required on mans part to bring him into Communion and fellowship of that justification and redemption which Christ hath purchased for the Children of men and that without believing no man can have part or fellowship in that great and blessed businesse Sixtly It is evident from the Scriptures that God in the act of every mans justification doth impute or account righteousnesse unto him or rather somwhat for or instead of a righteousnesse the Scripture useth both expressions by meanes of which imputation the person justified passeth in accompt as a righteous man though he be not properly or perfectly such according to the Law and is invested accordingly with those great priviledges of a man perfectly righteous deliverance from death and condemnation and acceptation into the favor of God The reason of which imputation or why God is pleased to use such an expression of righteousnesse imputed in or about the justification of a sinner seemes to be this the better to satisfie the naturall scruple of the weake and feeble consciences of men who can hardly conceive or thinke of a justification or of being justified especially by God without an expresse literall and perfect legall righteousnesse Now the counsailes and purpose of God in the Gospell being to justifie men without any such righteousnesse being a righteousnesse indeed whereof man in his lapsed condition is wholly uncapable the better to salve the feares of the consciences touching such a defect and to prevent and stay all troublesome thoughts or queries that might arise in the minds of men who when they heare of being justified are still ready to aske within themselves but where is the righteousnesse conceiving a legall righteousnesse to be as necessary to a justification as Isaak conceived of a Lamb for a burnt offering Gen. 22 7. He GOD I meane is graciously pleased so far to condiscend to men in Scripture treatie with them about the weighty businesse of justification as in effect to grant and say unto them that though he finds not any proper or perfect righteousnesse in them no such righteousnesse as passeth under the name of a righteousnesse with them yet if they truely believe in him as Abraham did this believing shall in the consequences of it be as good as a perfect or compleate righteousnesse unto them or that he will impute righteousnesse unto them upon their believing So that now the state drift of the Q. SECT 3 is not either 1 whether Faith without an Object or as separated from Christ be imputed for righteousnesse for such a Faith doubtlesse in the point of justification was never dreamt of by any man that kept his wits company men may aswell fancy a living man without a Soule or a wiseman without his wits as a Faith without an Object much lesse was ever such a faith conceived by any to be imputed for righteousnesse Neither 2 is it any part of the intent of the Question to enquire whether Faith be the meritorious cause of a mans justification for both they that affirme and they that deny the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse deny the meritoriousnesse of faith every waies however it is true that they that would seem most to disclaime it and cast it furthest from them do yet in some of their most beloved tenets draw very neare unto it as will afterward appeare Neither 3 is it the Question whether Faith be the formall cause of justification that is whether God doth justifie a man with his Faith as a Painter makes a wall white with whitenesse or a Master makes his Scholar learned with knowledge for both parties make the forme of justification to be somwhat else differing from Faith contrary to that which is conceived to be the genuine tenet of Arminius Nor yet 4 doth the Question make any quere at all whether Christ be the sole meritorious cause of the Iustification of a sinner for both they that goe on the right hand of the Question and they that goe on the left are knit together in the same mind and judgment concerning this Neither 5 doth the Question as it is here propounded intend any dispute at all whether the active obedience of Christ falling in with the passive and considered in conjunction with it hath any influence into or contributeth any thing towards the Iustification of sinners for this also is acknowledged on both sides at least by the greater party of both But 6 and lastly the Question in precise termes is this whether the faith of him that truely believes in Christ or whether the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe that is the obedience which Christ performed to the Morall Law consisting partly of the inward habit of grace and righteous dispositions of his soule partly of all those severall and particular acts of righteousnesse wherein he obeyed be in the letter and proprietie of it that which God imputes to a believer for righteousnesse or unto righteousnesse in his Iustification So that he that believes is not righteous onely by accompt or by Gods gracious reputing and accepting of him for such but as rigidly literally and peremptorily righteous constituted and made as perfectly as compleatly as legally righteous as Christ himselfe is no difference at all betweene them quoad veritatem but only quoad modum the justified every whit as righteous as the justifier both righteous with the selfe same individuall righteousnesse only this difference betweene the one and the other the justified weares it as put upon him by another by imputation the Justifier weares it put upon him by himselfe or by inherency That the Scriptures no where countenanceth any such imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ as this I trust the Spirit of truth directing and assisting to make manifest in the sequell of this discourse and to give good measure of this