mak's an alteration in the person or rather in the condition of the person justified See this also further explained in the forenamed Section of this Chapter 3º That that alteration or change which is made in the condition of the person justified by his Iustification that is that which the immediate proper and precise effect of that act of God whereby hee iustifieth in or about the person justified is and nothing else but this is or can with any coulor of reason and congruitie of speaking be called the forme or formall cause of Iustification Of this also you have some further accompt in the 8 Section of this Chapter 4º That is especially to be remembred that wee doe not in this inquirie seeke after the forme or formall cause of Iustification simply or of Justification largely taken but of that particular and speciall kinde of Iustification whereby a beleeving sinner is justified by God through the redemption which is in Christ Iesus For if we take Iustification in a large sense it is evident that remission of sinnes cannot be the formall cause of it Because in such a sense of the word Iustification a man may be said to be iustified that is acquitted and cleered who hath noe sinnes or sinne at all forgiven him viz. in case hee hath bin falsely accused And so on the other hand a man may have his offence or offences remitted and forgiven and yet not be justified I meane with any such kinde of Iustification as we now speake of viz. that is built upon a just and plenary satisfaction for the offence given But otherwise any remission of an offence upon what termes soever may in a large sense be called a Justification viz. See more of this Cap. 3. Sect. 1. of this second part as the word connoteth and many times even in the Scriptures themselves signifieth a discharge or absolution from punishment 5º and lastly whereas there may be a double or or twofold Iustification ascribed unto God the one we may call Declarative or Pronunciative the other Constitutive it is the formall cause of the latter rather then of the former which we inquire after The difference betweene these two Iustifications may be thus conceived that which I call Constitutive hath a precedencie in the order of nature and for the most part of time also before the other and is some kinde of cause thereof When God is said to justifie the sinner or ungodly as Rom. 4.5 it is meant of his Constitutive Iustification not of his Declarative For God never declareth or pronounceth a sinner righteous till hee hath made him righteous which is the proper act of that which I call Constitutive Iustification Againe when Christ saith by thy words thou shalt be iustified Mat. 12.13 and Iames concerning Abraham that he was iustified through workes these and such like passages speake of a declarative Iustification The formall cause of Gods declarative Iustification cannot be conceiv'd to stand in remission of sinnes because remission of sinnes is alwaies precedaneous to it and therefore cannot be the effect of it and so not the formall cause thereof according to the 2 and 3 grounds premised The formall cause of this kinde of Iustification is rather the knowledge in those to whom such declaration is made whether it be the person himselfe that is iustified or some other of remission of sinnes granted unto him concerning whom such declaration is made Onely to prevent cavilling that is acknowledged that even that which I call Constitutive Justification may in this sense be called declarative also viz. as the grounds terms and conditions upon which it proceeds are declared and made knowne by God in his Gospell But by declarative Iustification I meane onely such an act or expression of God whereby he declares the actuall Justification of those or any of those that have their sinnes forgiven them These things remembred SECT 30 I proceed to demonstrate the truth of the opinion mentioned and undertaken for which was that Remission of sins is the forme or formall cause of Iustification First if Remission of sinnes be the first immediate and precise effect of that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner in or upon the sinner so justified then is Remission of sinnes the proper formall cause of Iustification This consequence is built cleere and strong upon the third particular premised Therefore I assume But remission of sinnes is the first immediate and precise effect of that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner in or about the sinner so iustified Ergo c. The reason of this latter proposition is because there is no other imaginable effect that should interveene betweene such an act and the effect specified The Scriptures themselves make an immediate connection betweene Gods act of Justification and the sinners exemption or absolution from his sinnes that is from the guilt and punishment due unto his sinnes when they call Iustification a Iustification from sinne Be it knowne unto you men and Brethren saith Paul Act. 13.38 that through this man is preached unto you remission of sinnes and by him all that beleeve are justified from all things from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Moses Where we see that Iustification is immediatly and directly from sinne i. from the guilt or condemnatorie power of sinne The like expression you have Rom. 6 7. He that is dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is iustified from sinne So that this is the first priviledge or blessing that comes upon a sinner by meanes of his Iustification or of that act of God whereby he justifieth him the remission of his sinnes and consequently must needs be the forme of his Iustification Secondly that which gives the denomination of justified to those that are justified must needs be the forme or formall cause of Iustification The reason of this proposition is apparant it is still proper to every forme to give a sutable denomination to the subject Sutable I meane not only to the forme it selfe but to the action or motion also whereby this forme was introduced into the subject As for example whitenesse in a wall that was made white out of some other colour gives the denomination of whited unto the wall which doth not answere the forme it selfe onely which is whitenesse but that action also of the Plaisterer or Painter which wee call whitening Therefore it is evident that the forme or formall cause of this act of whitening is the whitenesse or whitednesse of the wall Thus farre then the ground is firme under us Let us therefore goe forward and assume But remission of sinnes gives the denomination of iustified to those that are iustified Therefore remission of sinnes is the forme or formall cause of Iustification The assumption I thus further demonstrate If a sinner be therefore and thereby iustified because he hath his sinnes remitted unto him then remission of sinnes gives the denomination of iustified unto him This consequence is pregnant because
which stands in any perfection of vertues sanctification Somwhat before the former words alledged Nos verò quod dat admittimus reciprocart inter se justificationem et remissionem peccatorum i. We admit of what he Bellarmine grants that justification and remission of sins are one and the else same thing And againe pag. 908. Remissio peccatorum est justitia imputata i. Forgivenesse of sins is that righteousnesse that is imputed to us Stephanus Fabritius to like purpose coâ—menting upon Psal 32.1 desines justification thus Justificatio est actio Dei quà eum qui in Christum mediatorem credit ex solà gratià et misericordi propter satisfactionem et meritum Christi à peccat is absolvit et justum ac innocentem pronunciat i. Justification is an act of God whereby of his meere grace and mercy for the satisfaction and merit of Christ he absolves him from his sins that beleeveth in Christ the Mediator and pronounceth him just and innocent Lastly Amesius upon the same Psalme and verse makes remission of sins and justification terms equipollent and reciprocall Descriptio beatitudinis petiturà causa efficiente et continente quae est remissio peecatorum vel justificatio cum ejus effectis c. i. The description of blessednesse is drawn from the efficient and holding cause thereof which is Forgivenesse of sins or Iustification with its effects It were easie I presume for him that hath leisure SECT 8 to traverse the writings of these and other Reformed Divines to make the pile farre greater of such passages as these Therfore certainly they are very injurious not onely to the names and reputations of these worthy lights in the Church of God who deny them fellowship and communion in so glorious a truth and would force upon them in the very face of their own solemne declarations of themselves to the contrary an opinion so inconsistent with the streame of the Scripture and all sound reason but to the truth it selfe also by seeking to represent it to the eyes and consciences of men as a Beacon upon a hill or as a Sparrow upon the house top alone by it selfe destitute of Friends and helpers when as it dwells in the midst of its own people and hath many of the very choyce of those holy and faithfull and chosen ones that are with the Lamb against the Beast to stand for it So that those odious aspersions of Popery and Arminianisme are Vipers that wil easily shake into the fire when the time of shaking comes This for a 4th Demonstration of our Conclusion from the Scriptures CAP. VI. Conteining a Fift Argument or proofe from Scripture for clearing the Assertion FIftly SECT 1 I conceive that a cleare opening of that Scripture Philip. 39. will yield us plenty of further light for the discovery of that truth we seek after in the obscurity of our present Controversie The words are And be found in him not having mine own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the Faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God through Faith In the former verse the Apostle professeth what strange effects the excellency of the knowledge of Christ had wrought in him it had caused him to count all things losse which somtimes he had esteemed the greatest gaine and the best treasure yea to despoyle himselfe as it were with a spirit of deep indignation of all those formerly beloved and rich-esteemed ornaments which were unto him as chaines of gold about his neck and as he then thought highly commended him and made him glorious in the sight of God and men he means his Pharisaicall righteousnesse and legall observations his Jewish prerogatives c. he was now so farre transformed by the renewing of his mind by the light of the knowledge of Christ shining in unto him that he looked upon all his former glory as upon dung and smelt a favour of death in those things which had bin his only confidence and hope before of life and peace Now the reason why he favoured himselfe all that might be in these under-thoughts and avileing apprehensions of his former things and layed on load in this kind all he could he declares to be this that he might win Christ or make gain and advantage of him How this his desire or intent of gaining Christ might be accomplished he expresseth thus And may be found in him Observe he doth not say that he may be found in his righteousnesse much lesse in his righteousnesse imputed to him but simply in himselfe That he might be found in him which is an usuall expression in Scripture of the spirituall estate and condition of a beleever viz. to be in Christ Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Iesus So cap. 16.7 Who also were in Christ before me i. were beleevers c. What it is to be found in Christ or how it must be with him if he be found in him viz. when his time is come for he speaks here of the future of the time of his breaking up as it were by death he expresseth 1. negatively thus not having mine own righteousnesse yet not simply and alltogether no righteousnesse that may in no sence be called his own but precisely and determinately no such righteousnesse of his own which stands in works of the Law Such a righteousnesse of his own he must be sure not to have i. not to trust to or to shroud and shelter himselfe under from the stroke of Gods justice 2º affirmatively thus but that i that righteousnesse which is through the Faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by Faith Here is not the least jot or tittle of any mention not the least whispering breathing or intimation of any righteousnesse he should have by the imputation of the righteousnes of Christ no nor of any righteousnesse by or through the righteousnesse of Christ but only such a righteousnes as is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through Faith of Christ or by beleeving in him Now because such a righteousnesse as this wherein is nothing more required of men SECT 2 but only Faith in Christ might seeme a slender and tickle righteousnesse to adventure so great a weight as the precious soule upon and comes far short of that righteousnesse of a mans owne which he might make out by the works of the Law the Apostle addes by way of commendation of this righteousnesse to uphold the credit and esteeme of it in the hearts and consciences of men that it is the righteousnesse of God i. a righteousnesse which God himselfe hath found out and which he will owne and countenance and account for righteousnesse unto men and no other but this Even the righteousnesse of God saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in Faith i. which comes and accrues and is derived upon a man by Faith The mentioning of this righteousnesse the second time as being or standing in Faith is doubtlesse emphaticall One reason
God in their working towards the effect having other efficients under it which worke likewise towards the same effect but depend upon it the principall cause in their working and these are causes lesse principall or instrumentall The Carpenter is the principall efficient cause of the house his Axe Saw and Hammer c. are but instrumentall efficients because though these conduce and contribute somewhat towards the building of it yet they are assum'd and ordered in their working by the Carpenter and would do nothing if they were not acted and moved by him whereas himselfe worketh independantly being acted and guided in his worke by a principle within himselfe It is true in a sense the Carpenter may be said to depend upon his instruments in working viz. as being unable to worke or build without them but in point of causalitie that only is counted a dependance when a thing is either assumed supported or directed by another in it's efficiencie none of which can be verifyed of the Carpenter in respect of his instruments wherewith he worketh Againe of causes efficient whether created or increated principall or lesse principall some are naturall some artificiall and some morall By the efficient naturall I meane that cause which hath it's efficiencie or contributes towards the effect by the exercising or putting forthâ— of some power that is naturall and essentiall to it Thus the Sun is the naturall efficient cause of the light in the ayre and of all other sublunarie effects which it produceth because it produceth them all only by the exercise and putting forth of such principles as of light motion influence c. as are naturall to it In this sense that kinde of efficient which otherwise is called voluntary i. that workes freely and with the knowledge of its owne working and is contradistinguished to that which is purely and simply naturall may sometimes and in respect of some effects be termed naturall also as viz. when it acteth towards any effect by any faculty principle or power that is naturall to it In this sense David may be called the naturall efficient cause of the motion of the stone wherewith Goliah was slaine Yea the increated efficient cause himselfe God I meane who in other respects is termed the supernaturall efficient may in this sense be called the naturall efficient or producing cause of the world and so of all other effects whatsoever produced by him viz. as he effecteth them either by that power or by that authority which are naturall or essentiall to him Secondly the efficient cause artificiall is that which produceth its effect by the exercise of some acquired or superadded principle or habit of art But of this kinde of cause we shall have no use in the businesse of Iustification therefore we passe by it Thirdly and lastly the morall efficient cause is that which contributes towards an effect by inclining or moving the will or desire of the naturall efficient cause capable of such motion towards the doing or effecting of any thing Thus first the wages for which a workman contracts to build an house or the like and secondly the hope he hath of receiving this wages upon the performance of this work and thirdly the inward disposition which is in the workman to undertake such a worke in consideration of such wages with the like may all be called morall efficient causes of that worke or effect whatsoever it be that is performed by him So the love and kindnesse which Ionathan in his life-time shewed to David were the morall eâ—â—â—cient causes of that favour which David shewed to Mephibosheth his Sonne With this kinde of causaâ—ity the greatnesse of the sinne of Sodom and Gomorrah together with the severity which is in the nature of God against such sinnes and sinners was the cause of that horrible destruction that came in fire and brimstone upon it and the sinne of Achan the cause both of his owne ruine and of his whole Family with infinite more of like consideration For that likewise is to be knowne and remembred for our better understanding of the businesse of Iustification when we come to it that this impulsive or morall efficient cause is of two sorts or kinds First that which moves the naturall efficient from within himselfe to doe such or such a thing which Logicians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly that which from without moves or inclines him accordingly which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for example when a man upon the knowledg or sight of another mans miserie in any kind is perswaded to administer comfort or reliefe to him the miserie of the man being knowne to him is the latter kinde of cause of that comfort or reliefe which he administers and the inward tendernesse or compassionatnesse of his nature towards those that are in miserie is the former Of both these kinds of efficients there may be many in respect of one and the same effect some more principall i. more effectually moving and some lesse as will cleerely appeare in the ease of Iustification Thirdly SECT 5 of the efficient causes some are more remote and mediate others againe more neere and immediate The remote cause of a thing is that which contributeth towards the effecting of it but yet doth not reach the effect it selfe but by the interposall and mediation of another The next and immediate cause is that which produceth the effect without the interveening of any other cause betweene Thus a mans eating and drinking are the remote causes of his health and strength by meanes of a good digestion distribution and incorporation of what is so digested into the severall parts of the body coming betweene which latter are the neerer and more immediate causes thereof So the capacitie and diligence of an Apprentice in learning his Trade are remote causes of that estate or subsistence which afterwards he raiseth by working upon it and consequently of all that good which he doth in any kind with his estate so gotten So that abstinence or temperance which the Apostle speaketh of 1 Cor. 9 25. in him that striveth for masteries is the remote cause of all those victories and prizes which he obteyneth and carrieth away by running wrestling c. And generally whatsoever prepares or qualifies the naturall efficient for the producing or accomplishing of any effect may properly be called a remote cause of the same And in this respect the personall holinesse and the active obedience of Christ to the Law may be called the efficient causes of Iustification but causes remote not immediate because they qualifyed him for such sufferings whereby this great effect of justification was procured but had no immediate influence thereinto Onely that is briefly to be remembred concerning this division of causes efficient that as there may be many remote causes of one and the same effect so there may be many immediate and conjunct causes also though some great Artists conceite otherwise (a) Keckerman System Logic. l. 1.
