stead of the fruite or effect of it good or bad benefit or losse vantage or disadvantage merit or demerit of it Thus Job 33 26. God is said to render unto man his righteousnesse i. The fruite or benefit of his righteousnesse in the favor of GOD and manifestation of it in his deliverance and restauration the righteousnesse it selfe in the propriety of it cannot be rendred unto him So Ephe. 6 8. Whatsoever good thing any man doth the same shall he receive of the Lord. i. he shall receive benefit and consideration from God for it So Revel 15 12. Here is the patience of the Saints and c. 13 10. Here is the patience and faith of the Saints i Here is the benefit and unspeakable reward of the patience and faith of the Saints to be seene when the Beast and all that worship him or adhere to him shall be tormented in fire and brimstone for evermore and those that have constantly suffered for not worshiping of him shal be delivered from drinking of that bitter cup. So again So worke is often put for the wages due to it Levit. 19 13. Iob 7 2. Ior. 22 13 Esa 49.4 c. Psal 128 2. Thou shalt eate the labor of thy hands that is the fruite of this labour So on the other hand Heb. 9 28. it is said of Christ that to those that looke for him he shall appeare the second time without sinne that is without the guilt or punishment of sinne charged upon him for otherwise if we take sinne in the formall and proper signification of it there wil be no difference implied betweene his first and second appearance in as much as he was as free from the defilement or pollution of sin in his first appearing as he can or shal be in his second So Ezech. 16 58. Thou hast borne thy lewdnesse and thine abhominations saith the Lord viz. in punishments or judgments answerable to them So 1 Kings 8 32. To bring his way upon his head that is the punishment he hath deserved by his way of sinne So to let passe many other instances of like construction Gen. 19 15. Least you be destroyed in the iniquity of the Citty that is in that judgement or punishment that fell upon the Citty by meanes of the iniquity of it In such a construction of speech as the holy ghost himselfe useth in these and many such like passages in the Scripture the righteousnesse of Christ Active and Passive may be said to be the righteousnesse by which we are justified or which is imputed unto us in our justification and not in any other Wherefore to draw towards a close of this first Chapter and withall to give a little more light SECT 5 that it may be seene cleare to the bottome both what we affirme and what we deny in the question propounded i when we affirme the faith of him that beleeveth to be imputed for righteousnes the meaning is not either I that it should be imputed in respect of any thing it hath from a man himselfe or as it is a mans owne act nor yet 2. in respect of any thing it hath from God himselfe or from the Spirit of God in the production or raising of it in the soule though it be true it requires the lighting downe of the Almighty arme of God upon the soule to raise it Neither 3 See this further opened and proved in the second part of this Discourse Cap. 2. ss 17. Is it imputed for righteousnesse in respect of the Object or because it layeth hold upon Christ or Christs righteousnessâ— though it be true also that that faith that is imputed for righteousnesse must of necessity lay hold upon Christ and no other faith is capable of this Imputation besides because if faith should justifie or be imputed for righteousnesse as it layes hold upon Christ it should justifie out of the Inherent dignitie and worth of it and by vertue of that which is naturall and intrinsecall to it there being nothing that can be conceived more naturall or essentiall unto faith then to lay hold upon Christ this is the very life and soule of it and that which gives it its specificall being and subsistence Therefore to make the Object of FAITH as such the precise and formall ground of the Imputation of it is to make hast into the middest of Samaria whilst men are confident they are travailing towards Dothan It is the giving the right hand of fellowship to the Romish Iustification which makes faith the meritorious cause of it in part But 4 and lastly when with the Scripture we affirme that faith is imputed for righteousnesse our meaning is simply and plainely this that as God in the first Covenant of workes required an absolut and through obedience to the whol law with continuance in all things for every mans Iustification which perfect obedience had it beene performed had beene a perfect righteousnesse to the performer and so would have justified him So now in the New Covenant of grace God requires nothing of any man for his justification but only faith in his Sonne which faith shal be as a vaileable and effectuall unto him for his justification as a perfect righteousnesse should have beene under the first Covenant this is that which is meant when faith is said to be Imputed for righteousnesse which is nothing but that which is generally taught by Divines both ancient and moderne Sic decretum dicit à Deo ut cessante lege Solam fidem gratia Dei posceret ad salutem Ambrosius in Rom. 4. that is the Apostle saying that to him that believeth his faith is Imputed for righteousnes affirmeth that God hath so decreed that the Law ceasing the grace of God will require of men only faith to salvation And againe upon Ch. 9 of the same Epistle Sola fides posita est ad salutem onely faith is appointed or ordained to salvation Calvin writing upon Rom. 10 8. hath words of the same importance and somewhat more cleare and full Ex hac distinctionis nota colligimus sicutilex opera exigit sic Evangelium nihil aliud postulare nisiâ—ut fidem afferant homines ad recipiendam Dei gratiam that is From this distinction we gather that as the Law required workes so the Gospell requires nothing else but that men bring faith to receive the grace of God If God requires Faith in the Gospel for the same end for which he required worâ—â—s or perfect righteousnes in the Law it necessarily followes that he should impute this faith for that righteousnes that is accept it from men upon the same termes in respect of justification and bestow the same favors rewards and priviledges upon the tender of it that should have beene given unto men in regard of that legall righteousnes had it beene fulfilled otherwise he should require it for such an end or upon such term's as he would refuse to make good unto it when the creature hath exhibited it
description of this cause given of Iustification is God himselfe Father Son and Holy Ghost considered is one and the same simple and intire essence though this act of justification as that of creation and some others besides is in special manner appropriated to the first person of the three the Father as other acts are to the other two persons Redemption to the Son Sanctification to the Holy Ghost c. in both which notwithstanding all the three persons being but one and the same intâ—re and undivided essence must needs be interesâ—ed Thus Rom. 8.33 where it is said that it is God that justifieth it is meant by way of appropriation of God the Father because there is mention made of Christ the second person immediately it is Christ that is dead c. Now that God is that kinde of cause of Iustification which hath bin attributed to him and no other is evident from the description of this cause formerly layd downe Sect. 4. of this Chapter For 1º that he is a cause of Iustification is the consent of all men without exception besides the Scripture lately cited Rom. 8. is full and pregnant this way It is God that justifieth 2º that he is neither the matter nor the forme of Iustification is sufficiently evident of it selfe neither did ever any man affirme either the one or the other of him and besides we shall cleere this further when we come to inquire after these causes 3º that he is not the end or finall cause of Iustification appeares from that property or condition of this cause mentioned Sect. 3. viz that it is to be atteyned or receive it's being by meanes of that thing whereof it is the end which cannot be verified of God or his being in respect of Iustification inasmuch as these no way depend upon it This likewise will further appeare when we come to lay downe the finall cause Therefore 4º and lastly he must of necessity be the efficient cause of Iustification there being no fift kinde of cause whereunto he should be reduced Secondly SECT 10 that he is the principall efficient cause and not instrumentall is evident also because he is not assum'd acted or made use of by any other in or about the justification of a sinner but himselfe projecteth the whole frame and cariage of all things yea and manageth and maketh use of all things instrumentally concurring or belonging thereunto It is God that justifieth the Gentiles by or through Faith Gal. 3.8 so Rom. 3.30 c. God maketh use of Faith and so of his word and of the Ministers of his word to produce Faith in the hearts of men and consequently to justifie them but none of these can be said to act or make use of God in or about this great effect Thirdly that he is the Naturall efficient cause of Iustification according to the notion and description of this cause given Sect. 5. is evident because in the exercising or putting forth this act of Iustification he acteth and worketh out of that authority and power which are essentiall and connaturall to him and not out of any superadded or acquired principle of art or otherwise whereof he is wholly uncapable It is true he is moved to the exercise of this act of â—ustifying men by somewhat that is extrinsecall and not essentiall to him viz. the intercession of the death and sufferings of Christ yet the act it selfe in the exercise of it proceeds by vertue of that authority and power which are estentiall to him as hath bin said No creature can be said to justifie or forgive any man his sinnes no not by Christ but God alone Who can forgive sinnes but God onely Mar. 2.7 Fourthly SECT 11 the Morall or internall impulsive cause of Iustification as it is an act of God is that infinite love goodnesse mercy sweetnesse and graciousnesse in God himselfe towards his poore creature Man looked upon as miserable and lying under condemnation for sinne This was the moving and procuring cause of the guift of Christ and his death and sufferings from him and consequently of that justification which is procured and purchased by Christ and his sufferings So God loved the world that hee gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever beleeveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life viz by Iustification through him Ioh. 3.16 Fiftly the externall Morall or impulsive efficient cause of this act of God is the Lord Iesus Christ himselfe in or through his death and sufferings or which is the same the death and sufferings of Iesus Christ God looking upon Christ as such and so great a sufferer for the sinnes of men is thereby strengthened and provoked to deliver those that beleeve in him from their sinnes and that condemnation which is due unto them i. to justifie them The Scripture is cleere in laying downe this cause Even as God for Christs sake freely forgave you viz. your sinnes i. justified you Ephe. 4.32 Those words for Christs sake are a plaine and perfect character of that kinde of cause we now speake of This with the former i. both internall and externall impussive or moving causes are joyn'd together Rom. 3.24 And are justified freely by his grace here is the inward impulsive cause of Justification through the Redemption that is in Christ Iesus viz. by meanes of his death and sufferings here is the outward moving cause we speake of Neither can the Death and sufferings of Christ with any shew of reason or with any tolerable construction or congruitie of speaking be referred to any other cause in the businesse of justification but the impulsive only He that would make Christ the instrumentall cause of Iustification (a) Mr. Walker Socinian discovered c. p. 138. discovers himselfe to be no great Gamaliel in this learning and had need thrust his Faith out of doores as he doth in many places and not suffer it to have any thing at all to doe about his Iustification least his Christ and his Faith should be corrivalls and contend for preheminence therein And yet more repugnant to reason is it to make either Christ himselfe or any righteousnesse of his whatsoever either the matter or materiall cause of Justification which yet the Socinian Discoverer doth (b) Ibid. p. 139 or the forme or formall cause thereof which is done by some others But that is a streyne of unreasonablenesse above all the rest to make either Christ or his righteousnesse both the formall and materiall cause too of this great act of God we speake of the Justification of a sinner these causes being of so opposite a nature and different consideration as hath bin described and yet even this conceit also hath found enterteynment with some To this kinde of cause we now speake of must be reduced also the active or personall righteousnesse of Christ as farre as it hath any influence into or any waies operates towards the justificatioÌ„ of a siner For though it be not satisfactory