truth unto the reader heaped up and pressed downe and running over heaped up by testimonies from the Scriptures themselves pressed down by the weight of many Arguments and demonstrations running over with the cleare approbation of many Authors learned and sound and every way greater then exception Only give me leave here to mention that by the way SECT 3 which may prevent many mistakes yea and offences too in reading the writings of many latter Divines especially of other Churches touching this point of imputation If we take the phrase of imputing Christs righteousnesse unproperly out of the usuall and formall signification of it as Luther and Caelvin and other Divines of the reformed Churches sometimes do in their writings viz. for the giving out or bestowing as it were the righteousnesse of Christ including his obedience aswell passive as active under one and the same terme of righteousnesse in the returne of it i. in the privileges blessings and benefits that are procured and purchased by it for men so a believer may be said to be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed But then the meaning can be no more but this A beleever is justified by the
stead of the fruite or effect of it good or bad benefit or losse vantage or disadvantage merit or demerit of it Thus Job 33 26. God is said to render unto man his righteousnesse i. The fruite or benefit of his righteousnesse in the favor of GOD and manifestation of it in his deliverance and restauration the righteousnesse it selfe in the propriety of it cannot be rendred unto him So Ephe. 6 8. Whatsoever good thing any man doth the same shall he receive of the Lord. i. he shall receive benefit and consideration from God for it So Revel 15 12. Here is the patience of the Saints and c. 13 10. Here is the patience and faith of the Saints i Here is the benefit and unspeakable reward of the patience and faith of the Saints to be seene when the Beast and all that worship him or adhere to him shall be tormented in fire and brimstone for evermore and those that have constantly suffered for not worshiping of him shal be delivered from drinking of that bitter cup. So again So worke is often put for the wages due to it Levit. 19 13. Iob 7 2. Ior. 22 13 Esa 49.4 c. Psal 128 2. Thou shalt eate the labor of thy hands that is the fruite of this labour So on the other hand Heb. 9 28. it is said of Christ that to those that looke for him he shall appeare the second time without sinne that is without the guilt or punishment of sinne charged upon him for otherwise if we take sinne in the formall and proper signification of it there wil be no difference implied betweene his first and second appearance in as much as he was as free from the defilement or pollution of sin in his first appearing as he can or shal be in his second So Ezech. 16 58. Thou hast borne thy lewdnesse and thine abhominations saith the Lord viz. in punishments or judgments answerable to them So 1 Kings 8 32. To bring his way upon his head that is the punishment he hath deserved by his way of sinne So to let passe many other instances of like construction Gen. 19 15. Least you be destroyed in the iniquity of the Citty that is in that judgement or punishment that fell upon the Citty by meanes of the iniquity of it In such a construction of speech as the holy ghost himselfe useth in these and many such like passages in the Scripture the righteousnesse of Christ Active and Passive may be said to be the righteousnesse by which we are justified or which is imputed unto us in our justification and not in any other Wherefore to draw towards a close of this first Chapter and withall to give a little more light SECT 5 that it may be seene cleare to the bottome both what we affirme and what we deny in the question propounded i when we affirme the faith of him that beleeveth to be imputed for righteousnes the meaning is not either I that it should be imputed in respect of any thing it hath from a man himselfe or as it is a mans owne act nor yet 2. in respect of any thing it hath from God himselfe or from the Spirit of God in the production or raising of it in the soule though it be true it requires the lighting downe of the Almighty arme of God upon the soule to raise it Neither 3 See this further opened and proved in the second part of this Discourse Cap. 2. ss 17. Is it imputed for righteousnesse in respect of the Object or because it layeth hold upon Christ or Christs righteousnessâ— though it be true also that that faith that is imputed for righteousnesse must of necessity lay hold upon Christ and no other faith is capable of this Imputation besides because if faith should justifie or be imputed for righteousnesse as it layes hold upon Christ it should justifie out of the Inherent dignitie and worth of it and by vertue of that which is naturall and intrinsecall to it there being nothing that can be conceived more naturall or essentiall unto faith then to lay hold upon Christ this is the very life and soule of it and that which gives it its specificall being and subsistence Therefore to make the Object of FAITH as such the precise and formall ground of the Imputation of it is to make hast into the middest of Samaria whilst men are confident they are travailing towards Dothan It is the giving the right hand of fellowship to the Romish Iustification which makes faith the meritorious cause of it in part But 4 and lastly when with the Scripture we affirme that faith is imputed for righteousnesse our meaning is simply and plainely this that as God in the first Covenant of workes required an absolut and through obedience to the whol law with continuance in all things for every mans Iustification which perfect obedience had it beene performed had beene a perfect