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.
loose and false and deservedly so esteemed by all men notwithstanding her union and communion with an husband of upright affections neither doth the union and communion which the rest of the members of the body have with the head necessarily require that whatsoever the Head hath or doth should be imputed to all the members respectively The eyes which are in the head are not imputed to the hands or feete nor the eares which grow upon the head imputed to the heeles nor the actions or naturall functions of seeing and hearing the one performed by the eyes the other by the eares imputed to the armes or legges so that these should be said either to see or to heare as they doe In like manner there is not the least shew or colour of pretence to build a necessity of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to beleevers upon that union and communion which they have with him or to conclude and inferre that because beleevers have union and communion with Christ therefore his righteousnesse must be theirs in such a sence that they may have the denomination of righteous therefrom or be constituted and made righteous therewith May it not be said with as much reason that because beleevers have union and communion with Christ therefore his soule and his body must needs be imputed to them yea and his wisedome and his power and his glory imputed to them also so that they are esteemed by God as wise as powerfull as glorious by vertue of such imputation as Christ himselfe is That union and communion which beleevers have with Christ SECT 10 are sufficiently yea abundantly salved and made good in these and such like particulars 1. By vertue of this union and communion with him they are actuall members of that mysticall and blessed body or society whereof he is the head 2. They are partakers of the same spirit with him who dwelleth in them as he dwelleth in Christ himself 3. They have communion fellowship in the same fruits and effects of the Spirit with him 4. By vertue of this union and communion with him they have part and fellowship in that Redemption which he hath purchased with his blood 5. They have speciall interest in that infinite wisedome and power of his as in all other perfections and excellent endowments of his person whereby he is both every wayes able and alwayes ready and willing to doe marvellously for them and to advance the things of their peace 6. they have a compleate right and title to that immortall and undefiled inheritance which is reserved in the heavens 7. They have communion and fellowship with God himselfe and speciall interest in his love 8. And lastly they have communion and fellowship one with another and are dearely and deepely interessed in the mutuall affections one of another besides many other rich priviledges of like nature and of very precious concernment So that to deny the imputation of Christs righteousnes is no more to deny or any wayes to obscure their union communion with Christ than to deny that the miracles which Christ wrought are imputed to us or than to deny that a man seeth with his hands or healeth with his heeles is a denying that the members of the body have any connexion union or communion with the head The sinne in of Adam is no where in Scripture said to be imputed to his posterity Conclusi 9 SECT 11 neither can any other imputation thereof be proved either by Scripture or sound reason than that which stands either in a communion of all his posteritie with him therin the second Adam only excepted who for divers reasons was an exempt person or els in a propagation of his nature defiled therewith or lastly in that punishment or condemnation that is come upon the world by it But as for any such imputation of it by vertue whereof precisely considered and simply as an act of Gods justice all his posterity should be constituted and made formally sinners neither doe the Scriptures acknowledge nor sound reason admit The former clause of this Conclusion is unquestionable The Scriptures wheresoever they speake of Adams sin and the relation of it to his posterity wholly abstaine from the terme of imputation neither doe they use any other word or phrase in this Argument of like signification and importance with it at least in that notion and sence wherein it is so frequently used by many in this controversie But first they acknowledge a communion betweene Adam and his posterity except the before excepted in this sin in respect whereof the sinne may as well be attributed to any and to all of his posterity as to Adam himselfe as Abrahams act of paying tythes to Melchizedeth is ascribed to Levie being in his loynes as well as to Abraham himselfe And to say as the thing is saith the Holy Ghost Heb. 7.9 Levie also which receiveth tythes paied tythes in Abraham The truth and propriety of which saying he makes good by this demonstration in the next words For he was yet in the loynes of his Father Abraham when Melchizedech met him It is not here said that Abrahams paying tythes was imputed to Levie but that Levie himselfe payed tythes in that act of Abrahams as well as Abraham So that this act of paying tythes was as well Levies act as Abrahams and is imputed to him not as Abrahams act but as his owne In like manner the Scripture plainely affirmeth that all Adams posterity sinn'd in Adam in that first sinne of his especially Rom. 5.12 but it no where affirmeth that Adams sinne is imputed to them Their owne sinne in Adam may with good propriety of speech and safety of truth be said to be imputed to them but that Adams sinne otherwise than as it is or was theirs as well as his by reason of that subsistance and being they had in him or in his loynes should be imputed to them hath neither ground in Scripture nor consistence either with reason or truth That old rule in Metaphysiques SECT 12 Operatio rei consequitur esse rei i. the Acts or operations of things still follow the being of things and are proportionable and suteable thereunto is sound and rationall and of perfect agreement with that Scripture Reason cited from Heb. 7.10 There are severall kinds of beings and subsistences of things A thing may have its being either in causis or extra causas i. either in the causes of it onely or out of the causes viz. when it is actually produced and in a compleate being Againe those things that have their beings onely in their causes may have their being either in their supernaturall causes onely as the counsell purpose and power of God or in the naturall causes also that is when such things have an actuall and compleate being which according to the common course of nature and providence are able and apt to produce them Thus in Winter the Rose may be said to have a being in the roote
c. 15. p. 146. but these must still be of severall kindes The principall and instrumentall causes are alike immediate in respect of the effect joyntly produced by them c. And the first or increated cause God is â—like immediate in every effect with the created cause that is most immediate to it There are many other Divisions and kindes of this first head of causes which we call efficient as 1º there is the efficient solitarie and the efficient in consort or association with other causes 2º the efficient which hath a proper naturall and direct tendencie towards the effect which they call efficiens perse and the efficient which falls in on the by and concurr's towards the effect but accidentally and besides any natural inclination it hath towards the raising of the effect which they call causa per accidens 3º there is a kinde of efficient which they call subordinata i. of an inferior order in respect of another cause that is of a superior and coordinata i. such a cause as is of the same ranke and order with another c. besides divers others which I insist no further upon because I conceive the Doctrine of Iustification may be sufficiently delivered and understood without the particular knowledg of them The second generall head of causes mentioned SECT 6 was the finall cause or the end so called as it seem's because both the action and intention of the principall efficient are terminated ended and satisfied in the assecution or atteynment thereof There are severall divisions and kinds of this cause also but because there is little or no dispute or question touching the finall cause of Iustification amongst those that are much dissenting in judgement about other causes thereof I shall passe over this cause with the more brevity The finall cause or end of an effect or thing caused or of a thing to be effected or caused is either that which is called Finis perse that is such an end as the effect is naturally and of it selfe apt to produce and raise or else that which is called Finis per accidens that is such a thing and end which followes upon and may be in some sort said to be produced or occasioned by the effect but yet is a thing of that nature and importance which doth not answere the nature and propriety of the effect by which it was occasioned or produced Thus the hardening of reprobate and wicked men and so the increasing of their condemnation c. are accidentall ends of preaching the Gospell or of the Gospell preached because they are oft occasioned and somewaies caused and produced thereby but do not answere or suite with the nature and propriety of the Gospell or preaching thereof which are sweet and gracious As on the contrary the softening and melting of the hearts of men and so the furtherance of them in the waies of salvation c. are ends persâ— or proper ends of the preaching the Gospell because they are not only produced by it but likewise are things that sympathize in nature and property therewith and sweetly answere the tenor and importance of such an action Againe secondly of finall causes or ends per se some are primarily such c. more properly so called others againe are secondarily such and lesse properly so called The finall cause or end primarily and properly so called is that which the principall efficient intends to accomplish and to attaine by meanes of such or such an effect produced by him And this againe is double or of two kindes First that which is more principally so intended by him Secondly that which is lesse principally intended The end lesse principally intended is that which is intended with reference and subordination to some further end as viz. to that which is more and most principally intended as on the contrary the end more principally intended is that which hath inferior ends subservient to it and destinated to the effecting of it Thus the house it selfe which the work man builds for himselfe to dwell in is the lesse principall end of his labour in building and his own conveniencie of dwelling or otherwise is the more principall because the house was intended chiefly in relation unto this So the sorrow which Paul wrought in the Corinthians by his Epistle 1 Cor. 7.9 was the lesse principall end of his writing and their repentance the more principall because that was intended by him as a meanes conducing unto this And that end which is intended simply for it selfe and without any subordination or reference to another end beyond it is the supreme Sovereigne and most principall end of all as the glory of God is to himselfe in all his works and should be to the creatures also in all theirs But secondly the finall cause or end lesse properly socalled is that to which or to whom or for whose good the end properly so called is intended Thus the patient or sick person is the end of that recovery or health which the Physician seekes to procure and the elect the end of the great dispensation of God in Christ and in this sense God himselfe is sayd to be end both of this and all other his dispensations whatsoever The third generall head or fountaine of causes SECT 7 was the Materiall Now the matter or materiall cause of a thing is either that which is properly or unproperly so called The matter or materiall cause properly so called is that which in union with the forme makes up a substantiall compounded body So that this kinde of matter matter properly so called is proper to and only found in that kinde of nature or being which we call a substance as the Heavens the 4 Elements and all things that are compounded and made of them and is it selfe alwaies a substance The matter of a thing unproperly so called is that which hath some kinde of analogie or proportion onely to that which is matter properly In this sense that other nature or kinde of being which we call accidentall as actions passions qualities figures relations c. may be said to have matter as viz. either their subjects wherein they have their existences and beings or their objects upon and about which they act worke or are exercised or thirdly and lastly the parts whereof some of them doe consist and are made up In the first sense the wall may be called the matter of the whitenesse that is put upon it and the fire the matter of the heate that is in it and a man the matter of the learning or knowledge that is in him c. In the second sense the wall is the matter of that act of the Painter or Plaisterer whereby he made the wall white and so the servant or slave of old was the matter of that act of manumission whereby his Mr. set him at liberty and made him free and the elect of God both men and women are the matter of the act of God whereby he saves them In
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
