description of this cause given of Iustification is God himselfe Father Son and Holy Ghost considered is one and the same simple and intire essence though this act of justification as that of creation and some others besides is in special manner appropriated to the first person of the three the Father as other acts are to the other two persons Redemption to the Son Sanctification to the Holy Ghost c. in both which notwithstanding all the three persons being but one and the same intâ—re and undivided essence must needs be interesâ—ed Thus Rom. 8.33 where it is said that it is God that justifieth it is meant by way of appropriation of God the Father because there is mention made of Christ the second person immediately it is Christ that is dead c. Now that God is that kinde of cause of Iustification which hath bin attributed to him and no other is evident from the description of this cause formerly layd downe Sect. 4. of this Chapter For 1º that he is a cause of Iustification is the consent of all men without exception besides the Scripture lately cited Rom. 8. is full and pregnant this way It is God that justifieth 2º that he is neither the matter nor the forme of Iustification is sufficiently evident of it selfe neither did ever any man affirme either the one or the other of him and besides we shall cleere this further when we come to inquire after these causes 3º that he is not the end or finall cause of Iustification appeares from that property or condition of this cause mentioned Sect. 3. viz that it is to be atteyned or receive it's being by meanes of that thing whereof it is the end which cannot be verified of God or his being in respect of Iustification inasmuch as these no way depend upon it This likewise will further appeare when we come to lay downe the finall cause Therefore 4º and lastly he must of necessity be the efficient cause of Iustification there being no fift kinde of cause whereunto he should be reduced Secondly SECT 10 that he is the principall efficient cause and not instrumentall is evident also because he is not assum'd acted or made use of by any other in or about the justification of a sinner but himselfe projecteth the whole frame and cariage of all things yea and manageth and maketh use of all things instrumentally concurring or belonging thereunto It is God that justifieth the Gentiles by or through Faith Gal. 3.8 so Rom. 3.30 c. God maketh use of Faith and so of his word and of the Ministers of his word to produce Faith in the hearts of men and consequently to justifie them but none of these can be said to act or make use of God in or about this great effect Thirdly that he is the Naturall efficient cause of Iustification according to the notion and description of this cause given Sect. 5. is evident because in the exercising or putting forth this act of Iustification he acteth and worketh out of that authority and power which are essentiall and connaturall to him and not out of any superadded or acquired principle of art or otherwise whereof he is wholly uncapable It is true he is moved to the exercise of this act of â—ustifying men by somewhat that is extrinsecall and not essentiall to him viz. the intercession of the death and sufferings of Christ yet the act it selfe in the exercise of it proceeds by vertue of that authority and power which are estentiall to him as hath bin said No creature can be said to justifie or forgive any man his sinnes no not by Christ but God alone Who can forgive sinnes but God onely Mar. 2.7 Fourthly SECT 11 the Morall or internall impulsive cause of Iustification as it is an act of God is that infinite love goodnesse mercy sweetnesse and graciousnesse in God himselfe towards his poore creature Man looked upon as miserable and lying under condemnation for sinne This was the moving and procuring cause of the guift of Christ and his death and sufferings from him and consequently of that justification which is procured and purchased by Christ and his sufferings So God loved the world that hee gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever beleeveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life viz by Iustification through him Ioh. 3.16 Fiftly the externall Morall or impulsive efficient cause of this act of God is the Lord Iesus Christ himselfe in or through his death and sufferings or which is the same the death and sufferings of Iesus Christ God looking upon Christ as such and so great a sufferer for the sinnes of men is thereby strengthened and provoked to deliver those that beleeve in him from their sinnes and that condemnation which is due unto them i. to justifie them The Scripture is cleere in laying downe this cause Even as God for Christs sake freely forgave you viz. your sinnes i. justified you Ephe. 4.32 Those words for Christs sake are a plaine and perfect character of that kinde of cause we now speake of This with the former i. both internall and externall impussive or moving causes are joyn'd together Rom. 3.24 And are justified freely by his grace here is the inward impulsive cause of Justification through the Redemption that is in Christ Iesus viz. by meanes of his death and sufferings here is the outward moving cause we speake of Neither can the Death and sufferings of Christ with any shew of reason or with any tolerable construction or congruitie of speaking be referred to any other cause in the businesse of justification but the impulsive only He that would make Christ the instrumentall cause of Iustification (a) Mr. Walker Socinian discovered c. p. 138. discovers himselfe to be no great Gamaliel in this learning and had need thrust his Faith out of doores as he doth in many places and not suffer it to have any thing at all to doe about his Iustification least his Christ and his Faith should be corrivalls and contend for preheminence therein And yet more repugnant to reason is it to make either Christ himselfe or any righteousnesse of his whatsoever either the matter or materiall cause of Justification which yet the Socinian Discoverer doth (b) Ibid. p. 139 or the forme or formall cause thereof which is done by some others But that is a streyne of unreasonablenesse above all the rest to make either Christ or his righteousnesse both the formall and materiall cause too of this great act of God we speake of the Justification of a sinner these causes being of so opposite a nature and different consideration as hath bin described and yet even this conceit also hath found enterteynment with some To this kinde of cause we now speake of must be reduced also the active or personall righteousnesse of Christ as farre as it hath any influence into or any waies operates towards the justificatioÌ„ of a siner For though it be not satisfactory
simply and directly in it selfe nor contributing any thing immediatly by way of merit towards the Iustification of a sinner the reasons whereof have bin formerâ—y given So that God is not thereby provoked or mov'd to justify any man yet falling in conjunction with that other righteousnesse of Christ which we call passive and making his blood to be the blood of a Lamb undefiled and without spot 1 Pet. 1.19 it cannot be denied but that here and in this consideration it hath some kinde of an impulsive and moving efficiencie towards Iustification qualifying in part the sacrifice of Christ for that fullnesse and height of acceptation with God The great misery of the poore creature man lying under condemnation for sinne cannot properly be conceived or call'd any cause of his justification yet is it somewaies reducible to this externall impulsive cause in hand inasmuch as that goodnesse and graciousnesse of God we spake of was hereby occasioned and moved to take some course for it's Iustification and salvation Concerning Faith SECT 12 the generall and uniforme Doctrine of Reformed Authors gives it for an instrumentall efficient cause of Iustification which is the sixt and last kinde of efficient we shall insist upon and so it hath bin more then once represented in this Treatise yet we meet with many expressions concerning Faith even in the best and most approved writers which doe not so much sympathize with the instrumentall as the impulsive efficient Thus Musculus speaking of Abraham (a) Ob eam â—dem sâ— qua promittenti Deo sirmiter credidit justus est a Deo reputatus Musc in Gen. 15. ver 6. saith that he was reputed righteous by God FOR that Faith whereby he firmly beleeved God promising Aretius thus (b) Imputavit ei justitiam quod est fidem gratam habuit adeo ut justum eum haberet justitia imputativa Aret. ad Rom. 4. God imputed righteousnesse to Abraham that is accepted his Faith and againe a Faith so firme and pious was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse In all which expressions with many others both in these and other Authors of like importance there seemes rather an impulsive or perswasive then an instrumentall efficiencie ascribed unto Faith The Scriptures themselves also in respect of other favors blessings and deliverances vouchsafed by God unto Beleevers seeme at least in many places to ascribe rather an impulsive then instrumentall efficiencie unto Faith in the procuring of them So Daniel was brought out of the Denne and no manner of hurt was found upon him BECAUSE he beleeved in God Dan. 6.23 In like manner the Prophet Hanani to King Asa The Ethiopians and the Lubims were they not a great host with Charets and horsemen exceeding many yet BECAUSE then didst rest upon the Lord he delivered them into thine hand 2 Chr. 16.8 See Jer. 39.18.2 Chr 31.18 c. 14 11. with many others Notwithstanding elsewhere this Faith of Beleevers the Holy Ghost makes rather instrumentall then impulsive and that in respect of such favors also Mâ—ny instances whereof are found in that one Chapter Heb. 11. By Faith they passed through the Red Sea ver 29. By Faith the walls of Iericho fell downe 39. Againe ver 33. it is sayd concerning Gideon Barak Sampson c. that through Faith they subdued Kingdomes wrought righteousnesse stopped the mouthes of Lyons quenched the violence of fire c. For reconciling this seeming difference in the Scriptures it may be said that the instrumentall and impulsive efficients are not so opposite but that sometimes and in some cases the instrumentall cause may put on the consideration of an impulsive also and aswell move a man to doe a thing as assist him or be made use of by him in the doing it Thus a competent strength of men may aswell move a King to give battaile to an enemy as assist him in the battaile and obteyning the victory So a Carpenter or other artificer having tooles or instruments thereafter may be perswaded or moved by them in part to undertake some piece of worke which otherwise they would not And thus Faith I conceive may in different respects be look'd upon either as an instrumentall or as an impulsive cause in Iustification As it is a ground or reason why God justifieth one man when he justifieth not another for the beleever is alwaies iustifyed and that because he is a beleever and the unbeleever not so it hath the nature of an impulsive cause againe as it is subservient to the counsell or decree of God concerning Iustification and is accordingly made use of by him in the act of Iustification for he is said to iustify men by and through Faith Rom. 3 30 c. it puts on the nature and consideration of an instrumentall cause properly so called True it is Faith is not an impulsive or moving cause in Iustification of the same kinde nor after the same manner that Christ and his sufferings are these are impulsive and moving in a superior way by way of merit and consequently of Iustification simply and therefore are at no hand to be reckoned amongst the instrumentall causes thereof whereas Faith moveth only in an inferior and under way and by such a motion wherewith causes properly instrumentall sometimes move as hath bin said and therefore mooveth not properly to Iustification or to Iustification simply but comparatiuely that is to the Iustification of such and such men viz that doe beleeve Other causes there are instrumentally inservient unto Iustification as viz. the word of God that is preached the preaching it selfe of this word the Minister by whom this word is preached the sight apprehending or understanding of this word the operation or worke of the Holy Ghost by which this word is made effectuall in the heart and soule of a beleever and generally whatsoever tendeth or contributeth towards the worke of Faith in the soule may be called instrumentall in or about Iustification according to the importance of the old maxime Quod est causa causae est etiam causa causatâ— But how the Sacraments should become instrumentall causes or meanes of Iustification must be knowne by inquiring at the Oracle at Rome for neither the Scriptures nor the Reformed Religion have any of this learning in them This briefly for the efficient câ—uses of Iustification which is the first generall head of causes among the foure Secondly SECT 13 concerning the finall causes of Justification all parties as farre as I know are upon the matter agreed also For though one may discover and put upon accompt more intermediate or subordinate ends or finall causes hereof then another yet no man denieth at least can with reason deny but that the Glory of God which is the generall great and sovereigne end of all things whatsoever hath the preheminence also amongst and above all the ends of Iustification that can be named or enter into the heart of man to conceive The great subordinate end and which lies fairest and fullest
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
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
imputation of Christs righteousnesse that is God justifies a beleever for Christs righteousnesse sake and not for any righteousnesse of his owne Such an imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ as this is is no way denyed or once questioned And thus such passages as those in Calvin Nos gratis justificat Deus Christi obedientiam nobis imputando i. God freely justifieth us by imputing the obedience of Christ unto us and againe Homo non inse ipso justus est sed quia Christi justitia imputatione cum illo communicatur Instit l. 3 c. 17 ss 23. i. A man is not righteous in himselfe but because the righteousnesse of Christ is communicated or Imputed unto him by imputation These and such like expressions in this Author are to be interpreted by such passages as these which are frequent also in the same Author Christus suaobedientia gratiam nobis apud Patrem acquifivit promeritus est Instit l. 2 c. 17. ss 30. 1. Christ by his obedience procured and merited for us grace or favor with God the Father And againe l. 3 c. 14. ss 17. Christus per suam obedientiam nobis justitiam acquisivit i. Christ by his obedience procured or purchased righteousnesse for us And againe in Gal. 3 6. Omnes istae locutiones peraequè valent justificari nos Dei gratia Christum esse justitiam nostraÌ„ justitiaÌ„ morte resurrectione Christi nobis acquisitaÌ„ c. i. All such expressions as these import the same thing that we are justified by the grace of God that Christ is our righteousnes that righteousnes was procured for us by the death and resurrection of Christ c. By al which passages and many more of like Importance that might be produced out of the same Author it is fully evideÌ„t that when he mentioneth any imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in Iustification his meaning is only that the righteousnesse of Christ meaning chiefly his passive obedience or righteousnesse haply not excluding his active is the meritorious cause of our Iustification and hath procured and purchased this for us at Gods hand that upon our believing wee should be accompted righteous by him or which is but the same that our Faith should be imputed for righteousnesse to us To which purpose hee speakes yet more significantly and expressely in the place last mentioned in Gal. 3 6. Quum autom justitiam in se repositam non habeant homines imputatione hanc adipiscuntur i. Men not having any righteousnesse lodged â—n themselves they obtaine it by imputation which Imputation he thus explicates and interprets quia Deus fidem illis fert acceptam pro justitia because saith he God doth Impute or accompt their faith unto them for righteousnesse Divers like passages might be drawne together out of other Authors which must be seasoned with the same salt of Interpretation to be made savory and meete for Spirituall nourishment In the Homilies of our owne Church SECT 4 there are some passages that mention the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse in Iustification for the genuine sense whereof if we consult with the eleventh Article of Religion which is concerning Iustification and is framed with all possible exactnesse this way that so few words are capable of that will directly lead us to the same Interpretation of them we are accompted righteous before God saith our Article only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ by faith and not for our owne works or deservings Where â— it is to be observed that we are not said to be constituted and made righteous before God in Iustification though such an expression may in a sense be admitted but only that we are accompted or reputed such 2. It is not said that we are accounted righteous with the righteousnesse of our Lord and Saviour no nor yet with his merits but only thus we are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord by Faith i. The merit of Christ or of his righteousnesse hath so farre prevaled with God on our behalfe that by or upon our Faith we shall be accounted righteous before him which in effect is the same truth we maintaine viz. that God for Christs sake or Christs merits sake doth impute our faith for righteousnesse unto us requiring nothing more at our hands for Iustification And thus Musculus expresseth himselfe roundly Fides reputatur in justitiam propter Christum Faith is accounted for righteousnesse for Christs sake And againe Commendata debet esse haec fides c. quaÌ„ constituit credentibus in Christum propter ipsum justitiae loco imputare Loc. Com. de Iustif sect 5 i. This faith ought to be esteemed of us c. which God purposeth for Christs sake to impute for righteousnesse to those that beleeve in him So Luther also ad Gal. 3.6 Deus reputat istam imperfectam fidem ad justitiam perfectam propter Christum i. God for Christs sake accounts this imperfect faith for perfect righteousnesse And Chamier calls remission of sinnes that righteousnesse which is imputed unto us Remissio peccatorum est justitia imputatat 3 l. 21. c. 19. ss 10. And Vrsinus Idem sunt justificatio remissio peccatorum Cat. part 2. Qu. 60 ss 3. Therefore wheresoever whether in the Homilies of our own Church or in other Authors we meet with any such expression as of the righteousnesse of Christ imputed in Iustification we must not understand this righteousnesse in the Letter proprietie or formalitie of it but in the Spirit or merit of it to be imputed Iustificamur per Iustitiam Christi non personae qua ipse est vestitus sed meriti quae suos vestit nobis imputatam Dr. Prideaux Lect. 5 ss 11. And this manner of speech to put the name of a thing in the proprietie of it instead of the valew worth benefit or returne of it is both usuall and familiar in ordinary passage of discourse amongst us and very frequent in the Scriptures When we say a Merchant grew rich by such or such a Commoditie our meaning is that he grew rich by the game or returne he made of the commodity He may be enriched by the Commodity and yet have never a whâ—t of it with him or under his hand So when we say such a man grew rich by his place or Office our meaning plainly is but this that he grew rich by such gaines or matters of profit as his place or Office afforded him we do not meane that his place or Office it self was his riches So may it be said that we are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ and yet not have the righteousnesse it selfe upon us by imputation or otherwise but only a righteousnesse procured or purchased by it really and essentially differing from it viz. remission of sinnes as will appeare in due time Thus in the Scriptures themselves there is no figure or forme of speech more frequent then to name the thing it selfe in the propriety of it in
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
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
is the act of Faith that Iustifieth As when a man putteth forth his arme and reacheth a pot or cup with drink in it wherewith he quencheth his thirst he may be said to quench his thirst instrumentally by reaching out his arme because this was a meanes to procure it So let men put what meaning or interpretation they please upon their words when they professe and acknowledg that it is Faith that Iustifieth if they meane at all as they say they must meane that it is the Act of Faith that Iustifieth because both that Faith by which a man beleeves in Christ is an act of Faith and againe that Faith by which a man is instrumentally Iustified is an act of Faith and that Faith that layeth hold upon the righteousnesse of Christ is an act of Faith too Therefore let men turne themselves any way and which way they please and make their words to fall either to the North or towards the South if they meane as they say that faith indeed Iustifieth they must meane that it is the act of faith that Iustifieth And when themselves will say that faith Iustifieth and yet will condemne it for an error in another that the act of faith should Iustify they cannot escape the hands of this dilemma but one of the horns will gore them either it must follow that they doe not meane as they say or that they condemne their owne opinion and meaning in another most true it is that it is far from truth to say that faith iustifyeth as it is an act and as far from truth it is to say that it is not the act of faith that Iustifieth If it be yet further replyed and said SECT 4 that when men say we are justified by Faith their meaning is that we are justified by that which faith apprehendeth and this is farre from saying that Faith is imputed for righteousnesse To this I Answer 1. if their meaning be simply and without limitation so that we are justified by that which Faith apprehendeth when they say we are justified by Faith then they speake more truth then they are aware of and as it seems more then they intend to speake For that Faith justifieth is most true but that whatsoever Faith apprehendeth should justifie hath no fellowship with truth no not so much as in appearance For By Faith we understand or apprehend the worlds were made Heb. 11.3 yet no man will say that the creation of the world justifies men Secondly if men ascribe justification in every respect and consideration to that which Faith apprehendeth they utterly overthrow that which generally they professe viz. the instrumentall justification of faith For if any thing that faith apprehendeth justifieth every way both materially and formally and meritoriously and principally and instrumentally c. Faith shall justifie no wayes and so when men say they are justified by Faith their meaning must be they are not at al justified by Faith but by some other thing Therfore of necessity it is that Faith must justifie some way if it iustifieth any way it must of neceility be by imputation or account from God for righteousnes because it is all that God requires of men to their iustification instead of the righteousnesse of the Law The fore if God shall not impute or account it unto them for this righteousnesse it would stand them in no stead at all to their iustificaetion because there is nothing usefull or availeable to any holy or saving purpose whatsoever but only to that whereâ—â— to God hath assigned it If God in the new Covenant of the Gospell requires faith in Christ for our iustification instead of the righteousnesse of the Law in the old and this Faith will not passe in account with him for such righteousnesse both his Commandement and Covenant for beleeving and the obedience it selfe of beleeving will both become voyd and of none effect the intire benefit of them being suspended upon the gracious pleasure and purpose of God in the designation of them to their end CAP. VIII Conteining the last proofe from Scripture for the Non-imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sence controverted THere is yet one Scripture remaining happily amongst many more that have not yet manifested themselves in this Controversie that seems yea I verily beleeve SECT 1 doth more then seem quite to overthrow and take away that which must be the groundworke and foundation to set this imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ upon if ever it stands viz. the imputability or transferiblenesse of it from one to another If the Scriptures doe not only no where establish but in any place absolutely deny a possibility of the translation or removing of the righteousnesse of Christ from one person to another this will strike the fatall stroke in deciding this Question This I conceive will be evicted with a pregnancie irrefragable from that Scripture Gal. 3.12 And the Law is not of Faith but the man that doth them shall live in them This Scripture doth not barely and simply deny a deceivablenesle or possibility of translation of the righteousnesse of the Law from one person to another but denies it emphatically and with the utmost advantage of a deniall For it denies a possibility of it to be done even by that hand expresly and by name I meane the hand of faith which was the ikelyest hand under Heaven to have done it if the nature of the thing to be done had not resisted the doing of it The Apostle denyeth unto faith it selfe the office and power of being a Mediatrix in this case to derive or carry over the righteousnesse of the Law from one person to another By which it appeareth also that he had an intent particularly to make the righteousnesse of the Law as performed by Christ himselfe uncapable of this translation or imputation because faith never pretended nor ever could have ground or colour to pretend a deriving or translating of any other legall righteousnesse from one person to another for Justification but only that which was performed by Christ If there were any thing in all the world that could have done the thing that is pleaded for Faith indeed hath the preheminence of likely hood to do it because it doth derive a righteousnesse from one to another such a righteousnesse as is deriveable an imputative righteousnesse you may call it because it is such by account or interpretation I meane remission of sins this Faith derives from Christ upon him that beleeveth but for a righteousnesse of the Law it cannot derive because such a righteousnesse is not deriveable Let the words and scope of the Scripture mentionedbe narrowly examined SECT 2 and all this that hath been said will be found in the bowells of it And the Law is not of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the man that doth them shall live in them or if you would translate the emphasis also which is in the originall thus the very doer of them the