righteousnesse to the performer and so would have justified him So now in the New Covenant of grace God requires nothing of any man for his justification but only faith in his Sonne which faith shal be as a vaileable and effectuall unto him for his justification as a perfect righteousnesse should have beene under the first Covenant this is that which is meant when faith is said to be Imputed for righteousnesse which is nothing but that which is generally taught by Divines both ancient and moderne Sic decretum dicit à Deo ut cessante lege Solam fidem gratia Dei posceret ad salutem Ambrosius in Rom. 4. that is the Apostle saying that to him that believeth his faith is Imputed for righteousnes affirmeth that God hath so decreed that the Law ceasing the grace of God will require of men only faith to salvation And againe upon Ch. 9 of the same Epistle Sola fides posita est ad salutem onely faith is appointed or ordained to salvation Calvin writing upon Rom. 10 8. hath words of the same importance and somewhat more cleare and full Ex hac distinctionis nota colligimus sicutilex opera exigit sic Evangelium nihil aliud postulare nisiâ—ut fidem afferant homines ad recipiendam Dei gratiam that is From this distinction we gather that as the Law required workes so the Gospell requires nothing else but that men bring faith to receive the grace of God If God requires Faith in the Gospel for the same end for which he required worâ—â—s or perfect righteousnes in the Law it necessarily followes that he should impute this faith for that righteousnes that is accept it from men upon the same termes in respect of justification and bestow the same favors rewards and priviledges upon the tender of it that should have beene given unto men in regard of that legall righteousnes had it beene fulfilled otherwise he should require it for such an end or upon such term's as he would refuse to make good unto it when the creature hath exhibited it
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
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
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
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
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
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
in view to the sight of all men is the advancement of the creature or persons iustifyed to that exceeding height of glory and endlesse happinesse in the intire and satisfying injoyment of God which himselfe was graciously pleased to ordeyne them unto from the beginning and to prepare and make them meet for in time Besides these two there might be diverse other more appropriate and particular ends both in respect of God the Iustifier and the elect of God the Iustified assigned as in respect of God the manifestation of his abundant pardoning grace or mercie tempered with justice c. in respect of the creature Iustifyed deliverance from wrath or punishment due to sinne a way making unto Adoption and fatherlike grace and acceptation with God with all the sweet privileges and blessings depending hereon c. but because there is no question or controversie stirring about these and the Doctrine of Justification may be competently knowne and understood without a particular enumeration of them I forbeare to make it matter of further labour to the Reader to insist upon them The chiefe contention and dispute amongst Reformed Divines in the businesse of Iustification SECT 14 is about the two causes that are yet behinde viz. the materiall and the formall but especially about the latter Therefore Thirdly Mr. Walker Socinianisme discovered c. p. 139. concerning the matter or materiall cause of Justification the Socinian Diseoverer with some others conceive they cast a spirit of honour upon the righteousnesse and satisfaction of Christ by setling this relation of causalitie in respect of Iustification upon them but doubtlesse much upon the like terms of mistake with those mentioned by our Saviour Ioh. 16.2 who should thinke that they did God service when they killed his best servants For First by making these the matter See Part 1. c. 17. Sect. 1.2 c. or materiall cause of Iustification they devest and spoyle them of the honour of that causalitie which is proper and peculiar to them and 7 times more honourable then that which is this way attributed to them viz. of that causalitie which we call meritorious This is evident by the tenour of the third Rule formerly laid downe in the second section of this Chapter whereby it appeares that no one cause whatsoever can put on more habitudes or relations of causality then one in respect of one and the same effect So that if the righteousnesse of Christ be the meritorious and impulsive cause of Iustification which is granted on all hands without exception even by the men against whom we reason it can at no hand be deemed the materiall cause also Because the meritorious and impulsive cause is a kinde of efficient as both hath bin lately proved and besides is generally so notioned and acknowledged by all neither can it be reduced to any of the other 4 heads of causes with any tolerable congruitie or colour of reason It was never heard of to this day that any efficient cause was the matter of the effect produced by it Secondly the righteousnesse of Christ whether Active or Passive or both cannot be the matter of Iustification because the matter of a thing is alwaies En◠incompletum an incompleate and imperfect entitie or being untill the introduction and union of the forme with it which still gives perfection of being and existence to it But the righteousnesse of Christ take it in what otion or under what consideration you please hath an intire perfect and compleate being neither can it fall under imagination what