either by Scripture or sound reason then that which stands either in a communion of his posteritie with him therein or in the propagation of his nature defiled therewith unto them or in that punishment and condemnation which is come upon them by it p. 13 14 15 16. 10. Though Iustification and salvation came unto the world by Christ the second Adam as condemnation and death came by the first yet there are many different considerations betweene the coming and bringing in of salvation by the one and of condemnation by the other p. 16 17 18 19 20 21. 11. That which makes true Faith instrumentall in Iustification is nothing that is essentiall or naturall to it whether descent property or act but somewhat that is extrinsecall and purely adventitious as viz. the force and efficacie of the will good pleasure ordination and covenant of God in that behalfe p. 21 22 23 24 25 26. 12. It hath no foundation either in Scripture or reason to say that Christ by any imputation of sinne was made formally a sinner p. 26. 13. Faith doth not only if at all declare a man to be righteous or in a justified estate but is the very meanes by which Iustification or righteousnesse it obtained p. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33. 14. The sentence or curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death but this death of Christ was a ground or consideration unto God whereupon to dispense with his Law and to let fall or suspend the execution of the penaltie or curse therein threatned as concerning those that beleeve p. 33 34 35 36. CAP. 3. Seven Distinctions propounded and explained necessary for the further understanding of the businesse in question and the cleering of many difficulties incident to it As 1. Iustification is taken in a double sense either actively or passively p. 37 38 39. 2. Iustice or righteousnesse is sometimes in Scripture attributed to God and sometimes to men and in both relations hath a great diversitie and varietie of acceptions p. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45. 3. The righteousnesse or obedience of Christ is twâ—fold or of two kindes the one by Divines called Justitia personae the righteousnesse of his person the other Justitia meriti the righteousnesse of his merit 45 46 47 48 49 50. 4. The terme of Imputing or imputation will admit of nine severall acceptions or significations p. 51 52 53 54 55 56. 5. Obedience unto the morall Law may be said to be required of men in two respects either 1º by way of justification or 2º by way of sanctification p. 57 58. 6. Christ may be said to have kept the Law in reference to our justification two waies either 1º for us or 2º in our stead p. 58. 7. The justification of a sinner though it be but one and the same entire effect yet may it be ascribed unto many and those very different causes respectively according to their severall influences and differing manner of concurrence thereunto p. 59 60. CAP. 4. A delineation or survey of the intire body of Iustification in the severall causes of it according to the tenor of the Conclusions and distinctions laid downe in the two former Chapters P. 61. wherein I. are premised 4 generall rules touching the number nature and propertie of causes in the generall p. 62 63 64 65. 2. Some more particular and speciall kinds of causes comprehended under the 4 generall heads are mentioned and explained p. 65 to p. 77. 3. The causes of Iustification are inquired into As 1. The efficient causes thereof From p. 77 to 84. 2. The finall causes thereof p. 84 85. 3. The materiall cause therof from p. 85 to p. 90. 4. The formall cause thereof from p. 90 to 121. 4. A Description of Iustification raised from the former discussions in the Chapter p. 121. CAP. 5. Scriptures alledged for the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse or active obedience in Justification cleered and answered and the true sense and interpretation of them respectively established according to the judgement of the best Expositors A reason given by the way of mens confidence and impatiencie of contradiction in respect of some opinions above others p. 122 123. The Scriptures urged and answered are 1. From the Old Testament Psal 32 1 2 answered p. 124 125 126. Jer. 23 6 and 33 16. answered p. 127 128. Esa 45.24 answered p. 129 130. Esa 61 10. answered p. 130. to p. 136. where by the way 3 other Scriptures also are opened and cleered as viz. Revâ—â— 19 7 8 p. 134 and Rom. 13 14 with Gal. 3 27 p. 136. 2. From the New Testament As Rom. 3 21 answered p. 136 137. Rom. 3 31 answered p. 137 138 139. Rom. 4 6. answered p. 140 141. Rom. 5 19 answered p. 142. to 145. Rom. 8 4 answered p. 145 to p. 152. Rom. 9 31 32 answered p. 153 to 157. Rom. 10 4 answered p. 157 to 162. 1 Cor. 1 30. answered p. 162 163 164. 2 Cor. 5 21 answered p. 165 to 168. Gal. 3 10 answered p. 168. to 173. CAP 6 Six Arguments against the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse propounded and answered As 1. That such an Imputation impeacheth the truth or justice of God answered p. 175 176 177. 2. That this Imputation maketh Iustification to be by workes answered p. 178 179. 3. That such an Imputation is inconsistent with the free grace of God in Iustification answered p. 179 180 4. That this Imputation ministreth occasion of boasting unto the flesh answered p. 180 181 18â— 183. 5. That such an Jmputation supposeth Justification by somewhat that is imperfect answered p. 183 184 185. 6. That such an Imputation implieth that God should rather receive a righteousnesse from us then we from him in our Iustification answered p. 185 186. The opinion opposed in this Discourse of much more affinity with the master-veyne of Socinian Heresie and that by the verdicts of Pareus Piscator and Mr. Gataker then the opinion maintained in it p. 187 188 189. CAP. 7. The chiefe grounds and Arguments for the Imputation of Christs Active obedience in the sense hitherto opposed proposed and answered As 1. That there is no standing in judgement before God without the imputation of this righteousnesse answered p. 192 193. 2. That justification cannot be by the righteousnesse of another except this imputation be supposed answered p. 194 195. 3. That a true and reall Communion betweene Christ and those that beleeve in him cannot stand except this Imputation be granted answered p. 195 196. 4. That there can be no other reason or necessitie assign'd why Christ should fulfill the Law but only this imputation answered from p. 196 to 207. 5. That we are debtors unto the Law not only in matter of punishment for our transgression but in perfection of obedience also answered p. 208 209 210. 6. That there can be no justification without a perfect righteousnesse nor any such righteousnesse but the righteousnesse
very truth which this discourse seeketh and ensueth for if God justifieth or regenerates for the righteousnesse of Christ which imports the merit thereof he cannot either justify or regenerate with this righteousnesse of Christ as the formall cause of either the Reason is because it is unpossible that one and the selfe same thing in respect of one and the selfe same effect should put on the different habitude or consideration both of the formall and efficient cause Wherefore if the righteousnesse of Christ be any efficient cause of Iustification as all must grant that will acknowledg it for a meritorious cause thereof no man gainsaying but that the meriting cause is a species or kind of efficient unpossible it is that it should be brought in to any part or fellowship in the formall cause thereof as will further be demonstrated when we come to lay downe our grounds and reasons for what we hold This for Answere to the former exception Concerning the latter objection SECT 7 from Gal. 4.4 Where Christ is said to have been made under the Law From hence it is inferred against the answere given that Paul doth mention the works of the Law as done by Christ in this discourse of Iustification and hereupon concluded further that therefore he had no intent to exclude the works of the Law as done by CHRIST from having their part in Iustification For Answere hereunto not to insist againe upon that which was delivered in the first branch of my Answere to the former objection which yet is sufficient to ease the point in Question of the burden of this objection I ad this in the first place that the phrase of Christs being made under the Law doth not signify Christs obedience or subjection to the Morall Law or that part of the Law which we call Morall but rather his subjection to the Law Ceremoniall as is evident from the scope of the place and particularly from that which is delivered immediatly ver 5. as the end or intent of that his being made under the Law viz. that he might redeeme them that were under the Law There is no reason to conceive that Christ should be said to be made under any other Law then that from under which he was to redeeme others Wherefore we being not redeemed from the Morall Law or from that obedience due to that that being lex aeterna aeternae obligationis an eternall Law and of an eternall obligation but from the Law of Ceremonies it must needs follow that it was this Law under which Christ is here said to have been made So that if men will gather anything from hence for the imputation of Christs obedience in just sication it must be of that obedience which he performed to the Jewish or Ceremoniall Law and so not only the Jewes but we of the Gentiles also must be cloathed with the robes of a Ceremoniall righteousnesse imputed unto us for our Iustification Bâ— secondly if we follow that interpretation of tâ—is clause Christ was made under the Law which Luther â—clines unto and is an exposiâ—â—n of no hard aspect neither upon the place perhaps of a more favourable then the former then by Christs being made under the Law we shall neither understand his subject on to the Morall Law nor yet to the Ceremoniall Law in the preceptive part of either but his subjection unto the Curse of the Law And thus it expresseth both the gracious designation of God and likewise â—he voluntary submission of Christ himselfe unto deaâ—â— for the deliverance of men not only from death it selfe in the future but even from the feare of death in the pâ—â—sâ—nâ— as is plainly expressed Luke 1.74 and Heb. 2.15 In which respect the fruit or effect and benefit of this his being made under the Law is here v. 1.5 said to be the receiving the adoption of Sons If this exposition will stand as I see not how it will easily be overthrowne there being much more to be said for the justifying of it then is it a plaine case that here is nothing spoken nor intended of any such works of Christ as are pretended for imputation in the Iustification of a beleever No adversary I have yet met with in this controversie ever affirmed that either the death of Christ or the imputation of his death should be either the formall or materiall cause of Iustification Much more might be added for the taking of this clause of Scripture from intermedling at all to the prejudice or disturbance of that conclusion for which we have undertaken but having sufficiently cleared as I conceive our second order or sort of proofes from the Scriptures we proceed to others yet remayning CAP. IV. A third Demonstration from the Scriptures of the non-imputation of CHRISTS righteousnesse for justification in the sense ruling in this Controversie THirdly SECT 1 that the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed unto men for their righteousnesse or justification I demonstrate with more brevitie from that Scripture Rom. 3.21 But now is the righteousnesse of God made manifest without the righteousnes of the Law having witnes of the Law and the Prophets even the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve From whence I thus reason if the righteousnesse of Faith which is here called the righteousnesse of God as else where it is in the writings of this Apostle either because he is the founder and contriver of it as Divines for the most part agree or because God bestowes it and gives unto men as Calvin conceives upon this place or because it is this righteousnesse only that will stand and hold out before God as the same Author varieth his conjecture here or whether it be called the righteousnesse of God by way of opposition to the righteousnesse of the Law which is and may well be called the righteousnesse of men Rom 10.3 because they can hardly rellish or savor any other righteousnesse but it or whether for som other reason not so necessary or pertinent to our present inquiry I say if this righteousnesse of Faith consists in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse then is it not nor can it be made manifest without the Law that is without the works of the Law as Calvin rightly interpreteth the meaning of the word But the righteousnesse of Faith is sufficiently manifested without the Law that is without the works or righteousnesse of the Law Therefore it doth not consist in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse The reason of the connâ—xion in the major propâ—sition against which exception must be made â—f the conclusion be denied because the minor is plaine Scripture in terminis is evident If the righteousnesse oâ— God consists in the imputation of Christs righteousnes then is it not made manifest without the Law that is without the works and righteousnesse of the Law because to such a righteousnesse the Law and the works thereof are every whit as necessary and
