call meritorious This is evident by the tenour of the third Rule formerly laid downe in the second section of this Chapter whereby it appeares that no one cause whatsoever can put on more habitudes or relations of causality then one in respect of one and the same effect So that if the righteousnesse of Christ be the meritorious and impulsive cause of Iustification which is granted on all hands without exception even by the men against whom we reason it can at no hand be deemed the materiall cause also Because the meritorious and impulsive cause is a kinde of efficient as both hath bin lately proved and besides is generally so notioned and acknowledged by all neither can it be reduced to any of the other 4 heads of causes with any tolerable congruitie or colour of reason It was never heard of to this day that any efficient cause was the matter of the effect produced by it Secondly the righteousnesse of Christ whether Active or Passive or both cannot be the matter of Iustification because the matter of a thing is alwaies En◠incompletum an incompleate and imperfect entitie or being untill the introduction and union of the forme with it which still gives perfection of being and existence to it But the righteousnesse of Christ take it in what otion or under what consideration you please hath an intire perfect and compleate being neither can it fall under imagination what forme it should be capable of that by union with it should adde beauty and perfection to it Thirdly and lastly if the righteousnesse of Christ be the matter of Iustification it must be either matter properly or unproperly so called Matter properly so called which they call materia ex quâ it cannot be because this kinde of matter 1º is proper to substantiall natures or beings onely 2º is it selfe alwaies a substance 3º is alwaies a part of that nature or thing whereof it is the matter 4º and lastly is still the inferior weaker and viler part thereof Whereas Iustification in the first place being an act hath only an accidentall not a substantiall being and consequently is not capable of matter properly so called as no act or action whatsoever besides is Secondly the righteousnesse of Christ was never conceived to be in praedicamento substantiae to be a substantiall nature but an accidentall forme or quality and therefore cannot be matter properly so called of any thing Thirdly the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be a part of Iustification because Iustification as hath bin said is an action and the righteousnesse of Christ a forme or qualitie and most certaine it is that one predicamentall nature or being cannot be a part of another Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be this matter of Iustification we now speake of Fourthly and lastly it is furthest of all from all colour or appearance of truth that the righteousnesse of Christ in what composition or union soever it shall be found should be the weaker and lesse worthy part thereof being of that infinit perfection and worth which we all acknowledg and ascribe unto it Therefore certainly it is no matter of Iustification properly so called Secondly SECT 15 that neither is it any matter hereof unproperly so called may be thus demonstrated Matter unproperly so called is either that which Logicians call materia in qua or materia circa quam Matter in the former notion imports only the subject of a thing that is a substantiall nature as supporting some accidentall forme or being in it In this sense fire is sayd to be the matter of the heate that is in it and a man to be the matter of the learning or knowledge which he hath c. But this is most unproper and least used sense or signification of the word MATTER of all other In the latter notion the matter of a thing is the object or that thing upon which any thing acteth or about which it is conversant or exercised In this sense wood or tymber may be said to be the matter of the Carpenters art or imployment and his Scholars the matter of the Masters instruction c. This kinde of matter is most commonly and properly attributed to acts that are transient and with motion and alteration though it may be ascribed to that other kinde of act also which is without alteration and is called immanent in which sense bookes or the knowledge of things conteyned in them may be said to be the matter of the Schollers industrie or studie and the persons predestinated to be the matter of that immanent act of God which we call Predestination c. Now that the righteousnesse of Christ cannot in either of these notions or significations of the word matter be the matter of justification it is evident First not in the former because Iustification is not the subject wherein this righteousnesse
inhereth or whereby it is supported in being the righteousnesse of Christ hath no dependance at all in respect of the being of it upon Iustification Not in the latter because that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner is not acted or exercised upon or about the righteousnesse of Christ nor terminated in this neither is there any change or alteration made in the righteousnes of Christ by that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner which yet must be if it were that matter we now speake of that is the object of Justification Because Iustification being a transient act in God it must of necessitie make some change or alteration in that upon which it falleth or is acted whatsoever it be the truth is that the righteousnesse of Christ being as hath bin proved the efficient impulsive cause of Iustification rather acteth and worketh upon God then he upon it when he iustifieth any man Therefore doubtlesse