Christ could not have bin our justification either in whole or in part in case it had bin performed by our selves is evident from hence because man being once fallen by sinning against the Law and made obnoxious to condemnation can never be raised or recovered againe by ten thousand observations of this Law The Law was able to have given life had it alwaies bin fulfilled and never broken but unto him that had once failed in the observation of it though he had bin made able to have kept it ten times afterward it had no power at all to give either life or justification The guilt of that sinne wherin he had once sinned could never have bin purged by any Law-righteousnesse noactive obedience whatsoever would ever have bin an attonement for him Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sinnes Heb. 9.22 Let me joyne another argument of the same lineage and stock with the former That which men are not bound by any Law or command of God to doe in their owne persons Argum. 22 SECT 3 for their justification cannot be imputed from another to any such end But men are not bound by any Law or command from God to observe the Moral Law for their justificatiō Therefore the observation of it cannot be imputed unto them from any other for any such end The reason of the major proposition if the conclusion sticks there is because imputation in the sense it is still taken by our adversaries in this controversie must be found out and ordained by God to supplie personall defects and inabilities But where there is no Law or command given unto men to obey there can be no personall defect It is no sinne or defect in any man not to obey where he hath no command and consequently there is no place nor occasion for any imputation to supplie it For the minor there is both substance and appearance enough of truth in it to privilege it from being a proposition of any further contention or strife Most evident it is from the whole course and current of the Scriptures that man in his lapsed condition since the fall had not the Law of works or the observation of the Morall Law imposed upon him for his justification before God but the Law of Faith only The morall Law as it hath received a new authority and establishment from Christ obligeth and bindeth the conscience under the Gospell to the observation thereof by way of dutie and thankfulnesse unto God but neither now nor at any time since the fall did it ever bind any man to the practise of it for his justification And therfore where it is said Rom. 2.13 that the hearers of the Law are not just before God but the doers of the Law shal be justified the meaning is not as if God exacted the strict observing of the Law for their iustification or that none should be iustified without such an observance but either 1º the words may be conceived spoken in a kind of ironie as if God did deride the hope and confidence of all those that should stand upon any such doing of the Law for their instification A man that promiseth a reward or matter of benefit upon such termes and conditions which he knoweth will never be performed by him that undertakes the performance of them rather derides the pride and ignorance of his presumption then really intends the collation of what he seemes so to promise To this interpretation Beza much inclineth in his marginall note upon that clause Or else 2º the meaning of those words the doers of the Law shall be iustified may be only this that God will accept justifie and save only such who out of a sincere and sound Faith towards him by his Christ shall addresse themselves to serve and please him in a way of obedience to his Lawes In this sense which I rather conceive to be the expresse intent of the Apostle in the words the doing of the Law is mentioned not as the meanes or meritorious cause of the iustification adjoyning but either as a condition sine quinon without which iustification is not to be expected or rather as an outward signe and manifestation of the persons that shall be iustified but in another way viz. by Faith Thirdly and lastly by the Law in this place the doers whereof as is said shall be iustified is not meant the Morall Law only which restreyned signification was simply necessary to have given the clause any colour of opposition or contradiction to the proposition mentioned but the whole Mosaicall dispensation consisting according to the common distribution of Ceremonialls moralls and judicialls The observation of all which no man I think ever affirmed to have bin imposed by God upon men for their justification But I feare we stand too long about oyling a wheele which would run merrily enough without it Let us rather heare the voyce of a new argument speaking Jf God requires only Faith of men to their justification then he imputes this Faith unto them thereunto Argum. 23 SECT 4 But God requires only Faith to justification Ergo. The consequence in the Maior Proposition is blamelesse for this reason because to impute unto iustsfication and to accept unto justification are somwhat differing in sound but nothing at all in sence and signification Now if God should require faith of men and onely Faith to their Iustification and not accept it thereunto he should make a bargaine or Covenant with men and refuse to stand to it when he had done his overtures would be faire and gracious but his intentions would be to seek and no where in Scriptures to be found If it be here replyed and said that though God requires onely faith of men to their justification yet he requires somwhat more and besides at the hand of another thereunto therfore that which he imputes unto men for their justification is not necessarily that which he requires of themselves but rather that which he requires of another for them To this I answer if it were the righteousnesse of Christ which is presumed to be the thing required of another and not the faith that is required of themselves that God imputes for righteousnesse unto them in their justification then may this righteousnesse of Christ be imputed for this end and purpose before yea and without the faith of any man For it is certaine that the Faith of men addes no vertue or vaiue to the righteousnesse of Christ therfore if this be that which God imputeth for righteousnesse in justification it may be imputed aswell without faith as with it and so men might be justified without beleeving Neither will it help in this case to say SECT 5 that imputation followeth the will and pleasure of God and therfore the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed unto any but to him that beleeveth because the will and pleasure of God is not to make imputation of it in any other way or upon any other terms For To this
if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. q.d. If the sinne of Adam being but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an inconsiderate stumbling or a sinne proceeding from incogitancie and Adam hmselfe but one hath yet beene able to involve many i. his whole posteritie all that shall be borne of him in death and condemnation much more must it needs be conceived that the grace i. the gracious intent purpose of God towards men and the gift by that grace viz. of righteousnes justification by such a man as Iesus Christ is who is both God and man should abound unto many i. justifie and save with farre greater efficacie power and authority and as it were with an higher hand all those that by spirituall regeneration and a true faith shall descend from him The strēngth of of the Apostles reasoning and inference in this passage Scripture lyeth in this The salvation of the world faith he must needs proceede with farre higher hand by Christ then the condemnation of it did or doth by Adam Because 1. The foundation and ground worke of the one was the free and gracious intent and purpose of God which is a stronger and more active and lively principle or spring to set all the wheeles and worke on going that depend upon it then a permissive decree onely which as seemeth here intimated and imployed is the maine foundation the other viz. the condemnation of the world by Adam had in respect of God This permissive decree though it be as cleare as the other in respect of the event and comming to passe of such things as are comprehended in it yet is the motion of it but slow and heavie in comparison of the other Gods permissive decrees are chiefely executed by second meanes or by occasion of his withdrawing himselfe and leaving the creature to it selfe but his gracious decrees have his heart and soule and strength and might in their execution And secondly that which is the more proper and immediate cause of the difference here laid downe by the Apostle the condemnation of the world as touching matter of provocation and offence given unto God proceeds onely in the demerit and strength 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one inconsiderate act of sinne and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from one onely meere man whereas the salvation of the world advanceth in the strength of such a righteousnesse attonement or justification as was procured indeed by one man but this one man was Jesus Christ who is valuable with thousand thousands of men and ten thousand times ten thousand thousands So that what he hath purposely and with all his might done for the justification and salvation of the world must needs be of an incomparable farre greater efficacie to carry these before it then the stumbling or unadvised sinne of one poore meere and meane man in comparison can be to procure the condemnation of it Onely I desire that it should be here considered and remembered that there is nothing said in all this Conclusion any wayes to extenuate either the demerit or guilt of Adams sinne beneath their just proportions and degrees but onely to shew that there is a great excesse of merit in the obedience of Christ above the rate and proportion of demerit in the disobedience of Adam There being these and other differences betweene Adam in his condemning the world and Christ in his Act or Worke in saving it it is evident that all such arguments or reasonings which are drawne from specialites and particularities of agreement betweene them are invalid and insufficient except they have some other foundation to beare them That which makes a true and lively Faith instrumentall in Justification Conclusi 11 SECT 17 is nothing that is essentiall or naturall to it whether descent propertie or act but somewhat that is extrinsecall and purely adventitious viz. the force and efficacie of that will good pleasure ordination covenant and appointment of God in that behalfe As it was neither the stature nor comelinesse of Aarons person nor his descent from Levie nor his grace nor his wisedome nor his knowledge nor any service formerly done by him either unto God or his Church nor any thing that in any proprietie of speech could be called his that made him an high Priest but Gods calling him unto and investing him with that honour and function he might have beene all that hee was otherwise and might have done all that hee did otherwise and yet without this anointing and appointment from God another might have beene high Priest and not he So might Faith have beene Faith both in the Originall and descent of it from the Spirit of God as likewise in all that native beautie and excellencie that belongs to it yea and put forth all those acts which otherwise it puts forth as to bring men to Christ to lay hold of Christ c. and yet never have attained the honour that is now put upon it never have beene instrumentall in Justification And as the same anointing or calling from God which were confer'd upon Aaron would have made any other man Priest though of another Tribe though lesse gracefull of person of meaner gifts and abilities every-wayes than Aaron was had they beene conferred upon him so had any other grace as love patience temperance or the like the force and power of the same covenant or ordination from God to assist them it cannot be conceived but that any of these would justifie as effectually as faith it selfe now doth Therefore it is unquestionably evident that Faith doth not justifie as it relates to Christ or as it apprehends him or redemption by him or the like because all these and such like properties or acts as these are essentiall and naturall unto Faith I meane to such a Faith as we speake of and that Faith which hath not or doth not all this is no true lively or effectuall Faith or instrumentall in justification Wherefore if Faith should justifie in regard or by vertue of any of these it should justifie by it selfe or by some dignity quality or act that is proper to it or inherent in it Hence it is that Scripture still suspends the justifying power or propertie of Faith upon the will free grace and good pleasure of God but never upon any act or qualitie proper to it selfe This is the will of him that sent me saith our Saviour Ioh. 6.40 that every man that seeth the Sonne and beleeveth in him should have everlasting life c. clearely implying 1. That it is not any seeing of Christ either corporally or spiritually nor any beleeving in him that could carry eternall life had it not the efficacie of the will of God to strengthen it thereunto And 2 that had this Will of God fallen in conjunction with any other grace or act of
latter thus Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for or concerning remission of sinnes that are past c. It plainly appeares from these Scriptures compared together First that the righteousnesse of God that is the way meanes or course which God holds for the Justification of men stands in remission or forgivenesse of sinnes Secondly that this righteousnesse or Iustification of his is witnessed that is asserted and vindicated by the Law that is the writings of Moses and consequently may well be called the righteousnesse or Iustification of the Law Thirdly and lastly that this righteousnesse of God testified and asserted by the Law in the sense given and exercised by him under the Law in the forgivenesse of the sinnes of those that then beleeved was not manifested or declared or as our other Scripture had it fulfilled that is fully revealed and discovered to the roote bottome and foundations of it till the coming of Christ into the world and his dying for sinne which in that other place is called his condemning sinne in the flesh This for answere in full to this Scripture The next place SECT 15 which I understand hath bin of late taken hold of by some to supply that which it seemes is wanting in others for the defence of that imputation which we oppose is Rom. 9.31.32 But Israel which followed after the Law of righteousnesse hath not attained to the Law of righteousnesse Wherefore because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the workes of the Law c. From hence it is thus argued that had Israel that is the Jewes who followed after the Law of righteousnesse beleeved in Christ they had attained the Law of righteousnesse that is should have had the righteousnesse of the Law performed by Christ imputed unto them But to this also I Answere 1. that by the Law of righteousnes Rom. 9.31.32 answered which the Jewes are here said to have sought after but could not attain is not meant the Moral Law nor indeed any Law properly so called either Morall Ceremoniall or Judicial for God had preveÌ„ted them with the guift of all these Laws so that they need not have sought after them If it be objected that their studie endeavor of keeping the Law which they had may be called a seeking or following after the Law I answere be it so yet this studie and endeavor of theirs could be no cause of their coming short of righteousnesse or Iustification which yet is ascribed to that seeking or following after the Law of righteousnesse here mentioned As Christians are never the further off from being justified by living holily and keeping the commandements of God So neither was the care and endeavor of the Jewes to observe the precepts of that Law which God had given them any cause of their miscariage in point of Iustification Abraham and those that were justifyed by Faith in Christ as he was were as conscientious and careful observers of al Gods Lawes as any of those were who stumbling at the stumbling stone were never justified Therefore by the Law of righteousnes in this Scripture is not meant any Law properly so called much les definitively the Morall Law Secondly in this expression the Law of righteousnesse in the former clause of the verse Calvin findes an hypallage the Law of righteousnesse put for the righteousnesse of the Law (a) Iam priere loco legem justiciae per hypallagen posuisse mihi videtur pro justicia legis in repetitione secundi membri alio sensu sic vocasse justiâ—iae formam seu regulam Calvin in Rom. 9 1. Nam illud sectandâ— legem justiciae simpliciter esse dictum de legis justitia i. ea quae ex operibus legu est patebit infra c. Mus in Rom. 9.31 in the latter clause he takes it in somewhat a different signification for a forme or rule of righteousnesse Musculus dissents little if any thing at all from this interpretation by the Law of righteousnesse understanding that righteousnesse which stands in the works of the Lawb. So that neither of these Authors nor any other that I have yet met with restreyne the word Law in these phrases determinatly to the Morall Law Thirdly neither is there any reason nor colour of reason to limit the Apostles expressions in this place of the Law of righteousnesse to the Morall Law only and the righteousnesse thereof because it is notoriously knowne and hath bin more then once observed formerly that the Jewes never hoped for nor sought after righteousnesse SECT 16 or Iustification by the Morall Law only or the works thereof alone but by the Ceremoniall Law also and the observances hereof yea principally by these as hath bin els where in this Treatise prooved from the Scriptures So that by the Law of righteousnesse whereof they miscaried by not seeking it by Faith cannot be ment determinatly the Moral Law or the righteousnes therof because they never travaild of this upon such termes they never had thought or hope of being iustified or made righteous by the Morall Law or righteousnesse thereof only And so Paraeus by the Law of righteousnesse in this place understands aswell the Ceremoniall as the Morall Law (a) Iudaeos ait sectatos legem justiciae quae praescribit justiciam operibus perfectam hoc est conatos esse tum ceremoniarum observatione tum moralium operum meritu justificari coram Deo Pateus in Rom. 9.31 4. Neither would the righteousnes of the Moral Law alone suppose they should have attained it by beleeving have stood the Jewes in any stead for their justification being aswell bound to the observation of the ceremoniall law as of it Therfore it was not this law or the righteousues of it which should have bin imputed to them in case they had trruly beleeved consequeÌ„tly no imputation of any law righteousnes whatsoever from Christ can be concluded from this place But 5. lastly to give the cleere sence and meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel is said to have followed after but not to have attained because he sought it not by Faith c. can be meant nothing else but justification it selfe or righteousnesse simply and indefinitely taken in which acception it is oft put for justification as was observed cap. 3. Sect and elsewhere which the Jewes seeking to attaine it by the works of the Law that is by themselves and the merit of their own doings and not by faith in Iesus Christ were never able to attain but lost the favour of God perished in their sinnes That this is the direct and expresse meaning of the place may be several waies confirm'd 1. To call righteousnesse simply that is SECT 17 justification the Law of righteousnesse is agreeable to this Apostles dialect elswhere For Rom. 7.23 25. by the Law of sinne he means nothing else but sinne
Justification that it is purposely required of men and it only by him that the freenesse of his grace in their Iustification might take place and be established thereby Rom. 4.16 Therefore it is by Faith that it might be by Grace And in reason how can a guift be conceived to be more freely given then when nothing more is required of him to whō it is given then that he receives it Now beleeving is nothing else being interpreted but a receiving of that righteousnesse or Iustification which God giveth in and with his Sonne Iesus Christ As many as received him c. Joh. 1.12 that is as it is explained in the end of the verse as many as beleeved in his Name So that in the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense so oft explained there is not the least appearance of any prejudice at all to the freenesse of grace in Iustification And thus we are fairly delivered out of the hand of this objection also A fourth is this Object 4 That which ministreth occasion to the flesh of boasting in it selfe SECT 5 is no waies consonant to the tenor and truth of the Gospell But the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense claimed ministreth this occasion of boasting unto the flesh Ergo. This syllogisme also as touching the matter of it halts right downe on the minor proposition For certaine it is that there is no occasion nor indeed colour of occasion of boasting ministred to the flesh by that opinion which maintaines the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense avouched For First suppose the worke or act of beleeving which is so imputed for righteousnesse be a mans own work or act which is all the colour that can be pretended why the imputation of it for righteousnesse should be an occasion of boasting to the flesh yet it is so by guift and by the meere grace and donation of another viz. God This the Apostle determines in expresse words Ephes 2.8 By grace ye are saved through Faith and that not of your selves it is the guift of God that is that Faith by which ye are saved is the guift of God See likewise Philip. 1.29 1 Cor. 2.12 1 Cor. 3.6 with many other places of like importance Now then since a man hath nothing doth nothing in beleeving but what he receiveth from another all occasion or pretence of boasting is cut off by this even according to the Apostles own rule and reasoning 1 Cor. 4.7 What hast thou that thou hast not received and if thou hast received it why gloriest or boastest thou as though thou hadst not received evidently implying that no man hath any just cause or pretence of boasting I meane in or of himselfe for any thing but only of that which he hath of his own and from himselfe Let the thing be never so glorious and excellent if he hath received it from another hee hath cause onely to boast and glorie in him from whom he hath received it but not at all in himselfe If God miracluosly should raise up Children unto Abraham of the stones of the Earth had these stones being now made men and men of the greatest worth and excellencie any cause or pretence of glorying in themselves concerning that dignity and honour which is now come upon them No more hath any flesh the least cause or colour of boasting in it selfe how great or excellent soever the act of Faith may be conceived to be or how great and rich soever the privileges may be which depend upon it because it is given unto them by another it is the glory of the giver and the comfort only or blessednesse of the receiver But Secondly SECT 5 suppose the act of believing were from a mans selfe or in part from a mans selfe yet hath he no cause to boast in himselfe that God should be pleased to impute it unto him for righteousnesse in the sense we embrace Because that weight of glory those high and excellent things which attend upon Faith and are given to it are not given to it for any worth or dignity that is found in it as we have heretofore cleerely demonstrated but by the most free gracious and good pleasure of God If a King for taking a pin of a mans sleeve should raise his House and make him honourable in the State and give him thousands to maintaine it were it not a ridiculous thing for such a man to goe up and down and bragg of the pin of his sleeve Alasse for all this honour and greatnesse that he is come unto he is beholding to the grace and bounty of his Prince and nothing at all to the pin in his sleeve He might have had twenty pins in his sleeve and yet never have bin worth twenty pence had he not met with such a royall and magnificent disposition in him that so rewarded him This is the case of Faith in respect of those great things which depend upon it though a Beleever hath the forgivenesse of sinnes and the love and favor of God given him upon it and right and title to the Kingdome of Heaven c. yet all this is no ground or pretence at all why any man should boast of himselfe or of his Faith though it were from himselfe which yet we absolutly deny because if this Faith had not met with a God of infinite grace bounty and magnificence we might have bin miserable and accursed for all our Faith and beleeving whatsoever Yea by the Apostles own rule when God is pleased to chuse weake and foolish things to confound the mighty all occasion of boasting is cut off from the flesh Indeed if men had fulfilled the Law and bin justified that way there had bin some pretence for boasting or glorying in themselves First because such a righteousnesse had held some proportion at least with the reward that should have bin given to it Rom. 4.4 To him that worketh saith Paul that is that keepeth the Law the wages or reward is counted not by favor but of debt God should have given them no more then what they had at least in some sort deserved Secondly because if they had made out their happinesse that way they had done it out of themselves that is out of the strength of those abilities which were essentiall to their natures and in the strictest and most proper sense that can be spoken of or applied to a creature their owne Both which being apparantly wanting in Faith or in the Act of beleeving there can be no colour or pretence of boasting for the flesh though it be imputed by God for righteousnesse as hath bin explained So that this objection also vanisheth into nothing Fiftly SECT 6 I have somewhere met with such a reasoning as this against the point in hand Object If Faith be imputed unto us for righteousnesse then are we justified by that which is unperfect and which it selfe needs a justification for no mans Faith is perfect in this life But
there is no justification to be looked for before God by that which is unperfect but only by that which is perfect c. Ergo. To the Major Proposition I answere Answere by distinguishing that clause in the consequent or latter part of it then are we justified by that which is unperfect c. These words may have a double sense or meaning as either that we are justified without the concurrence of any thing that is simply perfect to our justification or that somewhat that is comparatively weake and unperfect may somewaies concurre and contribute towards our Iustification If the former sense be intended the proposition is absolutly false and the consequence to be denied it doth not follow If Faith be imputed for righteousnesse in the sense given then is there nothing that is perfect required as necessary unto Iustification this inconsequence is notorious Yea the truth is that the imputing of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense of the discourse presupposteth somewhat if not more things then one that is absolutly perfect as absolutly necessary unto Iustification Had not the Lord Christ who is perfect himselfe even as perfect as perfection it selfe could make him made a perfect attonement for sinne there had bin no place for the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse yea there had bin no place so much as for the being either of such a Faith or of any righteousnesse or Iustification at all for men For it is thorough the attonement made by Christ for us that either we beleeve in him or in God through him and it is through the same attonement also that God iustifieth us upon our beleeving that is imputes our Faith unto us for righteousnesse in the sense argued If the said clause be meant in the latter sense viz. that somwhat that is weake and unperfect may somtimes concurre or conduce towards Iustification so the Proposition is granted but then the Minor goes to wreck For Justification before God may be expected and looked for though that Faith whereby we beleeve yea and that Minister of the Gospell by whom we beleeve be both weake and unperfect and yet both these we know are somewaies contributorie towards Iustification Except yee beleeve that I am hee you shall die in your sinnes c. Joh. 8.24 and consequently never be iustified We have beleeved in Christ Iesus that we might be iustified c. Gal. 2.16 And that the Minister of the Gospell hath or at least may have his part or hand in our Iustification is evident How shall they beleeve in him of whom they have not heard and how shall they heare without a Preacher Rom. 10.14 He that hath any influence into our Faith or the working and raising that in the soule is somewaies instrumentall and helpfull towards our Iustification But neither doth our Iustification before God depend upon the perfection of our Faith but upon the truth of it neither doth the truth of our Faith depend upon the perfection of him by whom we beleeve but upon the truth of what he teacheth and delivereth unto us for that end So that the light of this truth shines on every hand that men may be iustified ministerially and instrumentally by things that are weake and unperfect Therefore this objection also is no better then his fellowes Sixtly Object 6 Some have opposed the imputation of Faith which we pleade for with this reason SECT 8 If Faith be imputed unto us for righteousnesse in the sense expressed then God should rather receive a righteousnesse from us then we from him in our Iustification But God doth not receive a righteousnesse from us but we from him in Iustification Ergo. I answere that in this syllogisme Answere the Major Proposition is guilty of the error and falshood in the conclusion For it no waies followes upon that imputation of Faith for righteousnesse which we defend that God should either receive a righteousnesse from us or that we should receive none from him in our Iustification Because First Gods imputing Faith for righteousnesse unto us in the sense which hitherto we have aided doth no waies imply or import that Faith is a righteousnesse properly so called but only that God by the meanes thereof and upon the tender of it looks upon us as righteous yet not as made either meritoriously or formally righteous by it but as having fulfilled and performed that condition or covenant upon the fulfilling and performance whereof hee hath covenanted and promised to make us righteous meritoriously by the death and sufferings of his own Sonne formally with the pardon and remission of all our sinnes Secondly Suppose such a position or inference as this lay in the bowells of what we hold that Faith were a proper righteousnesse yet neither would this argue that therefore God should receive a righteousnesse from us in our Iustification For we rather receive our Faith from God as was layd down in Answere to the fourth objection for our Iustification then God from us in our Iustification though I grant that in a sense a farre off and with much adoe it may haply be made a truth that God receives our Faith from us in Iustification But Thirdly and lastly that that imputation of Faith for righteousnesse which is protected by us supposeth a righteousnesse given unto and received by men from God in Iustification and consequently is farre from denying it is evident from hence because it could not be truly said that God doth impute Faith for righteousnesse unto any man excâ—pt he should make him righteous upon his beleeving Now as it is impossible possible that a man should be made righteous without a righteousnesse in one kinde or other so is it unpossible also that that righteousnesse wherewith a man is made righteous in Iustification should be given or be derived upon him from any other but from God alone For this righteousnesse as hath bin already proov'd at large can be none other but forgivenesse of sinnes and who can forgive sinnes but God alone And by this time the fire of this objection also I conceive is turn'd into smoke Some other exceptions I confesse there are against this Imputation we hold forth SECT 9 of lighter consideration but some of these if not the whole thripp of them I have Answered at large in my Answere to Mr. Walker now Printed by some as it seemes at the unreasonable importunity of my Antagonists Socinianisme Discovered c. which called for it and for 7 times more with open mouth and with multiplicitie of requests made of forged cavillations and ragged raylings But complaints I consider are here but impertinencies If the Reader please to set in about pag 32 of that Discourse and read on hee shall finde severall objections more such as they are against the Imputation in hand attended with their Answeres like mad-men with sober for feare of doing harme Aud as for those viperous and malignant imputations rather then objections of Socinianisme Arminianisme c. against the