more necessary then Faith it selfe for Faith is made only a meanes of the derivation of it upon men but the body and substance of the righteousnesse it selfe is nothing else but the pure Law and the workes of it And how a righteousnesse should be said to be made manifest without the Law whose essence strength and substance is nothing but the Law I conceive to be out of the reach of better apprehensions then miâ—â— to comprehend If it be here objected and said SECT 2 that this righteousnesse of God or of Faith may be said to be made manifest without the Law or the works of it because there are no works required of us towards the raising of it but this hinders not but that the workes of the Law as performed by Christ may be the matter and substance of it To this I answere First this Sanctuary hath been already polluted and the horns of this Altar broken downe in the demonstration of the former proofe Secondly there is not the least intimation given that the Apostle should have any such by or back meaning as this but that this righteousnesse of Faith should be fully taught and apprehended without any consideration of the Law or the works thereof as an ingredient into it Thirdly the works of the Law are neverthelesse the works of the Law because performed by Christ The greatnesse or holinesse of the person working according to the Law doth not alter or change the nature or property of the works but they are the works of the Law whosoever doeth them Christs being Christ doth not make the Law not to be the Law Fourthly this righteousnesse is said to receive testimony or witnesse from the Law that is from that part of Scripture which is often called the Law viz. the Books of Moses Mat 5 17. and c. 7 12. as Calvin here well interprets and from the Prophets therefore it cannot be a righteousnesse consisting in the imputation of a legal righteousnesse because there will be found no testimony given either by the Law or by the Prophets to such a righteousnesse except it be in aenigmate a testimony in a riddle which no man can finde out but by divination instead of an interpretation whereas it is repugnant to the nature of a testimony not to be somewhat plaine and expresse that it may be well understood But if we interpret this righteousnesse of God to be a righteousnesse procured or derived upon a man by Faith oâ— beleeving there is expresse testimony to be found given unto it both by the Law and also by the Prophets as the holy Ghost expressely here affirmeth by the Law Gen. 15 6 And he Abraham beleeved in the Lord and he counted it unto him for righteousnesse By the Prophets Hab. 2.4 But the just shall live by his Faith Fiftly and lastly this righteousnesse of God is said to be unto all upon all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or through Faith by way of opposition to the works of the Law ver 20. Now betweene Faith and the Law or works of the Law there is a constant oposition in the writings of this Apostle Rom. 3.27.28 and ag c. 4.13 14. and c. 9.32 and c. 10.5 6. Gal. 2 16. and c. 3.5 and ver 11.12 c. But betweene the Law and the works or righteousnesse of Christ there is no opposition but a perfect agreement Therefore that righteousnesse which is by Faith cannot stand in the righteousnesse of Christ imputed CAP. V. A Fourth Demonstration from Scripture of the avouched Conclusion FOurthly SECT 1 against the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense already disclaimed for that righteousnesse by which we are justified in the sight of God I argue from Rom. 5. ver 16. and 17. compared together The guift of righteousnesse as it is called ver 17. which is by Christ in the Gospel is said ver 16. to be a free guift of many offences unto justification From whence I thus reason That righteousnesse which is the guift of many offences that is the forgivenesse of many offences or sins unto justification cannot be a perfect legall righteousnesse imputed unto us or made ours by imputation But the righteousnesse which is by Christ in the Gospel by which we are justified is the guift of many offences unto justification Therefore it cannot be a perfect legall righteousnesse made ours by imputation The minor is the proposition of the Holy Ghost in terminis The major I demonstrate thus That righteousnesse which extends unto a mans justification by the forgivenes of sins can be no perfect legall righteousnesse imputed But the righteousnesse of Christ in the Gospel by which we are justified extendeth unto a mans justification by the forgivenesse of sins Therefore it can be no legall righteousnesse imputed The Reason of the former proposition the weaknesse of which only it must be that ministers strength to an adversary for further dispute in this question the authority of heaven being too pregnant in the other is this because a legall or perfect righteousnesse doth not preceed to jâ—stâ—â—y a mans person by way of forgivenesse of sins but is of it selfe intrinsecally and essentially a mans Iustification yea such a Iustification with which forgivenes of sinnes is not competible For what need hath he that is legally righteous or hath a legall righteousnesse imputed unto him of forgivenesse of sins when as such a righteousnesse excluds all sinne and all guilt of sinne from his person If it be here objected and said SECT 2 that a mans sinnes are first forgiven him and then this perfect righteousnesse of Christ is imputed unto him and so he is justified To this I answere First if we will needs distinguish the effects of the active and passive obedience of Christ after this manner so as from the active part of this obedience to fetch a perfect righteousnesse for imputation and from the passive remission of sinnes yet whether it be any waies reasonable to invert the order of these effects and dispose of them aâ— pleasure in a crosse method to their causes producing them I leave it to sober consideration Christ â—â—d not first die and after death keep the Law for us but he first kept the Law and then suffered death for us Therefore iâ— we will needs make the imputation of the one a distâ—nct bâ—n sit from the imputation of the other reason requireâ—â— that that which was first purchased should be first received or applied and consequently hat imputation of righteousnesse should have a precedency in order of râ—mission of sinnes Secondly if a man hath once sinned which must needs be acknowledged of every man that hath sins forgiven it is not any lâ—gall righteousnesse whatsoever imputed that can justifie him no if it were possible for him to keep the Law perfectly in his own person ever after to the daies of eternity this would not justify him because such a Iustification is repugnant to the expresse tenor of the Law Cursed is
forgivenesse of a mans own sins and imputation of Christs righteousnesse if it should be true yet is it no wayes necessary neither is it any waies apparent that these are parts of the same whole of one and the same iustification neither is there any thing expresly delivered in any part of the Scripture to establish it Therfore it is no wayes probable even in these respects that when Paul placeth a mans righteousnesse before God in the forgivenesse of his sinnes that he should doe it by the figure Synecdoche onely mentioning one part and implying another Againe SECT 8 2. if forgivenesse of sins be but a part and the worser halfe of our iustification then when the Scripture saith We are iustified by his blood as Rom 5.9 the interpretation must be we are justified by halfe through his blood but the better of our iustification must come another way For by his blood or death we cannot have his active righteousnesse imputed to us So where it is said againe vers 16. that the guift viz. of righteousnesse by Christ is of many offences unto iustification if the guift of many offences iâ— the forgivenesse of a mans sins will not amount to a iustification without the imputation of a legall righteousnesse joyned with it we must give a checke to Pauls pen as the High Priests did unto Pilate Joh. 16.21 Write not the King of the Iewes but that he said I am the King of the Jewes So must we say unto Paul doe not write that the guift is of many offences unto Iustification but the guift is of many offences and of many acts of righteousnesse too imputed to Iustification Pauls pen had made more hast then good speed as we say to come at Iustification before its time And thus we must draw blood instead of milke out of many other Scriptures besides these to nourish that opinion of the imputation of a formall righteousnesse for Iustification if you meane to keep it alive for the sincere milk of the word will not nourish it Thirdly that forgivenesse of sinnes is a mans entire and compleat Iustification and that there is no such further piece or part of it as is pretended concerning the imputation of Christs righteousnesse will appeare from hence because that end for which this imputed righteousnesse of Christ is thus brought into the businesse of iustification viz. to be the right or title of the iustified to their heavenly inheritance is otherwise supplyed by the wisdome and counsell of God and that in a way more Euangelicall and of more sweetnesse and deernesse to the children of God viz. by the grace of adoption or Son-ship as we shall further shew God willing in the reason following Fourthly SECT 9 if men will have the active righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto them for one part of their iustification by it selfe and the passive obedience or death of Christ for another part by it selfe and so separate and divide the benefit of his active obedience from that which we have by his passive in Iustification this is a method or course to destroy and lose both the benefit of the one and of the other For if men substract the righteousnesse of his life upon a conceit that that will doe them service alone which it will not doe as we shall see afterwards then must they want it in his death or in his blood and so that wil be ineffectuall too If it had bin possible under the Law for a man to have separated those qualifications which God required in the Beast for sacrifice as viz. the Sex the soundnesse spotlessenesse c. from the Beast it selfe neither would these qualifications separated from the sacrifice have bin of any use to the man neither would the Beast without these have made a sacrifice of acceptation So neither will the active obedience of Christ profit men if they separate it from the passive Joh. 12.24 neither will the passive it selfe be found it selfe In the cleansing of the Leâ—e the blood of the flame Syarrow was to â—e joyned and mixed with pure water in an â—â— then vessell and the person cleansed to be sprinkled with â—â—th Lev. 14.4.5.6 that is an attonement or expiation for sinne according to the will and purpose of God except we bring in the active to it For as it is most true which the Apostle affirmes Heb. 9 22. Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sinnes so is it as true that without shedding of righteous blood there is no remission neither And howsoever the personall union of the humane nature with the Godhead in the person of Christ was the great qualification requisite in his person to make the sacrifice of himselfe compleatly satisfactory for the sinne of the world yet was it as God willing we shall hereafter demonstrate more at large but a remote qualification in this respect there being a necessity not onely in respect of the decree and purpose of God but of other ends and conveniences also that this qualification we now speake of the fullfilling of the Law should intervene and come between that union and his sacrifice In the mean time whilest I would not have the active obedience of Christ separated from the passive nor againe the passive from the active in respect of this common and joynt effect of forgivenesse of sins or justification ariseing from a concurrence of them both yet would I not have Christ in his mystery tumbled up together on a heap for this would be to deface the beauty and excellencie of that wisdome which shines forth gloriously in the face thereof I would have every thing that Christ was and every thing that Christ did and every thing that Christ suffered to be distinguished not only in themselves but also in their proper and immediate effects respectively ariseing and flowing from them severally A pluralitie of causes may meet together in one and the same effect and yet the diversitie and difference of their severall operations and influences contributing towards the raiseing and produceing of such an effect may easily be distinguished and apprehended The goodnesse of the soyle the labour of the Oxe the Plough the seed that is sowne the Husbandmans paines in ploughing in sowing his skill in both the raine given from heaven to water that which is sowne all these and such like meet together in one joynt and common effect at the time of Harvest viz. the Husbandmans benefit or increase Yet is there scarce any man so much a stranger to the method and principles of Husbandry but can assigne to every one of these causes their proper and speciall effect though all meeting together in that great and common effect we speake of the soyle is for one purpose the Oxe for another the Plough for a third c. So is it true that all that Christ was and all that he did and all that he suffered meet together in that great and common effect the salvation of them that beleeve
