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
either by Scripture or sound reason then that which stands either in a communion of his posteritie with him therein or in the propagation of his nature defiled therewith unto them or in that punishment and condemnation which is come upon them by it p. 13 14 15 16. 10. Though Iustification and salvation came unto the world by Christ the second Adam as condemnation and death came by the first yet there are many different considerations betweene the coming and bringing in of salvation by the one and of condemnation by the other p. 16 17 18 19 20 21. 11. That which makes true Faith instrumentall in Iustification is nothing that is essentiall or naturall to it whether descent property or act but somewhat that is extrinsecall and purely adventitious as viz. the force and efficacie of the will good pleasure ordination and covenant of God in that behalfe p. 21 22 23 24 25 26. 12. It hath no foundation either in Scripture or reason to say that Christ by any imputation of sinne was made formally a sinner p. 26. 13. Faith doth not only if at all declare a man to be righteous or in a justified estate but is the very meanes by which Iustification or righteousnesse it obtained p. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33. 14. The sentence or curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death but this death of Christ was a ground or consideration unto God whereupon to dispense with his Law and to let fall or suspend the execution of the penaltie or curse therein threatned as concerning those that beleeve p. 33 34 35 36. CAP. 3. Seven Distinctions propounded and explained necessary for the further understanding of the businesse in question and the cleering of many difficulties incident to it As 1. Iustification is taken in a double sense either actively or passively p. 37 38 39. 2. Iustice or righteousnesse is sometimes in Scripture attributed to God and sometimes to men and in both relations hath a great diversitie and varietie of acceptions p. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45. 3. The righteousnesse or obedience of Christ is twâ—fold or of two kindes the one by Divines called Justitia personae the righteousnesse of his person the other Justitia meriti the righteousnesse of his merit 45 46 47 48 49 50. 4. The terme of Imputing or imputation will admit of nine severall acceptions or significations p. 51 52 53 54 55 56. 5. Obedience unto the morall Law may be said to be required of men in two respects either 1º by way of justification or 2º by way of sanctification p. 57 58. 6. Christ may be said to have kept the Law in reference to our justification two waies either 1º for us or 2º in our stead p. 58. 7. The justification of a sinner though it be but one and the same entire effect yet may it be ascribed unto many and those very different causes respectively according to their severall influences and differing manner of concurrence thereunto p. 59 60. CAP. 4. A delineation or survey of the intire body of Iustification in the severall causes of it according to the tenor of the Conclusions and distinctions laid downe in the two former Chapters P. 61. wherein I. are premised 4 generall rules touching the number nature and propertie of causes in the generall p. 62 63 64 65. 2. Some more particular and speciall kinds of causes comprehended under the 4 generall heads are mentioned and explained p. 65 to p. 77. 3. The causes of Iustification are inquired into As 1. The efficient causes thereof From p. 77 to 84. 2. The finall causes thereof p. 84 85. 3. The materiall cause therof from p. 85 to p. 90. 4. The formall cause thereof from p. 90 to 121. 4. A Description of Iustification raised from the former discussions in the Chapter p. 121. CAP. 5. Scriptures alledged for the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse or active obedience in Justification cleered and answered and the true sense and interpretation of them respectively established according to the judgement of the best Expositors A reason given by the way of mens confidence and impatiencie of contradiction in respect of some opinions above others p. 122 123. The Scriptures urged and answered are 1. From the Old Testament Psal 32 1 2 answered p. 124 125 126. Jer. 23 6 and 33 16. answered p. 127 128. Esa 45.24 answered p. 129 130. Esa 61 10. answered p. 130. to p. 136. where by the way 3 other Scriptures also are opened and cleered as viz. Revâ—â— 19 7 8 p. 134 and Rom. 13 14 with Gal. 3 27 p. 136. 2. From the New Testament As Rom. 3 21 answered p. 136 137. Rom. 3 31 answered p. 137 138 139. Rom. 4 6. answered p. 140 141. Rom. 5 19 answered p. 142. to 145. Rom. 8 4 answered p. 145 to p. 152. Rom. 9 31 32 answered p. 153 to 157. Rom. 10 4 answered p. 157 to 162. 1 Cor. 1 30. answered p. 162 163 164. 2 Cor. 5 21 answered p. 165 to 168. Gal. 3 10 answered p. 168. to 173. CAP 6 Six Arguments against the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse propounded and answered As 1. That such an Imputation impeacheth the truth or justice of God answered p. 175 176 177. 2. That this Imputation maketh Iustification to be by workes answered p. 178 179. 3. That such an Imputation is inconsistent with the free grace of God in Iustification answered p. 179 180 4. That this Imputation ministreth occasion of boasting unto the flesh answered p. 180 181 18â— 183. 5. That such an Jmputation supposeth Justification by somewhat that is imperfect answered p. 183 184 185. 6. That such an Imputation implieth that God should rather receive a righteousnesse from us then we from him in our Iustification answered p. 185 186. The opinion opposed in this Discourse of much more affinity with the master-veyne of Socinian Heresie and that by the verdicts of Pareus Piscator and Mr. Gataker then the opinion maintained in it p. 187 188 189. CAP. 7. The chiefe grounds and Arguments for the Imputation of Christs Active obedience in the sense hitherto opposed proposed and answered As 1. That there is no standing in judgement before God without the imputation of this righteousnesse answered p. 192 193. 2. That justification cannot be by the righteousnesse of another except this imputation be supposed answered p. 194 195. 3. That a true and reall Communion betweene Christ and those that beleeve in him cannot stand except this Imputation be granted answered p. 195 196. 4. That there can be no other reason or necessitie assign'd why Christ should fulfill the Law but only this imputation answered from p. 196 to 207. 5. That we are debtors unto the Law not only in matter of punishment for our transgression but in perfection of obedience also answered p. 208 209 210. 6. That there can be no justification without a perfect righteousnesse nor any such righteousnesse but the righteousnesse
required on mans part to bring him into Communion and fellowship of that justification and redemption which Christ hath purchased for the Children of men and that without believing no man can have part or fellowship in that great and blessed businesse Sixtly It is evident from the Scriptures that God in the act of every mans justification doth impute or account righteousnesse unto him or rather somwhat for or instead of a righteousnesse the Scripture useth both expressions by meanes of which imputation the person justified passeth in accompt as a righteous man though he be not properly or perfectly such according to the Law and is invested accordingly with those great priviledges of a man perfectly righteous deliverance from death and condemnation and acceptation into the favor of God The reason of which imputation or why God is pleased to use such an expression of righteousnesse imputed in or about the justification of a sinner seemes to be this the better to satisfie the naturall scruple of the weake and feeble consciences of men who can hardly conceive or thinke of a justification or of being justified especially by God without an expresse literall and perfect legall righteousnesse Now the counsailes and purpose of God in the Gospell being to justifie men without any such righteousnesse being a righteousnesse indeed whereof man in his lapsed condition is wholly uncapable the better to salve the feares of the consciences touching such a defect and to prevent and stay all troublesome thoughts or queries that might arise in the minds of men who when they heare of being justified are still ready to aske within themselves but where is the righteousnesse conceiving a legall righteousnesse to be as necessary to a justification as Isaak conceived of a Lamb for a burnt offering Gen. 22 7. He GOD I meane is graciously pleased so far to condiscend to men in Scripture treatie with them about the weighty businesse of justification as in effect to grant and say unto them that though he finds not any proper or perfect righteousnesse in them no such righteousnesse as passeth under the name of a righteousnesse with them yet if they truely believe in him as Abraham did this believing shall in the consequences of it be as good as a perfect or compleate righteousnesse unto them or that he will impute righteousnesse unto them upon their believing So that now the state drift of the Q. SECT 3 is not either 1 whether Faith without an Object or as separated from Christ be imputed for righteousnesse for such a Faith doubtlesse in the point of justification was never dreamt of by any man that kept his wits company men may aswell fancy a living man without a Soule or a wiseman without his wits as a Faith without an Object much lesse was ever such a faith conceived by any to be imputed for righteousnesse Neither 2 is it any part of the intent of the Question to enquire whether Faith be the meritorious cause of a mans justification for both they that affirme and they that deny the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse deny the meritoriousnesse of faith every waies however it is true that they that would seem most to disclaime it and cast it furthest from them do yet in some of their most beloved tenets draw very neare unto it as will afterward appeare Neither 3 is it the Question whether Faith be the formall cause of justification that is whether God doth justifie a man with his Faith as a Painter makes a wall white with whitenesse or a Master makes his Scholar learned with knowledge for both parties make the forme of justification to be somwhat else differing from Faith contrary to that which is conceived to be the genuine tenet of Arminius Nor yet 4 doth the Question make any quere at all whether Christ be the sole meritorious cause of the Iustification of a sinner for both they that goe on the right hand of the Question and they that goe on the left are knit together in the same mind and judgment concerning this Neither 5 doth the Question as it is here propounded intend any dispute at all whether the active obedience of Christ falling in with the passive and considered in conjunction with it hath any influence into or contributeth any thing towards the Iustification of sinners for this also is acknowledged on both sides at least by the greater party of both But 6 and lastly the Question in precise termes is this whether the faith of him that truely believes in Christ or whether the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe that is the obedience which Christ performed to the Morall Law consisting partly of the inward habit of grace and righteous dispositions of his soule partly of all those severall and particular acts of righteousnesse wherein he obeyed be in the letter and proprietie of it that which God imputes to a believer for righteousnesse or unto righteousnesse in his Iustification So that he that believes is not righteous onely by accompt or by Gods gracious reputing and accepting of him for such but as rigidly literally and peremptorily righteous constituted and made as perfectly as compleatly as legally righteous as Christ himselfe is no difference at all betweene them quoad veritatem but only quoad modum the justified every whit as righteous as the justifier both righteous with the selfe same individuall righteousnesse only this difference betweene the one and the other the justified weares it as put upon him by another by imputation the Justifier weares it put upon him by himselfe or by inherency That the Scriptures no where countenanceth any such imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ as this I trust the Spirit of truth directing and assisting to make manifest in the sequell of this discourse and to give good measure of this truth unto the reader heaped up and pressed downe and running over heaped up by testimonies from the Scriptures themselves pressed down by the weight of many Arguments and demonstrations running over with the cleare approbation of many Authors learned and sound and every way greater then exception Only give me leave here to mention that by the way SECT 3 which may prevent many mistakes yea and offences too in reading the writings of many latter Divines especially of other Churches touching this point of imputation If we take the phrase of imputing Christs righteousnesse unproperly out of the usuall and formall signification of it as Luther and Caelvin and other Divines of the reformed Churches sometimes do in their writings viz. for the giving out or bestowing as it were the righteousnesse of Christ including his obedience aswell passive as active under one and the same terme of righteousnesse in the returne of it i. in the privileges blessings and benefits that are procured and purchased by it for men so a believer may be said to be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed But then the meaning can be no more but this A beleever is justified by the