IOHANNES GOODWIN S THEOL CANTABRIG Aº AETAT 47. 1641. Thou see'st not whome thou see'st then doe not say That this is HEE who calls a lump of clay Without it's soule a mans thou see'st nâ—â— more Nay but the SHADOW of that lumpâ— what store Of gifts and graces what perfections rare Among ten thousand persons scatt'red are Gather in one Jmagine it to bee This SHADOWES substance and then say 't is Hee DT G G. fecit IMPVTATIO FIDEI or A Treatise of Justification wherein the imputation of faith for righteousnes mentioned Rom 43.5 is explained also that great Question largly handled whether the actiue obedience of Christ performed to the morall Law be imputed in Justification or not or how it is imputed Wherein likewise many other difficulties and Questions touching the great busines of iustification viz the matter forme thereof etc are opened cleared Together w th the explication of diuerse scriptures which partly speake partly seeme to speake to the matter herein discussed By John Goodwin pastor in Coleman-street Nisquaâ— legi sanctitutem humanani Christi 〈…〉 esse iustitiam nostram vel ejus partem Si quis legit quoeso mihi â—â—tendat ut et ego legem et eredam Partus De Iustic Christi Act et Passus Remisâ—iâ— peccaterum est Iusticia imputata Châ—â—â—â—r Tim. 3. lib. â— C. iâ— 9.10 Lâ—am Abieâ—tisimi verbae in Ecclesia non contemâ—â—nda sod audi ende et iudicanda sunt Zuingl in Epist. LONDON Printed by R. O. And G. D. And are to be sold by Andrew Crooke at the Greene Dragon in Pauls Church-yard 1642. Small wyars somtimes Massic wayghts do carry And on poore faith hangs great eternitie TO HIS DEARE BRETHREN the Reverend and Faithfull Ministers of the Gospell of Jesus Christ in and neere about the CITIE of LONDON Reverend and much honoured and respected in the Lord I Presume you have all taken speciall knowledge of a Booke not long since presented unto you by a Leviticall hand entituled Socinianisme Discovered and Confuted What Quarter the Divinitie of the said Discourse hath in your approbations I doe not yet so well understand as I desire I might but for the moralitie of it I make no question but you have done justice upon it aswell to mine as to other mens satisfaction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2.6 I doe not here offer unto you any formall answere or confutation of that piece because if I could doe the Truth and my selfe right otherwise I would willingly decline all personall contention and contestation I only lay downe more fully and at large mine owne judgement concerning those things about which the question is still depending betweene my Antagonist and me conceiving it a speciall duty lying upon me as the case stands to give an ingenuous and faire account unto your selves especially and from you to all men of what I hold therein aswell by making knowne what Scriptures and reasons and grounds otherwise have commanded my judgement to that point whereat it now stands as wherefore I judge both those Scriptures and arguments impertinent and insufficient to prove the contrary which have hitherto bin produced insisted upon for that purpose either by my Adversaries in the mentioned Discourse or any other I can meet with Nor doe I make the least question but that when you have diligently examined the particulars of my account you will give me your quietus est for the Totall Or in case you shall deny me this that you will give me in the stead thereof that which will be of equal or rather of superior consideration to me better reasons and grounds for the contrarie opinion then I here deliver for mine It is of sweet and comfortable importance to be accompanied in the way of a mans judgement by those that are learned and religious yet is it much more desirable of the two to be turned a side out of a way of error by an high hand of evidence and truth Since God ingaged me in these and some other controversies and the oppositions of men grew strong and thick upon me I have bestowed some time and thoughts to finde out and possesse my selfe throughly of such considerations which might make me willing yea more then willing if it might be rejoycingly willing to imbrace such opportunities wherein I may exchange error for truth And if God hath not given me darknesse for a vision herein I apprehend a marveilous bewtie benefit and blessing in such a frame of spirit which makes a man able and willing and joyfull to cast away even long endeered and professed opinions when once the light hath shone upon them and discovered them to be but darknesse I looke upon ignorance and error and all misprision in the things of God and of the glorious Gospell of Jesus Christ as that region in the soule wherein only dolefull creatures as Owles and Satyrs and Dragons I meane feares and terrors and distractions spirituall tumults and stormes and tempests are ingendred and begotten If all were light and truth in the judgment all would be peace and sweetnesse and joy in the heart and soule Therfore to me it is no more grievous to abandon any opinion whatsoever being once cleerely detected and substantially evicted for an error then it is to be delivered out of the hand of an enemy or to take hold of life and peace But on the other hand it argues childishnesse in understanding and a bundle of weaknesse folly bound up in the heart to be baffled out of a mans judgment with every light and loose pretence The raine fell as sore and the floods came with as great rage and the winds blew with as much violence against the house that was built upon the rock as upon that which was built upon the Sand yet that fell not as this did Mat. 7.25 26 27. In like manner many opinions that are built upon the Rock and Foundations of the Scriptures being truths of very deere and precious importance are capable of asmuch opposition and contradiction from men may have Forts and Bullwarkes and Batteries of as much strength in apearance raised up against them as opinions that are loose and lighter in the ballance then vanitie it selfe yet are they not therefore to be forsaken I presume my keene Adversary himselfe had his patience bin pleased to have awaited the sight and consideration of the whole body and frame of my discourse would have kept his Sword in his Scabberd and not drawne upon me with that violence and extremity of passion which now he hath done However I have presumed to follow him in the way of his Dedication fas est et ab hoste doceri knowing none more able then your selves to comprimize a difference of this nature according to equitie and truth and withal desiring none more indifferent and upright to give an award then I hope to finde a competent number at least of you I make no question but you all studie
increase or soment the troubles of it And thus much more then enough by way of Apologie I have only two things to require of thee good Reader by way of courtesie in reading this Discourse which I hope will recompence thee for them though they be both faire and equall to be granted even without demand much more without recompence First in case thou meetest with the same sense or substance of matter cloathed with differeÌ„t expressions one or some whereof thou canst well beare and understand others being more hard and offensive unto thee which I conceive may be a case frequently incident in the perusall hereof my request is that thou wilt reduce that which seems crooked to that which is streight and make an attonement of the better for the worse Secondly whereas one and the same proposition or assertion in words may admit of different explications and meanings in the one whereof it may be true and accordingly either affirmed or granted by me in another false and so by me denyed my request in this place is that thou wilt not judge me a man of contradictions though in one place I denie that assertion in words which in another I affirme or grant but that thou wilt relieve me in such passages and reconcile me to my selfe by the mediation of mine owne distinctions and particular explications of my selfe elsewhere I give thee notice in one place (a) Part. 2. c. 3. soct 9. p. 57. that there is scarce any proposition can be framed wherein the word impute or imputation is used indefinitly and without speciall limitation and explication but may both be granted and denied according to a different sense and acceptation thereof And who knoweth not but that assertions and sayings otherwise are very frequently thus conditioned Now to grant a proposition in one sense and to deny it in another is so farre from being contradictions that it can hardly be avoyded in any close reasoning upon any theme or subject whatsoever But for the greatest part of ambiguities incident to matters discussed in the subsequent Treatise I explaine my selfe and mine own apprehensions in two places chiefly viz. in the first Chapter of the first Part but especially in the third of the second If any man shall please publiquely to oppose and write against what is here published I have two requests to make unto him likewise First that he will bend the maine body and strength of his discourse against the maine of mine and not brouze or nibble upon some twiggs or outward branches but strike at the root or maine body of the tree or at least at some of the principall arms and limbs thereof A tree may stand firme and be choyce timber and yet the smaller boughs and branches thereof being tender easily broken It is no damage or prejudice to a Discourse though some sentences or expressions may be pick'd out here and there which being separated from their trunck or stemme wherein they grow seeme weak and very capable of opposition My other request to such a man is that hee will please to interdict his pen all passionate language and expression and returne no worse measure in this kinde then is here measured unto him Truth is not to be drawne out of the pit where she lieth hid by a long line of calumnies reproaches and personall aspersions upon him who is supposed to oppose her but by the golden chaine of solid demonstrations and close inferences from the Scriptures The readiest way to overtake her is to follow after her in love When men are fierce and fiery in their disputes it is much to be feared that they want the truth or at least the cleere and comprehensive knowledge of the truth to coole and qualifie them I take little notice in the ensuing Treatise of that passionate piece of Discourse lately published and styled by the Author Socinianisme Discovered and confuted a title better fitting the work then the Author was aware of or intended For herein he discovers Socinianisme in his own opinion and then crosseth and confuteth it when he hath done This I have made appaâ—ant in the Answere to part of that Discourse which I sent unto him and which since hath bin thought meet it seem's to some to be made more publique In consideration whereof as likewise by the advise of some friends otherwise I tooke off my pen and suspended the finishing of a full and particular Answere to that Discourse which I began immediatly upon the publishing thereof after I had made some considerable progresse therein As upon advice I desisted so upon advice I may be brought on againe to perfect and publish those beginnings In this Treatise I no where trouble the rest and peace of Mr. Walkers Socinianisme but only in the fourth Chapter of the second Part nor here doe I meddle with any other particular thereof but only with that which is the heart and soule such as it is of that whole discourse viz. his delineation or description of the whole Doctrine of Justification I have detained thee somewhat long in the entrance but thou seest there was cause I desire now to open the door unto thee which leadeth into the Discourse it selfe by earnest prayer addressement of my heart and soule unto God on thy behalfe that he will give thee a spirit of discerning a sound and upright and unpartiall judgement in all things that thou mayst call no man Master on Earth but reserve the glory and honour of this Name whole end entire for thy great Master in Heaven that he will so blesse and sanctifie the Discourse unto thee that in the reading of it it may poure thee out a blessing of knowledge for thine understanding of establishment for thy judgement of peace for thy conscience of joy and gladnesse for thine heart and soule and all this and much more through Jesus Christ by whom he is able to doe it to whom be everlasting confessions and acknowledgements of all Grace and Glory and every excellencie by every Creature AMEN Thine in the LORD IESVS assured J. GOODWIN From my Studie in Colemanstreet A briefe view of the Method and cariage of the whole Discourse of the first PART CAP. 1. THe Question stated and declaration made in what sense the Discourse either affirmeth or denieth the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse in Iustification From p. 1. to 18. CAP. 2. Those Scriptures Rom. 4. ver 3.5 9 22. c. managed for the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in a proper not a metaphoricall or metonymicall sense with the testimonies of many Authors both ancient and moderne standing by this Interpretation From p. 19 to 54. CAP. 3. Severall Scriptures wherein the works of the Law are absolutely excluded from Justification as Rom. 3.28 Gal. 2 16. c. not admitting the Imputation of the Active obedience of Christ in the sense opposed in this Discourse with severall objections against such an Interpretation of them propounded and answered From p. 55
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
37. for censured r. conceived CAP. I. VVherein the state of the question is opened and the sense EXPLAINED Wherein aswell the Imputation of FAITH is affirmed as the imputation of the RIGHTEOUSNESSE of CHRIST denyed in JUSTIFICATION FOR the cleare understanding of the state and drift of the question some things would be premised which for their evidence sake might be privilledged and exempted from passing under much dispute or contradiction yet if any thing be not sufficiently prepared for assent in the briefe proposall of it the ensuing discourse will labor to reconcile the disproportion and in the progresse make satisfaction for what it shall receive upon courtesie in the beginning As 1. That the termes justifying justification c. are not to be taken in this question nor in any other usually moved about the justification of a sinner either 1 sensu physico in a Physicall sense as if to justifie signified to make just with any habituall or actuall any positive or inherent righteosnesse Nor yet 2. sensu forensi propriè dicto in a juridicall or judiciary sense properly so called where the Iudge hath only a subordinate and derived power of â—udicature and is bound by Oath or otherwise to give sentence according to the strict rule of the Law as if to justify were to pronounce a man just or 〈◊〉 absolve him from punishment according to the strict terme of precise rule of that Law whereof he was accused as a transgressor though this sense be admitted and received by many But 3. and lastly sensu forensi improprié dicto in a judiciary sense lesse properly and usually so called vizr where he that Titteth Iudge being the supreme Magistrate hath an independancy or soveraignty of power to moderate and dispence with the Law as reason or equity shall require So that to justify in this question import's the discharging or absolving of a man from the guilt blame and punishment of those things whereof he either is or justly might be accused not because he is cleare of such things or justifiable according to the letter or strictnesse of the Law for then he could not be justly accused but because the Judge having a sufficient lawful soveraignty of power is willing upon sufficient weighty considerations known unto him to remit the penalty of the Law and to deliver and discharg him as if he were an innocent or righteous man As for the Physical sense of making just by inherent righteousnesse though Bellarmine and his Angells earnestly contend for it yet till Scriptures be brought low and Etymologies be exalted above them till use and custome of speaking deliver up their Kingdome into Cardinalls bands that sense must no way be acknowledged or received in this dispute Yet to give reason and right even to those that demand that which is unreasonable it is true that God in or upon a mans justification begins to justifie him Physically that is to infuse habituall or inherent righteousnesse into him But here the Scriptures and the Cardinall are as far out in termes as in a thousand other things they are in substance and matter that which he will needs call justification the Scriptures will as peremptorily call Sanctification Concerning the other sense of a judiciary justification usually and strictly so called SECT 2 wherein the Iudge or justifier proceeds upon legall grounds to acquit and absolve the party guilty or accused neither can this be taken in the Question propounded except the Scriptures be forsaken because the Scriptures constantly speake of this act of God justifying a sinner not as of such an act whereby he will either make him or pronounce him legally just of declare him not to have offended the Law and hereupon justifie him but of such an act whereby he freely forgives him all that he hath done against the Law and acquits him from all blame and punishment due by the Law unto such offences So that in that very act of God whereby he justifies a sinner as there is a discharge from all punishment due unto him so there is a profession withall or plaine intimation of the guiltinesse of the person now to be justified according to the Law and that he is not discharged or acquitted upon any consideration that can be pleaded for him according to the Law but that consideration upon which God proceeds to justifie him is of another order the consideration of somewhat done for him in this case to relieve him out of the course and order or appointment of the Law he whose justification stands whether in whole or in part it is not materiall herein in the forgivenesse of sinne can in no construction be said to be justified according to the Law because the Law knowes no forgivenesse of sinnes neither is there any rule for any such thing there The Law speakes of the curse death and condemnation of a sinner but for the justification of a sinner it neither takes knowledg nor gives any hope thereof Secondly That Iesus Christ the naturall Sonne of God and supernaturall Sonne of the Virgin ran a race of obedience with the Law aswell Ceremoniall as Morall and held out with every letter jot and tittle of it as farre as it any wayes concerned him during the whole continuance of his life in the flesh no mans thoughts ever rose up to deny but those that denyed him the best of his being I meane his Godhead Which of you convinceth me of sinne was his challenge to the Nation of the Jewes whilst he was yet on earth Ioh 8 46. and remaines through all ages as a challenge to the world He that can â—ast the least aspersion or imputation of sinne upon Christ shall shake the foundations of the peace and safety of the world Thirdly that this Christ offered up himselfe as a Lambe without spot in sacrifice upon the Crosse to make an attonement for the world and to purge the sinne of it I know no spirit at this day abroad in the Christian world that denies but that which wrought in Secinus formerly and still workes in those that are baptized into the same spirit of error with him Fourthly I conceive it to be a truth of greater authority amongst us then to meet with contradiction from any man that Iesus Christ is the sole and entire meritorious cause of every mans justification that is justified by God or that that righteousnesse or absolution from sinne and condemnation which is given to every man in his justification is somewhat yea a principall part or member of that great purchase which Christ hath made for the world Evan as God for Christs sake freely forgave you Ephes 4.32 Forgivenesse of sinnes or justification is from God for Christs sake he is worthy to be gratified and honored by God with the justification of those that believe in him whatsoever he is worthy of more Fiftly It is a truth that hath every mans judgment concurring with it that Faith is the condition appointed by God and
and tendred it unto him to require it for righteousnes or instead of righteousnes and not to accept it for righteousnes when it is brought unto him would be as apparant a breach of Covenant with God as it would be in a rich Creditor that should compound and agree with his poore Debtors for twelve pence in the pound or the like but when they brought the money to him should refuse to take it upon any such termes or to discharge them of their debt and give them out their bands Secondly SECT 6 when we deny the Imputation of Christs righteousnes in Justification we neither deny the righteousnes of Christ in it selfe we rather suppose and establish it Neither 2 do we deny the absolute necessity of it both to the Justification and salvation of a sinner Neither 3 do we deny a meritorious efficiency or causality in this righteousnes in respect of the Iustification of a sinner but verily believe and conceive that God justifieth all that are justified not simply and barely for Christs sake or for his righteousnes sake for a man may do a thing for his sake whom he much loves and respects though he hath not otherwise deserved it at his hands but for the merits sake of Christs righteousnesse there being a full and reall consideration in this righteousnes of Christ I meane his death or passive righteousnes chiefly why God should justifie those that believe in him But 4 and lastly that which we deny in denying the Imputation of Christs righteousnes is this that God should looke upon a believing sinner in his Iustification and account of him as one that had himselfe don all that Christ did in obedience to the Morall Law and hereupon pronounce or account him righteous or which is the same that God should Impute unto him those particular acts of obedience which Christ performed ◠the nature and proprietie of them so that he should stand as righteous before God as Christ himselfe or which is the same righteous with the selfe same righteousnesse wherewith Christ was righteous and so God make himselfe countable unto him for such obedience imputed in as great matters of reward as he would have beene for the like obedience personally performed by himselfe In a word this is that which we deny this is that which we affirme concerning the righteousnes of Christ in the Iustification of a sinner that God cloaths no man with the letter of it but every man that believes with the Spirit of it that is that this righteousnes of Christ is not that that is imputed unto any man for righteousnes but is that for which righteousnes is imputed to every man that believeth A Justified persō may in such a sense be said to be cloathed with Christs righteousnes as Pauls necessities were relieved supplied by his hands Act. 20 34. These hands saith he have ministred unto my necessities PAVL neither eate his fingers nor spun out the flesh of his hands into cloathing and yet was both fed and cloathed with them so may a believer be said to be cloathed with the righteousnes of Christ and yet the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe not be his cloathing but only that which procured this cloathing unto him and so Calvin calls that cloathing of righteousnes wherewith a beleever is clad in his justification justitiam morte resurrectione Christi acquisitam a righteousnes procured or purchased by the death and refurrection of Christ This righteousnes of Christ may be said to be the righteousnes of a beleever in such a construction of speech as the knowledg of God and of Christ is said to be eternall life Ioh. 17 3. viz in way of causalitie not in the formalitie of it And againe the righteousnesse of a Beleever in his Iustification may be termed the righteousnesse of Christ in such a sense as the favor of God in deliverance out of trouble is called a mans righteousnesse Iob 33 26. or as a bond servant under the Law is said by God himselfe to be his Masters money Exo. 21 21. because he was bought with his money or as the Nation and people of the Jewes is often in the Scriptures called Iacob they were not Iacob in the proprietie of his person but in his discent and propagation So may the righteousnesse of a Beleever be called the righteousnesse of Christ viz. in the fructification of it because it is a righteousnesse descended from it and issuing as it were out of the loynes of it What hath beene affirmed and what hath been denyed in the Question We come now to prove and to demonstrate the truth of both 1. from the authority of the Scriptures 2. from the grounds of reason as for the third kind of proofe or confirmation consent of Authors we shall not assigne a peculiar place for that by it selfe but enterlace our other proofes occasionally with such testimonyes as we have received from learned and judicious men for confirmation of the point to be discussed the greatest part whereof notwithstanding you shall meete with in the second and fift Chapters CAP. II. VVherein the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse is proved from the Scriptures and the interpretation of those Scriptures confirmed both by reason and authority aswell of ancient as moderne Divines VVHat it is that is imputed for righteousnesse in Iustification all the wisdome or learning under Heaven is not so fit or able to determine as the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture being the great Secretary of Heaven and privie to all the waies and counsells of God and therefore there is none to him to take up any difference or to comprimise betweene the Controverters about any Subject in Religion All the difficulty and question is because though he speaks upon the house top yet many times and many things he interprets in the eare All the Christian world either know's or readily may know what he speakes in the Scriptures but what his meaning and intent is in many things there delivered he leaveth unto men to debate and make out amongst them To some indeed he reveales the secret of his counsaile the Spirit of his Letter in some particulars but because these are not marked in the forehead therefore their thoughts and apprehensions though the true begotten of the spirit of truth are yet in common esteeme but like other mens till God himselfe shall please to make the difference by causing a clearer light of evidence and conviction to arise upon them yea many times the nearer the truth the further off from the approbation of many and sometimes even of those that are the greatest pretenders to the truth Foure things there are especially SECT 2 that much commend an interpretation when they are found in conjunction and establish it like that King upon his Throne Prov. 30 31. against whom there is no riseing up First if the Letter or Grammar of the Scripture will fairely and strongly beare it Secondly If the scope of the place will close