himselfe is iustified with the same Iustification wherewith sinners are iustified and consequently hath sinnes forgiven him aswell as they Because that communion which is betweene Christ and us who beleeve is but one and the same Communion and wherein Christ partakes aswell as we Therefore if the same forme of Iustification be found in him which is in us the same Iustification must be found in him or on him likewise 2º That communion which is betweene Christ and those that beleeve cannot be the formall cause of Iustification because it is no righteousnesse nor conformity with any Law either directly or indirectly either properly and precisely or by way of equivalencie and interpretatively himselfe likewise affirming p. 138 that in the act of iustification God makes men righteous by the perfect righteousnesse and full satisfaction of Christ expressing hereby if be expresseth any thing the formall cause at least according to his owne apprehension of Iustification So then the communion which is betweene Christ and us being a farre differing thing from the righteousnesse and full satisfaction of Christ it followes as well agreeably to his owne pen as to the truth it selfe that the Communion he speakes of is not the formall cause of Iustification 3º The formall cause of Iustification SECT 19 must needs be as we shall hereafter further demonstrate the proper impression or effect of the act of Iustification and consequently the effect of God who justifieth or exerciseth that act that is of God the Father as himselfe rightly supposeth p. 137. whereas that Communion betweene Christ and us which hee speakes of ariseth and floweth as himselfe also acknowledgeth in the passage cited from the Holy Ghost Therefore unpossible it is that this Communion should bee theformall cause of Iustification 4º This Communion betweene Christ and us is a consequent of our Iustification and taketh not place hath no being till after we be fully and compleately iustified This himselfe likewise upon the matter acknowledgeth in the words cited affirming that it ariseth and floweth from the Spirit which God sheds on us through Christ c. Now that the Spirit is not shed upon us till after or upon our beleeving and consequently till after we be iustified for Iustification followeth Faith as close as imagination it selfe can imagine is evident from those and many the like Scriptures This spake he of the Spirit which they that believed in him should receive c. John 7.39 And God which knoweth the heart gave them witnesse viz. that they truly beleeved as appeares from the former verse in giving unto them the Holy Ghost even as he did unto us Act. 15.8 Then Peter said unto them Amend your lives and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ for the Remission of sinnes and yee shall receive the guift of the Holy Ghost Act. 2.38 They were to beleeve before they were Baptized but the receiving of the Holy Ghost is promised after See further to this purpose Act. 6.5 Act. 8.15.16 Act. 11.17 with the 15. Act. 19.2 c. So then the Communion that is betweene Christ and us flowing from the Spirit which God sheds on us through Christ and this act of sheding being still performed by God after or upon our beleeving and consequently after or upō our compleate Iustificatiō it undeniably followes that this Communion cannot be the formall cause of our JUSTIFICATION because this is accomplished and accomplished it cannot be without the formall part or cause of it in being before the other receives it's being 5º SECT 20 If the communion that is betweene Christ and us were the formall cause of Iustification Christ himselfe might be truly said to be iustified by the same act of Iustification with us This is evident because the Communion spoken of relates aswell to him as to us and is inherent in him as much as in us and whatsoever partakes of the same forme or formall cause with another is doubtlesse in respect of this form capable of the same denominatiō with it If the forme of that Iustification be as well or as much in Christ as it is in us Christ may as wel be said to be iustified thereby as we But to say that Christ should be iustified by that communion which is betweene him and us is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a hard saying to the tender cares of Christians Therefore certainly though that Communion which is betweene Christ and us be a sweete and precious thing yet is it not the formall cause of Iustification no more then Samuel was therefore Isaak Abrahams Son because he was a good Sonne like him And 6o. If the Communion betweene Christ and us be the formall cause of Iustificatton then is not the reciprocall imputation of our sinnes to Christ and of his righteousnesse and full satisfaction to us this cause also which is yet affirmed by the same Author and with the same breath This consequence is pregnant and conquering because this reciprocall imputation is an act of God the Father and so supposed by the Author himselfe and if rightly understood not with any variation from the truth whereas the Communion mentioned floweth from the Holy Ghost as hath bin already observed and is here likewise expressely affirmed Now unpossible it is that two acts really differing the one from the other should ever so combine or incorporate as to make the forme or formall cause of any thing which as hath bin said is alwaies a single and simple being and voyd of composition This reason stands in force though we take his reciprocall imputation which he joynes with his communion to make up the forme of Iustification in a passive sense viz. for the effect of that act of God whereby he maketh that reciprocall imputation For neither can two effects really differing ever so complie or consent together to simplisie one the other as to raise a third thing or being betweene them of simplicitie enough to make the formall being of any thing 7º Neither can this reciprocall imputation taken by it selfe be the formall cause of Iustification because 1º it comprehends and includes two severall and distinct acts of God or two distinct and severall effects of two such acts of his The imputation of our sinnes to Christ is an act or effect really differing from the imputation of his righteousnesse and satisfaction unto us This is evident because as the rendring Christ obnoxious unto death is a thing really differing and of opposite consideration from the making of us righteous and capable of life so the acts by which these are effected must needs be really differing also the one from the other Now as hath bin already argued it is unpossible that any forme or formall cause should be made of any pluralitie of ingredients or be a composition made of severall things really differing the one from the other 2º It is impossible that this reciprocall imputation should be the forme we inquire after because only the beleeving sinner
must needs be the formall cause thereof otherwise it must be said either a man is formally just by some righteousnesse of his own or which he hath not received from God or else that he is not made righteous in or by his Iustification but afterwards The minor is the assertion of the Holy Ghost almost in terminis Rom. 4. For that which ver 6. is called Gods imputing righteousnesse ver 7. is interpreted to be his forgiving iniquities and covering sinne Seventhly If remission of sinnes reacheth home unto and be given unto men by God for their Iustification then is it the formall cause thereof This is evident because by the formall cause of Iustification we meane nothing else as hath bin often said but Iustification passive or that guift which by God is given unto men and by them received accordingly in and by that act of his whereby he iustifieth them So that if remission of sinnes be that which is given unto sinners by God for or unto their Iustification it must of necessitie be conceived to be the formall cause thereof Therefore I assume but remission of sinnes is given by God unto men for their Iustification and reacheth home unto it Therefore it must needs be the formall cause thereof This latter proposition againe is in effect and well nigh in terms nothing but what the Holy Ghost himselfe affirmeth Rom. 5.16 And not as it was by one that sinned so is the guift for the iudgment was by one unto condemnation but the free guift is of many offences unto Justification that is God by the free guift that is by the free forgivenesse of mens sinnes doth fully justify them The free guift of offences or the forgivenesse of sins could not be said to be unto Iustification except a man were fully and entirely justifyed thereby Lastly if remission of sinnes and the non-imputing of sinne to those that have sinned be expressions of one and the same importance and signifie the same privilege estate or condition of a person iustified then is remission of sinnes the formall cause of Iustification The strength of this consequence lieth in this that the Holy Ghost describeth or interpreteth the righteousnesse which God imputeth in Iustification by the non-imputation of sinne This is evident by comparing Rom. 4.6 with ver 8. And it was prooâ—ed before in the sixt argument that the righteousnesse imputed by God in Iustification must of necessity be the formall cause thereof Therefore it undeniably followes that if remission of sinnes and the non-imputing of sinne be expressions of one and the same condition that remission of sinnes is the formall cause of Iustification Now that the importance of these two expressions is but one and the same is apparant enough without proofe For what doth God more or otherwise in remitting sinne then he doth in not imputing it or what doth he more or otherwise in the not-imputing of sinne then he doth in remitting it Not to impute sinne to him that hath sinned can implie nothing else but not to charge the demerit or guilt thereof upon him and what doth remission of sinnes import either more or lesse And hence doubtlesse it is that David sets the same Crowne of the same blessednesse upon the head of the one and the other Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven whose sinne is covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquitie c. Psal 32.1.2 Rom. 4.7.8 Much might be further argued both from the Scriptures and otherwise SECT 34 for the cleering and countenancing of this opinion which placeth formall justification in Remission of sinnes but inasmuch as this tasque hath bin learnedly and throughly performed by another (a) Mr. Wotton De Reconciltat Part 1 lib. 2. c. 3.4.5.6.7.8 though in another languag and to ease the present discourse of length and tediousnesse what we may without any sensible de râ—ment to the cause undertaken I forbeare And the rather because whatsoever I am able to conceive may possibly with any colour or pretext of reason be objected against the opinion hath for the most part bin already answered or cleered or else will be found answered in the two following Chapters As First Object 1 That Remission of sinnes is no true or compleate righteousnesse ou shall finde satisfaction touching this in the second Chap. of this latter part in the 4 Conclusion Sect. 4. Secondly Object 2 That the righteousnesse of Christ is to be joyned with remission of sinnes to make the compleate forme of Iustification See this cleered at large Cap. 11. of the first part Thirdly Object 3 That Remission of sinnes is the consequent or effect of Iustification and therefore not the formall cause See whereof to make a sufficient answere to this Sect. 8. and Sect. 29. of this Chapter where it is fully prooved that the formall cause of Iustification must needs be the consequent of Iustification that is of that act of God whereby he justifieth Fourthly that the righteousnesse of Christ imputed is this formall cause Object 4 you shall finde this counter-argued Sect. 23 24 25 26 27. of this Chapter Fiftly Object 5 that the imputation of this righteousnesse is the formall cause The inconsistencie of this with the truth is evicted Sect. 22. of this Chapter Sixtly Object 6 That the communion that is betweene Christ and beleevers is this formall cause How little communion this hath with the truth hath bin shewed at large Section 18 19 20 21. of this Chapter Seventhly That Iustification may be Object 7 where there is no remission of sinnes and remission of sinnes where there is no justification See the opinion set cleere of this objection in the latter end of Sect. 1. of the 3 Chap. of this second part as also Sect. 29. of this present Chapter What further may be objected I doe not for the present apprehend but ready and willing I am to take any thing into a serious and unpartiall consideration that shall be tendred unto me as matter of further question or difficultie in the businesse In the meane time out of all that which hath bin reasoned at large in this Chapter concerning justification and the severall causes thereof some such description of it as this may be framed wherein the attentive Reader may observe either all or the greatest part of the causes insisted upon briefly comprehended Justification is an act of God whereby having out of his owne unspeakable free grace and goodnesse towards poore miserable sinners given his only begotten Sonne Jesus Christ to make attonement or satisfaction for them by his death in consideration of this attonement freely pardoneth and remitteth the sinnes of all those that beleeve in him through Jesus Christ preached or otherwise revealed by the Holy Ghost unto them CAP. V. VVhere in the Scriptures alledged for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse or active obedience in Justification are cleered and answered and the true sense and interpretation of them respectively established according to
appearance in this place of any comparison made between Christs being made sinne for us whatsoever be meant by it and our being made the righteousnesse of God in him but only the latter is affirmed as the end consequent or effect of the former 4. that the weight and importance of that particle in him should be by the imputation of his active obedience unto us there is neither instance or paralell expression in Scripture nor rule in Grammar nor figure in Rhetorique to make probable in the lowest or lightest degree Therefore 5. and lastly the direct and cleere meaning of the place is this that God for that end made Christ sinne that is an offering or sacrifice for sinne for us that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him that is that we might be justified or made a society or remnant of righteous ones after that peculiar manner of Iustification or righteous-making which GOD hath contrived and established through that sacrifice or offering of his Sonne This interpretation is justifiable upon these and the like considerations 1. SECT 25 It is a frequent Scripture expression to call the sin-offering or the sacrifice for sinne by the name of sinne simply See for this Exod. 29.14 Exod. 30.10 Levit. 5 6 16 18 19. Levit. 7.1 2 7. Levit. 9.7 Ezek. 44.27 Ezek. 45.19.23 Hos 4.8 besides other places This is generally acknowledged by Interpreters yea by the choycest Adversaries themselves which we have in the present controversie (a) See Bish Downham Trea. of Iustifi p. 226. c. and Bish Davenant de Iustic Hab. p. 333. 2. To expresse a number or companie of justified or righteous persons by the abstract terme of righteousnesse is very agreeable likewise with the Scripture dialect in many other places It is an expression of like stamp and figure with those poverty for poore men captivity for captives c. Of which kinde you please to see many instances in the third Chap. of this latter part Sect. 3. in the latter end p. 45. 3. That addition of God the righteousnesse of God imports that that righteousnesse or justification which beleevers obtaine by the sacrifice or death of Christ is not only a righteousnesse of Gods free donation and guift but of his speciall wonderfull and profound contrivement for them 4. By the Grammaticall construction and dependance of the latter Clause our being made the righteousnesse of God in Christ upon the former viz. his being made sinne for us it is evident that in the latter such an effect must of necessity be signified and meant which may answere and suite with that cause which is mentioned in the former viz. the death of Christ for us Now the proper and direct effect of the sacrifice or death of Christ is deliverance from the guilt and punishment of sinne not the imputation of his active obedience unto men Christ did not die for men that they might be justified or made righteous by the righteousnesse of his life (a) Quis enim sic argumentaretur mentis â—ompos Christus factus est pro nobu peccatum i. sacrificium peccati expiatoriuÌ„ quo nos justi constitueremur â—â—r go obedientia Christi in vita praestita non autem morte sive sacrificio Christi justi constituimur Gatak Elench Gom p. 48. 