stead of the fruite or effect of it good or bad benefit or losse vantage or disadvantage merit or demerit of it Thus Job 33 26. God is said to render unto man his righteousnesse i. The fruite or benefit of his righteousnesse in the favor of GOD and manifestation of it in his deliverance and restauration the righteousnesse it selfe in the propriety of it cannot be rendred unto him So Ephe. 6 8. Whatsoever good thing any man doth the same shall he receive of the Lord. i. he shall receive benefit and consideration from God for it So Revel 15 12. Here is the patience of the Saints and c. 13 10. Here is the patience and faith of the Saints i Here is the benefit and unspeakable reward of the patience and faith of the Saints to be seene when the Beast and all that worship him or adhere to him shall be tormented in fire and brimstone for evermore and those that have constantly suffered for not worshiping of him shal be delivered from drinking of that bitter cup. So again So worke is often put for the wages due to it Levit. 19 13. Iob 7 2. Ior. 22 13 Esa 49.4 c. Psal 128 2. Thou shalt eate the labor of thy hands that is the fruite of this labour So on the other hand Heb. 9 28. it is said of Christ that to those that looke for him he shall appeare the second time without sinne that is without the guilt or punishment of sinne charged upon him for otherwise if we take sinne in the formall and proper signification of it there wil be no difference implied betweene his first and second appearance in as much as he was as free from the defilement or pollution of sin in his first appearing as he can or shal be in his second So Ezech. 16 58. Thou hast borne thy lewdnesse and thine abhominations saith the Lord viz. in punishments or judgments answerable to them So 1 Kings 8 32. To bring his way upon his head that is the punishment he hath deserved by his way of sinne So to let passe many other instances of like construction Gen. 19 15. Least you be destroyed in the iniquity of the Citty that is in that judgement or punishment that fell upon the Citty by meanes of the iniquity of it In such a construction of speech as the holy ghost himselfe useth in these and many such like passages in the Scripture the righteousnesse of Christ Active and Passive may be said to be the righteousnesse by which we are justified or which is imputed unto us in our justification and not in any other Wherefore to draw towards a close of this first Chapter and withall to give a little more light SECT 5 that it may be seene cleare to the bottome both what we affirme and what we deny in the question propounded i when we affirme the faith of him that beleeveth to be imputed for righteousnes the meaning is not either I that it should be imputed in respect of any thing it hath from a man himselfe or as it is a mans owne act nor yet 2. in respect of any thing it hath from God himselfe or from the Spirit of God in the production or raising of it in the soule though it be true it requires the lighting downe of the Almighty arme of God upon the soule to raise it Neither 3 See this further opened and proved in the second part of this Discourse Cap. 2. ss 17. Is it imputed for righteousnesse in respect of the Object or because it layeth hold upon Christ or Christs righteousnessâ— though it be true also that that faith that is imputed for righteousnesse must of necessity lay hold upon Christ and no other faith is capable of this Imputation besides because if faith should justifie or be imputed for righteousnesse as it layes hold upon Christ it should justifie out of the Inherent dignitie and worth of it and by vertue of that which is naturall and intrinsecall to it there being nothing that can be conceived more naturall or essentiall unto faith then to lay hold upon Christ this is the very life and soule of it and that which gives it its specificall being and subsistence Therefore to make the Object of FAITH as such the precise and formall ground of the Imputation of it is to make hast into the middest of Samaria whilst men are confident they are travailing towards Dothan It is the giving the right hand of fellowship to the Romish Iustification which makes faith the meritorious cause of it in part But 4 and lastly when with the Scripture we affirme that faith is imputed for righteousnesse our meaning is simply and plainely this that as God in the first Covenant of workes required an absolut and through obedience to the whol law with continuance in all things for every mans Iustification which perfect obedience had it beene performed had beene a perfect righteousnesse to the performer and so would have justified him So now in the New Covenant of grace God requires nothing of any man for his justification but only faith in his Sonne which faith shal be as a vaileable and effectuall unto him for his justification as a perfect righteousnesse should have beene under the first Covenant this is that which is meant when faith is said to be Imputed for righteousnesse which is nothing but that which is generally taught by Divines both ancient and moderne Sic decretum dicit à Deo ut cessante lege Solam fidem gratia Dei posceret ad salutem Ambrosius in Rom. 4. that is the Apostle saying that to him that believeth his faith is Imputed for righteousnes affirmeth that God hath so decreed that the Law ceasing the grace of God will require of men only faith to salvation And againe upon Ch. 9 of the same Epistle Sola fides posita est ad salutem onely faith is appointed or ordained to salvation Calvin writing upon Rom. 10 8. hath words of the same importance and somewhat more cleare and full Ex hac distinctionis nota colligimus sicutilex opera exigit sic Evangelium nihil aliud postulare nisiâ—ut fidem afferant homines ad recipiendam Dei gratiam that is From this distinction we gather that as the Law required workes so the Gospell requires nothing else but that men bring faith to receive the grace of God If God requires Faith in the Gospel for the same end for which he required worâ—â—s or perfect righteousnes in the Law it necessarily followes that he should impute this faith for that righteousnes that is accept it from men upon the same termes in respect of justification and bestow the same favors rewards and priviledges upon the tender of it that should have beene given unto men in regard of that legall righteousnes had it beene fulfilled otherwise he should require it for such an end or upon such term's as he would refuse to make good unto it when the creature hath exhibited it
directly and entirely with it Thirdly If the interpretation that is set up against it cannot stand before the circumstance of the context about it Fourthly and lastly when the judgment of able learned and unpartiall men is found in perfect concurrence with it If these considerations be sufficient to furnish out an interpretation with authority and power then shall we need no more Scriptures to vindicate the innocencie of our affirmative viz. that Faith is that which is imputed by God for righteousnesse in Iustification the truth of our negative inseparably accompanying it viz. that the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed but only that one Chapter Rom. 4. For the first SECT 3 the Letter of this Scripture speakes what we affirme plainly and speakes no parable about it yea it speakes it once and twice yea it speakes it the third and fourth time and repenteth not Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes v. 3. Againe but to him that worketh not but beleeveth in him that justifieth the ungodly his Faith is counted unto him for righteousnes ver 5. So againe We say that Faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse ver 9. And yet againe And therefore it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse v. 22. The same phrase and expression is used also ver 23 24. Certainly there is not any truth in Religion not any Article of the Christian beliefe that can boast of the Letter of the Scripture more full expresse and pregnant for it What is maintained in this discourse concerning the imputation of Faith hath all the authority and countenance from the Scriptures that word can lightly give whereas the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in that sense which is magnified by many hath not the least reliefe either from any expresse sound of words or sight of Letter in the Scriptures Secondly for the scope of the place this also rejoyceth in the interpretation given viz. SECT 4 that the word FAITH should be taken properly and in the Letter in all those passages cited and from tropes and metonymies it turneth away Apparent it is to a circumspect Reader that the Apostle's maine intent and drift in this whole discourse of justification extending from the first Chapter of the Epistle to some Chapters following was to hedg up with thornes as it were that false way of Iustification which lay through works and legall performances and so to put men by from so much as attempting to goe or seek that way and withall to open and discover the true way of justification wherein men might not faile to atteyne the Law of righteousnesse as he speaks elsewhere before God that is in plaine speech to make known unto them what they must doe and what God requireth of them to their justification and what he will accept at their hands this way and what not As our Saviours answer was to the Jews asking him what they should do to worke the works of GOD meaning for their justification This saith he is the worke of God i. All the workes of God requireth of you for such a purpose that you beleeve in him whom he hath sent Iohn 6 28 29. So that that which God precisely requires of men to their justification instead of the workes of the Law is FAITH or to beleeve in the proper and formall signification He doth not require of us the righteousnesse of Christ for our Iustification this he required of Christ himselfe for it that which he requires of us for this purpose is our Faith in Christ himselfe not in the righteousnes of Christ that is in the active obedience of Christ as hereafter is shewed Therefore for Paul to have certified or said unto men that the righteousnesse of Christ should be imputed for righteousnesse unto them had been quite beside his scope and purpose in this place which was plainly and directly this as hath been said to make known unto men the counsel and good pleasure of God concerning that which was to be performed by themselves though not by their owne strength to their justification which he affirmeth from place to place to be nothing else but their Faith or beleeving To have said thus unto them that they must be justified by Christ or by Christ's righteousnesse and withall not to have plainly signified what it is that God requires of them to give them part and fellowship in that righteousnesse or justification which is by Christ and without which they could not be justified had bin rather to cast a snare upon them then to have opened a dore of life and peace unto them And therefore he is carefull when he speakes of Iustification or redemption by Christ often to mention Faith as the meanes whereby this redemption is communicated unto men See Rom. 3 25. Rom. 5 1 2. By the light of which and such like expressions the sense and meaning of those Scriptures are to be ruled wherein justification or Redemption by Christ are taught without any expresse mention of Faith as Rom. 3 24. Rom. 5.9 c. as likewise of those wherein justification by Faith is affirmed without expresse mention of Christ or any thing done or suffered by him As Rom. 3 28.30 And here by the way I cannot but reflect a little upon the unsavorinesse and inconsideratnesse of their conceipt who to avoyd the strength of the interpretation given of these Scriptures will needs force themselves contrary to all Interpreters both ancient and moderne that I have yet met with and most apparantly contrary to the most apparant scope of the Apostle throughout this whole disputation to suppose that the Apostle doth not here speake of that Faith of Abraham whereby he was justified or made personally righteous before God but of such a Faith only as God did approve of and commend in him and impute unto him as a particular act of righteousnesse in such a sense as that act of Phineas mentioned Num 25 8. is sayd to have beene imputed to him for righteousnesse Psal 106 31. Alas Paul was now in the heat of his Dispute concerning the great and weighty businesse of Iustification travailing as it were in birth with his Romans tâ—ll he had convincingly satisfied them from the Scriptures that the way of Iustification was not by the workes of the Law but by Faith in Iesus Christ Now how importune and impertinent to this designe had it beene for him to interpose a whole Chapter only to prove that which was never doubted of nor questioned by any To wit that Abraham did well in believing God and was approved by him for it His businesse here was not to argue what was lawfull and what was unlawfull or whether Abraham was justifiable in his act of believing God But to demonstrate and shew how and by what meanes a poore miserable sinner might come to be justified and accounted righteous before God which he clearly and fully demonstrates to be by way of Faith or beleeving from the example of Abraham