the righteousnesse of Christ can in no sense agreeable to truth and ordinary construction of speech be called the matter of Iustification Wherefore in the last place concerning the matter of or materiall cause of Iustification SECT 16 it can be none other but either the subject or the object of â—ustification that is either God himselfe or the person that is to be iustified For as for that kinde of matter which we called ex qua matter properly so called Iustification being an act or action is altogether uncapable of it as hath bin already said Neither hath any action whatsoever any materiall cause at all in this sense It remaineth therefore that the matter of Justification must be of that kinde of matter which is lesse properly so called whereof there are but these two species or sorts as hath bin said the matter in qua and the matter circa quam i. the the subject and the object If we take the subject of Iustification or him on whom the act it selfe of Iustification in respect of the production and being of it dependeth and will call that the matter of it then God himselfe must be the matter we inquire after because the act of Iustification in respect of the raising and bringing forth of it dependeth only upon him But this I confesse is a very uncouth and proper expression to call God the matter of justification neither hath the tongue or pen of any man I conceive ever taken any pleasure in it Or if by the subject of Iustification we understand the subjectum recipieâ—s that is the subject receiving and wherein the act of Iustification is terminated which is as proper a signification of the word as the other the old tried rule being that actio est in patiente tanquam in subjecto then the subject and the object will prove but one and the same viz the person that is to be iustified that is the beleeving sinner Thus it is in all other actions likewise the subject receiving the action or impression of the Agent and the object upon which the Agent acteth or worketh are still the same And for any other matter of Iustification besides that which hath bin now assign'd viz. the sinner who beleeveth I verily beleeve there is none to be found who though he be both the object and subject in the sense given of Iustification yet may he more properly be called the matter of Iustification as he is the object then as the subject thereof because the notion of matter better agreeth of the two to that which is called circà quam or the object then to the other which is the subject And this for the matter or materiall cause of Iustification the person to be iustified or beleeving sinner Fourthly and lastly to make forward towards the consideration and inquirie of the formall cause of Iustification SECT 17 about which the tongues and pens of men are turn'd into the sharpest swords First for the Popish opinion which as Bellarmine describes it from the Counsell of Trent subscribing himselfe also with both hands unto it (a) Certe concilium causam formalem justificatioâ—â— in ipsi us justitie infusione constituit c. Bellarm. De Iustific lib. 2. c. 2. versus sinem placeth the formall cause of Iustification in the infusion of inherent righteousnesse I shall not make it matter of long confutation The opinion is built upon another opinion as rotten as it viz. perfection of inherent righteousnesse for if this be found to be imperfect and it will never be found other till this mortall hath put on immortalitie the credit of that other opinion is lost and that by consent of their owne principles who teach that in Iustification men are made perfectly and compleately righteous So that any one sinne little or great veniall or mortall proceeding from any one of their iustified ones utterly overthrowes the opinion of their Church touching the formall cause of Iustification It stands them in hand if they desire to build up this determination of their Councell with authority and honour to raise the levell of another enterprize of theirs and to prove not only a possibilitie but a necessity also of a perfect observation of the Law of God by those that are iustified and regenerate When they have quitted themselves like men in this and have layd the foundations of such a necessitie firme and strong we shall haply then consider further of their Doctrine touching the formall cause of Iustification in the meane time we shall be at libertie to make inquirie after a better Yet Secondly SECT 18 I conceive the Doctrine of the late Socinian Discoverer touching the same businesse to be no whit better but rather at a farre deeper defiance both with reason and truth The formall cause of Justification saith he (a) Mr. George Walker Socinian Discovered p. 139. is that communion betweene Christ and us and that reciprocall imputation of our sinnes to Christ and of his righteousnesse and full satisfaction to us which communion ariseth and floweth from the spirit which God sheds on us through Christ which spirit dwelling in us in some measure so as he dwelleth in the man Christ from whom he is derived to us doth make us one spirituall body with Christ and workes in us Faith and all holy graces and affections by which we adhere and cleave to Christ and apply and inioy his righteousnesse c. Doubtlesse here is a great deale too much matter to make a good forme The essentiall character of a forme or formall cause is to be a single simple and uncompounded being whereas that which is here presented to us for the forme of Justification is rudis indigestaque moles an indigested heape of compositions Surely this forme is so deformed that the Author need nor feare any corrivall or competitor with him for it Quin sine rivali seque et sua solus amabit For 1º if the Iustification we speake of or the forme of it stands in that communion which is betweene Christ and us then Christ