directly and entirely with it Thirdly If the interpretation that is set up against it cannot stand before the circumstance of the context about it Fourthly and lastly when the judgment of able learned and unpartiall men is found in perfect concurrence with it If these considerations be sufficient to furnish out an interpretation with authority and power then shall we need no more Scriptures to vindicate the innocencie of our affirmative viz. that Faith is that which is imputed by God for righteousnesse in Iustification the truth of our negative inseparably accompanying it viz. that the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed but only that one Chapter Rom. 4. For the first SECT 3 the Letter of this Scripture speakes what we affirme plainly and speakes no parable about it yea it speakes it once and twice yea it speakes it the third and fourth time and repenteth not Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes v. 3. Againe but to him that worketh not but beleeveth in him that justifieth the ungodly his Faith is counted unto him for righteousnes ver 5. So againe We say that Faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse ver 9. And yet againe And therefore it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse v. 22. The same phrase and expression is used also ver 23 24. Certainly there is not any truth in Religion not any Article of the Christian beliefe that can boast of the Letter of the Scripture more full expresse and pregnant for it What is maintained in this discourse concerning the imputation of Faith hath all the authority and countenance from the Scriptures that word can lightly give whereas the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in that sense which is magnified by many hath not the least reliefe either from any expresse sound of words or sight of Letter in the Scriptures Secondly for the scope of the place this also rejoyceth in the interpretation given viz. SECT 4 that the word FAITH should be taken properly and in the Letter in all those passages cited and from tropes and metonymies it turneth away Apparent it is to a circumspect Reader that the Apostle's maine intent and drift in this whole discourse of justification extending from the first Chapter of the Epistle to some Chapters following was to hedg up with thornes as it were that false way of Iustification which lay through works and legall performances and so to put men by from so much as attempting to goe or seek that way and withall to open and discover the true way of justification wherein men might not faile to atteyne the Law of righteousnesse as he speaks elsewhere before God that is in plaine speech to make known unto them what they must doe and what God requireth of them to their justification and what he will accept at their hands this way and what not As our Saviours answer was to the Jews asking him what they should do to worke the works of GOD meaning for their justification This saith he is the worke of God i. All the workes of God requireth of you for such a purpose that you beleeve in him whom he hath sent Iohn 6 28 29. So that that which God precisely requires of men to their justification instead of the workes of the Law is FAITH or to beleeve in the proper and formall signification He doth not require of us the righteousnesse of Christ for our Iustification this he required of Christ himselfe for it that which he requires of us for this purpose is our Faith in Christ himselfe not in the righteousnes of Christ that is in the active obedience of Christ as hereafter is shewed Therefore for Paul to have certified or said unto men that the righteousnesse of Christ should be imputed for righteousnesse unto them had been quite beside his scope and purpose in this place which was plainly and directly this as hath been said to make known unto men the counsel and good pleasure of God concerning that which was to be performed by themselves though not by their owne strength to their justification which he affirmeth from place to place to be nothing else but their Faith or beleeving To have said thus unto them that they must be justified by Christ or by Christ's righteousnesse and withall not to have plainly signified what it is that God requires of them to give them part and fellowship in that righteousnesse or justification which is by Christ and without which they could not be justified had bin rather to cast a snare upon them then to have opened a dore of life and peace unto them And therefore he is carefull when he speakes of Iustification or redemption by Christ often to mention Faith as the meanes whereby this redemption is communicated unto men See Rom. 3 25. Rom. 5 1 2. By the light of which and such like expressions the sense and meaning of those Scriptures are to be ruled wherein justification or Redemption by Christ are taught without any expresse mention of Faith as Rom. 3 24. Rom. 5.9 c. as likewise of those wherein justification by Faith is affirmed without expresse mention of Christ or any thing done or suffered by him As Rom. 3 28.30 And here by the way I cannot but reflect a little upon the unsavorinesse and inconsideratnesse of their conceipt who to avoyd the strength of the interpretation given of these Scriptures will needs force themselves contrary to all Interpreters both ancient and moderne that I have yet met with and most apparantly contrary to the most apparant scope of the Apostle throughout this whole disputation to suppose that the Apostle doth not here speake of that Faith of Abraham whereby he was justified or made personally righteous before God but of such a Faith only as God did approve of and commend in him and impute unto him as a particular act of righteousnesse in such a sense as that act of Phineas mentioned Num 25 8. is sayd to have beene imputed to him for righteousnesse Psal 106 31. Alas Paul was now in the heat of his Dispute concerning the great and weighty businesse of Iustification travailing as it were in birth with his Romans tâ—ll he had convincingly satisfied them from the Scriptures that the way of Iustification was not by the workes of the Law but by Faith in Iesus Christ Now how importune and impertinent to this designe had it beene for him to interpose a whole Chapter only to prove that which was never doubted of nor questioned by any To wit that Abraham did well in believing God and was approved by him for it His businesse here was not to argue what was lawfull and what was unlawfull or whether Abraham was justifiable in his act of believing God But to demonstrate and shew how and by what meanes a poore miserable sinner might come to be justified and accounted righteous before God which he clearly and fully demonstrates to be by way of Faith or beleeving from the example of Abraham
whose faith was by God himselfe imputed for righteousnesse unto him that is upon and by the meanes of his Faith he was looked upon by God as a righteous man But the conceit against which we now argue is too weake to beare any great waight of confutation If that yet stickes with any man that Abraham having believed formerly as appeares from his History and thereby justifyed should be said to be justified by a second or after act or believing I answere 1. Be it granted that Abraham believed and was thereby justified before that act of beleeving whereunto this Testimony is subjoyn'd that it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse Gen. 15 6 yet doth it not follow that this testimony should be precisely limited to or only understood of that particular act of his believing whereunto it is subjoyned but it may indifferently relate as well to the first as the last act of his believing yea happily rather to the first then to the last for it is not said in the place cited that Abraham believed the Lord in this particular promise now made or renewed unto him but indefinitely and in the generall that Abraham believed or had believed the Lord and it was imputed or accounted unto him for righteousnesse So that howsoever Abraham was precisely justified by the first act of a sound Faith which ever he put forth yet the testimony or record of his justification by beleeving might be suspended by the Holy Ghost till his Faith became more conspicuous and was further manifested Thus Heb. 11 4. the testimony of Abels righteousnesse by Faith was as it seemes deferred till the manifestation of his Faith by offering such a sacrifice unto God as he did whereas it cannot be thought but that he was a righteous or justified person and that by meanes of his Faith before the offering of that sacrifice So that this Objection is easily answered Besides further answere might be that the intent of the Holy Ghost in this testimony and passage concerning Abraham was not to shew the time when but the manner or meanes how and whereby he was justified Now all succeeding acts of justifying Faith as justifying for there are many acts of a justifying Faith which are not of that kind of act wherby such a Faith justifieth being of the same kind and nature with that primary and first act of beleeving whereby he was justified may in sufficient propriety of speech have the effect of Iustification ascribed as well to them as it is to the first act it selfe As suppose a man hath beene a true beleever in God through Jesus Christ for seven yeares together during which space he hath constantly every day renewed or repeated the very same act of believing wherby he was at the first of a sinner made righteous this mans Iustification or making righteous may according to the frequent tenor of Scripture language be aswel ascribed to any of these after acts of believing as to the first of all it being usuall with Scripture to ascribe effects though not really and actually effected and done to such meanes or actions of men which are apt to produce and effect them Thus he is said to destroy the Temple of God 1 Cor. 3 16. who shall do any thing that endanger 's it or is apt to destroy it The like expression we have Romans 14 15 and verse 20. See also and consider Mat. 16 6. Esther 8 7. Rom. 24. Mat 5 32. with other like places without number Thirdly SECT 5 that interpretation which is set up against it and which contendeth that by the word FAITH or BELEEVING in al those passages cited is meant not Faith properly and formally understood but Faith tropically or metonymically that is the righteousnesse of Christ is clearely overthrowne by many considerations and passages in the context First it colour 's not with any appearance or likelyhood of truth that the Apostle in the great and weighty point of justification wherein doubtlesse he desired if in any Subject beside to speake with his understanding as his owne phrase is that is that what he himselfe conceiveth and understand's may be clearely understood by others should time after time in one place after another without ever explaining himselfe throughout the whole disputation use so strange and harsh and uncouth an expression or figure of Speech as is not to be found in all his writings nor in all the Scriptures besides To say that Faith or beleeving is imputed for righteousnesse but to meane that indeed it is not Faith but the righteousnesse of Christ that is imputed must needs argue the speakers designe to be this the making sure that his meaning should not get out at his mouth If Paul should manage the great point and mystery of justification in such language and phrase of speech as this he might truely say of what he had said herein EDIDI ET NON EDIDI that he had said and not said Secondly it is evident that that Faith or beleeveing which ver 3. is said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse is opposed to works or working ver 5. Now betweene Faith properly taken and workes and so betweene beleeving and working there is a constant opposition in the writings of this Apostle yea and reason it selfe demonstrates an opposition betweene them as occasion will be to shew more at large in the second part of this discourse but betweene the active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ and works neither doth Paul ever make opposition neither would reason have suffered him to have done it Thirdly it is said ver 5. that to him that believeth HIS faith is imputed to him for righteousnesse From which clause it is evident that that Faith whatsoever we understand by it which is imputed for righteousnesse is HIS that is somewhat that may truely and properly be called his before such imputation of it be made unto him Now it cannot be said of the righteousnesse of Christ that that is any mans before the imputation of it be made unto him but Faith properly taken is the beleevers before it be imputed at least in order of nature if not of time Therefore by Faith which is here said to be imputed cannot be meant the righteousnesse of Christ Fourthly SECT 6 if we should grant a trope or metonymie in this place so that by FAITH should be meant the Object of it or the thing that is to be beleeved yet wil it not follow from hence that the righteousnes of Christ should be here said to be imputed but either God himselfe or the promise of God made unto Abraham For it is sayd Abraham beleeved God ver 3. not that he beleeved the righteousnesse of Christ except we set up another trope to maintaine the former and by God will say is meant the righteousnesse of Christ which would be not a trope or figure but rather indeed a monster of speech Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be here said or meant to be imputed for
properly notes the act not the object of beleeving Againe afterwards in the same place But when he firmly beleeved God promising that very Faith was imputed to him in the place or stead of righteousnesse that is he was of God reputed righteous for that Faith and absolved from all his sins BULLINGER likewise gives the same right hand of fellowship to the same interpretation upon Rom. Concredidit se Abraham Deo et illud ipsum illi pro justitia imputatum est Bulling ad Ro. 4. Imputatum est illi adjustitiam c. hoc est illa ipsa Abrahae fides ipsi adjustiam imputata est cum ad huc ageret in praputio Idem ad Gal. 3 6. Credidit Abraham Deo et impuravit ei scilicet Deus hanc fidem pro justitia Gualt Ad Rom. 4.4 Imputavit ei justitiam quod est fidem giatam habuit adeo ut justum ex eo haberet justitia imputativa Aret. ad Rom. 4. Fides tam firma et pia pro justitia Abrahamo imputata est Aret. ad Rom. 4 22. 4 Abraham committed himselfe unto God by beleeving and this very thing was imputed unto him for righteousnesse And the second time upon Gal. 3 6. It was imputed unto him for righteousnesse that is that very Faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righteousnesse whilst he was yet uncircumcised GUALTER comes behind none of the former in avouching the Grammaticall against the Rhetoricall interpretation upon Rom. 4.4 Abraham beleeved God and he viz. God imputed unto him THIS FAITH for righteousnesse ARETIUS no whit digresseth from the former expositions upon Rom. 4. He imputed righteousnesse unto him which is as much as to say he so far accepted or thought well of his faith as thereupon to accompt him righteous with an imputative righteousnesse Where note by the way he doth not call an imputative or imputed righteousnesse any thing that is a righteousnesse properly so called any righteousnesse that should be in one person inherently and become anothers by imputation neither do I remember the phrase of an imputed righteousnesse in that sense in any classique Author but by an imputative righteousnesse he meanes somewhat imputed or accounted by God for righteousnesse which literally and in strictnesse of consideration is not such Againe the same Author more plainly and succinctly upon ver 22. of the same Chapter A faith so firme and pious was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse Illud credere ei imputatum est ad justitiam vel pro vera justitia Illyr ad Ro. 4.3 Et paulo post Mendica illa fites apprehendeus Christi justiciam imputata ipsi est loco propriae justitiae ILLYRICUS forsakes not his fellow-interpreters in this point Vpon Rom. 4 3. That same beleeving was imputed unto him for righteousnesse And afterwards That same poore begging faith apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ was imputed unto him instead of a proper righteousnesse PELLICAN â—s breakes not this ranke Credidit simpliciter verbo Dei et non postulavit signum a Dâ—mino et imputabat cam sidem ipsi Abrahae Deus pro justitia qua creditur propersus Deus in nostrum bonum Pelican to Gen. 15.6 Fides qua promittentâ— Deo credidit Abâ—aham et fuit ad justitiam imputata Hunnius ad â—om 4 3. Hic agitur de eo quod ipsi imputatum est nempe de ipsius side â—re ad Rom. 4.3 Eum quan vis justitia carenteÌ„ numeravitque pro justo habuit in justitâ— loco quod promissiones firma fide ample â—us est I câ—mel et Iun. Not. in Gen. 15.6 Intelligimus fideâ— nomine acqutesâ—â—ntiam Abrahâ—e non in se sunvâ— mâ—titu sed in Dei promissione et benevolentia Par. ad Ro. 4.3 Vpon Gen. 15 6. Abraham simply beleeved the word of God and required not a signe of the Lord and God imputed THAT VERY Faith unto Abraham himselfe for righteousnes whereby GOD is inclineable or propense to doe us good HUNNIUS another Reformed Divine sets to his seale that the avouched interpretation is true On Rom. 4.3 The faith whereby Abraham beleeved GOD promising was imputed unto him for righteousnesse BEâ—A himselfe upon the same Scripture is as deep in the same way as any Here â—aâ—th he the businesse is concerning that that was imputed unto him viz his faith JUNIUS and TREMEILIUS are likewise of the former conspiracie aginst the tropicall interpretation On Gen. 15 6. God esteemed or accounted him for righteous though wanting righteousnesse wherewith to stand before God and reckoned this in the stead or place of righteousnesse that he imbraced the promise with a firme beliefe PARAEUS the last we shall name of forreigne Divines dealeth out this interpretation as freely as his fellowes On Rom. 4.3 We understand by the name or word FAITH which is said to be impuâ—ed unto Abraham for righteousnesse Abraham's acquietation or resting â—ot in himselfe or in his owne merits but in the promise and graciousnesse of God Neither are there wanong from amongst our selves men of soundest learning and jâ—dgment holding forth the light oâ— the same interpretation a so Doctor ROBERT ABBOT â—â—â—â—wards Bishop of Saâ—um in his Apologie against Bishop SECT 15 Part 1 c p. 9. not far from the beginning Hâ—vingâ—e downe those passages of the Apostâ—e Rom. 4 5 and 6. he addeth as followeth In which words we see how the Apostle affiâ—meth accordingly as I said an Imputation of righteousnesse without works which he expresseth to be The repuâ—ing of Faith for righteousnesse for that thereby we obtaine remission and forgivenesse of sinnes Againe not long after for in the imputation of righteousnesse without works what is it that is reputed for righteousnesse Faith saith the Apostle is reputed for righteousnesse Tell us then Mr. Bishop is faith with you reputed for righteousnesse without works Spit out man and tell us whether in your first or second justification you hold that a man for his faith is reputed righteous c. with more of like importance in the page following He that will undertake to divide bâ—â—weene this Author and the opinion we contend for must be more severe then to give a man leave to be of his owne minde Dr. PRESTON also maketh himselfe a stranger to the tropicall interpretation of this Scripture and imbraceth that which is litterall and proper without scruple or question In his Treatise of Gods Allsufficiency pag 12 13. In this sense faith is said to be accounted or imputed for righteousnesse Abraham beleeved God Gen. 15. God indeed made the same proposition that he doth here for substance he tells him what be would do for him and saith the text Abraham beleeved God and it was counted unto him for righteousnesse Now it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse chiefly in this sense as it is interpreted Rom 4 that his very taking of the promise and his accepting of the Covenant in that he did receive that which God gave that put him within the Covenant
and therefore the Lord reckoned him a righteous man even for that very acceptation and beleeving But that is not all but likewise be accounteth faith to him for righteousnes because faith doth Sanctifie and make a man righteous c. So that evident it is if there be any such thing as evidence in the writings and opinions of men that this mans thoughts were never so much as tempted to conceit that the Apostle should tropologize or metonymize in the word Faith or beleeving in this Scripture Mr. JOHN FORBS late Pastor of the English Church at Middleburgh a man of knowne gravity pietie and learning in his Treatise of Iustification cap. 28 p. 135. hath these words For faith in this sentence meaning where it is said that faith is imputed unto righteousnesse is in my opinion to be taken properly in that sense whereby in it selfe it is distinguished both from the word whereby it is begotten and from the object of it in the word which is Christ Thus I have cited the authority of many Authors by way of collaterall assurance for the securing the literall and proper interpretation of this Scripture Not that the interpretation it selfe needeth tali auxilio aut defensoribus istis but only to remove that great stumbling stone of the world which lieth in many mens way towards many truths called PREIUDICE CAP. III. Other proofes from Scripture to to establish the former conclusion vindicated likewise from such exceptions as may be layd in against them SEcondly that the active obedience of Christ SECT 1 or his fulfilling the Morall Law was never intended by God to be that righteousnesse wherewith we should be justified in any such way of imputation as is pretended may be I conceive further demonstrated from all such passages in Scripture where the works of the Law are absolutely excluded from justification As Rom. 3 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law So Gal. 2.16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ even we have beleeved in Iesus Christ that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law Againe Rom. 3.20 Therefore by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight Besides other Scriptures of like importance Now if a man be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto him he shall be justified by the works of the Law because that righteousnesse of Christ we now speake of consists of these works as every mans personall righteousnesse should have done had there been a continuance in the first Covenant Therefore this righteousnesse of Christ cannot be imputed to any man for that righteousnesse whereby he is to be justified Neither will these and the like Scriptures be charmed by words of any such glosse or interpretation as this No man shall be justified in the sight of God by the works of the Law viz. as personally wrought by themselves because no mans works will hold out weight and measure with the strictnesse and perfection of the Law But this hinders not but that a man may be justified by the works of the Law as wrought by another supposing this other to be as great in working or obeying as the Law it selfe is in commanding and withall that God is willing to derive these works of his upon us by imputation For to this I answere 4 things First SECT 2 where the holy Ghost delivers a truth simply and indefinitly and in way of a generall or universall conclusion for in materiâ necessariâ as this is propositio indefinita vim obtines universalis as Logicians the best oversees of reason generally resolve us not to be justified by the works of the Law is as much as not to be justified by any works of the Law whatsoever wi hout imposing any necessity upon men either in the same place or else where in the Scriptures to limit or distinguish upon it then for men to interpose with their owne wisdomes and apprehensions by distinctions and limitations and reservations of what they please to over-rule the plaine and expresse meaning and signification of the words is not to teach men obedience and submission unto but to usurp a power and exercise authority over the Scriptures Neither is there any practise so sinfull or opinion so erronous but may find a way to escape the word of the Spirit and to come fairely off from all Scripture censure if they be but permitted to speake for themselves by the mouth of such a distinction Give but the loose Patrons of an implicit Faith liberty to distinguish upon like terms where the Scriptures in the most explicit manner falls foulest upon their implicit Faith they will be able by the attonement of such a distinction to make their peace with the Scriptures He that beleeves not saith our Saviour Mar. 16 16. shall be damned He that beleeves not shall be damned True may these men say He that beleeves not either by himselfe or by another shall be damned but this hinders not but that he that beleeveth as the Church beleeveth may be saved though he knoweth nothing explicitely of what the Church beleeveth the explicit Faith of the Church is sufficient to save him So likewise by the Law of such a distinction the Antinomian Sect amongst us will be able to justify their non-necessitie of personall sanctification or inherent holynesse against those Scriptures that are most pregnant and peremptory for it Without holinesse saith the Apostle Heb. 12 14. no man shall see the Lord True saith the Antinomian without holinesse either in himselfe or in some other no man shall see the Lord but he that is in Christ by Faith hath holinesse in Christ and therefore hath no necessity of it in his owne person Who seeth not that in these and many like cases that might be mentioned that liberty of distinguishing which we implead would plainly beguile the Holy Ghost of his direct intentions and meanings in those and such like Scriptures Therefore when the Scriptures expressely and indefinitly deliver that by the works of the Law no man shall be justified if men will presume to distinguish as hath been said and exclude such works from justification only as performed by our selves but make thē every mans justificatiō as performed by another who tasts not the same spirit of an unwarrātable wisdome in this distinction which ruled in the former Secondly I answere that if the Apostles charge and commission had bin SECT 3 in the delivering the doctrine of justification either to have made or to have given allowance for any such distinction as is contended about betweene the works of the Law as performed by men themselves and the same works of the Law as performed by Christ that those indeed should have no hand in justification but these should be all in all these should be justification it selfe certeinly he should have
bin unfaithfull in this trust and very injurious to these works of Christ in giveing away that place of honour in the opposition which was due unto them to another thing of a far inferior nature to them viz. Faith as it is evident he doth in the Scripture cited Gal. 2. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ He doth not say but by the works of Iesus Christ as if the opposition stood betweene the works of the Law as performed by men and the same works as performed by Christ which in all congruity of reason he should have done had the works of the Law as done by Christ any such preheminence this way above the other and not have ascribed that unto Faith which is somewhat wherein the poore and weake creature hath to do which was the right and prerogative of Christs righteousnesse Doubtlesse Paul was no such enemy to the righteousnesse of Christ as to set up an usurper upon the Throne which belonged to it Thirdly if Pauls intent had bin to have reserved a place in justification for the active righteousnesse of Christ or for the works of the Law as performed by Christ by way of opposition to the same works as performed by men themselves his indefinite expression excluding the works of the Law simply without the least in imation given of any difference of those works either as from the one hand or from the other would have beene of dangerous consequence and as a snare upon men to cause them to passe over the great things of their justification Certainly if Paul had ever digged such a pit as this he would have bin carefull first or last to have fil'd it up againe Fourthly and lastly if by excluding the works of the Law from justification Pauls meaning had been SECT 4 only to exclude these works as done by men themselves but had no intent to exclude them as don by Christ it can at no hand be thought or once imagined but that he would have made use yea made much of such a distinction or reservation himselfe and would have been a glad man if salva veritate Evangelij without trenching upon some Gospel truth he could have come over so neere to his Country-men the Jewes and have closed with them in the great point of justification upon such terms Such a distinction might have been a happy mediator betweene them For what was it that chiefly incensed the Jewes against Paul and the Preaching of the Gospell and the righteousnesse of Faith but that the Law and the observation of it should be passed over and not taken into the great businesse of justification Now if Paul keeping a streight course in the Gospel could have said unto them or treated with them after any such manner as this you have no reason to take offence or to be troubled that I preach justification by Faith in Christ because I do not exclude the righteousnesse or works of your Law no not from having the maine stroke in your justification nay that which I preach concerning Faith is purposely to advance the righteousnesse of the Law and to shew you how you may be justified by it I only Preach you cannot be justified by your owne observation of it because the holinesse excellency and perfection of it is such that you cannot attaine or reach it by your owne strength but God hath sent me to keep it for you by whose observation imputed to you you shall be justified Therefore I am no enemy to your justification by the works of the Law but only teach you that these works are done by another for your justification Who seeth not but by such an interpretation or mitigation of matters as this Paul might have taken off at least a great part of the violent and furious oppositions of the Iewes against him A little of this oyle poured into the wound would have much mollified it and in all likelyhood in time have healed it But Paul it seemes did not like the composition or make of it neither durst he administer any receite of it He cannot be thought to have bin ignorant of this distinction or meanes of mitigation and with as little probabilitie can it be thought that he that could be content not only to be made all things unto all men for their good but even to have been an anathema from Christ to win them to the Gospel would have withheld any such word of reconciliation from them whereby there had been the least hope of gaining them But we do not meet with so much as any one word of this qualification in all his writings which shewes that the difference and distance betweene them was deeper and greater then so The paroxysme or sharpe contention betweene him and them was not whether they were to be justified by the works of the Law either as performed and wrought by themselves or as wrought by another but simply and indefinitly this whether justification were by the works of the Law by whomsoever performed or by Faith as is more then manifest in all the passages in his Epistles wherein this question and dispute is brought upon the stage There is not the least intimation of any difference betweene them this way whether justification should be by the works of the Law either as performed by our selves or as performed by Christ Paul never puts them upon the works of the Law as done by Christ for the matter of their justification which shewes that both he and they though otherwise at as great a distance as can readily be conceived in the point of justification yet in this were both of one mind and one judgment Paul as far from holding Iustification by the works of the Law as performed by Christ as the stubbornest Jewes themselves were But there are two things that haply SECT 5 may be objected against the Answers given and that will seeme to make for the confirmation of that distinction or interpretation which we have so much opposed First that there is a sufficient ground laied even by Paul himselfe upon which to found the forenamed distinction viz. that by excluding the works of the Law from Justification he only excludes them as done by men themselves but not at all as done by Christ Secondly that there is mention also of the works of the Law as done by Christ or which is the same of Christs being made under the Law in one of the chiefest disputes Paul hath concerning Justification The former objection is built upon Tit. 3 5. The latter upon Gal. 4.4 The words of the former Scripture are theise Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had done but according to his mercy he saved us Vpon which words the objection getteth up thus Paul by so precise a rejection of works of righteousnesse done by us that is by our selves plainly implies an admission of these works as done by another for us Where one part or member