5. The Scriptures when they speake of the death or sufferings of Christ under the consideration of that efficiencie or causality which is in them in respect of Iustification never ascribe any other effect unto them but only either the remission of sinnes deliverance from wrath redemption or the like Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us Gal. 3.13 6. and lastly the Interpretation given as touching the substance and maine importance of it is the exposition of Interpreters almost without number as of Chrysostom Theophylact Occumenius Calvin Musculus Piscator c. I forbeare the citation of passages from them partly because the exposition hath bin I conceive abundantly cleared and confirmed already partly because it is upon the matter acknowledged by the chiefe opponents we have in the businesse in hand partly because the Authors themselves if any man doubt or be unsatisfied may readily be consulted withall and partly likewise to save the Reader an unnecessary labour as I conceive I shall only insist upon one Scripture more SECT 26 and that with somewhat the more brevity because the argument or proofe that is drawne from it is more ridiculous and importune then any of the former One copie of this Scripture is found Gal. 3.10 For it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Booke of the Law to doe them Out of this Scripture hath of late bin hewen as I heare this worthy pillar to support the tottering and ruinous building of the premised Imputation If every one be cursed that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to doe them then can no man be iustified but remaines accursed who hath not the perfect observation of the Law imputed from Christ unto him The reason is because no man is able to obtaine any such personall observation thereof The argument is not of any eminent desert to have an answere bestowed upon it yet let us not envie it this honour If the man of this argument whoever he be be in good earnest with it doubtlesse he is confederate with Stapleton the Papist at least in part who maintaines against Calvin that the righteousnesse of the Law and the righteousnesse of Faith are not two but one and the same righteousnesse Therefore First Gal. 3.10 Answered if there be no other meanes to dissolve the Curse denounced against all non-continuers in all things that are written in the Law to doe them but a perfect fulfilling of the Law by Christ imputed unto them woe and woe a thousand times to the world yea to the whole world of men and women without exception For certaine it is 1. that there is no such perfect fulfilling of Law imputed from Christ unto any man as hath been prov'd at large throughout the first part of this discourse and 2. that were there any such imputation yet this would not reach the dissolution of that curse this cleaves faster to the whole generation of Adams posterity then to be dissolved or loosed from any of them by any other meanes then by the blood of Jesus Christ It is not said that without keeping the Law but that without shedding of blood there is no remission Heb. 9.22 Christ might have kept the Law a 1000 yeeres for us and yet never have found Justification or redemption from the Curse of the Law for us had he not bin made a curse for us by his death and sufferings Gal. 3.13 Secondly SECT 27 he that is fully discharg'd and acquitted from all his non-continuances in the things of the Law I meane from the guilt of all his sins
37. for censured r. conceived CAP. I. VVherein the state of the question is opened and the sense EXPLAINED Wherein aswell the Imputation of FAITH is affirmed as the imputation of the RIGHTEOUSNESSE of CHRIST denyed in JUSTIFICATION FOR the cleare understanding of the state and drift of the question some things would be premised which for their evidence sake might be privilledged and exempted from passing under much dispute or contradiction yet if any thing be not sufficiently prepared for assent in the briefe proposall of it the ensuing discourse will labor to reconcile the disproportion and in the progresse make satisfaction for what it shall receive upon courtesie in the beginning As 1. That the termes justifying justification c. are not to be taken in this question nor in any other usually moved about the justification of a sinner either 1 sensu physico in a Physicall sense as if to justifie signified to make just with any habituall or actuall any positive or inherent righteosnesse Nor yet 2. sensu forensi propriè dicto in a juridicall or judiciary sense properly so called where the Iudge hath only a subordinate and derived power of â—udicature and is bound by Oath or otherwise to give sentence according to the strict rule of the Law as if to justify were to pronounce a man just or 〈◊〉 absolve him from punishment according to the strict terme of precise rule of that Law whereof he was accused as a transgressor though this sense be admitted and received by many But 3. and lastly sensu forensi improprié dicto in a judiciary sense lesse properly and usually so called vizr where he that Titteth Iudge being the supreme Magistrate hath an independancy or soveraignty of power to moderate and dispence with the Law as reason or equity shall require So that to justify in this question import's the discharging or absolving of a man from the guilt blame and punishment of those things whereof he either is or justly might be accused not because he is cleare of such things or justifiable according to the letter or strictnesse of the Law for then he could not be justly accused but because the Judge having a sufficient lawful soveraignty of power is willing upon sufficient weighty considerations known unto him to remit the penalty of the Law and to deliver and discharg him as if he were an innocent or righteous man As for the Physical sense of making just by inherent righteousnesse though Bellarmine and his Angells earnestly contend for it yet till Scriptures be brought low and Etymologies be exalted above them till use and custome of speaking deliver up their Kingdome into Cardinalls bands that sense must no way be acknowledged or received in this dispute Yet to give reason and right even to those that demand that which is unreasonable it is true that God in or upon a mans justification begins to justifie him Physically that is to infuse habituall or inherent righteousnesse into him But here the Scriptures and the Cardinall are as far out in termes as in a thousand other things they are in substance and matter that which he will needs call justification the Scriptures will as peremptorily call Sanctification Concerning the other sense of a judiciary justification usually and strictly so called SECT 2 wherein the Iudge or justifier proceeds upon legall grounds to acquit and absolve the party guilty or accused neither can this be taken in the Question propounded except the Scriptures be forsaken because the Scriptures constantly speake of this act of God justifying a sinner not as of such an act whereby he will either make him or pronounce him legally just of declare him not to have offended the Law and hereupon justifie him but of such an act whereby he freely forgives him all that he hath done against the Law and acquits him from all blame and punishment due by the Law unto such offences So that in that very act of God whereby he justifies a sinner as there is a discharge from all punishment due unto him so there is a profession withall or plaine intimation of the guiltinesse of the person now to be justified according to the Law and that he is not discharged or acquitted upon any consideration that can be pleaded for him according to the Law but that consideration upon which God proceeds to justifie him is of another order the consideration of somewhat done for him in this case to relieve him out of the course and order or appointment of the Law he whose justification stands whether in whole or in part it is not materiall herein in the forgivenesse of sinne can in no construction be said to be justified according to the Law because the Law knowes no forgivenesse of sinnes neither is there any rule for any such thing there The Law speakes of the curse death and condemnation of a sinner but for the justification of a sinner it neither takes knowledg nor gives any hope thereof Secondly That Iesus Christ the naturall Sonne of God and supernaturall Sonne of the Virgin ran a race of obedience with the Law aswell Ceremoniall as Morall and held out with every letter jot and tittle of it as farre as it any wayes concerned him during the whole continuance of his life in the flesh no mans thoughts ever rose up to deny but those that denyed him the best of his being I meane his Godhead Which of you convinceth me of sinne was his challenge to the Nation of the Jewes whilst he was yet on earth Ioh 8 46. and remaines through all ages as a challenge to the world He that can â—ast the least aspersion or imputation of sinne upon Christ shall shake the foundations of the peace and safety of the world Thirdly that this Christ offered up himselfe as a Lambe without spot in sacrifice upon the Crosse to make an attonement for the world and to purge the sinne of it I know no spirit at this day abroad in the Christian world that denies but that which wrought in Secinus formerly and still workes in those that are baptized into the same spirit of error with him Fourthly I conceive it to be a truth of greater authority amongst us then to meet with contradiction from any man that Iesus Christ is the sole and entire meritorious cause of every mans justification that is justified by God or that that righteousnesse or absolution from sinne and condemnation which is given to every man in his justification is somewhat yea a principall part or member of that great purchase which Christ hath made for the world Evan as God for Christs sake freely forgave you Ephes 4.32 Forgivenesse of sinnes or justification is from God for Christs sake he is worthy to be gratified and honored by God with the justification of those that believe in him whatsoever he is worthy of more Fiftly It is a truth that hath every mans judgment concurring with it that Faith is the condition appointed by God and
of a distinction is given the opposite member being implied is still to be framed to it as readily it may Therefore Paul had no intent to shut out but to bring in the works of the Law as wrought by Christ into the businesse of Iustification To this I answere sundry things First that the active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ should be wholly excluded and be made a stander-by so as to have nothing at all to do in the great businesse of Iustification this discourse hath no where affirmed hitherto neither doth it savor any where of the spirit of that affirmation It hath been expressely acknowledged from the beginning to have a gracious and blessed influence thereinto as it issueth and falleth into his passive obedience which together may be called a righteousnesse for which but at no hand with which we are justified Therefore this objection contending and pleading for an admission of the workes of the Law as done by Christ into Iustification doth no waies contradict the answere given in any part of it except it can prove the necessity of this admission of the active righteousnesse of Christ either for the materiall or formall or instrumentall cause of Iustification which it no waies doth nor pretendeth to do And the truth is whosoever shall doe it that is goe about to make this righteousnesse of Christ either the formall o◠materiall or instrumentall cause of Iustification will be found upon a due examination wholly to dissolve and overthrow the merit of it the establishment whereof is yet pretended as the great and pious designe of that opinion Secondly I answore that the inference insisted upon in the objection from the Scripture mentioned comes heavily and with much unwillingnesse and reluctation out of the premisses there is no necessitie nor indeed so much as a face of probabilitie in it The Holy Ghost may reject the works of men from being the cause of such or such a thing and yet no waies suppose or intimate that the works of another should be the cause thereof As when we deny either the Faith or works of any man foreseene to be the cause of his election we do not imply that the Faith or works of Christ foreseene are the cause of such election No more doth it follow that because Paul rejects the works of righteousnesse which men do from their justification that therefore he must needs imply a substitution of the workes of Christ in their stead If the words had gone thus Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we OUR SELVES had done this had beene somewhat a higher ground and a more rationall advantage to have infer'd the opposite member of the distinction viz. but by the works of another or of Christ As Act. 20 24. where Paul expresseth himselfe thus Neither is my life deare unto my selfe c. here the opposite member of the division may with good probability be conceived to be implied after this manner my life is not deare unto my selfe THOUGH IT MAY BE DEERE UNTO OTHERS And yet even such an intimation here is not of absolute necessitie neither But if the tenor of the words had only run thus Neither is my life deere unto me so that I may fulfill my course with joy No man would ever have dream't or thought of any further thing to be implied then what was expressed So when the Holy Ghost in a direct and plaine tenor of Speech speaketh only thus Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had wrought not which we our selves had wrought for men to conclude or inferre an implying of workes wrought by another is in plaine and necessary interpretation to make themselves wise above that which is written But thirdly to put the matter out of all question that excluding the works of the Law which we had done he had no intent by way of opposition to imply the works which another might doe he expresseth plainly the opposition himselfe and tells us that it was according to his mercy that he saved us not by the works of righteousnesse which we had done but according to his mercy he saved us Therefore here can be nothing implied by way of opposition because the opposition is fully and distinctly set downe And Fourthly least any might yet say that it may be according to Gods mercy and yet by the works of righteousnesse wrought by Christ too these two may easily be reconciled and stand together the Apostle delivers himselfe distinctly of that wherein this mercy of God he speaks of consisteth not in saveing of us by the works of Christ imputed to us but in regenerating of us and washing us in the new birth Fiftly and lastly as such an inference is no waies necessarie SECT 6 nor so much as probable so is it no waies pertinent to the purpose for which it is so earnestly contended for though it should be granted Because it is evident that the Apostle here rejects the workes of righteousnesse which he names from being any causes antecedaneously moving God to save us and not from being the formall cause of justification So then let us give the objection it s owne hearts desire even that it murmur's so much after viz. that the works of Christ must of necessity be here implied yet will it perish and come to nothing even whilst this meat is in the mouth of it For all that will follow or can be concluded by the imaginary advantage of such a supposition is only that whereof themselves will be ashamed when it is brought forth unto them viz. this that it is not the works of the Law which we have done our selves but those which Christ hath done that have moved God to save us by the washing of the new birth and by the renewing of the Holy Ghost Which if it be understood and meant of the decree and purpose of God so to save us is against the truth if it be understood of the execution of this decree is against themselves For that which moved God to decree or intend this salvation unto us was nothing out of himselfe but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that good and gracious pleasure of his will Eph. 1.5 or as that clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his will is somewhat more emphatically with more of the Spirit and life of the originall in it rendred by our Translators ver 11. of his owne will implying as I conceiv◠that that will wherewith God willeth and purposeth to save his people is intirely his owne borne and begotten as it were only out of himselfe without the seed of any consideration of any thing whatsoever out of himselfe As for the execution of this decree in the actuall justification or regeneration of those whom he hath purposed to save if this be ascribed to the works of righteousnesse done by Christ as the cause moving God thereunto this cleerely establisheth the merit of the righteousnesse of Christ in justification but overthroweth the formality of it which is that