mak's an alteration in the person or rather in the condition of the person justified See this also further explained in the forenamed Section of this Chapter 3º That that alteration or change which is made in the condition of the person justified by his Iustification that is that which the immediate proper and precise effect of that act of God whereby hee iustifieth in or about the person justified is and nothing else but this is or can with any coulor of reason and congruitie of speaking be called the forme or formall cause of Iustification Of this also you have some further accompt in the 8 Section of this Chapter 4º That is especially to be remembred that wee doe not in this inquirie seeke after the forme or formall cause of Iustification simply or of Justification largely taken but of that particular and speciall kinde of Iustification whereby a beleeving sinner is justified by God through the redemption which is in Christ Iesus For if we take Iustification in a large sense it is evident that remission of sinnes cannot be the formall cause of it Because in such a sense of the word Iustification a man may be said to be iustified that is acquitted and cleered who hath noe sinnes or sinne at all forgiven him viz. in case hee hath bin falsely accused And so on the other hand a man may have his offence or offences remitted and forgiven and yet not be justified I meane with any such kinde of Iustification as we now speake of viz. that is built upon a just and plenary satisfaction for the offence given But otherwise any remission of an offence upon what termes soever may in a large sense be called a Justification viz. See more of this Cap. 3. Sect. 1. of this second part as the word connoteth and many times even in the Scriptures themselves signifieth a discharge or absolution from punishment 5º and lastly whereas there may be a double or or twofold Iustification ascribed unto God the one we may call Declarative or Pronunciative the other Constitutive it is the formall cause of the latter rather then of the former which we inquire after The difference betweene these two Iustifications may be thus conceived that which I call Constitutive hath a precedencie in the order of nature and for the most part of time also before the other and is some kinde of cause thereof When God is said to justifie the sinner or ungodly as Rom. 4.5 it is meant of his Constitutive Iustification not of his Declarative For God never declareth or pronounceth a sinner righteous till hee hath made him righteous which is the proper act of that which I call Constitutive Iustification Againe when Christ saith by thy words thou shalt be iustified Mat. 12.13 and Iames concerning Abraham that he was iustified through workes these and such like passages speake of a declarative Iustification The formall cause of Gods declarative Iustification cannot be conceiv'd to stand in remission of sinnes because remission of sinnes is alwaies precedaneous to it and therefore cannot be the effect of it and so not the formall cause thereof according to the 2 and 3 grounds premised The formall cause of this kinde of Iustification is rather the knowledge in those to whom such declaration is made whether it be the person himselfe that is iustified or some other of remission of sinnes granted unto him concerning whom such declaration is made Onely to prevent cavilling that is acknowledged that even that which I call Constitutive Justification may in this sense be called declarative also viz. as the grounds terms and conditions upon which it proceeds are declared and made knowne by God in his Gospell But by declarative Iustification I meane onely such an act or expression of God whereby he declares the actuall Justification of those or any of those that have their sinnes forgiven them These things remembred SECT 30 I proceed to demonstrate the truth of the opinion mentioned and undertaken for which was that Remission of sins is the forme or formall cause of Iustification First if Remission of sinnes be the first immediate and precise effect of that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner in or upon the sinner so justified then is Remission of sinnes the proper formall cause of Iustification This consequence is built cleere and strong upon the third particular premised Therefore I assume But remission of sinnes is the first immediate and precise effect of that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner in or about the sinner so iustified Ergo c. The reason of this latter proposition is because there is no other imaginable effect that should interveene betweene such an act and the effect specified The Scriptures themselves make an immediate connection betweene Gods act of Justification and the sinners exemption or absolution from his sinnes that is from the guilt and punishment due unto his sinnes when they call Iustification a Iustification from sinne Be it knowne unto you men and Brethren saith Paul Act. 13.38 that through this man is preached unto you remission of sinnes and by him all that beleeve are justified from all things from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Moses Where we see that Iustification is immediatly and directly from sinne i. from the guilt or condemnatorie power of sinne The like expression you have Rom. 6 7. He that is dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is iustified from sinne So that this is the first priviledge or blessing that comes upon a sinner by meanes of his Iustification or of that act of God whereby he