inhereth or whereby it is supported in being the righteousnesse of Christ hath no dependance at all in respect of the being of it upon Iustification Not in the latter because that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner is not acted or exercised upon or about the righteousnesse of Christ nor terminated in this neither is there any change or alteration made in the righteousnes of Christ by that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner which yet must be if it were that matter we now speake of that is the object of Justification Because Iustification being a transient act in God it must of necessitie make some change or alteration in that upon which it falleth or is acted whatsoever it be the truth is that the righteousnesse of Christ being as hath bin proved the efficient impulsive cause of Iustification rather acteth and worketh upon God then he upon it when he iustifieth any man Therefore doubtlesse the righteousnesse of Christ can in no sense agreeable to truth and ordinary construction of speech be called the matter of Iustification Wherefore in the last place concerning the matter of or materiall cause of Iustification SECT 16 it can be none other but either the subject or the object of â—ustification that is either God himselfe or the person that is to be iustified For as for that kinde of matter which we called ex qua matter properly so called Iustification being an act or action is altogether uncapable of it as hath bin already said Neither hath any action whatsoever any materiall cause at all in this sense It remaineth therefore that the matter of Justification must be of that kinde of matter which is lesse properly so called whereof there are but these two species or sorts as hath bin said the matter in qua and the matter circa quam i. the the subject and the object If we take the subject of Iustification or him on whom the act it selfe of Iustification in respect of the production and being of it dependeth and will call that the matter of it then God himselfe must be the matter we inquire after because the act of Iustification in respect of the raising and bringing forth of it dependeth only upon him But this I confesse is a very uncouth and proper expression to call God the matter of justification neither hath the tongue or pen of any man I conceive ever taken any pleasure in it Or if by the subject of Iustification we understand the subjectum recipieâ—s that is the subject receiving and wherein the act of Iustification is terminated which is as proper a signification of the word as the other the old tried rule being that actio est in patiente tanquam in subjecto then the subject and the object will prove but one and the same viz the person that is to be iustified that is the beleeving sinner Thus it is in all other actions likewise the subject receiving the action or impression of the Agent and the object upon which the Agent acteth or worketh are still the same And for any other matter of Iustification besides that which hath bin now assign'd viz. the sinner who beleeveth I verily beleeve there is none to be found who though he be both the object and subject in the sense given of Iustification yet may he more properly be called the matter of Iustification as he is the object then as the subject thereof because the notion of matter better agreeth of the two to that which is called circà quam or the object then to the other which is the subject And this for the matter or materiall cause of Iustification the person to be iustified or beleeving sinner Fourthly and lastly to make forward towards the consideration and inquirie of the formall cause of Iustification SECT 17 about which the tongues and pens of men are turn'd into the sharpest swords First for the Popish opinion which as Bellarmine describes it from the Counsell of Trent subscribing himselfe also with both hands unto it (a) Certe concilium causam formalem justificatioâ—â— in ipsi us justitie infusione constituit c. Bellarm. De Iustific lib. 2. c. 2. versus sinem placeth the formall cause of Iustification in the infusion of inherent righteousnesse I shall not make it matter of long confutation The opinion is built upon another opinion as rotten as it viz. perfection of inherent righteousnesse for if this be found to be imperfect and it will never be found other till this mortall hath put on immortalitie the credit of that other opinion is lost and that by consent of their owne principles who teach that in Iustification men are made perfectly and compleately righteous So that any one sinne little or great veniall or mortall proceeding from any one of their iustified ones utterly overthrowes the opinion of their Church touching the formall cause of Iustification It stands them in hand if they desire to build up this determination of their Councell with authority and honour to raise the levell of another enterprize of theirs and to prove not only a possibilitie but a necessity also of a perfect observation of the Law of God by those that are iustified and regenerate When they have quitted themselves like men in this and have layd the foundations of such a necessitie firme and strong we shall haply then consider further of their Doctrine touching the formall cause of Iustification in the meane time we shall be at libertie to make inquirie after a better Yet Secondly SECT 18 I conceive the Doctrine of the late Socinian Discoverer touching the same businesse to be no whit better but rather at a farre deeper defiance both with reason and truth The formall cause of Justification saith he (a) Mr. George Walker Socinian Discovered p. 139. is that communion betweene Christ and us and that reciprocall imputation of our sinnes to Christ and of his righteousnesse and full satisfaction to us which communion ariseth and floweth from the spirit which God sheds on us through Christ which spirit dwelling in us in some measure so as he dwelleth in the man Christ from whom he is derived to us doth make us one spirituall body with Christ and workes in us Faith and all holy graces and affections by which we adhere and cleave to Christ and apply and inioy his righteousnesse c. Doubtlesse here is a great deale too much matter to make a good forme The essentiall character of a forme or formall cause is to be a single simple and uncompounded being whereas that which is here presented to us for the forme of Justification is rudis indigestaque moles an indigested heape of compositions Surely this forme is so deformed that the Author need nor feare any corrivall or competitor with him for it Quin sine rivali seque et sua solus amabit For 1º if the Iustification we speake of or the forme of it stands in that communion which is betweene Christ and us then Christ
required on mans part to bring him into Communion and fellowship of that justification and redemption which Christ hath purchased for the Children of men and that without believing no man can have part or fellowship in that great and blessed businesse Sixtly It is evident from the Scriptures that God in the act of every mans justification doth impute or account righteousnesse unto him or rather somwhat for or instead of a righteousnesse the Scripture useth both expressions by meanes of which imputation the person justified passeth in accompt as a righteous man though he be not properly or perfectly such according to the Law and is invested accordingly with those great priviledges of a man perfectly righteous deliverance from death and condemnation and acceptation into the favor of God The reason of which imputation or why God is pleased to use such an expression of righteousnesse imputed in or about the justification of a sinner seemes to be this the better to satisfie the naturall scruple of the weake and feeble consciences of men who can hardly conceive or thinke of a justification or of being justified especially by God without an expresse literall and perfect legall righteousnesse Now the counsailes and purpose of God in the Gospell being to justifie men without any such righteousnesse being a righteousnesse indeed whereof man in his lapsed condition is wholly uncapable the better to salve the feares of the consciences touching such a defect and to prevent and stay all troublesome thoughts or queries that might arise in the minds of men who when they heare of being justified are still ready to aske within themselves but where is the righteousnesse conceiving a legall righteousnesse to be as necessary to a justification as Isaak conceived of a Lamb for a burnt offering Gen. 22 7. He GOD I meane is graciously pleased so far to condiscend to men in Scripture treatie with them about the weighty businesse of justification as in effect to grant and say unto them that though he finds not any proper or perfect righteousnesse in them no such righteousnesse as passeth under the name of a righteousnesse with them yet if they truely believe in him as Abraham did this believing shall in the consequences of it be as good as a perfect or compleate righteousnesse unto them or that he will impute righteousnesse unto them upon their believing So that now the state drift of the Q. SECT 3 is not either 1 whether Faith without an Object or as separated from Christ be imputed for righteousnesse for such a Faith doubtlesse in the point of justification was never dreamt of by any man that kept his wits company men may aswell fancy a living man without a Soule or a wiseman without his wits as a Faith without an Object much lesse was ever such a faith conceived by any to be imputed for righteousnesse Neither 2 is it any part of the intent of the Question to enquire whether Faith be the meritorious cause of a mans justification for both they that affirme and they that deny the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse deny the meritoriousnesse of faith every waies however it is true that they that would seem most to disclaime it and cast it furthest from them do yet in some of their most beloved tenets draw very neare unto it as will afterward appeare Neither 3 is it the Question whether Faith be the formall cause of justification that is whether God doth justifie a man with his Faith as a Painter makes a wall white with whitenesse or a Master makes his Scholar learned with knowledge for both parties make the forme of justification to be somwhat else differing from Faith contrary to that which is conceived to be the genuine tenet of Arminius Nor yet 4 doth the Question make any quere at all whether Christ be the sole meritorious cause of the Iustification of a sinner for both they that goe on the right hand of the Question and they that goe on the left are knit together in the same mind and judgment concerning this Neither 5 doth the Question as it is here propounded intend any dispute at all whether the active obedience of Christ falling in with the passive and considered in conjunction with it hath any influence into or contributeth any thing towards the Iustification of sinners for this also is acknowledged on both sides at least by the greater party of both But 6 and lastly the Question in precise termes is this whether the faith of him that truely believes in Christ or whether the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe that is the obedience which Christ performed to the Morall Law consisting partly of the inward habit of grace and righteous dispositions of his soule partly of all those severall and particular acts of righteousnesse wherein he obeyed be in the letter and proprietie of it that which God imputes to a believer for righteousnesse or unto righteousnesse in his Iustification So that he that believes is not righteous onely by accompt or by Gods gracious reputing and accepting of him for such but as rigidly literally and peremptorily righteous constituted and made as perfectly as compleatly as legally righteous as Christ himselfe is no difference at all betweene them quoad veritatem but only quoad modum the justified every whit as righteous as the justifier both righteous with the selfe same individuall righteousnesse only this difference betweene the one and the other the justified weares it as put upon him by another by imputation the Justifier weares it put upon him by himselfe or by inherency That the Scriptures no where countenanceth any such imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ as this I trust the Spirit of truth directing and assisting to make manifest in the sequell of this discourse and to give good measure of this truth unto the reader heaped up and pressed downe and running over heaped up by testimonies from the Scriptures themselves pressed down by the weight of many Arguments and demonstrations running over with the cleare approbation of many Authors learned and sound and every way greater then exception Only give me leave here to mention that by the way SECT 3 which may prevent many mistakes yea and offences too in reading the writings of many latter Divines especially of other Churches touching this point of imputation If we take the phrase of imputing Christs righteousnesse unproperly out of the usuall and formall signification of it as Luther and Caelvin and other Divines of the reformed Churches sometimes do in their writings viz. for the giving out or bestowing as it were the righteousnesse of Christ including his obedience aswell passive as active under one and the same terme of righteousnesse in the returne of it i. in the privileges blessings and benefits that are procured and purchased by it for men so a believer may be said to be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed But then the meaning can be no more but this A beleever is justified by the