forme it should be capable of that by union with it should adde beauty and perfection to it Thirdly and lastly if the righteousnesse of Christ be the matter of Iustification it must be either matter properly or unproperly so called Matter properly so called which they call materia ex quâ it cannot be because this kinde of matter 1º is proper to substantiall natures or beings onely 2º is it selfe alwaies a substance 3º is alwaies a part of that nature or thing whereof it is the matter 4º and lastly is still the inferior weaker and viler part thereof Whereas Iustification in the first place being an act hath only an accidentall not a substantiall being and consequently is not capable of matter properly so called as no act or action whatsoever besides is Secondly the righteousnesse of Christ was never conceived to be in praedicamento substantiae to be a substantiall nature but an accidentall forme or quality and therefore cannot be matter properly so called of any thing Thirdly the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be a part of Iustification because Iustification as hath bin said is an action and the righteousnesse of Christ a forme or qualitie and most certaine it is that one predicamentall nature or being cannot be a part of another Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be this matter of Iustification we now speake of Fourthly and lastly it is furthest of all from all colour or appearance of truth that the righteousnesse of Christ in what composition or union soever it shall be found should be the weaker and lesse worthy part thereof being of that infinit perfection and worth which we all acknowledg and ascribe unto it Therefore certainly it is no matter of Iustification properly so called Secondly SECT 15 that neither is it any matter hereof unproperly so called may be thus demonstrated Matter unproperly so called is either that which Logicians call materia in qua or materia circa quam Matter in the former notion imports only the subject of a thing that is a substantiall nature as supporting some accidentall forme or being in it In this sense fire is sayd to be the matter of the heate that is in it and a man to be the matter of the learning or knowledge which he hath c. But this is most unproper and least used sense or signification of the word MATTER of all other In the latter notion the matter of a thing is the object or that thing upon which any thing acteth or about which it is conversant or exercised In this sense wood or tymber may be said to be the matter of the Carpenters art or imployment and his Scholars the matter of the Masters instruction c. This kinde of matter is most commonly and properly attributed to acts that are transient and with motion and alteration though it may be ascribed to that other kinde of act also which is without alteration and is called immanent in which sense bookes or the knowledge of things conteyned in them may be said to be the matter of the Schollers industrie or studie and the persons predestinated to be the matter of that immanent act of God which we call Predestination c. Now that the righteousnesse of Christ cannot in either of these notions or significations of the word matter be the matter of justification it is evident First not in the former because Iustification is not the subject wherein this righteousnesse
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 a distinction is given the opposite member being implied is still to be framed to it as readily it may Therefore Paul had no intent to shut out but to bring in the works of the Law as wrought by Christ into the businesse of Iustification To this I answere sundry things First that the active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ should be wholly excluded and be made a stander-by so as to have nothing at all to do in the great businesse of Iustification this discourse hath no where affirmed hitherto neither doth it savor any where of the spirit of that affirmation It hath been expressely acknowledged from the beginning to have a gracious and blessed influence thereinto as it issueth and falleth into his passive obedience which together may be called a righteousnesse for which but at no hand with which we are justified Therefore this objection contending and pleading for an admission of the workes of the Law as done by Christ into Iustification doth no waies contradict the answere given in any part of it except it can prove the necessity of this admission of the active righteousnesse of Christ either for the materiall or formall or instrumentall cause of Iustification which it no waies doth nor pretendeth to do And the truth is whosoever shall doe it that is goe about to make this righteousnesse of Christ either the formall o◠materiall or instrumentall cause of Iustification will be found upon a due examination wholly to dissolve and overthrow the merit of it the establishment whereof is yet pretended as the great and pious designe of that opinion Secondly I answore that the inference insisted upon in the objection from the Scripture mentioned comes heavily and with much unwillingnesse and reluctation out of the premisses there is no necessitie nor indeed so much as a face of probabilitie in it The Holy Ghost may reject the works of men from being the cause of such or such a thing and yet no waies suppose or intimate that the works of another should be the cause thereof As when we deny either the Faith or works of any man foreseene to be the cause of his election we do not imply that the Faith or works of Christ foreseene are the cause of such election No more doth it follow that because Paul rejects the works of righteousnesse which men do from their justification that therefore he must needs imply a substitution