37. for censured r. conceived CAP. I. VVherein the state of the question is opened and the sense EXPLAINED Wherein aswell the Imputation of FAITH is affirmed as the imputation of the RIGHTEOUSNESSE of CHRIST denyed in JUSTIFICATION FOR the cleare understanding of the state and drift of the question some things would be premised which for their evidence sake might be privilledged and exempted from passing under much dispute or contradiction yet if any thing be not sufficiently prepared for assent in the briefe proposall of it the ensuing discourse will labor to reconcile the disproportion and in the progresse make satisfaction for what it shall receive upon courtesie in the beginning As 1. That the termes justifying justification c. are not to be taken in this question nor in any other usually moved about the justification of a sinner either 1 sensu physico in a Physicall sense as if to justifie signified to make just with any habituall or actuall any positive or inherent righteosnesse Nor yet 2. sensu forensi propriè dicto in a juridicall or judiciary sense properly so called where the Iudge hath only a subordinate and derived power of â—udicature and is bound by Oath or otherwise to give sentence according to the strict rule of the Law as if to justify were to pronounce a man just or 〈◊〉 absolve him from punishment according to the strict terme of precise rule of that Law whereof he was accused as a transgressor though this sense be admitted and received by many But 3. and lastly sensu forensi improprié dicto in a judiciary sense lesse properly and usually so called vizr where he that Titteth Iudge being the supreme Magistrate hath an independancy or soveraignty of power to moderate and dispence with the Law as reason or equity shall require So that to justify in this question import's the discharging or absolving of a man from the guilt blame and punishment of those things whereof he either is or justly might be accused not because he is cleare of such things or justifiable according to the letter or strictnesse of the Law for then he could not be justly accused but because the Judge having a sufficient lawful soveraignty of power is willing upon sufficient weighty considerations known unto him to remit the penalty of the Law and to deliver and discharg him as if he were an innocent or righteous man As for the Physical sense of making just by inherent righteousnesse though Bellarmine and his Angells earnestly contend for it yet till Scriptures be brought low and Etymologies be exalted above them till use and custome of speaking deliver up their Kingdome into Cardinalls bands that sense must no way be acknowledged or received in this dispute Yet to give reason and right even to those that demand that which is unreasonable it is true that God in or upon a mans justification begins to justifie him Physically that is to infuse habituall or inherent righteousnesse into him But here the Scriptures and the Cardinall are as far out in termes as in a thousand other things they are in substance and matter that which he will needs call justification the Scriptures will as peremptorily call Sanctification Concerning the other sense of a judiciary justification usually and strictly so called SECT 2 wherein the Iudge or justifier proceeds upon legall grounds to acquit and absolve the party guilty or accused neither can this be taken in the Question propounded except the Scriptures be forsaken because the Scriptures constantly speake of this act of God justifying a sinner not as of such an act whereby he will either make him or pronounce him legally just of declare him not to have offended the Law and hereupon justifie him but of such an act whereby he freely forgives him all that he hath done against the Law and acquits him from all blame and punishment due by the Law unto such offences So that in that very act of God whereby he justifies a sinner as there is a discharge from all punishment due unto him so there is a profession withall or plaine intimation of the guiltinesse of the person now to be justified according to the Law and that he is not discharged or acquitted upon any consideration that can be pleaded for him according to the Law but that consideration upon which God proceeds to justifie him is of another order the consideration of somewhat done for him in this case to relieve him out of the course and order or appointment of the Law he whose justification stands whether in whole or in part it is not materiall herein in the forgivenesse of sinne can in no construction be said to be justified according to the Law because the Law knowes no forgivenesse of sinnes neither is there any rule for any such thing there The Law speakes of the curse death and condemnation of a sinner but for the justification of a sinner it neither takes knowledg nor gives any hope thereof Secondly That Iesus Christ the naturall Sonne of God and supernaturall Sonne of the Virgin ran a race of obedience with the Law aswell Ceremoniall as Morall and held out with every letter jot and tittle of it as farre as it any wayes concerned him during the whole continuance of his life in the flesh no mans thoughts ever rose up to deny but those that denyed him the best of his being I meane his Godhead Which of you convinceth me of sinne was his challenge to the Nation of the Jewes whilst he was yet on earth Ioh 8 46. and remaines through all ages as a challenge to the world He that can â—ast the least aspersion or imputation of sinne upon Christ shall shake the foundations of the peace and safety of the world Thirdly that this Christ offered up himselfe as a Lambe without spot in sacrifice upon the Crosse to make an attonement for the world and to purge the sinne of it I know no spirit at this day abroad in the Christian world that denies but that which wrought in Secinus formerly and still workes in those that are baptized into the same spirit of error with him Fourthly I conceive it to be a truth of greater authority amongst us then to meet with contradiction from any man that Iesus Christ is the sole and entire meritorious cause of every mans justification that is justified by God or that that righteousnesse or absolution from sinne and condemnation which is given to every man in his justification is somewhat yea a principall part or member of that great purchase which Christ hath made for the world Evan as God for Christs sake freely forgave you Ephes 4.32 Forgivenesse of sinnes or justification is from God for Christs sake he is worthy to be gratified and honored by God with the justification of those that believe in him whatsoever he is worthy of more Fiftly It is a truth that hath every mans judgment concurring with it that Faith is the condition appointed by God and
Joseph gave Gen. 41.32 why Pharohs dreame was doubled by God unto him was to shew that the thing was established by God so the reason why Paul mentions the second time so immediatly upon the former the consistence or standing of this righteousnesse in and by Faith in all likely hood was this to shew that this righteousnesse certainly will carry it notwithstanding all the unlikelyhood and seeming imperfections of it and that the thing is fully concluded and established with God accordingly Or as it is often in speech betweene man and man when a man hath spoken that which seems improbable to him to whom it is spoken and may be conceived that the Speaker was mistaken in his words and would correct himselfe if he considered what he said it is usuall in such a case if he that spake spake advisedly and be able to make good what he said and meanes to stand to it to speake the same thing over againe and so to confirme and ratifie that which was spoken against both the unlikelyhood of the thing and the unbeliefe of the hearer It is a passage I conceive carried by some such rule as this which the Apostle hath in the following Chapter ver 4. Rejoyce in the Lord alwaies Now because these Philipians were under great trialls and afflictions and so might think it was no time for them to rejoyce in and that Paul had forgotten himselfe and the condition they were in to speake to them of rejoycing therefore to shew that he knew well enough what he said and that he had weighed his words sufficiently before he put them downe and that there was no other cause but why they should rejoyce in the Lord notwithstanding the fiery triall that was upon them he redoubles the words of his exhortation Rejoyce in the Lord alwaies and againe I say rejoyce So Paul here having once affirmed that the righteousnesse wherein he desired to be found was the righteousnesse which is by the Faith of Christ least he should seeme to have spoken that which he would not stand to or that which he would upon second thoughts retract he speakes the same words in effect the second time and avouceth that very righteousnesse which is by Faith to be that righteousnesse that he would stand to and desired to be found with If Paul had had any mind or inclination at all to have placed the righteousnesse by which he was to be justified in the righteousnesse of Christ imputed here was even a tempting occasion and opportunity to have drawne him into expressions of himselfe that way But we see here is loud speaking againe and againe of the righteousnesse of Faith but altum silentium profound silence of any righteousnesse from the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ This for a fift proofe from Scripture CAP. VII VVherein the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse is further cleered from the Scriptures SIxtly SECT 1 that that which God imputes for righteousnesse in Iustification is not the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe in the sense refused in the first Chapter of this discourse but Faith in Christ I conceive may be cleerely wrought out and evicted out of all those Scriptures where Iustification is ascribed unto Faith Not to heap up places in this kind which are confessedly many Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith c. Romans 3 28. So againe Romans 5.1 Therefore we being justified by FAITH c. All confesse that MEN are justifyed by Faith and indeed the conclusion thus far is greater then can be gaine-said The pregnant letter of the Scripture is too hard for any mans contradiction Now when men say and professe according to the Scriptures that Faith iustifieth I demand what is it they meane by Faith do they not meane their beleeving or the Act of Faith usually so called and expressed which by the assistance of of the Holy Ghost is raised within them and put forth by them If by Faith in this case they meane any thing besides either the habit or act of beleeving I confesse my soule hath not yet entred into their secret The Scriptures in the matter of Iustification seeme rather to speake of that which we call the act of beleeving then of the habit and so learned Dâ—vines as far as I have observed generally conceive Now for men to say and to professe themselves that Faith justifieth and yet to condemne it for an error in another that shall say and hold that it is an act of Faith that justifieth hath in my apprehension as much inconsistencie of reason in it as if a man should grant that Hierusalem once was the joy of the whole Earth and yet should censure him that should say that the Citie Hierusalem was ever so or that should grant