simply and directly in it selfe nor contributing any thing immediatly by way of merit towards the Iustification of a sinner the reasons whereof have bin formerâ—y given So that God is not thereby provoked or mov'd to justify any man yet falling in conjunction with that other righteousnesse of Christ which we call passive and making his blood to be the blood of a Lamb undefiled and without spot 1 Pet. 1.19 it cannot be denied but that here and in this consideration it hath some kinde of an impulsive and moving efficiencie towards Iustification qualifying in part the sacrifice of Christ for that fullnesse and height of acceptation with God The great misery of the poore creature man lying under condemnation for sinne cannot properly be conceived or call'd any cause of his justification yet is it somewaies reducible to this externall impulsive cause in hand inasmuch as that goodnesse and graciousnesse of God we spake of was hereby occasioned and moved to take some course for it's Iustification and salvation Concerning Faith SECT 12 the generall and uniforme Doctrine of Reformed Authors gives it for an instrumentall efficient cause of Iustification which is the sixt and last kinde of efficient we shall insist upon and so it hath bin more then once represented in this Treatise yet we meet with many expressions concerning Faith even in the best and most approved writers which doe not so much sympathize with the instrumentall as the impulsive efficient Thus Musculus speaking of Abraham (a) Ob eam â—dem sâ— qua promittenti Deo sirmiter credidit justus est a Deo reputatus Musc in Gen. 15. ver 6. saith that he was reputed righteous by God FOR that Faith whereby he firmly beleeved God promising Aretius thus (b) Imputavit ei justitiam quod est fidem gratam habuit adeo ut justum eum haberet justitia imputativa Aret. ad Rom. 4. God imputed righteousnesse to Abraham that is accepted his Faith and againe a Faith so firme and pious was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse In all which expressions with many others both in these and other Authors of like importance there seemes rather an impulsive or perswasive then an instrumentall efficiencie ascribed unto Faith The Scriptures themselves also in respect of other favors blessings and deliverances vouchsafed by God unto Beleevers seeme at least in many places to ascribe rather an impulsive then instrumentall efficiencie unto Faith in the procuring of them So Daniel was brought out of the Denne and no manner of hurt was found upon him BECAUSE he beleeved in God Dan. 6.23 In like manner the Prophet Hanani to King Asa The Ethiopians and the Lubims were they not a great host with Charets and horsemen exceeding many yet BECAUSE then didst rest upon the Lord he delivered them into thine hand 2 Chr. 16.8 See Jer. 39.18.2 Chr 31.18 c. 14 11. with many others Notwithstanding elsewhere this Faith of Beleevers the Holy Ghost makes rather instrumentall then impulsive and that in respect of such favors also Mâ—ny instances whereof are found in that one Chapter Heb. 11. By Faith they passed through the Red Sea ver 29. By Faith the walls of Iericho fell downe 39. Againe ver 33. it is sayd concerning Gideon Barak Sampson c. that through Faith they subdued Kingdomes wrought righteousnesse stopped the mouthes of Lyons quenched the violence of fire c. For reconciling this seeming difference in the Scriptures it may be said that the instrumentall and impulsive efficients are not so opposite but that sometimes and in some cases the instrumentall cause may put on the consideration of an impulsive also and aswell move a man to doe a thing as assist him or be made use of by him in the doing it Thus a competent strength of men may aswell move a King to give battaile to an enemy as assist him in the battaile and obteyning the victory So a Carpenter or other artificer having tooles or instruments thereafter may be perswaded or moved by them in part to undertake some piece of worke which otherwise they would not And thus Faith I conceive may in different respects be look'd upon either as an instrumentall or as an impulsive cause in Iustification As it is a ground or reason why God justifieth one man when he justifieth not another for the beleever is alwaies iustifyed and that because he is a beleever and the unbeleever not so it hath the nature of an impulsive cause againe as it is subservient to the counsell or decree of God concerning Iustification and is accordingly made use of by him in the act of Iustification for he is said to iustify men by and through Faith Rom. 3 30 c. it puts on the nature and consideration of an instrumentall cause properly so called True it is Faith is not an impulsive or moving cause in Iustification of the same kinde nor after the same manner that Christ and his sufferings are these are impulsive and moving in a superior way by way of merit and consequently of Iustification simply and therefore are at no hand to be reckoned amongst the instrumentall causes thereof whereas Faith moveth only in an inferior and under way and by such a motion wherewith causes properly instrumentall sometimes move as hath bin said and therefore mooveth not properly to Iustification or to Iustification simply but comparatiuely that is to the Iustification of such and such men viz that doe beleeve Other causes there are instrumentally inservient unto Iustification as viz. the word of God that is preached the preaching it selfe of this word the Minister by whom this word is preached the sight apprehending or understanding of this word the operation or worke of the Holy Ghost by which this word is made effectuall in the heart and soule of a beleever and generally whatsoever tendeth or contributeth towards the worke of Faith in the soule may be called instrumentall in or about Iustification according to the importance of the old maxime Quod est causa causae est etiam causa causatâ— But how the Sacraments should become instrumentall causes or meanes of Iustification must be knowne by inquiring at the Oracle at Rome for neither the Scriptures nor the Reformed Religion have any of this learning in them This briefly for the efficient câ—uses of Iustification which is the first generall head of causes among the foure Secondly SECT 13 concerning the finall causes of Justification all parties as farre as I know are upon the matter agreed also For though one may discover and put upon accompt more intermediate or subordinate ends or finall causes hereof then another yet no man denieth at least can with reason deny but that the Glory of God which is the generall great and sovereigne end of all things whatsoever hath the preheminence also amongst and above all the ends of Iustification that can be named or enter into the heart of man to conceive The great subordinate end and which lies fairest and fullest
37. for censured r. conceived CAP. I. VVherein the state of the question is opened and the sense EXPLAINED Wherein aswell the Imputation of FAITH is affirmed as the imputation of the RIGHTEOUSNESSE of CHRIST denyed in JUSTIFICATION FOR the cleare understanding of the state and drift of the question some things would be premised which for their evidence sake might be privilledged and exempted from passing under much dispute or contradiction yet if any thing be not sufficiently prepared for assent in the briefe proposall of it the ensuing discourse will labor to reconcile the disproportion and in the progresse make satisfaction for what it shall receive upon courtesie in the beginning As 1. That the termes justifying justification c. are not to be taken in this question nor in any other usually moved about the justification of a sinner either 1 sensu physico in a Physicall sense as if to justifie signified to make just with any habituall or actuall any positive or inherent righteosnesse Nor yet 2. sensu forensi propriè dicto in a juridicall or judiciary sense properly so called where the Iudge hath only a subordinate and derived power of â—udicature and is bound by Oath or otherwise to give sentence according to the strict rule of the Law as if to justify were to pronounce a man just or 〈◊〉 absolve him from punishment according to the strict terme of precise rule of that Law whereof he was accused as a transgressor though this sense be admitted and received by many But 3. and lastly sensu forensi improprié dicto in a judiciary sense lesse properly and usually so called vizr where he that Titteth Iudge being the supreme Magistrate hath an independancy or soveraignty of power to moderate and dispence with the Law as reason or equity shall require So that to justify in this question import's the discharging or absolving of a man from the guilt blame and punishment of those things whereof he either is or justly might be accused not because he is cleare of such things or justifiable according to the letter or strictnesse of the Law for then he could not be justly accused but because the Judge having a sufficient lawful soveraignty of power is willing upon sufficient weighty considerations known unto him to remit the penalty of the Law and to deliver and discharg him as if he were an innocent or righteous man As for the Physical sense of making just by inherent righteousnesse though Bellarmine and his Angells earnestly contend for it yet till Scriptures be brought low and Etymologies be exalted above them till use and custome of speaking deliver up their Kingdome into Cardinalls bands that sense must no way be acknowledged or received in this dispute Yet to give reason and right even to those that demand that which is unreasonable it is true that God in or upon a mans justification begins to justifie him Physically that is to infuse habituall or inherent righteousnesse into him But here the Scriptures and the Cardinall are as far out in termes as in a thousand other things they are in substance and matter that which he will needs call justification the Scriptures will as peremptorily call Sanctification Concerning the other sense of a judiciary justification usually and strictly so called SECT 2 wherein the Iudge or justifier proceeds upon legall grounds to acquit and absolve the party guilty or accused neither can this be taken in the Question propounded except the Scriptures be forsaken because the Scriptures constantly speake of this act of God justifying a sinner not as of such an act whereby he will either make him or pronounce him legally just of declare him not to have offended the Law and hereupon justifie him but of such an act whereby he freely forgives him all that he hath done against the Law and acquits him from all blame and punishment due by the Law unto such offences So that in that very act of God whereby he justifies a sinner as there is a discharge from all punishment due unto him so there is a profession withall or plaine intimation of the guiltinesse of the person