of the workes of Christ in their stead If the words had gone thus Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we OUR SELVES had done this had beene somewhat a higher ground and a more rationall advantage to have infer'd the opposite member of the distinction viz. but by the works of another or of Christ As Act. 20 24. where Paul expresseth himselfe thus Neither is my life deare unto my selfe c. here the opposite member of the division may with good probability be conceived to be implied after this manner my life is not deare unto my selfe THOUGH IT MAY BE DEERE UNTO OTHERS And yet even such an intimation here is not of absolute necessitie neither But if the tenor of the words had only run thus Neither is my life deere unto me so that I may fulfill my course with joy No man would ever have dream't or thought of any further thing to be implied then what was expressed So when the Holy Ghost in a direct and plaine tenor of Speech speaketh only thus Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had wrought not which we our selves had wrought for men to conclude or inferre an implying of workes wrought by another is in plaine and necessary interpretation to make themselves wise above that which is written But thirdly to put the matter out of all question that excluding the works of the Law which we had done he had no intent by way of opposition to imply the works which another might doe he expresseth plainly the opposition himselfe and tells us that it was according to his mercy that he saved us not by the works of righteousnesse which we had done but according to his mercy he saved us Therefore here can be nothing implied by way of opposition because the opposition is fully and distinctly set downe And Fourthly least any might yet say that it may be according to Gods mercy and yet by the works of righteousnesse wrought by Christ too these two may easily be reconciled and stand together the Apostle delivers himselfe distinctly of that wherein this mercy of God he speaks of consisteth not in saveing of us by the works of Christ imputed to us but in regenerating of us and washing us in the new birth Fiftly and lastly as such an inference is no waies necessarie SECT 6 nor so much as probable so is it no waies pertinent to the purpose for which it is so earnestly contended for though it should be granted Because it is evident that the Apostle here rejects the workes of righteousnesse which he names from being any causes antecedaneously moving God to save us and not from being the formall cause of justification So then let us give the objection it s owne hearts desire even that it murmur's so much after viz. that the works of Christ must of necessity be here implied yet will it perish and come to nothing even whilst this meat is in the mouth of it For all that will follow or can be concluded by the imaginary advantage of such a supposition is only that whereof themselves will be ashamed when it is brought forth unto them viz. this that it is not the works of the Law which we have done our selves but those which Christ hath done that have moved God to save us by the washing of the new birth and by the renewing of the Holy Ghost Which if it be understood and meant of the decree and purpose of God so to save us is against the truth if it be understood of the execution of this decree is against themselves For that which moved God to decree or intend this salvation unto us was nothing out of himselfe but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that good and gracious pleasure of his will Eph. 1.5 or as that clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his will is somewhat more emphatically with more of the Spirit and life of the originall in it rendred by our Translators ver 11. of his owne will implying as I conceiv◠that that will wherewith God willeth and purposeth to save his people is intirely his owne borne and begotten as it were only out of himselfe without the seed of any consideration of any thing whatsoever out of himselfe As for the execution of this decree in the actuall justification or regeneration of those whom he hath purposed to save if this be ascribed to the works of righteousnesse done by Christ as the cause moving God thereunto this cleerely establisheth the merit of the righteousnesse of Christ in justification but overthroweth the formality of it which is that
lastly if either Bellarmines or his interpreters who finds this miracle of ingenuity in him meaning be that Calvin holds the imputation of Christs righteousnesse neceslary to justification by way of merit only we are no further adversaries in this point But if their meaning be and other it cannot be without apparant prevarication that over and besides remission of sinnes Calvin holds a necessity of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in justification as a second part or member of it really distinct from remission of sins to make it compleate and perfect this is to burthen Calvin with such an imputation as is not lightly incident to a considering and learned man as he was He himselfe in his Antidote against the Counsell of Trent in their sixt Session takes those Fathers tardie with that Logicall Soloecisme in their Divinitie of making the formall cause of justification double acsi partìm remissione peccatorum partim spirituali regeneratione justi essemus i. as if we were righteous partly by remission of sins partly by spirituall regeneration Now if he should place justification partly in remission of sinnes partly in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse who seeth not that himselfe is in the same condemnation with his adversaries and builds up by example what he pulls downe by reproofe But he washeth his hands in perfect innocencie