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
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
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
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
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
to 68. CAP. 4. The non-imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense ruling in this Controversie argued from Rom. 3.21 The argument made good against an objection From p. 69. to 72. CAP. 5. The said non-imputation further prooved and established from Rom. 5.16.17 compâ—â—ed together with an objection answered The sufficiencie of the Answere attested by Galvin Musoulus Luther Melancthon Beza Zanchie Fox and Chamier From p. 73. to p. 83. CAP. 6. A further proofe for the imputation of Faith in the sense explained against the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense refused from Philip. 3.9 From p. 84. to 88. CAP. 7. Further proofes for the imputation of Faith as aforesaid from such Scriptures wherein Justification is ascribed unto Faith as Rom. 3.18 Rom. 1.5 c. with 4 objections against the cariage of these Scriptures answered From p. 88. to 92. CAP. 8. The Non-imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense first rejected cleerely argued and prooved from Gal. 3.12 being the last of our Scripture proofes From p. 93 to 98. CAP. 9. The Jmputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense challenged disproved from the incompetiblenesse of it to many if not to all beleevers without exception in respect of many particulars wanting in it which must be found in a Law-righteousnesse appropriable unto them Two objections against this argument answered From p. 98 to p. 106. CAP. 10. A second argument against the said Imputation drawne from the precise and exact proportion and fitnesse of that righteousnesse for the person of Christ alone as being the only Mediator between God and men with two objections answered From p. 107 to 117. CAP. 11. A third ground against the said Imputatison viz. the non-necessitie of it with an objection anwered the answere pleading for intirenesse of justification in remission of sinnes alone absolutely consemans with the judgement of Calvin (a) That Calvin placed Iustification simply and absolutely and not comparatively in Remission of sinnes alone see fully proved part 2. c. 7. Sect. 15. p. 213.214 of this Discourse relieved by Parâ—us in some passages which Bellarmine and some others would wrest to a contrary interpretation From p. 118. to 135. CAP. 12. A fourth demonstration against the saia Imputation viz. the dissolving or frustration of the Evangelicall Grace of Adoption with an objection Answered From p. 136. to p. 144. CAP. 13. The fift and sixt grounds against the said Imputation The former the taking away the necessitie of Repentance the latter the necessitie of Christs death with two objections against the former and as many against the latter Answered From p. 145. to 150. CAP. 14. A seaventh ground against the said Imputation viz. the taking away for givenesse of sinnes with an objection answered From p. 151. to 153. CAP. 15. Enforcing an eight Reason against the Imputation questioned viz. a manifest compliance with that dangerous error that God seeth no sinne in his people From p. 153. to 155. CAP. 16. A ninth Demonstration against the pretended Imputation viz. the confounding of the two Covenants with two objections propounded and answered From p. 154. to 157. CAP. 17. Three Arguments more managed against the already-impugned Imputation all of them drawn from the meritoriousnesse of that righteousnesse according to the professed tenets of those against whom we argue which is said to be imputed From p. 158. to 164. CAP. 18. Three further Reasons against the opinion prerejected with an objection propounded against the last of them and Answered The first drawne from the unsoundnesse of this assertion that Beleevers wrought righteousnesse in Christ The second from the non-imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in the letter and formalitie of it The last from the non-intermedling of the Ceremoniall Law with Iustification From p. 165. to 169. CAP. 19. Five further Demonstrations of the conclusion undertaken for The first drawne from the non-imputation of our sinnes to Christ in the letter or formalitie of them The second from the uncleannesse of this saying that God should looke upon us as worthy of that Iustification which we receive from him The third from the erroneousnesse of this that men are made formally sinfull by Gods act of imputing Adams sinne The fourth from the absurdity of this that there is a double formall cause of Iustification The last from the evidence of this truth that there is no necessitie of bringing in this imputation either in respect of the justice or mercy of God or for the salving or advancement of any other Attribute From p. 170. to 179. CAP. 20. Foure Reasons more to streng then the Conclusions taken into protection The first drawne from the insufficiencie of a Law righteousnesse to justifie those that have once sinn'd though personally performed The second from the non-obligation of any man to keeps the Law for his justification The third from Gods requiring only Faith of men to their justification with two objections answered The last from the imputation of Faith made unto Abraham From p. 180 to 187. CAP. 21. The last Reason propounded against the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse drawn from the Non-imputabilitie of the Law or the righteousnesse thereof with an objection answered and some things considered about the Imputation of Adams sinne Of the Second PART CAP. 1. THe method and contents of the Second Part of the Discourse p. 1 2. CAP. 2. Fourteene Conclusions laid down and prooved to give further light into the Controversie depending and to repare a way for answering the remaining objections The first is this Hee for whose sinnes a plenary satisfaction hath bin made is as just and righteous as he that never sinn'd p. 3. 2. There is no medium or middle condition between absolution from all sinne and a perfect and compleate righteousnesse p. 3.4 3 Adam till his fall by sinne was compleatly righteous and in an estate of Iustification before God p. 4.5 4. Perfect remission or forgivenesse of sinnes includes the imputation or acknowledgment of the observation of the whole Law p. 5.6.7.8 5. He that is fully acquitted and discharged of his sinnes needeth no other righteousnesse to give him a right or title unto life p. 8 9. 6 That satisfaction which Christ made for sinne and whereby he procured remission of sinnes for those that beleeve consists only in that obedience of his which is commonly called Passive and not in that subjection which he exhibited to that common Law of nature which we call Morall p. 9.10 7 If Christ had kept the Law for us that is in our stead during his life so that we might be counted perfectly righteous by the imputation thereof unto us there had bin no occasion or necessitie of his dying for us p. 10.11 8. That union and communion which Beleevers have with Christ doth no waies require or suppose any such imputation of his righteousnesse unto them as is conceived p. 11 12 13. 9. No other imputation of Adams sinne to his posteritie can be proved
either by Scripture or sound reason then that which stands either in a communion of his posteritie with him therein or in the propagation of his nature defiled therewith unto them or in that punishment and condemnation which is come upon them by it p. 13 14 15 16. 10. Though Iustification and salvation came unto the world by Christ the second Adam as condemnation and death came by the first yet there are many different considerations betweene the coming and bringing in of salvation by the one and of condemnation by the other p. 16 17 18 19 20 21. 11. That which makes true Faith instrumentall in Iustification is nothing that is essentiall or naturall to it whether descent property or act but somewhat that is extrinsecall and purely adventitious as viz. the force and efficacie of the will good pleasure ordination and covenant of God in that behalfe p. 21 22 23 24 25 26. 12. It hath no foundation either in Scripture or reason to say that Christ by any imputation of sinne was made formally a sinner p. 26. 13. Faith doth not only if at all declare a man to be righteous or in a justified estate but is the very meanes by which Iustification or righteousnesse it obtained p. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33. 14. The sentence or curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death but this death of Christ was a ground or consideration unto God whereupon to dispense with his Law and to let fall or suspend the execution of the penaltie or curse therein threatned as concerning those that beleeve p. 33 34 35 36. CAP. 3. Seven Distinctions propounded and explained necessary for the further understanding of the businesse in question and the cleering of many difficulties incident to it As 1. Iustification is taken in a double sense either actively or passively p. 37 38 39. 2. Iustice or righteousnesse is sometimes in Scripture attributed to God and sometimes to men and in both relations hath a great diversitie and varietie of acceptions p. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45. 3. The righteousnesse or obedience of Christ is twâ—fold or of two kindes the one by Divines called Justitia personae the righteousnesse of his person the other Justitia meriti the righteousnesse of his merit 45 46 47 48 49 50. 4. The terme of Imputing or imputation will admit of nine severall acceptions or significations p. 51 52 53 54 55 56. 5. Obedience unto the morall Law may be said to be required of men in two respects either 1º by way of justification or 2º by way of sanctification p. 57 58. 6. Christ may be said to have kept the Law in reference to our justification two waies either 1º for us or 2º in our stead p. 58. 7. The justification of a sinner though it be but one and the same entire effect yet may it be ascribed unto many and those very different causes respectively according to their severall influences and differing manner of concurrence thereunto p. 59 60. CAP. 4. A delineation or survey of the intire body of Iustification in the severall causes of it according to the tenor of the Conclusions and distinctions laid downe in the two former Chapters P. 61. wherein I. are premised 4 generall rules touching the number nature and propertie of causes in the generall p. 62 63 64 65. 2. Some more particular and speciall kinds of causes comprehended under the 4 generall heads are mentioned and explained p. 65 to p. 77. 3. The causes of Iustification are inquired into As 1. The efficient causes thereof From p. 77 to 84. 2. The finall causes thereof p. 84 85. 3. The materiall cause therof from p. 85 to p. 90. 4. The formall cause thereof from p. 90 to 121. 4. A Description of Iustification raised from the former discussions in the Chapter p. 121. CAP. 5. Scriptures alledged for the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse or active obedience in Justification cleered and answered and the true sense and interpretation of them respectively established according to the judgement of the best Expositors A reason given by the way of mens confidence and impatiencie of contradiction in respect of some opinions above others p. 122 123. The Scriptures urged and answered are 1. From the Old Testament Psal 32 1 2 answered p. 124 125 126. Jer. 23 6 and 33 16. answered p. 127 128. Esa 45.24 answered p. 129 130. Esa 61 10. answered p. 130. to p. 136. where by the way 3 other Scriptures also are opened and cleered as viz. Revâ—â— 19 7 8 p. 134 and Rom. 13 14 with Gal. 3 27 p. 136. 2. From the New Testament As Rom. 3 21 answered p. 136 137. Rom. 3 31 answered p. 137 138 139. Rom. 4 6. answered p. 140 141. Rom. 5 19 answered p. 142. to 145. Rom. 8 4 answered p. 145 to p. 152. Rom. 9 31 32 answered p. 153 to 157. Rom. 10 4 answered p. 157 to 162. 1 Cor. 1 30. answered p. 162 163 164. 2 Cor. 5 21 answered p. 165 to 168. Gal. 3 10 answered p. 168. to 173. CAP 6 Six Arguments against the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse propounded and answered As 1. That such an Imputation impeacheth the truth or justice of God answered p. 175 176 177. 2. That this Imputation maketh Iustification to be by workes answered p. 178 179. 3. That such an Imputation is inconsistent with the free grace of God in Iustification answered p. 179 180 4. That this Imputation ministreth occasion of boasting unto the flesh answered p. 180 181 18â— 183. 5. That such an Jmputation supposeth Justification by somewhat that is imperfect answered p. 183 184 185. 6. That such an Imputation implieth that God should rather receive a righteousnesse from us then we from him in our Iustification answered p. 185 186. The opinion opposed in this Discourse of much more affinity with the master-veyne of Socinian Heresie and that by the verdicts of Pareus Piscator and Mr. Gataker then the opinion maintained in it p. 187 188 189. CAP. 7. The chiefe grounds and Arguments for the Imputation of Christs Active obedience in the sense hitherto opposed proposed and answered As 1. That there is no standing in judgement before God without the imputation of this righteousnesse answered p. 192 193. 2. That justification cannot be by the righteousnesse of another except this imputation be supposed answered p. 194 195. 3. That a true and reall Communion betweene Christ and those that beleeve in him cannot stand except this Imputation be granted answered p. 195 196. 4. That there can be no other reason or necessitie assign'd why Christ should fulfill the Law but only this imputation answered from p. 196 to 207. 5. That we are debtors unto the Law not only in matter of punishment for our transgression but in perfection of obedience also answered p. 208 209 210. 6. That there can be no justification without a perfect righteousnesse nor any such righteousnesse but the righteousnesse
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
yea many of them meet by the way in the justification of such before they come to their journeys end yet to justifie the wonderfull and deep wisdome of God as we ought to doe in bringing about this great work of the salvation of the world we must enquire after and find out peculiar and distinct reasons and ends for all that variety of things which is to be found in or about Christ as why he should be God and why he should be Man what both the one and the other of these peculiarly contributes towards the salvation of men why he should be born why born of a Virgin why he should grow up and live till he came to the perfect stature and age of a man why he should be circumcised why fullfill the Law why preach the Gospell before his death why at last he should suffer death why die upon the Crosse why hee should be buried why hee should rise againe c. with many more particulars of like nature that might be mentioned all which have their speciall and peculiar working towards the great worke of salvation as in a benigne constellation every Staire gives out his peculiar influence by himselfe As all Rivers fall into the Sea and meet there in one though the course of their waters lie from all parts under Heaven from the East and from the West from North and South So whatever Christ was and whatever he did spake and suffered though they are things much differing in themselves and in their immediate and proper effects yet they all meet and center in that common and glorious effect the salvation of those that beleeve And for men not to distinguish these in due manner aswell in their effects and purposes as in their natures is not only to confound themselves but which is worse to confound that most exquisite and admirably-beautifull frame of the Gospell and as it were of a defenced City to make a ruinous heap From the guilt of which confusion-making in the Gospell how unpossible it is fairely to acquit such an imputation of Christs righteousnesse as hitherto we have opposed will further appeare in the reasons ensuing Fiftly and lastly if remission of sinnes be but a part of justification SECT 10 and the imputation of Christs righteousnesse must be added as another part of it to make it perfect and compleat then must the formall cause of one and the same effect be double the absurdity which Calvin as we heard truly charged upon the Trent Councellors and Bellarmine as falsely recharged upon him yea that which makes the absurditie swell yet higher one and the same formality or formall part of a thing which is ever most simple and indivissible shall be compacted and compounded of two things not only of a differing but of a diverse yea and of an opposite importance and consideration as the sequell of the businesse rightly interpreted will make manifest For where there is a perfect and compleat righteousnesse imputed as the righteousnesse of Christ is and must be apprehended there is no place for remission of sinnes CAP. XII A fourth reason against the pretended Imputation it frustrates the grace of Adoption MY fourth ground against the supposed imputation of Christs righteousnesse I dispose in this Syllogisme That which dissolves and takes away the necessity and use of that sweet and Euangellicall grace of Adoption SECT 1 cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hold a streight course with the truth of the Gospell But this imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense controverted dissolves and takes away the necessity c. of Adoption Ergo. The proposition I conceive will be yeelded sine sanguine et sudore otherwise the sword of the Spirit the word of God would soone command it The Scriptures speake much of the grace of Adoption or Sonship of beleevers being made the Children and Sonnes of God That we might receive the Adoption of Sons Gal. 4.5 And because yee are Sonnes ver 6. Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Sonne c. ver 7. To passe by other places without number Joh. 1.12 But as many as received him to them hee gave power or prerogative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be made or to become the Sonnes of God Doubtlesse this grace or prerogative of Adoption and Sonne-ship is not given unto men by God in vaine not for the sweet sound only that the letter or name of Adoption makes in the cares it hath relation to some further matter of moment and consequence depending thereon It is given as an immediate capacitie or qualification to those that beleeve to make them capable of their everlasting inheritance their Son-ship is the proper and next ground of that investiture unto them The Scriptures are in nothing more expresse then this If we be Children then also heires even heires of God and heires annexed with Christ Rom. 8.17 So againe Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Son if a Son then an heire of God through Christ Gal. 4 7. As if he should say we are therefore made Sonnes or adopted to be Sonnes that so by right of this Sonship we might be heires of God and by the right of this Heyr-ship come to inherit that immortall undefiled inheritance which fadeth not away with Iesus Christ himselfe The reason or strength of that inference or consequence If Sonnes then Heires seems to stand in this because though amongst men all that are Sons are not Heires if we speake of Sonnes by nature but only he that is the first borne yet Sonship by Adoption I conceive hath alwaies respect to an inheritance a man never adopteth a child but with an intent or purpose to make him his heire So that though in the case of Son-ship by nature it will not follow If Sons then heires yet in the case of Adoption it will And this we know is the case and condition of Beleevers they are Sons of God not by nature but by Adoption Vnlesse perhaps we will rather conceive the reason of the inference to lye in this that the Apostle argueth and concludeth upon the supposition of this truth that the Kingdome of Heaven or that inheritance which God hath provided for his Saints is of another nature and hath a preheminence and perfection above any earthly inheritance as in a thousand other respects so particularly in this that it may be injoyed possessed and inherited by all the Children of God though in number never so many upon such terms that every one may enjoy and possesse the whole and no mans portion or possession here suffers any losse or diminution at all though all his Brethren enjoy the same Portion and possession with him And in this respect haply with some others it may be caâ—ed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the inheritance of the Saints IN LIGHT Colos 1.12 The light of the Sun we know is of that nature and property that it is enjoyed by the whole world and by all the Inhabitants of the