that Paul laboured in the Gospel more then all the Apostles but would not endure him that should say that Paul the Apostle did so As Hierusalem and the Citie Hierusalem are the same and Paul and Paul the Apostle the same so are Faith and the act of Faith but the same and if one justifieth certainly the other justifieth also It may be it will be here said SECT 2 that they which confesse that Faith justifieth doe not meane or conceive of it as divided or severed from it's object CHRIST No more did ever any man that had but the first fruits of reason given him for his allowance For a man to say that he seeth and yet to affirme that when he seeth he seeth nothing is to professe open enmitie against common sense and reason Neither is it any other in him whosoever he be that shall conceive of any act of Faith that is not exercised or acted upon its object either Christ in person or Christ in promise or the like It is unpossible that any man should beleeve but that he must beleeve something or in some person and so when any man speakes of Faith or beleeving he must of necessity imply the object with or in the Act though he names only the Act and not the object as the usuall manner of the Scripture expression is where Faith or beleeving is 40 times mentioned without addition of the object Christ or the promise of God in Christ or any thing equivalent to either Secondly it may be it will be said that when men professe and say that Faith iustifieth their meaning only is that Faith justifieth instrumentally and not otherwise To this I answere neither hath any thing more bin said hitherto by me neither is any thing intended to be said in the sequel but according to the rule of this position Faith justifieth instrumentally But thirdly it may be it will be yet further obiected and said SECT 3 that when men confesse that Faith iustifieth their meaning is that it Iustifieth as it takes hold of Christs righteousnesse I Answere if this also should be granted but the Scripture as hath bin said never mentioneth or describeth justifying Faith under any such consideration yet it
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
vertuous dispositions as essentially requisite to make him a man capable of such deservings may be said to be imputed to them i. they have a benefit accrueing to them from such education and dispositions of his though not immediately but by the intervening of those worthy acts and services performed by him In this sense not only Achans sinfull and sacrilegious act of taking away the wedge of gold and Babylonish garment but the bitter roote it selfe that bare this cursed fruit I meane his covetousnesse may be said to have bin imputed unto all those of his house that were punished with him for that sacrilege In this sense likewise aswell the habituall holynesse of Christs person as the morall righteousnesse or active obedience of his life may be said to be imputed to those that beleeve in him because these were essentially and directly requifite to make his death and sufferings justification and life and salvation to them as hath bin further opened in the former part of this Treatise But because this signification of the word is somewhat remote and unusuall and hath no manner of counteuance from the Scripture Piscator Paraeus with other learned and Orthodox Divines have simple denyed all imputation of the active righteousnesse or obedience of Christ and doubtlesse the Doctrine of Iustification as it is layd downe in the Scriptures would not at all suffer if the expression were layd aside altogether Seventhly a thing may be said to be imputed to a man when he is looked upon or dealt with as if he had some true worth or qualification in him whereunto there are speciall privileges belonging when as yet he hath not the worth or qualification indeed but comes to have right to the privileges notwithstanding in some other way In this sense righteousnesse is said to be imputed to him that beleeveth Rom. 4.6.11 c. that is he that truely beleeveth in Christ is looked upon by God and partly hath and partly shall have and injoy all the privileges and blessings which do belong and are annexed by covenant or promise unto a perfect and compleate Law-righteousnesse though there be no such righteousnesse found in him because Iesus Christ by his death and sufferings hath purchased a right and title for him to these privileges and blessings which title is actually derived and settled upon him upon his beleeving So that to say God imputeth righteousnesse to a man is but in effect to say that God lookes upon him with the same grace and favor wherewith he would looke upon him if he were properly and legally righteous indeed and had never sin'd and intends all the further privileges and blessings of such a righteousnesse unto him In such a sense as this when a man take's likeing to and loves another mans child and intends to settle his estate upon him he may be said to impute Son-ship unto him because though he be not his Son yet he confer's the rights and privileges of a Sonne upon him as viz. fatherlike affection and his inheritance Eightly SECT 9 one thing may be said to be imputed to a man for or instead of another when the rights and priviledges which originally and properly belong to the one are yet exhibited and conferr'd upon him upon the performance of the other or againe when upon the committing of one offence he is charged with the guilt and inconveniences of another the guilt and evill consequences whereof are more notorious and manifest Thus he that provideth not for his owne especially for his houshold hath the sinne of denying the Faith i. the Gospell imputed unto him 1 Tim. 5.8 because the evill consequences of both sinnes are much the same but yet are more readily acknowledged as likely to arise from the latter In this sense also the Faith of him that beleeveth is said to be imputed to him for righteousnesse Rom. 4.3.5 c. because the same privileges which originally and more apparantly did belong unto and were setled by God upon a legall righteousnesse or immunity from sinne do now belong unto and are setled by Covenant and promise from the same God upon beleeving Ninthly and lastly any matter of profit benefit or advantage which any waies accrueth or is coming towards a man whether by way of due debt or of free donation and grace or the like may be said to be imputed unto him accordingly Thus Rom. 4.4 the reward viz. of justification and life is said to be reckoned or imputed to him that worketh i. that shall deserve it by a perfect observation of the Law of debt and not of grace The meaning is that if any man should be rewarded by God with life and happinesse upon his perfect obedience to the Law such a reward would be generally taken and looked upon by men as no matter of grace or favor from God but as a matter of right and due debt to such a man There is no word or terme to my remembrance belonging to the dispute in hand or to the Doctrine of Iustification in generall more incumbred with variety of significations then this of Imputation and consequently more obnoxious to mistake and misunderstanding There is scarse any proposition can be framed wherein this word is used indefinitly and without speciall limitation or explication but may both be granted and denied according to a different sense and acception thereof As for example such propositions as these The active obedience of Christ is imputed The active obedience of Christ is not imputed The passive obedience of Christ is imputed The passive obedience of Christ is not imputed c. are either true or false according as the word imputed is understood and taken in them Therefore speciall care must be had how and upon what termes this word passeth or be admitted in the present Controversie Obedience to the Morall Law may be said to be required of men two waies or in two respects Distinct 5 SECT 10 First by way of iustification that a man thereby may be esteemed perfectly righteous by God and accordingly have all the privileges of a compleate righteousnesse conferred upon him Secondly by way of sanctification that he may testifie and expresse his subjection unto God and his unfeigned desire of pleasing him in all things In both respects this obedience was required of man in his estate of innocencie and is still required of the Holy Angells yea and was required also of the Lord Iesus Christ himselfe Compare Mat. 3.16 with Iohn 15.10 c. But since the fall of man it is not nequited of him by way of justification in the sense expressed but only in a way of sanctification This is evident by these a consideratios First because a man being once touch'd with sinne and failing in the least point of obedience as all men were and did in the fall is not capable of any such obedience to the Laâ— whereby it is impossible for him to be justified no though he should keepe the Law with all possible
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
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
increase and growth in grace also 2 Peter 3. Twelfthly that notwithstanding al that hath bin said for the vindication of new apprehensions or opinions substantially prooved from the Scriptures yet the Doctrine maintained in the following Discourse hath no need of any sanctuary in this kinde to protect it being nothing but what hath an armie both of ancient and moderne worthies to make it good Insomuch that as touching the two maine points avouched herein viz. the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense specified in the entrance of the Discourse and the non-imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense disclaimed I here make this open ingenuous and solemne profession that what I cannot pregnantly and irrefragably demonstrate to any unpartiall and disengaged judgment to have bin both anciently held and taught by the chiefe Fathers of the Primitive times as likewise by the best and most considerable part at least of the late Reformed Writers Luther Calvin Melancthon Musculus Pareus c at least if their judgements and toâ—chings may be judged of by their writings I will no waies owne but disclaime Onely this I must confesse that few of these Authors alwaies speake so evenly or steadily but that some expressions from their pens are very obnoxious and opportune for a contrary interpretation But my meaning is that take them either in their more frequent and constant expressions or in their more perspicuous and cleere expressions they cannot but by an unprejudicate eye be discerned fairely to sympathize in judgement with the points mentioned As for the contrary opinion it is as Mr. Gataker modestly enough expresseth his judgement to be feared that for more then a few ages together it was unknown to all Antiquitie (a) Verecy ne illa potius quam tuetur ipse quaÌ„que assertores ejusdem nonnulli pro lapide primario insidei pietatisque fundameÌ„tu habent per secula hand pauca antiquitati omni penitus ignota fuerit cum ea quam de Christi morto ae perpessionibus nos tutamur tuÌ„ in Scripturu sacru tum et in antiquoruÌ„ scriptu passim occurrat Mr. Gata in his defeÌ„ce of his Animadversioâ—s upon Piscators and Lucius disp p. 16. This by way of salve for the soare of noveltie The next impeachment of the Discourse was the emptinesse and slender importance use or consequence of it Many it is like will not be farre off