in the condition To this I answere two things in two words 1. Imputation of works or of righteousnesse is not the condition of the new Covenant but beleeving If imputation were the condition then the whole Covenant should lye upon God and nothing should be required on the creatures part for imputation is an act of God not of men 2. I answere that if it were granted that the righteousnesse or the works of the Law imputed from Christ were that whereby we are iustified yet they must iustifie not as imputed but as righteousnesse or works of the Law Therfore imputation makes no difference in this respect Imputation can be no part of that righteousnesse by which we are iustified because it is no conformity with any Law nor with any part or branch of any Law especially of any Law that Man was ever bound to keep Therfore it can be no part of that righteousnesse by which he is to be iustified So that the condition of both Covenants will be found every waies the same and consequently both Covenants every wayes the same if iustification be maintained by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed CAP. XVII Wherin three Arguments more are managed against the already-impugned Imputation THere is no kind of error SECT 1 that requires or will take more strength and plenty of truth for the conviction and demolishing of it then that which is fortified with the pleasing appearance of a speciall confederacie with the glory of God or of an intire sympathie with the honour of Christ Knowing that enemie against which we conflict and wrastle in this discourse to have as much or more of that advantage then most other opinions have that are as legitimate as it I conceive it necessary in that respect to arme and imploy the more reasons and arguments in this warfare and service Therfore in the Tenth place against the Imputation so much contended for I oppose this Demonstration That for which righteousnesse is imputed to those that beleeve that cannot be imputed unto them for righteousnesse But the righteousnesse of Christ is that for which righteousnesse is imputed to those that beleeve Therfore it selfe cannot be imputed for righteousnesse The Assumption I presume no man will deny except those that deny the righteousnesse of Christ to be the meritorious cause of that righteousnesse or justification which is conferred upon men an opinion to which no man I know ever said live but onely Socinus and his peeres The Major Proposition I demonstrate thus If it be unpossible that the thing merited should be the same thing with that which is the meritorious cause of it then it is not only untrue but unpossible that the righteousnesse of Christ should be the righteousnesse of a beleever Sed verum prius Ergo et posterius For the consequence in the Major Proposition it is so evident in common apprehension that to labour any further illustration of it were but to light up a Candle to the Sun Because the righteousnes of Christ and the righteousnesse or justification of a Beleever stand in that relation we speake of the one to the other as the cause to the effect the righteousnesse of Christ being the meritorious cause and the righteousnesse of a beleever or person justified as the effect merited and effected by that cause And for the Minor that is every whit as evident and undeniable as it viz. that the thing merited cannot be the same with that which is the meritorious cause of it for so the same thing should be the meritorious cause of it selfe a conclusion so broad that there is no apprehension so weake but hath strength enough to disclaime Neither can it be here said SECT 2 that though the righteousnes of Christ cannot be meritorious of it selfe simply yet being a righteousnesse wrought by Christ it may be the meritorious cause of its own imputation and this imputation may be the formall cause of the iustification of a beleever For to this an answere is ready that suppose it should merit it 's owne imputation though this be very unproper and requires an interpretation more then abounding with charity to make truth of it any waies yet is not this imputation that which men say is imputed for righteousnesse unto any man but the righteousnesse it selâ—e of Christ Therfore if the righteousnesse of Christ be the meritorious cause of that righteousnesse which is imputed to a beleever and this righteousnesse which is imputed be the righteousnesse of Christ then it is evident that the righteousnesse of Christ must be directly and plainly the meritorious cause of it selfe Againe in the Eleventh place to second the former argument with another like unto it SECT 3 If the righteousnesse of Christ be imputed to a beleever for righteousnesse in his instification then the meritorious cause of his iustification is imputed unto him for righteousnesse But the meritorious cause of a mans iustification cannot be thus imputed unto him Therfore the righteousnes of Christ cannot be thus imputed neither The truth of the Major Proposition the former Argument will maintaine against any contradiction besides it is pregnant with an innate evidence of truth The reason of the Minor is this because the meritorious cause being a kind of efficient as is confessed on all hands cannot be either the matter or the forme of that whereof it is efficient Wherfore if the righteousnesse of Christ be the meritorious-efficient cause of our iustification unpossible it is that by any contriving or casting or bringing about either by imputation or otherwise it should ever be found or made either the matter or the forme of this iustification For this is famously known to be an indispensable and inviolable Law amongst the foure kinds of causes materiall formall finall and efficient that the two former only doe ingredi compositum or effectum and are partes reiconstitutae i. are intrinsecall and essentiall parts of the effect or thing produced and that the two latter viz. the finall and efficient are all waies extrinsecall and stand without As for example when a Plaisterer or Painter whites a wall the effect of his worke is the whitenesse of the wall or the wall as made white Now into this effect this whitenesse of the wall there is none of the efficient causes producing lt either any part of it or any ingredient into it neither the plaisterer himselfe who is the principall efficient cause of it nor his brush or pensill which is the instrumentall efficient cause nor the money or wages he receives for the doing it which is as the meritorious efficient cause of it None of all these is any intrinsecall or constituting part of the effect neither as the matter nor as the forme thereof The whitenesse applyed or put upon the matter or subject viz. the wall by all the three efficients according to their severall operations about it is the forme or formall part of it and the wall it selfe whereunto this form is joyned coupled or
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
grace besides Faith they would have carried eternall life after the same manner and with as high an hand as beleeving now doth Naamans leprosie was cureable onely by the waters of Iordan why because the will and decree of God concerning this effect were upon these waters and upon these onely Abana and Pharpar or any other River whatsoever would have done as much had the same decree of God concurred with them When causes have an intrinsecall and naturall power and efficacie to produce their effects it is very improper if not ridiculous to ascribe such effects to the will and good pleasure of God As to say it is the will of God that the grace of patience should make a man patient or the grace of humility should make a man humble or that such an element as we call fire should burne or the like though there be a truth in them yet there is so little savour or weight of truth in them that such sayings are not worthy the holy Ghost and neither these nor any of their fellowes of like importance to be found in the whole Booke of God So to say that it is the Will of God that beleeving in Christ should justifie and so save men if beleeving in Christ simply as it is beleeving in Christ did it were an eccentricall expression and no where to be parallell'd in the Scriptures I might adde many other Scriptures as Ioh. 1.12 where it is said that to those that received Christ i. that beleeved in him God gave the power or prerogative to be his Sonnes i. decreed that such should be Sonnes unto him and by vertue of such a decree really made them such upon their beleeving which clearely shewes that beleeving in Christ as such doth not make a Son of God but receives this power or prerogative by especiall guift from God which gift might have beene given to any other grace as well as beleeving So Eph. 2.8 By grace ye are saved through Faith viz. in Christ therefore Faith doth not save simply as or because Christ is the object of it but by the efficacie and force of that gracious and good pleasure of God whereby he hath covenanted with his creature that such a Faith shall save it which good pleasure or Covenant of God with men concerning Faith is called Rom. 3.27 the Law of Faith which Law is that which gives it that strength and power which it now hath to justifie and save It were easie to make this pile of Scriptures large but those that have beene touched are sufficient to shew which way they generally incline in this particular Neither is that common plea SECT 18 which is so frequently insisted upon to prove the contrary viz. that Faith justifieth in relation to its object or as it receiveth and apprehendeth Christ or Christs righteousnesse or the like of any value if it be duely considered The strength of the argument is usually bound up in this similitude As the hand is said to enrich a man because it receives the money or treasure whereby he is inriched so Faith must needs be said to justifie because it receives Christ who is our righteousnesse and by whom we are justified To this I answer that it is not simply the taking silver or gold with the hand that enricheth a man no nor the silver or gold so taken that simply enricheth him A man may be never the richer for receiving great summes of money of silver and gold nay a man may be much the poorer and more miserable for receiving or taking money if he receives or takes it contrary to the Lawes As when a thiefe breakes into an house and takes away much treasure with him or puts forth his hand to take a mans purse by the high-wayes side his hand in these cases cannot be said to make him rich because it receives treasure neither doth the treasure so received make him rich but poore and miserable because now he is obnoxious to the sentence of the Law and ownes his life and all he is worth besides unto it Therefore if a mans hand enricheth him by receiving that which doth enrich him it doth it not simply as it receiveth it for then it should doe it alwayes and in all cases whatsoever but it doth it by vertue of that Law or agreement of the state where he lives which secureth a man in the quiet possession and enjoyment of such money or treasure as hee lawfully receives to his owne use So though Christ be a treasure of righteousnesse and justification in himselfe it doth not presently follow that whosoever takes hold on him or beleeves in him should presently be made righteous or justified by him but here must intervene some Law Covenant or Decree from God to establish and authorize such a beleeving or laying hold on him to be a mans righteousnesse or justification Wee doe not suppose they can but for argument sake we will suppose that if the Devills should beleeve on Christ hoping or expecting to be justified by him as men doe who beleeving are justified yet they should be never the nearer any justification by him though he be a treasure of righteousnesse Why because God hath made no Law Promise Covenant or agreement with them that they should be justified by Faith therefore if it were possible for them to beleeve as men doe yet Christ would be no more any righteousnesse unto them than now he is Much more might be said and may be said elsewhere for the evidencing of this Conclusion but here I would hasten In the meane time I desire to explaine my selfe a little further touching this Conclusion onely in two words When I denie that Faith justifieth in its relation to its object or as it layeth hold on Christ I am farre from saying or conceiving that any Faith should justifie but that onely which layeth hold on Christ yea I grant and verily beleeve that whereas there are many other acts of Faith besides beleeving or laying hold on Christ as viz. to comfort and strengthen and purifie the hearts of those that beleeve and the like yet that decree or good pleasure of God which I conceive makes Faith justifying concurres with it towards this great effect onely in that act of laying hold on Christ and not in any of the other So that in this sence I grant hold that Faith may be said to justifie as it layeth hold of Christ comparatively viz. as this act of Faith is distinguished from those other acts which it likewise produceth it doth not justifie either as it comforts or as it purifies the heart c. but onely as it relateth to Christ and layeth hold on him This onely is that which I deny that this act of Faith whereby it receiveth or layeth hold on Christ hath that in the nature or inherently in it or any otherwise or by any other meanes then from the will and good pleasure of God which makes it availeable unto justification It hath no foundation