justifieth him the remission of his sinnes and consequently must needs be the forme of his Iustification Secondly that which gives the denomination of justified to those that are justified must needs be the forme or formall cause of Iustification The reason of this proposition is apparant it is still proper to every forme to give a sutable denomination to the subject Sutable I meane not only to the forme it selfe but to the action or motion also whereby this forme was introduced into the subject As for example whitenesse in a wall that was made white out of some other colour gives the denomination of whited unto the wall which doth not answere the forme it selfe onely which is whitenesse but that action also of the Plaisterer or Painter which wee call whitening Therefore it is evident that the forme or formall cause of this act of whitening is the whitenesse or whitednesse of the wall Thus farre then the ground is firme under us Let us therefore goe forward and assume But remission of sinnes gives the denomination of iustified to those that are iustified Therefore remission of sinnes is the forme or formall cause of Iustification The assumption I thus further demonstrate If a sinner be therefore and thereby iustified because he hath his sinnes remitted unto him then remission of sinnes gives the denomination of iustified unto him This consequence is pregnant because
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
righteous to inferre and conclude a particular and determinate manner of rigteous-making from hence as viz. by imputation of this obedience there being other waies or manners of righteous-making as hath bin proved hath no power nor authority at all of an Argument in it Another text imployed in the service aforesaid SECT 11 is found Rom. 8.4 That the righteousnes of the Law might be fullfilled in us who walke not after the flesh but after the spirit From the former clause it is argued that the righteousnes of the Law can in no sence be said to be fullfilled in us but only by the righteousnes or obedience of Christ unto the Law imputed to us But to this also I Answere 1. That some both learned and Orthodox Rom. 4.8 cleared understand this clause of sanctification rather then of justification and by the fullfilling of the righteousnes of the Law that Euangelicall obedience to the Precepts thereof which all those that truly beleeve in Christ doe in part performe and desire and strive to performe more perfectly This was the exposition of Ambrose of old and seems to be the judgement of Peter Martyr (a) Quomodo autem praecepta legis in nobis impleantur per communionem cum Christo qui pro nobis mortuus est ita potest declarari quod illis qui credunt in eum spiritus conceditur quo vires corum instaurantur us obedientiam legis praestare possint non quidem perfectam et absolutam c. P. Marty ad Rom. 8.4 upon the place Nor is this exposition rejected by Musculus though he inclines more to another in which propension I shall willingly give him the right hand of fellowship So that however this place is not so cleere or demonstrative for the pretended Imputation But 2. That by the righteousnesse of the Law which is here said to be fullfilled in those that beleeve cannot be meant the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ imputed is evident from hence because it must of necessity be such a righteousnesse and such a fulfilling in beleevers which may be apprehended as a proper and sutable effect of Christs condemning sinne in the flesh immediately preceding in the end of v. 3. The very purport and frame of the context plainly sheweth this relation between them and that the latter was intended by God as a fruit or end of the former For what the Law could not doe saith the Apostle in that it was weake through the flesh God sending his own Sonne in the likenesse of sinnefull of flesh and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh That the righteousnesse of the Law might be fullfilled c. That ratiocinative particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that imports the fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the Law in those that beleeve to be a naturall and direct effect of or thing intended by God in Christs condemning sinne in the flesh Now unpossible it is that the active obedience of Christ or the imputation of it should be any proper effect of his condemning sinne in the flesh For by this expression of condemning sin in the flesh Interpreters generally agree and besides it is a thing evident in it selfe that the Apostle meanes the abolishing or taking away the guilt or the accusing and condemning power of sinne by the death of Christ The phrase of condemning sinne to note this by the way is metonymicall the antecedent put for the consequent condemning for disabling to accuse or being a means of the condemnation of another which we know are the consequents or effects of any mans being condemned in course of Law The testimony of a condemn'd person against any man is of no force in Law But to our purpose how the abolishing or taking away the guilt and condemning power of sinne by the death of Christ should be a means of the Imputation of the righteousnes of his life I am no wayes able to conceive or comprehend no more then I am how the present fullnesse of the stomacke should be a means to make a man stand in need of a second dinner immediately For certaine it is See the first and fourth Conclusions in the second chapter of this latter part p. 3.5 c. as hath bin reasoned home elsewhere in this discourse that he that hath the guilt of his sinne purged and taken away by the death of Christ needs no other righteousnesse nor imputation