now to be justified according to the Law and that he is not discharged or acquitted upon any consideration that can be pleaded for him according to the Law but that consideration upon which God proceeds to justifie him is of another order the consideration of somewhat done for him in this case to relieve him out of the course and order or appointment of the Law he whose justification stands whether in whole or in part it is not materiall herein in the forgivenesse of sinne can in no construction be said to be justified according to the Law because the Law knowes no forgivenesse of sinnes neither is there any rule for any such thing there The Law speakes of the curse death and condemnation of a sinner but for the justification of a sinner it neither takes knowledg nor gives any hope thereof Secondly That Iesus Christ the naturall Sonne of God and supernaturall Sonne of the Virgin ran a race of obedience with the Law aswell Ceremoniall as Morall and held out with every letter jot and tittle of it as farre as it any wayes concerned him during the whole continuance of his life in the flesh no mans thoughts ever rose up to deny but those that denyed him the best of his being I meane his Godhead Which of you convinceth me of sinne was his challenge to the Nation of the Jewes whilst he was yet on earth Ioh 8 46. and remaines through all ages as a challenge to the world He that can â—ast the least aspersion or imputation of sinne upon Christ shall shake the foundations of the peace and safety of the world Thirdly that this Christ offered up himselfe as a Lambe without spot in sacrifice upon the Crosse to make an attonement for the world and to purge the sinne of it I know no spirit at this day abroad in the Christian world that denies but that which wrought in Secinus formerly and still workes in those that are baptized into the same spirit of error with him Fourthly I conceive it to be a truth of greater authority amongst us then to meet with contradiction from any man that Iesus Christ is the sole and entire meritorious cause of every mans justification that is justified by God or that that righteousnesse or absolution from sinne and condemnation which is given to every man in his justification is somewhat yea a principall part or member of that great purchase which Christ hath made for the world Evan as God for Christs sake freely forgave you Ephes 4.32 Forgivenesse of sinnes or justification is from God for Christs sake he is worthy to be gratified and honored by God with the justification of those that believe in him whatsoever he is worthy of more Fiftly It is a truth that hath every mans judgment concurring with it that Faith is the condition appointed by God and
of a distinction is given the opposite member being implied is still to be framed to it as readily it may Therefore Paul had no intent to shut out but to bring in the works of the Law as wrought by Christ into the businesse of Iustification To this I answere sundry things First that the active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ should be wholly excluded and be made a stander-by so as to have nothing at all to do in the great businesse of Iustification this discourse hath no where affirmed hitherto neither doth it savor any where of the spirit of that affirmation It hath been expressely acknowledged from the beginning to have a gracious and blessed influence thereinto as it issueth and falleth into his passive obedience which together may be called a righteousnesse for which but at no hand with which we are justified Therefore this objection contending and pleading for an admission of the workes of the Law as done by Christ into Iustification doth no waies contradict the answere given in any part of it except it can prove the necessity of this admission of the active righteousnesse of Christ either for the materiall or formall or instrumentall cause of Iustification which it no waies doth nor pretendeth to do And the truth is whosoever shall doe it that is goe about to make this righteousnesse of Christ either the formall o◠materiall or instrumentall cause of Iustification will be found upon a due examination wholly to dissolve and overthrow the merit of it the establishment whereof is yet pretended as the great and pious designe of that opinion Secondly I answore that the inference insisted upon in the objection from the Scripture mentioned comes heavily and with much unwillingnesse and reluctation out of the premisses there is no necessitie nor indeed so much as a face of probabilitie in it The Holy Ghost may reject the works of men from being the cause of such or such a thing and yet no waies suppose or intimate that the works of another should be the cause thereof As when we deny either the Faith or works of any man foreseene to be the cause of his election we do not imply that the Faith or works of Christ foreseene are the cause of such election No more doth it follow that because Paul rejects the works of righteousnesse which men do from their justification that therefore he must needs imply a substitution of the workes of Christ in their stead If the words had gone thus Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we OUR SELVES had done this had beene somewhat a higher ground and a more rationall advantage to have infer'd the opposite member of the distinction viz. but by the works of another or of Christ As Act. 20 24. where Paul expresseth himselfe thus Neither is my life deare unto my selfe c. here the opposite member of the division may with good probability be conceived to be implied after this manner my life is not deare unto my selfe THOUGH IT MAY BE DEERE UNTO OTHERS And yet even such an intimation here is not of absolute necessitie neither But if the tenor of the words had only run thus Neither is my life deere unto me so that I may fulfill my course with joy No man would ever have dream't or thought of any further thing to be implied then what was expressed So when the Holy Ghost in a direct and plaine tenor of Speech speaketh only thus Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had wrought not which we our selves had wrought for men to conclude or inferre an implying of workes wrought by another is in plaine and necessary interpretation to make themselves wise above that which is written But thirdly to put the matter out of all question that excluding the works of the Law which we had done he had no intent by way of opposition to imply the works which another might doe he expresseth plainly the opposition himselfe and tells us that it was according to his mercy that he saved us not by the works of righteousnesse which we had done but according to his mercy he saved us Therefore here can be nothing implied by way of opposition because the opposition is fully and distinctly set downe And Fourthly least any might yet say that it may be according to Gods mercy and yet by the works of righteousnesse wrought by Christ too these two may easily be reconciled and stand together the Apostle delivers himselfe distinctly of that wherein this mercy of God he speaks of consisteth not in saveing of us by the works of Christ imputed to us but in regenerating of us and washing us in the new birth Fiftly and lastly as such an inference is no waies necessarie SECT 6 nor so much as probable so is it no waies pertinent to the purpose for which it is so earnestly contended for though it should be granted Because it is evident that the Apostle here rejects the workes of righteousnesse which he names from being any causes antecedaneously moving God to save us and not from being the formall cause of justification So then let us give the objection it s owne hearts desire even that it murmur's so much after viz. that the works of Christ must of necessity be here implied yet will it perish and come to nothing even whilst this meat is in the mouth of it For all that will follow or can be concluded by the imaginary advantage of such a supposition is only that whereof themselves will be ashamed when it is brought forth unto them viz. this that it is not the works of the Law which we have done our selves but those which Christ hath done that have moved God to save us by the washing of the new birth and by the renewing of the Holy Ghost Which if it be understood and meant of the decree and purpose of God so to save us is against the truth if it be understood of the execution of this decree is against themselves For that which moved God to decree or intend this salvation unto us was nothing out of himselfe but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that good and gracious pleasure of his will Eph. 1.5 or as that clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his will is somewhat more emphatically with more of the Spirit and life of the originall in it rendred by our Translators ver 11. of his owne will implying as I conceiv◠that that will wherewith God willeth and purposeth to save his people is intirely his owne borne and begotten as it were only out of himselfe without the seed of any consideration of any thing whatsoever out of himselfe As for the execution of this decree in the actuall justification or regeneration of those whom he hath purposed to save if this be ascribed to the works of righteousnesse done by Christ as the cause moving God thereunto this cleerely establisheth the merit of the righteousnesse of Christ in justification but overthroweth the formality of it which is that
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
Christ could not have bin our justification either in whole or in part in case it had bin performed by our selves is evident from hence because man being once fallen by sinning against the Law and made obnoxious to condemnation can never be raised or recovered againe by ten thousand observations of this Law The Law was able to have given life had it alwaies bin fulfilled and never broken but unto him that had once failed in the observation of it though he had bin made able to have kept it ten times afterward it had no power at all to give either life or justification The guilt of that sinne wherin he had once sinned could never have bin purged by any Law-righteousnesse noactive obedience whatsoever would ever have bin an attonement for him Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sinnes Heb. 9.22 Let me joyne another argument of the same lineage and stock with the former That which men are not bound by any Law or command of God to doe in their owne persons Argum. 22 SECT 3 for their justification cannot be imputed from another to any such end But men are not bound by any Law or command from God to observe the Moral Law for their justificatiō Therefore the observation of it cannot be imputed unto them from any other for any such end The reason of the major proposition if the conclusion sticks there is because imputation in the sense it is still taken by our adversaries in this controversie must be found out and ordained by God to supplie personall defects and inabilities But where there is no Law or command given unto men to obey there can be no personall defect It is no sinne or defect in any man not to obey where he hath no command and consequently there is no place nor occasion for any imputation to supplie it For the minor there is both substance and appearance enough of truth in it to privilege it from being a proposition of any further contention or strife Most evident it is from the whole course and current of the Scriptures that man in his lapsed condition since the fall had not the Law of works or the observation of the Morall Law imposed upon him for his justification before God but the Law of Faith only The morall Law as it hath received a new authority and establishment from Christ obligeth and bindeth the conscience under the Gospell to the observation thereof by way of dutie and thankfulnesse unto God but neither now nor at any time since the fall did it ever bind any man to the practise of it for his justification And therfore where it is said Rom. 2.13 that the hearers of the Law are not just before God but the doers of the Law shal be justified the meaning is not as if God exacted the strict observing of the Law for their iustification or that none should be iustified without such an observance but either 1º the words may be conceived spoken in a kind of ironie as if God did deride the hope and confidence of all those that should stand upon any such doing of the Law for their instification A man that promiseth a reward or matter of benefit upon such termes and conditions which he knoweth will never be performed by him that undertakes the performance of them rather derides the pride and ignorance of his presumption then really intends the collation of what he seemes so to promise To this interpretation Beza much inclineth in his marginall note upon that clause Or else 2º the meaning of those words the doers of the Law shall be iustified may be only this that God will accept justifie and save only such who out of a sincere and sound Faith towards him by his Christ shall addresse themselves to serve and please him in a way of obedience to his Lawes In this sense which I rather conceive to be the expresse intent of the Apostle in the words the doing of the Law is mentioned not as the meanes or meritorious cause of the iustification adjoyning but either as a condition sine quinon without which iustification is not to be expected or rather as an outward signe and manifestation of the persons that shall be iustified but in another way viz. by Faith Thirdly and lastly by the Law in this place the doers whereof as is said shall be iustified is not meant the Morall Law only which restreyned signification was simply necessary to have given the clause any colour of opposition or contradiction to the proposition mentioned but the whole Mosaicall dispensation consisting according to the common distribution of Ceremonialls moralls and judicialls The observation of all which no man I think ever affirmed to have bin imposed by God upon men for their justification But I feare we stand too long about oyling a wheele which would run merrily enough without it Let us rather heare the voyce of a new argument speaking Jf God requires only Faith of men to their justification then he imputes this Faith unto them thereunto Argum. 