and agreeable to that nature in him which we call JUSTICE or severity against sinne and if he had pardoned sinne without it he had lost or passed over an opportunity of the declaration and manifestation of it to the world but had done nothing repugnant to it or to the prejudice or disparagement of it And thus far I can willingly subscribe to the opinion But whether such a free and satisfactionlesse condonation may be conceived to have had any possible consistence with the wisdome of God and therefore whether it had bin simply possible or no I am yet somewhat unsatisfied For a man to over-slip an opportunity that might lawfully be taken hold of and managed by him to some speciall advantage to himselfe either in point of Reputation Estate c. or the like is repugnant to the principles of sound wisdome and discretion but not of Justice at least not of Justice properly so called And the Holy Ghost Heb. 2.11 making it a thing so well becoming God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. For it became him c. intending to bring many children unto glory to consecrate the Prince of their salvation through sufferings i. not to save men without the death and sufferings of Christ seems rather to ascribe this cariage and method of the businesse to the wisdome of God then to his Justice But because confidence requires better grounds then present conceptions and apprehensions I forbeare further contending about the point in hand for the present Only I desire this may be considered and remembred as fully evident from the tenour of the Conclusion last estsblished that neither did the Law require of Christ the suffering of those things which he suffered nor were the things which he suffered every waies the same though in consideration value and importance the same fully with those the suffering whereof the Law threatned against all transgressors CAP. III. Certaine distinctiōs propounded and explained necessary for the further understanding of the businesse in question and the cleering of many difficulties incident to it THe word Iustification is taken in a double sense Distincti 1 SECT 1 either actively or passively In the active signification as farre as concern's the question in hand and as the Scripture use of it extendeth in the great businesse of the Justification of a sinner before God it most usually signifieth that act of God whereby he justifieth i. absolveth a beleeving sinner from the guist of and punishment due to his sinnes It may in this active signification signifie also any act of any other efficient cause of Iustification whatsoever of which kind there are many as we shall shew afterwards whereby it operates or contributes any thing towards this effect the justification of a sinner Yea to this active signification of the word may be referred the act of the forme it selfe or formall cause of Iustification which also in a way proper to it may be said to justify In the passive sense justification may signifie the effect it selfe of any or of all the former actions but most properly and frequently it signifieth that comcompleate and intire effect wherein all their severall influences and contributions meet and center together viz. that alteration or change which is made in the person or rather in the estate or condition of a person when he is justified which effect alteration or change standeth in this that whereas he was before the passing of such an act upon him a man under the guilt of sinne and liable to condemnation now he is a free man acquited and discharged from both In the former sense justification is atributed to God 1 Rom. 8.30 Whom he hath called them also he hath justified c. and ver 33. it is God that justifieth and so to Faith often In the latter sense it is attributed to or spoken of men Rom. 5.1 Therefore being justified by Faith c. and ver 18. Even so by the righteousnesse or justification of one the free guift came upon many to the justification of life i. to the full discharge and acquitting them from all sinne upon which life and salvation alwaies follow So that if the Question be asked what our justification is or wherein it stands it must first be inquired what justification it is that the Question intends for active justification is one thing and passive another and answere is to be made accordingly In like manner remission of sinnes signifieth either Gods act whereby he remitteth a manssinnes or else the effect of this act in and upon him whose sinnes are so remitted And generally all actions either have or in sufficient propriety of speech may have the same name with their proper passions or effects yea and sometimes with the relations resulting from them As calefaction frigefaction c. It is true there are severall other acceptions and significations of the word Iustification besides absolution from sinne when it is or as it may be used in other cases or upon other occasions as Christ himselfe is said to have bin justified 1 Tim. 16. who yet had no sinnes forgiven him and Abraham is said to have bin justified by workes Jam. 2.21 who yet had not his sinnes forgiven by or through his works So a man that is falsely accused may be justified and yet have no offence forgiven him as Christ was by Pilate when he professed that he found no fault in him Luk 23.4 But in the case and Iustification of a sinner before God the word justification still signifies and imports absolution from or remission of sinnes together with the punishment due to them Neither can there any instance be produced from the Scriptures of any other signification Iustice or righteousnesse Distincti 2 SECT 2 hath severall acceptions in the Scriptures when it is atributed unto God it signifies sometimes that universall and absolute holynesse and integritie of his nature which maketh him infinitely averse from doing any thing little or much contrary to the true rules of Iustice and Equity and inclines him only to do things agreeable hereunto Thus it seemes to be taken Psal 11.7 For the righteous Lord loveth righteousnesse c. So Dan. 9.14 Rove 16.5 besides many other places Sometimes againe and that very frequently it signifieth that nature in God which we commonly call truth or faithfulnesse in keeping promise Thus it is taken Psal 36.6 Thy righteousnesse is like the great Mountaines i. thy truth in thy promises can never be shaken or removed Thus Heb. 6.10 God is said not to be unrighteous i. as Paraeus well interprets not unfaithfull in his promise c. So againe 1 Ioh. 1.9 God is faith full and Iust to forgive us our sinnes i. constant in his promise this way Thirdly by the righteousnesse of God is often meant that gracious affection and disposition of his towards his people by reason whereof he is still propense and inclineable to doe them good as either to relieve and support them in trouble or to
on the left in the Disputes agitated in this Discourse The first rule I lay downe concernes the number of causes in generall Rule 1 and is this There are foure and but foure generall heads fountaines or kind of causes whereunto and under which all and all manner of causes be they never so many or various which any waies conduce or contribute towards the raising of any effect or new being may be reduced and comprehended These are usually knowne and called by these names 1º the efficient 2º the finall 3º the materiall 4º the formall The sufficiencie of which division of causes in generall might easily be argued and made good by demonstration but that it hath beene done by many before me and besides hath now for many ages by-gone bin admitted by men of reason and learning into the same honour of unquestionable truth with their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. their first and most undoubted principles of Reason Rule 2 My second rule respects the different habitude or relation in generall SECT 2 betweene the two former and the two latter causes as they were named towards their effects and is this The efficient and finall causes do never ingredi compositum i. are never any part any thing of the substance of the effect produced but are alwaies extrinsecall thereunto and have their beings distinct from it As on the other hand the materiall and formall causes are alwaies intrinsecall to the effect and together make up as it were the intire substance and essence of it As for example The Carpenter who is the efficient cause of the House that is built and so his Axe Saw Hammer c. are no parts of the house neither is the conveniencie or accommodation of the dweller or owner which is the finall cause of the House any part of it which appeares thus because the house may stand and be the same house that it is though the Carpenter that made it be dead and though it had neither dweller nor owner belonging to it But the tymber Brick stone c. which are the materiall cause of it and the order or method wherein they are contrived and wrought together in the building by the workman which is the formall cause are the essentiall and constituting parts of the house so that if either of these should be altered or taken away the house it selfe must be altered and taken away with them My third Rule toucheth the absolute incapacitie in every one of these causes Rule 3 of any more relations then one in respect of one and the same effect and proceeds after this manner No one thing or cause whatsoever can put on more habitudes or relations of causalitie then one in respect of one and the same effect As for example that which is the efficient cause of a thing can never be the formall nor the materiall nor finall cause of it So againe that which is the materiall cause of a thing cannot be the formall cause of that whereof it is the materiall nor yet the efficient or finall and there is the same consideration of them all Neither the Carpenter nor his skill nor his Ax nor his Hammer which are all efficients can be the matter of the house he builds with them neither can the tymber or stones which are the materiall cause of it be the efficient cause also c. It is true in some cases and in an unproper and metaphoricall sense the same person that in one consideration is the efficient cause of a thing may in another consideration be the finall cause of it As when a Carpenter builds an house for himselfe to dwell in in a sense he may be called both the efficient and finall cause of this house But this is an unproper expression and according to Grammaticall and expresse importance of the words not consonant to truth For if we speake properly the Carpenter cannot in this case be said to be the finall cause of his house because the nature and propriety of the finall cause is to receive it's being by and from that whereof it is the cause and not to have a subsistence and being before it as the Carpenter hath before the building of his house Therefore the finall cause of the house under instance is the Carpenters conveniencie of dwelling which is a thing of another nature and farre differing from his person The like interpretation must rule to make exactnesse of truth of that common saying in Divinity that God is the efficient and finall cause or end of all things (a) See sect 6 of this c. which the Scripture expresseth by calling him Alpha and Omega Revel 1. But for the rule it selfe last layd downe if rightly understood it is universally and unquestionably true that one and the same thing cannot possibly stand in more relations of causality then one to one and the same effect no more then one and the same point of Heaven can be both East and West or North and South in respect of the same Country or place The 4th and last Rule I desire to lay downe Rule 4 SECT 3 concerns the multiplicitie of divisions whereof the 4 generall heads of Causes mentioned are capable The rule I deliver in these words Though there be but foure kindes or heads of causes in the generall yet under every one of these heads there are severall species of causes comprehended and though all these under kindes or particular species of causes agree together in that common nature of causality which is expressed in that general head under which they are respectively and severally comprehended yet have they speciall and particular differences and those very considerable one from another betweene themselves To prosecute all the distinctions or divisions of causes that are found in Authors or otherwise might be thought upon would be to cast oyle upon the flames and make the Reader double wearier of the length of his discourse then he is already I shall therefore instance and that as briefly as may be in some few which I conceive have speciall relation to the businesse in hand and without the knowledg whereof the Doctrine of Iustification can hardly be thoroughly and cleerely understood The first generall head of causes which we called the Efficient admits of more divisions and subdivisions and conteynes more species of causes under it which are yet all efficients then any of the other yea then all the other three together The truth is that there is such an endlesse varietie of the kindes of efficient causes â—hat it is very difficult to finde them all out or to give fitting names to many that may more easily be found It shall suffice for our present occasion to mention some few divisions of them First of efficient causes some are principall SECT 4 others lesse principall The principall efficient cause is that which worketh independently and from it selfe I speake now in respect of created causes only because otherwise all causes whatsoever have a dependance upon