whatsoever for his justification or acceptation in the sight of God no more then he that is full needeth the honey-combe 3. It is a very uncouth and hard expression SECT 12 to call the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to beleevers a fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the Law in them For that clause in them still notes either a subjective inhesion of some thing in persons or else some kind of efficiencie Now the Friends themselvs of that Imputation which we oppose unanimously and constantly affirme the righteousnesse of Christ to be subjectively and inherently in himselfe only and to become ours onely by imputation which they still make a modification contradistinguished against subjective inhesion So that in this sense the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be said to be fulfilled in them Nor can they say that the righteousnesse of the Law or of Christ is fulfilled in them in a way of efficiencie for they are not the workers of this righteousnesse Therefore an imputed righteousnesse can in no tolerable construction of speech be said to be fulfilled in men 4. If by the righteousnesse of the Law we understand that entire and compleate obedience which every beleever according to the great varietie of their severall conditions callings and relations stands bound to performe it can with no agreeablenesse to truth be said to be fulfilled in them by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse unto them Because as hath bin largely proved in the former part of the Discourse there is scarce any beleever if any at all but stands bound in a way of duty to God and his Law to the performance of many particular acts yea of many kindes of acts of obedience which are not to be found nor can it without sinne be conceived that they should be found in all that golden catalogue of workes of righteousnesse performed by Christ Therefore the righteousnesse of the Law in the sense declared which is the sense stood upon by our adversaries cannot be said to be fulfilled in those that beleeve only by the active obedience of Christ imputed to them 5. Neither doth the originall word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here translated righteousnesse signifie obedience unto or conformity with the Law but rather that justification which was the end and intent of the Law but that it was disabled through the weaknesse that is the sinfulnesse of the flesh to ataine it ver 3. And so Calvin Piscator Musculus with divers other learned Interpreters and Tremellius out of the Syriaque render the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by the Latine word
latter thus Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for or concerning remission of sinnes that are past c. It plainly appeares from these Scriptures compared together First that the righteousnesse of God that is the way meanes or course which God holds for the Justification of men stands in remission or forgivenesse of sinnes Secondly that this righteousnesse or Iustification of his is witnessed that is asserted and vindicated by the Law that is the writings of Moses and consequently may well be called the righteousnesse or Iustification of the Law Thirdly and lastly that this righteousnesse of God testified and asserted by the Law in the sense given and exercised by him under the Law in the forgivenesse of the sinnes of those that then beleeved was not manifested or declared or as our other Scripture had it fulfilled that is fully revealed and discovered to the roote bottome and foundations of it till the coming of Christ into the world and his dying for sinne which in that other place is called his condemning sinne in the flesh This for answere in full to this Scripture The next place SECT 15 which I understand hath bin of late taken hold of by some to supply that which it seemes is wanting in others for the defence of that imputation which we oppose is Rom. 9.31.32 But Israel which followed after the Law of righteousnesse hath not attained to the Law of righteousnesse Wherefore because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the workes of the Law c. From hence it is thus argued that had Israel that is the Jewes who followed after the Law of righteousnesse beleeved in Christ they had attained the Law of righteousnesse that is should have had the righteousnesse of the Law performed by Christ imputed unto them But to this also I Answere 1. that by the Law of righteousnes Rom. 9.31.32 answered which the Jewes are here said to have sought after but could not attain is not meant the Moral Law nor indeed any Law properly so called either Morall Ceremoniall or Judicial for God had preveÌ„ted them with the guift of all these Laws so that they need not have sought after them If it be objected that their studie endeavor of keeping the Law which they had may be called a seeking or following after the Law I answere be it so yet this studie and endeavor of theirs could be no cause of their coming short of righteousnesse or Iustification which yet is ascribed to that seeking or following after the Law of righteousnesse here mentioned As Christians are never the further off from being justified by living holily and keeping the commandements of God So neither was the care and endeavor of the Jewes to observe the precepts of that Law which God had given them any cause of their miscariage in point of Iustification Abraham and those that were justifyed by Faith in Christ as he was were as conscientious and careful observers of al Gods Lawes as any of those were who stumbling at the stumbling stone were never justified Therefore by the Law of righteousnes in this Scripture