whose faith was by God himselfe imputed for righteousnesse unto him that is upon and by the meanes of his Faith he was looked upon by God as a righteous man But the conceit against which we now argue is too weake to beare any great waight of confutation If that yet stickes with any man that Abraham having believed formerly as appeares from his History and thereby justifyed should be said to be justified by a second or after act or believing I answere 1. Be it granted that Abraham believed and was thereby justified before that act of beleeving whereunto this Testimony is subjoyn'd that it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse Gen. 15 6 yet doth it not follow that this testimony should be precisely limited to or only understood of that particular act of his believing whereunto it is subjoyned but it may indifferently relate as well to the first as the last act of his believing yea happily rather to the first then to the last for it is not said in the place cited that Abraham believed the Lord in this particular promise now made or renewed unto him but indefinitely and in the generall that Abraham believed or had believed the Lord and it was imputed or accounted unto him for righteousnesse So that howsoever Abraham was precisely justified by the first act of a sound Faith which ever he put forth yet the testimony or record of his justification by beleeving might be suspended by the Holy Ghost till his Faith became more conspicuous and was further manifested Thus Heb. 11 4. the testimony of Abels righteousnesse by Faith was as it seemes deferred till the manifestation of his Faith by offering such a sacrifice unto God as he did whereas it cannot be thought but that he was a righteous or justified person and that by meanes of his Faith before the offering of that sacrifice So that this Objection is easily answered Besides further answere might be that the intent of the Holy Ghost in this testimony and passage concerning Abraham was not to shew the time when but the manner or meanes how and whereby he was justified Now all succeeding acts of justifying Faith as justifying for there are many acts of a justifying Faith which are not of that kind of act wherby such a Faith justifieth being of the same kind and nature with that primary and first act of beleeving whereby he was justified may in sufficient propriety of speech have the effect of Iustification ascribed as well to them as it is to the first act it selfe As suppose a man hath beene a true beleever in God through Jesus Christ for seven yeares together during which space he hath constantly every day renewed or repeated the very same act of believing wherby he was at the first of a sinner made righteous this mans Iustification or making righteous may according to the frequent tenor of Scripture language be aswel ascribed to any of these after acts of believing as to the first of all it being usuall with Scripture to ascribe effects though not really and actually effected and done to such meanes or actions of men which are apt to produce and effect them Thus he is said to destroy the Temple of God 1 Cor. 3 16. who shall do any thing that endanger 's it or is apt to destroy it The like expression we have Romans 14 15 and verse 20. See also and consider Mat. 16 6. Esther 8 7. Rom. 24. Mat 5 32. with other like places without number Thirdly SECT 5 that interpretation which is set up against it and which contendeth that by the word FAITH or BELEEVING in al those passages cited is meant not Faith properly and formally understood but Faith tropically or metonymically that is the righteousnesse of Christ is clearely overthrowne by many considerations and passages in the context First it colour 's not with any appearance or likelyhood of truth that the Apostle in the great and weighty point of justification wherein doubtlesse he desired if in any Subject beside to speake with his understanding as his owne phrase is that is that what he himselfe conceiveth and understand's may be clearely understood by others should time after time in one place after another without ever explaining himselfe throughout the whole disputation use so strange and harsh and uncouth an expression or figure of Speech as is not to be found in all his writings nor in all the Scriptures besides To say that Faith or beleeving is imputed for righteousnesse but to meane that indeed it is not Faith but the righteousnesse of Christ that is imputed must needs argue the speakers designe to be this the making sure that his meaning should not get out at his mouth If Paul should manage the great point and mystery of justification in such language and phrase of speech as this he might truely say of what he had said herein EDIDI ET NON EDIDI that he had said and not said Secondly it is evident that that Faith or beleeveing which ver 3. is said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse is opposed to works or working ver 5. Now betweene Faith properly taken and workes and so betweene beleeving and working there is a constant opposition in the writings of this Apostle yea and reason it selfe demonstrates an opposition betweene them as occasion will be to shew more at large in the second part of this discourse but betweene the active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ and works neither doth Paul ever make opposition neither would reason have suffered him to have done it Thirdly it is said ver 5. that to him that believeth HIS faith is imputed to him for righteousnesse From which clause it is evident that that Faith whatsoever we understand by it which is imputed for righteousnesse is HIS that is somewhat that may truely and properly be called his before such imputation of it be made unto him Now it cannot be said of the righteousnesse of Christ that that is any mans before the imputation of it be made unto him but Faith properly taken is the beleevers before it be imputed at least in order of nature if not of time Therefore by Faith which is here said to be imputed cannot be meant the righteousnesse of Christ Fourthly SECT 6 if we should grant a trope or metonymie in this place so that by FAITH should be meant the Object of it or the thing that is to be beleeved yet wil it not follow from hence that the righteousnes of Christ should be here said to be imputed but either God himselfe or the promise of God made unto Abraham For it is sayd Abraham beleeved God ver 3. not that he beleeved the righteousnesse of Christ except we set up another trope to maintaine the former and by God will say is meant the righteousnesse of Christ which would be not a trope or figure but rather indeed a monster of speech Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be here said or meant to be imputed for
Grammar or figure in Rhetorique that know's how to salve up the inconsistencie of such an interpretation SECT 8 If it be objected and said that faith in the Scripture is sometimes put for the object of faith as Gal. 3 23. But before Faith came that is the Doctrine of Faith or Christ himselfe the object of Faith we were kept under the Law So Gal. 1 22. He preacheth the faith which sometimes he destroyed c. and may be so used with as good proprietie of speech as hope is put for the thing or things hoped for which is an expression not unusuall in the Scriptures To this I answere first by concession that true it is the name of the faculty is sometimes put for the object appropriated to it neither is there any hardnes or cause of offence or mistake in such an expression It rather add's grace comlinesse to the sentence wherein it is used if it be used seasonably as might be exemplified by severall Scripture instances if it were pertinent But secondly by way of opposition I answere First though the faculty be sometimes put for the Object yet the act seldome or never to my remembrance The actor exercise of the grace of hope is never put for the things hoped for but hope it selfe is sometimes found in that signification As Colos 1 5. for the hope which is layed up for you in the Heaven So Tit. 2 13. Looking for that blessed hope c. Now that which is here said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse was not the habit or grace of his Faith but Abraham beleeved God that is exercised or put forth an act of Faith it was imputed unto him for righteousnes So that though faith may be sometimes put for the object of Faith yet the exercise of this Faith or to believe is never put for it Secondly though it should be granted that aswell the act it selfe as the faculty or habit may be sometimes put for the Object yet when the act and Object have been named together and the act expressed and specified by an Object proper to it and further somewhat immediatly ascribed to this act under that consideration all which is plainly seene in this clause Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse in this case to conceive or affirme that what is so ascribed is neither ascribed unto the act it selfe there mentioned which is here Abrahams beleeving nor unto the Object mentioned likewise with it which is here GOD Abraham beleeved God but to some third thing really differing from them both and not so much as once mentioned or named in all the discourse as the righteousnesse of Christ is not once named throughout this whole Chapter no nor in any other Chapter neere at hand either antecedent or subsequent what is this but to turne a mans back upon the text to looke out an interpretation and to exchange that which is plainly affirmed with what is not so much as obscurely intimated or implied and to make the Apostle speake as man never spake besides not for wisdome or excellencie of speech but for the uncouth abstrusenesse of his meaning Doubtles no instance is to be found of any Author whatsoever sacred or prophane who so far abhorred to be understood in what he spake as to put his minde into words of such a construction Thirdly and lastly to the Objection I Answere that neither is the righteousnesse of Christ the object of Faith as justifying as hath been said and sufficiently made good nor doth the Scripture where it speakes of Faith as justifying which places are not a few make the least mention or give the least intimation of such a thing It is true the Scriptures sometimes propound the righteousnes of Christ or his obedience to the Law as that which is to be beleeved so it may be termed a partiall object of Faith that is somewhat that is ought to be believed but so the creation of the world is propounded to be beleeved and that Cain was Adams Son is somewhat to be beleeved And generally whatsoever the Scriptures do affirme may be called a partiall object of Faith But the object of faith properly as it justifieth is either Christ himselfe or the promise of GOD