the man faith the Law that continueth not in all things c. Therefore a man that hath not been alwaâ—es righteous can never be made righteous by the righteousnesse of the Law imputed or not imputed or howsoever it may be conceived to come upon him Thirdly and lastly I answere if a mans sins be once forgiven him he hath no need of any imputation of any further righteousnesse for his Iustification because forgivenesse of sins reacheth home and amounteth unto a full Iustification with GOD. This is plaine from the words mentioned Rom. 5 16. The guift saith Paul that is the guift of righteousnesse as it is explained in the next verse is of many offences unto Iustification that is when God hath given men their offences or debts or forgiven them for to give a debt or forgive it is all one he hath fully justified them For that righteousnesse which God is said to impute unto men through Faith is nothing else being interpreted but the forgivenesse of sins or the acquiting of them from that death and condemnation which are due unto them And this is all the Iustification the Scripture knowes or speaks of the forgivenesse of our sins or acquitting from condemnation the genuine and proper signification of which word misapprehended hath been a maine occasion of leading many out of the way of Truth in this point A man may in a manner as plainely discerne where mens feet have faild them here as sometimes where a Horse foot hath slip'd upon an ice For reading in Scriptures of the justification of sinners or of men being made just or righteous by Christ they have conceived that such a thing cannot be but by a positive and formall Law righteousnesse somewaies put upon them and there being no such righteousnesse indeed any where to be found but only the righteousnesse of Christ hence they have apprehended that this justification must needs be by this righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto them whereas that righteousnesse which we have by Christ and wherewith we are said to be justified before God by beleeving is only a negative righteousnesse not a positive it is nothing else but a non-imputation of sin which I therefore call a righteousnesse by accompt or interpretation as having the privileges but not the nature and substance of a perfect legall righteousnesse The Scripture shines with as much cleernesse and evidence of this truth SECT 3 as the Sun doth with light when he riseth in his might Rom. 4 6. compared with ver 7 8. Even as David declareth the blessednesse of the man unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works A righteousnesse without works must needs be a negative or privative righteousnesse as is fully expressed in the following verses Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes not sinne You see the imputation of righteousnesse ver 6. is here interpreted to be nothing else but a not imputing of sin And so Calvin upon Rom. 3 21. calls this a definition of the righteousnesse of Faith Beati quorum remissa sunt iniquitates that is Blessed are they whose sinnes are forgiven And not long after Paulus tradit Deum homines iustificare peccata non imputando that is Paul teacheth that God justifieth men by not imputing their sins The like description of this righteousnesse you have 2 Cor. 5. that which ver 19. he calls in God the not-imputing of our sins unto us he calls in us ver 21. a being made the righteousnesse of God in him But most plainely Act. 13.38 39. Be it knowne unto you saith Paul to the Jewes that through this man CHRIST is preached unto you forgivenesse of sins which forgivenesse of sins he immediatly calls their Iustification And by him all that beleeve are iustified from all things from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Moses You see how he expresseth the nature of this Iustification we have by Christ viz. by the way of negative or privative righteousnesse as was said not a positive All that beleeve are iustified from all things that is all sins from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses So that that Iustification which we have by Christ in the Gospel is not a Iustification with righteousnesse properly so called but a Iustification from sinne and from the guilt of sinne and condemnation due to it when Christ said to men and women in the Gospel Thy sins are forgiven thee then he justified them the forgivenesse of their sins was their Iustification This is the most usuall and proper signification of the word Iustifie both in Scriptures SECT 4 and other Authors but in the Scriptures especially not to signifie the giving or bestowing of a complete positive righteousnesse but only an acquitting or discharging and setting a man free from the guilt and penaltie due unto such things as were laied to his charge In the Scripture it is usually opposed to condemning or condemnation He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just both these are abhomination unto the Lord. Prov. 17 15. What is here mâ—ant by justifying the wicked not making them righ eous and just men by putting a morall righteousnesse upon them he that can make a wicked man righteous or just so shall be so far from being an abhomination to the Lord that hee shall shine as the starres in the Firmament for ever and ever Dan. 12.3 Therefore by justifying the wicked in this place can be nothing else meant but the making of them just in the rights and privileges of just men which are freedome from censure punishment and condemnation as appeares by the opposition in the other member of the clause and condemneth the righteous So that by justifying the wicked is nothing else meant but the not-condemning him So Rom. 8 33 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen it is God that justifyeth who shall condemne c. Where you see againe the opposition betweene being justified and condemned See likewise Rom. 5.9 Therefore by justifying is nothing else meant but acquiting from condemnation and so to be justified and to live that is to be freed from death and condemnation are made equivalent or equipollent the one to the other Gal. 3.11 And that no man is justified by the works of the Law it is evident for the iust shal live by Faith that is shal be justified by Faith for otherwise there is no strength in the argument So againe ver 21. If there had bin a Law which could have given life that is could have justified men surely righteousnesse or Iustification should have been by the Law By his knowledge faith Esay c. 53.11 shall my righteous servant iustify many for he shall beare their iniquities that â—s by bearing the punishment or condemnation due unto their sinnes he shall deliver them from punishment This opposition we speake of betweene justification and condemnation is cleere in other Scriptures as Mat
Joseph gave Gen. 41.32 why Pharohs dreame was doubled by God unto him was to shew that the thing was established by God so the reason why Paul mentions the second time so immediatly upon the former the consistence or standing of this righteousnesse in and by Faith in all likely hood was this to shew that this righteousnesse certainly will carry it notwithstanding all the unlikelyhood and seeming imperfections of it and that the thing is fully concluded and established with God accordingly Or as it is often in speech betweene man and man when a man hath spoken that which seems improbable to him to whom it is spoken and may be conceived that the Speaker was mistaken in his words and would correct himselfe if he considered what he said it is usuall in such a case if he that spake spake advisedly and be able to make good what he said and meanes to stand to it to speake the same thing over againe and so to confirme and ratifie that which was spoken against both the unlikelyhood of the thing and the unbeliefe of the hearer It is a passage I conceive carried by some such rule as this which the Apostle hath in the following Chapter ver 4. Rejoyce in the Lord alwaies Now because these Philipians were under great trialls and afflictions and so might think it was no time for them to rejoyce in and that Paul had forgotten himselfe and the condition they were in to speake to them of rejoycing therefore to shew that he knew well enough what he said and that he had weighed his words sufficiently before he put them downe and that there was no other cause but why they should rejoyce in the Lord notwithstanding the fiery triall that was upon them he redoubles the words of his exhortation Rejoyce in the Lord alwaies and againe I say rejoyce So Paul here having once affirmed that the righteousnesse wherein he desired to be found was the righteousnesse which is by the Faith of Christ least he should seeme to have spoken that which he would not stand to or that which he would upon second thoughts retract he speakes the same words in effect the second time and avouceth that very righteousnesse which is by Faith to be that righteousnesse that he would stand to and desired to be found with If Paul had had any mind or inclination at all to have placed the righteousnesse by which he was to be justified in the righteousnesse of Christ imputed here was even a tempting occasion and opportunity to have drawne him into expressions of himselfe that way But we see here is loud speaking againe and againe of the righteousnesse of Faith but altum silentium profound silence of any righteousnesse from the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ This for a fift proofe from Scripture CAP. VII VVherein the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse is further cleered from the Scriptures SIxtly SECT 1 that that which God imputes for righteousnesse in Iustification is not the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe in the sense refused in the first Chapter of this discourse but Faith in Christ I conceive may be cleerely wrought out and evicted out of all those Scriptures where Iustification is ascribed unto Faith Not to heap up places in this kind which are confessedly many Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith c. Romans 3 28. So againe Romans 5.1 Therefore we being justified by FAITH c. All confesse that MEN are justifyed by Faith and indeed the conclusion thus far is greater then can be gaine-said The pregnant letter of the Scripture is too hard for any mans contradiction Now when men say and professe according to the Scriptures that Faith iustifieth I demand what is it they meane by Faith do they not meane their beleeving or the Act of Faith usually so called and expressed which by the assistance of of the Holy Ghost is raised within them and put forth by them If by Faith in this case they meane any thing besides either the habit or act of beleeving I confesse my soule hath not yet entred into their secret The Scriptures in the matter of Iustification seeme rather to speake of that which we call the act of beleeving then of the habit and so learned Dâ—vines as far as I have observed generally conceive Now for men to say and to professe themselves that Faith justifieth and yet to condemne it for an error in another that shall say and hold that it is an act of Faith that justifieth hath in my apprehension as much inconsistencie of reason in it as if a man should grant that Hierusalem once was the joy of the whole Earth and yet should censure him that should say that the Citie Hierusalem was ever so or that should grant that Paul laboured in the Gospel more then all the Apostles but would not endure him that should say that Paul the Apostle did so As Hierusalem and the Citie Hierusalem are the same and Paul and Paul the Apostle the same so are Faith and the act of Faith but the same and if one justifieth certainly the other justifieth also It may be it will be here said SECT 2 that they which confesse that Faith justifieth doe not meane or conceive of it as divided or severed from it's object CHRIST No more did ever any man that had but the first fruits of reason given him for his allowance For a man to say that he seeth and yet to affirme that when he seeth he seeth nothing is to professe open enmitie against common sense and reason Neither is it any other in him whosoever he be that shall conceive of any act of Faith that is not exercised or acted upon its object either Christ in person or Christ in promise or the like It is unpossible that any man should beleeve but that he must beleeve something or in some person and so when any man speakes of Faith or beleeving he must of necessity imply the object with or in the Act though he names only the Act and not the object as the usuall manner of the Scripture expression is where Faith or beleeving is 40 times mentioned without addition of the object Christ or the promise of God in Christ or any thing equivalent to either Secondly it may be it will be said that when men professe and say that Faith iustifieth their meaning only is that Faith justifieth instrumentally and not otherwise To this I answere neither hath any thing more bin said hitherto by me neither is any thing intended to be said in the sequel but according to the rule of this position Faith justifieth instrumentally But thirdly it may be it will be yet further obiected and said SECT 3 that when men confesse that Faith iustifieth their meaning is that it Iustifieth as it takes hold of Christs righteousnesse I Answere if this also should be granted but the Scripture as hath bin said never mentioneth or describeth justifying Faith under any such consideration yet it
man shall live The former clause after Pauls succinct and presse manner of expressing himselfe is very briefe and therefore somewhat obscure in it selfe but the latter clause easeth the burden of the dificulty and casteth a sufficient light upon it Whereunto if we adde but the dependance and reference that this verse hath upon the former Pauls meaning will bee found as cleere as the noone day Therefore when he saith the Law is not of faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the originall by or out of faith his meaning can be no other but this that the righteousnesse of the Law doth not arise or come upon any man out of his Faith or by his beleeving or that no man is made partaker of a legall righteousnesse by beleeving but saith he the very doer the man he shall live in or by them He proves the truth of the former clause from the expresse tenor of the Law or legall righteousnesse as standing in full opposition to any derivation of it from one to another even by Faith it selfe As if he should say no legall righteousnesse can come upon any man by beleeving because it is only the man himselfe that doth the things of the Law that shall be justified and live by them the righteousnesse of the Law never goeth further in the propriety or formalitie of it to the justification of any man then to the person of him that fulfills the Law That by the word Law in this place is meant the righteousnesse or fulfilling of the Law besides that there can hardly be made any reasonable interpretation of the clause if this word be taken in any other sense may appeare by the like acception of the same word the Law in other passages of this Apostle when it is used upon like occasion Rom. 4.13 for the promise was not to Abraham or his seed through the LAW i. through the righteousnes of or obedience unto the Law viz. that it should be obtained and enjoyed by any such righteousnesse as is evident by the opposition in the following clause but through the righteousnesse of faith i. this promise was not made unto him and his seed that the benefit and blessing of it should be obtained by the former but by the latter righteousnesse The word is againe used in the same signification in the very next verse For if they that be of the Law be heires i. that are for the righteousnesse of the LAVV. and will stand to be justified by that besides other places without number The scope likewise of the place and the dependence of the clause with the former ver SECT 3 apparantly evinceth this interpretation The Apostle in the former verse had delivered it for a truth that no man could be justified in the sight of God by the Law i. by the righteousnesse or works of the Law for this reason because the Scripture saith that the just shall live by faith Now because this consequence might seeme somewhat doubtfull and insuâ—ficient lying open to some such exception against it as this what though the just doe or must live by faith may they not be justified by the works of the Law too and live by them also may not the righteousnesse of the Law be made over unto them by faith and so compound righteousnesse be made for them of both together No saith Paul the Law is not of faith there can be no legal righteousnesse derived or drawn upon men by faith and that for this reason because such a righteousnesse is by the expresse letter and tenor of the Law consined and appropriated to the person of him that fulfills it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man himselfe that doth them shall live by them q. d. there is a repugnancy and contradiction in it ex naturarei in the very nature and effence of the thing that the righteousnesse of the Law should â—ver be removed or caried over from one mans person to another though it were attempted by the hand of Faith it selfe God never intended that the Law and faith should meet together to jumble up a justification for any man And whereas it is frequently charged as a matter of deep prejudice upon the opinion laboured for in this discourse that it magnityeth faith above measure and makes an Idol of it the truth is that the contrary opinion which ascribes to it a power of transferring a legall righteousnesse â—â—â—gnifieth it 7 times more and ascribes a power even of impossibilities to it Faith may boast of many great things otherwise and may remove mountaines but for removing any legall righteousnesse in the sense we speake of it must let that alone for ever There is a greater contrariety and indisposition in the severall natures of faith and the Law in respect of mixing or working together to make up a Iustification then was betweene the lion and Clay in Nebuchadnezzars vision Dan. 2.43 though in other things they well agree Repugnantia legis et fidei est saith Calvin in Gal. 3.12 in causa justificationis facilius enim aquam igni copulabis quam haec duo concilies homines fide et lege esse justos 1. There is a repugnancie betweene the Law and faith in the matter of Iustification and a man may sooner couple fire and water together then make these two agree that men are righteous by faith and yet by the Law too Consonant to this Scripture last opened is that Rom. 4.14 For if they which are of the Law be heires faith is made voyde and the promise is made of none effect Where you see as full and as irreconcileable an opposition betweene the righteousnesse of the Law and the righteousnesse of faith in respect of justification as is betweene East and West it is unpossible they should be brought together There is a greater gulfe fixed betweene them then was betweene Abraham and Dives faith cannot go over to the righteousnesse of the Law to joyne with that in Iustification neither can the righteousnesse of the Law bee brought over unto faith What reason there may bee conceived for this Non-imputabilitie of the righteousnesse of the Law See Cap. 21 we shall have a faire opportunity to declare in the prosecution of our grounds and reasons for the point we favor in this discourse which is the next thing we hast unto CAP. IX Wherein the first ground or argument for the conclusion undertaken is propounded and established HAving considered with as much diligence and faithfulnesse as frailty would permit how the Scriptures stand affected and incline in the controversie depending we are lead in the next place by the hand of a plaine and familiar method to propound such Arguments and considerations for the confirmation of the premisses as reason and sobriety of thoughts about the stated Question have suggested My first ground and argument to prove that the righteousnesse of Christ in the sence now under dispute viz. in the letter and proprietie of it cannot be imputed unto any for their
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
which follows close upon the former observation that either there was such an opinion then ruling in the Reformed Churches or at least taught and maintained by some eminent man one or more amongst them that held iustification to consist in Remission of sins onely otherwise those deep-advised sages of the Councel should have but put a dead slie into their box of oyntment by boltring into the ayre and indeed rather have forged a weapon for their adversaries then taken any from them If it were any particular and eminent man they struck at as an abettor of that opinion there can none be pitched upon with greater probability then Calvin who still carried matters of Religion against them at that time with a higher hand then any other And Bellarmine as we heard ingenuously confessed Calvin by name to be the man Thirdly and lastly from this passage observe how some mens either learning or memory misuseth them by suggesting to them that the opinion pleaded and contended for in this Treatise viz. the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse or which is the same that iustification stands in Remission of sins onely is an opinion confederate with Popish errors Certainly those great Agents and Factors for the Roman party would never have bin so farte overseene in their solemn and sacred assembly to have poured out the vials of their wrath upon the head of an opinion that was their owne The importune striving and contendings of some men to make Galvin for them in an opinion wherof doubtlesse his learning was never guilty have compelled us to make somewhat the longer labour and discourse of it for his rescue and to set him cleere upon his own principles and foundations If any man remains yet unsatisfied touching this Authors judgement in the point now under examination and desires rather an heape then enough it were an easie matter to make the pyle of testimonies from his own pen yet farre greater even to the wearying and punishing of such a man with his own desire Somewhat more then hath bin here delivered may be found in the first Chapter where also you may see this worthy Champion of the truth accompanied and seconded in this service with many of his fellows not much inferiour to him And this bv way of Answere in the first place to the objection that Remission of sins SECT 6 was not the whole but only a part of our Iustification Secondly I Answer that from the Scriptures themselves that were alledged it may be evidenced as by expresse demonstration that there is no more no other part or member of iustification but onely forgivenesse of sins that the nature and substance of it is fully comprehended in this What can be more pregnant then that Rom. 4 6 7. c. Even as David also describeth the blessednesse of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sinnes are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne If there were any thing more belonging to this righteousnesse which is by imputation then only the forgivenesse of iniquity or the covering of sin would the Holy Ghost wholly have omitted it and left it out when he intended a description or declaration if it Especially would he have omitted that which is the maine and principall and formall part of it as the righteousnesse of Christ imputed is pretended to be If a man should prefix such a Title as this before a Book or over the head of a Mappe A description of the world c. and never so much in all his Book or Mappe as once mention Europe or Asia the chiefe parts of the world but onely some obscure and lesser Countries would it not argue that either he wanted wit himselfe or else hoped that his Readers would want it altogether Or if a Limner should be set on worke to draw a mans picture or portraicture and should only draw the trunk of his body without a face or head upon it were this the portraicture or description of a man No more would Paul or rather the Holy Ghost have called the forgivenesse of sinnes a description or declaration of the righteousnesse which is imputed by Faith if it had bin only a part and that the lesser and lesse materiall part of it It is true SECT 7 sometimes in Scripture by a Synechdoche a part is put for the whole as the persons of men and women consisting of bodies and soules are called soules Act. 7.14 and elsewhere But 1. this is never done in descriptions or declarations of things as when the Holyghost describes the creation of man expresse mention is made both of the materiall part the dust of the earth and likewise of the formall Gods breathing in his face the breath of life Neither in reason is that to be called the description of a thing which conceales and silenceth that which is best and the most beautifull part of it and onely mentioneth somewhat of inferiour consideration in it Secondly when such a figure is used a part put for the whole it is seldome or never that the worser and more ignoble part is mentioned but still the formall and better part as bodies are no where put for the persons of men but onely Soules Except happily in two cases 1. when the whole comes under consideration and is spoken of by reason of the inferiour part as somtimes the body of Christ or flesh of Christ is put for Christ himselfe as man and for the whole humane nature of Christ namely when that which is spoken of him hath its relation to him in respect of his body or flesh Or else 2. when the Holy Ghost would represent the weaknesse and contemptiblenesse of the condition of the whole then somtimes he calls the whole by the name of that which is the weakest part of it and the ground or cause of the vanitie and weaknesse of the whole As when it is said that All flesh is grasse c. by flesh meaning Men in respect of their weake and vanishing condition in this world Neither of which cases can be pretended in that description of Iustification Thirdly and lastly when this Figure Synechdoche is used in any of these or the like cases a part being put for the whole it is when things are plaine and evident so that by the part which is named and expressed that may readily be understood which is implyed as easie to be made out either by other places of Scripture or by common sence as in the instances given All flesh is grasse by flesh here no man can understand any thing else but men cloathed with flesh So Acts 7. where Iacob is said to come down into Egypt with threescore and fifteen soules no man can think that these soules came with him without their bodies But now it is farre otherwise in this description of iustification commended unto us by Paul That by forgivenesse of sins should be meant both