23 SECT 4 But God requires only Faith to justification Ergo. The consequence in the Maior Proposition is blamelesse for this reason because to impute unto iustsfication and to accept unto justification are somwhat differing in sound but nothing at all in sence and signification Now if God should require faith of men and onely Faith to their Iustification and not accept it thereunto he should make a bargaine or Covenant with men and refuse to stand to it when he had done his overtures would be faire and gracious but his intentions would be to seek and no where in Scriptures to be found If it be here replyed and said that though God requires onely faith of men to their justification yet he requires somwhat more and besides at the hand of another thereunto therfore that which he imputes unto men for their justification is not necessarily that which he requires of themselves but rather that which he requires of another for them To this I answer if it were the righteousnesse of Christ which is presumed to be the thing required of another and not the faith that is required of themselves that God imputes for righteousnesse unto them in their justification then may this righteousnesse of Christ be imputed for this end and purpose before yea and without the faith of any man For it is certaine that the Faith of men addes no vertue or vaiue to the righteousnesse of Christ therfore if this be that which God imputeth for righteousnesse in justification it may be imputed aswell without faith as with it and so men might be justified without beleeving Neither will it help in this case to say SECT 5 that imputation followeth the will and pleasure of God and therfore the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed unto any but to him that beleeveth because the will and pleasure of God is not to make imputation of it in any other way or upon any other terms For To this
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
exactnesse ever after to the worlds end without the least failing in the least point of obedience thereunto the condition of a legall justification being that a man must continue à carcere ad metas from the very first entrance upon his being to the last end thereof in all things that are written in the Law to doe them so that the least trip or stumbling throughout all his course wholly dissolves and overthrowes such a justification Secondly because God hath opened another way for the justification of sinners viz. Faith in Jesus Christ and certaine it is that he never sets up one way against another or one ordinance against another so that what he intends should be effected by one he should intend to be effected by another also as hath bin argued and proved more at large in the former part of this Treatise (a) cap. 12. Sect. 2. c. Therefore to affirme that the fulfilling of the Law is required of any man either by himselfe or by another in his stead for his justification is to affirme either that a man that hath sin'd hath not sin'd or that which God hath said he hath unsaid Christ may be said to have kept the Law Distincti 6 SECT 11 in reference to our justification two waies or in a double sense either 1º for us or 2º in our stead In the former sense it may be admitted that Christ kept the Law for our justification but not in the latter The former sense only imports that this obedience of his had an influence into our justification and did contribute that which was of absolute necessity thereunto which hath bin explained and granted and in part proved formerly The latter sense imports that the keeping of the Law was primarily required of every man for his justification since the fall and that God in respect of the personall disabilities of men for such performance in reference to such an end sent his Sonne Iesus Christ to performe it in their roomes and places Which supposition stands convict of a manifest untruth in the former Distinction and elswhere in this Treatise (a) Part 1. cap. Sect. Distincti 7. SECT 12 The Iustification of a sinner I meane Passive though it be but one and the same entire effect yet may it be ascribed to many and those very diffâ—rent causes respectively according to their severall influences and differing manner of concurrence thereunto God may be said to iustifie Christ may be said to iustifie yea the Holy Ghost in a true and proper sense may be said to iustifie Faith may be said to iustify the Minister may be said to iustifie as well as to save 1 Tim. 4.16 remission of sinnes may be said to iustifie c. Whatsoever contributeth any thing more or lesse either in a superior or inferior way towards the raising and producing any effect the effect it selfe may not onely according to truth but in ordinary propriety of speaking be ascribed unto it It is as true to say and not unproper that the sling in Davids hand or the smooth stone which he slang or his act of slinging killed Goliah as to say that David himselfe killed him though it 's true David was the principall efficient in this action and the other were but inferior and instrumentall So that to reason thus Christ iustifies therefore Faith doth not iustifie or thus Christ is our righteousnesse therefore Faith is not our righteousnesse or remission of sinnes is not our righteousnesse c. is as if a man should argue after this manner It is God that maketh rich therefore money maketh not rich or a diligent hand maketh not rich which yet is a truth and is affirmed by the Holy Ghost aswell as the other Or thus It is God that purifieth the heart therefore man purifieth it not neither doth Faith purifie it nor doe afflictions purifie c. Or thus The Physician recovered the sick therefore his Physique did not recover him It is a weake reasoning à positione causae principalis ad remotionem accessorie Christ may Justifie and Faith may justifie and remission of sinnes may justifie yea Christ doth not iustifie without Faith nor without remission of sinnes more then either oâ— these iustifie without Christ though it be true Christ iustifieth after a manner peculiar to himselfe and Faith and Remission of sinnes each of them after a manner proper to it selfe and the manner of Iustification which is proper to Christ is more excellent and of superior consideration to the manner wherein either Faith or Remission of sinnes Iustifie Therefore the argument doth not follow from the affirmation of Iustification by Christ to the negation of the same Iustification by Faith or any other thing but it well fâ—llowes from the affirmation of the peculiar manner of Iustification which is proper to Christ to the negation of the same manner as belonging either to Faith or to Remission of sinnes or any thing besides This arguing is substantiall Christ Justifieth by way of merit or satisfaction or attonement for sinne therefore neither Faith nor remission of sinnes nor any thing else iustifieth either by way of merit satisfaction or attonement Therefore care must be had to distinguish the simple act from the peculiar manner of Iustification CAP. IIII. Conteyning a briefe Delineation or survey of the intire body of Justification in the severall causes of it according to the tenour of the Conclusions and Distinctions layd downe in the two former Chapters AS well to give a full and free accompt of mine owne judgement SECT 1 and of what I conceive and hold touching the great businesse of Iustification and the whole cariage of it in the Scriptures and counsaile of God as also to furnish my Reader with some further and cleerâ—r light whereby to comprehend the darknesse and to discover the insufficiency and weaknesse of those arguments that either are brought from the Scriptures or otherwise framed against the maine Conclusion defended in this Treatise I thought it not amisse to inlarge the Discourse by one Chapter the more wherein to delineate and represent according to the modell of my weake insight into so great a mystery that faire piece or frame wherein the grace justice and wisdome of God have sweetly conspired for the justification of a poore sinner And because the perfect knowledge hereof I meane of the gracious designe of God in and about the Iustification of a sinner depends upon the knowledge and right apprehension of the severall causes concurring and contributing thereunto as indeed the true knowledg of all thâ—ngs whatsoever ariseth from the knowledge of the causes thereof I desire leave to premise some few generall rules touching the number nature and property of causes in generall but only such which are generally acknowledged and subscribed unto by sober men that have had their wits exercised in discerning things agreeable to reason and who can be no waies suspected as partiall or any waies engaged either on the right hand or
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
of Christ Therefore he that gives this forme to any man in the formalitie of it gives the redemption and salvation of the world to him with it If it be here objected and said its true the Redemption and salvation of the world follow the righteousnesse of Christ as it was performed by him and personally inherent in him not as it is imputed to men that beleeve I answere 1º that in this objection the Question is begg'd and that supposed which is the maine hinge of the controversie viz. the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in the formalitie of it a Position that stands convicted in the former part of this Treatise of manifest untruth by the testimonies of many witnesses both Divine and humane 2◠I answere yet further that the meritoriousnesse of the righteousnesse of Christ supposing such a propertie in it must needs be essential to it and inseparable from it It is not an adventitious or contingent propertie but connaturall to it seated and rooted in the very intrinsecall and constituting principles of it So that whatsoever be done with it whatsoever becomes of it to whomsoever it be imputed this meritoriousnesse of it goeth along with it and may be ascribed to whomsoever the righteousnesse it selfe may be ascribed Yea supposing this propertie we speake of this meritoriousnesse in the righteousnesse of Christ we must consequently suppose it to be so essentiall and intrinsecall to it that the righteousnesse it selfe must needs be destroyed and turn'd into another righteousnesse of an inferior kind and importance if that be separated from it As suppose a piece of gold to be of such a value as for example worth ten shillings or the like to whomsoever this piece shall be given there must of necessitie the value or worth also of ten shillings bee given therewith unto him the just value and worth of a thing being inseparable from the thing it selfe at least the thing it selfe inseparable from it 3o It would be knowne by what warrant either of Scripture or good reason men should make this a point of their Faith that God when he imputes the righteousnesse of Christ unto