concerning the Redemption and salvation of the world by him The righteousnesse of Christ is no more the object of Faith as justifying then either his being borne of a Virgin or his ascending up into Heaven or the like and either the one or the other may in that respect be aswell here said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse as the righteousnesse of Christ Thus you see at large how many passages and circumstances in the context stand up in contestation against that exposition which by Abrahams Faith in this Chapter will needs understand Christs righteousnesse Fourthly SECT 9 and lastly this interpretation we contend for according to which the word Faith or beleeving is to be taken properly in all the passages mentioned and not tropically or metonymically was the common interpretation anciently received and followed by the principall lights I meane the Fathers of the Church of God from the primitive times and for 1500 yeares together as far as my reading and memorie together will assist me was never questioned or contradicted Neither did the contrary opinion ever looke out into the world at least was never contended for till the yesterday of the last age So that it is but a calumnie or evill report brought upon the opinion and interpretation of this Scripture which we maintaine unworthy the tongue or pen of any learned and sober man to make either Arminius or Socinus the Authors or founders of either And for this last hundreth yeeres and upwards from about Luthers and Calvins times the fairest streame of Interpreters so runs as to water and refresh the same interpretation You will be easily inclin'd I presume to beleeve both the one and the other that both former and latter times have been friends and favourers of the interpretation given if you will please with diligence and without partiality to ponder and examine these few testimonies and passages following as they stand in their severall Authors respectively TERTULLIAN Caeterum quomodo filâ—â—â—let â—â—t â—â—tus fideâ— si non Aâ—â—aâ—â— Sâ—â—enim Aâ—â—cham Deo credidit et dâ—â—â—tatum est Iustitiae atque extudâ— Pate multatum natiorum mâ—ruit nuncupart noâ—â—atem credendo Deo magis protrdâ— justificamur sicut Abraham Tertull. contra Marc. l. 5. c. 3. Denique Abraham Deo credidit et justitiae deputatus ab isto est sed fidem ejus patientia probavit quum filium immolaere jussus est c. Idem de Patient c. 6. Videtur ergo eciam in prasenti â—oco quam multae fides Abrahae praecesserint in hoc nunc universa fides ejus esse collecta et ita ad justitiam ei reputata Origen l. 4. ad Ro. in c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Iust Mar. Dial. cum Tryph. post medium who lived and wrote about the yeare 194 in his fift Booke against Marcion writeth thus But how the Children of Faith or of whose Faith if not of Abrahams For if Abraham beleeved God and that was imputed unto him for righteousnesse and he thereby deserved the name of a Father of many Nations we by beleeving GOD more are therefore justifyed as Abraham was The same Father in his tract of Patience Abraham beleeved God and was accounted righteous by him but he tried his Faith by patience when he was commanded to offer his Son Therefor Tertullians opinion directly is that that Faith which is said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse is Faith properly taken and not the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by Faith because he saith that God tried his Faith by patience which cannot be applied to the righteousnesse of Christ ORIGEN Who lived about the yeare 203 in his fourth Booke upon the Romans writing on cap. 4. ver 3. speaketh thus It seemes therefore that in this place also that whereas many faiths that is many acts of believing of Abraham had gone before now all his faith was recollected and united together and so was accounted unto him for righteousnesse And in the same place not long after he hath more words to like purpose Therefore he joyned with Tertullian in the interpretation of this Scripture JUSTIN MARTYR Who liv'd before them both and not long after the Apostle Iohn's time about the yeare 130 in his Dialogue or disputation had at Ephesus with Trypho the Jew it seemes led them both the way to that Interpretation Abraham caried not away the testimony or commendation of righteousnesse because of his circumcision but because of his Faith For before he was circumcised this was pronounced of him Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse CHRYSOSTOM who lived somewhat after the yeare 380 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost ad Rom. cap. 4. v. 23. circa initium Serm. 9. et paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem ad Gal. 3. c. in the beginning of his ninth Sermon upon the Romans Having spoken saith he meaning Paul in the former part of that Chapter many and great things concerning Abraham and his Faith c. And a little after Wherefore saith he was it written but that we might learne that we also are justified as he was because we have beleeved the same God The same Father againe upon Gal. 3. For what was he the worse for not being under the Law nothing at all for his Faith was sufficient unto him for righteousnesse If Abrahams Faith was sufficient unto him for righteousnesse it must needs be imputed by God for righteousnesse unto him for it is this imputation from God that must make that sufficiency of it unto Abraham That which will not passe in accompt with God for righteousnesse will never be sufficient for righteousnesse unto the creature Saint AUGUSTINE who lived about the yeare 390 SECT 11 Credendo quippâ— invenimus quod illi Iudai non credendo amiserunt Quia credidit Abraham Deo et reputatum est illi ad justitiam Aug. in Psal 148. versus finem gives frequent testimony in his works both to the opinion and interpretation contested for Vpon Psal 148. For we by beleeving have found that which they the Iewes lost by not beleeving For Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes Therefore his opinion cleerely is that it was Abrahams Faith or Beleeving properly taken that was imputed unto him for righteousnesse and not the righteousnesse of Christ For that Faith of his which was so imputed he opposeth to the unbeliefe of the Jewes whereby they lost the grace and favor of God Now the righteousnesse of Christ is not opposed to unbeliefe but Faith properly taken Againe writing upon Psal 70 In eum credo qui justificat impium ut deputetur fides mea in justitiam Idem in Psal 70. For I beleeve in him that justifieth the ungodly that my faith may be imputed unto me for righteousnes Where by Faith he cannot meane the righteousnesse of Christ because he calleth it his owne before the imputation whereas the righteousnesse of Christ can no waies be imagined to be any mans till it be made his by imputation The same Father yet againe in his tract of nature and Grace But if Christ died not in vaine Si autem non gratu mortuus est Christus in illo solo justificatur impius cui credenti in eum qui justificat impium deputatur fides injustitiam Aug. De Nat. et Grat. non lorge ab initio Credidit Abraham Deo et deputatum est illi ad justitiam Ecce sine opere justificatur ex fideâ— et quicquid illi legali observatione potest conferri totum crdulitas sola donavit Idem de Temp. Serm. 68. the ungodly is justified in him alone to whom beleeving in him that justifieth the ungodly his Faith is accounted for righteousnesse And yet once more in his 68 Sermon of Time â—f that piece be his Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse See without any worke he is justified by Faith and whatsoever was possible to have bin conferred upon him by the observation of the Law his beleeving alone gave it all unto him Certainly this Author whoever he was by the word CREDULITIE for so the Latine word signifieth whereby he expresseth that Faith which was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse could not meane or understand the righteousnesse of Christ PRIMASIUS about the yeare 500 upon Rom. 4 ver 3. Tam magna fuit dono Dei fides Abrahae ut et pristina ei peccata donarentur et sola prae omni justitia doceretur accepta that is Abrahams faith by the guift of God was so great that both his former sins were forgiven him and this FAITH of his alone preferred in acceptation before all righteousnesse By Abrahams alone Faith he cannot meane Christs righteousnesse BEDA who lived somewhat before the yeare 700 upon Rom. 4. ver 5. hath these words What Faith Que fides nisi quam alio loco plenissime definit Apostolus Neque circuncisio neque praeputium aliquid valet sed fides que per dilectionem operatur Non qualisâ—â—nque fides sed sidâ—s que per dileâ—ta mem operatur Beda ad Ro. 4 5. Quia credidit Dâ—o reputatuÌ„ est et ad justitiam â— ad remissionem peccatorum quia per ipsaÌ„ sidem qua credidit justus effectus est Haymo in Rom. 4 3. Quod ita firmiter credidit reputatum est illi divinitus ad justitiam i. non solum liberatus est ab omni originali et actuali peccato per hanc credulitatem sed justus est a Deo reputatus Anselm Cant. in Rom. 4.3 but that which the Apostle in another place fully defineth neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing but faith which
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
is the act of Faith that Iustifieth As when a man putteth forth his arme and reacheth a pot or cup with drink in it wherewith he quencheth his thirst he may be said to quench his thirst instrumentally by reaching out his arme because this was a meanes to procure it So let men put what meaning or interpretation they please upon their words when they professe and acknowledg that it is Faith that Iustifieth if they meane at all as they say they must meane that it is the Act of Faith that Iustifieth because both that Faith by which a man beleeves in Christ is an act of Faith and againe that Faith by which a man is instrumentally Iustified is an act of Faith and that Faith that layeth hold upon the righteousnesse of Christ is an act of Faith too Therefore let men turne themselves any way and which way they please and make their words to fall either to the North or towards the South if they meane as they say that faith indeed Iustifieth they must meane that it is the act of faith that Iustifieth And when themselves will say that faith Iustifieth and yet will condemne it for an error in another that the act of faith should Iustify they cannot escape the hands of this dilemma but one of the horns will gore them either it must follow that they doe not meane as they say or that they condemne their owne opinion and meaning in another most true it is that it is far from truth to say that faith iustifyeth as it is an act and as far from truth it is to say that it is not the act of faith that Iustifieth If it be yet further replyed and said SECT 4 that when men say we are justified by Faith their meaning is that we are justified by that which faith apprehendeth and this is farre from saying that Faith is imputed for righteousnesse To this I Answer 1. if their meaning be simply and without limitation so that we are justified by that which Faith apprehendeth when they say we are justified by Faith then they speake more truth then they are aware of and as it seems more then they intend to speake For that Faith justifieth is most true but that whatsoever Faith apprehendeth should justifie hath no fellowship with truth no not so much as in appearance For By Faith we understand or apprehend the worlds were made Heb. 11.3 yet no man will say that the creation of the world justifies men Secondly if men ascribe justification in every respect and consideration to that which Faith apprehendeth they utterly overthrow that which generally they professe viz. the instrumentall justification of faith For if any thing that faith apprehendeth justifieth every way both materially and formally and meritoriously and principally and instrumentally c. Faith shall justifie no wayes and so when men say they are justified by Faith their meaning must be they are not at al justified by Faith but by some other thing Therfore of necessity it is that Faith must justifie some way if it iustifieth any way it must of neceility be by imputation or account from God for righteousnes because it is all that God requires of men to their iustification instead of the righteousnesse of the Law The fore if God shall not impute or account it unto them for this righteousnesse it would stand them in no stead at all to their iustificaetion because there is nothing usefull or availeable to any holy or saving purpose whatsoever but