applyed by the said efficients is the matter or materiall part of it So in the justification of a sinner neither is God himselfe who is the principall efficient of this effect of justification neither is Faith which is the iustrumentall efficient of it for God is said in Scripture to justifie men by or through it Rom. 3.30 which for the most part are symptomaticall particles of the instrumentall-efficient cause neither is the righteousnesse of Christ which is the meritorious effiâ—ient cause of it none of these are either matter or forme or any constituting cause of iustification but only remission of sins or absolution from punishment as the sorme applyed unto or put upon the matter and the matter or subject it selfe whereunto this forme is applyed by all the 3 efficients spoken of according to their severall and distinct manner of working viz. the person of the beleever This Argument to him that understands and will seriously consider that unchangable Law mentioned of the 4. kinds rally acknowledged by the contrary-minded themselves in this Controversie But that Christ should be reputed before God to have sinned in me seems unto me an assertion so uncouth and un-Christian that a Christian had need to borrow the eares of a Pagan to hear it with patience However the untruth of it is thus made manifest If Christ be reputed before God to have sinned in me he must be reputed to have had a being in me for as operatio consequitur esse i. the operation of a thing follows and depends upon the being of it so he that supposeth or reputeth a person to have done any thing either good or evill in another must necessarily suppose or repute him to have had a being there But what being Christ should be reputed by God to have had in me being yet an unbeleever is a speculation too high for me to attaine unto Againe Argum. 14 SECT 2 against this supposed imputation I oppose this consideration If the active obedience of Christ be imputed unto me in my justification then is the passive imputed also For there can be no sufficient reason given why the one should be taken and the other left Neither are the adversaries themselves partiall in this point to the one above the other they generally allow place for both in their imputation But that the death or sufferings of Christ are not in the letter and formalitie of them imputed unto me I thus demonstrate If the death and sufferings of Christ be imputed unto me then may I be accounted or reputed to have died and suffered in Christ But I can at no hand be reputed to have died or suffered in Christ Therefore the death and sufferings of Christ are not imputed unto me I meane still in the letter and formality of them as I would be understood in the maâ—or proposition also The reason of the sequel in that proposition is evident from the former argument To have any thing imputed to a man in the letter and formality of it and to be reputed and taken as the doer or sufferer of what is so imputed are termini aequipollentes et sese mutuò explicantes are expressions that differ not in sense but relieve one the other in their significations The Reason of the minor that no man is to be conceived or said to have suffered in Christ is this because in Christ we are justisied and absolved from punishment and therefore cannot be said to have been punished in him He hath made us freely accepted in his beloved Ephes 16. Therefore he poured not out his wrath upon us in his beloved And by his stripes we are healed which is contrary to being wounded or punished 1 Pet. 224. And to say that we suffered or were punished in Christ is in effect to unsay or gainsay what the Gospell every where speaketh touching our Redemption and deâ—iverance from punishment by Christ In what sence the sufferings of Christ may be said to be imputed tobeleevers is 〈◊〉 plained in the Second part cap. 3. Sect. 7. He that knoweth how to reconcile these two may undertake to make light and darknesse friends and needs not feare miscarying in his designe that God should freely forgive us our sinnes and yet punish us for them and that to the full which must be said by those that will say we were punished in Christ If Christ were punished for us or in our stead which is the Scripture language 2 Cor. 5.21 who made him sinne for us doubtlesse we our selves can in no sense wherein words and truth will agree be said to be punished or to have suffered in him One Reason more and no more of this Chapter If the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense so oft-expressed be imputed to us Argum. 15 SECT 3 then are we justifyed at least in part by the Ceremoniall Law This consequence is too good to be denyed because part of that righteousnesse which Christ wrought stood in obedience to the Ceremoniall Law he was circumcised kept the Passeover c. Therfore if the righteousnesse of Christ be imputed unto us in the letter and formality of it that part of his righteousnesse which stood in obedience ceremoniall must be imputed also But that we are not justified either in whole or in part by the Ceremoniall Law is a truth so neare scituate to every mans apprehension that it needs not be brought neerer by force of argumentation If it be replyed that there is no necessity that any part of his righteousnesse Ceremoniall should be imputed because his morall righteousnesse is sufficient for imputation To this I answere First there is no warrant or rule in Scripture thus to rend and teare in pieces the one halfe from the other that which was one entire and compleat righteousnesse in Christ and to take which part we please to our selves and leave the other as a cast piece Secondly if that part only of the righteousnesse of Christ which stood in his obedience to the Morall Law be imputed unto us for righteousnesse in our justification then will there not be found the same way or meanes of justification for the whole body of Christ but the beleeving Jewes before Christs death must be made righteous or justified with one kind of righteousnesse and the Gentiles with another For the Jewes before the death of Christ had a necessitie of both parts of this righteousnesse to be imputed to them in their justification supposing their justification had stood in such an imputation as some stand up to maintaine aswell ceremoniall as morall But that the Jewes should be justified with one kind of righteousnesse and the Gentiles with another as there is no colour of reason that I know to maintaine so there is substance and strength of Scripture to oppose Rom. 3.22.30 Thirdly and lastly that righteousnesse of Christ which is called Morall if separated and divided from the other part which is Ceremoniall was not a compleat and perfect righteousnesse in him because it
imputeing Adams sinne unto them because then an act of God should be as it were the life and soule of that sin which is in men Therfore men are not made formally just or righteous by any act of God imputeing righteousnesse unto them The Argument I conceive is of no easie solution to those who maintain the imputation it selfe of this righteousnesse and not the righteousnesse imputed to be the form of justification Which yet I conceive to be an apprehension every whit as rationall as that which on the other hand maintaineth the righteousnesse it selfe of Christ imputed to be this forme For whether we conceive of justification either under the notion of a relation being a new condition come upon the person justified which seems to be the best and truest notion of it or whether we conceive it as a passion besides which two I know no predicament a I nature that can be put upon it certainly no righteousnesse whatsovâ— properly so called much lesse the righteousnesse of another then of the person justified can be the forme of it It is unpossible that one predicament or predicamentall being should informe another and that righteousnesse whether we speake of that which is habituall or that which is actuall belongeth neither to the predicament of relation nor to that of passion is better known to Logicians then to be made matter of disputation The oyle in the cruse doth not yet faile SECT 5 There are some drops still of further reason to exaucthorize the opinion of this imputation If justification consists partly in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse partly in remission of sinnes then must there be a double formall cause of justification and that made up and compounded of two severall natures really differing the one from the other But this is unpossible Ergo. With the rod of this Argument Calvin scourg'd those Fathers of Trent for joyning regeneration or infusion of grace with remission of sins in justification as we heard before which supposing him a man but tolerably sound or sober in his intellectualls is a demonstration in abundance that his meaning never was to place Iustification in any imputation of righteousnesse really distinct from remission of sins but that his apprehensions in this point were praecise et formaliter the same with this Country-mans of latter times who calls Remission of sins that righteousnesse which is imputed (a) Remissio peccatorum est justitia imputata Chamier Panstrat t. 3. l. 21. cap. 19. see 10. Idem sunt justificatio et Remissio peccatorum Vismus Cat. part 2. Qu. 60. sect 3. Whose meaning by the way is not as some of the opposite party in this cause have catch'd and quarrel'd with like expressions from others as if God in justification did imputeremission of sins unto men and in this sence remission of sins should be called the righteousnesse which is imputed but that God really remitting and forgiving mens sinnes such remission and forgivenesse may well be called an imputed righteousnes partly because it is no absolute legall or text righteousnesse but a righteousnesse by interpretation or construction of favour partly because such a righteousnesse as it is it is notwithstanding given in the strength and mediation of the righteousnesse merit and satisfaction of another which is Christ Let us yet heare and not be wearie what both reason and Religion can further speake against this imputation so much spoken for SECT 6 If such imputation be necessary in justification Argum. 20 this necessity must be found either in respect of the justice of God because otherwise he could not be just in pronouncing men righteous or in respect of his mercie or for the salving or advanceing of some other Attribute c. But there is no necessity of bringing in such an imputation into justification in respect of any of these Therfore it is brought in without any necessity at all and consequently must of necessity be cast out againe The Protectors of it themselves assigne no other necessity of it but onely in respect of Gods justice God they say cannot salvâ justiciâ with the safety of his justice pronounce a man righteous that is not righteous their meaning is according to the strict and literall righteousnesse of the Law But to this I answere First that there is nothing at all necessarie to be done either by God himselfe or by man about the justification of a sinner by way of satisfaction to the Justice of God since that one offering of Christ of himselfe upon the crosse Otherwise there must be found somwhat defective or wanting in that satisfaction If the justice of God be fully and every waies satisfied and provided for by the death of Christ as concerning the Iustification of sinners doubtlesse there remaines nothing further as necessarie to be done either by God or by man or by any other creature for the satisfaction of the same Justice Therfore if God should impute the righteousnesse of Christ unto men in this case some other end or pretext for it must be sought out not any provision for or satisfaction to his justice The infinite valour of Christs passives must not be abated or drawn down to make way for an imaginatie exaltation of his actives The necessity of Faith to Iustification which is a necessity confessed and acknowledged by all â—â—yâ—th not in reference to Gods Justice as if any man satisfied that either in whoâ—e or in part by beleeving but the necessity of it respecteth either his wisdome or the counsaile of his will as the Apostles expression is Eph. 1.11 He judged it not meet not counted it unjust to save men in any other way by the satisfaction of Christ then by the way of Faith This is the WILL of him that sent me saith our Saviour Ioh 6.40 not the righteousnes or Iustice of him that sent me that every man which seeth the Sonne and beleeveth in him should have everlasting life If there were nothing else to hâ—nder but want of satisfaction to divine iustice doubtlesse the whole world should be saved Vehemens in Deâ— est ad homini benefaciendum affectus quem eousque puratus est extendere quâ—â—â—l IVSTICIA vlle modo permittit Corvin Cersur Anatom p. 79. without any more adoe And therfore by the way that saying of Arnoldus in his Censure of Molineus p. 79. is deeply taxable except he can best â—â—e himselfe to make an aâ—tonemâ—nt for the hardnesse of his text with a soft interpretation There is saith he a strong affection in God to doe good to man and this affection he is still ready to act or exercise as far as ever his justice will give him leave Secondly whereas it was sayd that God cannot SECT 7 with the safety of his justice or truth pronounce a man righteous that is not so indeed with a legall righteousnesse litterally and properly so called I answere that doubtlesse he may aswell and as truely pronounce and cal that man righteous that
and agreeable to that nature in him which we call JUSTICE or severity against sinne and if he had pardoned sinne without it he had lost or passed over an opportunity of the declaration and manifestation of it to the world but had done nothing repugnant to it or to the prejudice or disparagement of it And thus far I can willingly subscribe to the opinion But whether such a free and satisfactionlesse condonation may be conceived to have had any possible consistence with the wisdome of God and therefore whether it had bin simply possible or no I am yet somewhat unsatisfied For a man to over-slip an opportunity that might lawfully be taken hold of and managed by him to some speciall advantage to himselfe either in point of Reputation Estate c. or the like is repugnant to the principles of sound wisdome and discretion but not of Justice at least not of Justice properly so called And the Holy Ghost Heb. 2.11 making it a thing so well becoming God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. For it became him c. intending to bring many children unto glory to consecrate the Prince of their salvation through sufferings i. not to save men without the death and sufferings of Christ seems rather to ascribe this cariage and method of the businesse to the wisdome of God then to his Justice But because confidence requires better grounds then present conceptions and apprehensions I forbeare further contending about the point in hand for the present Only I desire this may be considered and remembred as fully evident from the tenour of the Conclusion last estsblished that neither did the Law require of Christ the suffering of those things which he suffered nor were the things which he suffered every waies the same though in consideration value and importance the same fully with those the suffering whereof the Law threatned against all transgressors CAP. III. Certaine distinctiōs propounded and explained necessary for the further understanding of the businesse in question and the cleering of many difficulties incident to it THe word Iustification is taken in a double sense Distincti 1 SECT 1 either actively or passively In the active signification as farre as concern's the question in hand and as the Scripture use of it extendeth in the great businesse of the Justification of a sinner before God it most usually signifieth that act of God whereby he justifieth i. absolveth a beleeving sinner from the guist of and punishment due to his sinnes It may in this active signification signifie also any act of any other efficient cause of Iustification whatsoever of which kind there are many as we shall shew afterwards whereby it operates or contributes any thing towards this effect the justification of a sinner Yea to this active signification of the word may be referred the act of the forme it selfe or formall cause of Iustification which also in a way proper to it may be said to justify In the passive sense