lastly if either Bellarmines or his interpreters who finds this miracle of ingenuity in him meaning be that Calvin holds the imputation of Christs righteousnesse neceslary to justification by way of merit only we are no further adversaries in this point But if their meaning be and other it cannot be without apparant prevarication that over and besides remission of sinnes Calvin holds a necessity of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in justification as a second part or member of it really distinct from remission of sins to make it compleate and perfect this is to burthen Calvin with such an imputation as is not lightly incident to a considering and learned man as he was He himselfe in his Antidote against the Counsell of Trent in their sixt Session takes those Fathers tardie with that Logicall Soloecisme in their Divinitie of making the formall cause of justification double acsi partìm remissione peccatorum partim spirituali regeneratione justi essemus i. as if we were righteous partly by remission of sins partly by spirituall regeneration Now if he should place justification partly in remission of sinnes partly in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse who seeth not that himselfe is in the same condemnation with his adversaries and builds up by example what he pulls downe by reproofe But he washeth his hands in perfect innocencie this way Ego autem saith he unicam et simplicem esse assero i. but I hold and affirme meaning the formall cause of justification to be but one and simple Bellarmine indeed doth not admit of this purgation of himselfe but will needs finde him foule in the businesse notwithstanding and recriminates upon him the same imputation wherewith he had burdened the counsell Quippe qui saith he of Calvin De Justificatione lib. 2. Cal. Inst l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 2. cap. 2. disertis verbis justificationem in peccatorum remissione et justitiae Christi imputatione sitam esse scribat i. Carvin in expresse words delivers it that justification consists in remission of sinnes and in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse And here is the interpretation of that ingenuity whereof we heard the innocent Jesuit lately accused we see how kindly and lovingly he dealt by his adversarie when he would needs give him in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by way of sub-intelligence to remission of sinnes wherein alone he had placed justification The old adage was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The guifts of enemies are but guile Bellarmine was willing to enlarge Calvins opinion and to adde more then enough to it that so he might make it the fairer marke to shoot at But Paraeus fairely delivers this Souldier of Christ out of the hands of that Romish Champion SECT 4 only by an ingenuous and faire interpretation of that passage whereat his adversary tooke this advantage against him Paraeus contrâ— Bellarmun lib. 2 cap 2. Lect. 247. See the same Author in his Tâ—ract De justiâ—ia Christi Act. Pass p. 179 c. where he interprets the said passage of Calvin much after the same manne Hinc videre potuit adversarius saith Paraeus c. i. Hence his adversary meaning Bellarmine might see and perceive that saying in his Institutions that Justification consisted in remission of sinnes and imputation of Christs righteousnesse his meaning was not that there should be a double formall cause of Iustification as if we were righteous partly by remissió of sinnes partly by imputation and neither of them a compleate and full Iustification for so hee should fight both against himselfe and against the Scriptures but his intent was by two Scripture-termes equipollent the one to the other to expresse one and the same formall cause or to joyne these two expressions together exegetically i. So that one might helpe to explaine the other quia remissio peccatorum sit imputatione justitiae et vicissim imputatio justitia fit remissione peccatorum teste Apostolo Rom. 4. ver 6.7 c. i. because remission of sinnes is made by or in the imputation of righteousnesse and againe impu tation of righteousnesse made in remission of sinnes witnesse the Apostle Rom. 4.6.7 c If this Author be further consulted with in the sequel he will tell you more at large how Calvin placeth integram justificationem modò sola remissione peccatorum c. i. intire and compleate JUSTIFICATION sometimes in remission of sinnes onely sometimes in remission of sinnes and imputation of Christs righteousnesse without any contradiction Neither is it hard to conceive how the one may be the sole and intire formall cause and the other the meritorious Which to have been the very expresse meaning and minde of Calvin is so apparant by comparing and laying together passage with paslage from him that except a mans conceit were much relieved and strengthened by his will he would finde it a matter of much difficulty to thinke otherwise SECT 5 Bellarmine himselfe when the pange of ingenuity is but a little of him can finde out his adversaries opinion cleerely enough For explaining those words of the Trent Councell wherein it is said that righteousnesse doth not consist in Remission of sinnes only Reijcitur saith he sententia Calvini de justificatione more forensi c. i. Calvins opinion concerning Justification after a juridicall manner is here rejected And so generally when he undertakes the confutation of that error as he calls it which placeth Justification in Remission of sinnes only he still chargeth Calvin with it and seldome any other as on the contrary when he disputes against that opinion which placeth Iustification in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse he still layes on upon CHEMNI TIUS Compare the 6 and 7 Chapters together in his Second BOOKE of JUSTIFICATION Let me adde but onething more here out of the Councell of Trent it selfe SECT 5 which seems directly to point at Calvin as the Anthor or maintainer of that very opinion where with we have laboured hitherto to honour him as with an Lonour which belongs unto him Or if Calvin be not conceived to be the man yet the opinion we shall evince from hence to have bin famous in the Reformed Churches when the Conncell thus thundred out against it 〈…〉 11. Si quis dixerit hominem justificari velsola imputatione justitiae Christs vel sola peccatorum remissione c. Anathema sit i. If any man shall say that a man is justified either by the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ alone or by remission of sins alone c. let him be accursed From whence observe first that to place iustification in remission of sins alone was an opinion by it selfe distinct from the other that held iustification by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse alone For it is evident by the disjunctive particles in this Canon that the Councell being as it seems good Husbands of their thunderbolts had an intent to strike down two opinions at once And so Bellarmine as we heard explains the Councell Secondly observe that
applyed by the said efficients is the matter or materiall part of it So in the justification of a sinner neither is God himselfe who is the principall efficient of this effect of justification neither is Faith which is the iustrumentall efficient of it for God is said in Scripture to justifie men by or through it Rom. 3.30 which for the most part are symptomaticall particles of the instrumentall-efficient cause neither is the righteousnesse of Christ which is the meritorious effiâ—ient cause of it none of these are either matter or forme or any constituting cause of iustification but only remission of sins or absolution from punishment as the sorme applyed unto or put upon the matter and the matter or subject it selfe whereunto this forme is applyed by all the 3 efficients spoken of according to their severall and distinct manner of working viz. the person of the beleever This Argument to him that understands and will seriously consider that unchangable Law mentioned of the 4. kinds rally acknowledged by the contrary-minded themselves in this Controversie But that Christ should be reputed before God to have sinned in me seems unto me an assertion so uncouth and un-Christian that a Christian had need to borrow the eares of a Pagan to hear it with patience However the untruth of it is thus made manifest If Christ be reputed before God to have sinned in me he must be reputed to have had a being in me for as operatio consequitur esse i. the operation of a thing follows and depends upon the being of it so he that supposeth or reputeth a person to have done any thing either good or evill in another must necessarily suppose or repute him to have had a being there But what being Christ should be reputed by God to have had in me being yet an unbeleever is a speculation too high for me to attaine unto Againe Argum. 14 SECT 2 against this supposed imputation I oppose this consideration If the active obedience of Christ be imputed unto me in my justification then is the passive imputed also For there can be no sufficient reason given why the one should be taken and the other left Neither are the adversaries themselves partiall in this point to the one above the other they generally allow place for both in their imputation But that the death or sufferings of Christ are not in the letter and formalitie of them imputed unto me I thus demonstrate If the death and sufferings of Christ be imputed unto me then may I be accounted or reputed to have died and suffered in Christ But I can at no hand be reputed to have died or suffered in Christ Therefore the death and sufferings of Christ are not imputed unto me I meane still in the letter and formality of them as I would be understood in the maâ—or proposition also The reason of the sequel in that proposition is evident from the former argument To have any thing imputed to a man in the letter and formality of it and to be reputed and taken as the doer or sufferer of what is so imputed are termini aequipollentes et sese mutuò explicantes are expressions that differ not in sense but relieve one the other in their significations The Reason of the minor that no man is to be conceived or said to have suffered in Christ is this because in Christ we are justisied and absolved from punishment and therefore cannot be said to have been punished in him He hath made us freely accepted in his beloved Ephes 16. Therefore he poured not out his wrath upon us in his beloved And by his stripes we are healed which is contrary to being wounded or punished 1 Pet. 224. And to say that we suffered or were punished in Christ is in effect to unsay or gainsay what the Gospell every where speaketh touching our Redemption and deâ—iverance from punishment by Christ In what sence the sufferings of Christ may be said to be imputed tobeleevers is 〈◊〉 plained in the Second part cap. 3. Sect. 7. He that knoweth how to reconcile these two may undertake to make light and darknesse friends and needs not feare miscarying in his designe that God should freely forgive us our sinnes and yet punish us for them and that to the full which must be said by those that will say we were punished in Christ If Christ were punished for us or in our stead which is the Scripture language 2 Cor. 5.21 who made him sinne for us doubtlesse we our selves can in no sense wherein words and truth will agree be said to be punished or to have suffered in him One Reason more and no more of this Chapter If the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense so oft-expressed be imputed to us Argum. 15 SECT 3 then are we justifyed at least in part by the Ceremoniall Law This consequence is too good to be denyed because part of that righteousnesse which Christ wrought stood in obedience to the Ceremoniall Law he was circumcised kept the Passeover c. Therfore if the righteousnesse of Christ be imputed unto us in the letter and formality of it that part of his righteousnesse which stood in obedience ceremoniall must be imputed also But that we are not justified either in whole or in part by the Ceremoniall Law is a truth so neare scituate to every mans apprehension that it needs not be brought neerer by force of argumentation If it be replyed that there is no necessity that any part of his righteousnesse Ceremoniall should be imputed because his morall righteousnesse is sufficient for imputation To this I answere First there is no warrant or rule in Scripture thus to rend and teare in pieces the one halfe from the other that which was one entire and compleat righteousnesse in Christ and to take which part we please to our selves and leave the other as a cast piece Secondly if that part only of the righteousnesse of Christ which stood in his obedience to the Morall Law be imputed unto us for righteousnesse in our justification then will there not be found the same way or meanes of justification for the whole body of Christ but the beleeving Jewes before Christs death must be made righteous or justified with one kind of righteousnesse and the Gentiles with another For the Jewes before the death of Christ had a necessitie of both parts of this righteousnesse to be imputed to them in their justification supposing their justification had stood in such an imputation as some stand up to maintaine aswell ceremoniall as morall But that the Jewes should be justified with one kind of righteousnesse and the Gentiles with another as there is no colour of reason that I know to maintaine so there is substance and strength of Scripture to oppose Rom. 3.22.30 Thirdly and lastly that righteousnesse of Christ which is called Morall if separated and divided from the other part which is Ceremoniall was not a compleat and perfect righteousnesse in him because it
imputeing Adams sinne unto them because then an act of God should be as it were the life and soule of that sin which is in men Therfore men are not made formally just or righteous by any act of God imputeing righteousnesse unto them The Argument I conceive is of no easie solution to those who maintain the imputation it selfe of this righteousnesse and not the righteousnesse imputed to be the form of justification Which yet I conceive to be an apprehension every whit as rationall as that which on the other hand maintaineth the righteousnesse it selfe of Christ imputed to be this forme For whether we conceive of justification either under the notion of a relation being a new condition come upon the person justified which seems to be the best and truest notion of it or whether we conceive it as a passion besides which two I know no predicament a I nature that can be put upon it certainly no righteousnesse whatsovâ— properly so called much lesse the righteousnesse of another then of the person justified can be the forme of it It is unpossible that one predicament or predicamentall being should informe another and that righteousnesse whether we speake of that which is habituall or that which is actuall belongeth neither to the predicament of relation nor to that of passion is better known to Logicians then to be made matter of disputation The oyle in the cruse doth not yet faile SECT 5 There are some drops still of further reason to exaucthorize the opinion of this imputation If justification consists partly in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse partly in remission of sinnes then must there be a double formall cause of justification and that made up and compounded of two severall natures really differing the one from the other But this is unpossible Ergo. With the rod of this Argument Calvin scourg'd those Fathers of Trent for joyning regeneration or infusion of grace with remission of sins in justification as we heard before which supposing him a man but tolerably sound or sober in his intellectualls is a demonstration in abundance that his meaning never was to place Iustification in any imputation of righteousnesse really distinct from remission of sins but that his apprehensions in this point were praecise et formaliter the same with this Country-mans of latter times who calls Remission of sins that righteousnesse which is imputed (a) Remissio peccatorum est justitia imputata Chamier Panstrat t. 3. l. 21. cap. 19. see 10. Idem sunt justificatio et Remissio peccatorum Vismus Cat. part 2. Qu. 60. sect 3. Whose meaning by the way is not as some of the opposite party in this cause have catch'd and quarrel'd with like expressions from others as if God in justification did imputeremission of sins unto men and in this sence remission of sins should be called the righteousnesse which is imputed but that God really remitting and forgiving mens sinnes such remission and forgivenesse may well be called an imputed righteousnes partly because it is no absolute legall or text righteousnesse but a righteousnesse by interpretation or construction of favour partly because such a righteousnesse as it is it is notwithstanding given in the strength and mediation of the righteousnesse merit and satisfaction of another which is Christ Let us yet heare and not be wearie what both reason and Religion can further speake against this imputation so much spoken for SECT 6 If such imputation be necessary in justification Argum. 