only to that whereâ—â— to God hath assigned it If God in the new Covenant of the Gospell requires faith in Christ for our iustification instead of the righteousnesse of the Law in the old and this Faith will not passe in account with him for such righteousnesse both his Commandement and Covenant for beleeving and the obedience it selfe of beleeving will both become voyd and of none effect the intire benefit of them being suspended upon the gracious pleasure and purpose of God in the designation of them to their end CAP. VIII Conteining the last proofe from Scripture for the Non-imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sence controverted THere is yet one Scripture remaining happily amongst many more that have not yet manifested themselves in this Controversie that seems yea I verily beleeve SECT 1 doth more then seem quite to overthrow and take away that which must be the groundworke and foundation to set this imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ upon if ever it stands viz. the imputability or transferiblenesse of it from one to another If the Scriptures doe not only no where establish but in any place absolutely deny a possibility of the translation or removing of the righteousnesse of Christ from one person to another this will strike the fatall stroke in deciding this Question This I conceive will be evicted with a pregnancie irrefragable from that Scripture Gal. 3.12 And the Law is not of Faith but the man that doth them shall live in them This Scripture doth not barely and simply deny a deceivablenesle or possibility of translation of the righteousnesse of the Law from one person to another but denies it emphatically and with the utmost advantage of a deniall For it denies a possibility of it to be done even by that hand expresly and by name I meane the hand of faith which was the ikelyest hand under Heaven to have done it if the nature of the thing to be done had not resisted the doing of it The Apostle denyeth unto faith it selfe the office and power of being a Mediatrix in this case to derive or carry over the righteousnesse of the Law from one person to another By which it appeareth also that he had an intent particularly to make the righteousnesse of the Law as performed by Christ himselfe uncapable of this translation or imputation because faith never pretended nor ever could have ground or colour to pretend a deriving or translating of any other legall righteousnesse from one person to another for Justification but only that which was performed by Christ If there were any thing in all the world that could have done the thing that is pleaded for Faith indeed hath the preheminence of likely hood to do it because it doth derive a righteousnesse from one to another such a righteousnesse as is deriveable an imputative righteousnesse you may call it because it is such by account or interpretation I meane remission of sins this Faith derives from Christ upon him that beleeveth but for a righteousnesse of the Law it cannot derive because such a righteousnesse is not deriveable Let the words and scope of the Scripture mentionedbe narrowly examined SECT 2 and all this that hath been said will be found in the bowells of it And the Law is not of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the man that doth them shall live in them or if you would translate the emphasis also which is in the originall thus the very doer of them the
which the head doeth or worketh is no waies to be imputed or ascribed either unto the hand or foot or any other member as if it were done by them so doth the whole mysticall body of Christ and every member thereof even the whole Societie and fellowship of beleevers reape and enjoy abundantly the fruite benefit and blessing of all that Christ the Head either did or suffered in the world forgivenesse of sins peace of conscience acceptation into favor with God adoption sanctification hope of glory glory or salvation it selfe when it cometh c. all these and the like are Grapes gathered from that Vine the active and passive obedience or righteousnesse of Christ furnisheth his whole body with all these precious and pleasant riches and yet there is no necessity that either his doings or sufferings should be ascribed or imputed unto them no more then the labor and skill of the Bee is to be ascribed unto him that eates the honey SECT 5 Againe some urge the consideration of the mariage betweene Christ and his Church and consequently every beleever to salve the congruity or sitnesse of his righteousnesse for imputation to beleevers and reason after this manner The wife by mariage hath a right to all that is her Husbands she is endowed with all his goods they are aswell hers as his Therefore a beleever being maried to Christ hath a right and title to all that Christ hath all that Christ hath is his and therefore his righteousnesse is his c. To this I Answere two things First it is true the wife by mariage comes to be endowed with all that is her Husbands but this endowing of her with all is no ingredient into the mariage it selfe much lesse is it the formall cause of the mariage but is a fruite or consequent of it So the right and title which a beleever hath to the righteousnesse of Christ accrues unto him by and upon the spirituall mariage The mariage must be first made up betweene Christ and him which is done by Faith or beleeving before he comes to have this right spoken of in the righteousnesse of Christ Therefore it cannot be impured unto him in the very act of beleeving which is the golden apple the adverse opinion strives for and yet much lesse before the act of beleeving which yet is affirmed by some great and leâ—rned abettors of that side Because in both these cases the title we speake of to the righteousnesse of Christ should not grow to a beleever by or from or upon his mariage but either in or before it But secondly I answere yet further and close more neerely with the spirit of the objection Howsoever by mariage there ariseth a title unto the wife of all that is her Husbands so that it may be sayd that all that is the Husbands is made or becomes the wifes yet this is so to be qualified and understood that no Law either of naturall decencie and sobriety or of a rationall expediencie or behoofe to either party receive prejudice or violation All that is the Husbands is not every waies the wifes by meanes of her mariage nor for every use or purpose but only in a way of expediencie or beneficialnesse to her As for instance the cloaths or garments of the Husband are the wife 's by mariage but how not hers to put on and weare upon her owne person for so they would be hers to her owne shame and reproach We know it was prohibited in the Law Deut. 22.5 The woman shall not weare that which perteyneth unto the man for all that doe so are an abhomination unto the Lord thy God But hers they are and may be called hers in this sense as it is a comfort and credit unto her that her Husband be cloathed like himselfe and that his habit be according to his rank and quality So is it indeed an unspeakable comfort and a ground of a glorious rejoycing unto a beleeving Soule that her Lord and Husband Iesus Christ is cloathed with that rich and glorious robe of righteousnesse that he is so holy so harmlesse so far separate from sinners as he is but she must take heed of assuming these things unto her selfe otherwise then in the benefit and comfort of them she must not thinke her selfe as holy as harmlesse as far separate from sinners as Christ himselfe is The Common or inferior Priest that should put on and serve in the High Priests garments was by the Jewes adjudged guilty of death by the hand of Heaven As Mr. Ainsworth citeth out of Maimony upon Exod. 28.43 So againe the wisdome and understanding of the Husband may be said to be the wifes by mariage But how not for her to be wise withall for in this respect it is her Husbands only notwithstanding mariage the woman is not therefore as wise as her Husband because the Husbands wisdome is hers by mariage but it is hers in the benefit and comfort of it thus having a Husband that is wise she shall live the better and more comfortable life with him she shal be the better provided for and the like So the righteousnesse of Christ becomes ours by right of our spirituall mariage with him but not to be righteous withall formally for this is still his personall propriety notwithstanding the giving of himselfe in mariage to us but to have the benefit and blessing of communicated unto us and derived upon us both in our justification adoption and salvation CAP. XI A third ground against the pretended imputation viz. the Non-necessitie of it A third Reason SECT 1 warring strongly against this imputation of Christs righteousnesse is There is no necessity or occasion of any such imputation The truth of the old rule doth not wax old neither will ever vanish Deus et natura nihil faciunt frustrà Neither God the Master nor Nature the servant ever make any thing in vaine If God hath sufficiently provided otherwise for the justification of his people most certaine it is that he doth not impute this righteousnesse of Christ unto them for that end which yet is the only end for which the necessity thereof either is oâ— indeed can be pretended That a beleever is sufficiently justified before God without any imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ I still meane in the letter and formalitie of it I thus demonstrate He that is compleatly justified by having his sins forgiven is justified without the imputation of this active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ This proposition is generally granted for no man contends for this imputation in the sense we speake of in regard of forgivenesse of sins neither is there any colour for it but for another purpose as we shall see hereafter Therefore I assume But a beleever is suthciently justified before God by the forgivenesse of his sins therefore I conclude There is no need of this imputation of Christs righteousnesse for justification The latter proposition that men are fully justified before God by
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
if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. q.d. If the sinne of Adam being but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an inconsiderate stumbling or a sinne proceeding from incogitancie and Adam hmselfe but one hath yet beene able to involve many i. his whole posteritie all that shall be borne of him in death and condemnation much more must it needs be conceived that the grace i. the gracious intent purpose of God towards men and the gift by that grace viz. of righteousnes justification by such a man as Iesus Christ is who is both God and man should abound unto many i. justifie and save with farre greater efficacie power and authority and as it were with an higher hand all those that by spirituall regeneration and a true faith shall descend from him The strēngth of of the Apostles reasoning and inference in this passage Scripture lyeth in this The salvation of the world faith he must needs proceede with farre higher hand by Christ then the condemnation of it did or doth by Adam Because 1. The foundation and ground worke of the one was the free and gracious intent and purpose of God which is a stronger and more active and lively principle or spring to set all the wheeles and worke on going that depend upon it then a permissive decree onely which as seemeth here intimated and imployed is the maine foundation the other viz. the condemnation of the world by Adam had in respect of God This permissive decree though it be as cleare as the other in respect of the event and comming to passe of such things as are comprehended in it yet is the motion of it but slow and heavie in comparison of the other Gods permissive decrees are chiefely executed by second meanes or by occasion of his withdrawing himselfe and leaving the creature to it selfe but his gracious decrees have his heart and soule and strength and might in their execution And secondly that which is the more proper and immediate cause of the difference here laid downe by the Apostle the condemnation of the world as touching matter of provocation and offence given unto God proceeds onely in the demerit and strength 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one inconsiderate act of sinne and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from one onely meere man whereas the salvation of the world advanceth in the strength of such a righteousnesse attonement or justification as was procured indeed by one man but