be imputed to us For certainly this righteousnesse of his life was as capable of such an imputation before and with out his death as after or with it For what defect or impediment can be conceived that should hinder it Adams sin according to the principles of that opinion against which we argue was capable of imputation as soone as â—t was committed and why should the righteousnesse of Christ require any further qualification or recommendation to put it off upon the like terms but onely the working and performance of it If it be yet said but the persons of men had not bin capable of this imputation without the death of Christ therfore there was a necessity of this death of his in this respect To this I Answer True indeed the persons of men are not capable of this imputation without the death of Christ but neither are they made the more capable by it But if this righteousnesse of Christ we speake of were in it selfe imputable in the sense contended for why should not the persons of men be capable of the imputation thereof in the midst of their sins aswell as Christ was capable of the imputation of their sins in the midst of his righteousnesse Especially considering that as it appeares from Rom. 5.14 the grace and guift of God which is by Iesus Christ saveth by a stronger and higher hand then sin condemneth CAP. XIV Opening a Seventh ground against the pre-refused Imputation viz. the taking away of forgivenesse of Sinnes THat opinion which makes and constitutes men perfectly and compleatly righteous with allegall righteousnesse as righteous as Christ himselfe though it be but quoad veritatem SECT 1 non quoad modum as some of that way think to distinguish themselves safe yet it comes to the same in this respect leaves no place for forgivenesse or remission of sinnes in persons so made righteous it evacuates that high and soveraigne power of God at least in the use and exercise of it towards those that beleeve whereby he forgiveth sins God we know forgave Christ no sinne why because he was perfectly righteous and in him was no sinne as Iohn speaketh 1 Iohn 5.3 Therefore if men be righteous with the same righteousnesse wherewith Christ was righteous as compleatly righteous as he they have no more sin to be pardoned then he had If it be said that God first gives remission of sinnes unto men and then imputes this perfect righteousnesse unto them To this exception answere hath bin made already Cap. 5. Sect. 2. To that which is there delivered I adde that Christ hath taught us to pray for forgivenesse of sinnes even after this imputation of righteousnesse if any such thing were except we will say that he fram'd that patterne of Prayer usually called the Lords Prayer onely for the use of infidels and unbeleevers Now to aske forgivenesse of sinnes of God and yet to conceit our selves as righteous as Christ was is rather to mock then to worship him whom we pray unto If it be here objected as the like objection was made against the fift ground SECT 2 in the former Chapter that this inconvenience sits as close to the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse as to the Imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ for that purpose For if faith be imputed for or instead of the righteousnesse of the Law must it not derive a righteousnesse upon the person to whom such imputation is made as perfect and compleat as the righteousnesse of the Law it selfe and consequently as the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe How then doth that opinion leave any other place for remission of sinnes in those that beleeve then that which standeth for the Imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ Are they not both under the same condemnation this way Not to repeat what was so lately delivered in full for satisfaction and Answere to this Objection I yet further adde ex abundanti that when Faith is said to be imputed for righteousnesse in justification instead of the righteousnesse of the Law it is evidently implyed that it is not the righteousnesse of the Law it selfe that is imputed for righteousnesse but another thing Faith by name instead of it Now any other righteousnesse or any other thing imputed for righteousnesse besides the righteousnesse of the Law will apparently beare a consistencie of sinne with it and so leave a place for forgivenesse of sins but the righteousnesse of the Law excluding the former cannot give entertainment to the latter When a perfect sanctification is imputed to a Man for his justification that Man can be no more reputed or thought to have sinne in him then to be obnoxious to death and condemnation which is most opposite to justification But when that which either is no sanctification or at most but an imperfect sanctification is imputed for righteousnesse in a mans justification there may be as full a justification as perfect a deliverance from death and condemnation as in the former case and yet place left in the person so justified for an inherencie of sin and consequently for the forgivenesse of it CAP. XV. Enforceing an Eight Reason against the Imputation questioned viz. a manifest compliance with that dangerous errour That God seeth no sinne in his people WHat communion hath light with darknesse saith the Apostle and what concord hath Christ with Belial 2 Cor. 6.14 15. SECT 1 If this Imputation of Christs righteousnesse which we oppose were from Christ doubtlesse it would have no intelligence or compliance with any opinion so opposite to him and his truth as this That God seeth no sinne in his people The opinion it selfe is an error so grosse and like the darknesse of Egypt that it is even palpable and may be felt Therefore we will not spend time in arraigning it as guilty which is already so generally condemned But that the opinion against which the face of this discourse is set is of the same confederacie with this and gives the right hand of fellowship to it nay leades and caries men directly into it will cleerely appeare by this Demonstration Whosoever is perfectly righteous or as righteous as Christ is in him God can see no sinne But every beleever saith this opinion which we impugne is as perfectly and compleatly righteous as Christ himselfe is Therefore in such God can see no sinne You see in this Syllogisme how the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense contended for by many brings in that error with a high hand and therefore is to be cut off from the Sanctuary of God And those that will hold and maintaine such an imputation and yet crie out upon and condemne the opinion of Gods not seeing sin in his Children are in a spirituall or morall sense like those Idolaters of old that caused their owne Children to passe through the fire Ismael was not the more naturall and genuine fruite of Hagars wombe that bare him then this conclusion oâ— tenet that God seeth no sinne in
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
I answere if the will and pleasure of God be to make no imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ but upon the condition of Faith intervening then is it evident that this righteousnes is not imputed unto justification to any man because the condition of faith must necessarily intervene and come betweene So that if this righteousnes of Christ were as our Adversaries would have it imputed unto men yet it must be onely towards Iustification not unto it for by their own affirmation it is faith that hath the next and most immediat connexion therewith Secondly if God suspends the imputation of Christs righteousnes upon the performance of the condition of faith and then makes this imputation then faith doth not take hold of the righteousnes of Christ imputed but first takes bold of it and then the imputation followeth after Which 1. is contrary to the expresse judgement of some of the learnedest of their owne party Who affirme this imputation of Christs righteousnes by God to precede the condition of faith or act of beleeving in men a Deus primum imputat satisfactionem Christi deinde in nobis efficit sidem quā illamimputatam applicemus Vrsinus Cat. part 2 Qu. 60. sect 5. Fides ex parte nostra hanc justitiam Sic sia Deo imputatam apprehendit solummodoet applicat Dr. Prid. Lect. 5. de Instificat Sect. 11. Secondle if faith should first take hold of the righteousnes of Christ before it be imputed and then the act of Gods imputation should supervene upon it and the beleever not be justified till this act of Gods imputation had passed upon him then must it be conceived that a man may have the righteousnes of Christ upon him by faith and yet not be justified by it For if the will of God be not to impute the righteousnes of Christ unto Iustification but upon the condition of faith performed and this condition is performed by laying hold on the righteousnes of Christ not yet imputed by faith it evidently followeth that a man may lay hold on the righteousnes of Christ by faith and yet want that which is essentiality requisite to his Iustification according to this opinion viz. Gods imputation of this righteousnes unto him which as the opinion teacheth followeth the apprehension therof by faith and is not precedaneous to it Againe SECT 6 yet once more for the imputation of Faith in the sence insisted upon I plead the Apostles plea and Argument Rom. 4. That which was imputed to Abraham for righteousnes in his Iustification Argum. 24 is imputed to other beleevers also But the Faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righteousnes c. Ergo. Whether both these Propositions in the direct sence here implyed and with relation to the conclusion issuing from between them as they are here layd down be not the genuine and unwrested Doctrine of the Apostle Paul and that over and over in that 4th chapter to the Romans and whether the choycest learning aswell ancient as moderne hath not sealed and subscribed hereunto I referre the Reader to a diligent perusal of the second Chapter of this discourse for his satisfaction where likewise he may see the ashes of the contrary interpretation consumed and burnt up with the fire of the triall So that I conceive here needeth no addition of any thing to strengthen either the one Proposition or the other above what hath bin there delivered CAP. XXI Wherein the last reason against the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse viz. the non-imputability of the Law is propounded and maintained IF the righteousnes of the Law be not imputable Argum. 25 SECT 1 or deriveable in the letter and formality of it from one mans person to another then cannot the righteousnes of Christ be imputed to any man in Iustification after any such manner The consequence cannot lightly be denyed by him that will but grant light not to be darknesse Therfore I assume But the righteousnes of the Law is not imputable from one mans person to another Therfore the righteousnes of Christ is not imputable much lesse imputed to any man in his Iustification This Argument was mentioned in our Scripture proofes cap. 8. where you shall find it built upon that Foundation of truth Gal. 3.12 The reason or ground of which non-imputability or untransferiblenesse of the Law-righteousnesse we found expresse in the very tenour and plaine words of the Law it selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the very man that hath done them shall live by them and no other From which inference or addition no mans understanding can with reason abstaine But it is like we must here againe prepare to battaile and shall be assaulted with this Objection SECT 2 If the transgression of the Law be imputable from one mans person to another Object then may the righteousnesse of the Law be imputed also after the same manner For what should cause a difference between the one and the other in this respect But that the transgression of the Law is imputable from one mans person to another is evident from hence because the sinne of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit is imputed to his posterity Ab actu ad potentiam validissima est consequentia Ergo. Give me leave to deliver my last Argument out of the hand of this Objection and so we shall draw towards a Conclusion of this first part In my answer I shall addresse my selfe to both the Propositions but chiefly insist upon the instance that is brought to prove the Minor to demonstrate the insufficiencie and impertinencie of that for that purpose For the former Proposition not to let passe incerta procert◠that which is weake with the credit and reputation of strength I answere therfore to it that the consequence in it is not so tight and pregnant as happily is conceived or as the confidence of the demand annexed by way of confirmation seems to import The imputablenesse of the transgression of the Law were it granted is no concluding demonstration of the like imputablenesse of the righteousnesse or obedience performed unto it and then this Proposition will not be found any such Oracle of truth First in the tenour of the Law there is no such emphaticall restraint of the guilt or punishment due unto the transgression of it to the person of the transgressor as ther is of the reward promised to the observation of it to the person of the observer as we heard in the clause cited from Gal. 3.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. the very man that hath done them shall live by them It is no where found on the other hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the very man that transgresseth them shall die for his transgression As if God in giving the Law had left unto himselfe a libertie and scope to derive and carry the guilt and punishment due to the transgression of the Law as far as he pleased but had no intent to extend the reward promised to the fulfilling
grace besides Faith they would have carried eternall life after the same manner and with as high an hand as beleeving now doth Naamans leprosie was cureable onely by the waters of Iordan why because the will and decree of God concerning this effect were upon these waters and upon these onely Abana and Pharpar or any other River whatsoever would have done as much had the same decree of God concurred with them When causes have an intrinsecall and naturall power and efficacie to produce their effects it is very improper if not ridiculous to ascribe such effects to the will and good pleasure of God As to say it is the will of God that the grace of patience should make a man patient or the grace of humility should make a man humble or that such an element as we call fire should burne or the like though there be a truth in them yet there is so little savour or weight of truth in them that such sayings are not worthy the holy Ghost and neither these nor any of their fellowes of like importance to be found in the whole Booke of God So to say that it is the Will of God that beleeving in Christ should justifie and so save men if beleeving in Christ simply as it is beleeving in Christ did it were an eccentricall expression and no where to be parallell'd in the Scriptures I might adde many other Scriptures as Ioh. 1.12 where it is said that to those that received Christ i. that beleeved in him God gave the power or prerogative to be his Sonnes i. decreed that such should be Sonnes unto him and by vertue of such a decree really made them such upon their beleeving which clearely shewes that beleeving in Christ as such doth not make a Son of God but receives this power or prerogative by especiall guift from God which gift might have beene given to any other grace as well as beleeving So Eph. 2.8 By grace ye are saved through Faith viz. in Christ therefore Faith doth not save simply as or because Christ is the object of it but by the efficacie and force of that gracious and good pleasure of God whereby he hath covenanted with his creature that such a Faith shall save it which good pleasure or Covenant of God with men concerning Faith is called Rom. 3.27 the Law of Faith which Law is that which gives it that strength and power which it now hath to justifie and save It were easie to make this pile of Scriptures large but those that have beene touched are sufficient to shew which way they generally incline in this particular Neither is that common plea SECT 18 which is so frequently insisted upon to prove the contrary viz. that Faith justifieth in relation to its object or as it receiveth and apprehendeth Christ or Christs righteousnesse or the like of any value if it be duely considered The strength of the argument is usually bound up in this similitude As the hand is said to enrich a man because it receives the money or treasure whereby he is inriched so Faith must needs be said to justifie because it receives Christ who is our righteousnesse and by whom we are justified To this I answer that it is not simply the taking silver or gold with the hand that enricheth a man no nor the silver or gold so taken that simply enricheth him A man may be never the richer for receiving great summes of money of silver and gold nay a man may be much the poorer and more miserable for receiving or taking money if he receives or takes it contrary to the Lawes As when a thiefe breakes into an house and takes away much treasure with him or puts forth his hand to take a mans purse by the high-wayes side his hand in these cases cannot be said to make him rich because it receives treasure neither doth the treasure so received make him rich but poore and miserable because now he is obnoxious to the sentence of the Law and ownes his life and all he is worth besides unto it Therefore if a mans hand enricheth him by receiving that which doth enrich him it doth it not simply as it receiveth it for then it should doe it alwayes and in all cases whatsoever but it doth it by vertue of that Law or agreement of the state where he lives which secureth a man in the quiet possession and enjoyment of such money or treasure as hee lawfully receives to his owne use So though Christ be a treasure of righteousnesse and justification in himselfe it doth not presently follow that whosoever takes hold on him or beleeves in him should presently be made righteous or justified by him but here must intervene some Law Covenant or Decree from God to establish and authorize such a beleeving or laying hold on him to be a mans righteousnesse or justification Wee doe not suppose they can but for argument sake we will suppose that if the Devills should beleeve on Christ hoping or expecting to be justified by him as men doe who beleeving are justified yet they should be never the nearer any justification by him though he be a treasure of righteousnesse Why because God hath made no Law Promise Covenant or agreement with them that they should be justified by Faith therefore if it were possible for them to beleeve as men doe yet Christ would be no more any righteousnesse unto them than now he is Much more might be said and may be said elsewhere for the evidencing of this Conclusion but here I would hasten In the meane time I desire to explaine my selfe a little further touching this Conclusion onely in two words When I denie that Faith justifieth in its relation to its object or as it layeth hold on Christ I am farre from saying or conceiving that any Faith should justifie but that onely which layeth hold on Christ yea I grant and verily beleeve that whereas there are many other acts of Faith besides beleeving or laying hold on Christ as viz. to comfort and strengthen and purifie the hearts of those that beleeve and the like yet that decree or good pleasure of God which I conceive makes Faith justifying concurres with it towards this great effect onely in that act of laying hold on Christ and not in any of the other So that in this sence I grant hold that Faith may be said to justifie as it layeth hold of Christ comparatively viz. as this act of Faith is distinguished from those other acts which it likewise produceth it doth not justifie either as it comforts or as it purifies the heart c. but onely as it relateth to Christ and layeth hold on him This onely is that which I deny that this act of Faith whereby it receiveth or layeth hold on Christ hath that in the nature or inherently in it or any otherwise or by any other meanes then from the will and good pleasure of God which makes it availeable unto justification It hath no foundation
Conclus 12 either in the Scriptures or Reasons to say SECT 19 that Christ by any imputation of sinne was made formally a sinner nor that sinne in any other sence should be said to be imputed to him then as the punishment due unto it was inflicted on him I shall not neede to insist upon the justification of this Conclusion partly because it hath beene sufficiently argued and cleered in the former part of this Treatise a Cap. 19. Sect. 1.2 but chiefely because it is given in with both hands by the chiefe masters of that way of Imputation which we oppose Christ saith Bishop Downham b Tract of Iustifica p. 40. was made sinne or a sinner by our sinnes not formally God forbid but by imputation c. And Bishop Davenant c De Iustit Habit â—â—einhaerent Desp c. 24. p. 33. Voluit Christus peccata ita in se suscipere ut non inde peccator sed hostia pro peccato constitueretur idem p. 333. calls it a thing repugnant to the salvation of men and blasphemous once to imagine that Christ should be made wicked i. formally a sinner by any imputation of sinne to him And a little before hee makes the impuâ—ation of sinne to Christ to stand in the translation of the punishment of sinne and curse of the Law upon him And in another place Christ was willing so farre to take our sinnes upon him not as to be made a sinner hereby but onely a sacrifice for sinne So that if the men with whom wee have to doe in this businesse of imputation would but stand their owne ground and walke peaceably with their owne principles wee should soone comprimize For their great maxime is that in that manner wherein our sinnes are imputed unto Christ in the same Christs righteousnesse is imputed unto us If so then are not we made formally righteous by any righteousnesse of Christ imputed to us because Christ is not made formally a sinner by any sinne of ours imputed to him Conclusi 13 SECT 20 Faith doth not onely if at all declare a man to be righteous or in a justified estate but is the very meanes by which Justification or righteousnesse is obtained so that no man is to be reputed nor indeede is a person justified in the sight of God specially if we speake of yeares of discretion untill hee obtaines this grace of justification by beleeving This is the constant Doctrine of the Scriptures and there is not one of many of our Reformed Divines that doe oppose it He that beleeveth not saith our Saviour himselfe Mar. 16.16 shall be damned If Justification were in order of time before faith it might very possibly be that many might escape damnation who yet never beleeved because they might die in that interim of time which is supposed to lie betweene a mans justification and his beleeving The like argument might be framed from that passage also Ioh. 8.24 Except you beleeve that I am he you shall die in your sinnes But there are other texts of Scripture so pregnant for this truth that there is no rising up with reason against them Therfore we conclude saith the Apostle that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3.28 That which hee had laboured hitherto and laboureth on in some Chapters following to prove was not how or by what meanes a man might know or be declared either to himselfe or others that he is a justified person but how and by what meanes he might come to be justified These two are of a very farre differing consideration and importance It is of a thousand times more concernement to a man to be justified than to know that he is justified Besides if the Apostles scope and intent here had beene to argue the declaration or to propound the meanes of a discovery or manifestation of a person justified and not simply to prove and shew how and by what meanes justification it selfe is to be attained there can no reason be given either why he should have excluded the workes of the Law or insisted upon Faith rather than many other graces as love patience c. especially why he should have insisted on Faith onely without the association of other graces For it is certaine that obedience to the Law and so love patience temperance humilitie c. are as effectuall nay have a preheminence above Faith it selfe for the discovery of a man in the estate of Justification Shew me thy faith by thy workes and I will shew thee my faith by my workes Iam. 2.18 Therefore workes are more easie to be seene and more apt for discovery or manifestation then Faith for that which discovereth or maketh things manifest is light Ephes 5.13 whereas that which needs manifestation is darkenesse in comparison and therefore the more unfit and uncapable of being a meanes for the discovery and manifestation of other things So elsewhere love is represented as a grace of speciall use and service this way I meane for the discovery and manifestation of justification or of a man in a justified condition but is never mentioned as of any use for justification it selfe Wee know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brethren 1 Iohn 3.14 The Scripture doth not any where ascribe the like discoverie of justification unto Faith but justification it selfe it ascribeth unto Faith againe and againe Therefore being justified by Faith c. Rom. 5.1 So ver 2. so Gal. 3.8 The Scriptures foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles by faith c. It would make a sence very unsavoury and weake to carry the interpretation of these words thus The Scriptures foreseeing that God would declare by Faith that the Gentiles were justified neither would such a sence any wayes accommodate that which followeth But I hasten SECT 21 passing over many places wherein Justification it selfe not the discovery of Justification is attributed unto Faith and conclude with that one testimony Gal. 2.16 We knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Iesus Christ Even we have beleeved in Iesus Christ that wee might be justified by the faith of Christ c. not because we were righteous or justified or that we might know our selves to be justified but that we might be justified by the faith of Iesus If the Apostle should here speak of a declarative justification there is no relation why he should have excluded the workes of the Law these being every whit of as declarative an importance this way as beleeving it selfe nay above it as we proved before and the Scripture it selfe plainely intimates Little children saith Iohn let no man deceive you He that doth righteousnesse is righteous c. i. is thereby viz. by his doing righteousnesse declared to be righteous or a person justified it is no where said in such a sence that he that beleeveth is righteous Therefore it is evident that the opposition which
this Apostle still makes betweene the works of the Law and beleeving in the point of justification is not at all in respect of the notification or discovery of it either to the justified themselves or others but simply and absolutely in respect of the effecting it Besides to make Paul say thus that they had beleeved in Christ that they might know that they had beene justified by beleeving in him is to make him speake at a very low rate of reason and understanding and not much short of contradictions For with what tolerable congruity or construction of reason can a man be said to beleeve with this intent or for this end that hee may know he is justified by beleeving The doing of a thing for a certaine end is no meanes to certifie or assure any man that the end is or shall be much lesse that it hath already beene obtained by the doing it Much more might be argued both from the Scriptures and reason and testimony of Authors for this Conclusion if it were either necessary or seasonable in this place Neither are the things that can be objected against it SECT 22 of any such weight but that they may receive a faire and ready answer I have heard onely of two Arguments that are made against it The first is this If a man must beleeve before he be justified then God doth not justifie the ungodly because he that beleeveth cannot be counted an ungodly man To this I answer in few words that when the Scripture saith that God justifieth the ungodly the meaning is not as if the person to be justified must needs be ungodly i in the midst of his prophanenesse in the very nicke and instant of time wherein God justifieth him But God may be said to be he that justifieth the ungodly because he hath found out a way and meanes whereby to juftifie sinners and ungodly men viz. Faith in Jesus Christ which neither the Law knoweth nor could ever the wisedome of men or Angels have imagined The justification of the ungodly is ascribed unto God as an high and excellent clogium of his wisedome and goodnesse as when Christ is said to save sinners the meaning is not that men are actually wicked and sinfull when salvation is actually conferr'd upon them but that he affords meanes to those that are sinners as viz. the grace of Faith Repentance c. whereby they may be and many are saved Or else secondly Answer might be that God may be said to justifie not onely when hee absolves and perfecteth the act or worke of justification i. when hee passeth a sentence of absolution upon the beleever but even when hee beginneth it i. when he first toucheth moveth or incline the heart to beleeve upon which justification properly so called dependeth and followeth immediatly Now before and untill this supernaturall touch or motion of the heart from God a man in strictnesse and proprietie of speech may be called ungodly It is a common rule among Divines for the interpretation of many Scriptures In Scripturis saepe fieri dicitur quod fieri incipit In Scripture that is often said to be done which is onely begun to be done and whereof the cause onely is yet in being Thus Prov. 11.2 Shame is said to come when pride commeth viz. because pride is the cause of shame and Tit. 3.5 God is said to have saved men when he hath conferred regeneration or the washing of the new birth upon them because regeneration is a meanes of salvation besides many like instances that might be added In like manner justification may be said to come when Faith commeth and God may be said to justifie when he giveth men Faith whereby they shall be justified c. In this sence therefore God may be said to justifie the ungodly because he giveth Faith unto men being yet sinfull whereby they are justified Thirdly and lastly Further answer might be that there being no prioritie of time at all but onely of nature between a mans beleeving and his being justified so that in the very first instant and touch of time wherein he can be conceived truely to beleeve he is to be conceived justified also God may as properly be said to justifie the ungodly though he justifieth onely those that beleeve as to give Faith or the grace of beleeving unto the ungodly The reason is plaine because in respect of time a man is as immediately ungodly before his justification as he is before his beleeving though he be not justified SECT 23 till hee beleeveth The later Objections against the Conclusion in hand is if a man hath the Spirit of God given him before hee beleeveth he must needs be justified before he beleeveth otherwise it must be said that a man may have the Spirit of grace and sanctification and yet be in an estate of wrath and condemnation And that a man hath and must have the Spirit of Grace before hee beleeveth it is evident because otherwise he could not beleeve To this I answer first by concession that a man is not able of himselfe and without the speciall presence and assistance of the Spirit of grace to raise an act of a true beleeving in his soule But secondly by way of exception I answer two things first that though a man cannot beleeve without the gracious assistance of the Spirit of God yet doth it not follow from hence that there should be the least imaginable distance or space of time betweene a mans receiving the Spirit and his beleeving wherein hee should remayne liable to condemnation because the first touch of the Spirit upon the soule the act of beleeving may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sticke as fast and close together in respect of time as the scales of Leviathan doe in respect of place which by the description and testimony of God himselfe who best knowes their composure and frame are so neere one to another that no ayre can come between Ioh. 41.16 The Sunne was not first made and afterwards shined but his shining in respect of time is as ancient as his creation there was not the least distance or space of time betweene wherein any thing could be done or the least motion performed So may the comming of the Spirit of Grace unto the soule and the act of the soules beleeving touch in one and the same point of time an infinit power being able to worke any thing in a moment in which case it is evident that there is no place for the inconvenience mentioned in the objection viz. that a man endued with the spirit of grace should for a time be in an estate of condemnation except hee were justified before he beleeveth 2. SECT 24 Be it supposed that the spirit of grace should be at worke in the soule for any space of time before the soule hath put forth an act of true beleeving yet till there be a saving worke of Faith wrought by him in the soule it is no wayes inconvenient nor