20 this necessity must be found either in respect of the justice of God because otherwise he could not be just in pronouncing men righteous or in respect of his mercie or for the salving or advanceing of some other Attribute c. But there is no necessity of bringing in such an imputation into justification in respect of any of these Therfore it is brought in without any necessity at all and consequently must of necessity be cast out againe The Protectors of it themselves assigne no other necessity of it but onely in respect of Gods justice God they say cannot salvâ justiciâ with the safety of his justice pronounce a man righteous that is not righteous their meaning is according to the strict and literall righteousnesse of the Law But to this I answere First that there is nothing at all necessarie to be done either by God himselfe or by man about the justification of a sinner by way of satisfaction to the Justice of God since that one offering of Christ of himselfe upon the crosse Otherwise there must be found somwhat defective or wanting in that satisfaction If the justice of God be fully and every waies satisfied and provided for by the death of Christ as concerning the Iustification of sinners doubtlesse there remaines nothing further as necessarie to be done either by God or by man or by any other creature for the satisfaction of the same Justice Therfore if God should impute the righteousnesse of Christ unto men in this case some other end or pretext for it must be sought out not any provision for or satisfaction to his justice The infinite valour of Christs passives must not be abated or drawn down to make way for an imaginatie exaltation of his actives The necessity of Faith to Iustification which is a necessity confessed and acknowledged by all â—â—yâ—th not in reference to Gods Justice as if any man satisfied that either in whoâ—e or in part by beleeving but the necessity of it respecteth either his wisdome or the counsaile of his will as the Apostles expression is Eph. 1.11 He judged it not meet not counted it unjust to save men in any other way by the satisfaction of Christ then by the way of Faith This is the WILL of him that sent me saith our Saviour Ioh 6.40 not the righteousnes or Iustice of him that sent me that every man which seeth the Sonne and beleeveth in him should have everlasting life If there were nothing else to hâ—nder but want of satisfaction to divine iustice doubtlesse the whole world should be saved Vehemens in Deâ— est ad homini benefaciendum affectus quem eousque puratus est extendere quâ—â—â—l IVSTICIA vlle modo permittit Corvin Cersur Anatom p. 79. without any more adoe And therfore by the way that saying of Arnoldus in his Censure of Molineus p. 79. is deeply taxable except he can best â—â—e himselfe to make an aâ—tonemâ—nt for the hardnesse of his text with a soft interpretation There is saith he a strong affection in God to doe good to man and this affection he is still ready to act or exercise as far as ever his justice will give him leave Secondly whereas it was sayd that God cannot SECT 7 with the safety of his justice or truth pronounce a man righteous that is not so indeed with a legall righteousnesse litterally and properly so called I answere that doubtlesse he may aswell and as truely pronounce and cal that man righteous that
or Adams person interpreted or expounded at large and may with as good propriety of speech be called Adam as the nation of the Iewes is often in the Scripture called Iacob So then it being granted 1º that the sinne of Adam was exceedingly sinfull and demeritorious 2º that his person properly taken by reason of the scantnesse or narrownesse of it was not capable of the fulnesse of that wrath which that sin deserved and which it stood best with the glory of God should be executed or poured out upon it it cannot be thought any waies unrighteous or unequall that his posteritie should be arrested also and taken into Communion with his person in the punishment inflicted to supplie that which was wanting in it That God should not be stinted or streightned in making provision for his owne glory in the punishment of sin but that he should punish till he maketh himselfe whole at least till he cometh as neere into his owne as conveniently he may there is no man can judge unequall or unjust Now then Adam who was the sinner having of his owne whereof or wherewith to make satisfaction I meane a posterity which was so fully so intirely and as I may say so identically his owne that it was as yet rather himselfe then his it cannot but be thought equall and meet that God should father seize upon these to doe himselfe right then upon the Angells or any other kind of creature that had not that neere and speciall relation to the transgressor As in the case of the sinne of Korah Dathan and Abiram and so of Achan before mentioned the personall punishment of the offenders not holding out proportion with the nature and quality of their offences there is no man but must needs conceive it more agreeable to justice that their owne families respectively and those that had the neerest relation to them should be taken to make up the exemplarinesse of the punishment till it was increased and raised to the line and levell of the offence then any other family or person that stood at a further distance from them God in a faire and reasonable construction involving Adam and his posterity in the punishment for his sinne did but involve Adam himselfe or his person only because his person and posterity when this punishment was executed were but one and the same Adam This is the third and last particular upon which the equitie of God in punishing aswell Adams posterity as his person for his sinne seemes to be grounded viz. the peculiar neerenesse and relation betweene his person and posteritie Me thinks there is a joynt intimation of all the three SECT 14 in that Scripture Rom. 5.12 Wherfore as by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and so death passed upon all men in that or rather according to the best translations and expositions in whom all men have sinned Here is first the demerit of this sin implied in that death is said to enter into the world by it There is nothing in sinne to draw death and condemnation after it but only the demerit or sinfulnesse of it as for the act it selfe whereunto this sinfullnesse cleaveth for malum semper habitat in alieno fundo as one saith evill is alwaies found with somwhat that is not evill this is directly and efficiently from God himselfe as hath bin said and therfore death is no wages due to this neither would it in case it were imputed to any man bring any guilt or condemnation upon him Secondly it being further said that death being entred into the world passed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon all men or over all men it sheweth that Adams single person was not sufficient or able to beare the fullnes of that punishment which the sinfullnesse-of his sin had deserved otherwise death doubtlesse would have stopp'd there and have gone or passed on no further Thirdly and lastly where it is added in the close as the reason why death being gotten into the world should passe directly towards men and should prevaile in speciall manner over them and that over them all without exception viz. because that in him i. Adam all men had sinned this implieth that had not men bin in the loynes of Adam who was the sinner or otherwise had no speciall or neere relation to him this death had had no more right or advantage against them then against other creatures So that now these things duly considered SECT 15 evident it is that the imputation of Adams sinne or rather of the act of Adams sinne for otherwise it is nothing to the purpose so much spoken of and urged in this case to his posteritie is not the ground or cause of the punishment that is fallen upon his posteritie for it neither is there the least little in the Scriptures founding that way but chiefly that speciall communion they had with him in his nature having then their severall beings respectively in his loynes and consequently in his sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See more of this in the Second Part. cap. 2. Sect. 11 12 13. in whom all have sinned saith Paul Therfore now the ground of that punishment or condemnation which is come upon all men is not the imputation of Adams sinne much lesse of the act of Adams sinne as before we distinguished but if any imputation be in this case it is of every mans owne sinne in Adam for it was not Adam alone that sinned but all sinned in him it is every mans owne sinne that is imputed to him and for which he is punished As Levi himselfe is said to have paied tithes in the loynes of Abraham his Father not that Abraham's paying of tithes was imputed to Levi Heb. 7.9.10 so neither is it to be said that Adams sinne is imputed to his posterity but rather that this posteritie themselves sinned in Adam and it is but every mans own sin not Adams that is imputed to him To make a bare and district imputation of the act of anothers sin the adequate and sole ground and foundation of that heavy judgement and punishment that is layed upon all men in this kind is not so much to represent God to the minds and consciences of men as a district just and severe Judge which with their interpretations may be affirmed of him as to make him so farre to take pleasure or to delight in blood and in the ruine of his creature that he will take occasion even where none is to slay and to destroy with death And of the two doubtlesse it were lesse dishonourable unto God to conceive or say of him in this case that he fell thus heavie in wrath and judgement upon the whole posterity of Adam because he would doe it or because it was his absolute will and pleasure so to doe then to pretend or conceive the bare imputation of the act of Adams sin the cause or reason of it For in the former the absolute power or Soveraigntie of
of that shrubbe that is apt to beare it in Summer the naturall season for such births Thus Levie as we heard is said to have beene i. to have had a being in the loynes of Abraham And this all mankinde even Adams whole posterity had a being and subsistence in Adam Now there are none of these kinds of beings and subsistences of things but have their acts and operations proportionable and proper to them the perfecter being the perfecter and lesse dependent operation Things that have an actuall and compleate being out of their causes act and worke of themselves their causes that produced them as such having no communion or fellowship with them in their actions Things that have their beings onely in their causes act and operate in and by and with these onely as having their whole dependence on them and subsistence in them yet are these acts and operations of things in their causes onely as truely theirs though not as perfectly and compleately theirs as they are the causes themselves in and by whom they were performed Thus Levie did as truely pay tythes in Abraham as Abraham himselfe did in whom he paied them otherwise wee make the Scripture lesse true in affirming the one then the other So that act of eating the forbidden fruit by Adam was as truely the act of all his posterity as his owne though not so compleately and perfectly theirs as his hee having no dependance on them or subsistence in any of them therein but they all depending on him as one in and by whom God had given them all their beings and having their subsistence in him as the naturall productive roote of all their actuall compleate beings a The Fathers generally have taught this inexistence or being of all men in Adam Fuit Adam in illo perierunt omnes Amb. in Luc. lib. 7. Adam erat nos omnes omnes eramus ille unus Adam Certum manifestumque est alia esse propria cuique peccata in quibus hi tantum peccant quorum peccata sunt aliud hoc unum in quo omnes peccaverunt quando omnes ille unus homo suerunt Aug. de Peccat Merit Remis l. 1. c. 10. In Adamo omnes peccavimus ib. c. 13. Si parvuli quod vera fides habet nasiuntur peccatoreâ— profecto eo modo quo sunt peccatores etiam pravaticatores legis illius quae in Paradise lata est agnoscuntur Aug. de Civi l. 16. c. 27. Qui non fuerit regeneratus interibit anima illa de genere ejus quia testamentum meum dissipavit quando in Adam cum omnibus etiam ipse peccavit ib. There being then a certaine and unquestionable truth in this that Adams sinne was the sinne of his posteritie as well as of his person this the Scripture affirmeth and holdeth forth unto us as one maine ground and consideration why and how the world comes to be involved in the guilt and punishment of Adams transgression 2. Adams sinne comes to relate or to have reference to his posteritie in matter of pollution and defilement and consequently of guilt and punishment by naturall descent and propagation from him Adams person the fountaine and spring-head of all his posteritie being corrupted and poysoned with him except God should have wrought miraculously and above the course of nature either by a through purging of the fountaine before any streame issued from it or by dissevering and untwisting as it were the poyson from the waters in the very point and moment of their issue and source neither of which he was any wayes bound to doe could not but send forth streames of like corruption and defilement with the fountaine it selfe This the Scripture plainely teacheth in many places Who can bring a cleane thing out of an uncleane not one Iob 14.4 God himselfe by his ordinary power cannot doe it So our Saviour Ioh. 3.6 That which is borne of the flesh corrupted and weakened by sinne is by the course of nature whereunto God himselfe hath righteously consented flesh i. a creature or thing of the same sinfull and weake nature and condition with it And to forbeare other texts of like importance this way the Apostle Rom. 5.19 expresly affirmeth that by the disobedience of one meaning Adam many were made sinners not by the imputation of the Act of his sinne to them this is neither Sunne nor Moone neither Scripture nor good Reason but by corrupting and defiling his owne person by reason whereof all that are borne of him in a way of naturall dissent and propagation must needs be borne sinners 3. And lastly death and condemnation are justly come upon the world no so much to speake properly and with the Scriptures for Adams transgression as by Adams transgression partly as this transgression of his was the sinne and transgression of the world as hath beene already said and proved partly as by meanes of this sin the world I meane all the sonnes and daughters of men that are borne into it are become personally and so compleately sinfull In this sence it is said that by the offence of one death reigned viz. over all by one Rom. 5.17 and so that death passed over all in that all had sinned ver 12. And againe that judgement came by one unto condemnation ver 16. And that all men by nature are children of wrath c. Ephes 23. If men can find any propriety in the word Imputation to signifie any of these three Considerations let the sinne of Adam be said to be imputed to his posterity I shall no wayes contradict it but for any such imputation as is pretended and pressed by many by which men should be constituted and made formally sinners before God and the sinne no wayes looked upon as theirs but onely by meanes of such imputation I neither finde the Scriptures affirming nor am otherwise able to comprehend Though justification and salvation came unto the world by Christ the second Adam Concusi 10 sect 14 as condemnation and death came by the first Adam yet are there many different considerations and circumstances betweene the comming and bringing in of salvation by the one and of condemnation by the other The Apostle himselfe gives instance in two particulars wherein they differ greatly Rom. 5.15.16 And besides these there are many others As first the sinne of Adam by which he brought condemnation upon the world was as well the act of all his posteritie as his owne in which respect they may as truely be said to have brought condemnation upon themselves as Adam but that obedience by which Christ brought salvation into the world can with no propriety of speech nor with any consistence of truth be said to have beene theirs or performed by them who are saved by it so that these cannot now be said with any more truth to have saved themselves then if they had not beene saved at all It is said indeede that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himselfe 2 Cor.