this way Ego autem saith he unicam et simplicem esse assero i. but I hold and affirme meaning the formall cause of justification to be but one and simple Bellarmine indeed doth not admit of this purgation of himselfe but will needs finde him foule in the businesse notwithstanding and recriminates upon him the same imputation wherewith he had burdened the counsell Quippe qui saith he of Calvin De Justificatione lib. 2. Cal. Inst l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 2. cap. 2. disertis verbis justificationem in peccatorum remissione et justitiae Christi imputatione sitam esse scribat i. Carvin in expresse words delivers it that justification consists in remission of sinnes and in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse And here is the interpretation of that ingenuity whereof we heard the innocent Jesuit lately accused we see how kindly and lovingly he dealt by his adversarie when he would needs give him in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by way of sub-intelligence to remission of sinnes wherein alone he had placed justification The old adage was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The guifts of enemies are but guile Bellarmine was willing to enlarge Calvins opinion and to adde more then enough to it that so he might make it the fairer marke to shoot at But Paraeus fairely delivers this Souldier of Christ out of the hands of that Romish Champion SECT 4 only by an ingenuous and faire interpretation of that passage whereat his adversary tooke this advantage against him Paraeus contrâ— Bellarmun lib. 2 cap 2. Lect. 247. See the same Author in his Tâ—ract De justiâ—ia Christi Act. Pass p. 179 c. where he interprets the said passage of Calvin much after the same manne Hinc videre potuit adversarius saith Paraeus c. i. Hence his adversary meaning Bellarmine might see and perceive that saying in his Institutions that Justification consisted in remission of sinnes and imputation of Christs righteousnesse his meaning was not that there should be a double formall cause of Iustification as if we were righteous partly by remissió of sinnes partly by imputation and neither of them a compleate and full Iustification for so hee should fight both against himselfe and against the Scriptures but his intent was by two Scripture-termes equipollent the one to the other to expresse one and the same formall cause or to joyne these two expressions together exegetically i. So that one might helpe to explaine the other quia remissio peccatorum sit imputatione justitiae et vicissim imputatio justitia fit remissione peccatorum teste Apostolo Rom. 4. ver 6.7 c. i. because remission of sinnes is made by or in the imputation of righteousnesse and againe impu tation of righteousnesse made in remission of sinnes witnesse the Apostle Rom. 4.6.7 c If this Author be further consulted with in the sequel he will tell you more at large how Calvin placeth integram justificationem modò sola remissione peccatorum c. i. intire and compleate JUSTIFICATION sometimes in remission of sinnes onely sometimes in remission of sinnes and imputation of Christs righteousnesse without any contradiction Neither is it hard to conceive how the one may be the sole and intire formall cause and the other the meritorious Which to have been the very expresse meaning and minde of Calvin is so apparant by comparing and laying together passage with paslage from him that except a mans conceit were much relieved and strengthened by his will he would finde it a matter of much difficulty to thinke otherwise SECT 5 Bellarmine himselfe when the pange of ingenuity is but a little of him can finde out his adversaries opinion cleerely enough For explaining those words of the Trent Councell wherein it is said that righteousnesse doth not consist in Remission of sinnes only Reijcitur saith he sententia Calvini de justificatione more forensi c. i. Calvins opinion concerning Justification after a juridicall manner is here rejected And so generally when he undertakes the confutation of that error as he calls it which placeth Justification in Remission of sinnes only he still chargeth Calvin with it and seldome any other as on the contrary when he disputes against that opinion which placeth Iustification in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse he still layes on upon CHEMNI TIUS Compare the 6 and 7 Chapters together in his Second BOOKE of JUSTIFICATION Let me adde but onething more here out of the Councell of Trent it selfe SECT 5 which seems directly to point at Calvin as the Anthor or maintainer of that very opinion where with we have laboured hitherto to honour him as with an Lonour which belongs unto him Or if Calvin be not conceived to be the man yet the opinion we shall evince from hence to have bin famous in the Reformed Churches when the Conncell thus thundred out against it 〈…〉 11. Si quis dixerit hominem justificari velsola imputatione justitiae Christs vel sola peccatorum remissione c. Anathema sit i. If any man shall say that a man is justified either by the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ alone or by remission of sins alone c. let him be accursed From whence observe first that to place iustification in remission of sins alone was an opinion by it selfe distinct from the other that held iustification by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse alone For it is evident by the disjunctive particles in this Canon that the Councell being as it seems good Husbands of their thunderbolts had an intent to strike down two opinions at once And so Bellarmine as we heard explains the Councell Secondly observe that
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
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