contrary to truth to judge the person in an estate of condemnation though he may be comming on in a way towards justification As men that never come to be justified but perish in their sinnes everlastingly are said to be partakers of the holy Ghost Heb 6.4 that is may have many great and excellent workings of the holy Ghost within them and upon them so may men to whom the grace of justification and salvation upon it is intended by God have the like workings of the Spirit upon them for a time and yet have no worke at all upon them truely saving i. which hath an essentiall and necessary connexion with salvation And till some such worke as this is wrought though the Spirit of God be in them yet are they under condemnation and dying in their present condition without somefurther worke of grace should certainely perish Now though there may be many workings of the Spirit of God in men before they beleeve which may be called Saving in regard of their issue and event yet is there none formally saving that is that hath salvation promised unto it till Faith it selfe be wrought The first touch of any worke upon the soule that is either truly sanctifying or necessarily saving is that whereby the soule is inabled to touch upon Christ for its justification neither is the habit of Faith first planted in the soule by the holy Ghost and afterwards the soule enabled by it 'to exercise and put forth an act of beleeving whereby it is justified but as the common and more probable opinion is that fruit-bearing trees were at first created with ripe fruits upon them so doth God at first create both the habit and act of faith in the soule in the same moment of time and not the one before the other So that the first act of beleeving whereby the creature is primarily justified is not rais'd out of any pre-existent habit or grace of Faith as all after acts of beleeving are but is as immediately the product or effect of the power of God as the habit of Faith it selfe is even as the fruits which according to the opinion mentioned were created with and upon their trees did not grow out of these trees nor were produced in a naturall way by them as all after fruits growing upon them were but were as proper and immediate effects of the creative power of God as the trees themselves So we see at last that the conclusion laid downe is no waies prejudic'd nor shaken by either of these objections Conclu 14 SECT 25 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 dispence with his Law and to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty or curse therein threatned This is evident because the threatning and curse of the Law was not at all bent or intended against the innocent or righteous but against transgressors onely Therefore God in inflicting death upon Christ being innocent righteous did not follow the purport or intent of the Law If he had inflicted death upon all the transgressors of the Law this had bin a direct execution of the Law because this was that which the Law threatned and intended But God in spareing and forbearing the transgressors who according to the tenor of the Law should have bin punished manifestly dispenceth with the Law and doth not execute it As when Zaleucus the Locrian Lawgiver caused one of his owne eyes to be put out that one of his Sons eyes might be spared who according both to the Letter and intent of the Law should have lost both he did not precisely execute the Law but gave a sufficient account or consideration why it should for that time be dispenced with and not put into execution In this sense indeed Christ may be said to have undergone or suffered the penalty or curse of the Law 1º it was the curse or penalty of the Law as now hanging over the head of the world and ready to be executed upon all men for sinne that occasioned his suffering of those things which he endured Had not the curse of the Law either bin at all or not incurr'd by man doubtlesse Christ had not suffered at all Againe 2º and somewhat more properly Christ may be said to have suffered the curse of the Law because the things which he suffered were of the same nature and kind at least in part with those things which God intended by the curse of the Law against transgressors namely death But if by the curse of the Law we understand either that intire systeme and historicall body as it were of penalties and evills which the Law it selfe intends in the terme or else include and take in the intent of the Law as touching the quality of the persons upon whom it was to be executed in neither of these senses did Christ suffer the curse of the Law neither ever hath it nor ever shall be suffered by any transgressor of the Law that shall beleeve in him So that God required the death and sufferings of Christ not that the Law properly either in the letter or intention of it might be executed but on the contrary that it might not be executed I meane upon those who being otherwise obnoxious unto it should beleeve Neither did God require the death and sufferings of Christ as a valuable consideration whereon to dispence with his Law towards those that beleeve SECT 26 more if so much in a way of satisfaction to his justice then to his wisdome For doubtlesse God might with asmuch justice as wisdome if not much more have passed by the transgression of his Law without consideration or satisfaction For him that hath a lawfull authority and power either to impose a Law or not in case he shall impose it it rather concern's in point of wisdome and discretion not to see his Law despised and trampled upon without satissaction then in point of justice No man will say that in case a man hath bin injured and wrong'd that therefore he is absolutly bound in Justice to seeke satisfaction though he be never so eminent in the grace and practise of Justice but in many cases of injuries susteyned a man may be bound in point of wisdome and discretion to seeke satisfaction in one kind or other Austin of old and D. Twist of late besides many other Orthodox learned Divines a See Mr. Gataker Defence of Mr. Wotton p. 59.60 hold that God if it had pleased him might have pardoned Adams transgression without the atonement made by the death of Christ Therfore according to the opinion of these men it had bin no waies contrary to the Justice of God nor derogatory to the glory of it if he had freely pardoned it without any consideration or attonement Only it is true his requiring that full satisfaction which hath now bin made by Christ is very sutable
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
deliver them out of trouble or the like And this doubtlesse is the most frequent signification of the word of all other Thus Psal 145.7 They shall abundantly utter the memory of thy great goodnesse and shall sing of thy righteousnesse that is of thy clemency and grace towards thy people So Psal 51.14 Mica 6.5 besides other places without number Fourthly that gracious purpose and intent of God towards his elect for giving them saving Faith in due time is sometimes called the righteousnesse of God Thus 2 Pet. 1.1 those beleevers to whom Peter writes are said to have obteyned like precious Faith with him through the righteousnesse of God c. Fiftly that which is of most concernment to the question in hand by the righteousnesse of God is sometimes meant that Iustification or that way method or meanes of Iustification whereby God Iustifieth and makes men righteous Thus Rom. 3.21 The righteousnesse of God which is without the Law i. that way and course which God hath found out for the Justification or making men righteous which consists not in the observation or works of the Law is said to be manifested being witnessed by the Law i. the writeings of Moses and the Prophets So the verse following the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ In the like sense the word is also used Rom 1.17 Rom. 10.3 In all which places with their fellowes by the righteousnesse of God is meant that Iustification or way of making men righteous which God himselfe out of his speciall wisdome and grace hath found out and recommended unto the world as being farre differing from that way of Iustification which the wisdome of the flesh and the thoughts of men run so much upon viz. by workes and observation of the Law In the same kind of expression mens owne righteousnesse signifies Rom. 10.3 that way or meanes by which they intend or seeke to be Iustified Some Divines of great worth and fame affirme Iustitiae veâ—abulum in Scripturis se mper notas Dei bonitatem Miseriâ—ordians salutem redemptionem nunquam vere adhibetur ad id significandum quod vulgo iustitiam dicimus neÌ„pe affectum illum quo Deus ad scelera et peccata vindicanda propendet irae iudicij vocabula ad hoc significandum potius adhibentur Cameron Myroth in ve 21. cap. 3. ad Rom. p. 178. that the word Iustitia Justice or righteousnesse in Scripture never signifieth that which is commonly called Justice in God that is that nature or affection in God which inclineth him to punish or take vengeance on sinne this they say is usually expressed by those terms wrath and judgment but either the goodnesse mercy and salvation of God or the like But whether this observation will stand or no I make some question For in the sixt place I conceive that sometimes that very affection in God mentioned viz. his severity against sinne and sinners is expressed by this word righteousnesse In this sense the word I conceive may well be taken Rom. 3.25.26 c. that he i God might be Iust and a Iustifier of him which is of the Faith of Iesus that is that God might appeare and be declared to be a severe Judge and punisher of sinne and yet iustifie and acquit all those from sinne who beleeve in Iesus Christ Seventhly Christ himselfe sometimes seemes to be called the righteousnesse of God as Esa 42.21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousnesse sake So Esa 51.5 c. Now Christ may be called the righteousnesse of God because he is the great Author or Mediator of that righteousnesse or Iustification which God vouchsafeth unto the world Lastly the society and company of those that are made righteous or iustified by God through Christ are called the righteousnesse of God 2 Cor. 5.21 of which phrase we shall speake further in this Distinction Againe 2º this word Iustice or righteousnesse SECT 3 when applied to men sometimes signifieth that generall frame of the heart or soule consisting of all those holy dispositions and affections which are found in some degree in every true-borne child of God In this sense God himselfe attributeth righteousnesse unto Noah Gen. 7.1 Thee have I seene righteous c. In this sense righteousnesse is opposed to the corrupt and sinfull frame of the heart in the estate of unregeneratenesse and a righteous man to an unregenerate man This sense is obvious in Scripture Secondly the fruits works or actions arising from such a frame of heart are sometimes called righteousnesse Thus it is used Act. 10.35 1 Ioh. 3.7 and elsewhere Thirdly that particular and speciall disposition which inclineth a man to deale uprightly and according to the rules of equity with all men and is opposed to fraud violence oppression c. together with the worke and fruite of such a disposition sometimes goeth under the Name of Iustice or righteousnesse See Gen. 30.33 Deut. 1.16 Esa 33 15. besides many other places Fourthly and with more concernment to the point in hand Iustification it selfe in the passive sense declared in the former distinction is sometimes by a metonymie of the cause for the effect expressed by the word righteousnesse Thus Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse i. Justification come by the Law i. by the works of the Law then Christ is dead in vaine So Rom. 10 4. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse i. for Justification to them that beleeve So ver 5. Moses describeth the righteousnesse which is of the Law c. i. sheweth wherein that Justification consisteth which is to be attained by the Law if men will seeke to be justified by it So againe Ro. 5 17 The guift of righteousnesse i. of Justification and ver 18 by the righteousnesse of one c. i. by the iustifying of one as the former translation reads it and that I conceive more agreeably to the originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather by one iustifying i. by one procurement of Iustification the gift came upon all men viz. that beleeve unto Iustification of life meaning that Christ by one and the same meanes used for the iustifying of men purchased and procured the Justification of all those that should beleeve be they never so many and that such a Iustification which shall be accompanied with salvation See more instances of this signification of the word Rom. 8.4 Rom. 9.30 Rom. 10.10 1 Cor. 1.30 c. with divers others Thus also in the same propriety of speech to make righteous and to iustify are but the same as to make wicked and to condemne Compare Rom. 5. ver 19. with ver 18. Fiftly sometimes Christ himselfe is by an ellipsis of the efficient or procuring cause very usually in Scripture called the righteousnesse of men i. the Author or procurer of their Justification or righteousnesse as Ier. 23.6 33.16 c. In the same figure of speech he is elsewhere called our hope our life our sanctification our redemption c.
i. the Author and procurer of all these respectively Sixtly by a metonymy of the cause for the effect or of the antecedent for the consequent a common dialect also in Scriptures aswell the benefits and rewards of a mans righteousnesse in the first and third acception of the word as the blessings and privileges which accompany that righteousnesse which we have by the merits of Christ in our Iustification are sometimes expressed by the terme righteousnesse Thus Iob 33.26 God will render unto man his righteousnesse i. will recompence and reward every mans uprightnesse and integrity with sutable blessings and expressions of his love So Psal 112.9 His righteousnesse remaineth for ever i. the praise and other rewards of his righteousnesse shall be durable and lasting So Gal. 5.5 We through the Spirit waite for the hope of the righteousnesse of Faith i. for the great and royall privileges promised by God and accordingly hoped for by us to that Iustification which is by Faith in Iesus Christ See the first Chapter of the former part of this discourse Sect. 4. p. 12. c. Seventhly the word righteousnesse in some construction of words with it hath no precise or proper signification distinct and apart from the word with which it is joyned but together with that word makes a sense or signification of one and the same thing Thus in the phrase of imputing righteousnesse Rom. 4.6.11 c. the word imputing See impedit ira c. p. 43. doth not signifie one thing and righteousnesse another but together they signifie one and the same act of God which we call free iustifying So that to impute righteousnesse is nothing else but freely to iustifie and righteousnesse imputed free iustification passive It is thâ—â— in many idio m's and proprieties of languages In that Hebrew phrase of covering the feet Iudg. 3.24 1 Sam. 24.3 Neither of the words are to be taken in any proper or peculiar signification but together they signifie one and the same thing and that differing from the proper signification of either of the words Many other instances might be given in severall phrases or formes of speech the true sense and meaning whereof is not to be gathered from the proper signification which the words have severally in other constructions but from the concurrence and joynt aspect of them in that phrase Thus the Scripture phrase of going in to a woman is not to be interpreted according to the significations of the words in other sentences or constructions of speech but according to the importance which they still joyntly have when they are found together Eightly and lastly the word righteousnesse according to the propriety of the Hebrew stongue which often useth abstracts for concretes signifieth sometimes a Society or company of righteous or iustifiedones sometimes of just or upright ones In the former sense you have it 2 Cor. 5.21 That we should be made the righteousnesse of God in him i. a company of righteous or iustified persons made such by God through Iesus Christ In the latter sense you have it Esa 60.17 where God promiseth to his Church and people to make their exactors righteousnesse i. a generation or company of men that should deale righteously and fairely with them In this dialect of speech poverty for so it is in the originall is put for a company of poore men 2 Kings 24.14 So Captivity for a company of Captives 2 Chr. 28.5 Deut. 21.10 and in sundry other places So againe circumcision for circumcised Phil. 3.3 election for elected Rom. 11.7 with the like So that aswell in studying as arguing the Question in hand great care must be had that we be not intangled and lose our selves in this multiplicitie of significations of this word righteousnesse which is a word almost of continuall use and occurrence in the businesse of Iustification and yet of such an ambiguous and different signification and importance Distincti 3 See sect 4. See Pareus De Iusti Christi Active et Passive p. 180. D. Prideaux Lect. 5. de Iustifi p. 162. Mr. Eradshaw Iustifica p. 68 69. c. Mr. Forbez Iustificate 25. p. 111 112 c that without much heedfulnesse it may occasion much stumbling and miscariage in our understanding The righteousnesse or obedience of Christ is twofold oâ— of two kindes the one Divines call Iustitia personae the righteousnesse of his person the other Iustitia meriti the righteousnesse of his merit The terms of Active and Passive wherein this Distinction is commonly conceived are not altogether so proper because even in that obedience which we call Passive Christ was in some sort active as willingly and freely submitting himselfe unto it Notwithstanding the Distinction might passe well enough in these termes Obedientia Christi duplex â—st altera quam vi legus communu qua creatura rationalus verus homo cum esset altera quam vi legude mediatione peculiarus sive pacti de redemptionis negotio initi quam neris humani Mediator et Redemptor Dro Patri debuâ—t et exhibuit Gataker against Gomarus p. 4. See further p. 15. 〈◊〉 p. 25. ibid. The righteousnesse of his person is that whereby he iustifyeth himselfe only or is himselfe righteous the righteonsnesse of his merit is that whereby he iustifyeth others The former consisteth partly of that integrity of nature which was in him partly of that obedience which he performed to the morall Law or that Law which is generally imposed upon all men The latter of that obedience or subjection which he performed to that peculiar Law of Mediator-ship which was imposed upon him alone and never upon any man besides For it is evident that Christ both did and suffered many things not simply as he was man but as he was Mediator especially his voluntary submission of himselfe unto death for the ransome and attonement of the world was the fulfilling of the great commandement in the peculiar Law of Mediator-ship being no waies bound by any precept in the Morall Law thereunto If Christ had been bound as man or by the Morall Law to die for the sinnes of men his death had bin ineffectuall for others For certaine it is that no man dischargeth another mans debt Qui obedientiae activae aut sanctitati nativae meritum justitla ascribunt morrem Christi sine dubie innnem reddunt Pareus De Iustic Christi Activ and Pass p. 181.182 c. by paying his owne and our Saviour himselfe injoyneth his Disciples when they should doe only that which was commanded them though they should do this to the uttermost yet to say that they were unprofitable Servants they had done but that which was their duty to doe Luk 17.10 Besides hee that maintaineth that Christ was bound by the moral Law to die for the sinnes of men saith in effect that if he had not died he had bin a sinner and deserved to have bin punished himselfe and so extenuateth and abaseth to the dust the
exactnesse ever after to the worlds end without the least failing in the least point of obedience thereunto the condition of a legall justification being that a man must continue à carcere ad metas from the very first entrance upon his being to the last end thereof in all things that are written in the Law to doe them so that the least trip or stumbling throughout all his course wholly dissolves and overthrowes such a justification Secondly because God hath opened another way for the justification of sinners viz. Faith in Jesus Christ and certaine it is that he never sets up one way against another or one ordinance against another so that what he intends should be effected by one he should intend to be effected by another also as hath bin argued and proved more at large in the former part of this Treatise (a) cap. 12. Sect. 2. c. Therefore to affirme that the fulfilling of the Law is required of any man either by himselfe or by another in his stead for his justification is to affirme either that a man that hath sin'd hath not sin'd or that which God hath said he hath unsaid Christ may be said to have kept the Law Distincti 6 SECT 11 in reference to our justification two waies or in a double sense either 1º for us or 2º in our stead In the former sense it may be admitted that Christ kept the Law for our justification but not in the latter The former sense only imports that this obedience of his had an influence into our justification and did contribute that which was of absolute necessity thereunto which hath bin explained and granted and in part proved formerly The latter sense imports that the keeping of the Law was primarily required of every man for his justification since the fall and that God in respect of the personall disabilities of men for such performance in reference to such an end sent his Sonne Iesus Christ to performe it in their roomes and places Which supposition stands convict of a manifest untruth in the former Distinction and elswhere in this Treatise (a) Part 1. cap. Sect. Distincti 7. SECT 12 The Iustification of a sinner I meane Passive though it be but one and the same entire effect yet may it be ascribed to many and those very diffâ—rent causes respectively according to their severall influences and differing manner of concurrence thereunto God may be said to iustifie Christ may be said to iustifie yea the Holy Ghost in a true and proper sense may be said to iustifie Faith may be said to iustify the Minister may be said to iustifie as well as to save 1 Tim. 4.16 remission of sinnes may be said to iustifie c. Whatsoever contributeth any thing more or lesse either in a superior or inferior way towards the raising and producing any effect the effect it selfe may not onely according to truth but in ordinary propriety of speaking be ascribed unto it It is as true to say and not unproper that the sling in Davids hand or the smooth stone which he slang or his act of slinging killed Goliah as to say that David himselfe killed him though it 's true David was the principall efficient in this action and the other were but inferior and instrumentall So that to reason thus Christ iustifies therefore Faith doth not iustifie or thus Christ is our righteousnesse therefore Faith is not our righteousnesse or remission of sinnes is not our righteousnesse c. is as if a man should argue after this manner It is God that maketh rich therefore money maketh not rich or a diligent hand maketh not rich which yet is a truth and is affirmed by the Holy Ghost aswell as the other Or thus It is God that purifieth the heart therefore man purifieth it not neither doth Faith purifie it nor doe afflictions purifie c. Or thus The Physician recovered the sick therefore his Physique did not recover him It is a weake reasoning à positione causae principalis ad remotionem accessorie Christ may Justifie and Faith may justifie and remission of sinnes may justifie yea Christ doth not iustifie without Faith nor without remission of sinnes more then either oâ— these iustifie without Christ though it be true Christ iustifieth after a manner peculiar to himselfe and Faith and Remission of sinnes each of them after a manner proper to it selfe and the manner of Iustification which is proper to Christ is more excellent and of superior consideration to the manner wherein either Faith or Remission of sinnes Iustifie Therefore the argument doth not follow from the affirmation of Iustification by Christ to the negation of the same Iustification by Faith or any other thing but it well fâ—llowes from the affirmation of the peculiar manner of Iustification which is proper to Christ to the negation of the same manner as belonging either to Faith or to Remission of sinnes or any thing besides This arguing is substantiall Christ Justifieth by way of merit or satisfaction or attonement for sinne therefore neither Faith nor remission of sinnes nor any thing else iustifieth either by way of merit satisfaction or attonement Therefore care must be had to distinguish the simple act from the peculiar manner of Iustification CAP. IIII. Conteyning a briefe Delineation or survey of the intire body of Justification in the severall causes of it according to the tenour of the Conclusions and Distinctions layd downe in the two former Chapters AS well to give a full and free accompt of mine owne judgement SECT 1 and of what I conceive and hold touching the great businesse of Iustification and the whole cariage of it in the Scriptures and counsaile of God as also to furnish my Reader with some further and cleerâ—r light whereby to comprehend the darknesse and to discover the insufficiency and weaknesse of those arguments that either are brought from the Scriptures or otherwise framed against the maine Conclusion defended in this Treatise I thought it not amisse to inlarge the Discourse by one Chapter the more wherein to delineate and represent according to the modell of my weake insight into so great a mystery that faire piece or frame wherein the grace justice and wisdome of God have sweetly conspired for the justification of a poore sinner And because the perfect knowledge hereof I meane of the gracious designe of God in and about the Iustification of a sinner depends upon the knowledge and right apprehension of the severall causes concurring and contributing thereunto as indeed the true knowledg of all thâ—ngs whatsoever ariseth from the knowledge of the causes thereof I desire leave to premise some few generall rules touching the number nature and property of causes in generall but only such which are generally acknowledged and subscribed unto by sober men that have had their wits exercised in discerning things agreeable to reason and who can be no waies suspected as partiall or any waies engaged either on the right hand or