men should strip it naked of the meritoriousnesse of it and so make it a righteousnesse more worth-lesse and vile then any positive righteousnesse whatsoever consisting of workes can be For it is essentiall to every such righteousnesse whether perform'd by men or Angells or by whomsoever to be meritorious at least of the justification of the person in whom it is found This lyeth full and faire in that of the Apostle Rom. 4.4 To him that worketh i. that perfectly observeth the Law the wages is not counted by faver but of debt Therefore i◠the righteousnesse of Christ when it is imputed to beleevers be devested of that which is the glory of it above all other righteousnesse I meane the meritoriousnesse of it it suffers losse and disadvantage and is not at all exalted or magnified by imputation This for the objection Sixtly SECT 26 if the righteousnesse of Christ be the formall cause of justification this must be verified either of the morall righteousnesse of Christ alone or of his Ceremoniall righteousnesse alone or of his Mediatory righteousnesse alone or of all or some two of these together But neither the morall righteousnesse of Christ alone nor his ceremoniall righteousnesse alone nor his mediatorie righteousnesse alone nor all nor any two of these righteousnesses together can be the formall cause of Justification therefore no righteousnesse of Christ whatsoever is to be look'd upon in any such relation of causalitie in respect of justification The proposition in this syllogisme I conceive carrieth the light of it 's owne truth with it The enumeration of the severall species or kinds of righteousnesse in Christ is sufficient As for his originall and habituall righteousnesse I comprehend them both under his morall Therefore if the conclusion stick 's the assumption is to be blam'd for it But that this also is blamelesse I thus demonstrate by the severall parts of it First that his Ceremoniall righteousnesse alone should be formall in justification never as yet I conceive entered into any mans head or heart to conceive Therefore I presume we may spare the arguing of this mēber without any prejudice at al to our cause Secondly that his mediatorie righteousnesse alone which consists in his passives should be the cause inquired after is not to my knowledge affirm'd by any of that judgement we oppose in the depending controversie But howsoever the truth of it thus appeares because the formall cause alwaies gives a sutable denomination to the subject But no justified person can be called mediatorily righteous therefore a mediatorie righteousnesse is not the formall cause of justification Thirdly by the same argument it is as manifest as heart can wish that neither can both these righteousnesses together be that formall cause we speake of nor hath any man every et adventured either his credit or his conscience upon this opinion Therefore here also we will borrow confidence and make restitution when an adversarie shall reasonably demand it Fourthly See cap. 18. Sect. 3. of the first part that his morall righteousnesse alone as distinguished and separated from his Ceremoniall cannot be this formall cause is evident because then the beleeving Iewes who liv'd before Christs coming in the flesh and the beleeving Gentiles since should not be iustified with one and the same righteousnesse from Christ For the Iewes who liv'd before the dissolution of the Mosaical oeconomie by the sufferings of Christ were aswell bound to the observation of the Law Ceremoniall as Morall and therefore could not be justified by the imputation of a morall righteousnesse only Againe on the other hand those that have lived since the promulgation of the said dissolution made by Christ were not only free and not bound to the Law Ceremoniall but were strictly bound from it and from the observation of the rites and usages therein commanded Therefore for these to have the observation of Mosaicall rites and Ceremonies imputed to them is to have rather sinne then righteousnesse imputed to them Fiftly by this last consideration also it appeareth that the two last named righteousnesses of Christ Ceremoniall and Morall cannot be so cast or run into one or so conspire together as to make the formall cause of Iustification we seeke after The beleeving Gentiles since the promulgation of that Gospell must have no Ceremoniall threds woven into the piece of righteousnesse whereby they must stand iustified in the fight of God Lastly that neither can his morall and mediatorie righteousnesse so comport or complie together as to raise a third kinde of righteousnesse betweene them that should make the formall cause of Iustification so much questioned and contended about may be sufficiently apprehended by what hath bin already delivered For that righteousnesse which shall be supposed to be compounded of these two must necessarily be conceived to be a Mediatorie
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
that alwaies gives the denomination by the meanes or reason whereof the subject is so or so denominated I assume But a sinner is therefore and thereby iustified because or in that he hath his sinnes forgiven him Ergo. The reason of the latter proposition is because that Iustification we speake of being still opposed to condemnation as hath bin formerly observed from the Scriptures must needs stand in a vindication or exemption from punishment which being interpreted is nothing else but the having of a mans sinnes forgiven For there is no exemption from punishment at the hand of an infinite Judge for him that is guilty but by having his sinnes forgiven as on the other hand the forgivenesse of sinnes is a full exemption in this kind Thirdly SECT 31 that alteration or change in the condition of the person justified which is caused therein by that act whereby God justifieth him must of necessitie be the forme or formall cause of his justification The third particular premised is a sufficient light wherby to see the truth of this proposition Therefore I assume But remission of sinnes or absolution and acquitting from punishment which are interpretatively the same is that alteration or change which is made in the condition of a person justified by that act of God whereby he justifieth him Ergo this alteration or change is the formall cause of justification The reason of the latter propositioÌ„ is this Iustification being as I suppose is confessed on alhands a civil or politique act as all actions of Iudicature are must needs produce a civil or politique effect answerable to it Al acts actions beget only in their own similitude likenesse A natural action cannot produce a morall effect nor a morall action a naturall effect Neither can a civill or politique action produce either a naturall or morall but only a civill or politique effect When a Judge acquits and so when he condemn's a man from a crime or accusation brought in against him this makes neither any naturall nor morall change in the person of him that is so acquitted except it be occasionally by accident as when by such a sentence of absolution a man is recovered out of those feares which were prejudiciall to his health whilst he lay under danger of the sentence of the Law or the like but properly and directly such an act produceth a civill or politique change in his condition For whereas he was before in danger of the Law and obnoxious unto punishment he is now at liberty and free therefrom So when a beleeving sinner is justified by God the effect of this act of God is not any naturall or morall change made upon him but a change in his estate and condition Now there is no other change that can be imagined should be made in the spirituall estate or condition of a man by the act of Gods Iustification falling on him but onely his acquitting from the guilt of sinne and punishment due unto the same Before this act of God passed upon him he was under the guilt of sinne and obnoxious to the wrath of God but by the coming of this upon him he is absolutly free and exempt from danger that way Fourthly SECT 32 that which makes a justified person formally and compleatly just or righteous before God is questionlesse the formall cause of Iustification This proposition is greater then exception nor will I conceive be denied by our keenest adversaries in the maine I assume therefore But remission of sinnes is that which makes a iustified person formally and compleatly righteous before God Therefore this is the formall cause of Iustification The reason and ground of the assumption is this because he that stands as cleere and as free from sinne or the guilt of sin in the sight of God as he that having liv'd a 1000 yeeres should alwaies have observ'd the Law and never transgressed in the least point is doubtlesse formally compleatly righteous in the sight of God Now that remission of sins gives this privilege to him that hath received it in as ful amplea manner as the exemplified observation of the Law or any other of the longest continuance that is imaginable can do hath bin more then once demonstrated in this Treatise especially in the fift Conclusion layd down in the second Chap. of this second Part. Sect. 6. p. 8. Fiftly If remission of sinnes be a perfect and complete righteousnesse then is it the formall cause of Iustification This proposition is much of the same spinning with the Major in the former argument and so partaker of like evidence of truth with it Neveâ—-the-lesse once to light up a candle wherby to see the Sunne the reason of it is briefly this be-because no perfect or compleate righteousnesse can be found in any man that hath sin'd but that which is given and conferr'd by God upon him in his Justification and that which is in this way conferr'd upon him is without contradiction the formall cause thereof Therefore let us make forward But remission of sinnes is a perfect and compleate righteousnesse therefore doubtlesse the formall cause also of Iustification The minor proposition hath oft already bin exalted upon the Throne of evidence and unquestionablenesse of truth yet if you desire a little of what is more then enough take this for a further demonstration of it That righteousnesse which needeth not feare the presence oâ— most district Judgement of God is doubtlesse a compleate and perfect righteousnesse But remission of sinnes is a righteousnesse that needeth not to feare the presence or districtest judgement of God Therefore it is a perfect and compleate righteousnesse The Sunne at noone day shineth no cleerer light then both these propositions do truth For the former I make no question but contradiction it selfe will be ashamed to oppose it Peccata sola separant inter hominem et Deum quae solvuntur Christi gratia per quem mediatorem reconciliamur cum justificat impium Aug De Pecc Merit et Rem l. 1. c 20. That righteousnesse which will hold out waight and measure by the standerd of Heaven no man I presume will call defective or imperfect And for the latter who can with any reason lift up a thought of heart against it For what cause hath any man to feare any displeasure or hard sentence from God who hath all his sinnes fully pardoned There is nothing can separate betweene God and his creature but only sinne and when this is taken away what shall hinder but that there should immediatly ensue a perfect union of love and peace betweene them Sixtly SECT 33 If forgivenesse of sinnes be the righteousnesse which God imputes in the Justification of a sinner then is it the formall cause of Iustification But forgivenesse of sinnes is the righteousnesse imputed by God in the Iustification of a sinner Ergo. The ground of the sequell in the first proposition is this because the righteousnesse which God imputes in Iustification