justification may signifie the effect it selfe of any or of all the former actions but most properly and frequently it signifieth that comcompleate and intire effect wherein all their severall influences and contributions meet and center together viz. that alteration or change which is made in the person or rather in the estate or condition of a person when he is justified which effect alteration or change standeth in this that whereas he was before the passing of such an act upon him a man under the guilt of sinne and liable to condemnation now he is a free man acquited and discharged from both In the former sense justification is atributed to God 1 Rom. 8.30 Whom he hath called them also he hath justified c. and ver 33. it is God that justifieth and so to Faith often In the latter sense it is attributed to or spoken of men Rom. 5.1 Therefore being justified by Faith c. and ver 18. Even so by the righteousnesse or justification of one the free guift came upon many to the justification of life i. to the full discharge and acquitting them from all sinne upon which life and salvation alwaies follow So that if the Question be asked what our justification is or wherein it stands it must first be inquired what justification it is that the Question intends for active justification is one thing and passive another and answere is to be made accordingly In like manner remission of sinnes signifieth either Gods act whereby he remitteth a manssinnes or else the effect of this act in and upon him whose sinnes are so remitted And generally all actions either have or in sufficient propriety of speech may have the same name with their proper passions or effects yea and sometimes with the relations resulting from them As calefaction frigefaction c. It is true there are severall other acceptions and significations of the word Iustification besides absolution from sinne when it is or as it may be used in other cases or upon other occasions as Christ himselfe is said to have bin justified 1 Tim. 16. who yet had no sinnes forgiven him and Abraham is said to have bin justified by workes Jam. 2.21 who yet had not his sinnes forgiven by or through his works So a man that is falsely accused may be justified and yet have no offence forgiven him as Christ was by Pilate when he professed that he found no fault in him Luk 23.4 But in the case and Iustification of a sinner before God the word justification still signifies and imports absolution from or remission of sinnes together with the punishment due to them Neither can there any instance be produced from the Scriptures of any other signification Iustice or righteousnesse Distincti 2 SECT 2 hath severall acceptions in the Scriptures when it is atributed unto God it signifies sometimes that universall and absolute holynesse and integritie of his nature which maketh him infinitely averse from doing any thing little or much contrary to the true rules of Iustice and Equity and inclines him only to do things agreeable hereunto Thus it seemes to be taken Psal 11.7 For the righteous Lord loveth righteousnesse c. So Dan. 9.14 Rove 16.5 besides many other places Sometimes againe and that very frequently it signifieth that nature in God which we commonly call truth or faithfulnesse in keeping promise Thus it is taken Psal 36.6 Thy righteousnesse is like the great Mountaines i. thy truth in thy promises can never be shaken or removed Thus Heb. 6.10 God is said not to be unrighteous i. as Paraeus well interprets not unfaithfull in his promise c. So againe 1 Ioh. 1.9 God is faith full and Iust to forgive us our sinnes i. constant in his promise this way Thirdly by the righteousnesse of God is often meant that gracious affection and disposition of his towards his people by reason whereof he is still propense and inclineable to doe them good as either to relieve and support them in trouble or to
the third and last sense the severall parts of whitenesse that are in the wall as the whitenesse that is above and the whitenesse that is beneath that which is on the right hand and that which is on the left with that which is in the midst are the matter of that area or whole extent of whitenesse which is in the wall In this sense the three lines whereof a triangle is made is said to be the matter of the triangle and letters and syllables to be the matter of a word and words the matter of a sentence c. But there is no accident whatsoever that hath any matter properly so called nor any actioÌ„ any other matter properly or unproperly or however called but only the subject matter or object on which it is acted and wherein it is terminated and received What hath been said concerning this materiall cause is dilligently to be remembred and carried along with us to the businesse of Justification because it much concern's one veyne of the Question or controversie depending The fourth and last head of causes SECT 8 was that which is called the Forme or formall cause of a thing This cause is divided or distinguished into that which is properly and that which is improperly so called The forme properly so called is that cause which together with the matter properly so called constitutes and makes up a substantiall compounded body This kinde of forme is alwaies it selfe a substance and not an accident and still the more noble or principall part of that body which it informeth The particular species of it are not knowne but onely by the properties and operations which flow from them respectively The forme or formall cause of a thing unproperly so called which is that kinde of forme wherewith only we have to doe in the businesse of Iustification is allwaies a thing of that inferior nature or being which we call accidentall or adjunctive Because it is still susteyned in ir's being in some other nature which is substantiall and hath no subsistence in or by it selfe yet hath not this forme the denomination of a forme alwaies in regard of the subject wherein it hath it's being and to which it gives a kinde of being also as learning gives a man his being learned c. but in regard of that action or motion whereby it is introduced into the subject and is therefore called the forme of an action motion or alteration not because it gives any other kinde of being to any of these for it rather receives it's being from them but only a being knowne and distinguished from all other actions or motions whatsoever For actions or motions as calefaction frigefaction and so Redemption Iustification salvation c. are severally knowne and distinguished one from another and so from every other action or motion whatsoever besides by that proper forme impression or alteration which they introduce and make in their subjects or objects about which they are exercised and acted respectively as the heat or warmth which is caused in my hand by the fire maketh that action of the fire by which it is caused not simply to be but to be known to be that action which we call calefaction or warming and none other iâ— beiâ—g unpossible that such a forme or impressiâ—n as heate is should be introduced into any subject but by such an action as calefaction or warming is In this case the heate which is caused in my hand may be called the forme of calefaction not because it gives a being unto it which is the proper notion and consideration of a forme but rather because it receives it's being from it and so gives it a manifestation or distinction from other actions which is one property of a forme properly so called according to the knowne maxime in Logique which teacheth us that the forme includes or presupposeth 3 things 1º the being of a thing 2º the distinction of it 3º the operation of it (a) Posita forma tria ponuntur 1 esse res 2 distinctio rei 3 operatio rei And doubtlesse the terme or notion of a forme can in no other respect or at least in none so proper be ascribed unto actions or motions as in this viz. because those qualities impressions alterations relations c. which they cause and produce in their subjects have this analogie or proportion with formes properly so called that they give distinction unto them as these do to those things or natures which they informe though in another respect they be opposite to them as hath bin said formes properly called still giving a being to the things whereof they are formes whereas these formes appropriated to actions alwaies receive their beings from them So then to aske or inquire concerning the forme of any action as Iustification Redemption or the like what it is is but to aske what is the name nature property or condition of that effect impression or alteration which is immediately and precisely caused and produced by it in that subject matter whether person or thing whereon it is acted Thus to aske what is the forme of that action which we call frigefaction or cold-making is but to aske what the name and nature of that impression or alteration is which is caused thereby in that subject whereon it worketh And that happily may be one maine reason of the difficulty which is apprehended and of the intricatenesse and confusion that are found amongst many writers touching the forme of Iustification because the formes of Actions are seldome made matter of Question or inquirie either in Philosophie or Divinity or in any other Art or Science as farre as my weake learning and memory have taken notice neither do I remember for the present any Question on foote at this day touching either the matter or especially the forme of any action but only this of Iustification Nor have I met with any which do so much as plainely perspicuously and distinctly declare and explicate what they meane by this forme of Iustification whereby it may I conceive easily come to passe that Authors may be at a losse one of another and scarce one of many cleerely understand the minde and meaning either of his fellow or his opposite in this point Having with what convenient brevity we could SECT 9 discoursed and layd downe the number nature and kinds of causes so farre as I conceived the knowledge and consideration of them necessary to a distinct explication and understanding of the Doctrine of IustificatioÌ„ as it lies in the veines of the Scriptures Come we now roundly and cheerefully on to draw up the Doctrine it selfe according to the direction and importance of what hath bin delivered herein I begin with the efficient causes of Iustification which are many and those of very different consideration Haply it will not be necessary if possible to insist upon all that stand in this relation of causalitie unto it The Principall naturall efficient cause according 〈◊〉 the
description of this cause given of Iustification is God himselfe Father Son and Holy Ghost considered is one and the same simple and intire essence though this act of justification as that of creation and some others besides is in special manner appropriated to the first person of the three the Father as other acts are to the other two persons Redemption to the Son Sanctification to the Holy Ghost c. in both which notwithstanding all the three persons being but one and the same intâ—re and undivided essence must needs be interesâ—ed Thus Rom. 8.33 where it is said that it is God that justifieth it is meant by way of appropriation of God the Father because there is mention made of Christ the second person immediately it is Christ that is dead c. Now that God is that kinde of cause of Iustification which hath bin attributed to him and no other is evident from the description of this cause formerly layd downe Sect. 4. of this Chapter For 1º that he is a cause of Iustification is the consent of all men without exception besides the Scripture lately cited Rom. 8. is full and pregnant this way It is God that justifieth 2º that he is neither the matter nor the forme of Iustification is sufficiently evident of it selfe neither did ever any man affirme either the one or the other of him and besides we shall cleere this further when we come to inquire after these causes 3º that he is not the end or finall cause of Iustification appeares from that property or condition of this cause mentioned Sect. 3. viz that it is to be atteyned or receive it's being by meanes of that thing whereof it is the end which cannot be verified of God or his being in respect of Iustification inasmuch as these no way depend upon it This likewise will further appeare when we come to lay downe the finall cause Therefore 4º and lastly he must of necessity be the efficient cause of Iustification there being no fift kinde of cause whereunto he should be reduced Secondly SECT 10 that he is the principall efficient cause and not instrumentall is evident also because he is not assum'd acted or made use of by any other in or about the justification of a sinner but himselfe projecteth the whole frame and cariage of all things yea and manageth and maketh use of all things instrumentally concurring or belonging thereunto It is God that justifieth the Gentiles by or through Faith Gal. 3.8 so Rom. 3.30 c. God maketh use of Faith and so of his word and of the Ministers of his word to produce Faith in the hearts of men and consequently to justifie them but none of these can be said to act or make use of God in or about this great effect Thirdly that he is the Naturall efficient cause of Iustification according to the notion and description of this cause given Sect. 5. is evident because in the exercising or putting forth this act of Iustification he acteth and worketh out of that authority and power which are essentiall and connaturall to him and not out of any superadded or acquired principle of art or otherwise whereof he is wholly uncapable It is true he is moved to the exercise of this act of â—ustifying men by somewhat that is extrinsecall and not essentiall to him viz. the intercession of the death and sufferings of Christ yet the act it selfe in the exercise of it proceeds by vertue of that authority and power which are estentiall to him as hath bin said No creature can be said to justifie or forgive any man his sinnes no not by Christ but God alone Who can forgive sinnes but God onely Mar. 2.7 Fourthly SECT 11 the Morall or internall impulsive cause of Iustification as it is an act of God is that infinite love goodnesse mercy sweetnesse and graciousnesse in God himselfe towards his poore creature Man looked upon as miserable and lying under condemnation for sinne This was the moving and procuring cause of the guift of Christ and his death and sufferings from him and consequently of that justification which is procured and purchased by Christ and his sufferings So God loved the world that hee gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever beleeveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life viz by Iustification through him Ioh. 3.16 Fiftly the externall Morall or impulsive efficient cause of this act of God is the Lord Iesus Christ himselfe in or through his death and sufferings or which is the same the death and sufferings of Iesus Christ God looking upon Christ as such and so great a sufferer for the sinnes of men is thereby strengthened and provoked to deliver those that beleeve in him from their sinnes and that condemnation which is due unto them i. to justifie them The Scripture is cleere in laying downe this cause Even as God for Christs sake freely forgave you viz. your sinnes i. justified you Ephe. 4.32 Those words for Christs sake are a plaine and perfect character of that kinde of cause we now speake of This with the former i. both internall and externall impussive or moving causes are joyn'd together Rom. 3.24 And are justified freely by his grace here is the inward impulsive cause of Justification through the Redemption that is in Christ Iesus viz. by meanes of his death and sufferings here is the outward moving cause we speake of Neither can the Death and sufferings of Christ with any shew of reason or with any tolerable construction or congruitie of speaking be referred to any other cause in the businesse of justification but the impulsive only He that would make Christ the instrumentall cause of Iustification (a) Mr. Walker Socinian discovered c. p. 138. discovers himselfe to be no great Gamaliel in this learning and had need thrust his Faith out of doores as he doth in many places and not suffer it to have any thing at all to doe about his Iustification least his Christ and his Faith should be corrivalls and contend for preheminence therein And yet more repugnant to reason is it to make either Christ himselfe or any righteousnesse of his whatsoever either the matter or materiall cause of Justification which yet the Socinian Discoverer doth (b) Ibid. p. 139 or the forme or formall cause thereof which is done by some others But that is a streyne of unreasonablenesse above all the rest to make either Christ or his righteousnesse both the formall and materiall cause too of this great act of God we speake of the Justification of a sinner these causes being of so opposite a nature and different consideration as hath bin described and yet even this conceit also hath found enterteynment with some To this kinde of cause we now speake of must be reduced also the active or personall righteousnesse of Christ as farre as it hath any influence into or any waies operates towards the justificatioÌ„ of a siner For though it be not satisfactory