this one man was Jesus Christ who is valuable with thousand thousands of men and ten thousand times ten thousand thousands So that what he hath purposely and with all his might done for the justification and salvation of the world must needs be of an incomparable farre greater efficacie to carry these before it then the stumbling or unadvised sinne of one poore meere and meane man in comparison can be to procure the condemnation of it Onely I desire that it should be here considered and remembered that there is nothing said in all this Conclusion any wayes to extenuate either the demerit or guilt of Adams sinne beneath their just proportions and degrees but onely to shew that there is a great excesse of merit in the obedience of Christ above the rate and proportion of demerit in the disobedience of Adam There being these and other differences betweene Adam in his condemning the world and Christ in his Act or Worke in saving it it is evident that all such arguments or reasonings which are drawne from specialites and particularities of agreement betweene them are invalid and insufficient except they have some other foundation to beare them That which makes a true and lively Faith instrumentall in Justification Conclusi 11 SECT 17 is nothing that is essentiall or naturall to it whether descent propertie or act but somewhat that is extrinsecall and purely adventitious viz. the force and efficacie of that will good pleasure ordination covenant and appointment of God in that behalfe As it was neither the stature nor comelinesse of Aarons person nor his descent from Levie nor his grace nor his wisedome nor his knowledge nor any service formerly done by him either unto God or his Church nor any thing that in any proprietie of speech could be called his that made him an high Priest but Gods calling him unto and investing him with that honour and function he might have beene all that hee was otherwise and might have done all that hee did otherwise and yet without this anointing and appointment from God another might have beene high Priest and not he So might Faith have beene Faith both in the Originall and descent of it from the Spirit of God as likewise in all that native beautie and excellencie that belongs to it yea and put forth all those acts which otherwise it puts forth as to bring men to Christ to lay hold of Christ c. and yet never have attained the honour that is now put upon it never have beene instrumentall in Justification And as the same anointing or calling from God which were confer'd upon Aaron would have made any other man Priest though of another Tribe though lesse gracefull of person of meaner gifts and abilities every-wayes than Aaron was had they beene conferred upon him so had any other grace as love patience temperance or the like the force and power of the same covenant or ordination from God to assist them it cannot be conceived but that any of these would justifie as effectually as faith it selfe now doth Therefore it is unquestionably evident that Faith doth not justifie as it relates to Christ or as it apprehends him or redemption by him or the like because all these and such like properties or acts as these are essentiall and naturall unto Faith I meane to such a Faith as we speake of and that Faith which hath not or doth not all this is no true lively or effectuall Faith or instrumentall in justification Wherefore if Faith should justifie in regard or by vertue of any of these it should justifie by it selfe or by some dignity quality or act that is proper to it or inherent in it Hence it is that Scripture still suspends the justifying power or propertie of Faith upon the will free grace and good pleasure of God but never upon any act or qualitie proper to it selfe This is the will of him that sent me saith our Saviour Ioh. 6.40 that every man that seeth the Sonne and beleeveth in him should have everlasting life c. clearely implying 1. That it is not any seeing of Christ either corporally or spiritually nor any beleeving in him that could carry eternall life had it not the efficacie of the will of God to strengthen it thereunto And 2 that had this Will of God fallen in conjunction with any other grace or act of
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
contrary to truth to judge the person in an estate of condemnation though he may be comming on in a way towards justification As men that never come to be justified but perish in their sinnes everlastingly are said to be partakers of the holy Ghost Heb 6.4 that is may have many great and excellent workings of the holy Ghost within them and upon them so may men to whom the grace of justification and salvation upon it is intended by God have the like workings of the Spirit upon them for a time and yet have no worke at all upon them truely saving i. which hath an essentiall and necessary connexion with salvation And till some such worke as this is wrought though the Spirit of God be in them yet are they under condemnation and dying in their present condition without somefurther worke of grace should certainely perish Now though there may be many workings of the Spirit of God in men before they beleeve which may be called Saving in regard of their issue and event yet is there none formally saving that is that hath salvation promised unto it till Faith it selfe be wrought The first touch of any worke upon the soule that is either truly sanctifying or necessarily saving is that whereby the soule is inabled to touch upon Christ for its justification neither is the habit of Faith first planted in the soule by the holy Ghost and afterwards the soule enabled by it 'to exercise and put forth an act of beleeving whereby it is justified but as the common and more probable opinion is that fruit-bearing trees were at first created with ripe fruits upon them so doth God at first create both the habit and act of faith in the soule in the same moment of time and not the one before the other So that the first act of beleeving whereby the creature is primarily justified is not rais'd out of any pre-existent habit or grace of Faith as all after acts of beleeving are but is as immediately the product or effect of the power of God as the habit of Faith it selfe is even as the fruits which according to the opinion mentioned were created with and upon their trees did not grow out of these trees nor were produced in a naturall way by them as all after fruits growing upon them were but were as proper and immediate effects of the creative power of God as the trees themselves So we see at last that the conclusion laid downe is no waies prejudic'd nor shaken by either of these objections Conclu 14 SECT 25 The sentence or curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death but this death of Christ was a ground or consideration unto God whereupon to dispence with his Law and to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty or curse therein threatned This is evident because the threatning and curse of the Law was not at all bent or intended against the innocent or righteous but against transgressors onely Therefore God in inflicting death upon Christ being innocent righteous did not follow the purport or intent of the Law If he had inflicted death upon all the transgressors of the Law this had bin a direct execution of the Law because this was that which the Law threatned and intended But God in spareing and forbearing the transgressors who according to the tenor of the Law should have bin punished manifestly dispenceth with the Law and doth not execute it As when Zaleucus the Locrian Lawgiver caused one of his owne eyes to be put out that one of his Sons eyes might be spared who according both to the Letter and intent of the Law should have lost both he did not precisely execute the Law but gave a sufficient account or consideration why it should for that time be dispenced with and not put into execution In this sense indeed Christ may be said to have undergone or suffered the penalty or curse of the Law 1º it was the curse or penalty of the Law as now hanging over the head of the world and ready to be executed upon all men for sinne that occasioned his suffering of those things which he endured Had not the curse of the Law either bin at all or not incurr'd by man doubtlesse Christ had not suffered at all Againe 2º and somewhat more properly Christ may be said to have suffered the curse of the Law because the things which he suffered were of the same nature and kind at least in part with those things which God intended by the curse of the Law against transgressors namely death But if by the curse of the Law we understand either that intire systeme and historicall body as it were of penalties and evills which the Law it selfe intends in the terme or else include and take in the intent of the Law as touching the quality of the persons upon whom it was to be executed in neither of these senses did Christ suffer the curse of the Law neither ever hath it nor ever shall be suffered by any transgressor of the Law that shall beleeve in him So that God required the death and sufferings of Christ not that the Law properly either in the letter or intention of it might be executed but on the contrary that it might not be executed I meane upon those who being otherwise obnoxious unto it should beleeve Neither did God require the death and sufferings of Christ as a valuable consideration whereon to dispence with his Law towards those that beleeve SECT 26 more if so much in a way of satisfaction to his justice then to his wisdome For doubtlesse God might with asmuch justice as wisdome if not much more have passed by the transgression of his Law without consideration or satisfaction For him that hath a lawfull authority and power either to impose a Law or not in case he shall impose it it rather concern's in point of wisdome and discretion not to see his Law despised and trampled upon without satissaction then in point of justice No man will say that in case a man hath bin injured and wrong'd that therefore he is absolutly bound in Justice to seeke satisfaction though he be never so eminent in the grace and practise of Justice but in many cases of injuries susteyned a man may be bound in point of wisdome and discretion to seeke satisfaction in one kind or other Austin of old and D. Twist of late besides many other Orthodox learned Divines a See Mr. Gataker Defence of Mr. Wotton p. 59.60 hold that God if it had pleased him might have pardoned Adams transgression without the atonement made by the death of Christ Therfore according to the opinion of these men it had bin no waies contrary to the Justice of God nor derogatory to the glory of it if he had freely pardoned it without any consideration or attonement Only it is true his requiring that full satisfaction which hath now bin made by Christ is very sutable