in view to the sight of all men is the advancement of the creature or persons iustifyed to that exceeding height of glory and endlesse happinesse in the intire and satisfying injoyment of God which himselfe was graciously pleased to ordeyne them unto from the beginning and to prepare and make them meet for in time Besides these two there might be diverse other more appropriate and particular ends both in respect of God the Iustifier and the elect of God the Iustified assigned as in respect of God the manifestation of his abundant pardoning grace or mercie tempered with justice c. in respect of the creature Iustifyed deliverance from wrath or punishment due to sinne a way making unto Adoption and fatherlike grace and acceptation with God with all the sweet privileges and blessings depending hereon c. but because there is no question or controversie stirring about these and the Doctrine of Justification may be competently knowne and understood without a particular enumeration of them I forbeare to make it matter of further labour to the Reader to insist upon them The chiefe contention and dispute amongst Reformed Divines in the businesse of Iustification SECT 14 is about the two causes that are yet behinde viz. the materiall and the formall but especially about the latter Therefore Thirdly Mr. Walker Socinianisme discovered c. p. 139. concerning the matter or materiall cause of Justification the Socinian Diseoverer with some others conceive they cast a spirit of honour upon the righteousnesse and satisfaction of Christ by setling this relation of causalitie in respect of Iustification upon them but doubtlesse much upon the like terms of mistake with those mentioned by our Saviour Ioh. 16.2 who should thinke that they did God service when they killed his best servants For First by making these the matter See Part 1. c. 17. Sect. 1.2 c. or materiall cause of Iustification they devest and spoyle them of the honour of that causalitie which is proper and peculiar to them and 7 times more honourable then that which is this way attributed to them viz. of that causalitie which we call meritorious This is evident by the tenour of the third Rule formerly laid downe in the second section of this Chapter whereby it appeares that no one cause whatsoever can put on more habitudes or relations of causality then one in respect of one and the same effect So that if the righteousnesse of Christ be the meritorious and impulsive cause of Iustification which is granted on all hands without exception even by the men against whom we reason it can at no hand be deemed the materiall cause also Because the meritorious and impulsive cause is a kinde of efficient as both hath bin lately proved and besides is generally so notioned and acknowledged by all neither can it be reduced to any of the other 4 heads of causes with any tolerable congruitie or colour of reason It was never heard of to this day that any efficient cause was the matter of the effect produced by it Secondly the righteousnesse of Christ whether Active or Passive or both cannot be the matter of Iustification because the matter of a thing is alwaies En◠incompletum an incompleate and imperfect entitie or being untill the introduction and union of the forme with it which still gives perfection of being and existence to it But the righteousnesse of Christ take it in what otion or under what consideration you please hath an intire perfect and compleate being neither can it fall under imagination what forme it should be capable of that by union with it should adde beauty and perfection to it Thirdly and lastly if the righteousnesse of Christ be the matter of Iustification it must be either matter properly or unproperly so called Matter properly so called which they call materia ex quâ it cannot be because this kinde of matter 1º is proper to substantiall natures or beings onely 2º is it selfe alwaies a substance 3º is alwaies a part of that nature or thing whereof it is the matter 4º and lastly is still the inferior weaker and viler part thereof Whereas Iustification in the first place being an act hath only an accidentall not a substantiall being and consequently is not capable of matter properly so called as no act or action whatsoever besides is Secondly the righteousnesse of Christ was never conceived to be in praedicamento substantiae to be a substantiall nature but an accidentall forme or quality and therefore cannot be matter properly so called of any thing Thirdly the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be a part of Iustification because Iustification as hath bin said is an action and the righteousnesse of Christ a forme or qualitie and most certaine it is that one predicamentall nature or being cannot be a part of another Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be this matter of Iustification we now speake of Fourthly and lastly it is furthest of all from all colour or appearance of truth that the righteousnesse of Christ in what composition or union soever it shall be found should be the weaker and lesse worthy part thereof being of that infinit perfection and worth which we all acknowledg and ascribe unto it Therefore certainly it is no matter of Iustification properly so called Secondly SECT 15 that neither is it any matter hereof unproperly so called may be thus demonstrated Matter unproperly so called is either that which Logicians call materia in qua or materia circa quam Matter in the former notion imports only the subject of a thing that is a substantiall nature as supporting some accidentall forme or being in it In this sense fire is sayd to be the matter of the heate that is in it and a man to be the matter of the learning or knowledge which he hath c. But this is most unproper and least used sense or signification of the word MATTER of all other In the latter notion the matter of a thing is the object or that thing upon which any thing acteth or about which it is conversant or exercised In this sense wood or tymber may be said to be the matter of the Carpenters art or imployment and his Scholars the matter of the Masters instruction c. This kinde of matter is most commonly and properly attributed to acts that are transient and with motion and alteration though it may be ascribed to that other kinde of act also which is without alteration and is called immanent in which sense bookes or the knowledge of things conteyned in them may be said to be the matter of the Schollers industrie or studie and the persons predestinated to be the matter of that immanent act of God which we call Predestination c. Now that the righteousnesse of Christ cannot in either of these notions or significations of the word matter be the matter of justification it is evident First not in the former because Iustification is not the subject wherein this righteousnesse
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
of a concurrent judgement with him herein (c) Haec communis est nostrorum omnium sententia Christi obedientiam justitiam nobis imputatam esse formalem causam Iustificatiopis Idem ubi supra p. 312. Notwithstanding Fourthly that neither is this opinion which maketh the righteousnesse of Christ imputed the formall cause of Iustification of any such intire consistencie with the truth besides the counterpoyse of the authorities and judgements of the Authors standing up for the former opinion may be evidenced upon these grounds First that which is an efficient cause of Justification cannot be the formall cause also This is cleere by the tenor of that generall rule laid downe Sect. SECT 23 of this Chapter concerning the incapacitie that is found in every one of the 4 causes respectively of putting on more relations of causalitie then one in respect of one and the same effect But that the righteousnesse of Christ is an efficient cause of Iustification hath bin already proved and besides is upon the matter so acknowledged by the Authors themselves of this opinion who generally grant it to be the meritorious or impulsive cause thereof Secondly they who maintaine the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to be the formall cause of Justification must of necessitie hold the beleeving sinner or the person to be justified to be the materiall cause thereof upon which supposition I thus reason No one and the same individuall forme or formall cause can possibly informe two severall subjects really distinguished the one from the other But Christ himselfe and the beleeving sinner are two severall subjects really distinguished the one from the other Therefore the same individuall forme of righteousnes cannot informe them both Neither can it be here said that Christ and the beleever are in this case considered as one and the same body or subject and so one and the same forme of righteousnesse may informe them both For to this I answere 1º that that though Christ and the beleever be one and the same mysticall body yet are they not one and the same naturall body and therefore are not capable of one and the same naturall forme As though man and wife be one flesh as the Scripture speakes and so one body viz. in a civill sense or consideration it doth not therefore follow that this one body is capable in both the parts or members of it of one and the same individuall naturall qualitie or forme because though they be one civilly yet they are two distinct persons or subjects naturally The wife is not not wise by the wisdome or strong by the strength of her Husband she may be both simple and weake notwithstanding the contrarie perfections in her Husband Yea in the naturall body it selfe though all the members be but one body as the Apostle speaketh yet the properties or qualities that are found in one member as for instance the organicall facultie of seeing in the eye are not found in others as in the hand foote or the like And 2º SECT 24 if one and the same forme of righteousnesse did informe both Christ and the beleever because they are one body then one and the same sinfullnesse or corruption of nature might informe them also upō the same ground so Christ should be sinful corrupt with the same sinfulnesse corruption of nature which are found in the beleever Therefore the objection laid in is of no value Thirdly if the righteousnesse of Christ be the formal cause of Justification thē the meritorious cause of a thing may be the formal cause of it also For the righteousnesse of Christ as hath bin often said once sufficiently proved generally is confessed is the meritorious cause of Iustification But that that meritorious cause of a thing can never be the formall cause also of the same is fully evident from hence because the formall cause is alwaies intrinsecall what is more intrinsecall then the forme saith Bishop Downeham as we heard before and contrarily the meritorious cause alwaies extrinsecall Now as it is impossible See Sect. 2. of this Chap. that he that is alwaies without the dores should at any time be within so is it unpossible also that that cause whose essentiall charactar and propertie it is to be alwaies extrinsecall should be intrinsecall at any time or in any case whatsoever Fourthly if the righteousnesse of Christ be the formall cause of Iustification then is a Beleever to be reputed righteous with the righteousnesse of Christ This Proposition is evident it being proper to every forme to give a suteable denomination to the subject But that a Beleever is at no hand to be reputed righteous with the righteousnesse of Christ or with the same righteousnesse wherewith Christ is righteous I thus demonstrate and prove He that may lawfully be reputed righteous with the same righteousnesse wherewith Christ was righteous may lawfully be reputed never to have sinned The reason of this Proposition is because that righteousnesse which either supposeth or admitteth sinne in the same subject with it can be none of the righteousnesse of Christ the essentiall property whereof was to bee his righteousnesse who never sinned But that it should be lawfull to repute any justified person under Heaven never to have sinned is so notorions an untruth that men need no further light I conceive to comprehend the darknesse of it Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ imputed is not the formall cause of Iustification Fiftly SECT 25 if men be formally righteous with that righteousnesse where with Christ himselfe was righteous then are they righteous with a meritorious righteousnesse For themselves grant the righteousnesse of Christ to be meritorious But that men are not formally righteous with a meritorious righteousnesse I thus demonstrate He that is formally righteous with a meritorious righteousnesse may lawfully have the merit of such righteousnesse ascribed unto him and be himselfe reputed the meritor of whatsoever is due upon just account to such a righteousnesse But the merit of the righteousnesse of Christ cannot lawfully be ascribed unto any man nor any justified person lawfully reputed the meritor of all that is due to that righteousnesse Therefore no man is formally righteous with the righteousnesse of Christ The assumption in this argument is unquestionable and hath our Adversaries themselves friends to it certainly no man is to be esteemed or reputed one that hath merited or contributed any thing by way of merit towards the salvation of the world which is that which is due to the righteousnesse of Christ at least in the judgement of those who oppose in the present controversie The reason of the former proposition is that old approved maxime in Logique Dansformam dat consequentia formam i. hee that gives the forme of a thing gives all such things with it which do accompany and follow this forme Now the Redemption and salvation of the world is that which accompanieth and followeth and which still belongeth to the righteousnesse