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
description of this cause given of Iustification is God himselfe Father Son and Holy Ghost considered is one and the same simple and intire essence though this act of justification as that of creation and some others besides is in special manner appropriated to the first person of the three the Father as other acts are to the other two persons Redemption to the Son Sanctification to the Holy Ghost c. in both which notwithstanding all the three persons being but one and the same intâ—re and undivided essence must needs be interesâ—ed Thus Rom. 8.33 where it is said that it is God that justifieth it is meant by way of appropriation of God the Father because there is mention made of Christ the second person immediately it is Christ that is dead c. Now that God is that kinde of cause of Iustification which hath bin attributed to him and no other is evident from the description of this cause formerly layd downe Sect. 4. of this Chapter For 1º that he is a cause of Iustification is the consent of all men without exception besides the Scripture lately cited Rom. 8. is full and pregnant this way It is God that justifieth 2º that he is neither the matter nor the forme of Iustification is sufficiently evident of it selfe neither did ever any man affirme either the one or the other of him and besides we shall cleere this further when we come to inquire after these causes 3º that he is not the end or finall cause of Iustification appeares from that property or condition of this cause mentioned Sect. 3. viz that it is to be atteyned or receive it's being by meanes of that thing whereof it is the end which cannot be verified of God or his being in respect of Iustification inasmuch as these no way depend upon it This likewise will further appeare when we come to lay downe the finall cause Therefore 4º and lastly he must of necessity be the efficient cause of Iustification there being no fift kinde of cause whereunto he should be reduced Secondly SECT 10 that he is the principall efficient cause and not instrumentall is evident also because he is not assum'd acted or made use of by any other in or about the justification of a sinner but himselfe projecteth the whole frame and cariage of all things yea and manageth and maketh use of all things instrumentally concurring or belonging thereunto It is God that justifieth the Gentiles by or through Faith Gal. 3.8 so Rom. 3.30 c. God maketh use of Faith and so of his word and of the Ministers of his word to produce Faith in the hearts of men and consequently to justifie them but none of these can be said to act or make use of God in or about this great effect Thirdly that he is the Naturall efficient cause of Iustification according to the notion and description of this cause given Sect. 5. is evident because in the exercising or putting forth this act of Iustification he acteth and worketh out of that authority and power which are essentiall and connaturall to him and not out of any superadded or acquired principle of art or otherwise whereof he is wholly uncapable It is true he is moved to the exercise of this act of â—ustifying men by somewhat that is extrinsecall and not essentiall to him viz. the intercession of the death and sufferings of Christ yet the act it selfe in the exercise of it proceeds by vertue of that authority and power which are estentiall to him as hath bin said No creature can be said to justifie or forgive any man his sinnes no not by Christ but God alone Who can forgive sinnes but God onely Mar. 2.7 Fourthly SECT 11 the Morall or internall impulsive cause of Iustification as it is an act of God is that infinite love goodnesse mercy sweetnesse and graciousnesse in God himselfe towards his poore creature Man looked upon as miserable and lying under condemnation for sinne This was the moving and procuring cause of the guift of Christ and his death and sufferings from him and consequently of that justification which is procured and purchased by Christ and his sufferings So God loved the world that hee gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever beleeveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life viz by Iustification through him Ioh. 3.16 Fiftly the externall Morall or impulsive efficient cause of this act of God is the Lord Iesus Christ himselfe in or through his death and sufferings or which is the same the death and sufferings of Iesus Christ God looking upon Christ as such and so great a sufferer for the sinnes of men is thereby strengthened and provoked to deliver those that beleeve in him from their sinnes and that condemnation which is due unto them i. to justifie them The Scripture is cleere in laying downe this cause Even as God for Christs sake freely forgave you viz. your sinnes i. justified you Ephe. 4.32 Those words for Christs sake are a plaine and perfect character of that kinde of cause we now speake of This with the former i. both internall and externall impussive or moving causes are joyn'd together Rom. 3.24 And are justified freely by his grace here is the inward impulsive cause of Justification through the Redemption that is in Christ Iesus viz. by meanes of his death and sufferings here is the outward moving cause we speake of Neither can the Death and sufferings of Christ with any shew of reason or with any tolerable construction or congruitie of speaking be referred to any other cause in the businesse of justification but the impulsive only He that would make Christ the instrumentall cause of Iustification (a) Mr. Walker Socinian discovered c. p. 138. discovers himselfe to be no great Gamaliel in this learning and had need thrust his Faith out of doores as he doth in many places and not suffer it to have any thing at all to doe about his Iustification least his Christ and his Faith should be corrivalls and contend for preheminence therein And yet more repugnant to reason is it to make either Christ himselfe or any righteousnesse of his whatsoever either the matter or materiall cause of Justification which yet the Socinian Discoverer doth (b) Ibid. p. 139 or the forme or formall cause thereof which is done by some others But that is a streyne of unreasonablenesse above all the rest to make either Christ or his righteousnesse both the formall and materiall cause too of this great act of God we speake of the Justification of a sinner these causes being of so opposite a nature and different consideration as hath bin described and yet even this conceit also hath found enterteynment with some To this kinde of cause we now speake of must be reduced also the active or personall righteousnesse of Christ as farre as it hath any influence into or any waies operates towards the justificatioÌ„ of a siner For though it be not satisfactory
inhereth or whereby it is supported in being the righteousnesse of Christ hath no dependance at all in respect of the being of it upon Iustification Not in the latter because that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner is not acted or exercised upon or about the righteousnesse of Christ nor terminated in this neither is there any change or alteration made in the righteousnes of Christ by that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner which yet must be if it were that matter we now speake of that is the object of Justification Because Iustification being a transient act in God it must of necessitie make some change or alteration in that upon which it falleth or is acted whatsoever it be the truth is that the righteousnesse of Christ being as hath bin proved the efficient impulsive cause of Iustification rather acteth and worketh upon God then he upon it when he iustifieth any man Therefore doubtlesse the righteousnesse of Christ can in no sense agreeable to truth and ordinary construction of speech be called the matter of Iustification Wherefore in the last place concerning the matter of or materiall cause of Iustification SECT 16 it can be none other but either the subject or the object of â—ustification that is either God himselfe or the person that is to be iustified For as for that kinde of matter which we called ex qua matter properly so called Iustification being an act or action is altogether uncapable of it as hath bin already said Neither hath any action whatsoever any materiall cause at all in this sense It remaineth therefore that the matter of Justification must be of that kinde of matter which is lesse properly so called whereof there are but these two species or sorts as hath bin said the matter in qua and the matter circa quam i. the the subject and the object If we take the subject of Iustification or him on whom the act it selfe of Iustification in respect of the production and being of it dependeth and will call that the matter of it then God himselfe must be the matter we inquire after because the act of Iustification in respect of the raising and bringing forth of it dependeth only upon him But this I confesse is a very uncouth and proper expression to call God the matter of justification neither hath the tongue or pen of any man I conceive ever taken any pleasure in it Or if by the subject of Iustification we understand the subjectum recipieâ—s that is the subject receiving and wherein the act of Iustification is terminated which is as proper a signification of the word as the other the old tried rule being that actio est in patiente tanquam in subjecto then the subject and the object will prove but one and the same viz the person that is to be iustified that is the beleeving sinner Thus it is in all other actions likewise the subject receiving the action or impression of the Agent and the object upon which the Agent acteth or worketh are still the same And for any other matter of Iustification besides that which hath bin now assign'd viz. the sinner who beleeveth I verily beleeve there is none to be found who though he be both the object and subject in the sense given of Iustification yet may he more properly be called the matter of Iustification as he is the object then as the subject thereof because the notion of matter better agreeth of the two to that which is called circà quam or the object then to the other which is the subject And this for the matter or materiall cause of Iustification the person to be iustified or beleeving sinner Fourthly and lastly to make forward towards the consideration and inquirie of the formall cause of Iustification SECT 17 about which the tongues and pens of men are turn'd into the sharpest swords First for the Popish opinion which as Bellarmine describes it from the Counsell of Trent subscribing himselfe also with both hands unto it (a) Certe concilium causam formalem justificatioâ—â— in ipsi us justitie infusione constituit c. Bellarm. De Iustific lib. 2. c. 2. versus sinem placeth the formall cause of Iustification in the infusion of inherent righteousnesse I shall not make it matter of long confutation The opinion is built upon another opinion as rotten as it viz. perfection of inherent righteousnesse for if this be found to be imperfect and it will never be found other till this mortall hath put on immortalitie the credit of that other opinion is lost and that by consent of their owne principles who teach that in Iustification men are made perfectly and compleately righteous So that any one sinne little or great veniall or mortall proceeding from any one of their iustified ones utterly overthrowes the opinion of their Church touching the formall cause of Iustification It stands them in hand if they desire to build up this determination of their Councell with authority and honour to raise the levell of another enterprize of theirs and to prove not only a possibilitie but a necessity also of a perfect observation of the Law of God by those that are iustified and regenerate When they have quitted themselves like men in this and have layd the foundations of such a necessitie firme and strong we shall haply then consider further of their Doctrine touching the formall cause of Iustification in the meane time we shall be at libertie to make inquirie after a better Yet Secondly SECT 18 I conceive the Doctrine of the late Socinian Discoverer touching the same businesse to be no whit better but rather at a farre deeper defiance both with reason and truth The formall cause of Justification saith he (a) Mr. George Walker Socinian Discovered p. 139. is that communion betweene Christ and us and that reciprocall imputation of our sinnes to Christ and of his righteousnesse and full satisfaction to us which communion ariseth and floweth from the spirit which God sheds on us through Christ which spirit dwelling in us in some measure so as he dwelleth in the man Christ from whom he is derived to us doth make us one spirituall body with Christ and workes in us Faith and all holy graces and affections by which we adhere and cleave to Christ and apply and inioy his righteousnesse c. Doubtlesse here is a great deale too much matter to make a good forme The essentiall character of a forme or formall cause is to be a single simple and uncompounded being whereas that which is here presented to us for the forme of Justification is rudis indigestaque moles an indigested heape of compositions Surely this forme is so deformed that the Author need nor feare any corrivall or competitor with him for it Quin sine rivali seque et sua solus amabit For 1º if the Iustification we speake of or the forme of it stands in that communion which is betweene Christ and us then Christ