inhereth or whereby it is supported in being the righteousnesse of Christ hath no dependance at all in respect of the being of it upon Iustification Not in the latter because that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner is not acted or exercised upon or about the righteousnesse of Christ nor terminated in this neither is there any change or alteration made in the righteousnes of Christ by that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner which yet must be if it were that matter we now speake of that is the object of Justification Because Iustification being a transient act in God it must of necessitie make some change or alteration in that upon which it falleth or is acted whatsoever it be the truth is that the righteousnesse of Christ being as hath bin proved the efficient impulsive cause of Iustification rather acteth and worketh upon God then he upon it when he iustifieth any man Therefore doubtlesse the righteousnesse of Christ can in no sense agreeable to truth and ordinary construction of speech be called the matter of Iustification Wherefore in the last place concerning the matter of or materiall cause of Iustification SECT 16 it can be none other but either the subject or the object of â—ustification that is either God himselfe or the person that is to be iustified For as for that kinde of matter which we called ex qua matter properly so called Iustification being an act or action is altogether uncapable of it as hath bin already said Neither hath any action whatsoever any materiall cause at all in this sense It remaineth therefore that the matter of Justification must be of that kinde of matter which is lesse properly so called whereof there are but these two species or sorts as hath bin said the matter in qua and the matter circa quam i. the the subject and the object If we take the subject of Iustification or him on whom the act it selfe of Iustification in respect of the production and being of it dependeth and will call that the matter of it then God himselfe must be the matter we inquire after because the act of Iustification in respect of the raising and bringing forth of it dependeth only upon him But this I confesse is a very uncouth and proper expression to call God the matter of justification neither hath the tongue or pen of any man I conceive ever taken any pleasure in it Or if by the subject of Iustification we understand the subjectum recipieâ—s that is the subject receiving and wherein the act of Iustification is terminated which is as proper a signification of the word as the other the old tried rule being that actio est in patiente tanquam in subjecto then the subject and the object will prove but one and the same viz the person that is to be iustified that is the beleeving sinner Thus it is in all other actions likewise the subject receiving the action or impression of the Agent and the object upon which the Agent acteth or worketh are still the same And for any other matter of Iustification besides that which hath bin now assign'd viz. the sinner who beleeveth I verily beleeve there is none to be found who though he be both the object and subject in the sense given of Iustification yet may he more properly be called the matter of Iustification as he is the object then as the subject thereof because the notion of matter better agreeth of the two to that which is called circà quam or the object then to the other which is the subject And this for the matter or materiall cause of Iustification the person to be iustified or beleeving sinner Fourthly and lastly to make forward towards the consideration and inquirie of the formall cause of Iustification SECT 17 about which the tongues and pens of men are turn'd into the sharpest swords First for the Popish opinion which as Bellarmine describes it from the Counsell of Trent subscribing himselfe also with both hands unto it (a) Certe concilium causam formalem justificatioâ—â— in ipsi us justitie infusione constituit c. Bellarm. De Iustific lib. 2. c. 2. versus sinem placeth the formall cause of Iustification in the infusion of inherent righteousnesse I shall not make it matter of long confutation The opinion is built upon another opinion as rotten as it viz. perfection of inherent righteousnesse for if this be found to be imperfect and it will never be found other till this mortall hath put on immortalitie the credit of that other opinion is lost and that by consent of their owne principles who teach that in Iustification men are made perfectly and compleately righteous So that any one sinne little or great veniall or mortall proceeding from any one of their iustified ones utterly overthrowes the opinion of their Church touching the formall cause of Iustification It stands them in hand if they desire to build up this determination of their Councell with authority and honour to raise the levell of another enterprize of theirs and to prove not only a possibilitie but a necessity also of a perfect observation of the Law of God by those that are iustified and regenerate When they have quitted themselves like men in this and have layd the foundations of such a necessitie firme and strong we shall haply then consider further of their Doctrine touching the formall cause of Iustification in the meane time we shall be at libertie to make inquirie after a better Yet Secondly SECT 18 I conceive the Doctrine of the late Socinian Discoverer touching the same businesse to be no whit better but rather at a farre deeper defiance both with reason and truth The formall cause of Justification saith he (a) Mr. George Walker Socinian Discovered p. 139. is that communion betweene Christ and us and that reciprocall imputation of our sinnes to Christ and of his righteousnesse and full satisfaction to us which communion ariseth and floweth from the spirit which God sheds on us through Christ which spirit dwelling in us in some measure so as he dwelleth in the man Christ from whom he is derived to us doth make us one spirituall body with Christ and workes in us Faith and all holy graces and affections by which we adhere and cleave to Christ and apply and inioy his righteousnesse c. Doubtlesse here is a great deale too much matter to make a good forme The essentiall character of a forme or formall cause is to be a single simple and uncompounded being whereas that which is here presented to us for the forme of Justification is rudis indigestaque moles an indigested heape of compositions Surely this forme is so deformed that the Author need nor feare any corrivall or competitor with him for it Quin sine rivali seque et sua solus amabit For 1º if the Iustification we speake of or the forme of it stands in that communion which is betweene Christ and us then Christ
himselfe is iustified with the same Iustification wherewith sinners are iustified and consequently hath sinnes forgiven him aswell as they Because that communion which is betweene Christ and us who beleeve is but one and the same Communion and wherein Christ partakes aswell as we Therefore if the same forme of Iustification be found in him which is in us the same Iustification must be found in him or on him likewise 2º That communion which is betweene Christ and those that beleeve cannot be the formall cause of Iustification because it is no righteousnesse nor conformity with any Law either directly or indirectly either properly and precisely or by way of equivalencie and interpretatively himselfe likewise affirming p. 138 that in the act of iustification God makes men righteous by the perfect righteousnesse and full satisfaction of Christ expressing hereby if be expresseth any thing the formall cause at least according to his owne apprehension of Iustification So then the communion which is betweene Christ and us being a farre differing thing from the righteousnesse and full satisfaction of Christ it followes as well agreeably to his owne pen as to the truth it selfe that the Communion he speakes of is not the formall cause of Iustification 3º The formall cause of Iustification SECT 19 must needs be as we shall hereafter further demonstrate the proper impression or effect of the act of Iustification and consequently the effect of God who justifieth or exerciseth that act that is of God the Father as himselfe rightly supposeth p. 137. whereas that Communion betweene Christ and us which hee speakes of ariseth and floweth as himselfe also acknowledgeth in the passage cited from the Holy Ghost Therefore unpossible it is that this Communion should bee theformall cause of Iustification 4º This Communion betweene Christ and us is a consequent of our Iustification and taketh not place hath no being till after we be fully and compleately iustified This himselfe likewise upon the matter acknowledgeth in the words cited affirming that it ariseth and floweth from the Spirit which God sheds on us through Christ c. Now that the Spirit is not shed upon us till after or upon our beleeving and consequently till after we be iustified for Iustification followeth Faith as close as imagination it selfe can imagine is evident from those and many the like Scriptures This spake he of the Spirit which they that believed in him should receive c. John 7.39 And God which knoweth the heart gave them witnesse viz. that they truly beleeved as appeares from the former verse in giving unto them the Holy Ghost even as he did unto us Act. 15.8 Then Peter said unto them Amend your lives and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ for the Remission of sinnes and yee shall receive the guift of the Holy Ghost Act. 2.38 They were to beleeve before they were Baptized but the receiving of the Holy Ghost is promised after See further to this purpose Act. 6.5 Act. 8.15.16 Act. 11.17 with the 15. Act. 19.2 c. So then the Communion that is betweene Christ and us flowing from the Spirit which God sheds on us through Christ and this act of sheding being still performed by God after or upon our beleeving and consequently after or upō our compleate Iustificatiō it undeniably followes that this Communion cannot be the formall cause of our JUSTIFICATION because this is accomplished and accomplished it cannot be without the formall part or cause of it in being before the other receives it's being 5º SECT 20 If the communion that is betweene Christ and us were the formall cause of Iustification Christ himselfe might be truly said to be iustified by the same act of Iustification with us This is evident because the Communion spoken of relates aswell to him as to us and is inherent in him as much as in us and whatsoever partakes of the same forme or formall cause with another is doubtlesse in respect of this form capable of the same denominatiō with it If the forme of that Iustification be as well or as much in Christ as it is in us Christ may as wel be said to be iustified thereby as we But to say that Christ should be iustified by that communion which is betweene him and us is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a hard saying to the tender cares of Christians Therefore certainly though that Communion which is betweene Christ and us be a sweete and precious thing yet is it not the formall cause of Iustification no more then Samuel was therefore Isaak Abrahams Son because he was a good Sonne like him And 6o. If the Communion betweene Christ and us be the formall cause of Iustificatton then is not the reciprocall imputation of our sinnes to Christ and of his righteousnesse and full satisfaction to us this cause also which is yet affirmed by the same Author and with the same breath This consequence is pregnant and conquering because this reciprocall imputation is an act of God the Father and so supposed by the Author himselfe and if rightly understood not with any variation from the truth whereas the Communion mentioned floweth from the Holy Ghost as hath bin already observed and is here likewise expressely affirmed Now unpossible it is that two acts really differing the one from the other should ever so combine or incorporate as to make the forme or formall cause of any thing which as hath bin said is alwaies a single and simple being and voyd of composition This reason stands in force though we take his reciprocall imputation which he joynes with his communion to make up the forme of Iustification in a passive sense viz. for the effect of that act of God whereby he maketh that reciprocall imputation For neither can two effects really differing ever so complie or consent together to simplisie one the other as to raise a third thing or being betweene them of simplicitie enough to make the formall being of any thing 7º Neither can this reciprocall imputation taken by it selfe be the formall cause of Iustification because 1º it comprehends and includes two severall and distinct acts of God or two distinct and severall effects of two such acts of his The imputation of our sinnes to Christ is an act or effect really differing from the imputation of his righteousnesse and satisfaction unto us This is evident because as the rendring Christ obnoxious unto death is a thing really differing and of opposite consideration from the making of us righteous and capable of life so the acts by which these are effected must needs be really differing also the one from the other Now as hath bin already argued it is unpossible that any forme or formall cause should be made of any pluralitie of ingredients or be a composition made of severall things really differing the one from the other 2º It is impossible that this reciprocall imputation should be the forme we inquire after because only the beleeving sinner
as hath bin fully proved Sect. 16. is the matter of Iustification Now the forme of a thing at least the accidentall forme which is the kinde of forme under inquirie is alwaies found in conjunction and union with the matter proper to it and never in any other Christ therefore being no beleeving sinner and consequently no fitting or possible matter for the forme of that Iustification whereof we speake to be coupled with it cannot be that the imputation of our sinnes to him should either be this forme it selfe or any part of it 3º No imputation whatsoever nor of whatsoever can be the forme of Iustification 1º because it is no righteousnesse either in one kinde or other neither a righteousnesse literally or properly so called nor yet a righteousnesse by way of interpretation whereas the forme of Iustification whatsoever it be must of necessity be a righteousnesse either of the one kinde or of the other It is true a righteousnesse imputed supposing such imputation is a righteousnesse but the imputation of this righteousnesse can be noe righteousnesse Therefore no imputation whatsoever can be the forme of Iustification 2º Every forme or formall cause gives according to the nature of it a sutable denomination to the subject whereunto it is united as heat gives the denomination of hot to the fire and learning the denomination of learned to the man endued with it c. But no imputation gives any sutable denomination to the persons to whom it is made or in whom it inheres men are not said to be imputed this or that for any imputation made Therefore imputation is noe forme at all and consequently not the forme or formall cause of Iustification 8º The Author himselfe within a very few lines after the words lately cited from him falls off from his reciprocall imputation and affirmes the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe to be this formall cause of Justification calling it our formall righteousnesse But this is but one drope of that powreing shower of contradictions which hath fallen from his pen upon that discourse and stands in swamps and plashes all over it 9º SECT 21 and lastly in all this voluminous and multiformed description of the formall cause of Iustification there is not the least mention to be found of forgivenesse of sinnes as neither within the whole compasse of that draught of the Doctrine of Iustification which in severall pages together of the discourse mentioned he presents unto the world as if Iustification and remission of sinnes were like Samaritan and Iew which have no dealings one with another (a) Ioh. 4.9 Whereas Reformed Divines generally and I thinke I may say without exception never handle the Doctrine of Iustification especially never professe to assigne or explicate the formall cause thereof without mention making of remission or forgivenesse of sinnes conceiving them to be things of the most arct and neerest affinitie that may be as indeed they are The opinion and description last cited touching the formall cause of justification containes matter of more particular grievances then have yet bin touch'd or complained of But because I conceive the unreasonablenesse of it a sufficient caution and securitie against the infection and propagation of it and that no man will ever be so hard put to it for a formall cause of Iustification as to take up that I shall therefore for the present with that chastisement and correction which it hath already received let it goe But thirdly Neither can that opinion stand which maketh the imputation or application of the righteonsnesse of Christ SECT 22 the formall cause of Justification a We teach that Christs righteousnesse both habituall and actuall by which he was formally just is the matter and the imputation thereof â—s the foâ—me of Iustification Bish Downham Tre. of Iustifi lib. 1 c. 5. Sect. 2. See more to this purpose immediatly following where he citeth also the Magdeburgenses Scharpius as being of the same judgement with him Against this opinion we argued in the latter part of our refutation of the former where we evictingly proved that no imputation whatsoever or of whatsoever could possibly be the forme of Iustification The plea is at hand in the last Section save one therefore I repeate nothing thereof Only I adde as of further consideration against this opinion 10 that if the righteousnesse of Christ be the matter of Iustification which the opinion maintaineth and the imputation hereof the forme then one righteousnesse must be the forme of another righteousnesse because the forme of Justification as hath bin often said must needs be a righteousnesse and so is acknowledged and termed by the Author himselfe (b) Foâ— the righteousnesse wherby a man is formally just is inherent in himselfe c. Bish Downham Vbi supra So that if the matter hereof be a righteousnesse and the forme a righteousnesse also one righteousnesse must informe another which is I conceive a greater burthen of absurdity then the reason of any considering man can beare Secondly if imputation be the forme and the righteousnesse of Christ the matter of Iustification then that which is lesse perfect and of an inferior being shall be the complement and perfection of that which is more perfect and of a superior being it being a generall and knowne maxime that the forme still actuateth the matter and adds a further degree of being and perfection unto it Now this imputation we speake of being and that by the full consent and acknowledgment of the Authors of the opinion somewhat inherent in the person justified and intrinsecall to him (a) For the righteousnesse wherby a man is formally just is inherent in himselfe for what is more intrinsecall then the forme Bishop Downham Iusti lib. 1. c. 5. Sect. â— must needs be of inferior worth and value to the righteousnesse of Christ Neither indeed can it well be conceived how any thing at all should be for mall or of a perfecting or actuating nature in respect of the righteousnesse of Christ Thirdly neither doe the Scriptures any way favour this opinion or complie with it in any expression found in them nor doe I finde the Authors themselves so much as pretending any Scripture approbation of their judgment in this kinde Fourthly and lastly if the judgement of the late Bishop of Sarisburie a learned man doubtlesse though a Bishop be of any authoritie he is absolutely declared against the imputation of Christs righteousnesse and pleades for the righteousnesse it selfe imputed as the formall cause of Iustification The most perefect obedience saith he (b) Christi Mediatoris in nobis habitantu atque per spiritum sese nobu unientis persectissima obedientia est formalu causae justificationu nostrae Bishop Davenant De Iustic Habit. c. 22. p. 313. of Christ the Mediator dwelling in us and uniting himselfe by his Spirit to us is the formall cause of our Iustification c. And if his testimony be of any value Reformed Authors generally are