mak's an alteration in the person or rather in the condition of the person justified See this also further explained in the forenamed Section of this Chapter 3º That that alteration or change which is made in the condition of the person justified by his Iustification that is that which the immediate proper and precise effect of that act of God whereby hee iustifieth in or about the person justified is and nothing else but this is or can with any coulor of reason and congruitie of speaking be called the forme or formall cause of Iustification Of this also you have some further accompt in the 8 Section of this Chapter 4º That is especially to be remembred that wee doe not in this inquirie seeke after the forme or formall cause of Iustification simply or of Justification largely taken but of that particular and speciall kinde of Iustification whereby a beleeving sinner is justified by God through the redemption which is in Christ Iesus For if we take Iustification in a large sense it is evident that remission of sinnes cannot be the formall cause of it Because in such a sense of the word Iustification a man may be said to be iustified that is acquitted and cleered who hath noe sinnes or sinne at all forgiven him viz. in case hee hath bin falsely accused And so on the other hand a man may have his offence or offences remitted and forgiven and yet not be justified I meane with any such kinde of Iustification as we now speake of viz. that is built upon a just and plenary satisfaction for the offence given But otherwise any remission of an offence upon what termes soever may in a large sense be called a Justification viz. See more of this Cap. 3. Sect. 1. of this second part as the word connoteth and many times even in the Scriptures themselves signifieth a discharge or absolution from punishment 5º and lastly whereas there may be a double or or twofold Iustification ascribed unto God the one we may call Declarative or Pronunciative the other Constitutive it is the formall cause of the latter rather then of the former which we inquire after The difference betweene these two Iustifications may be thus conceived that which I call Constitutive hath a precedencie in the order of nature and for the most part of time also before the other and is some kinde of cause thereof When God is said to justifie the sinner or ungodly as Rom. 4.5 it is meant of his Constitutive Iustification not of his Declarative For God never declareth or pronounceth a sinner righteous till hee hath made him righteous which is the proper act of that which I call Constitutive Iustification Againe when Christ saith by thy words thou shalt be iustified Mat. 12.13 and Iames concerning Abraham that he was iustified through workes these and such like passages speake of a declarative Iustification The formall cause of Gods declarative Iustification cannot be conceiv'd to stand in remission of sinnes because remission of sinnes is alwaies precedaneous to it and therefore cannot be the effect of it and so not the formall cause thereof according to the 2 and 3 grounds premised The formall cause of this kinde of Iustification is rather the knowledge in those to whom such declaration is made whether it be the person himselfe that is iustified or some other of remission of sinnes granted unto him concerning whom such declaration is made Onely to prevent cavilling that is acknowledged that even that which I call Constitutive Justification may in this sense be called declarative also viz. as the grounds terms and conditions upon which it proceeds are declared and made knowne by God in his Gospell But by declarative Iustification I meane onely such an act or expression of God whereby he declares the actuall Justification of those or any of those that have their sinnes forgiven them These things remembred SECT 30 I proceed to demonstrate the truth of the opinion mentioned and undertaken for which was that Remission of sins is the forme or formall cause of Iustification First if Remission of sinnes be the first immediate and precise effect of that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner in or upon the sinner so justified then is Remission of sinnes the proper formall cause of Iustification This consequence is built cleere and strong upon the third particular premised Therefore I assume But remission of sinnes is the first immediate and precise effect of that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner in or about the sinner so iustified Ergo c. The reason of this latter proposition is because there is no other imaginable effect that should interveene betweene such an act and the effect specified The Scriptures themselves make an immediate connection betweene Gods act of Justification and the sinners exemption or absolution from his sinnes that is from the guilt and punishment due unto his sinnes when they call Iustification a Iustification from sinne Be it knowne unto you men and Brethren saith Paul Act. 13.38 that through this man is preached unto you remission of sinnes and by him all that beleeve are justified from all things from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Moses Where we see that Iustification is immediatly and directly from sinne i. from the guilt or condemnatorie power of sinne The like expression you have Rom. 6 7. He that is dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is iustified from sinne So that this is the first priviledge or blessing that comes upon a sinner by meanes of his Iustification or of that act of God whereby he justifieth him the remission of his sinnes and consequently must needs be the forme of his Iustification Secondly that which gives the denomination of justified to those that are justified must needs be the forme or formall cause of Iustification The reason of this proposition is apparant it is still proper to every forme to give a sutable denomination to the subject Sutable I meane not only to the forme it selfe but to the action or motion also whereby this forme was introduced into the subject As for example whitenesse in a wall that was made white out of some other colour gives the denomination of whited unto the wall which doth not answere the forme it selfe onely which is whitenesse but that action also of the Plaisterer or Painter which wee call whitening Therefore it is evident that the forme or formall cause of this act of whitening is the whitenesse or whitednesse of the wall Thus farre then the ground is firme under us Let us therefore goe forward and assume But remission of sinnes gives the denomination of iustified to those that are iustified Therefore remission of sinnes is the forme or formall cause of Iustification The assumption I thus further demonstrate If a sinner be therefore and thereby iustified because he hath his sinnes remitted unto him then remission of sinnes gives the denomination of iustified unto him This consequence is pregnant because
must needs be the formall cause thereof otherwise it must be said either a man is formally just by some righteousnesse of his own or which he hath not received from God or else that he is not made righteous in or by his Iustification but afterwards The minor is the assertion of the Holy Ghost almost in terminis Rom. 4. For that which ver 6. is called Gods imputing righteousnesse ver 7. is interpreted to be his forgiving iniquities and covering sinne Seventhly If remission of sinnes reacheth home unto and be given unto men by God for their Iustification then is it the formall cause thereof This is evident because by the formall cause of Iustification we meane nothing else as hath bin often said but Iustification passive or that guift which by God is given unto men and by them received accordingly in and by that act of his whereby he iustifieth them So that if remission of sinnes be that which is given unto sinners by God for or unto their Iustification it must of necessitie be conceived to be the formall cause thereof Therefore I assume but remission of sinnes is given by God unto men for their Iustification and reacheth home unto it Therefore it must needs be the formall cause thereof This latter proposition againe is in effect and well nigh in terms nothing but what the Holy Ghost himselfe affirmeth Rom. 5.16 And not as it was by one that sinned so is the guift for the iudgment was by one unto condemnation but the free guift is of many offences unto Justification that is God by the free guift that is by the free forgivenesse of mens sinnes doth fully justify them The free guift of offences or the forgivenesse of sins could not be said to be unto Iustification except a man were fully and entirely justifyed thereby Lastly if remission of sinnes and the non-imputing of sinne to those that have sinned be expressions of one and the same importance and signifie the same privilege estate or condition of a person iustified then is remission of sinnes the formall cause of Iustification The strength of this consequence lieth in this that the Holy Ghost describeth or interpreteth the righteousnesse which God imputeth in Iustification by the non-imputation of sinne This is evident by comparing Rom. 4.6 with ver 8. And it was prooâ—ed before in the sixt argument that the righteousnesse imputed by God in Iustification must of necessity be the formall cause thereof Therefore it undeniably followes that if remission of sinnes and the non-imputing of sinne be expressions of one and the same condition that remission of sinnes is the formall cause of Iustification Now that the importance of these two expressions is but one and the same is apparant enough without proofe For what doth God more or otherwise in remitting sinne then he doth in not imputing it or what doth he more or otherwise in the not-imputing of sinne then he doth in remitting it Not to impute sinne to him that hath sinned can implie nothing else but not to charge the demerit or guilt thereof upon him and what doth remission of sinnes import either more or lesse And hence doubtlesse it is that David sets the same Crowne of the same blessednesse upon the head of the one and the other Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven whose sinne is covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquitie c. Psal 32.1.2 Rom. 4.7.8 Much might be further argued both from the Scriptures and otherwise SECT 34 for the cleering and countenancing of this opinion which placeth formall justification in Remission of sinnes but inasmuch as this tasque hath bin learnedly and throughly performed by another (a) Mr. Wotton De Reconciltat Part 1 lib. 2. c. 3.4.5.6.7.8 though in another languag and to ease the present discourse of length and tediousnesse what we may without any sensible de râ—ment to the cause undertaken I forbeare And the rather because whatsoever I am able to conceive may possibly with any colour or pretext of reason be objected against the opinion hath for the most part bin already answered or cleered or else will be found answered in the two following Chapters As First Object 1 That Remission of sinnes is no true or compleate righteousnesse ou shall finde satisfaction touching this in the second Chap. of this latter part in the 4 Conclusion Sect. 4. Secondly Object 2 That the righteousnesse of Christ is to be joyned with remission of sinnes to make the compleate forme of Iustification See this cleered at large Cap. 11. of the first part Thirdly Object 3 That Remission of sinnes is the consequent or effect of Iustification and therefore not the formall cause See whereof to make a sufficient answere to this Sect. 8. and Sect. 29. of this Chapter where it is fully prooved that the formall cause of Iustification must needs be the consequent of Iustification that is of that act of God whereby he justifieth Fourthly that the righteousnesse of Christ imputed is this formall cause Object 4 you shall finde this counter-argued Sect. 23 24 25 26 27. of this Chapter Fiftly Object 5 that the imputation of this righteousnesse is the formall cause The inconsistencie of this with the truth is evicted Sect. 22. of this Chapter Sixtly Object 6 That the communion that is betweene Christ and beleevers is this formall cause How little communion this hath with the truth hath bin shewed at large Section 18 19 20 21. of this Chapter Seventhly That Iustification may be Object 7 where there is no remission of sinnes and remission of sinnes where there is no justification See the opinion set cleere of this objection in the latter end of Sect. 1. of the 3 Chap. of this second part as also Sect. 29. of this present Chapter What further may be objected I doe not for the present apprehend but ready and willing I am to take any thing into a serious and unpartiall consideration that shall be tendred unto me as matter of further question or difficultie in the businesse In the meane time out of all that which hath bin reasoned at large in this Chapter concerning justification and the severall causes thereof some such description of it as this may be framed wherein the attentive Reader may observe either all or the greatest part of the causes insisted upon briefly comprehended Justification is an act of God whereby having out of his owne unspeakable free grace and goodnesse towards poore miserable sinners given his only begotten Sonne Jesus Christ to make attonement or satisfaction for them by his death in consideration of this attonement freely pardoneth and remitteth the sinnes of all those that beleeve in him through Jesus Christ preached or otherwise revealed by the Holy Ghost unto them CAP. V. VVhere in the Scriptures alledged for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse or active obedience in Justification are cleered and answered and the true sense and interpretation of them respectively established according to