latter thus Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for or concerning remission of sinnes that are past c. It plainly appeares from these Scriptures compared together First that the righteousnesse of God that is the way meanes or course which God holds for the Justification of men stands in remission or forgivenesse of sinnes Secondly that this righteousnesse or Iustification of his is witnessed that is asserted and vindicated by the Law that is the writings of Moses and consequently may well be called the righteousnesse or Iustification of the Law Thirdly and lastly that this righteousnesse of God testified and asserted by the Law in the sense given and exercised by him under the Law in the forgivenesse of the sinnes of those that then beleeved was not manifested or declared or as our other Scripture had it fulfilled that is fully revealed and discovered to the roote bottome and foundations of it till the coming of Christ into the world and his dying for sinne which in that other place is called his condemning sinne in the flesh This for answere in full to this Scripture The next place SECT 15 which I understand hath bin of late taken hold of by some to supply that which it seemes is wanting in others for the defence of that imputation which we oppose is Rom. 9.31.32 But Israel which followed after the Law of righteousnesse hath not attained to the Law of righteousnesse Wherefore because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the workes of the Law c. From hence it is thus argued that had Israel that is the Jewes who followed after the Law of righteousnesse beleeved in Christ they had attained the Law of righteousnesse that is should have had the righteousnesse of the Law performed by Christ imputed unto them But to this also I Answere 1. that by the Law of righteousnes Rom. 9.31.32 answered which the Jewes are here said to have sought after but could not attain is not meant the Moral Law nor indeed any Law properly so called either Morall Ceremoniall or Judicial for God had preveÌ„ted them with the guift of all these Laws so that they need not have sought after them If it be objected that their studie endeavor of keeping the Law which they had may be called a seeking or following after the Law I answere be it so yet this studie and endeavor of theirs could be no cause of their coming short of righteousnesse or Iustification which yet is ascribed to that seeking or following after the Law of righteousnesse here mentioned As Christians are never the further off from being justified by living holily and keeping the commandements of God So neither was the care and endeavor of the Jewes to observe the precepts of that Law which God had given them any cause of their miscariage in point of Iustification Abraham and those that were justifyed by Faith in Christ as he was were as conscientious and careful observers of al Gods Lawes as any of those were who stumbling at the stumbling stone were never justified Therefore by the Law of righteousnes in this Scripture is not meant any Law properly so called much les definitively the Morall Law Secondly in this expression the Law of righteousnesse in the former clause of the verse Calvin findes an hypallage the Law of righteousnesse put for the righteousnesse of the Law (a) Iam priere loco legem justiciae per hypallagen posuisse mihi videtur pro justicia legis in repetitione secundi membri alio sensu sic vocasse justiâ—iae formam seu regulam Calvin in Rom. 9 1. Nam illud sectandâ— legem justiciae simpliciter esse dictum de legis justitia i. ea quae ex operibus legu est patebit infra c. Mus in Rom. 9.31 in the latter clause he takes it in somewhat a different signification for a forme or rule of righteousnesse Musculus dissents little if any thing at all from this interpretation by the Law of righteousnesse understanding that righteousnesse which stands in the works of the Lawb. So that neither of these Authors nor any other that I have yet met with restreyne the word Law in these phrases determinatly to the Morall Law Thirdly neither is there any reason nor colour of reason to limit the Apostles expressions in this place of the Law of righteousnesse to the Morall Law only and the righteousnesse thereof because it is notoriously knowne and hath bin more then once observed formerly that the Jewes never hoped for nor sought after righteousnesse SECT 16 or Iustification by the Morall Law only or the works thereof alone but by the Ceremoniall Law also and the observances hereof yea principally by these as hath bin els where in this Treatise prooved from the Scriptures So that by the Law of righteousnesse whereof they miscaried by not seeking it by Faith cannot be ment determinatly the Moral Law or the righteousnes therof because they never travaild of this upon such termes they never had thought or hope of being iustified or made righteous by the Morall Law or righteousnesse thereof only And so Paraeus by the Law of righteousnesse in this place understands aswell the Ceremoniall as the Morall Law (a) Iudaeos ait sectatos legem justiciae quae praescribit justiciam operibus perfectam hoc est conatos esse tum ceremoniarum observatione tum moralium operum meritu justificari coram Deo Pateus in Rom. 9.31 4. Neither would the righteousnes of the Moral Law alone suppose they should have attained it by beleeving have stood the Jewes in any stead for their justification being aswell bound to the observation of the ceremoniall law as of it Therfore it was not this law or the righteousues of it which should have bin imputed to them in case they had trruly beleeved consequeÌ„tly no imputation of any law righteousnes whatsoever from Christ can be concluded from this place But 5. lastly to give the cleere sence and meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel is said to have followed after but not to have attained because he sought it not by Faith c. can be meant nothing else but justification it selfe or righteousnesse simply and indefinitely taken in which acception it is oft put for justification as was observed cap. 3. Sect and elsewhere which the Jewes seeking to attaine it by the works of the Law that is by themselves and the merit of their own doings and not by faith in Iesus Christ were never able to attain but lost the favour of God perished in their sinnes That this is the direct and expresse meaning of the place may be several waies confirm'd 1. To call righteousnesse simply that is SECT 17 justification the Law of righteousnesse is agreeable to this Apostles dialect elswhere For Rom. 7.23 25. by the Law of sinne he means nothing else but sinne
it selfe So Rom. 3.27 By the Law of Faith faith it selfe and againe Rom. 8.2 by the Law of sinne and death he means sinne and death simply For none of these have any Law properly so called onely the word Law added to them seems to represent them under a more emphaticall and weighty consideration 2. When this Apostle speaks of the righteousnesse of the Law elsewhere he never useth this hypallage to call it the Law of righteousnesse but still in plaine and direct language The righteousnesse of the Law See Rom. 2.26 Rom. 8.4 3. This exposition makes the double antithesis or opposition which the Apostle apparently makes between the Gentiles v. 30. and the Jewes v. 31. pregnant cleere and full wheras any other interpretation dissolves the strength and darkens the light of them The Gentiles saith he v. 30 followed not after righteousnesse that is had no thoughts of took no care or course for any justification before God But Israel v. 31. sought after the Law of righteousnesse that is propounded unto themselves as a busines of maine importance a righteousnesse or justification in the sight of God and ran a course of means such as it was to obteyne it Againe The Gentiles saith he v. 30. attained unto righteousnesse that is unto justification in the sight of God many of them have bin justified and saved But Israel could not attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse v. 31. that is could not compasse a justification of themselves in the sight of God as the Gentiles did The strict Law of opposition enforceth this or the like interpretation 4. And lastly that by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel could not attaine unto he meanes righteousnes simply or justification in the sight of God appeares from the latter reason or latter part of the reason which he renders v. 3◠of Israels miscarriage and falling short in this kind Wherfore saith he could not Israel attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse which he followed after because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the works of the Law If by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel is said to have sought after we understand the righteousnesse or obedience of the Law the reason which is here assigned by the Holy Ghost at least in part why they could not atain it viz. because they sought it by the works of the Law will be very incongruous and absurd For what savour either of reason or truth is there in it to say that a man therfore cannot attaine the righteousnesse or obedience of the Law because he seeks to attaine it by the works of the Law But to say that a man cannot attaine unto righteousnesse or justification before God if or because he seeks it by the works of the Law hath perfect consistence with both I mean both with reason and truth Lastly I might further strengthen this exposition with the Authority of Theophylact if need were who expounds that clause v. 31. they could not attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse of a simple and plaine non-justification a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in Rom. 9.31 The next Scripture proofe and last out of this Epistle to the Romans which is frequently alledged for the supposed Imputation is Rom. 10.4 The words these For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnes to every one that beleeveth Therfore say the Masters of that way of Imputation which we desire to hedge up with thorns the righteousnes of Christ or the obedience performed by him to the Morall Law is imputed to those that beleeve for their righteousnes But neither doth this Scripture know any such imputation more then its fellows For 1. Rom. 10.4 answered There is not the least resemblance or colour of reason that by the Law in this place should be meant precisely and determinately the Morall Law because as was both lately and formerly observed the Jews with whom chiefly the Apostle grapples in this place as is evident from the beginning of the chapter never so much as dreamt of justification by the Moral Law only but chiefly by the Ceremoniall Neither doth Calvin or any other Interpreter that yet I have met with understand the place of the Morall Law Besides it is evident from that which immediately follows v. 5. that he doth not speake here of the Morall Law for there he citeth that description which Moses giveth of the righteousnesse of the Law not out of any part or passage of the Morall Law but out of the heart and midd'st as it were of the Ceremoniall Law Those words the man which doth these things shall live by them wherein he placeth Moses's description of the righteousnesse which is of the Law are taken from Levit. 18.5 and are in speciall manner spoken of the Ceremonialls and Judicialls For thus the words lye ye shall therfore keep my Statutes and my Judgements which if a man doe he shall live in them Therfore doubtlesse the Apostle doth not speake here of the Morall Law Secondly SECT 19 neither is it any waies agreeable to truth that the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to beleevers suppose such an imputation were simply granted should be called the end of the Morall Law For doubtlesse no Law whatsoever considered simply as a Law is any cause or meanes of justifying a person in any other way or by any other meanes then by the observation of it selfe and consequently Iustification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of the Morall Law For nothing can properly be said to be the intent or end of a thing but only that which in reason and likelyhood may be procured and obtained by it Now there is an utter and evident impossibilitie that Justification by Christ should be procured or attained by the Morall Law Neither obedience nor disobedience thereunto hath any relation of causalitie to such an effect a man being never the neerer Justification by Christ either for the one or for the other It may be said with farre a more favourable aspect both upon reason and truth that Christ is the end of the Ceremoniall Law and yet not of this neither considered simply as a Law but as comprehending in it such and such usages or rites wherein Christ and Iustification by his blood were typified and resembled and which were to expire and to lose the binding power of a Law which it had before upon Christs coming As for the observation or transgression of this Law neither the one nor the other contributed any thing more towards any mans Iustification by Christ then the observation or transgression of the Morall Law did or doth Nay the observation both of the one and the other though very unperfect and lame have bin a stumbling block in the way of many and cast them quite off from Iustification by Christ as the Apostle implieth ver 3. Therefore Thirdly the Greek Expositors as Chrysostom a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Hom. 17. in Rom.