of Christ Therefore he that gives this forme to any man in the formalitie of it gives the redemption and salvation of the world to him with it If it be here objected and said its true the Redemption and salvation of the world follow the righteousnesse of Christ as it was performed by him and personally inherent in him not as it is imputed to men that beleeve I answere 1º that in this objection the Question is begg'd and that supposed which is the maine hinge of the controversie viz. the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in the formalitie of it a Position that stands convicted in the former part of this Treatise of manifest untruth by the testimonies of many witnesses both Divine and humane 2◠I answere yet further that the meritoriousnesse of the righteousnesse of Christ supposing such a propertie in it must needs be essential to it and inseparable from it It is not an adventitious or contingent propertie but connaturall to it seated and rooted in the very intrinsecall and constituting principles of it So that whatsoever be done with it whatsoever becomes of it to whomsoever it be imputed this meritoriousnesse of it goeth along with it and may be ascribed to whomsoever the righteousnesse it selfe may be ascribed Yea supposing this propertie we speake of this meritoriousnesse in the righteousnesse of Christ we must consequently suppose it to be so essentiall and intrinsecall to it that the righteousnesse it selfe must needs be destroyed and turn'd into another righteousnesse of an inferior kind and importance if that be separated from it As suppose a piece of gold to be of such a value as for example worth ten shillings or the like to whomsoever this piece shall be given there must of necessitie the value or worth also of ten shillings bee given therewith unto him the just value and worth of a thing being inseparable from the thing it selfe at least the thing it selfe inseparable from it 3o It would be knowne by what warrant either of Scripture or good reason men should make this a point of their Faith that God when he imputes the righteousnesse of Christ unto men should strip it naked of the meritoriousnesse of it and so make it a righteousnesse more worth-lesse and vile then any positive righteousnesse whatsoever consisting of workes can be For it is essentiall to every such righteousnesse whether perform'd by men or Angells or by whomsoever to be meritorious at least of the justification of the person in whom it is found This lyeth full and faire in that of the Apostle Rom. 4.4 To him that worketh i. that perfectly observeth the Law the wages is not counted by faver but of debt Therefore i◠the righteousnesse of Christ when it is imputed to beleevers be devested of that which is the glory of it above all other righteousnesse I meane the meritoriousnesse of it it suffers losse and disadvantage and is not at all exalted or magnified by imputation This for the objection Sixtly SECT 26 if the righteousnesse of Christ be the formall cause of justification this must be verified either of the morall righteousnesse of Christ alone or of his Ceremoniall righteousnesse alone or of his Mediatory righteousnesse alone or of all or some two of these together But neither the morall righteousnesse of Christ alone nor his ceremoniall righteousnesse alone nor his mediatorie righteousnesse alone nor all nor any two of these righteousnesses together can be the formall cause of Justification therefore no righteousnesse of Christ whatsoever is to be look'd upon in any such relation of causalitie in respect of justification The proposition in this syllogisme I conceive carrieth the light of it 's owne truth with it The enumeration of the severall species or kinds of righteousnesse in Christ is sufficient As for his originall and habituall righteousnesse I comprehend them both under his morall Therefore if the conclusion stick 's the assumption is to be blam'd for it But that this also is blamelesse I thus demonstrate by the severall parts of it First that his Ceremoniall righteousnesse alone should be formall in justification never as yet I conceive entered into any mans head or heart to conceive Therefore I presume we may spare the arguing of this mēber without any prejudice at al to our cause Secondly that his mediatorie righteousnesse alone which consists in his passives should be the cause inquired after is not to my knowledge affirm'd by any of that judgement we oppose in the depending controversie But howsoever the truth of it thus appeares because the formall cause alwaies gives a sutable denomination to the subject But no justified person can be called mediatorily righteous therefore a mediatorie righteousnesse is not the formall cause of justification Thirdly by the same argument it is as manifest as heart can wish that neither can both these righteousnesses together be that formall cause we speake of nor hath any man every et adventured either his credit or his conscience upon this opinion Therefore here also we will borrow confidence and make restitution when an adversarie shall reasonably demand it Fourthly See cap. 18. Sect. 3. of the first part that his morall righteousnesse alone as distinguished and separated from his Ceremoniall cannot be this formall cause is evident because then the beleeving Iewes who liv'd before Christs coming in the flesh and the beleeving Gentiles since should not be iustified with one and the same righteousnesse from Christ For the Iewes who liv'd before the dissolution of the Mosaical oeconomie by the sufferings of Christ were aswell bound to the observation of the Law Ceremoniall as Morall and therefore could not be justified by the imputation of a morall righteousnesse only Againe on the other hand those that have lived since the promulgation of the said dissolution made by Christ were not only free and not bound to the Law Ceremoniall but were strictly bound from it and from the observation of the rites and usages therein commanded Therefore for these to have the observation of Mosaicall rites and Ceremonies imputed to them is to have rather sinne then righteousnesse imputed to them Fiftly by this last consideration also it appeareth that the two last named righteousnesses of Christ Ceremoniall and Morall cannot be so cast or run into one or so conspire together as to make the formall cause of Iustification we seeke after The beleeving Gentiles since the promulgation of that Gospell must have no Ceremoniall threds woven into the piece of righteousnesse whereby they must stand iustified in the fight of God Lastly that neither can his morall and mediatorie righteousnesse so comport or complie together as to raise a third kinde of righteousnesse betweene them that should make the formall cause of Iustification so much questioned and contended about may be sufficiently apprehended by what hath bin already delivered For that righteousnesse which shall be supposed to be compounded of these two must necessarily be conceived to be a Mediatorie
righteousnesse at the least For there must be nothing lost of the vigor strength or perfection of either in the composition But that no Mediatorie righteousnesse can possibly be formall in justification was fully evinced and concluded in the fift argument Seventhly and lastly SECT 27 for this opinion it is the confession or profession which you will of some of the learnedest abettors themselves of that way of imputation which hath bin opposed in this Treatise that the generall current of Reformed Divines runns with an opposite streame to this opinion and with one mouth deny the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to be the formall cause of Iustification Who ever of our writers saith Doctor Prideaux a Quis unquam è nostru nos per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justificari asservit Dr. Prideaux Lect. 5. p. 163. affirmed that we are formally iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed And Bishop Downham a great hyperaspistes also of imputation chargeth it upon his adversaries as a depravation of their Doctrine (a) lib. 1. of Iustifi p. 39. Sect. 1.2 he meanes his owne and other Protestant Divines that they will needs with the Papists make them hold that we are formally righteous by that righteousnesse which is not in us but out of us in Christ which is absur'd And a little after marveiles at them how they could be so absurd as to conceive so absurdly of them himselfe and other Reformed Divines he had spoken of as if they held that the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe should be the formall cause of Iustification Now that both these testimonies are so farre true as they avouch the more generall opinion of Protestant Divines to stand against formall Iustification by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed will further appeare by the explication of the fift and last opinion touching the cause under dispute which now followeth Therefore Fiftly and lastly there remaines yet another opinion to be considered of SECT 28 which looketh upon remission or forgivenesse of sinnes The Authors judgmēt touching the formall cause of Iustification as the formall cause of Iustification And that this opinion hath both the fairest and largest quarter in the judgements and writings of Protestant Divines as also most agree-ablenesse with the truth we shall I trust make evident without much wearisomnesse of Discourse For the former of these the more generall consent of Reformed Authors besides what hath bin already delivered for the Iustification hereof from many of the Authors themselves in the first and fift Chapters of the former part of this Treatise I shall satisfie my selfe and I hope my Reader also will take part with me in this satisfaction with the testimonies only of two of eminent note amongst them both I conceive without exception and of sufficient learning and integritie to be beleeved in a matter of as great importance as this the one of them a forreiner the other an English Divine the one being of the same judgement himselfe the other in part dissenting the one dead the other yet living The former of the two is David Paraeus sometimes chiefe Professor of Divinty in the Vniversity of Heidelburgh who in his tract concerning the Active and Passive righteousnesse of Christ having laid downe his judgement in the controversie depending thus p. 176 a Superest Quarta sententia c. quod justificatio tota sit remissio peccatorum propter hanc satisfactionem nobis imputatam Hanc sententiam ut veriorem simpliciorem a◠tutiorem amplects me profiteor c. Parens De Iustit Christi Act. et Pass p. 176. 177. Possem huc affer re Authoritates Patrum c. Possem quoque afferre cōsensum Lutheri Melancthonis c. p. 178. that remission of sinnes for the satisfaction of Christ imputed to us is our whole and intire Justification and argued accordingly p. 177 in the following page addeth as followeth I might here produce the Authorities of the Fathers who likewise place our righteousnesse meaning in Justification in the alone forgivenesse of sinnes for the death of Christ and accordingly cites severall testimonies out of Austin Occumenius and Ambrose And immediatly after these testimonies thus I might also alledge the consent of Luther Melancthon Zuinglius Oecolampadius Bullinger Calvin Martyr Musculus Hyperius Vrsine Olevian c. from whose Doctrine in the point of Iustificatiou I doe not varie a nailes breadth So that the light of this mans reading and judgement together could discover no other opinion touching the formall cause of Justification either in the Fathers or any the chiefe Protestant writers in his time but that it should stand only in Remission of sinnes The latter of the two mentioned is Mr. Thomas Gataker a man of approved learning and integritie amongst us who in Mr. A. Wottons Defence against Mr. Walkers Charge lately published in Print by him acknowledgeth p. 58 that howsoever for his part hee deemeth it erronious and so doe I too taking the word Iustification in that large sense which it seemeth he doth where he argueth against the opinion as viz. in his Animadversions upon the disputes betweene Piscator and Lucius p. 9. besides sundry other places in his writings to hold that Iustification consisteth in remission of sinnes yet that Calvin Beza Olevian Vrsine Zanchie Piscator Pareus Musculus Bullinger Fox and divers others of great note and name yea whole Synods of ours are found so to say adding further and yet were these men never yet that I ever heard or read for so saying condemned as Heretiques much lesse as blasphemous Heretiques but had in high esteeme as their worth parts and workes well deserved by those that therein dissented from them To this I might if need were adde Mr. Authony Wotton a man of much labour diligence and dexterity in searching out the judgements and opinions of Protestant writers touching the great Point of Iustification as appeares by that learned piece of his intit'led de Reconciliatione peccatoris c. who in the 3 4 5 and 6 Chapters of the second booke of the first part of this worke hath mustered together a greater troupe of Reformed Authors then either of the other and from their owne pens respectively hath made them all speake distinctly and plainely the same things touching the formall cause of Iustification which the two former Authors as we heard ascribed unto some of them Now for the declaration and proofe-making of this opinion SECT 29 because for the present I conceive it most agreeable to the truth some things would briefly be premiz'd As 1º That Iustification being an action hath no forme or formall cause at all properly so called that is hath no substantiall forme nor yet any forme that is properly a part of it because this is proper only to substantiall natures and beings See Sect. 8. of this Chapter 2º That there can in no other respect or consideration be ascribed any forme or formal cause unto Iustification but only as it
mak's an alteration in the person or rather in the condition of the person justified See this also further explained in the forenamed Section of this Chapter 3º That that alteration or change which is made in the condition of the person justified by his Iustification that is that which the immediate proper and precise effect of that act of God whereby hee iustifieth in or about the person justified is and nothing else but this is or can with any coulor of reason and congruitie of speaking be called the forme or formall cause of Iustification Of this also you have some further accompt in the 8 Section of this Chapter 4º That is especially to be remembred that wee doe not in this inquirie seeke after the forme or formall cause of Iustification simply or of Justification largely taken but of that particular and speciall kinde of Iustification whereby a beleeving sinner is justified by God through the redemption which is in Christ Iesus For if we take Iustification in a large sense it is evident that remission of sinnes cannot be the formall cause of it Because in such a sense of the word Iustification a man may be said to be iustified that is acquitted and cleered who hath noe sinnes or sinne at all forgiven him viz. in case hee hath bin falsely accused And so on the other hand a man may have his offence or offences remitted and forgiven and yet not be justified I meane with any such kinde of Iustification as we now speake of viz. that is built upon a just and plenary satisfaction for the offence given But otherwise any remission of an offence upon what termes soever may in a large sense be called a Justification viz. See more of this Cap. 3. Sect. 1. of this second part as the word connoteth and many times even in the Scriptures themselves signifieth a discharge or absolution from punishment 5º and lastly whereas there may be a double or or twofold Iustification ascribed unto God the one we may call Declarative or Pronunciative the other Constitutive it is the formall cause of the latter rather then of the former which we inquire after The difference betweene these two Iustifications may be thus conceived that which I call Constitutive hath a precedencie in the order of nature and for the most part of time also before the other and is some kinde of cause thereof When God is said to justifie the sinner or ungodly as Rom. 4.5 it is meant of his Constitutive Iustification not of his Declarative For God never declareth or pronounceth a sinner righteous till hee hath made him righteous which is the proper act of that which I call Constitutive Iustification Againe when Christ saith by thy words thou shalt be iustified Mat. 12.13 and Iames concerning Abraham that he was iustified through workes these and such like passages speake of a declarative Iustification The formall cause of Gods declarative Iustification cannot be conceiv'd to stand in remission of sinnes because remission of sinnes is alwaies precedaneous to it and therefore cannot be the effect of it and so not the formall cause thereof according to the 2 and 3 grounds premised The formall cause of this kinde of Iustification is rather the knowledge in those to whom such declaration is made whether it be the person himselfe that is iustified or some other of remission of sinnes granted unto him concerning whom such declaration is made Onely to prevent cavilling that is acknowledged that even that which I call Constitutive Justification may in this sense be called declarative also viz. as the grounds terms and conditions upon which it proceeds are declared and made knowne by God in his Gospell But by declarative Iustification I meane onely such an act or expression of God whereby he declares the actuall Justification of those or any of those that have their sinnes forgiven them These things remembred SECT 30 I proceed to demonstrate the truth of the opinion mentioned and undertaken for which was that Remission of sins is the forme or formall cause of Iustification First if Remission of sinnes be the first immediate and precise effect of that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner in or upon the sinner so justified then is Remission of sinnes the proper formall cause of Iustification This consequence is built cleere and strong upon the third particular premised Therefore I assume But remission of sinnes is the first immediate and precise effect of that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner in or about the sinner so iustified Ergo c. The reason of this latter proposition is because there is no other imaginable effect that should interveene betweene such an act and the effect specified The Scriptures themselves make an immediate connection betweene Gods act of Justification and the sinners exemption or absolution from his sinnes that is from the guilt and punishment due unto his sinnes when they call Iustification a Iustification from sinne Be it knowne unto you men and Brethren saith Paul Act. 13.38 that through this man is preached unto you remission of sinnes and by him all that beleeve are justified from all things from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Moses Where we see that Iustification is immediatly and directly from sinne i. from the guilt or condemnatorie power of sinne The like expression you have Rom. 6 7. He that is dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is iustified from sinne So that this is the first priviledge or blessing that comes upon a sinner by meanes of his Iustification or of that act of God whereby he justifieth him the remission of his sinnes and consequently must needs be the forme of his Iustification Secondly that which gives the denomination of justified to those that are justified must needs be the forme or formall cause of Iustification The reason of this proposition is apparant it is still proper to every forme to give a sutable denomination to the subject Sutable I meane not only to the forme it selfe but to the action or motion also whereby this forme was introduced into the subject As for example whitenesse in a wall that was made white out of some other colour gives the denomination of whited unto the wall which doth not answere the forme it selfe onely which is whitenesse but that action also of the Plaisterer or Painter which wee call whitening Therefore it is evident that the forme or formall cause of this act of whitening is the whitenesse or whitednesse of the wall Thus farre then the ground is firme under us Let us therefore goe forward and assume But remission of sinnes gives the denomination of iustified to those that are iustified Therefore remission of sinnes is the forme or formall cause of Iustification The assumption I thus further demonstrate If a sinner be therefore and thereby iustified because he hath his sinnes remitted unto him then remission of sinnes gives the denomination of iustified unto him This consequence is pregnant because