from saying of it as Judas said of Maries box of oyntment poured out upon our Saviours head Mat. 26.8 What needeth this wast Here is a great deale of paines bestowed to little purpose Might not men make Heaven and be saved aswell in the contrary opinion which is commonly received and taught as in this whatsoever it be The Author might have imployed himselfe and his time better otherwise Give me leave to ease the discourse and my selfe of this burthen also by tendering these things to consideration First Luk 12 7. that if God be so tender and respectfull of us that even all the haires of our heads are numbred and kept upon accompt by him much more respectfull and tender ought we to be not only of the maine limbs or principall members of his truth Verbum onim â—n est res lovieula ut phanatici hodie putant sed eÌ„ Vnus apex major est coelo et terra Luther in Gal c. 5.12 Nihil putandum exiguum siquidem spiritus Sanctus noluis literu mandare quod non prosit Luther in Gen 12. Maledicta sit chariras comcordia propter quam conservandarâ— periclitars necesse sir verbuÌ„ Dei Luther in Gal. 5. Maledicta sit charitas quae servatur cum jactura Doctrinae fidei cui emnia cedere debent charitas Apostolus Angelus è coelo c. Idim ibid. Pax est omni bello tristior que veritatu et justitiae ruina Constat but even of all the haires of the head thereof I meane those that seeme of smallest consequence and importance that we suffer not the least of them to fall to the ground or to be trampled upon by the foote of negligence or contempt Especially if we consider Secondly that the least haire I meane the least jot or tittle of divine truth is more worth a thousand fold then our whole heads yea then all our heads put together One tittle of the word saith Luther is greater then Heaven and Earth And in another place nothing in the Scriptures is to be thought little in asmuch as the Holy Ghost would not have caused that to be written which should not be profitable which consideration drew from him many such expressions as these Cursed be that charitie and agreement which must be preserved and kept with the danger of the word of God and againe Cursed be that charity which is kept with the losse of the Doctrine of Faith unto which all things must give place charity Apostle Angell from Heaven c. It was the saying of another that that peace is more grievous then any Warre which costs the losse of truth and honesty But the Lord Christ himselfe gives us the best and most certaine account of the infinite worth and value of the least strictures or filings of the word of God in that passage to his Disciples Mat. 5 18 19. Verily I say unto you till Heaven and Earth passe one jot or one title shall in no wise passe from the Law till all things be fulfilled Whosoever therefore shall breake one of these least commandements and shall teach men so he shall be called the least in the Kingdome of Heaven but whosoever shall do and teach them the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven Doubtlesse if God so highly prizeth the anise mint and cummin of his Law as to recompence the tithing of them with such high preferment in the Kingdome of heaven much more or at least every whit as much doth he esteeme the jots and titles the meanest and least considerable things of his Gospell which is his darling and most beloved manifestation of himselfe unto the world And therfore it must needs argu much prophanenesse of heart and great estrangement in minde and spirit from the worth and excellencie of the things of God either to despise the knowledg or to censure a just discussion and examination of the smallest of them as a thing needlesse and of little use Hierom was farre from such a conceit as this when he said In Scripturis me minima differentia omitti debet Nam singuli semenes syllaba apices et puncta plena sunt sensibus Hieronymus that the smallest difference in the Scriptures was not to be lightly passed over because every word syllable title and point are full of sense and meaning Thirdly it is very considerable that misprisions and errors in Divinity aswell as in other arts and Sciences goe as it were by tribes and families so that there is no one error but hath many more link'd in affinitie with
increase or soment the troubles of it And thus much more then enough by way of Apologie I have only two things to require of thee good Reader by way of courtesie in reading this Discourse which I hope will recompence thee for them though they be both faire and equall to be granted even without demand much more without recompence First in case thou meetest with the same sense or substance of matter cloathed with differeÌ„t expressions one or some whereof thou canst well beare and understand others being more hard and offensive unto thee which I conceive may be a case frequently incident in the perusall hereof my request is that thou wilt reduce that which seems crooked to that which is streight and make an attonement of the better for the worse Secondly whereas one and the same proposition or assertion in words may admit of different explications and meanings in the one whereof it may be true and accordingly either affirmed or granted by me in another false and so by me denyed my request in this place is that thou wilt not judge me a man of contradictions though in one place I denie that assertion in words which in another I affirme or grant but that thou wilt relieve me in such passages and reconcile me to my selfe by the mediation of mine owne distinctions and particular explications of my selfe elsewhere I give thee notice in one place (a) Part. 2. c. 3. soct 9. p. 57. that there is scarce any proposition can be framed wherein the word impute or imputation is used indefinitly and without speciall limitation and explication but may both be granted and denied according to a different sense and acceptation thereof And who knoweth not but that assertions and sayings otherwise are very frequently thus conditioned Now to grant a proposition in one sense and to deny it in another is so farre from being contradictions that it can hardly be avoyded in any close reasoning upon any theme or subject whatsoever But for the greatest part of ambiguities incident to matters discussed in the subsequent Treatise I explaine my selfe and mine own apprehensions in two places chiefly viz. in the first Chapter of the first Part but especially in the third of the second If any man shall please publiquely to oppose and write against what is here published I have two requests to make unto him likewise First that he will bend the maine body and strength of his discourse against the maine of mine and not brouze or nibble upon some twiggs or outward branches but strike at the root or maine body of the tree or at least at some of the principall arms and limbs thereof A tree may stand firme and be choyce timber and yet the smaller boughs and branches thereof being tender easily broken It is no damage or prejudice to a Discourse though some sentences or expressions may be pick'd out here and there which being separated from their trunck or stemme wherein they grow seeme weak and very capable of opposition My other request to such a man is that hee will please to interdict his pen all passionate language and expression and returne no worse measure in this kinde then is here measured unto him Truth is not to be drawne out of the pit where she lieth hid by a long line of calumnies reproaches and personall aspersions upon him who is supposed to oppose her but by the golden chaine of solid demonstrations and close inferences from the Scriptures The readiest way to overtake her is to follow after her in love When men are fierce and fiery in their disputes it is much to be feared that they want the truth or at least the cleere and comprehensive knowledge of the truth to coole and qualifie them I take little notice in the ensuing Treatise of that passionate piece of Discourse lately published and styled by the Author Socinianisme Discovered and confuted a title better fitting the work then the Author was aware of or intended For herein he discovers Socinianisme in his own opinion and then crosseth and confuteth it when he hath done This I have made appaâ—ant in the Answere to part of that Discourse which I sent unto him and which since hath bin thought meet it seem's to some to be made more publique In consideration whereof as likewise by the advise of some friends otherwise I tooke off my pen and suspended the finishing of a full and particular Answere to that Discourse which I began immediatly upon the publishing thereof after I had made some considerable progresse therein As upon advice I desisted so upon advice I may be brought on againe to perfect and publish those beginnings In this Treatise I no where trouble the rest and peace of Mr. Walkers Socinianisme but only in the fourth Chapter of the second Part nor here doe I meddle with any other particular thereof but only with that which is the heart and soule such as it is of that whole discourse viz. his delineation or description of the whole Doctrine of Justification I have detained thee somewhat long in the entrance but thou seest there was cause I desire now to open the door unto thee which leadeth into the Discourse it selfe by earnest prayer addressement of my heart and soule unto God on thy behalfe that he will give thee a spirit of discerning a sound and upright and unpartiall judgement in all things that thou mayst call no man Master on Earth but reserve the glory and honour of this Name whole end entire for thy great Master in Heaven that he will so blesse and sanctifie the Discourse unto thee that in the reading of it it may poure thee out a blessing of knowledge for thine understanding of establishment for thy judgement of peace for thy conscience of joy and gladnesse for thine heart and soule and all this and much more through Jesus Christ by whom he is able to doe it to whom be everlasting confessions and acknowledgements of all Grace and Glory and every excellencie by every Creature AMEN Thine in the LORD IESVS assured J. GOODWIN From my Studie in Colemanstreet A briefe view of the Method and cariage of the whole Discourse of the first PART CAP. 1. THe Question stated and declaration made in what sense the Discourse either affirmeth or denieth the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse in Iustification From p. 1. to 18. CAP. 2. Those Scriptures Rom. 4. ver 3.5 9 22. c. managed for the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in a proper not a metaphoricall or metonymicall sense with the testimonies of many Authors both ancient and moderne standing by this Interpretation From p. 19 to 54. CAP. 3. Severall Scriptures wherein the works of the Law are absolutely excluded from Justification as Rom. 3.28 Gal. 2 16. c. not admitting the Imputation of the Active obedience of Christ in the sense opposed in this Discourse with severall objections against such an Interpretation of them propounded and answered From p. 55