is not meant any Law properly so called much les definitively the Morall Law Secondly in this expression the Law of righteousnesse in the former clause of the verse Calvin findes an hypallage the Law of righteousnesse put for the righteousnesse of the Law (a) Iam priere loco legem justiciae per hypallagen posuisse mihi videtur pro justicia legis in repetitione secundi membri alio sensu sic vocasse justiâ—iae formam seu regulam Calvin in Rom. 9 1. Nam illud sectandâ— legem justiciae simpliciter esse dictum de legis justitia i. ea quae ex operibus legu est patebit infra c. Mus in Rom. 9.31 in the latter clause he takes it in somewhat a different signification for a forme or rule of righteousnesse Musculus dissents little if any thing at all from this interpretation by the Law of righteousnesse understanding that righteousnesse which stands in the works of the Lawb. So that neither of these Authors nor any other that I have yet met with restreyne the word Law in these phrases determinatly to the Morall Law Thirdly neither is there any reason nor colour of reason to limit the Apostles expressions in this place of the Law of righteousnesse to the Morall Law only and the righteousnesse thereof because it is notoriously knowne and hath bin more then once observed formerly that the Jewes never hoped for nor sought after righteousnesse SECT 16 or Iustification by the Morall Law only or the works thereof alone but by the Ceremoniall Law also and the observances hereof yea principally by these as hath bin els where in this Treatise prooved from the Scriptures So that by the Law of righteousnesse whereof they miscaried by not seeking it by Faith cannot be ment determinatly the Moral Law or the righteousnes therof because they never travaild of this upon such termes they never had thought or hope of being iustified or made righteous by the Morall Law or righteousnesse thereof only And so Paraeus by the Law of righteousnesse in this place understands aswell the Ceremoniall as the Morall Law (a) Iudaeos ait sectatos legem justiciae quae praescribit justiciam operibus perfectam hoc est conatos esse tum ceremoniarum observatione tum moralium operum meritu justificari coram Deo Pateus in Rom. 9.31 4. Neither would the righteousnes of the Moral Law alone suppose they should have attained it by beleeving have stood the Jewes in any stead for their justification being aswell bound to the observation of the ceremoniall law as of it Therfore it was not this law or the righteousues of it which should have bin imputed to them in case they had trruly beleeved consequeÌ„tly no imputation of any law righteousnes whatsoever from Christ can be concluded from this place But 5. lastly to give the cleere sence and meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel is said to have followed after but not to have attained because he sought it not by Faith c. can be meant nothing else but justification it selfe or righteousnesse simply and indefinitely taken in which acception it is oft put for justification as was observed cap. 3. Sect and elsewhere which the Jewes seeking to attaine it by the works of the Law that is by themselves and the merit of their own doings and not by faith in Iesus Christ were never able to attain but lost the favour of God perished in their sinnes That this is the direct and expresse meaning of the place may be several waies confirm'd 1. To call righteousnesse simply that is SECT 17 justification the Law of righteousnesse is agreeable to this Apostles dialect elswhere For Rom. 7.23 25. by the Law of sinne he means nothing else but sinne
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
fulfilling of the whole Morall Law but that which we meane is this that God lookes upon a man who truly beleeveth with as much grace and favor and intends to doe as graciously and bountifully by him as if he were a man of perfect righteousnesse and had entirely kept and fulfilled the whole Law In this sense to account Faith for righteousnesse hath not the least colour or appearance either of injustice or repugnancie with the truth The Reader may please to see the substance of this answer further opened and confirmed in the former part of this Discourse Cap. 19. Sect. 6 and 7. Fourthly and lastly there is scarce any thing affirmed more frequently or familiarly by the best reformed writers then that God esteemes or accounts those just or perfectly just who properly and in exactnesse and strictnesse of speech are not such but only have their sinnes forgiven Therefore they apprehended no matter of unjustice or contrarietie unto truth in that which the objection impeacheth of both From hence we gather saith Calvin (a) In Rom. 4.3 that Pauls dispute is not what men are in themselves sed quo loco Deus ipsos censeat that is but in what place or condition God is pleased to account them And elsewhere (b) De vera Loâ—es Refor ratione p. 368. It followes then that we are just or righteous and consequently may justly and righteously be so accounted by God quia nobis peccata non imputantur because our sinnes are not imputed to us Therefore we stand just or righteous before God saith Mr. Fox (c) De Christo gratu Iustine l 3. p. 280. because our sinnes are forgiven us We have Remission of sinnes saith Melancthon (d) In Exam. Theol. de Iustific p. 529. for and through Christ which having obteyned justi sumus coram Deo we are righteous before God Paul saith Calvin estimates the blessednesse of a man from hence quia hoc modo justus est non reipsà sed imputatione that is because he is after this manner righteous not in very deed but by imputation And a little after going on with his confutation of Osiander