exactnesse ever after to the worlds end without the least failing in the least point of obedience thereunto the condition of a legall justification being that a man must continue à carcere ad metas from the very first entrance upon his being to the last end thereof in all things that are written in the Law to doe them so that the least trip or stumbling throughout all his course wholly dissolves and overthrowes such a justification Secondly because God hath opened another way for the justification of sinners viz. Faith in Jesus Christ and certaine it is that he never sets up one way against another or one ordinance against another so that what he intends should be effected by one he should intend to be effected by another also as hath bin argued and proved more at large in the former part of this Treatise (a) cap. 12. Sect. 2. c. Therefore to affirme that the fulfilling of the Law is required of any man either by himselfe or by another in his stead for his justification is to affirme either that a man that hath sin'd hath not sin'd or that which God hath said he hath unsaid Christ may be said to have kept the Law Distincti 6 SECT 11 in reference to our justification two waies or in a double sense either 1º for us or 2º in our stead In the former sense it may be admitted that Christ kept the Law for our justification but not in the latter The former sense only imports that this obedience of his had an influence into our justification and did contribute that which was of absolute necessity thereunto which hath bin explained and granted and in part proved formerly The latter sense imports that the keeping of the Law was primarily required of every man for his justification since the fall and that God in respect of the personall disabilities of men for such performance in reference to such an end sent his Sonne Iesus Christ to performe it in their roomes and places Which supposition stands convict of a manifest untruth in the former Distinction and elswhere in this Treatise (a) Part 1. cap. Sect. Distincti 7. SECT 12 The Iustification of a sinner I meane Passive though it be but one and the same entire effect yet may it be ascribed to many and those very diffâ—rent causes respectively according to their severall influences and differing manner of concurrence thereunto God may be said to iustifie Christ may be said to iustifie yea the Holy Ghost in a true and proper sense may be said to iustifie Faith may be said to iustify the Minister may be said to iustifie as well as to save 1 Tim. 4.16 remission of sinnes may be said to iustifie c. Whatsoever contributeth any thing more or lesse either in a superior or inferior way towards the raising and producing any effect the effect it selfe may not onely according to truth but in ordinary propriety of speaking be ascribed unto it It is as true to say and not unproper that the sling in Davids hand or the smooth stone which he slang or his act of slinging killed Goliah as to say that David himselfe killed him though it 's true David was the principall efficient in this action and the other were but inferior and instrumentall So that to reason thus Christ iustifies therefore Faith doth not iustifie or thus Christ is our righteousnesse therefore Faith is not our righteousnesse or remission of sinnes is not our righteousnesse c. is as if a man should argue after this manner It is God that maketh rich therefore money maketh not rich or a diligent hand maketh not rich which yet is a truth and is affirmed by the Holy Ghost aswell as the other Or thus It is God that purifieth the heart therefore man purifieth it not neither doth Faith purifie it nor doe afflictions purifie c. Or thus The Physician recovered the sick therefore his Physique did not recover him It is a weake reasoning à positione causae principalis ad remotionem accessorie Christ may Justifie and Faith may justifie and remission of sinnes may justifie yea Christ doth not iustifie without Faith nor without remission of sinnes more then either oâ— these iustifie without Christ though it be true Christ iustifieth after a manner peculiar to himselfe and Faith and Remission of sinnes each of them after a manner proper to it selfe and the manner of Iustification which is proper to Christ is more excellent and of superior consideration to the manner wherein either Faith or Remission of sinnes Iustifie Therefore the argument doth not follow from the affirmation of Iustification by Christ to the negation of the same Iustification by Faith or any other thing but it well fâ—llowes from the affirmation of the peculiar manner of Iustification which is proper to Christ to the negation of the same manner as belonging either to Faith or to Remission of sinnes or any thing besides This arguing is substantiall Christ Justifieth by way of merit or satisfaction or attonement for sinne therefore neither Faith nor remission of sinnes nor any thing else iustifieth either by way of merit satisfaction or attonement Therefore care must be had to distinguish the simple act from the peculiar manner of Iustification CAP. IIII. Conteyning a briefe Delineation or survey of the intire body of Justification in the severall causes of it according to the tenour of the Conclusions and Distinctions layd downe in the two former Chapters AS well to give a full and free accompt of mine owne judgement SECT 1 and of what I conceive and hold touching the great businesse of Iustification and the whole cariage of it in the Scriptures and counsaile of God as also to furnish my Reader with some further and cleerâ—r light whereby to comprehend the darknesse and to discover the insufficiency and weaknesse of those arguments that either are brought from the Scriptures or otherwise framed against the maine Conclusion defended in this Treatise I thought it not amisse to inlarge the Discourse by one Chapter the more wherein to delineate and represent according to the modell of my weake insight into so great a mystery that faire piece or frame wherein the grace justice and wisdome of God have sweetly conspired for the justification of a poore sinner And because the perfect knowledge hereof I meane of the gracious designe of God in and about the Iustification of a sinner depends upon the knowledge and right apprehension of the severall causes concurring and contributing thereunto as indeed the true knowledg of all thâ—ngs whatsoever ariseth from the knowledge of the causes thereof I desire leave to premise some few generall rules touching the number nature and property of causes in generall but only such which are generally acknowledged and subscribed unto by sober men that have had their wits exercised in discerning things agreeable to reason and who can be no waies suspected as partiall or any waies engaged either on the right hand or
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
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
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
properly notes the act not the object of beleeving Againe afterwards in the same place But when he firmly beleeved God promising that very Faith was imputed to him in the place or stead of righteousnesse that is he was of God reputed righteous for that Faith and absolved from all his sins BULLINGER likewise gives the same right hand of fellowship to the same interpretation upon Rom. Concredidit se Abraham Deo et illud ipsum illi pro justitia imputatum est Bulling ad Ro. 4. Imputatum est illi adjustitiam c. hoc est illa ipsa Abrahae fides ipsi adjustiam imputata est cum ad huc ageret in praputio Idem ad Gal. 3 6. Credidit Abraham Deo et impuravit ei scilicet Deus hanc fidem pro justitia Gualt Ad Rom. 4.4 Imputavit ei justitiam quod est fidem giatam habuit adeo ut justum ex eo haberet justitia imputativa Aret. ad Rom. 4. Fides tam firma et pia pro justitia Abrahamo imputata est Aret. ad Rom. 4 22. 4 Abraham committed himselfe unto God by beleeving and this very thing was imputed unto him for righteousnesse And the second time upon Gal. 3 6. It was imputed unto him for righteousnesse that is that very Faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righteousnesse whilst he was yet uncircumcised GUALTER comes behind none of the former in avouching the Grammaticall against the Rhetoricall interpretation upon Rom. 4.4 Abraham beleeved God and he viz. God imputed unto him THIS FAITH for righteousnesse ARETIUS no whit digresseth from the former expositions upon Rom. 4. He imputed righteousnesse unto him which is as much as to say he so far accepted or thought well of his faith as thereupon to accompt him righteous with an imputative righteousnesse Where note by the way he doth not call an imputative or imputed righteousnesse any thing that is a righteousnesse properly so called any righteousnesse that should be in one person inherently and become anothers by imputation neither do I remember the phrase of an imputed righteousnesse in that sense in any classique Author but by an imputative righteousnesse he meanes somewhat imputed or accounted by God for righteousnesse which literally and in strictnesse of consideration is not such Againe the same Author more plainly and succinctly upon ver 22. of the same Chapter A faith so firme and pious was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse Illud credere ei imputatum est ad justitiam vel pro vera justitia Illyr ad Ro. 4.3 Et paulo post Mendica illa fites apprehendeus Christi justiciam imputata ipsi est loco propriae justitiae ILLYRICUS forsakes not his fellow-interpreters in this point Vpon Rom. 4 3. That same beleeving was imputed unto him for righteousnesse And afterwards That same poore begging faith apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ was imputed unto him instead of a proper righteousnesse PELLICAN â—s breakes not this ranke Credidit simpliciter verbo Dei et non postulavit signum a Dâ—mino et imputabat cam sidem ipsi Abrahae Deus pro justitia qua creditur propersus Deus in nostrum bonum Pelican to Gen. 15.6 Fides qua promittentâ— Deo credidit Abâ—aham et fuit ad justitiam imputata Hunnius ad â—om 4 3. Hic agitur de eo quod ipsi imputatum est nempe de ipsius side â—re ad Rom. 4.3 Eum quan vis justitia carenteÌ„ numeravitque pro justo habuit in justitâ— loco quod promissiones firma fide ample â—us est I câ—mel et Iun. Not. in Gen. 15.6 Intelligimus fideâ— nomine acqutesâ—â—ntiam Abrahâ—e non in se sunvâ— mâ—titu sed in Dei promissione et benevolentia Par. ad Ro. 4.3 Vpon Gen. 15 6. Abraham simply beleeved the word of God and required not a signe of the Lord and God imputed THAT VERY Faith unto Abraham himselfe for righteousnes whereby GOD is inclineable or propense to doe us good HUNNIUS another Reformed Divine sets to his seale that the avouched interpretation is true On Rom. 4.3 The faith whereby Abraham beleeved GOD promising was imputed unto him for righteousnesse BEâ—A himselfe upon the same Scripture is as deep in the same way as any Here â—aâ—th he the businesse is concerning that that was imputed unto him viz his faith JUNIUS and TREMEILIUS are likewise of the former conspiracie aginst the tropicall interpretation On Gen. 15 6. God esteemed or accounted him for righteous though wanting righteousnesse wherewith to stand before God and reckoned this in the stead or place of righteousnesse that he imbraced the promise with a firme beliefe PARAEUS the last we shall name of forreigne Divines dealeth out this interpretation as freely as his fellowes On Rom. 4.3 We understand by the name or word FAITH which is said to be impuâ—ed unto Abraham for righteousnesse Abraham's acquietation or resting â—ot in himselfe or in his owne merits but in the promise and graciousnesse of God Neither are there wanong from amongst our selves men of soundest learning and jâ—dgment holding forth the light oâ— the same interpretation a so Doctor ROBERT ABBOT â—â—â—â—wards Bishop of Saâ—um in his Apologie against Bishop SECT 15 Part 1 c p. 9. not far from the beginning Hâ—vingâ—e downe those passages of the Apostâ—e Rom. 4 5 and 6. he addeth as followeth In which words we see how the Apostle affiâ—meth accordingly as I said an Imputation of righteousnesse without works which he expresseth to be The repuâ—ing of Faith for righteousnesse for that thereby we obtaine remission and forgivenesse of sinnes Againe not long after for in the imputation of righteousnesse without works what is it that is reputed for righteousnesse Faith saith the Apostle is reputed for righteousnesse Tell us then Mr. Bishop is faith with you reputed for righteousnesse without works Spit out man and tell us whether in your first or second justification you hold that a man for his faith is reputed righteous c. with more of like importance in the page following He that will undertake to divide bâ—â—weene this Author and the opinion we contend for must be more severe then to give a man leave to be of his owne minde Dr. PRESTON also maketh himselfe a stranger to the tropicall interpretation of this Scripture and imbraceth that which is litterall and proper without scruple or question In his Treatise of Gods Allsufficiency pag 12 13. In this sense faith is said to be accounted or imputed for righteousnesse Abraham beleeved God Gen. 15. God indeed made the same proposition that he doth here for substance he tells him what be would do for him and saith the text Abraham beleeved God and it was counted unto him for righteousnesse Now it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse chiefly in this sense as it is interpreted Rom 4 that his very taking of the promise and his accepting of the Covenant in that he did receive that which God gave that put him within the Covenant