formall cause of justification as if by the word only or alone he meant to shut out this infusion of grace only and not the active obedience of Christ imputed I shall by a passage or two from him in the point cleere his intention in such expressions and fully manifest how importune and at open defiance with the truth any such interpretation of his minde and meaning must needs be In which words saith Calvin meaning those of the Apostle Rom. 4.6 in his commentaries upon the place we are taught justitiam Paulo nihil esse quà m remissionem peccatorum that is that righteousnesse with Paul is nothing else but remission of sinnes And not long after upon the 9th verse of the same Chapter So iustitia Abrahae est peccatorum remissio quod securè ipsepro confesso assumit c. that is If Abrahams righteousnesse be the forgivenesse of his sinnes which he meaning Paul without any further care or thought about it takes for granted c. By these passages it is evident that whatsoever his own minde or judgement was in the point now under question viz. whether remission of sins simply alone without any other additioÌ„ whatsoever were the righteousnesse of a Beleever in justification he attributes the affirmative unto Paul and makes his opinion and judgement to stand for Remission of sinnes simply excluding not the infusion of grace only but all other things whatsoever Except haply men Gyant-like will attempt to set Pelion upon Ossa heap presumption upon presumption and say that Paul likewise expressed himselfe in the Point only by way of opposition to the Popish opinion concerning grace infused and had no intent to be understood simply that Remission of sinnes was a Beleevers righteousnesse Otherwise for Calvin to ascribe one opinion unto Paul in the point of justification and to be himselfe of another is neither better nor worse then to professe himselfe wiser then he in the businesse yea then the Holy Ghost himselfe speaking by him Which horrid blasphemy those men unadvisedly bring upon the head of this holy and faithfull servant of God who labour to make him of a quite differing judgment himselfe especially in so weighty a point as justification is from that which he acknowledgeth to be the judgment of so great and glorious an Apostle as Paul was I might adde a third passage yea and three more to that of his ex abundanti of the same importance and perhaps somewhat more pregnant Therefore Paul saith he (a) Merite Paulus fidei justitiam in peccatorums ormissiene simpliciter includit docevs earn a Davide describi cum beatum heminem pronunciat cui non imputantur peccata Calvin De vera Ecales Res ratione p. 368. doth well simply to include the righteousnesse of Faith in Remission of sinnes teaching us that David so describeth it when he pronounceth the man happy whose sinnes are not imputed unto him Whether Calvin himselfe did simply and absolutly and not with limitation and restraint place the righteousnesse of Faith in remission of sinnes or no most unanswerably undeniable it is that he conceived Paul so to doe Nor is there any reasonable ground or cause to adde a word of this in the close of this Answere why men should be so averse or shie as some are SECT 16 from looking upon Remission of sinnes as a righteonsness yea as a perfect and complete righteousnesse since it is equivalent unto and vertually conteynes and comprehends in it the most absolute and entire obedience unto the Law and will of God as hath bin already fully demonstrated cap. 2. Sect. 4. of this second Part where also the authority and confent of Augustine in this behalfe was produced who plainly affirmeth Omnia mandata facta deputantur quonde quiequid non fit ignoscitur Ang. Retract l. 2. c. 19. that all the commandements of God are reputed to be kept or done when whatsoever is not done is forgiven Againe â— o it may well and in sufficient proprietie of speech beare the nature of a righteonsnesse vea and that perfect and compleate because it hath all those great and high privileges annexed to it and depending upon it which a righteousnesse most literally and strictly so called could have as the love favor acceptation and approbation of God yea life and salvation themselves It hath bin elsewhere as I remember observed in this discourse that the names of things are very usually enterchanged in Scripture upon occasion of a similituda or likenâ—sse of use or offect betweene them John Baptist is called by the name of â—liah because he was servicenble unto God and his cause after the same manner and with the same spirit that Eliah was So Peter and Iohn were counted Pillars Gal. 2.9 because they were conceiv'd to stand the Church of Christ in some such stead as Pillars doe the house that is supported by them So Christ himselfe to omit other instances in this kinde without number is called Bread a Vine a Dore a Way a Roote a Branch the morning Starre c. because in something or other he resembles the nature or use or both of all these things In like manner Remission of sinnes though it had not the nature or essence of a perfect righteousnesse in it may yet be called a perfect righteousnesse because it is of the same consideration benefit and use unto the creature with a perfect righteousnesse indeed But enough for this argument I hope it will be from henceforth contented and complaine no more for want of satisfaction A seventh argument which is likewise layd hold on by some as a Shield and Buckler to defend the imputation assailed SECT 17 Argum. 7 is this If Doe this and live be an everlasting rule of God and which shall never be dissolved cancelled or growne out of date then must the active obedience of Christ be imputed unto men in justification that so they may be said to have done this that is to have fulfilled the Law and so live But Doe this and live it an everlasting rule of God which shall never be dissolved c. Ergo. I answere that all the strength of this argument lyeth in the hollownesse of those words take them out of which proposition you please is an everlasting rule c. In this sence I grant that do this and live is an everlasting rule it is and hath bin and shall be everlastingly true that whosoever shall do this that is fulfill the Law perfectly shall live and enjoy the favor of God c. But this sence makes nothing to the purpose neither is there so much as the face of a consequence in the major if it be taken whosoever continueth in all things that are written in the Law to do them shall live and be saved whether Christs righteousnesse be imputed unto them or not But if the meaning of the clause be is an everlasting rule that is is the only perpetuall and standing rule or Law whereby and according to
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
righteousnesse at the least For there must be nothing lost of the vigor strength or perfection of either in the composition But that no Mediatorie righteousnesse can possibly be formall in justification was fully evinced and concluded in the fift argument Seventhly and lastly SECT 27 for this opinion it is the confession or profession which you will of some of the learnedest abettors themselves of that way of imputation which hath bin opposed in this Treatise that the generall current of Reformed Divines runns with an opposite streame to this opinion and with one mouth deny the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to be the formall cause of Iustification Who ever of our writers saith Doctor Prideaux a Quis unquam è nostru nos per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justificari asservit Dr. Prideaux Lect. 5. p. 163. affirmed that we are formally iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed And Bishop Downham a great hyperaspistes also of imputation chargeth it upon his adversaries as a depravation of their Doctrine (a) lib. 1. of Iustifi p. 39. Sect. 1.2 he meanes his owne and other Protestant Divines that they will needs with the Papists make them hold that we are formally righteous by that righteousnesse which is not in us but out of us in Christ which is absur'd And a little after marveiles at them how they could be so absurd as to conceive so absurdly of them himselfe and other Reformed Divines he had spoken of as if they held that the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe should be the formall cause of Iustification Now that both these testimonies are so farre true as they avouch the more generall opinion of Protestant Divines to stand against formall Iustification by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed will further appeare by the explication of the fift and last opinion touching the cause under dispute which now followeth Therefore Fiftly and lastly there remaines yet another opinion to be considered of SECT 28 which looketh upon remission or forgivenesse of sinnes The Authors judgmēt touching the formall cause of Iustification as the formall cause of Iustification And that this opinion hath both the fairest and largest quarter in the judgements and writings of Protestant Divines as also most agree-ablenesse with the truth we shall I trust make evident without much wearisomnesse of Discourse For the former of these the more generall consent of Reformed Authors besides what hath bin already delivered for the Iustification hereof from many of the Authors themselves in the first and fift Chapters of the former part of this Treatise I shall satisfie my selfe and I hope my Reader also will take part with me in this satisfaction with the testimonies only of two of eminent note amongst them both I conceive without exception and of sufficient learning and integritie to be beleeved in a matter of as great importance as this the one of them a forreiner the other an English Divine the one being of the same judgement himselfe the other in part dissenting the one dead the other yet living The former of the two is David Paraeus sometimes chiefe Professor of Divinty in the Vniversity of Heidelburgh who in his tract concerning the Active and Passive righteousnesse of Christ having laid downe his judgement in the controversie depending thus p. 176 a Superest Quarta sententia c. quod justificatio tota sit remissio peccatorum propter hanc satisfactionem nobis imputatam Hanc sententiam ut veriorem simpliciorem a◠tutiorem amplects me profiteor c. Parens De Iustit Christi Act. et Pass p. 176. 177. Possem huc affer re Authoritates Patrum c. Possem quoque afferre cōsensum Lutheri Melancthonis c. p. 178. that remission of sinnes for the satisfaction of Christ imputed to us is our whole and intire Justification and argued accordingly p. 177 in the following page addeth as followeth I might here produce the Authorities of the Fathers who likewise place our righteousnesse meaning in Justification in the alone forgivenesse of sinnes for the death of Christ and accordingly cites severall testimonies out of Austin Occumenius and Ambrose And immediatly after these testimonies thus I might also alledge the consent of Luther Melancthon Zuinglius Oecolampadius Bullinger Calvin Martyr Musculus Hyperius Vrsine Olevian c. from whose Doctrine in the point of Iustificatiou I doe not varie a nailes breadth So that the light of this mans reading and judgement together could discover no other opinion touching the formall cause of Justification either in the Fathers or any the chiefe Protestant writers in his time but that it should stand only in Remission of sinnes The latter of the two mentioned is Mr. Thomas Gataker a man of approved learning and integritie amongst us who in Mr. A. Wottons Defence against Mr. Walkers Charge lately published in Print by him acknowledgeth p. 58 that howsoever for his part hee deemeth it erronious and so doe I too taking the word Iustification in that large sense which it seemeth he doth where he argueth against the opinion as viz. in his Animadversions upon the disputes betweene Piscator and Lucius p. 9. besides sundry other places in his writings to hold that Iustification consisteth in remission of sinnes yet that Calvin Beza Olevian Vrsine Zanchie Piscator Pareus Musculus Bullinger Fox and divers others of great note and name yea whole Synods of ours are found so to say adding further and yet were these men never yet that I ever heard or read for so saying condemned as Heretiques much lesse as blasphemous Heretiques but had in high esteeme as their worth parts and workes well deserved by those that therein dissented from them To this I might if need were adde Mr. Authony Wotton a man of much labour diligence and dexterity in searching out the judgements and opinions of Protestant writers touching the great Point of Iustification as appeares by that learned piece of his intit'led de Reconciliatione peccatoris c. who in the 3 4 5 and 6 Chapters of the second booke of the first part of this worke hath mustered together a greater troupe of Reformed Authors then either of the other and from their owne pens respectively hath made them all speake distinctly and plainely the same things touching the formall cause of Iustification which the two former Authors as we heard ascribed unto some of them Now for the declaration and proofe-making of this opinion SECT 29 because for the present I conceive it most agreeable to the truth some things would briefly be premiz'd As 1º That Iustification being an action hath no forme or formall cause at all properly so called that is hath no substantiall forme nor yet any forme that is properly a part of it because this is proper only to substantiall natures and beings See Sect. 8. of this Chapter 2º That there can in no other respect or consideration be ascribed any forme or formal cause unto Iustification but only as it