that alwaies gives the denomination by the meanes or reason whereof the subject is so or so denominated I assume But a sinner is therefore and thereby iustified because or in that he hath his sinnes forgiven him Ergo. The reason of the latter proposition is because that Iustification we speake of being still opposed to condemnation as hath bin formerly observed from the Scriptures must needs stand in a vindication or exemption from punishment which being interpreted is nothing else but the having of a mans sinnes forgiven For there is no exemption from punishment at the hand of an infinite Judge for him that is guilty but by having his sinnes forgiven as on the other hand the forgivenesse of sinnes is a full exemption in this kind Thirdly SECT 31 that alteration or change in the condition of the person justified which is caused therein by that act whereby God justifieth him must of necessitie be the forme or formall cause of his justification The third particular premised is a sufficient light wherby to see the truth of this proposition Therefore I assume But remission of sinnes or absolution and acquitting from punishment which are interpretatively the same is that alteration or change which is made in the condition of a person justified by that act of God whereby he justifieth him Ergo this alteration or change is the formall cause of justification The reason of the latter propositioÌ„ is this Iustification being as I suppose is confessed on alhands a civil or politique act as all actions of Iudicature are must needs produce a civil or politique effect answerable to it Al acts actions beget only in their own similitude likenesse A natural action cannot produce a morall effect nor a morall action a naturall effect Neither can a civill or politique action produce either a naturall or morall but only a civill or politique effect When a Judge acquits and so when he condemn's a man from a crime or accusation brought in against him this makes neither any naturall nor morall change in the person of him that is so acquitted except it be occasionally by accident as when by such a sentence of absolution a man is recovered out of those feares which were prejudiciall to his health whilst he lay under danger of the sentence of the Law or the like but properly and directly such an act produceth a civill or politique change in his condition For whereas he was before in danger of the Law and obnoxious unto punishment he is now at liberty and free therefrom So when a beleeving sinner is justified by God the effect of this act of God is not any naturall or morall change made upon him but a change in his estate and condition Now there is no other change that can be imagined should be made in the spirituall estate or condition of a man by the act of Gods Iustification falling on him but onely his acquitting from the guilt of sinne and punishment due unto the same Before this act of God passed upon him he was under the guilt of sinne and obnoxious to the wrath of God but by the coming of this upon him he is absolutly free and exempt from danger that way Fourthly SECT 32 that which makes a justified person formally and compleatly just or righteous before God is questionlesse the formall cause of Iustification This proposition is greater then exception nor will I conceive be denied by our keenest adversaries in the maine I assume therefore But remission of sinnes is that which makes a iustified person formally and compleatly righteous before God Therefore this is the formall cause of Iustification The reason and ground of the assumption is this because he that stands as cleere and as free from sinne or the guilt of sin in the sight of God as he that having liv'd a 1000 yeeres should alwaies have observ'd the Law and never transgressed in the least point is doubtlesse formally compleatly righteous in the sight of God Now that remission of sins gives this privilege to him that hath received it in as ful amplea manner as the exemplified observation of the Law or any other of the longest continuance that is imaginable can do hath bin more then once demonstrated in this Treatise especially in the fift Conclusion layd down in the second Chap. of this second Part. Sect. 6. p. 8. Fiftly If remission of sinnes be a perfect and complete righteousnesse then is it the formall cause of Iustification This proposition is much of the same spinning with the Major in the former argument and so partaker of like evidence of truth with it Neveâ—-the-lesse once to light up a candle wherby to see the Sunne the reason of it is briefly this be-because no perfect or compleate righteousnesse can be found in any man that hath sin'd but that which is given and conferr'd by God upon him in his Justification and that which is in this way conferr'd upon him is without contradiction the formall cause thereof Therefore let us make forward But remission of sinnes is a perfect and compleate righteousnesse therefore doubtlesse the formall cause also of Iustification The minor proposition hath oft already bin exalted upon the Throne of evidence and unquestionablenesse of truth yet if you desire a little of what is more then enough take this for a further demonstration of it That righteousnesse which needeth not feare the presence oâ— most district Judgement of God is doubtlesse a compleate and perfect righteousnesse But remission of sinnes is a righteousnesse that needeth not to feare the presence or districtest judgement of God Therefore it is a perfect and compleate righteousnesse The Sunne at noone day shineth no cleerer light then both these propositions do truth For the former I make no question but contradiction it selfe will be ashamed to oppose it Peccata sola separant inter hominem et Deum quae solvuntur Christi gratia per quem mediatorem reconciliamur cum justificat impium Aug De Pecc Merit et Rem l. 1. c 20. That righteousnesse which will hold out waight and measure by the standerd of Heaven no man I presume will call defective or imperfect And for the latter who can with any reason lift up a thought of heart against it For what cause hath any man to feare any displeasure or hard sentence from God who hath all his sinnes fully pardoned There is nothing can separate betweene God and his creature but only sinne and when this is taken away what shall hinder but that there should immediatly ensue a perfect union of love and peace betweene them Sixtly SECT 33 If forgivenesse of sinnes be the righteousnesse which God imputes in the Justification of a sinner then is it the formall cause of Iustification But forgivenesse of sinnes is the righteousnesse imputed by God in the Iustification of a sinner Ergo. The ground of the sequell in the first proposition is this because the righteousnesse which God imputes in Iustification
must needs be the formall cause thereof otherwise it must be said either a man is formally just by some righteousnesse of his own or which he hath not received from God or else that he is not made righteous in or by his Iustification but afterwards The minor is the assertion of the Holy Ghost almost in terminis Rom. 4. For that which ver 6. is called Gods imputing righteousnesse ver 7. is interpreted to be his forgiving iniquities and covering sinne Seventhly If remission of sinnes reacheth home unto and be given unto men by God for their Iustification then is it the formall cause thereof This is evident because by the formall cause of Iustification we meane nothing else as hath bin often said but Iustification passive or that guift which by God is given unto men and by them received accordingly in and by that act of his whereby he iustifieth them So that if remission of sinnes be that which is given unto sinners by God for or unto their Iustification it must of necessitie be conceived to be the formall cause thereof Therefore I assume but remission of sinnes is given by God unto men for their Iustification and reacheth home unto it Therefore it must needs be the formall cause thereof This latter proposition againe is in effect and well nigh in terms nothing but what the Holy Ghost himselfe affirmeth Rom. 5.16 And not as it was by one that sinned so is the guift for the iudgment was by one unto condemnation but the free guift is of many offences unto Justification that is God by the free guift that is by the free forgivenesse of mens sinnes doth fully justify them The free guift of offences or the forgivenesse of sins could not be said to be unto Iustification except a man were fully and entirely justifyed thereby Lastly if remission of sinnes and the non-imputing of sinne to those that have sinned be expressions of one and the same importance and signifie the same privilege estate or condition of a person iustified then is remission of sinnes the formall cause of Iustification The strength of this consequence lieth in this that the Holy Ghost describeth or interpreteth the righteousnesse which God imputeth in Iustification by the non-imputation of sinne This is evident by comparing Rom. 4.6 with ver 8. And it was prooâ—ed before in the sixt argument that the righteousnesse imputed by God in Iustification must of necessity be the formall cause thereof Therefore it undeniably followes that if remission of sinnes and the non-imputing of sinne be expressions of one and the same condition that remission of sinnes is the formall cause of Iustification Now that the importance of these two expressions is but one and the same is apparant enough without proofe For what doth God more or otherwise in remitting sinne then he doth in not imputing it or what doth he more or otherwise in the not-imputing of sinne then he doth in remitting it Not to impute sinne to him that hath sinned can implie nothing else but not to charge the demerit or guilt thereof upon him and what doth remission of sinnes import either more or lesse And hence doubtlesse it is that David sets the same Crowne of the same blessednesse upon the head of the one and the other Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven whose sinne is covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquitie c. Psal 32.1.2 Rom. 4.7.8 Much might be further argued both from the Scriptures and otherwise SECT 34 for the cleering and countenancing of this opinion which placeth formall justification in Remission of sinnes but inasmuch as this tasque hath bin learnedly and throughly performed by another (a) Mr. Wotton De Reconciltat Part 1 lib. 2. c. 3.4.5.6.7.8 though in another languag and to ease the present discourse of length and tediousnesse what we may without any sensible de râ—ment to the cause undertaken I forbeare And the rather because whatsoever I am able to conceive may possibly with any colour or pretext of reason be objected against the opinion hath for the most part bin already answered or cleered or else will be found answered in the two following Chapters As First Object 1 That Remission of sinnes is no true or compleate righteousnesse ou shall finde satisfaction touching this in the second Chap. of this latter part in the 4 Conclusion Sect. 4. Secondly Object 2 That the righteousnesse of Christ is to be joyned with remission of sinnes to make the compleate forme of Iustification See this cleered at large Cap. 11. of the first part Thirdly Object 3 That Remission of sinnes is the consequent or effect of Iustification and therefore not the formall cause See whereof to make a sufficient answere to this Sect. 8. and Sect. 29. of this Chapter where it is fully prooved that the formall cause of Iustification must needs be the consequent of Iustification that is of that act of God whereby he justifieth Fourthly that the righteousnesse of Christ imputed is this formall cause Object 4 you shall finde this counter-argued Sect. 23 24 25 26 27. of this Chapter Fiftly Object 5 that the imputation of this righteousnesse is the formall cause The inconsistencie of this with the truth is evicted Sect. 22. of this Chapter Sixtly Object 6 That the communion that is betweene Christ and beleevers is this formall cause How little communion this hath with the truth hath bin shewed at large Section 18 19 20 21. of this Chapter Seventhly That Iustification may be Object 7 where there is no remission of sinnes and remission of sinnes where there is no justification See the opinion set cleere of this objection in the latter end of Sect. 1. of the 3 Chap. of this second part as also Sect. 29. of this present Chapter What further may be objected I doe not for the present apprehend but ready and willing I am to take any thing into a serious and unpartiall consideration that shall be tendred unto me as matter of further question or difficultie in the businesse In the meane time out of all that which hath bin reasoned at large in this Chapter concerning justification and the severall causes thereof some such description of it as this may be framed wherein the attentive Reader may observe either all or the greatest part of the causes insisted upon briefly comprehended Justification is an act of God whereby having out of his owne unspeakable free grace and goodnesse towards poore miserable sinners given his only begotten Sonne Jesus Christ to make attonement or satisfaction for them by his death in consideration of this attonement freely pardoneth and remitteth the sinnes of all those that beleeve in him through Jesus Christ preached or otherwise revealed by the Holy Ghost unto them CAP. V. VVhere in the Scriptures alledged for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse or active obedience in Justification are cleered and answered and the true sense and interpretation of them respectively established according to