to 68. CAP. 4. The non-imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense ruling in this Controversie argued from Rom. 3.21 The argument made good against an objection From p. 69. to 72. CAP. 5. The said non-imputation further prooved and established from Rom. 5.16.17 compâ—â—ed together with an objection answered The sufficiencie of the Answere attested by Galvin Musoulus Luther Melancthon Beza Zanchie Fox and Chamier From p. 73. to p. 83. CAP. 6. A further proofe for the imputation of Faith in the sense explained against the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense refused from Philip. 3.9 From p. 84. to 88. CAP. 7. Further proofes for the imputation of Faith as aforesaid from such Scriptures wherein Justification is ascribed unto Faith as Rom. 3.18 Rom. 1.5 c. with 4 objections against the cariage of these Scriptures answered From p. 88. to 92. CAP. 8. The Non-imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense first rejected cleerely argued and prooved from Gal. 3.12 being the last of our Scripture proofes From p. 93 to 98. CAP. 9. The Jmputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense challenged disproved from the incompetiblenesse of it to many if not to all beleevers without exception in respect of many particulars wanting in it which must be found in a Law-righteousnesse appropriable unto them Two objections against this argument answered From p. 98 to p. 106. CAP. 10. A second argument against the said Imputation drawne from the precise and exact proportion and fitnesse of that righteousnesse for the person of Christ alone as being the only Mediator between God and men with two objections answered From p. 107 to 117. CAP. 11. A third ground against the said Imputatison viz. the non-necessitie of it with an objection anwered the answere pleading for intirenesse of justification in remission of sinnes alone absolutely consemans with the judgement of Calvin (a) That Calvin placed Iustification simply and absolutely and not comparatively in Remission of sinnes alone see fully proved part 2. c. 7. Sect. 15. p. 213.214 of this Discourse relieved by Parâ—us in some passages which Bellarmine and some others would wrest to a contrary interpretation From p. 118. to 135. CAP. 12. A fourth demonstration against the saia Imputation viz. the dissolving or frustration of the Evangelicall Grace of Adoption with an objection Answered From p. 136. to p. 144. CAP. 13. The fift and sixt grounds against the said Imputation The former the taking away the necessitie of Repentance the latter the necessitie of Christs death with two objections against the former and as many against the latter Answered From p. 145. to 150. CAP. 14. A seaventh ground against the said Imputation viz. the taking away for givenesse of sinnes with an objection answered From p. 151. to 153. CAP. 15. Enforcing an eight Reason against the Imputation questioned viz. a manifest compliance with that dangerous error that God seeth no sinne in his people From p. 153. to 155. CAP. 16. A ninth Demonstration against the pretended Imputation viz. the confounding of the two Covenants with two objections propounded and answered From p. 154. to 157. CAP. 17. Three Arguments more managed against the already-impugned Imputation all of them drawn from the meritoriousnesse of that righteousnesse according to the professed tenets of those against whom we argue which is said to be imputed From p. 158. to 164. CAP. 18. Three further Reasons against the opinion prerejected with an objection propounded against the last of them and Answered The first drawne from the unsoundnesse of this assertion that Beleevers wrought righteousnesse in Christ The second from the non-imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in the letter and formalitie of it The last from the non-intermedling of the Ceremoniall Law with Iustification From p. 165. to 169. CAP. 19. Five further Demonstrations of the conclusion undertaken for The first drawne from the non-imputation of our sinnes to Christ in the letter or formalitie of them The second from the uncleannesse of this saying that God should looke upon us as worthy of that Iustification which we receive from him The third from the erroneousnesse of this that men are made formally sinfull by Gods act of imputing Adams sinne The fourth from the absurdity of this that there is a double formall cause of Iustification The last from the evidence of this truth that there is no necessitie of bringing in this imputation either in respect of the justice or mercy of God or for the salving or advancement of any other Attribute From p. 170. to 179. CAP. 20. Foure Reasons more to streng then the Conclusions taken into protection The first drawne from the insufficiencie of a Law righteousnesse to justifie those that have once sinn'd though personally performed The second from the non-obligation of any man to keeps the Law for his justification The third from Gods requiring only Faith of men to their justification with two objections answered The last from the imputation of Faith made unto Abraham From p. 180 to 187. CAP. 21. The last Reason propounded against the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse drawn from the Non-imputabilitie of the Law or the righteousnesse thereof with an objection answered and some things considered about the Imputation of Adams sinne Of the Second PART CAP. 1. THe method and contents of the Second Part of the Discourse p. 1 2. CAP. 2. Fourteene Conclusions laid down and prooved to give further light into the Controversie depending and to repare a way for answering the remaining objections The first is this Hee for whose sinnes a plenary satisfaction hath bin made is as just and righteous as he that never sinn'd p. 3. 2. There is no medium or middle condition between absolution from all sinne and a perfect and compleate righteousnesse p. 3.4 3 Adam till his fall by sinne was compleatly righteous and in an estate of Iustification before God p. 4.5 4. Perfect remission or forgivenesse of sinnes includes the imputation or acknowledgment of the observation of the whole Law p. 5.6.7.8 5. He that is fully acquitted and discharged of his sinnes needeth no other righteousnesse to give him a right or title unto life p. 8 9. 6 That satisfaction which Christ made for sinne and whereby he procured remission of sinnes for those that beleeve consists only in that obedience of his which is commonly called Passive and not in that subjection which he exhibited to that common Law of nature which we call Morall p. 9.10 7 If Christ had kept the Law for us that is in our stead during his life so that we might be counted perfectly righteous by the imputation thereof unto us there had bin no occasion or necessitie of his dying for us p. 10.11 8. That union and communion which Beleevers have with Christ doth no waies require or suppose any such imputation of his righteousnesse unto them as is conceived p. 11 12 13. 9. No other imputation of Adams sinne to his posteritie can be proved
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
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
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
more necessary then Faith it selfe for Faith is made only a meanes of the derivation of it upon men but the body and substance of the righteousnesse it selfe is nothing else but the pure Law and the workes of it And how a righteousnesse should be said to be made manifest without the Law whose essence strength and substance is nothing but the Law I conceive to be out of the reach of better apprehensions then miâ—â— to comprehend If it be here objected and said SECT 2 that this righteousnesse of God or of Faith may be said to be made manifest without the Law or the works of it because there are no works required of us towards the raising of it but this hinders not but that the workes of the Law as performed by Christ may be the matter and substance of it To this I answere First this Sanctuary hath been already polluted and the horns of this Altar broken downe in the demonstration of the former proofe Secondly there is not the least intimation given that the Apostle should have any such by or back meaning as this but that this righteousnesse of Faith should be fully taught and apprehended without any consideration of the Law or the works thereof as an ingredient into it Thirdly the works of the Law are neverthelesse the works of the Law because performed by Christ The greatnesse or holinesse of the person working according to the Law doth not alter or change the nature or property of the works but they are the works of the Law whosoever doeth them Christs being Christ doth not make the Law not to be the Law Fourthly this righteousnesse is said to receive testimony or witnesse from the Law that is from that part of Scripture which is often called the Law viz. the Books of Moses Mat 5 17. and c. 7 12. as Calvin here well interprets and from the Prophets therefore it cannot be a righteousnesse consisting in the imputation of a legal righteousnesse because there will be found no testimony given either by the Law or by the Prophets to such a righteousnesse except it be in aenigmate a testimony in a riddle which no man can finde out but by divination instead of an interpretation whereas it is repugnant to the nature of a testimony not to be somewhat plaine and expresse that it may be well understood But if we interpret this righteousnesse of God to be a righteousnesse procured or derived upon a man by Faith oâ— beleeving there is expresse testimony to be found given unto it both by the Law and also by the Prophets as the holy Ghost expressely here affirmeth by the Law Gen. 15 6 And he Abraham beleeved in the Lord and he counted it unto him for righteousnesse By the Prophets Hab. 2.4 But the just shall live by his Faith Fiftly and lastly this righteousnesse of God is said to be unto all upon all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or through Faith by way of opposition to the works of the Law ver 20. Now betweene Faith and the Law or works of the Law there is a constant oposition in the writings of this Apostle Rom. 3.27.28 and ag c. 4.13 14. and c. 9.32 and c. 10.5 6. Gal. 2 16. and c. 3.5 and ver 11.12 c. But betweene the Law and the works or righteousnesse of Christ there is no opposition but a perfect agreement Therefore that righteousnesse which is by Faith cannot stand in the righteousnesse of Christ imputed CAP. V. A Fourth Demonstration from Scripture of the avouched Conclusion FOurthly SECT 1 against the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense already disclaimed for that righteousnesse by which we are justified in the sight of God I argue from Rom. 5. ver 16. and 17. compared together The guift of righteousnesse as it is called ver 17. which is by Christ in the Gospel is said ver 16. to be a free guift of many offences unto justification From whence I thus reason That righteousnesse which is the guift of many offences that is the forgivenesse of many offences or sins unto justification cannot be a perfect legall righteousnesse imputed unto us or made ours by imputation But the righteousnesse which is by Christ in the Gospel by which we are justified is the guift of many offences unto justification Therefore it cannot be a perfect legall righteousnesse made ours by imputation The minor is the proposition of the Holy Ghost in terminis The major I demonstrate thus That righteousnesse which extends unto a mans justification by the forgivenes of sins can be no perfect legall righteousnesse imputed But the righteousnesse of Christ in the Gospel by which we are justified extendeth unto a mans justification by