he must grant saith he at least that as farre as that imputation of his extendeth justos conseri qui reipsa non sunt that is that they are accounted meaning by God righteous who yet are not righteous indeed It were easy to weaâ—â—e the Reader over (e) Instit l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 11. Gratuâ—ta Dei acceptatio subrogatur in locum justiciae idem Non magu ve ritati screutiae justeque Dei judicio repugnat cos pro quorum peccatâ—â— tam commissionus quam omnissionis satisfastio per Christi mortem plenissime est prastita tales judicare qui nihil mali commiserint nihilque boni omiserent quam eos perfecte justos judicare ut pote qui perfectam legi obedientiam prassi teriut cum id ipsi tamè noutiquam fecerint pro quibus Christus tandem prâ—stitisse perhibetur Gatak Elench Gomar p. 35. vi seqq and over with heaping up such expressions as these out of these and other Authors of like Authentique Name with them But the objection was at least as much as answered before therefore proceed we to doe as much for another A second objection rais'd by some against the Imputation of Faith in a proper sense for righteousnesse SECT 3 Object 2 is this If Faith in such a sense should be imputed for righteousnesse then should justification be by works or by somewhat in our selves But the Scripture every where rejecteth works and all things in our selves from having any thing to doe in Iustification Ergo. I answere to both propositions and first to the major by distinguishing the consequent therein That justification should be by works or by somewhat in our selves may be understood two waies Either 1o. by way of merit so that by works should signifie by the merit of works which is still the Scripture sense or else 2o. by way of simple performance If the Proposition be taken in the former sense it is altogether false and the consequence thereof denied Faith may be imputed for righteousnesse in the sense oft declared and yet no man justified by the merit of any work or works in himselfe If it be taken in the latter sense so the minor Proposition is false to touch upon this in the second place For the Scripture no where rejecteth every thing that may goe under the name of a worke or that may be said to be done by us in respect of a simple performance from having to doe in the matter of justification Nay it expressely requireth of us and enjoyneth that as of absolute necessitie to justification yea and attributeth Justification to it from place to place which it selfe calleth a work This is the worke of God saith our Saviour to the Jewes that yee beleeve in him whom he hath sent And when Paul exhorts the Philippians to worke out their salvation with feare and trembling doubtlesse he doth not exclude their Faith or beleeving in Christ Now that beleeving in Christ is required as of absolute necessitie aswell to Iustification as salvation at least of those that are adulti and of yeares of discretion is a thing I conceive so well knowne and of that universall confession that I may forbeare the citation of Scripturs without prejudice to the truth of it Thus our best and soundest writers without scruple call that beleeving by which we are justified a work or the doing of something Faith saith Calvin (a) Fides praecâ—puum opus est quod a nobis Deus exigit Calvin in Iac. 1.22 is the chiefe work that God requireth of us And what did Abraham saith Musculus (b) Quid enim feeit Abraham quod imputaretur c. Musc in Gal. 3.6 that should be imputed for righteousnesse but only beleeve God The Reader may please to see more to this purpose in my Answere to Mr. Walker p. 67 c. So that the treasure of this objection is but coales also A third Objection is this Object 3 That which maketh Justification not to be of grace or of free grace SECT 4 cannot stand with the truth of the Gospell But the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense now contended for makes Iustification not to be of Grace Ergo. Reverencing the innocencie of the major Proposition I come with a rod unto the minor Answere charging this with untruth and that upon this ground and evidence because the Scripture still makes or acknowledgeth a perfect and entire consistence of grace or free grace with the condition of Faith in Iustification For by Grace yee are saved through Faith Ephes 2.8 And are freely justified by his Grace c. Rom. 3.24 through Faith in his blood c. ver 25. Nay the truth is that the worke of beleeving as our Saviour called it is so farre from carrying any opposition in it to the freenesse of Gods grace in
â—a Priest also or an High Priest and that righteousnesse of his we speake of qualifieth him that is contributeth towards his qualification for Priest-hood aswell as it did for sacrifice If he had not been perfectly righteous and consequently fulfill'd the Morall Law aâ— well as any other Law which concern'd him he had bin uncapable of that great place or dignitie of Priest-hood which now he executes to the great benefit and blessing of the world This is evident from that Scripture Heb. 7.26 27. For such an High â—riest it became us to have who is holy harmelesse undefiled separated from sinners c. meaning that no Priest whatsoever without these qualifications could have stood us in that great stead had bin sit to intercede with God for us as Christ now doth Eightly and lastly that holy pleasure and contentment which Christ himselfe tooke in those works of righteousnesse wherein hee addresse himselfe to God his Father by obedience to his Law may well be look'd upon as one considerable end or use of this obedience of his My meat is saith himselfe Ioh. 4.34 to doe the will of him that sent me and to