Doctrine mainteyned in this Discourse they are fully and at large taken off in that (a) pag. 6.7 8 9 10. c. and the contrary opinion arrested upon strong and vehement suspicion of confederacie indeed with the uncleane Spirit of those errors Yea it hath bin more then once in this Treatise affirmed and once at least if not twice (b) Part 1. â—c 23. Part. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 8. sufficiently proved aswell by evidence of reason as by the Authority of able learned and understanding men that such an imputation of the Active obedience of Christ as Mr. Walker with some others maintain and which hath bin impugned hitherto doth absolutly cancell and make voyde the necessity of Christs satisfaction by his death which is the Spirit and soule or Socinian Heresie See the testimonies cited from Paraeus and Piscator to this purpose cap. 2. Sect. 8. of this second Part whereunto I shall here adde a passage or two from Mr. Gataker in his little Tract against Gomarus Be it granted saith hee pag 7. (c) Detur hâ— minem etiam paenu ex lege violata debitâ—â— non obnoxium tantum sed constrictum etiam ad obedientiam nihilominus exhibendam teneri ut nullus dices nec quod evincat quiâ—quaÌ„ omnine comparet isthic hominem qui ebedientiam legi aâ—solutissiman prâ—â—stâ—â—erit etiam ad poenas de pendendas nihilomâ—nus tenert At qui hac ratione pugaant illi quos tu impetu non fuisse necesse ut Christus cum legem pro nobis ad extremum apicem obseruasset ad poenas insuper pro iisdem subeundas adigetur ut ista salteÌ„ hac ratione supervacanes fuerint Gatak Elench Gomor p. 7.8 Si enim Christi obedientia quaÌ„ Legi loco nostro Prastitit nobis ad justitiam imputatur imputationis hujusâ—e beneficio justi plane constituimur ac proinde sub legu maledectione non suâ—us amplius coÌ„stituti nec propterea Christi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redimi ab ea quae nos obnoxies non habet opus habemus Idem p. 19. Si fideles Christi obedientia activa sibi a Deo imputata perfecte justi constituuntur nihil illis amplius opus est mâ—rte Christi quam pro injustis non pro justu ille oppetebat Idem p. 37. that a man that is liable to punishment yea and that actually lieth under punishment for the transgression of the Law is notwithstanding still bound to the keeping of the Law yet surely you will not say neither is there any thing in what you write which any waies proves that that man who perfectly fulfills the Law is yet bound to suffer punishment And this is the plea of those whom you oppose that there was no necessity that Christ having kept the Law for us to the utmost jot and title thereof should further be put upon it to suffer punishment for us also So that in this respect at least that punishment or sufferings of his must be superfluous and needlesse Againe afterwards in the same Tract p. 19. If the obedience of Christ which he performed to the Law in our stead be imputed unto us for righteousnesse we must needs be made perfectly righteous by the benefit of such an imputation and so we are no more under the curse of the Law nor was there any need that we should be redeemed from that by the blood of Christ which had no power over us Yet once more in the same Treatise p. 37. he frames the argument of those with whom himselfe joynes against Gomarus in the point in hand after this manner If Beleevers are made perfectly righteous with the active obedience of Christ imputed by God unto them then have they no need at all of the death of Christ for them which death he suffered not for the righteous but for the unrighteous So that if men were not partiall in themselves but would please so farre to dispence with their prejudice as to judge righteous judgement betweene the Doctrine laid downe and defended in this Discourse and that which opposeth it it would cleerely appeare that this were the right Horse to set the Saddle of Socinianisme and Arminianisme upon and not the other And as the equity of this decision touching the imputation and non-imputation of Christs active obedience fully appeares by what hath bin now and formerly said in this discourse SECT 10 so as touching the imputation and non imputation of Faith in a proper sense it appeares as fully also in those passages lately related unto in that other discourse mentioned But howsoever we have abundantly vindicated the Doctrine asserted in this Treatise from all imputations either of Socinianisme Arminianisme Popery or the like so that we need make no more bridles to put into the lips of these uncleane Spirits yet give me leave to suggest this for a close of this Chapter that if every Doctrine which either Socinians Arminians or Papists hold and maintain should suffer the reproach and infamie either of heresie error or untruth because they are found in their writings there are very few Doctrines in that Reformed Religion which we professe but will be found Matters of that calculation Especially all those fundamentall Articles or Doctrines comprehended in that Breviate or Summarie of Christian Religion called the Apostles Creed which as farre as I understand is generally received and subscribed unto by all Reformed Churches without exception must lie under the ignominie either of Socinianisme Arminianisme Popery or the like it being certaine that there is none of them but is professed and maintained by one or other or by all of these stigmatique Factions So that it is the most ridiculous and trifling argument that can be against an opinion unworthy either men or learning to make an out-crie against it of Heresie Blasphemy Socinianisme Arminianisme Popery and the like when in the meane time men are able to produce nothing from the Scriptures to purpose nor yet to evince by any solid or substantiall reason that it is so much as an untruth Such passionate arguments as these may haply ravish the simplicity and weaknesse of women and Children and carie away a great captivity of these and indeed they are exactly calculated for the meridian of their tempers but men of understanding are little affected with them except it be as they are arguments of the weaknesse and insufficiencie of those that so use them CAP. VII VVherin the chiefe grounds and Arguments for imputation of Christs Active obedience in the sense hitherto opposed are proposed and Answered IN the former part of this discourse many things have bin debated and argued and somewhat also in this latter against that imputation of Christs active obedience or righteousnesse in Iustification which makes it either the formall cause thereof whether in whole or in part or the right and title of beleevers to eternall life It now only remaines that we heare patiently and consider unpartially and Answere distinctly those arguments and reasons
12.37 Rom. 5.16 and else where And that this was Calvins opinion SECT 5 Justification is compleate in forgivenesse of sins is most evident from many and frequent passages in his writings by which it is apparent against all confidence of contradiction that he held no such imputation of Christs righteousnesse for justification as some charge him withall except they will conceive of him that like unto Rebecca he had two nations in his womb two contrary opinions in his judgment at once His words are expresse againe and againe on Rom. 4.6 Huc accedit oppositum membrum quod Deus homines justificet peccatum non imputando c. that is Adde hereunto the opposite member viz. that God justifieth men by not imputing sinne And immediatly after Quibus etiam verbis docemur justitiam Paulo nihilaliud esse quam remissionem peccatorum that is by with words we are taught that righteousnesse with Paul is nothing else but remission of sins So some Popish Authors charge this very opinion upon Calvin as his error Alioqui error Calvinianus est dicere ril aliud esse justificationem quam remissionem peccatorum Lorin in Act. 5. v. 31. Whether this Author was of that judgment or no which we now ascribe to him certaine it is that if he had been of this judgement he could never have delivered himself in more significant and pregnant words this way then these are And yet againe not long after the former words Manet ergosalva nobis pulcherrima sententia justificari hominem side quia gratuita peccatorum remissione coram Deo purgatus sit that is This most lovely saying remaines unshaken and safe that a man is justified by Faith because he is purged by a free forgivenesse of his sins before God But we shall meet with a second opportunity hereafter for the further insuring this Author unto us in the Question now under disputation Musculus is as far engag'd for the point in hand SECT 6 as he on Rom. 4.6 Notandum primò remissionem peccatorum esse justitiam nostram i. This is first to be noted that forgivenesse of sins is our righteousnesse And a little after ergo justitia Dei est quae gratis imputatur non imputari peccatum i. therefore the righteousnesse of God which is freely imputed is that sinne is not imputed And immediatly after Quid autem iustum esse aliud est quam peccatis esse liberum i. what is it else to be righteous but to be freed from sins i. from the guilt of them And yet once more not far off ergo qui credit iustus est et beatus propter remissioneus peccatorum i. He therefore that beleeveth is RIGHTEOUS and blessed because of the remission of his sins The same Author upon Psal 32. towards the beginning Iucunducu est quòd institia et beatitudo nostra est remissio peccatorum per fidem in Christum i. It is a sweet thing that our righteousnesse blessednesse stands in the remission of our sins by Faith in Christ See more of like importance in the same place So Luther in his Summarie of that Psalme Iustitia nostra proprie est remissio peccatorum seu ut loquitur Psalmus peccata non imputare peccata tegere i. Our righteousnesse properly is the forgivenesse of our sins or as the Psalme speaketh the non-imputation or covering of our sinnes So Malancthon in his common place of JUSTIFICATION Justificatio significat remissionem peccatorum seu acceptationem personae ad vitam aeternam i. Justification signifieth remission of sins or acceptation of a mans person to eternall life Againe upon the twentieth Article of the Augustan Confession Significat iustificatio in his Pauli sententiis remissionem peccatorum seu reconciliationem seu imputationem iustitiae hoc est acceptationem personae i. sustification in Pauls saying signifieth REMISSION OF SINS or reconciliation or imputation of righteousnesse i. the acceptation of a mans person And in his Prolegomena upon the Epistle to the Romans Justi reputamur Deo remittente peccata i. we are accounted righteous when God forgives our sins Hyperius upon Rom 4.6 Declarat Apostolus imputare ad justitiam idem esse quod non imputare peccata sponte graiis ea remittere i. The Apostle declares that to impute for righteousnesse is but the same as not to impute sinnes or freely and willingly to forgive them Beza himselfe holds the truth as fast as any man in this point though sometimes againe he seemes to let it goe in some expressions about the imputation of Christs righteousnesse In his Treatise of the Supper of the Lord Cuinam iustificationem tribuemus uni certè Deo vnus siquidem Deus peccata remittit Pofita est autem omnis iustificatio in remissione peccatorum et ìdeò justitia hac in imputatione pofita justitia Dei vocatur i. To whom shall we attribute or ascribe Justification doubtlesse to God alone because it is God alone that forgiveth sins And all justification standeth in remission of sins and therefore this righteousnesse which standeth in imputation is called the righteousnesse of God Ro. 1.17 3 21. c. Zanchius in his Common places of Divinity in the head concerning Iustification hath this title Quòd justitia fidei nihil aliud sit quà m reconciliatio cum Deo quae solà remissione peccatorum constat i. That the righteousnesse of Faith is nothing else but reconciliation with God which stands in nothing else but forgivenesse of sins Mr. Fox our Countryman gives place to none in holding forth the light of this truth In his tract of Christ Iustifying and first Booke Iustos eos accipio quos quotidiana remissio per fidem accepta divino conspectui tanquam justos representat i. I take them for just or righteous who by a daily remission of sinnes received by faith are represented as righteous before the presence of God Againe in the second B ok of the same Argument Ideò justicoram Deo consistimus quod remissa sunt nobis peccata i. We therfore stand rignteous before God because our sins are forgiven us Chamier SECT 7 in the third Tome of his Panstratiae pag. 907. challengeth the Paternity of Trent for denying remission of sins to be the form or formall cause of justisication affirming and â—vincing this to have bin Augustins opinion And speaking of himselfe and his Protestant party saith thus Sed ijdem justitiae proram et puppim constituimus inremissione peccatorum nimirum quia haec nos apud Deum constituit justos i. We Protestants place the first and last the beginning and end of our righteousnesse in the forgivenesse of ou sinnes because this makes us righteous before God And a little after Itaque justitiam nostram quatenus constat remissione peccatorum cum Paulo justificationem eam autem quae perfectione virtutum sanctificationem appellamus i. We therfore call our righteouâ—â—esse as it consists in remission of sins with Paul we call Justification but that
which the head doeth or worketh is no waies to be imputed or ascribed either unto the hand or foot or any other member as if it were done by them so doth the whole mysticall body of Christ and every member thereof even the whole Societie and fellowship of beleevers reape and enjoy abundantly the fruite benefit and blessing of all that Christ the Head either did or suffered in the world forgivenesse of sins peace of conscience acceptation into favor with God adoption sanctification hope of glory glory or salvation it selfe when it cometh c. all these and the like are Grapes gathered from that Vine the active and passive obedience or righteousnesse of Christ furnisheth his whole body with all these precious and pleasant riches and yet there is no necessity that either his doings or sufferings should be ascribed or imputed unto them no more then the labor and skill of the Bee is to be ascribed unto him that eates the honey SECT 5 Againe some urge the consideration of the mariage betweene Christ and his Church and consequently every beleever to salve the congruity or sitnesse of his righteousnesse for imputation to beleevers and reason after this manner The wife by mariage hath a right to all that is her Husbands she is endowed with all his goods they are aswell hers as his Therefore a beleever being maried to Christ hath a right and title to all that Christ hath all that Christ hath is his and therefore his righteousnesse is his c. To this I Answere two things First it is true the wife by mariage comes to be endowed with all that is her Husbands but this endowing of her with all is no ingredient into the mariage it selfe much lesse is it the formall cause of the mariage but is a fruite or consequent of it So the right and title which a beleever hath to the righteousnesse of Christ accrues unto him by and upon the spirituall mariage The mariage must be first made up betweene Christ and him which is done by Faith or beleeving before he comes to have this right spoken of in the righteousnesse of Christ Therefore it cannot be impured unto him in the very act of beleeving which is the golden apple the adverse opinion strives for and yet much lesse before the act of beleeving which yet is affirmed by some great and leâ—rned abettors of that side Because in both these cases the title we speake of to the righteousnesse of Christ should not grow to a beleever by or from or upon his mariage but either in or before it But secondly I answere yet further and close more neerely with the spirit of the objection Howsoever by mariage there ariseth a title unto the wife of all that is her Husbands so that it may be sayd that all that is the Husbands is made or becomes the wifes yet this is so to be qualified and understood that no Law either of naturall decencie and sobriety or of a rationall expediencie or behoofe to either party receive prejudice or violation All that is the Husbands is not every waies the wifes by meanes of her mariage nor for every use or purpose but only in a way of expediencie or beneficialnesse to her As for instance the cloaths or garments of the Husband are the wife 's by mariage but how not hers to put on and weare upon her owne person for so they would be hers to her owne shame and reproach We know it was prohibited in the Law Deut. 22.5 The woman shall not weare that which perteyneth unto the man for all that doe so are an abhomination unto the Lord thy God But hers they are and may be called hers in this sense as it is a comfort and credit unto her that her Husband be cloathed like himselfe and that his habit be according to his rank and quality So is it indeed an unspeakable comfort and a ground of a glorious rejoycing unto a beleeving Soule that her Lord and Husband Iesus Christ is cloathed with that rich and glorious robe of righteousnesse that he is so holy so harmlesse so far separate from sinners as he is but she must take heed of assuming these things unto her selfe otherwise then in the benefit and comfort of them she must not thinke her selfe as holy as harmlesse as far separate from sinners as Christ himselfe is The Common or inferior Priest that should put on and serve in the High Priests garments was by the Jewes adjudged guilty of death by the hand of Heaven As Mr. Ainsworth citeth out of Maimony upon Exod. 28.43 So againe the wisdome and understanding of the Husband may be said to be the wifes by mariage But how not for her to be wise withall for in this respect it is her Husbands only notwithstanding mariage the woman is not therefore as wise as her Husband because the Husbands wisdome is hers by mariage but it is hers in the benefit and comfort of it thus having a Husband that is wise she shall live the better and more comfortable life with him she shal be the better provided for and the like So the righteousnesse of Christ becomes ours by right of our spirituall mariage with him but not to be righteous withall formally for this is still his personall propriety notwithstanding the giving of himselfe in mariage to us but to have the benefit and blessing of communicated unto us and derived upon us both in our justification adoption and salvation CAP. XI A third ground against the pretended imputation viz. the Non-necessitie of it A third Reason SECT 1 warring strongly against this imputation of Christs righteousnesse is There is no necessity or occasion of any such imputation The truth of the old rule doth not wax old neither will ever vanish Deus et natura nihil faciunt frustrà Neither God the Master nor Nature the servant ever make any thing in vaine If God hath sufficiently provided otherwise for the justification of his people most certaine it is that he doth not impute this righteousnesse of Christ unto them for that end which yet is the only end for which the necessity thereof either is oâ— indeed can be pretended That a beleever is sufficiently justified before God without any imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ I still meane in the letter and formalitie of it I thus demonstrate He that is compleatly justified by having his sins forgiven is justified without the imputation of this active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ This proposition is generally granted for no man contends for this imputation in the sense we speake of in regard of forgivenesse of sins neither is there any colour for it but for another purpose as we shall see hereafter Therefore I assume But a beleever is suthciently justified before God by the forgivenesse of his sins therefore I conclude There is no need of this imputation of Christs righteousnesse for justification The latter proposition that men are fully justified before God by