the forgivenesse of sins Therefore it can be no legall righteousnesse imputed The Reason of the former proposition the weaknesse of which only it must be that ministers strength to an adversary for further dispute in this question the authority of heaven being too pregnant in the other is this because a legall or perfect righteousnesse doth not preceed to jâ—stâ—â—y a mans person by way of forgivenesse of sins but is of it selfe intrinsecally and essentially a mans Iustification yea such a Iustification with which forgivenes of sinnes is not competible For what need hath he that is legally righteous or hath a legall righteousnesse imputed unto him of forgivenesse of sins when as such a righteousnesse excluds all sinne and all guilt of sinne from his person If it be here objected and said SECT 2 that a mans sinnes are first forgiven him and then this perfect righteousnesse of Christ is imputed unto him and so he is justified To this I answere First if we will needs distinguish the effects of the active and passive obedience of Christ after this manner so as from the active part of this obedience to fetch a perfect righteousnesse for imputation and from the passive remission of sinnes yet whether it be any waies reasonable to invert the order of these effects and dispose of them aâ— pleasure in a crosse method to their causes producing them I leave it to sober consideration Christ â—â—d not first die and after death keep the Law for us but he first kept the Law and then suffered death for us Therefore iâ— we will needs make the imputation of the one a distâ—nct bâ—n sit from the imputation of the other reason requireâ—â— that that which was first purchased should be first received or applied and consequently hat imputation of righteousnesse should have a precedency in order of râ—mission of sinnes Secondly if a man hath once sinned which must needs be acknowledged of every man that hath sins forgiven it is not any lâ—gall righteousnesse whatsoever imputed that can justifie him no if it were possible for him to keep the Law perfectly in his own person ever after to the daies of eternity this would not justify him because such a Iustification is repugnant to the expresse tenor of the Law Cursed is
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
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
I answere if the will and pleasure of God be to make no imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ but upon the condition of Faith intervening then is it evident that this righteousnes is not imputed unto justification to any man because the condition of faith must necessarily intervene and come betweene So that if this righteousnes of Christ were as our Adversaries would have it imputed unto men yet it must be onely towards Iustification not unto it for by their own affirmation it is faith that hath the next and most immediat connexion therewith Secondly if God suspends the imputation of Christs righteousnes upon the performance of the condition of faith and then makes this imputation then faith doth not take hold of the righteousnes of Christ imputed but first takes bold of it and then the imputation followeth after Which 1. is contrary to the expresse judgement of some of the learnedest of their owne party Who affirme this imputation of Christs righteousnes by God to precede the condition of faith or act of beleeving in men a Deus primum imputat satisfactionem Christi deinde in nobis efficit sidem quā illamimputatam applicemus Vrsinus Cat. part 2 Qu. 60. sect 5. Fides ex parte nostra hanc justitiam Sic sia Deo imputatam apprehendit solummodoet applicat Dr. Prid. Lect. 5. de Instificat Sect. 11. Secondle if faith should first take hold of the righteousnes of Christ before it be imputed and then the act of Gods imputation should supervene upon it and the beleever not be justified till this act of Gods imputation had passed upon him then must it be conceived that a man may have the righteousnes of Christ upon him by faith and yet not be justified by it For if the will of God be not to impute the righteousnes of Christ unto Iustification but upon the condition of faith performed and this condition is performed by laying hold on the righteousnes of Christ not yet imputed by faith it evidently followeth that a man may lay hold on the righteousnes of Christ by faith and yet want that which is essentiality requisite to his Iustification according to this opinion viz. Gods imputation of this righteousnes unto him which as the opinion teacheth followeth the apprehension therof by faith and is not precedaneous to it Againe SECT 6 yet once more for the imputation of Faith in the sence insisted upon I plead the Apostles plea and Argument Rom. 4. That which was imputed to Abraham for righteousnes in his Iustification Argum. 24 is imputed to other beleevers also But the Faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righteousnes c. Ergo. Whether both these Propositions in the direct sence here implyed and with relation to the conclusion issuing from between them as they are here layd down be not the genuine and unwrested Doctrine of the Apostle Paul and that over and over in that 4th chapter to the Romans and whether the choycest learning aswell ancient as moderne hath not sealed and subscribed hereunto I referre the Reader to a diligent perusal of the second Chapter of this discourse for his satisfaction where likewise he may see the ashes of the contrary interpretation consumed and burnt up with the fire of the triall So that I conceive here needeth no addition of any thing to strengthen either the one Proposition or the other above what hath bin there delivered CAP. XXI Wherein the last reason against the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse viz. the non-imputability of the Law is propounded and maintained IF the righteousnes of the Law be not imputable Argum. 25 SECT 1 or deriveable in the letter and formality of it from one mans person to another then cannot the righteousnes of Christ be imputed to any man in Iustification after any such manner The consequence cannot lightly be denyed by him that will but grant light not to be darknesse Therfore I assume But the righteousnes of the Law is not imputable from one mans person to another Therfore the righteousnes of Christ is not imputable much lesse imputed to any man in his Iustification This Argument was mentioned in our Scripture proofes cap. 8. where you shall find it built upon that Foundation of truth Gal. 3.12 The reason or ground of which non-imputability or untransferiblenesse of the Law-righteousnesse we found expresse in the very tenour and plaine words of the Law it selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the very man that hath done them shall live by them and no other From which inference or addition no mans understanding can with reason abstaine But it is like we must here againe prepare to battaile and shall be assaulted with this Objection SECT 2 If the transgression of the Law be imputable from one mans person to another Object then may the righteousnesse of the Law be imputed also after the same manner For what should cause a difference between the one and the other in this respect But that the transgression of the Law is imputable from one mans person to another is evident from hence because the sinne of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit is imputed to his posterity Ab actu ad potentiam validissima est consequentia Ergo. Give me leave to deliver my last Argument out of the hand of this Objection and so we shall draw towards a Conclusion of this first part In my answer I shall addresse my selfe to both the Propositions but chiefly insist upon the instance that is brought to prove the Minor to demonstrate the insufficiencie and impertinencie of that for that purpose For the former Proposition not to let passe incerta procert◠that which is weake with the credit and reputation of strength I answere therfore to it that the consequence in it is not so tight and pregnant as happily is conceived or as the confidence of the demand annexed by way of confirmation seems to import The imputablenesse of the transgression of the Law were it granted is no concluding demonstration of the like imputablenesse of the righteousnesse or obedience performed unto it and then this Proposition will not be found any such Oracle of truth First in the tenour of the Law there is no such emphaticall restraint of the guilt or punishment due unto the transgression of it to the person of the transgressor as ther is of the reward promised to the observation of it to the person of the observer as we heard in the clause cited from Gal. 3.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. the very man that hath done them shall live by them It is no where found on the other hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the very man that transgresseth them shall die for his transgression As if God in giving the Law had left unto himselfe a libertie and scope to derive and carry the guilt and punishment due to the transgression of the Law as far as he pleased but had no intent to extend the reward promised to the fulfilling
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
this Apostle still makes betweene the works of the Law and beleeving in the point of justification is not at all in respect of the notification or discovery of it either to the justified themselves or others but simply and absolutely in respect of the effecting it Besides to make Paul say thus that they had beleeved in Christ that they might know that they had beene justified by beleeving in him is to make him speake at a very low rate of reason and understanding and not much short of contradictions For with what tolerable congruity or construction of reason can a man be said to beleeve with this intent or for this end that hee may know he is justified by beleeving The doing of a thing for a certaine end is no meanes to certifie or assure any man that the end is or shall be much lesse that it hath already beene obtained by the doing it Much more might be argued both from the Scriptures and reason and testimony of Authors for this Conclusion if it were either necessary or seasonable in this place Neither are the things that can be objected against it SECT 22 of any such weight but that they may receive a faire and ready answer I have heard onely of two Arguments that are made against it The first is this If a man must beleeve before he be justified then God doth not justifie the ungodly because he that beleeveth cannot be counted an ungodly man To this I answer in few words that when the Scripture saith that God justifieth the ungodly the meaning is not as if the person to be justified must needs be ungodly i in the midst of his prophanenesse in the very nicke and instant of time wherein God justifieth him But God may be said to be he that justifieth the ungodly because he hath found out a way and meanes whereby to juftifie sinners and ungodly men viz. Faith in Jesus Christ which neither the Law knoweth nor could ever the wisedome of men or Angels have imagined The justification of the ungodly is ascribed unto God as an high and excellent clogium of his wisedome and goodnesse as when Christ is said to save sinners the meaning is not that men are actually wicked and sinfull when salvation is