as hath bin fully proved Sect. 16. is the matter of Iustification Now the forme of a thing at least the accidentall forme which is the kinde of forme under inquirie is alwaies found in conjunction and union with the matter proper to it and never in any other Christ therefore being no beleeving sinner and consequently no fitting or possible matter for the forme of that Iustification whereof we speake to be coupled with it cannot be that the imputation of our sinnes to him should either be this forme it selfe or any part of it 3º No imputation whatsoever nor of whatsoever can be the forme of Iustification 1º because it is no righteousnesse either in one kinde or other neither a righteousnesse literally or properly so called nor yet a righteousnesse by way of interpretation whereas the forme of Iustification whatsoever it be must of necessity be a righteousnesse either of the one kinde or of the other It is true a righteousnesse imputed supposing such imputation is a righteousnesse but the imputation of this righteousnesse can be noe righteousnesse Therefore no imputation whatsoever can be the forme of Iustification 2º Every forme or formall cause gives according to the nature of it a sutable denomination to the subject whereunto it is united as heat gives the denomination of hot to the fire and learning the denomination of learned to the man endued with it c. But no imputation gives any sutable denomination to the persons to whom it is made or in whom it inheres men are not said to be imputed this or that for any imputation made Therefore imputation is noe forme at all and consequently not the forme or formall cause of Iustification 8º The Author himselfe within a very few lines after the words lately cited from him falls off from his reciprocall imputation and affirmes the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe to be this formall cause of Justification calling it our formall righteousnesse But this is but one drope of that powreing shower of contradictions which hath fallen from his pen upon that discourse and stands in swamps and plashes all over it 9º SECT 21 and lastly in all this voluminous and multiformed description of the formall cause of Iustification there is not the least mention to be found of forgivenesse of sinnes as neither within the whole compasse of that draught of the Doctrine of Iustification which in severall pages together of the discourse mentioned he presents unto the world as if Iustification and remission of sinnes were like Samaritan and Iew which have no dealings one with another (a) Ioh. 4.9 Whereas Reformed Divines generally and I thinke I may say without exception never handle the Doctrine of Iustification especially never professe to assigne or explicate the formall cause thereof without mention making of remission or forgivenesse of sinnes conceiving them to be things of the most arct and neerest affinitie that may be as indeed they are The opinion and description last cited touching the formall cause of justification containes matter of more particular grievances then have yet bin touch'd or complained of But because I conceive the unreasonablenesse of it a sufficient caution and securitie against the infection and propagation of it and that no man will ever be so hard put to it for a formall cause of Iustification as to take up that I shall therefore for the present with that chastisement and correction which it hath already received let it goe But thirdly Neither can that opinion stand which maketh the imputation or application of the righteonsnesse of Christ SECT 22 the formall cause of Justification a We teach that Christs righteousnesse both habituall and actuall by which he was formally just is the matter and the imputation thereof â—s the foâ—me of Iustification Bish Downham Tre. of Iustifi lib. 1 c. 5. Sect. 2. See more to this purpose immediatly following where he citeth also the Magdeburgenses Scharpius as being of the same judgement with him Against this opinion we argued in the latter part of our refutation of the former where we evictingly proved that no imputation whatsoever or of whatsoever could possibly be the forme of Iustification The plea is at hand in the last Section save one therefore I repeate nothing thereof Only I adde as of further consideration against this opinion 10 that if the righteousnesse of Christ be the matter of Iustification which the opinion maintaineth and the imputation hereof the forme then one righteousnesse must be the forme of another righteousnesse because the forme of Justification as hath bin often said must needs be a righteousnesse and so is acknowledged and termed by the Author himselfe (b) Foâ— the righteousnesse wherby a man is formally just is inherent in himselfe c. Bish Downham Vbi supra So that if the matter hereof be a righteousnesse and the forme a righteousnesse also one righteousnesse must informe another which is I conceive a greater burthen of absurdity then the reason of any considering man can beare Secondly if imputation be the forme and the righteousnesse of Christ the matter of Iustification then that which is lesse perfect and of an inferior being shall be the complement and perfection of that which is more perfect and of a superior being it being a generall and knowne maxime that the forme still actuateth the matter and adds a further degree of being and perfection unto it Now this imputation we speake of being and that by the full consent and acknowledgment of the Authors of the opinion somewhat inherent in the person justified and intrinsecall to him (a) For the righteousnesse wherby a man is formally just is inherent in himselfe for what is more intrinsecall then the forme Bishop Downham Iusti lib. 1. c. 5. Sect. â— must needs be of inferior worth and value to the righteousnesse of Christ Neither indeed can it well be conceived how any thing at all should be for mall or of a perfecting or actuating nature in respect of the righteousnesse of Christ Thirdly neither doe the Scriptures any way favour this opinion or complie with it in any expression found in them nor doe I finde the Authors themselves so much as pretending any Scripture approbation of their judgment in this kinde Fourthly and lastly if the judgement of the late Bishop of Sarisburie a learned man doubtlesse though a Bishop be of any authoritie he is absolutely declared against the imputation of Christs righteousnesse and pleades for the righteousnesse it selfe imputed as the formall cause of Iustification The most perefect obedience saith he (b) Christi Mediatoris in nobis habitantu atque per spiritum sese nobu unientis persectissima obedientia est formalu causae justificationu nostrae Bishop Davenant De Iustic Habit. c. 22. p. 313. of Christ the Mediator dwelling in us and uniting himselfe by his Spirit to us is the formall cause of our Iustification c. And if his testimony be of any value Reformed Authors generally are
righteousnesse at the least For there must be nothing lost of the vigor strength or perfection of either in the composition But that no Mediatorie righteousnesse can possibly be formall in justification was fully evinced and concluded in the fift argument Seventhly and lastly SECT 27 for this opinion it is the confession or profession which you will of some of the learnedest abettors themselves of that way of imputation which hath bin opposed in this Treatise that the generall current of Reformed Divines runns with an opposite streame to this opinion and with one mouth deny the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to be the formall cause of Iustification Who ever of our writers saith Doctor Prideaux a Quis unquam è nostru nos per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justificari asservit Dr. Prideaux Lect. 5. p. 163. affirmed that we are formally iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed And Bishop Downham a great hyperaspistes also of imputation chargeth it upon his adversaries as a depravation of their Doctrine (a) lib. 1. of Iustifi p. 39. Sect. 1.2 he meanes his owne and other Protestant Divines that they will needs with the Papists make them hold that we are formally righteous by that righteousnesse which is not in us but out of us in Christ which is absur'd And a little after marveiles at them how they could be so absurd as to conceive so absurdly of them himselfe and other Reformed Divines he had spoken of as if they held that the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe should be the formall cause of Iustification Now that both these testimonies are so farre true as they avouch the more generall opinion of Protestant Divines to stand against formall Iustification by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed will further appeare by the explication of the fift and last opinion touching the cause under dispute which now followeth Therefore Fiftly and lastly there remaines yet another opinion to be considered of SECT 28 which looketh upon remission or forgivenesse of sinnes The Authors judgmēt touching the formall cause of Iustification as the formall cause of Iustification And that this opinion hath both the fairest and largest quarter in the judgements and writings of Protestant Divines as also most agree-ablenesse with the truth we shall I trust make evident without much wearisomnesse of Discourse For the former of these the more generall consent of Reformed Authors besides what hath bin already delivered for the Iustification hereof from many of the Authors themselves in the first and fift Chapters of the former part of this Treatise I shall satisfie my selfe and I hope my Reader also will take part with me in this satisfaction with the testimonies only of two of eminent note amongst them both I conceive without exception and of sufficient learning and integritie to be beleeved in a matter of as great importance as this the one of them a forreiner the other an English Divine the one being of the same judgement himselfe the other in part dissenting the one dead the other yet living The former of the two is David Paraeus sometimes chiefe Professor of Divinty in the Vniversity of Heidelburgh who in his tract concerning the Active and Passive righteousnesse of Christ having laid downe his judgement in the controversie depending thus p. 176 a Superest Quarta sententia c. quod justificatio tota sit remissio peccatorum propter hanc satisfactionem nobis imputatam Hanc sententiam ut veriorem simpliciorem a◠tutiorem amplects me profiteor c. Parens De Iustit Christi Act. et Pass p. 176. 177. Possem huc affer re Authoritates Patrum c. Possem quoque afferre cōsensum Lutheri Melancthonis c. p. 178. that remission of sinnes for the satisfaction of Christ imputed to us is our whole and intire Justification and argued accordingly p. 177 in the following page addeth as followeth I might here produce the Authorities of the Fathers who likewise place our righteousnesse meaning in Justification in the alone forgivenesse of sinnes for the death of Christ and accordingly cites severall testimonies out of Austin Occumenius and Ambrose And immediatly after these testimonies thus I might also alledge the consent of Luther Melancthon Zuinglius Oecolampadius Bullinger Calvin Martyr Musculus Hyperius Vrsine Olevian c. from whose Doctrine in the point of Iustificatiou I doe not varie a nailes breadth So that the light of this mans reading and judgement together could discover no other opinion touching the formall cause of Justification either in the Fathers or any the chiefe Protestant writers in his time but that it should stand only in Remission of sinnes The latter of the two mentioned is Mr. Thomas Gataker a man of approved learning and integritie amongst us who in Mr. A. Wottons Defence against Mr. Walkers Charge lately published in Print by him acknowledgeth p. 58 that howsoever for his part hee deemeth it erronious and so doe I too taking the word Iustification in that large sense which it seemeth he doth where he argueth against the opinion as viz. in his Animadversions upon the disputes betweene Piscator and Lucius p. 9. besides sundry other places in his writings to hold that Iustification consisteth in remission of sinnes yet that Calvin Beza Olevian Vrsine Zanchie Piscator Pareus Musculus Bullinger Fox and divers others of great note and name yea whole Synods of ours are found so to say adding further and yet were these men never yet that I ever heard or read for so saying condemned as Heretiques much lesse as blasphemous Heretiques but had in high esteeme as their worth parts and workes well deserved by those that therein dissented from them To this I might if need were adde Mr. Authony Wotton a man of much labour diligence and dexterity in searching out the judgements and opinions of Protestant writers touching the great Point of Iustification as appeares by that learned piece of his intit'led de Reconciliatione peccatoris c. who in the 3 4 5 and 6 Chapters of the second booke of the first part of this worke hath mustered together a greater troupe of Reformed Authors then either of the other and from their owne pens respectively hath made them all speake distinctly and plainely the same things touching the formall cause of Iustification which the two former Authors as we heard ascribed unto some of them Now for the declaration and proofe-making of this opinion SECT 29 because for the present I conceive it most agreeable to the truth some things would briefly be premiz'd As 1º That Iustification being an action hath no forme or formall cause at all properly so called that is hath no substantiall forme nor yet any forme that is properly a part of it because this is proper only to substantiall natures and beings See Sect. 8. of this Chapter 2º That there can in no other respect or consideration be ascribed any forme or formal cause unto Iustification but only as it
that alwaies gives the denomination by the meanes or reason whereof the subject is so or so denominated I assume But a sinner is therefore and thereby iustified because or in that he hath his sinnes forgiven him Ergo. The reason of the latter proposition is because that Iustification we speake of being still opposed to condemnation as hath bin formerly observed from the Scriptures must needs stand in a vindication or exemption from punishment which being interpreted is nothing else but the having of a mans sinnes forgiven For there is no exemption from punishment at the hand of an infinite Judge for him that is guilty but by having his sinnes forgiven as on the other hand the forgivenesse of sinnes is a full exemption in this kind Thirdly SECT 31 that alteration or change in the condition of the person justified which is caused therein by that act whereby God justifieth him must of necessitie be the forme or formall cause of his justification The third particular premised is a sufficient light wherby to see the truth of this proposition Therefore I assume But remission of sinnes or absolution and acquitting from punishment which are interpretatively the same is that alteration or change which is made in the condition of a person justified by that act of God whereby he justifieth him Ergo this alteration or change is the formall cause of justification The reason of the latter propositioÌ„ is this Iustification being as I suppose is confessed on alhands a civil or politique act as all actions of Iudicature are must needs produce a civil or politique effect answerable to it Al acts actions beget only in their own similitude likenesse A natural action cannot produce a morall effect nor a morall action a naturall effect Neither can a civill or politique action produce either a naturall or morall but only a civill or politique effect When a Judge acquits and so when he condemn's a man from a crime or accusation brought in against him this makes neither any naturall nor morall change in the person of him that is so acquitted except it be occasionally by accident as when by such a sentence of absolution a man is recovered out of those feares which were prejudiciall to his health whilst he lay under danger of the sentence of the Law or the like but properly and directly such an act produceth a civill or politique change in his condition For whereas he was before in danger of the Law and obnoxious unto punishment he is now at liberty and free therefrom So when a beleeving sinner is justified by God the effect of this act of God is not any naturall or morall change made upon him but a change in his estate and condition Now there is no other change that can be imagined should be made in the spirituall estate or condition of a man by the act of Gods Iustification falling on him but onely his acquitting from the guilt of sinne and punishment due unto the same Before this act of God passed upon him he was under the guilt of sinne and obnoxious to the wrath of God but by the coming of this upon him he is absolutly free and exempt from danger that way Fourthly SECT 32 that which makes a justified person formally and compleatly just or righteous before God is questionlesse the formall cause of Iustification This proposition is greater then exception nor will I conceive be denied by our keenest adversaries in the maine I assume therefore But remission of sinnes is that which makes a iustified person formally and compleatly righteous before God Therefore this is the formall cause of Iustification The reason and ground of the assumption is this because he that stands as cleere and as free from sinne or the guilt of sin in the sight of God as he that having liv'd a 1000 yeeres should alwaies have observ'd the Law and never transgressed in the least point is doubtlesse formally compleatly righteous in the sight of God Now that remission of sins gives this privilege to him that hath received it in as ful amplea manner as the exemplified observation of the Law or any other of the longest continuance that is imaginable can do hath bin more then once demonstrated in this Treatise especially in the fift Conclusion layd down in the second Chap. of this second Part. Sect. 6. p. 8. Fiftly If remission of sinnes be a perfect and complete righteousnesse then