on the left in the Disputes agitated in this Discourse The first rule I lay downe concernes the number of causes in generall Rule 1 and is this There are foure and but foure generall heads fountaines or kind of causes whereunto and under which all and all manner of causes be they never so many or various which any waies conduce or contribute towards the raising of any effect or new being may be reduced and comprehended These are usually knowne and called by these names 1º the efficient 2º the finall 3º the materiall 4º the formall The sufficiencie of which division of causes in generall might easily be argued and made good by demonstration but that it hath beene done by many before me and besides hath now for many ages by-gone bin admitted by men of reason and learning into the same honour of unquestionable truth with their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. their first and most undoubted principles of Reason Rule 2 My second rule respects the different habitude or relation in generall SECT 2 betweene the two former and the two latter causes as they were named towards their effects and is this The efficient and finall causes do never ingredi compositum i. are never any part any thing of the substance of the effect produced but are alwaies extrinsecall thereunto and have their beings distinct from it As on the other hand the materiall and formall causes are alwaies intrinsecall to the effect and together make up as it were the intire substance and essence of it As for example The Carpenter who is the efficient cause of the House that is built and so his Axe Saw Hammer c. are no parts of the house neither is the conveniencie or accommodation of the dweller or owner which is the finall cause of the House any part of it which appeares thus because the house may stand and be the same house that it is though the Carpenter that made it be dead and though it had neither dweller nor owner belonging to it But the tymber Brick stone c. which are the materiall cause of it and the order or method wherein they are contrived and wrought together in the building by the workman which is the formall cause are the essentiall and constituting parts of the house so that if either of these should be altered or taken away the house it selfe must be altered and taken away with them My third Rule toucheth the absolute incapacitie in every one of these causes Rule 3 of any more relations then one in respect of one and the same effect and proceeds after this manner No one thing or cause whatsoever can put on more habitudes or relations of causalitie then one in respect of one and the same effect As for example that which is the efficient cause of a thing can never be the formall nor the materiall nor finall cause of it So againe that which is the materiall cause of a thing cannot be the formall cause of that whereof it is the materiall nor yet the efficient or finall and there is the same consideration of them all Neither the Carpenter nor his skill nor his Ax nor his Hammer which are all efficients can be the matter of the house he builds with them neither can the tymber or stones which are the materiall cause of it be the efficient cause also c. It is true in some cases and in an unproper and metaphoricall sense the same person that in one consideration is the efficient cause of a thing may in another consideration be the finall cause of it As when a Carpenter builds an house for himselfe to dwell in in a sense he may be called both the efficient and finall cause of this house But this is an unproper expression and according to Grammaticall and expresse importance of the words not consonant to truth For if we speake properly the Carpenter cannot in this case be said to be the finall cause of his house because the nature and propriety of the finall cause is to receive it's being by and from that whereof it is the cause and not to have a subsistence and being before it as the Carpenter hath before the building of his house Therefore the finall cause of the house under instance is the Carpenters conveniencie of dwelling which is a thing of another nature and farre differing from his person The like interpretation must rule to make exactnesse of truth of that common saying in Divinity that God is the efficient and finall cause or end of all things (a) See sect 6 of this c. which the Scripture expresseth by calling him Alpha and Omega Revel 1. But for the rule it selfe last layd downe if rightly understood it is universally and unquestionably true that one and the same thing cannot possibly stand in more relations of causality then one to one and the same effect no more then one and the same point of Heaven can be both East and West or North and South in respect of the same Country or place The 4th and last Rule I desire to lay downe Rule 4 SECT 3 concerns the multiplicitie of divisions whereof the 4 generall heads of Causes mentioned are capable The rule I deliver in these words Though there be but foure kindes or heads of causes in the generall yet under every one of these heads there are severall species of causes comprehended and though all these under kindes or particular species of causes agree together in that common nature of causality which is expressed in that general head under which they are respectively and severally comprehended yet have they speciall and particular differences and those very considerable one from another betweene themselves To prosecute all the distinctions or divisions of causes that are found in Authors or otherwise might be thought upon would be to cast oyle upon the flames and make the Reader double wearier of the length of his discourse then he is already I shall therefore instance and that as briefly as may be in some few which I conceive have speciall relation to the businesse in hand and without the knowledg whereof the Doctrine of Iustification can hardly be thoroughly and cleerely understood The first generall head of causes which we called the Efficient admits of more divisions and subdivisions and conteynes more species of causes under it which are yet all efficients then any of the other yea then all the other three together The truth is that there is such an endlesse varietie of the kindes of efficient causes â—hat it is very difficult to finde them all out or to give fitting names to many that may more easily be found It shall suffice for our present occasion to mention some few divisions of them First of efficient causes some are principall SECT 4 others lesse principall The principall efficient cause is that which worketh independently and from it selfe I speake now in respect of created causes only because otherwise all causes whatsoever have a dependance upon
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
with Christ so neither if there were would it make any thing at all to salve the truth of the proposition under question if the sense and meaning of it were caried according to the line of the interpretation of those other expressions mentioned For what if we should be said either to professe such a fulfilling of the Law which holds a spirituall analogie or proportion with Christs fulfilling the Law or really and personally to fulfill the Law after such a manner were there any thing in this to inferre an imputation of Christs personal fulfilling the Law in the letter and formalitie thereof unto us Doubtlesse Christ's quickening and rising againe are not in the letter and formalitie of them imputed unto the Saints for their quickening and rising againe in the same manner if they were Hymeneus and Philetus had bin no Heretiques for teaching that the resurrection was past already 2 Tim. 2.18 Therefore neither is there any thing in this reason more then in its fellowes to repaire the breaches that have bin made upon that imputation which with them it seeks to fortifie We have but one encounter more SECT 24 Argum. 12 and then the battaile ceaseth for the present The last argument I shall propound and Answere is this Whosoever is a sinner and so continueth whilst he lives cannet be justified otherwise then by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse But every man Christ excepted is a sinner and so continueth whilst he lives Therefore no man can be justified but by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse An answere to this and an end Answere though the truth is that more then an answere hath bin given already I repeate therefore rather then adde in reference to the former Proposition that if there be no other way or means for the justifying of a sinner then by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense so often sentenced doubtlesse the condition of the whole world is miserable and help-lesse there is no way or dore of life yet opened unto sinners For imputation of this righteousnesse upon such terms there is none as hath bin largly proved and if I be not mistaken beyond all reasonable deniall throughout the bodie of this discourse But blessed be the Father of mercies and God of all comfort who without the key of such an imputation hath opened an effectuall dore of Iustification unto poore sinners yea even unto those who are like to be no better then sinners whilst they live in the world however this justification coming upon them makes them the best and happiest of sinners in that kinde Those that truly beleeve in Iesus Christ being not under the Law but under grace are not liable to condemnation for the things they commit daily against the Law If any man sinne as we ast do whilst we live we have an Advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sinnes 1 Jâ—n 2.1.2 So that for the dissolving and taking away all the gurâ—t danger and inconveniences of the â—inuâ—s of beleevers in every kinde there needs no imputation of the active obedience of Christ the propitiation which he is unto them by his blood and intercâ—ision hath done this service for them to the uttermost before this imputation is supposed to come at them And doubtlesse it is no more to the justification of a sinner then the Midwifes were to the deliverâ—e of those Hebrew women who were fully and safely delivered before the Midwifes came at them Que apud Dominum propitiatio est nisi sacrisiciciumâ— et quod est sacri ficium nisi quod pro noâ—is oblatum est in morte Christi Aug. Exod. 1. What propitiation saith Augustine is there with the Lord but sacrifice and what sacrifice is there but that which was offered for us in the death of Christ Nor are we to thinke that the fulnesse of the merit of the death of Christ is so exhaust and spent upon the purchase of the parden and forgivenesse of our sinnes that it will not hold out to procure our acceptation also with God Yes by the redundancie of this merit saith Mr. Reynolds (a) The life of Christ p. 402. after satisfaction made thereby unto his Fathers justice for our debt there is further a purchase made of grace and glory and all good things in our behalfe Yea Adoption it selfe and the acceptation of our persons and admittance into the high favour of God to be made heyres of selvation spring all from one and the same most precious and fruitfull roote of the blood of Christ the perfect holinesse of his person and righteousnesse of his life presupposed as hath bin said So that he that hath communion in the fulnesse of his death shall not know what to doe with the imputation of the righteousnesse of his life after it were it made unto him or conferred upon him But enough if not more then enough of this heretofore Thus have we at last overcome and fully answered all those arguments and pieâ—â—â— which to my knowledge have yet bin insisted upon and consâ—â—ed in by anâ— for the up-bearing of thâ—â—â—utation 〈◊〉 Christs righteousnesse in the sense 〈…〉 contradicted in the discourse viz. in the letter and formality of it or as the formall cause whether in whole or in part of Iustification If any man of conâ—â—ary judgment and yet unsatisfied will vouchsase in a spirit of meekenesse and love either to diâ—â—â—â— the insufficiencie and weaknesse of any of there Answers in case he conceives them insufficient and weake or else further to object what he conceives to be of greater weight and importance then the arguments already answered I shall willingly and unpartially consider of either And if in either I shall finde any thing of pregnant and solid conviction and above answere I shall soone turne Proselyte and be glad to be so delivered of an error I had much rather be imployed in cancelling and desacing mine owne errors then other mens and desire to make it my daily trade and occupation to exchange darknesse for light crooked things for streight errors for truths The Lord by his Spirit lead us into the way of all â—ruth and keepe us that we turne not aside either to the right hand or to the lest that so we may be soundly built up in our most holy Faith and be prepared hereby for his everlasting Kingdome FINIS
In case a man hath transgressed the Law and hath undergone and suffered whe ther by himselfe or some other for him the full punishment or penaltie threatned in the Law he is no further a debtor unto the Law neither in point of obedience nor of punishment nor hath any thing to doc with the Law more or lesse for his Iustification as hath bin said because the punishment which hath bin so suffered either by him or for him is of indisserâ—â—t and equall consideration to the Law with the most absolute conformity that could have bin held with the precepts and injunctions of it So that as no man is or ever was or can be bound to fulfill the Law twice over for his Iustification or to make him righteous So neither is it equall or reasonable to conceive that he that hath suffered in full the penaltie of the Law which suffering is every waies as satisfactorie to the Law as the exactest obedience to all things conteyned in it and of one and the same consideration with it as hath bin said should be still bound to the observation of the Law whether by himselfe or any other for him for his Justification this being all one as the requiring of a double or second obedience unto the Law after a man hath perfectly fulfill'd it once This for answere to this Argument Sixtly SECT 14 Argumt 6 for the imputation of Christs active obedience in the sense disparaged some have made triall of this If there be no Iustification without a perfect righteousnesse and no such righteousnesse to be found but the righteousnesse of Christ performed to the Law then of necessitie this righteousnesse must be conceived to be imputed to us in Iustification But neither can there be any Iustification without a perfect righteousnesse nor any such righteousnesse found but only the righteousnesse of Christ performed to the Law Ergo. Intending to have nothing to doe with the innocencie of the major I addresse my selfe to the minor Answere where we shall find guilt and weaknesse more then enough to worke upon To this therefore I answere First that however true it be that Iustification cannot take place without a perfect righteousnesse being nothing else but the making of a man perfectly righteous yet such a righteousnesse as the Sonnes of this argument intend a righteousnesse consisting determâ—nitely of such a number or tale of righteous acts as Christ performed unto the Morall Law is not of any absolute necessitie thereunto For if the Jewes under the Law were justified by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse this righte usnesse of his is not to be limited or measured by the righteous acts performed by him only to the morall Law but to the Ceremoniall also See cap. 18. Sect. 3. of the first pa t c. as hath bin formerly observ'd and proved more then once Secondly SECT 15 neither is it so absolutly true as our adver aries haply conceive it is that there is no perfect righteousnesse take righteousnesse in their owne notion and sense to be found but only the righteousnesse of Christ We have heretofore shewed that there is a righteousnesse in the Law as absolute and complete as the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe and that it is much more probable of the two that if God imputes a legall righteousnesse unto men in Iustification that he furnisheth them this way out of the Law it selfe for Christs sake then that he should impute the righteousnesse of Christ unto them See cap. 2. Sect. 5. and c. 5. sect 9. of this second Part. But Thirdly lastly that perfect righteousnesse wherin Iustification consists and wherewith men are made formally righteous when they are justified is nothing else but remission of sinnes as hath bin abundantly proved both in the second and fourth Chapters of this latter part of the Discourse This forgivenesse of sinnes is that righteousnesse which the Scripture calls a righteousnesse without works Rom. 4. ver 6 7. compared together And which Augustine (a) ipsâ— nostra justitia quamviâ— vera sit propter veri bonifineÌ„ ad quam refertur tamen tanta est in hac vita ut potius peccatorum remissione constet quaÌ„ perfecticne virtutum Aug. de Civit. l. 19. c. 27. Haymo (b) Quia credidit Deo reputatum est ei ad justitiam id est ad remissianem peccatorum Haym ad Rom. 4.3 Bernard (c) Dei justitia est non peccare hominis autem justitia Dei indulgentia Bernaidus Serm. 23 in Cantic Christus factus est nobu justitia in absblutione peccatorum Ibid. Serm. 22. with others of former times as likewise Luther (d) Iustitiane stra proprie est remissio peccatorum seâ— ue loquitur Psalmus peccata non imputare c. Luther in Summa Ps 32 Calvin (e) Sequitur ergo eo nos esse justos quia nob is peceata non imputantuy Calv de vera Eccles Reform ratione p. 368. Musculus (f) Iucundum est quod justitia et beatitudo nostra est remissio peccatorum per fidem in Christum Muscu in Psal 32. p. 298. Quid enim est justum esse et reputari in peccatu conceptum et natuÌ„ quam peccatu esse liberum ibid. Pareus (g) Sic Deus Abrahae et omnibus nobu peccatoribus fidem imputat pro justitia quando credentes in fillium justificat hoc est absolvir c. Pal cus ad Rom. 2.3 p. 363. Fide accepit justitiam sen remisslonem peccatorum a Deo gratis donatam c. ibid. Chamier (h) Remissio peccatorum est Iustitia imputata Cham. Panstrat t. 3 l. 21. c. 19. Sect. 10. Iidem justitie proram et pupp im constituionut in remissâ—â—â—peccato um ibid. Sect. 9. withothers more of satter times without number yea and the Homilies of our own Church (i) Because all men are sinners and offender against God c. every man of necessitie is constrained to seeke for another righteousnesse or justification to be received at Gods own hands that is to say the forgivenesse of his sinnes and trespasses in such things as he hath offended Homil. of salvation part 1. p. 13. Iustitia Christi est absolntio a peccatu per Christum ex side Pet. Mart. ad â—om 10.8 Credimus totam nostram justitiam positam esse in peccatorum nostrorum Remissione c. Harm Confess Gallic art 13. have still with confidence and without scruple called by the Name of a righteousnesse See cap. 5. Sect. 5. of the first part and cap. 4. Sect. 28. of this latter part And because some who have a great minde to make Calvin of theirs in the imputation of Christs active obedience will needs have all those passages in him which are very many wherein he placeth justification or righteousnesse in Rem ssion of sinnes alone to be meant only in way of opposition to that Popish opinion which together with remission of sinnes coupleth infusion of grace to make up the