actually conferr'd upon them but that he affords meanes to those that are sinners as viz. the grace of Faith Repentance c. whereby they may be and many are saved Or else secondly Answer might be that God may be said to justifie not onely when hee absolves and perfecteth the act or worke of justification i. when hee passeth a sentence of absolution upon the beleever but even when hee beginneth it i. when he first toucheth moveth or incline the heart to beleeve upon which justification properly so called dependeth and followeth immediatly Now before and untill this supernaturall touch or motion of the heart from God a man in strictnesse and proprietie of speech may be called ungodly It is a common rule among Divines for the interpretation of many Scriptures In Scripturis saepe fieri dicitur quod fieri incipit In Scripture that is often said to be done which is onely begun to be done and whereof the cause onely is yet in being Thus Prov. 11.2 Shame is said to come when pride commeth viz. because pride is the cause of shame and Tit. 3.5 God is said to have saved men when he hath conferred regeneration or the washing of the new birth upon them because regeneration is a meanes of salvation besides many like instances that might be added In like manner justification may be said to come when Faith commeth and God may be said to justifie when he giveth men Faith whereby they shall be justified c. In this sence therefore God may be said to justifie the ungodly because he giveth Faith unto men being yet sinfull whereby they are justified Thirdly and lastly Further answer might be that there being no prioritie of time at all but onely of nature between a mans beleeving and his being justified so that in the very first instant and touch of time wherein he can be conceived truely to beleeve he is to be conceived justified also God may as properly be said to justifie the ungodly though he justifieth onely those that beleeve as to give Faith or the grace of beleeving unto the ungodly The reason is plaine because in respect of time a man is as immediately ungodly before his justification as he is before his beleeving though he be not justified SECT 23 till hee beleeveth The later Objections against the Conclusion in hand is if a man hath the Spirit of God given him before hee beleeveth he must needs be justified before he beleeveth otherwise it must be said that a man may have the Spirit of grace and sanctification and yet be in an estate of wrath and condemnation And that a man hath and must have the Spirit of Grace before hee beleeveth it is evident because otherwise he could not beleeve To this I answer first by concession that a man is not able of himselfe and without the speciall presence and assistance of the Spirit of grace to raise an act of a true beleeving in his soule But secondly by way of exception I answer two things first that though a man cannot beleeve without the gracious assistance of the Spirit of God yet doth it not follow from hence that there should be the least imaginable distance or space of time betweene a mans receiving the Spirit and his beleeving wherein hee should remayne liable to condemnation because the first touch of the Spirit upon the soule the act of beleeving may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sticke as fast and close together in respect of time as the scales of Leviathan doe in respect of place which by the description and testimony of God himselfe who best knowes their composure and frame are so neere one to another that no ayre can come between Ioh. 41.16 The Sunne was not first made and afterwards shined but his shining in respect of time is as ancient as his creation there was not the least distance or space of time betweene wherein any thing could be done or the least motion performed So may the comming of the Spirit of Grace unto the soule and the act of the soules beleeving touch in one and the same point of time an infinit power being able to worke any thing in a moment in which case it is evident that there is no place for the inconvenience mentioned in the objection viz. that a man endued with the spirit of grace should for a time be in an estate of condemnation except hee were justified before he beleeveth 2. SECT 24 Be it supposed that the spirit of grace should be at worke in the soule for any space of time before the soule hath put forth an act of true beleeving yet till there be a saving worke of Faith wrought by him in the soule it is no wayes inconvenient nor
and agreeable to that nature in him which we call JUSTICE or severity against sinne and if he had pardoned sinne without it he had lost or passed over an opportunity of the declaration and manifestation of it to the world but had done nothing repugnant to it or to the prejudice or disparagement of it And thus far I can willingly subscribe to the opinion But whether such a free and satisfactionlesse condonation may be conceived to have had any possible consistence with the wisdome of God and therefore whether it had bin simply possible or no I am yet somewhat unsatisfied For a man to over-slip an opportunity that might lawfully be taken hold of and managed by him to some speciall advantage to himselfe either in point of Reputation Estate c. or the like is repugnant to the principles of sound wisdome and discretion but not of Justice at least not of Justice properly so called And the Holy Ghost Heb. 2.11 making it a thing so well becoming God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. For it became him c. intending to bring many children unto glory to consecrate the Prince of their salvation through sufferings i. not to save men without the death and sufferings of Christ seems rather to ascribe this cariage and method of the businesse to the wisdome of God then to his Justice But because confidence requires better grounds then present conceptions and apprehensions I forbeare further contending about the point in hand for the present Only I desire this may be considered and remembred as fully evident from the tenour of the Conclusion last estsblished that neither did the Law require of Christ the suffering of those things which he suffered nor were the things which he suffered every waies the same though in consideration value and importance the same fully with those the suffering whereof the Law threatned against all transgressors CAP. III. Certaine distinctiōs propounded and explained necessary for the further understanding of the businesse in question and the cleering of many difficulties incident to it THe word Iustification is taken in a double sense Distincti 1 SECT 1 either actively or passively In the active signification as farre as concern's the question in hand and as the Scripture use of it extendeth in the great businesse of the Justification of a sinner before God it most usually signifieth that act of God whereby he justifieth i. absolveth a beleeving sinner from the guist of and punishment due to his sinnes It may in this active signification signifie also any act of any other efficient cause of Iustification whatsoever of which kind there are many as we shall shew afterwards whereby it operates or contributes any thing towards this effect the justification of a sinner Yea to this active signification of the word may be referred the act of the forme it selfe or formall cause of Iustification which also in a way proper to it may be said to justify In the passive sense justification may signifie the effect it selfe of any or of all the former actions but most properly and frequently it signifieth that comcompleate and intire effect wherein all their severall influences and contributions meet and center together viz. that alteration or change which is made in the person or rather in the estate or condition of a person when he is justified which effect alteration or change standeth in this that whereas he was before the passing of such an act upon him a man under the guilt of sinne and liable to condemnation now he is a free man acquited and discharged from both In the former sense justification is atributed to God 1 Rom. 8.30 Whom he hath called them also he hath justified c. and ver 33. it is God that justifieth and so to Faith often In the latter sense it is attributed to or spoken of men Rom. 5.1 Therefore being justified by Faith c. and ver 18. Even so by the righteousnesse or justification of one the free guift came upon many to the justification of life i. to the full discharge and acquitting them from all sinne upon which life and salvation alwaies follow So that if the Question be asked what our justification is or wherein it stands it must first be inquired what justification it is that the Question intends for active justification is one thing and passive another and answere is to be made accordingly In like manner remission of sinnes signifieth either Gods act whereby he remitteth a manssinnes or else the effect of this act in and upon him whose sinnes are so remitted And generally all actions either have or in sufficient propriety of speech may have the same name with their proper passions or effects yea and sometimes with the relations resulting from them As calefaction frigefaction c. It is true there are severall other acceptions and significations of the word Iustification besides absolution from sinne when it is or as it may be used in other cases or upon other occasions as Christ himselfe is said to have bin justified 1 Tim. 16. who yet had no sinnes forgiven him and Abraham is said to have bin justified by workes Jam. 2.21 who yet had not his sinnes forgiven by or through his works So a man that is falsely accused may be justified and yet have no offence forgiven him as Christ was by Pilate when he professed that he found no fault in him Luk 23.4 But in the case and Iustification of a sinner before God the word justification still signifies and imports absolution from or remission of sinnes together with the punishment due to them Neither can there any instance be produced from the Scriptures of any other signification Iustice or righteousnesse Distincti 2 SECT 2 hath severall acceptions in the Scriptures when it is atributed unto God it signifies sometimes that universall and absolute holynesse and integritie of his nature which maketh him infinitely averse from doing any thing little or much contrary to the true rules of Iustice and Equity and inclines him only to do things agreeable hereunto Thus it seemes to be taken Psal 11.7 For the righteous Lord loveth righteousnesse c. So Dan. 9.14 Rove 16.5 besides many other places Sometimes againe and that very frequently it signifieth that nature in God which we commonly call truth or faithfulnesse in keeping promise Thus it is taken Psal 36.6 Thy righteousnesse is like the great Mountaines i. thy truth in thy promises can never be shaken or removed Thus Heb. 6.10 God is said not to be unrighteous i. as Paraeus well interprets not unfaithfull in his promise c. So againe 1 Ioh. 1.9 God is faith full and Iust to forgive us our sinnes i. constant in his promise this way Thirdly by the righteousnesse of God is often meant that gracious affection and disposition of his towards his people by reason whereof he is still propense and inclineable to doe them good as either to relieve and support them in trouble or to
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.