is it the formall cause of Iustification This proposition is much of the same spinning with the Major in the former argument and so partaker of like evidence of truth with it Neveâ—-the-lesse once to light up a candle wherby to see the Sunne the reason of it is briefly this be-because no perfect or compleate righteousnesse can be found in any man that hath sin'd but that which is given and conferr'd by God upon him in his Justification and that which is in this way conferr'd upon him is without contradiction the formall cause thereof Therefore let us make forward But remission of sinnes is a perfect and compleate righteousnesse therefore doubtlesse the formall cause also of Iustification The minor proposition hath oft already bin exalted upon the Throne of evidence and unquestionablenesse of truth yet if you desire a little of what is more then enough take this for a further demonstration of it That righteousnesse which needeth not feare the presence oâ— most district Judgement of God is doubtlesse a compleate and perfect righteousnesse But remission of sinnes is a righteousnesse that needeth not to feare the presence or districtest judgement of God Therefore it is a perfect and compleate righteousnesse The Sunne at noone day shineth no cleerer light then both these propositions do truth For the former I make no question but contradiction it selfe will be ashamed to oppose it Peccata sola separant inter hominem et Deum quae solvuntur Christi gratia per quem mediatorem reconciliamur cum justificat impium Aug De Pecc Merit et Rem l. 1. c 20. That righteousnesse which will hold out waight and measure by the standerd of Heaven no man I presume will call defective or imperfect And for the latter who can with any reason lift up a thought of heart against it For what cause hath any man to feare any displeasure or hard sentence from God who hath all his sinnes fully pardoned There is nothing can separate betweene God and his creature but only sinne and when this is taken away what shall hinder but that there should immediatly ensue a perfect union of love and peace betweene them Sixtly SECT 33 If forgivenesse of sinnes be the righteousnesse which God imputes in the Justification of a sinner then is it the formall cause of Iustification But forgivenesse of sinnes is the righteousnesse imputed by God in the Iustification of a sinner Ergo. The ground of the sequell in the first proposition is this because the righteousnesse which God imputes in Iustification
his sanctification for our sanctification And if it be a weake and unsavourie inference from this place to conclude that we are wise with the same wisdome wherewith Christ was wise being imputed unto us it must needs be a bird of the same feather to infer that we are righteous with the same righteousnesse wherewith Christ was righteous being imputed to us Here is no more mention or intimation of the imputation of the one then of the other Suppose Christ were made righteousnesse unto us by the imputation of that righteousnesse of his which men so much contend for yet there is nothing more evident then that this speciall manner of his being made righteousnesse must be made good otherwise and from other Scriptures and cannot at all be prooved from this place As because a rich man hath silver and gold and jewells in his possession or keeping it doth not follow that therefore he hath silver in one Chest and gold in another or jewells in a third because he may possibly have them al in one the same From generall expressions particular modifications of things can never be prooved Therefore Secondly when Christ is said to be made righteousnesse unto us the meaning only is that he is made or ordained by God to be the Author or sole meanes by way of merit of our Iustification purchased and procured for us by his death and sufferings This Exposition is strengthened First the word righteousnesse SECT 23 is very frequently used by this Apostle for Iustification as hath bin often observ'd See particularly the third Chap. of this second part Sect. 2. Secondly that righteousnesse or Iustification which beleevers have in or by Christ is still attributed in the Scriptures to the death and sufferings of Christ as hath bin formerly observed (a) See cap. 2. of this latter part Sect. 7. p. 9.10 and never to his righteousnesse or active obedience 3. Neither is it true according to the principles of the men themselves who professe enmity to us in the point depending that Christ by his active obedience only should be made righteousnesse or justification unto us Therfore they forsake their own guides when they seek for the imputation of this righteousnesse unto us out of this place 4. And lastly the interpretation given hath the concurrent judgement of many sound and able Expositors for it who by Christs being made righteousnes unto us understand nothing else but our justification or righteous-making by him some placeing this justification in the forgivenesse of our sinnes some ascribeing it to the satisfaction that is the sufferings of Christ none of them either ascribeing the purchase of it to his active obedience or placing it in the imputation of this unto us Let Chrysostome a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Hom. 5. in 1. ad Corin. and Theophylact b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et mox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in 1 Cor. 1.30 be consulted with upon the place and of later times Pomeranus (c) Quierg◠in nobis peccatores sumus in ipso et per ipsum justi sumus non imputate propter ipsum nobis peccate Pomeran and Piscator (d) Iusticia id est cujus satisfactions nobu donata atque imputata justi sumus Piscator in 1 Cor. 1.30 Mr. Gataker likewise p. 47. of his little Tract against Gomarus rejects that interpretation as wanting aswell colour as substance of truth which seeketh to establish the imputation of the active obedience of Christ upon this Scripture Bernard as he is cited by a Great Master of the way of Imputation though against (e) Bishop Downham Tract of Iustific p. 223. Sect. 4. SECT 24. himselfe is expresse and full over and over for that sence of the place which we maintain Christ saith he as Bishop Downham translates him was made unto us wisdome in preaching justice or righteousnesse in absolution of sins c. Againe enlighten mine eyes that I may be wise remember not the sinnes of my youth and my ignorances and I am just Yet againe He was made unto us of God wisdome teaching prudence justice forgiving sins c. They only are wise who are instructed by his Doctrine they onely just who of his mercy have obtained parden of sinne In all this variety of expression it is observable that he still placeth that righteousnesse or justification which Christ is made unto us in the remission or pardon of our sins Which with the premisses upon this Scripture duly considered I presume no imputation of the active obedience of Christ will be any more urged or contended for from hence The next Scripture that is much sollicited by some to speake a good word in the cause of the aforesaid imputation is 2 Cor. 5.21 For he hath made him to be sinne for us who knew no sinne that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him From hence they inferre that as our sins are imputed unto Christ so Christs righteousnesse meaning his active obedience or else they doe not hold to the point is imputed unto us Of all the Scriptures which men take up for the plea of the imputation opposed Mr. Gataker hath well observ'd this is most pregnant and cleere against themselves (a) Quid ser◠clarius contiase producere poterat quam illud 2 Cor. 5.21 Gataker in Elench contra Gomar p. 48 2 Cor. 5.21 cleared But for Answere 1. There is no footing in this Scripture for the inference drawn from it here is nothing said touching any imputation of our sinnes to Christ and consequently here can be nothing to build a reciprocall imputation of his righteousnesse unto us upon As for that expression of Christs being made sinne for us it imports no such imputation as men suppose as will appeare presently 2. Some of the most judicious and learned assistants of the way of this Imputation absolutely reject this equality or reciprocation of Imputation between the sinnes of beleevers unto Christ and the righteousnesse of Christ unto them There is not the same force or power saith Bishop Davenant (b) Non est eadem vi◠nostra injustietae ad efficiendum Christum injustum iniquum qua est obedientiae ejus et justiciae ad constituendos fideles justos et innocentes Bishop Dauenaut De Iust Habit. c. p. 332. Christus ita volute peccata in se suscipcre ut non inde peccater sed hostia pro peccato constitueretur ibidem p. 333. of our unrighteousnesse to make Christ unrighteous which is of his righteousnes to make those that beleeve righteous and innocent See more to this purpose in the second Chapter of this Discourse Sect. 19. p. 26. So that according to their own principles if the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ be no otherwise imputed unto us then our sinnes are imputed unto him we are not made formally righteous by such an imputation 3. Neither is there so much as the face or
formall cause of justification as if by the word only or alone he meant to shut out this infusion of grace only and not the active obedience of Christ imputed I shall by a passage or two from him in the point cleere his intention in such expressions and fully manifest how importune and at open defiance with the truth any such interpretation of his minde and meaning must needs be In which words saith Calvin meaning those of the Apostle Rom. 4.6 in his commentaries upon the place we are taught justitiam Paulo nihil esse quà m remissionem peccatorum that is that righteousnesse with Paul is nothing else but remission of sinnes And not long after upon the 9th verse of the same Chapter So iustitia Abrahae est peccatorum remissio quod securè ipsepro confesso assumit c. that is If Abrahams righteousnesse be the forgivenesse of his sinnes which he meaning Paul without any further care or thought about it takes for granted c. By these passages it is evident that whatsoever his own minde or judgement was in the point now under question viz. whether remission of sins simply alone without any other additioÌ„ whatsoever were the righteousnesse of a Beleever in justification he attributes the affirmative unto Paul and makes his opinion and judgement to stand for Remission of sinnes simply excluding not the infusion of grace only but all other things whatsoever Except haply men Gyant-like will attempt to set Pelion upon Ossa heap presumption upon presumption and say that Paul likewise expressed himselfe in the Point only by way of opposition to the Popish opinion concerning grace infused and had no intent to be understood simply that Remission of sinnes was a Beleevers righteousnesse Otherwise for Calvin to ascribe one opinion unto Paul in the point of justification and to be himselfe of another is neither better nor worse then to professe himselfe wiser then he in the businesse yea then the Holy Ghost himselfe speaking by him Which horrid blasphemy those men unadvisedly bring upon the head of this holy and faithfull servant of God who labour to make him of a quite differing judgment himselfe especially in so weighty a point as justification is from that which he acknowledgeth to be the judgment of so great and glorious an Apostle as Paul was I might adde a third passage yea and three more to that of his ex abundanti of the same importance and perhaps somewhat more pregnant Therefore Paul saith he (a) Merite Paulus fidei justitiam in peccatorums ormissiene simpliciter includit docevs earn a Davide describi cum beatum heminem pronunciat cui non imputantur peccata Calvin De vera Ecales Res ratione p. 368. doth well simply to include the righteousnesse of Faith in Remission of sinnes teaching us that David so describeth it when he pronounceth the man happy whose sinnes are not imputed unto him Whether Calvin himselfe did simply and absolutly and not with limitation and restraint place the righteousnesse of Faith in remission of sinnes or no most unanswerably undeniable it is that he conceived Paul so to doe Nor is there any reasonable ground or cause to adde a word of this in the close of this Answere why men should be so averse or shie as some are SECT 16 from looking upon Remission of sinnes as a righteonsness yea as a perfect and complete righteousnesse since it is equivalent unto and vertually conteynes and comprehends in it the most absolute and entire obedience unto the Law and will of God as hath bin already fully demonstrated cap. 2. Sect. 4. of this second Part where also the authority and confent of Augustine in this behalfe was produced who plainly affirmeth Omnia mandata facta deputantur quonde quiequid non fit ignoscitur Ang. Retract l. 2. c. 19. that all the commandements of God are reputed to be kept or done when whatsoever is not done is forgiven Againe â— o it may well and in sufficient proprietie of speech beare the nature of a righteonsnesse vea and that perfect and compleate because it hath all those great and high privileges annexed to it and depending upon it which a righteousnesse most literally and strictly so called could have as the love favor acceptation and approbation of God yea life and salvation themselves It hath bin elsewhere as I remember observed in this discourse that the names of things are very usually enterchanged in Scripture upon occasion of a similituda or likenâ—sse of use or offect betweene them John Baptist is called by the name of â—liah because he was servicenble unto God and his cause after the same manner and with the same spirit that Eliah was So Peter and Iohn were counted Pillars Gal. 2.9 because they were conceiv'd to stand the Church of Christ in some such stead as Pillars doe the house that is supported by them So Christ himselfe to omit other instances in this kinde without number is called Bread a Vine a Dore a Way a Roote a Branch the morning Starre c. because in something or other he resembles the nature or use or both of all these things In like manner Remission of sinnes though it had not the nature or essence of a perfect righteousnesse in it may yet be called a perfect righteousnesse because it is of the same consideration benefit and use unto the creature with a perfect righteousnesse indeed But enough for this argument I hope it will be from henceforth contented and complaine no more for want of satisfaction A seventh argument which is likewise layd hold on by some as a Shield and Buckler to defend the imputation assailed SECT 17 Argum. 7 is this If Doe this and live be an everlasting rule of God and which shall never be dissolved cancelled or growne out of date then must the active obedience of Christ be imputed unto men in justification that so they may be said to have done this that is to have fulfilled the Law and so live But Doe this and live it an everlasting rule of God which shall never be dissolved c. Ergo. I answere that all the strength of this argument lyeth in the hollownesse of those words take them out of which proposition you please is an everlasting rule c. In this sence I grant that do this and live is an everlasting rule it is and hath bin and shall be everlastingly true that whosoever shall do this that is fulfill the Law perfectly shall live and enjoy the favor of God c. But this sence makes nothing to the purpose neither is there so much as the face of a consequence in the major if it be taken whosoever continueth in all things that are written in the Law to do them shall live and be saved whether Christs righteousnesse be imputed unto them or not But if the meaning of the clause be is an everlasting rule that is is the only perpetuall and standing rule or Law whereby and according to