dissolved and taken away by the imputation of his death or passive obedience and this before the imputation of the active obedience be made unto us See for this cap. 5. Sect. 2. of the first part of this Discourse Now that which is wholly dissolv'd and taken away needs no further covering in respect of God nor indeed is capable of any 4. The righteousnes or active obedience of Christ is so farre from being a covering of sinne that it is rather a means of the discovery of it and by the light and absolute purity and perfection thereof sets off sinne with the greater sinfullnesse even as the Law it selfe doth Therfore 5. and lastly if it be conceiv'd necessary to place any emphaticall difference in this expression of covering of sinnes from the other two of forgivenes of sin and not imputing sinne I conceive it most agreeable to Scripture notion to assigne this peculiarity of importance to it that by covering of sinne is meant Gods gracious expressing himselfe to a man that hath sin'd especially in a way of outward prosperity and peace It is most probable that by covering of sinne somwhat should be meant which is contrary to that which the Scripture expresseth by a discoverie of sinne Now it is evident from these and many like places more Ezek. 16.57 Ezek. 23.10.29 Job 20.27 Esa 57.12 c. that by discovering of sinne is meant the executing of judgements or inflicting of punishments upon sinners answerable to their sinnes which may wel be called a discovering of sin and wickednes because neither the sinners themselves nor yet others are ordinarily capable of any knowledge or apprehension to purpose of the demerit and vilenesse of sinne but by meanes of the severity of God expressing it selfe in visible judgements upon those that have sinned Therfore by covering of sinne both here and elsewhere is meant nothing else doubtlesse but Gods expressing of himselfe to persons that have sinn'd upon their Repentance in waies of Grace favour and love as if they had not sinned nor provoked him To this purpose when he shews any outward favour or countenance to men as by protecting them from dangers or delivering them out of trouble or the like he is said to justifie them Iustifying the righteous to give him or by giving him according to his righteousnes 1 King 8.32 compare herewith 2 Chron. 6.23 So that here is no shelter or covering for the Doctrine of Imputation in this Scripture Againe SECT 3 those parallell Scriptures Ier. 23.6 and 33.16 are alledged And this is his Name whereby he shall be called the Lord our righteousnesse I answere that neither is there any colour in these words for the pretended imputation Ier. 23.6 and c. 33.16 cleered For First it is not here said that the righteousnesse of the Lord shall be our righteousnesse nor that the righteousnesse of the Lord shall be imputed to us for righteousnesse no here is altum silentium profound silence as concerning any imputation Secondly it is wholly repugnant both to the Grammaticall and Rhetoricall importance of the expression and words as likewise disagreeing from the Scripture phrase and manner of speaking in the like cases to put such a sense or interpretation upon them as this Christ is our righteousnesse by imputation Christ can in no tolerable construction of speech be said to be imputed to us the imputation of a person was never heard of therefore cannot be said to be imputed to us for our righteousnesse But Thirdly and lastly the plaine and direct meaning of the place is this This is his Name whereby he shall be called The Lord our righteousnesse that is He shall be generally acknowledged and celebrated by his people the Jewes for the Prophet speak's particularly of these as is evident in the context as the Greate Author and procurer of that righteousnesse or justification in the sight of God for righteousnesse is very usually put for justification as was noted cap. 3. Sect. 3. of this second part upon which abundance of outward glory peace and prosperitie should be cast upon them This interpretation is agreable to the Scripture phrase and manner of speaking in the like cases For First the attributing or imposition of a Name upon either thing or person often notes the quality or property in either or some benefit redounding from either answerable thereunto (a) Schema est propheticuÌ„ quo nominu quasi peoprij impositione rei aut personae de qua agitur qualitas aut fatum indicetur Med. â— Apocalyps p. 84. Solet Scriptura dicererem quampiam vel personam hoc vel illo nomine vocatum iri non quod habitura sit illud nomen aut tali nomine vulgo appellanda sit sed quod vere ac plane habitura sit rem talâ— nomine significatam Perer. in Gen. p. 848. Sect. 30. His name shall be called wonderfull Counsellor c. Esa 9.6 that is he shall be acknowledged and looked upon by men as an actor and doer of things very strange and excellent as one that is able and ready to give the best advice and counsell to those that shall repaire unto him in difficult cases c. See of like importance and expression Ezek. 48.35 Mat. 1.21.23 Apoc. 8.10 with many others Secondly There is no phrase or expression more familiar in Scriptures quà m effectum praedicare de cansa in resto that is then to attribute an effect to its cause or Author by a verb substantive only or to affirme the effect of the cause directly Thus Christ is said to be our hope 1 Tim. 1.1 To be our life Col. 3.4 To be the resurrection Joh. 11.25 To be our peace Ephes 2.14 To be the glorie of his people Luk 2.32 with many the like meaning that he is Author purchaser or Procurer of all these So when he is said to be our righteousnesse there can no other construction be made of it but this that he is the Author or procurer of our righteousnesse Calvin is expresse for this interpretation of this passage All these expressions saith hee (b) Omnes istâ—â— locutiones peraeque valent justificari nos Dei gratia Christum esse justitiam nostram justitiam morte ac resurrectione Christi nobu acquisitam Calvin in Gal. 3.6 carrie the same sense and meaning that we are iustified by the grace of God that Christ is our righteousnesse that righteousnesse is procured for us by the death and resurrection of Christ c. See more of this interpretation before Cap. 3. Sect. 2. Thirdly and lastly that by righteousnesse in this place is meant that Iustification which stands in remission of sinnes and that by Christs being called the Lord their righteousnesse is only meant that through him God would be reconciled to them and pacified with them as concerning all their provocations appeares from the like tenor of other Scripture passages For usually when God promiseth deliverance and outward prosperity to this people after long and sore
justitia justice or righteousnesse but justificatio justification Beza by himselfe and perhaps more agreeable to the Apostles minde then the rest translates it jus the right or Law as it were of the Law And so both Chrysostom a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost ad Ro. 8. â— Serm. 13. and Theophylact b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in Rom. 8.4 of old expound the word not of any obedience of to the Law but of the end scope or intent of the Law viz. justification Paraus following Bezas translation of the word conceives that the Apostle by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or jus legis meanes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or damnatorie sentence of the Law against sinners mentioned cap. 5.16 in which signification of the word that right or power which God hath to condemne sinners unto death is called cap. 1.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where our English render it the iudgement of God the former translation had it the Law of God This exposition of the word though it seemes contrary to that given by Calvin and others mentioned yet will it give out one and the same sense and importance of the place with it as will presently appeare So that if this place were translated with exactnesse to the originall the argument that is now drawne from it for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse would wholly disappeare 6. Neither is it by ten degrees as cleere as the Sun that by the word Law in this Scripture we must of necessitie and with all precisenesse understand the Morall Law We know there are many other acceptions of the word in the writings of this Apostle And that it cannot be here meant precisely of the Morall Law is evident 1º because that impossibility of iustifying men thorugh the weaknesse of the flesh spoken of ver 3. is not confin'd to this Law alone but extends aswell to the other two Ceremoniall and Judiciall except we shall say that though the Morall Law was weake through the flesh and could not iustifie yet the Ceremoniall and Judiciall had a sufficiencie of strength hereunto which is manifestly untrue 2º because the Jewes to whom especially he addresseth himselfe in all his disputations concerning the Law and Iustification thereby built asmuch or more upon the observation of the Ceremoniall Law for their Iustification then of the Morall as was formerly observed Sect. 8. of this Chapter Now its certaine that the Apostle here takes the word Law in the same sense and latitude wherein the Jewes meant it when they contended and argued for Iustification by it otherwise he should not argue with them ad idem nor reach their apprehensions or meaning 3º because the Morall Law suppose it had not bin made weake nor disadvantag'd by the flesh yet could it not by the most exact observation of it have justified men at least not all men and by name not the Jewes who were bound to the observation of the other two aswell as of it and had bin found sinners had they faild in any point of either of these though they had bin absolute in the other Now it is evident that by the righteousnesse or Iustification of the Law in this place the Apostle meanes the righteousnesse or Iustification of such a Law which in it selfe was able to iustifie had it met with a sufficiencie of strength in men answerable to it Therefore he cannot be conceiv'd to speake here determinatly of the Morall Law which had no such abilitie in respect of the Jewes 4º and lastly because the Jewes had bin never the neerer a Iustification by the righteousnesse of the Morall Law imputed from Christ unto them supposing such an imputation being as hath bin said under the transgression of other Lawes So then this consideration also that by the word Law in this â—cripture cannot be meant the Morall Law gives an utter defeat to the attempt that is made upon it for the establishing of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse But 7. SECT 14 and lastly the cleare meaning of the place seem's to be this God sending his owne Sonne c. condemned sinne in the flesh that the righteousnesse or Justification of the Law might be fulfilled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or upon us c. that is that that Iustification or way of making men righteous which the Law that is the writings of Moses held forth and prophecied of unto the world long since viz. by Faith in the Messia that was then to come and to make attonemement for sinne by his blood might be fulfilled in us or upon us that is might be accomplished made good and fully manifested in us or upon us viz. in our Iustification who by our walking not after the flesh but after the Spirit that is by an eminencie of holinesse in our lives above the straine and pitch of men under the Law give testimony unto the world that the Messia or Great Iustifier of men foretold by Moses is indeed come into the world and having suffered for sinne and overcome death hath powred out the Spirit of Grace abundantly upon those that beleeve in him This interpretation especially as farre as concern's the clause in question that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us is confirmed aswell by the sweet proportion and sutablenesse betweene such a fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the Law in those that beleeve and live accordingly as the effect and that sending of Christ in the similitude of sinfull flesh to condemne sinne in the flesh laid downe in the former verse as the meanes or cause thereof Secondly in this interpretation the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fulfilled hath its proper and genuine force and signification which is wholly lost in that exposition which laboureth to finde the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in this place For to be fulfilled in the Scripture properly signifieth the accomplishment making good or full manifestation of a thing which before was under promise or prediction only and as it were in the darke Thirdly that righteousnesse or Iustification which is here called the righteousnesse or Justification of the Law is questionlesse the same righteousnesse which Rom. 3.21 is said to be witnessed by the Law that is by the writings of Moses and by the preaching whereof the Law it selfe is said to be established ver 31. of that Chapter So that in this respect it may very well be called the righteousnesse or Justification of the Law Fourthly and lastly according to the tenor of this interpretation this passage of Scripture is of perfect sympathie and accordance with those Rom. 3.21.22.25 whereas as the other interpretation leadeth it it can neither fiâ—de friend nor fellow in all the Scripture In the former of these last cited Scriptures the Apostle expresseth himselfe thus But now the righteousnesse of God without the Law is manifested being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets even the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Jesus Christ c. In the
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