that shall but a little consider the context in either place might further have bin prooved without much labour Let Calvin Musculus and other Protestant Interpreters be consulted with about them We have found nothing in those Scriptures of the old Testament which are look'd upon with an eye of the greatest confidence for the building up of that imputation which we endeavour to cast downe Let us passe from Prophets to Apostles and consider whether they also be not made to speake the mindes of other men and not their own when they are made to speake for this imputation The farre greatest part of testimonies brought against us out of the new Testament are lodg'd within the compasse of that one Epistle to the Romans the rest are but few The first place alledged by some is that Rom. 3.21.22 But now is the righteousnesse of God made manifest without the Law having witnesse of the Law and of the Prophets Even the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ c. By the righteousnesse of God say they is here meant the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ who is God imputed to all that beleeve c. I answere Rom. 3.21 cleared First this Scripture hath bin already fully opened in the first part of this Treatise cap. 4. throughout where upon due examination it was found to speake plainly for the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse but no waies for the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ for any such purpose Secondly Some by the righteousnesse of God in this place understand the truth and faithfulnesse of God in keeping promise This was the exposition of Ambrose long since And that this faithfulnesse of God is frequently in Scripture called his righteousnes hath bin already observed 3. cap. Sect. 2. p. 93. Thirdly and lastly by the righteousnesse of God in these Scriptures is meant doubtlesse either that way method or meanes which God himselfe hath found out to justifie or make men righteous See cap. 3. Sect. 2. p. 40. of this second part or else which comes to the same that very righteousnesse by which we stand justified or righteous in the sight of God This is the generall interpretation of the best Protestant Expositots as Calvin (a) Iustitiam Dei accipi pre ea quâ— Deo prâ—batur notum esse debuerat elementariis Calvin Instit l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 9. Dubium est qua ratione Dei justiciam appellet quam per sidem obtinemus ideone quia sola coram Deo consistit an quod eam nobis Dominus sua miscericordia largiatur Calv. in Rom. 3.21 Musculus (b) Exponi patestde ea justicia qua nos coram Deo justificamur c. Musculu in Rom. 3.21 Beza (c) Posita est omnis justificatio inremissione peccaterum et idea justicia haec in imputatione posita justitia Dei vocatur Beza De Coena Dom. Iusticia Dei id est salus vel redemptio quam Deus praestat Cam Myroth p. 178. Iusticia imputata rectè dicitur justicia Christi quia Christus eam sua obedientia nobis acquisivit Sicut etiam dicitur justicia Dei Juia Deus propter Christi meritum eam nobis imputat Pareus de Iusti l. 2. c. 2. p. 388. Sect. 8. Ro. 3.31 cleered c. Neither have I met with any that understands it of the righteousnesse of Christ nor is there the least appearance in the context of any necessitie so to take it Againe the last verse in the same Chapter is layd hold on by some as a favorer of their Imputation Do we then make the Law of none effect through Faith God forbid yea we establish the Law They conceive that the Law cannot be said to be established by Faith or by the Doctrine of Faith but only by imputation of Christs fulfilling it unto Beleevers I answere I that there is no necessity that by Law in this place should be meant precisely the Morall Law Calvin understands it aswell of the Ceremoniall Law as of the Morall and explaines how aswell the one as the other may be said to be established by Faith (d) Quare hanc Pauli excusationem uequae de ceremoniis seorsim neque de mandatis ut vocant moralibus sed in universum de tota lege accipio Calvin In Rom. 3.31 Therfore he is farre from conceiving that the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse should be established by Pauls affirming the Law to be established by faith Ambrose likewise long before him conceived the same things of this Scripture 2. It is much more probable that of the two Paul should here assert the establishing rather of the Ceremoniall Law then of the Morall 1. because the Jewes to whom he addresseth himselfe in this excusation seeking to ease and qualifie their spirits touching the Doctrine of Faith were more tender and jealous over the Ceremoniall part of their Law then over the Morall placing the far greatest part of their hope if not the whole of their justification and salvation in the observation hereof as appeares from Act. 15.1 Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses yecannot be saved c. So from Gal. 5. v. 2. compared with the 4. as also from diverse other places both of the Old and New Testament Now it is no waies like that the Apostle should seek to prevent the lesser and lighter offence in this people and wholly neglect them under the greater 2. because the Doctrine of faith and justification by Christ taught by the Apostle did not carry any such colour or appearance of opposition to the morall part of their Law as it did to the Ceremoniall The Gospell buildeth up moralities and that with an high hand but it abrogateth and casteth downe Ceremonialls altogether that is it calls men off from the further use and practise of them though it confirmes indeed their precedent use benefit and authority and so establisheth them Now it is but a weake conceit to think that Paul should goe about to vindicate or purge either himselfe or his Doctrine from a lighter and weaker suspicion and leave both obnoxious to a greater But 3. Suppose that the Apostle here speaks precisely and determinately of the Morall Law yet is there no necessity gain'd from hence that this should be said to be established by the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse For 1. both Austin and Chrysostome affirme that the Law is therfore said to be established by faith because faith compasseth and attaines that righteousnesse which the Law sought after and could not attaine Chrysostom's expression is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Ro. Homil. 7. that faith establisheth the will of the Law by bringing that to perfection which the Law would have done 2. The Morall Law may in this sence also be said to be established by faith because faith purgeth the hearts of those that beleeve and works out those corruptions and sinfull inclinations which disable men from doing the
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
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
Doctrine mainteyned in this Discourse they are fully and at large taken off in that (a) pag. 6.7 8 9 10. c. and the contrary opinion arrested upon strong and vehement suspicion of confederacie indeed with the uncleane Spirit of those errors Yea it hath bin more then once in this Treatise affirmed and once at least if not twice (b) Part 1. â—c 23. Part. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 8. sufficiently proved aswell by evidence of reason as by the Authority of able learned and understanding men that such an imputation of the Active obedience of Christ as Mr. Walker with some others maintain and which hath bin impugned hitherto doth absolutly cancell and make voyde the necessity of Christs satisfaction by his death which is the Spirit and soule or Socinian Heresie See the testimonies cited from Paraeus and Piscator to this purpose cap. 2. Sect. 8. of this second Part whereunto I shall here adde a passage or two from Mr. Gataker in his little Tract against Gomarus Be it granted saith hee pag 7. (c) Detur hâ— minem etiam paenu ex lege violata debitâ—â— non obnoxium tantum sed constrictum etiam ad obedientiam nihilominus exhibendam teneri ut nullus dices nec quod evincat quiâ—quaÌ„ omnine comparet isthic hominem qui ebedientiam legi aâ—solutissiman prâ—â—stâ—â—erit etiam ad poenas de pendendas nihilomâ—nus tenert At qui hac ratione pugaant illi quos tu impetu non fuisse necesse ut Christus cum legem pro nobis ad extremum apicem obseruasset ad poenas insuper pro iisdem subeundas adigetur ut ista salteÌ„ hac ratione supervacanes fuerint Gatak Elench Gomor p. 7.8 Si enim Christi obedientia quaÌ„ Legi loco nostro Prastitit nobis ad justitiam imputatur imputationis hujusâ—e beneficio justi plane constituimur ac proinde sub legu maledectione non suâ—us amplius coÌ„stituti nec propterea Christi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redimi ab ea quae nos obnoxies non habet opus habemus Idem p. 19. Si fideles Christi obedientia activa sibi a Deo imputata perfecte justi constituuntur nihil illis amplius opus est mâ—rte Christi quam pro injustis non pro justu ille oppetebat Idem p. 37. that a man that is liable to punishment yea and that actually lieth under punishment for the transgression of the Law is notwithstanding still bound to the keeping of the Law yet surely you will not say neither is there any thing in what you write which any waies proves that that man who perfectly fulfills the Law is yet bound to suffer punishment And this is the plea of those whom you oppose that there was no necessity that Christ having kept the Law for us to the utmost jot and title thereof should further be put upon it to suffer punishment for us also So that in this respect at least that punishment or sufferings of his must be superfluous and needlesse Againe afterwards in the same Tract p. 19. If the obedience of Christ which he performed to the Law in our stead be imputed unto us for righteousnesse we must needs be made perfectly righteous by the benefit of such an imputation and so we are no more under the curse of the Law nor was there any need that we should be redeemed from that by the blood of Christ which had no power over us Yet once more in the same Treatise p. 37. he frames the argument of those with whom himselfe joynes against Gomarus in the point in hand after