finish his work Christ was inwardly and secretly refresh'd and satisfied with every act or worke of righteousnesse which he wrought as generally men are by acting and working out of such principles as are connaturall and pleasing to them It is joy to the just to doe judgement saith Solomon Prov. 21.15 Then the people rejoyced when they offered willingly c. 1 Chr. 29.9 Especially the Lord Christ being full of grace and of the Spirit of holinesse and withall knowing perfectly and throughly apprehending the full excellencie and beauty of all righteousnesse and subjection unto God could not but take and tast very high and excellent contentments in all that he did in such a way So that were there no other end use or necessitie of that righteousnesse of Christ about which we now reason but only his own personall satisfaction and contentment in the working it this is abundantly sufficient to salve the the usefulnesse and necessitie of it How many things are done even by wise men with no relation to any further end but only their owne pleasure satisfaction and contentment in doing them Therefore the Argument last propounded to establish the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense supposed viz. the uselesnesse of it otherwise is weaker then its fellowes though neither have these cause to boast of much strength A fift argument imployed in the same service SECT 12 Argum. 5 is this If we be debtors unto the Law and that not only in matter of punishment deserved by our disobedience to it but in perfection of obedience also then did Christ not only suffer death for us that we might be delivered from the punishment or curse due unto our sinnes but also fulfilled the Law for us that so we may be reputed to have fulfilled the Law in him or by the imputation of his fulfilling the Law unto us otherwise the Law should yet remaine to be fulfilled by us But we are debtors unto the Law not only in matter of punishment for our transgression but in perfection of obedience also otherwise our sinning against the Law should exempt and privilege us from subjection to the Law Ergo. A short Answere I conceive may do sufficient execution upon a long argument Answere Therefore I say nothing to the major proposition but only in what we shall charge upon the minor to this I answere that it labours of an infirmity very incident to reasonings especially against the truth called homonymia or ambiguitie of expression For when it affirmoth that we are debtors to the Law in perfection of obedience aswell as in matter of punishment as this debt of obedience may be variously interpreted and understood the proposition may either be true or false If this be the meaning that we that are beleevers are debtors unto the Law in perfection of obedience for our justification it is utterly false For we have no need to depend upon it or any obedience to it for our justification in the sight of God but are fully and freely justified by Christs blood Ro. 5.9 Neither are such debtors to it so much as in matter of punishment Christ having cased their shoulder of this burden by taking it upon his own It is true those that beleeve not in Christ may in this sense be said to be debtors to the Law aswell in matter of perfect obedience as of punishment that if they meane to be justified and to escape the punishment and condemnation under which they lye otherwise then by Christ they must keep the whole Law because no third way of justification from punishment due to the transgression of the Law was ever heard of nor is imaginable but either by Faith in Christ or by a personall obstervation of the whole Law And in this sense the Apostle Gal. 5.3 testifieth to every man that is circumcised viz. with reserence to his justification 〈◊〉 God this he is bound to keepe the whole Law as well as to be circumcised I because he that sticketh not wholly and entirely unto Christ for justification must of necessitie keep and observe the whole Law even every jot and tittle of it and not some part or parts of it only to obtaine justification with God But Secondly If the proposition meaneth that beleevers are debtors of perfect obedience to the Law in a way of sanctification and thankfulnesse unto God for that unspeakable grace of Iustification and forgivenesse of sinnes by Christ so it is and hath bin formerly acknowledged for a truth cap. 3. Sect. 10. of this second Part. But in this sense it concerneth not the question in hand Thirdly we are not therefore exempted or priviledged from fulfilling or keeping the Law no not in respect of Iustification it selfe because we have transgressed it but 1º having once transgressed we are utterly uncapable of such an observation or keeping it whether personally or by imputation which may amount to a Iustification or exemption from punishment 2º that relaxation or release which we have from an observation of or dependance upon the Law for Iustification accrueth unto us by meanes of our dependance upon Christ for Justification thorough his death and suffering the curse of the Law for us Rom. 7.4 For Fourthly SECT 13 God never required of any man but only of Christ both exactnesse of obedience to the Law and subjection to punishment due to the transgression of the Law coniunction but divisim only He that shall perfectly keep the Law is no where threatned or bound to suffer the penaltie due to the transgression of the Laâ—â— nay the very expresse renor of the Law promiseth exemption or freedome from punishment unto such Dee this and thou shall live The Law doth not make any man a debtor in respect of punishment simply and absolutely but conditionally only and upon supposition of sinne Fiâ—â—ly and lastly