of it beyond the person of the fulfiller Some indeed conceive that Adams standing in obedience to the Law had bin the standing and perpetuall confirmation in grace of all his posterity If this opinion could be made to appeare any thing more then conjecturall Divinitie I grant that then in respect of the intent and purpose of God the righteousnesse of the Law had been as imputable as the transgression of it but this will not prove it such in the nature of it but only by way of Covenant and so the consequence in the proposition will still languish and be infirme But though I can be confident with Paul to call Christ the last Adam 1 Cor. 15.45 Yet I am somwhat tender to call Adam the first Christ To say that Adam by his righteousnesse should have merited the justification of himselfe and all his posterity is I take it to make him somwhat more then a figure of him that was to come But to say that by his transgression he merited the condemnation both of himselfe and posterity is no such hard saying I conceive in the cares of any man Therefore however the righteousnesse of the Law is not as imputable as the transgression of it Secondly whereas demand was made SECT 3 by way of absolute confirmation of that former proposition what should make any such difference betweene the obedience of the Law and the transgression of the Law that the former should not be as imputable as the latter the obedience as the transgression I answere there may be this conceived as a ground of difference betweene them in that respect Sinne or disobedience to a Law is ever greater in ratione demeriti in way of demerit or desert of punishment then obedience or subjection to a Law is in ratione meriti in deserving a reward One that takes a purse or murders a man by the high way side deserveth to receive more in punishment then a thousand deserve in reward that suffer men to travaile peaceably by them Though he that dishonestly refuseth to pay a debt where it is due may deservedly be cast into prison yet it doth not follow that he that keeps touch and payeth at his day deserves to be exalted to a Throne So might Adam by his transgression of the Law merit death and condemnation to himselfe and posterity and yet not have merited life and salvation to both by his obedience The reason of which difference is evident because if he had obeyed and kept the Law he had only done that which was his duty to doe and this by our Saviours rule Luk 17.10 makes but an unprofitable servant i. I conceive is no ground to demand or challenge any great matters at his masters hand except it be by Covenant or promise from him Adams obedience to the Law was a debt due unto God from him severall waies and in sundry respects or considerations First God was his soveraigne Lord and had absolut power over him to command him what service or obedience he pleased Secondly he was his maker and Creator and had given him his being and in this respect had full right and title to imploy him as he pleased Thirdly God had bin liberall and exceeding bountifull unto him many waies he created him in his owne image and likenesse furnished him with principles of righteousnesse made him Lord over the works of his hand placed him in a Paradise of all delight and contentment In all these respects Adam was a debtor yea and more then a debtor unto God of that obedience unto his Law which he required of him Now the greater debtor Adam was unto God the more and greater bands and ingagements were upon him to make good that obedience which God required of him to his Law the lesse meritorious had this obedience bin in case Adam had stood and performed it and the more demeritorious also was his transgression and disobedience Therefore that consequence in the major proposition of the objection If the transgression of the Law be imputable then is the obedience imputable also is so farre from being legitimate and solid that the imputablenesse of the transgression of it rather overthroweth the imputablenesse of the obedience of it then any waies proveth or establisheth it For the more imputable that is punishable the transgression of it is the lesse imputable that is rewardable is the obedience of it So that you see now we have touch'd the hollow of the right thigh of the Objection how it halts right downe upon it And you see withall how we might fairely and honestly discharge our selves from having any thing more to doe with the Minor Proposition or with the instance of the imputation of Adam's sin which was insisted upon for the proofe of it because if either Proposition be disabled the glory of the whole Argument is layed in the dust Notwithstanding because the imputation of Adams sinne to his posteritie as it is ordinarily phrased is conceived to be a master veyne in this Controversie and is frequently produced to prove the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by way of analogie or proportion I shall be willing to lay downe with as much brevitie and plainenesse as I can how and in what sense onely either the Scriptures themselves or sound reason will countenance the notion of that imputation The issue will be that neither the one nor the other will be found either to owne or favour any other imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity then we have hitherto granted of Christs righteousnesse to those that beleeve The righteousnesse of Christ is imputed i. is made over or given to those that beleeve not in the letter or formality of it as hath bin often said but in blessings priviledges and benefits purchased of God by the merit or mediation of it So the sinne of Adam is imputed to his posterity not in the letter and formality of it which is the imputation commonly urged but in the demerit of it i. in the curse or punishment due to it which is the imputation commonly urged but in the demerit of it i. in the curse or punishment due to it or deserved by it Therfore as concerning this imputation of Adams sin I answere First the Scripture no where affirms either the imputation of Adams sin to his posterity or of the righteousnesse of Christ to those that beleeve neither is the phrase or manner of such speaking any waies agreeable to the Dialect or language of the Holy Ghost For still in the Scriptures whersoever the word or term of IMPUTING is used it is only applyed unto or spoken of somthing of the same persons to whom the imputation is said to be made and never to my remembrance to or of any thing of anothers Rom. 4.3 Abraham beleeved God and it was IMPUTED to him for righteousnesse i. his own beleeving was imputed to him not another mans So verse 5. But to him that worketh not but beleeveth His Faith is IMPUTED to him for
righteousnesse So Psal 106.30 31. Phineas stood up and executed judgement c. and that viz. act of his was IMPUTED to him for righteousnesse i. received a testimony from God of being a righteous and holy act So againe 2 Cor. 5.19 not IMPUTING their trespasses i. their own trespasses unto them Secondly SECT 5 when a thing is said simply to be imputed as viz. sinne folly and so righteousnesse or the like c. the meaning of the phrase is not to be taken concerning the bare acts of the things as if for example to impute sin to a man signified this to repute the man to whom sin is imputed to have committed a sinfull act or as if to impute folly were simply to charge a man to have done foolishly but the phrase of imputing when it is applyed to things that are evill and attributed to persons that have a power of judicature over those to whom the imputation is made in which posture only to my remembrance the word is found in Scripture signifieth the charging of the guilt or demerit of what is said to be imputed upon the head of the person to whom the imputation is made with an intent of inflicting some condigne punishment upon him So that to impute sinne in Scripture phrase is to charge the guilt of sin upon a man with a purpose to punish him for it Thus Rom. 5.13 Sinne is said not to be IMPUTED whilest there is no Law The meaning cannot be that that act which a man doth whether there be a Law or no Law should not be imputed to him The Law doth not make any act to be imputed or ascribed to a man which might not aswell have bin imputed without it But the meaning is that there is no guilt of any act charged by God upon men nor any punishment inflicted upon men for any thing done by them but only by vertue of the Law prohibiting or restreyning it In which respect the Law is said to be the strength of sinne viz. because it giveth a condemning power against the doer to that which otherwise would have had none 1 Cor. 15.56 So againe Job 24.12 when it is said that God doth not lay folly to the charge of them i impute folly to them that make the soules of the slaine to cry out c. the meaning is not that God doth not repute them to have committed the acts of oppression murder c. For supposeing they did such things it is unpossible but that God should repute them to have done them but the meaning is that God doth not visibly charge the guilt of these sins upon them or inflict punishment for them So 2 Sam. 19.19 When Shimei prayeth David not to IMPUTE wickednesse unto him his meaning is not to desire David not to think he had done wickedly in rayling upon him for himselfe confesseth this in the very next words but that David would not inflict that punishment upon him which that wickednesse deserved This was that non-imputation of wickednesse which Shimei desired of David So when David himselfe pronounceth the man blessed to whom the Lord IMPUTETH not sinne his meaning is not as if there were any man whom the Lord would not repute to have committed those acts of sin which indeed they have committed but that such are blessed upon whom God will not charge the demerit of their sins in the punishment due to them So yet againe to forbeare further citations in this point 2 Cor. 5.19 when God is said not to IMPUTE their sinnes unto men the meaning is not that God should not repute men to have committed such and such sins against him but this that he freely discharged them from the punishment due unto them By all which testimonies and instances from the Scriputres concerning the constant and solemne use and signification of the terme imputing or imputation it is evident that the Mâ—nor Proposition in the Objection viz. that the transgression of the Law is imputable from one mans person to anothers hath no such cleere or certaine soundation in the Scriptures SECT 6 And therfore thirdly and lastly to come home to the instance of the imputation of Adam's sinne to his posterity which is brought for the confirmation of it I answere also First that either to say that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to his posteritie of beleevers or the sin of Adam to his are both expressions at least unknowne to the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures There is neither line nor word nor syllable nor letter nor tittle of any such thing to be found there But that the faith of him that beleeveth is imputed for righteousnesse are words which the Holy Ghost counteth neither errour nor heresie to use But secondly because I would make no exception against words further then necessitie I meane a necessitie of making provision for the truth enforceth I doe not like that any mans words that will take salt and be made savourie by interpretation should be cast out upon the dunghill though I know a man that hath received this measure pressed down heaped up and running over from many gran that there are expressions in Scripture concerning both both the communication of Adams sinne with his posterity and of the righteousnesse of Christ with those that beleeve that will fairely enough beare the terme of imputation if it be rightly understood and according to the use and importance of it in Scripture upon other occasions as we lately cited many instances but as it is commonly taken and understood by many it is no currant language but occasions much error and mistake Concerning Adam's sinne or disobedience SECT 7 many are said to be made sinners by it Rom. 5.19 And so by the obedience of Christ it is said in the same place that many shall be made righteous But now if men will needs exchange language with the Holy Ghost they must see to it that they make him no loser If when they say that Adams sinne is imputed to all unto condemnation their meaning be the same with the Holy Ghosts when he saith that by the disobedience of one many were made sinners there is no harme done to exchange upon such terms is not to rob But it is much to be suspected nay it is too evident by what many of themselves by way of interpretation speake that the Holy Ghost and they are not of one mind touching the imputation or communication of Adams sinne with his posterity but that they differ as much in meaning as in words If when they say that Adams sinne is imputed to all unto condemnation their meaning be plaine and right downe this that the demerit or guilt of Adams sin is charged upon his whole posteritie or that the punishment of Adams sinne redounded and ran over as it were from his person to his whole posterity a maine part of which punishment lyeth in that originall defilement wherin they are all conceived and borne and wherby they are made truly and