this manner If Beleevers are made perfectly righteous with the active obedience of Christ imputed by God unto them then have they no need at all of the death of Christ for them which death he suffered not for the righteous but for the unrighteous So that if men were not partiall in themselves but would please so farre to dispence with their prejudice as to judge righteous judgement betweene the Doctrine laid downe and defended in this Discourse and that which opposeth it it would cleerely appeare that this were the right Horse to set the Saddle of Socinianisme and Arminianisme upon and not the other And as the equity of this decision touching the imputation and non-imputation of Christs active obedience fully appeares by what hath bin now and formerly said in this discourse SECT 10 so as touching the imputation and non imputation of Faith in a proper sense it appeares as fully also in those passages lately related unto in that other discourse mentioned But howsoever we have abundantly vindicated the Doctrine asserted in this Treatise from all imputations either of Socinianisme Arminianisme Popery or the like so that we need make no more bridles to put into the lips of these uncleane Spirits yet give me leave to suggest this for a close of this Chapter that if every Doctrine which either Socinians Arminians or Papists hold and maintain should suffer the reproach and infamie either of heresie error or untruth because they are found in their writings there are very few Doctrines in that Reformed Religion which we professe but will be found Matters of that calculation Especially all those fundamentall Articles or Doctrines comprehended in that Breviate or Summarie of Christian Religion called the Apostles Creed which as farre as I understand is generally received and subscribed unto by all Reformed Churches without exception must lie under the ignominie either of Socinianisme Arminianisme Popery or the like it being certaine that there is none of them but is professed and maintained by one or other or by all of these stigmatique Factions So that it is the most ridiculous and trifling argument that can be against an opinion unworthy either men or learning to make an out-crie against it of Heresie Blasphemy Socinianisme Arminianisme Popery and the like when in the meane time men are able to produce nothing from the Scriptures to purpose nor yet to evince by any solid or substantiall reason that it is so much as an untruth Such passionate arguments as these may haply ravish the simplicity and weaknesse of women and Children and carie away a great captivity of these and indeed they are exactly calculated for the meridian of their tempers but men of understanding are little affected with them except it be as they are arguments of the weaknesse and insufficiencie of those that so use them CAP. VII VVherin the chiefe grounds and Arguments for imputation of Christs Active obedience in the sense hitherto opposed are proposed and Answered IN the former part of this discourse many things have bin debated and argued and somewhat also in this latter against that imputation of Christs active obedience or righteousnesse in Iustification which makes it either the formall cause thereof whether in whole or in part or the right and title of beleevers to eternall life It now only remaines that we heare patiently and consider unpartially and Answere distinctly those arguments and reasons
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
formall cause of justification as if by the word only or alone he meant to shut out this infusion of grace only and not the active obedience of Christ imputed I shall by a passage or two from him in the point cleere his intention in such expressions and fully manifest how importune and at open defiance with the truth any such interpretation of his minde and meaning must needs be In which words saith Calvin meaning those of the Apostle Rom. 4.6 in his commentaries upon the place we are taught justitiam Paulo nihil esse quà m remissionem peccatorum that is that righteousnesse with Paul is nothing else but remission of sinnes And not long after upon the 9th verse of the same Chapter So iustitia Abrahae est peccatorum remissio quod securè ipsepro confesso assumit c. that is If Abrahams righteousnesse be the forgivenesse of his sinnes which he meaning Paul without any further care or thought about it takes for granted c. By these passages it is evident that whatsoever his own minde or judgement was in the point now under question viz. whether remission of sins simply alone without any other additioÌ„ whatsoever were the righteousnesse of a Beleever in justification he attributes the affirmative unto Paul and makes his opinion and judgement to stand for Remission of sinnes simply excluding not the infusion of grace only but all other things whatsoever Except haply men Gyant-like will attempt to set Pelion upon Ossa heap presumption upon presumption and say that Paul likewise expressed himselfe in the Point only by way of opposition to the Popish opinion concerning grace infused and had no intent to be understood simply that Remission of sinnes was a Beleevers righteousnesse Otherwise for Calvin to ascribe one opinion unto Paul in the point of justification and to be himselfe of another is neither better nor worse then to professe himselfe wiser then he in the businesse yea then the Holy Ghost himselfe speaking by him Which horrid blasphemy those men unadvisedly bring upon the head of this holy and faithfull servant of God who labour to make him of a quite differing judgment himselfe especially in so weighty a point as justification is from that which he acknowledgeth to be the judgment of so great and glorious an Apostle as Paul was I might adde a third passage yea and three more to that of his ex abundanti of the same importance and perhaps somewhat more pregnant Therefore Paul saith he (a) Merite Paulus fidei justitiam in peccatorums ormissiene simpliciter includit docevs earn a Davide describi cum beatum heminem pronunciat cui non imputantur peccata Calvin De vera Ecales Res ratione p. 368. doth well simply to include the righteousnesse of Faith in Remission of sinnes teaching us that David so describeth it when he pronounceth the man happy whose sinnes are not imputed unto him Whether Calvin himselfe did simply and absolutly and not with limitation and restraint place the righteousnesse of Faith in remission of sinnes or no most unanswerably undeniable it is that he conceived Paul so to doe Nor is there any reasonable ground or cause to adde a word of this in the close of this Answere why men should be so averse or shie as some are SECT 16 from looking upon Remission of sinnes as a righteonsness yea as a perfect and complete righteousnesse since it is equivalent unto and vertually conteynes and comprehends in it the most absolute and entire obedience unto the Law and will of God as hath bin already fully demonstrated cap. 2. Sect. 4. of this second Part where also the authority and confent of Augustine in this behalfe was produced who plainly affirmeth Omnia mandata facta deputantur quonde quiequid non fit ignoscitur Ang. Retract l. 2. c. 19. that all the commandements of God are reputed to be kept or done when whatsoever is not done is forgiven Againe â— o it may well and in sufficient proprietie of speech beare the nature of a righteonsnesse vea and that perfect and compleate because it hath all those great and high privileges annexed to it and depending upon it which a righteousnesse most literally and strictly so called could have as the love favor acceptation and approbation of God yea life and salvation themselves It hath bin elsewhere as I remember observed in this discourse that the names of things are very usually enterchanged in Scripture upon occasion of a similituda or likenâ—sse of use or offect betweene them John Baptist is called by the name of â—liah because he was servicenble unto God and his cause after the same manner and with the same spirit that Eliah was So Peter and Iohn were counted Pillars Gal. 2.9 because they were conceiv'd to stand the Church of Christ in some such stead as Pillars doe the house that is supported by them So Christ himselfe to omit other instances in this kinde without number is called Bread a Vine a Dore a Way a Roote a Branch the morning Starre c. because in something or other he resembles the nature or use or both of all these things In like manner Remission of sinnes though it had not the nature or essence of a perfect righteousnesse in it may yet be called a perfect righteousnesse because it is of the same consideration benefit and use unto the creature with a perfect righteousnesse indeed But enough for this argument I hope it will be from henceforth contented and complaine no more for want of satisfaction A seventh argument which is likewise layd hold on by some as a Shield and Buckler to defend the imputation assailed SECT 17 Argum. 7 is this If Doe this and live be an everlasting rule of God and which shall never be dissolved cancelled or growne out of date then must the active obedience of Christ be imputed unto men in justification that so they may be said to have done this that is to have fulfilled the Law and so live But Doe this and live it an everlasting rule of God which shall never be dissolved c. Ergo. I answere that all the strength of this argument lyeth in the hollownesse of those words take them out of which proposition you please is an everlasting rule c. In this sence I grant that do this and live is an everlasting rule it is and hath bin and shall be everlastingly true that whosoever shall do this that is fulfill the Law perfectly shall live and enjoy the favor of God c. But this sence makes nothing to the purpose neither is there so much as the face of a consequence in the major if it be taken whosoever continueth in all things that are written in the Law to do them shall live and be saved whether Christs righteousnesse be imputed unto them or not But if the meaning of the clause be is an everlasting rule that is is the only perpetuall and standing rule or Law whereby and according to