that shall but a little consider the context in either place might further have bin prooved without much labour Let Calvin Musculus and other Protestant Interpreters be consulted with about them We have found nothing in those Scriptures of the old Testament which are look'd upon with an eye of the greatest confidence for the building up of that imputation which we endeavour to cast downe Let us passe from Prophets to Apostles and consider whether they also be not made to speake the mindes of other men and not their own when they are made to speake for this imputation The farre greatest part of testimonies brought against us out of the new Testament are lodg'd within the compasse of that one Epistle to the Romans the rest are but few The first place alledged by some is that Rom. 3.21.22 But now is the righteousnesse of God made manifest without the Law having witnesse of the Law and of the Prophets Even the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ c. By the righteousnesse of God say they is here meant the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ who is God imputed to all that beleeve c. I answere Rom. 3.21 cleared First this Scripture hath bin already fully opened in the first part of this Treatise cap. 4. throughout where upon due examination it was found to speake plainly for the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse but no waies for the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ for any such purpose Secondly Some by the righteousnesse of God in this place understand the truth and faithfulnesse of God in keeping promise This was the exposition of Ambrose long since And that this faithfulnesse of God is frequently in Scripture called his righteousnes hath bin already observed 3. cap. Sect. 2. p. 93. Thirdly and lastly by the righteousnesse of God in these Scriptures is meant doubtlesse either that way method or meanes which God himselfe hath found out to justifie or make men righteous See cap. 3. Sect. 2. p. 40. of this second part or else which comes to the same that very righteousnesse by which we stand justified or righteous in the sight of God This is the generall interpretation of the best Protestant Expositots as Calvin (a) Iustitiam Dei accipi pre ea quâ— Deo prâ—batur notum esse debuerat elementariis Calvin Instit l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 9. Dubium est qua ratione Dei justiciam appellet quam per sidem obtinemus ideone quia sola coram Deo consistit an quod eam nobis Dominus sua miscericordia largiatur Calv. in Rom. 3.21 Musculus (b) Exponi patestde ea justicia qua nos coram Deo justificamur c. Musculu in Rom. 3.21 Beza (c) Posita est omnis justificatio inremissione peccaterum et idea justicia haec in imputatione posita justitia Dei vocatur Beza De Coena Dom. Iusticia Dei id est salus vel redemptio quam Deus praestat Cam Myroth p. 178. Iusticia imputata rectè dicitur justicia Christi quia Christus eam sua obedientia nobis acquisivit Sicut etiam dicitur justicia Dei Juia Deus propter Christi meritum eam nobis imputat Pareus de Iusti l. 2. c. 2. p. 388. Sect. 8. Ro. 3.31 cleered c. Neither have I met with any that understands it of the righteousnesse of Christ nor is there the least appearance in the context of any necessitie so to take it Againe the last verse in the same Chapter is layd hold on by some as a favorer of their Imputation Do we then make the Law of none effect through Faith God forbid yea we establish the Law They conceive that the Law cannot be said to be established by Faith or by the Doctrine of Faith but only by imputation of Christs fulfilling it unto Beleevers I answere I that there is no necessity that by Law in this place should be meant precisely the Morall Law Calvin understands it aswell of the Ceremoniall Law as of the Morall and explaines how aswell the one as the other may be said to be established by Faith (d) Quare hanc Pauli excusationem uequae de ceremoniis seorsim neque de mandatis ut vocant moralibus sed in universum de tota lege accipio Calvin In Rom. 3.31 Therfore he is farre from conceiving that the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse should be established by Pauls affirming the Law to be established by faith Ambrose likewise long before him conceived the same things of this Scripture 2. It is much more probable that of the two Paul should here assert the establishing rather of the Ceremoniall Law then of the Morall 1. because the Jewes to whom he addresseth himselfe in this excusation seeking to ease and qualifie their spirits touching the Doctrine of Faith were more tender and jealous over the Ceremoniall part of their Law then over the Morall placing the far greatest part of their hope if not the whole of their justification and salvation in the observation hereof as appeares from Act. 15.1 Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses yecannot be saved c. So from Gal. 5. v. 2. compared with the 4. as also from diverse other places both of the Old and New Testament Now it is no waies like that the Apostle should seek to prevent the lesser and lighter offence in this people and wholly neglect them under the greater 2. because the Doctrine of faith and justification by Christ taught by the Apostle did not carry any such colour or appearance of opposition to the morall part of their Law as it did to the Ceremoniall The Gospell buildeth up moralities and that with an high hand but it abrogateth and casteth downe Ceremonialls altogether that is it calls men off from the further use and practise of them though it confirmes indeed their precedent use benefit and authority and so establisheth them Now it is but a weake conceit to think that Paul should goe about to vindicate or purge either himselfe or his Doctrine from a lighter and weaker suspicion and leave both obnoxious to a greater But 3. Suppose that the Apostle here speaks precisely and determinately of the Morall Law yet is there no necessity gain'd from hence that this should be said to be established by the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse For 1. both Austin and Chrysostome affirme that the Law is therfore said to be established by faith because faith compasseth and attaines that righteousnesse which the Law sought after and could not attaine Chrysostom's expression is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Ro. Homil. 7. that faith establisheth the will of the Law by bringing that to perfection which the Law would have done 2. The Morall Law may in this sence also be said to be established by faith because faith purgeth the hearts of those that beleeve and works out those corruptions and sinfull inclinations which disable men from doing the
things therein required and so promotes the observation and keeping of it This upon the matter is the interpretation of Musculus (*) Fides verò quoniam justificat credentes corda credentium purgat quod neque Lex apud Iudaos neque Philosophia apud Gentes neque doctrina bonorum operum apud Christianes praestare potest ram non adversatur bonorum operum Doctrinae ut illam magis stabiliat Musculus ad Rom. 3. ult upon the place Pareus likewise admits of it and cites Austin for it also But 4. The Law may be said to be established by the Doctrine of faith inasmuch as the comminations and threatnings of the Law as In the day thou â—atest therof thou shalt die the death and againe Cursed be he that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to doe them c. are by the Doctrine of justification by faith declared not to be in vaine The sufferings of Christ wherby we are justified through faith are a full confirmation of the force efficacie and authority of the curse of the Law being the price of the Redemption of those that beleeve from it Yet 5. and lastly I conceive the better Interpretation of the place to be that by Law the Apostle should meane that part of the Old Testament which comprehendeth the writings of Moses with those other Books which together with the writings of the Prophets make up the intire body thereof For in this sence he had used the word v. 21. where he affirmed the righteousnesse of God to have testimonie of the Law and the Prophets The word is elswhere and that somewhat frequently taken in this signification Now the Law in this sence may most properly be said to be established by Paul â—eaching the Doctrine of faith because this Doctrine is fully consonant and agreeable to those things that are written therein as he sheweth at large in the following Chapter arguing and insisting upon two pregnant testimonies to this purpose the one from Moses the other from David Origen of old made use of this Interpretation (b) Fides confirmas legem quia Christus inquit Moses de me scripsit Qui ergo credit Christo confirmat Legem quiae credit in Christum Origen and Hierome was not far from it (c) Fide lex stabilitur quia fide probamus verum esse quod lex dicit Testamentum testamento legem legi circumcisionem circumcisions successuram Hierony Piscator of later times likewise adhereth to it in his Disputes with Ludovicus Lucius (d) See Mr. Gatakers Animadversions upon these Disputes p. 42. The next Scripture sometimes managed for the imputation we oppose is Rom. 4.6 Even as David declareth the blessednesse of the man to whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works That righteousnesse which God is here said to impute to a man can be no other as is pretended but the righteousnesse of Christ To this I answere First SECT 9 that this Scripture and expression of Gods imputing righteousnesse Rom. 4.6 opened is fully opened and cleered in my Answere to Mr. Walker p. 41. whither the reader is desired to repaire for satisfaction if he desires it Secondly that of the two if we will needs here understand a positive legall righteousnesse it is much more probable the Apostle should meane a righteousnesse consisting of such works or of such an obedience to the Law as hath an absolute and perfect agreeablenesse to every mans condition and calling respectively then the righteousnesse of Christ which hath no such property in it hath bin already represented in this Discourse (a) Cap. 2. Sect. 5. p. 7. Thirdly that righteousnesse which God is said here to impute is by the best Expositors placed in Remission of sins Righteousnesse imputed saith Paraeus (b) Iustitia imputata consistis in gratuita remissione tectione non imputatione peccatoruÌ„ Pareus ad Rom 4.7 p. 371. Hoc sensu justitia imputata dicitur justicia Christi meritorie seu effective quia Christi merito nobisest parta non subjective quia Christo inhaereat Idem ibidem consists in a free remission covering or non-imputation of sinne And a little after shewing in what sense the righteousnesse which is imputed by God unto beleevers may be called the righteousnesse of Christ he expresseth himselfe thus In this sense imputed righteousnesse is called the righteousnesse of Christ viz. by way of merit or effect because it is procured for us by the merit of Christ not because it is subjectively or inherently in Christ many testimonies have bin formerly cited from divers other good Authors of concurrent judgement with him herein We are taught saith Calvin upon the place (c) Postremo doâ—emur hanc quoque remissionem gratuitam esse quia sine operibus imputatur quod et remissionis nomen indicat Calvin in Rom. 4.6 Quarto autem capite ad Romanos primum appellat justitia imputationem nec eam dubitat in remissione peccatorum câ—llocare idem Instit l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 4. that Remission of sinnes is free because it is imputed without workes But Fourthly the phrase of imputing righteousnesse may I conceive be best interpreted and understood by the contrary expression of imputing sinne Opposita juxtase posita magis elucescunt To impute sin signifieth only either to looke upon a person as justly liable to punishment or to inflict punishmeÌ„t upon a person peccati nomine for or in consideration of sin This latter signification I finde more frequent of the two in Authors of best esteeme God imputes sin saith Paraeus (a) Imputat Deus peccatium cum punit non imputat cum non punit sed condonat et tegit quasi non esset Pareus ad Rom. 4.7 when he punisheth and he doth not impute it when he doth not punish but pardoneth c. So Calvin (b) Ergo et peccatorum non recordari est ea non postulare all poenam Idipsum alibidicitur proijcere post tergum delere instar nubis c. non imputare tectumque habere c. Calvin Instit l. 3. c. 4. Sect. 29. vi etiam in Rom. 5.13 maketh the non-imputation of sinne and the not-punishing of sinne of one and the same signification and importance If therefore to impute sinne signifieth only either to hold a man liable to punishment for sinne or to execute and inflict punishment upon him for sinne doubtlesse to imputerighteousnesse importeth nothing else but either to looke upon a man as a righteous person or to conferre upon him and actually invest him with the precious priviledges that belong to persons truely righteous But however Fiftly and lastly here is neither peere nor peepe of the least ground or reason to conceive that by righteousnesse in this Scripture should be meant the righteousnesse of Christ SECT 10 The next Scripture mis-us'd for the imputation aforesaid is that Rom. 5.19 For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners Rom. 5.19 cleered so by the
justitia justice or righteousnesse but justificatio justification Beza by himselfe and perhaps more agreeable to the Apostles minde then the rest translates it jus the right or Law as it were of the Law And so both Chrysostom a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost ad Ro. 8. â— Serm. 13. and Theophylact b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in Rom. 8.4 of old expound the word not of any obedience of to the Law but of the end scope or intent of the Law viz. justification Paraus following Bezas translation of the word conceives that the Apostle by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or jus legis meanes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or damnatorie sentence of the Law against sinners mentioned cap. 5.16 in which signification of the word that right or power which God hath to condemne sinners unto death is called cap. 1.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where our English render it the iudgement of God the former translation had it the Law of God This exposition of the word though it seemes contrary to that given by Calvin and others mentioned yet will it give out one and the same sense and importance of the place with it as will presently appeare So that if this place were translated with exactnesse to the originall the argument that is now drawne from it for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse would wholly disappeare 6. Neither is it by ten degrees as cleere as the Sun that by the word Law in this Scripture we must of necessitie and with all precisenesse understand the Morall Law We know there are many other acceptions of the word in the writings of this Apostle And that it cannot be here meant precisely of the Morall Law is evident 1º because that impossibility of iustifying men thorugh the weaknesse of the flesh spoken of ver 3. is not confin'd to this Law alone but extends aswell to the other two Ceremoniall and Judiciall except we shall say that though the Morall Law was weake through the flesh and could not iustifie yet the Ceremoniall and Judiciall had a sufficiencie of strength hereunto which is manifestly untrue 2º because the Jewes to whom especially he addresseth himselfe in all his disputations concerning the Law and Iustification thereby built asmuch or more upon the observation of the Ceremoniall Law for their Iustification then of the Morall as was formerly observed Sect. 8. of this Chapter Now its certaine that the Apostle here takes the word Law in the same sense and latitude wherein the Jewes meant it when they contended and argued for Iustification by it otherwise he should not argue with them ad idem nor reach their apprehensions or meaning 3º because the Morall Law suppose it had not bin made weake nor disadvantag'd by the flesh yet could it not by the most exact observation of it have justified men at least not all men and by name not the Jewes who were bound to the observation of the other two aswell as of it and had bin found sinners had they faild in any point of either of these though they had bin absolute in the other Now it is evident that by the righteousnesse or Iustification of the Law in this place the Apostle meanes the righteousnesse or Iustification of such a Law which in it selfe was able to iustifie had it met with a sufficiencie of strength in men answerable to it Therefore he cannot be conceiv'd to speake here determinatly of the Morall Law which had no such abilitie in respect of the Jewes 4º and lastly because the Jewes had bin never the neerer a Iustification by the righteousnesse of the Morall Law imputed from Christ unto them supposing such an imputation being as hath bin said under the transgression of other Lawes So then this consideration also that by the word Law in this â—cripture cannot be meant the Morall Law gives an utter defeat to the attempt that is made upon it for the establishing of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse But 7. SECT 14 and lastly the cleare meaning of the place seem's to be this God sending his owne Sonne c. condemned sinne in the flesh that the righteousnesse or Justification of the Law might be fulfilled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or upon us c. that is that that Iustification or way of making men righteous which the Law that is the writings of Moses held forth and prophecied of unto the world long since viz. by Faith in the Messia that was then to come and to make attonemement for sinne by his blood might be fulfilled in us or upon us that is might be accomplished made good and fully manifested in us or upon us viz. in our Iustification who by our walking not after the flesh but after the Spirit that is by an eminencie of holinesse in our lives above the straine and pitch of men under the Law give testimony unto the world that the Messia or Great Iustifier of men foretold by Moses is indeed come into the world and having suffered for sinne and overcome death hath powred out the Spirit of Grace abundantly upon those that beleeve in him This interpretation especially as farre as concern's the clause in question that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us is confirmed aswell by the sweet proportion and sutablenesse betweene such a fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the Law in those that beleeve and live accordingly as the effect and that sending of Christ in the similitude of sinfull flesh to condemne sinne in the flesh laid downe in the former verse as the meanes or cause thereof Secondly in this interpretation the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fulfilled hath its proper and genuine force and signification which is wholly lost in that exposition which laboureth to finde the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in this place For to be fulfilled in the Scripture properly signifieth the accomplishment making good or full manifestation of a thing which before was under promise or prediction only and as it were in the darke Thirdly that righteousnesse or Iustification which is here called the righteousnesse or Justification of the Law is questionlesse the same righteousnesse which Rom. 3.21 is said to be witnessed by the Law that is by the writings of Moses and by the preaching whereof the Law it selfe is said to be established ver 31. of that Chapter So that in this respect it may very well be called the righteousnesse or Justification of the Law Fourthly and lastly according to the tenor of this interpretation this passage of Scripture is of perfect sympathie and accordance with those Rom. 3.21.22.25 whereas as the other interpretation leadeth it it can neither fiâ—de friend nor fellow in all the Scripture In the former of these last cited Scriptures the Apostle expresseth himselfe thus But now the righteousnesse of God without the Law is manifested being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets even the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Jesus Christ c. In the
committed against the Law is doubtlesse out of the danger and reach of the curse of the Law Now it is fully consistent with the principles of that opinion it selfe which we oppose to ascribe a perfect forgivenesse of all sinnes to the passive obedience or death of Christ imputed without the imputation of the active obedience with it for that end Yea I never yet heard of any of that way and judgement who pleaded the necessity of Christs active obedience imputed for the bringing men off from the curse of the Law but only to bring them under the blessing or promise of the Law Doe this and live Therefore the argument in hand is no more a friend to that opinion it selfe which it seekes to establish then it is to the truth it selfe Falsum nunc vero nunc falso est conâ—â—arium Thirdly the imputation of a perfect fulfilling of the Law from another were it granted cannot make him a continuer in all things that are written in the Law to doe them who offends daily in many things and consequently will leave him in as bad a case in respect of the curse of the Law as it finds him All the imputations under Heaven of whatsoever from whomsoever cannot make him who hath not continued in all things of the Law to doe them to have continued in them It is well that this argument is weake for otherwise it is of a most bloody and unmercifull Spirit and would beare downe all the world before it into Hell If there be no other way or meanes for poore sinfull men to come off from the curse of the Law but by continuing in all things that are written therein to doe them Doubtlesse they must all fall under this curse and never rise againe Therefore Fourthly and lastly the direct intent and meaning of this passage of Scripture is this Cursed be every one that continueth not c. that is every one that expecteth Justification and salvation by the Law woe be to every such person man or woman if they continue not in all things that are written in the Law to doe them the curse of the Law will fall heavy and terrible upon them That this is the plaine and expresse meaning of the Apostle in this place and that that clause of universalitie Cursed be every one c. is to be limited to the universality of those only who depend upon the Law for Iustification is evident First SECT 28 As it is true that whatsoever the Law speaketh it speaketh to those that is to all those that are under the Law Rom. 3.19 so is it as true also that whatsoever the Law speaketh it speaketh only unto those that are under it and to none other Now those that expect and looke for Iustification by Faith in Iesus Christ and not by the Law are not under the Law but under grace Rom. 6.14 See also Rom. 7.1 2 3 4. Therefore the Cursings and threatningâ— of the Law doe no waies concerne or touch any of these So Gal. 5.23 speaking of those that were Christs that is that were dead to the Law as touching all hope and dependance upon it for Iustification and had cast themselves upon him for that blessing affirmeth that against such there was no Law meaning no Law to judge or condemne them And 1 Tim. 1.9 He denieth that the Law is given to a righteous man but unto the lawlesse and disobedient c. meaning that the Law as touching the curse and penalty of it was never intended by God for men that are holy and righteous that is that are true beleevers in Iesus Christ from whom all holinesse and righteousnesse proceed But Secondly the context it selfe apparantly leades us to this limitation and interpretation For 1º the words immediatly preceding in the beginning of the verse are these For as many as are of the works of the Law that is that seeke to be justified by the works of the Law as Calvin Musculus and all Protestant writers generally interpret are under the Curse To proove this he alledgeth that testimony of the Law mentioned For it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not c. So that this clause and the curse contained in it have only reference to those that are of the works of the Law that is that seeke to be justified by the Law and not by Christ Againe 2º the interpretation given is confirmed from the words of ver 9. immediatly foregoing Here he had pronounced those that were of Faith that is that sought Justification by Faith in Christ Blessed with faithfull Abraham Now to prove that these were the blessed ones of God and not those that would be justified by the Law which was the Spirit that now began to work among these Galathians he affirm's that all these are under the curse and consequently farre from being blessed And to prove this he cites the passage in hand from the Law it selfe Cursed be every one that continueth not c. So that it is evident from hence also that that continuance in all things which are written in the Law to do them is only required of those either for the removall of the Curse threatned or for the obteyning of the blessing promised who seeke to be justified by the works of the Law and not of those that beleeve with Abraham and depend upon Christ for justification 3º and lastly the tenor of the verse immediatly following is as the light of the Sunne to cleere and vindicate this interpretation For here the Apostle goeth on with the further proofe of his last conclusion viz. that those that are of the works of the Law are under the Curse thus And that no man is justified and then not blessed and consequently accursed by the Law is evident for the just shall live that is be justified and so live and be blessed by Faith when he saith that no man is justified by the Law he supposeth that no man can be said to continue in all things that are written in the Law to doe them for he of whom this may be truly affirmed may very properly be said to be justified by the Law The truth is there is no other way or meanes of Iustification by the Law imaginable but only this Therefore that Iustification which we have by Faith in Christ cannot be said to be by a continuance in all things that are written in the Law to doe them because this is nothing else but Iustification it selfe by the Law And whereas it might be objected SECT 29 but may not a man be justified by Faith and by the Law or righteousnesse of the Law together may not a man be entit'led to or invested with a righteousnesse of the Law in and by his Faith To this the Apostle answers by a preoccupation in the words immediatly following ver 12. And the Law is not of Faith that is a man doth not observe the Law in one kind or other by beleeving he cannot be said to have a
legall righteousnesse put upon him by his Faith This he proveth from the expresse tenor and condition of the Law it selfe which requires a personall observation of the things contained therein by every man that shall live that is that shall be justified thereby But the man that doth them shall live in them the full importance of which clause you shall finde opened in the 8. Chapter of the first part of this Discourse By all that we have reasoned upon the passage of Scripture in hand it is more then double evident that here is no refuge or sanctuary for the preteÌ„ded imputation but rather an high hand of Heaven against it to overthrow it Some further plead that of the same Apostle Phil. 3 9. That I may be found in him not having mine owne righteousnesse c. but we have elswhere (a) In the first part of the Dis course cap. 6. upon a diligent search and inquirie found this Scripture looking a quite contrary way Other Scriptures then these alledged with any face or colour of reason in the cause of that Imputation which I disclaime I verily know none If I did I would not favor my selfe or the cause I maintain in the least by dissembling or suppressing any of them As for those that are consideÌ„t that they see that imputation of Christs righteousnes which we oppose in that and the like Scriptures Deliver me from blood guiltinesse ô God Lob. 41 27. and my tongue shall sing of thy righteousnesse Psal 51.14 and againe in that Do this and live Luk. 10.28 I leave them and their confidence to the convictions of miracles and signes from heaven For doubtlesse as for texts and interpretations they are turned into Stubble with them and reasons demonstrations are esteemed by them but as Leviathan esteemeth yron and brasse that is as straw and rotten wood Iob. 41.27 CAP. VI. VVherin the Arguments against the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense stated in the beginning of the Discourse are propounded and answered THere have bin two opinions the one affirmative the other negative hitherto promiscuously argued and maintained in this Discourse The former pleads the Imputation of Faith in a proper sense for righteousnesse in an unproper as was declared in the beginning The latter denyeth the imputation of Christs active obedience in the letter and formalitie of it in Iustification which expressions likewise have long since bin interpreted and cleered from all ambiguitie We shall now towards the close of our worke distinguish them and answere the arguments or objections against the one and the other apart by themselves I begin with the reasons or arguments urged against the affirmative SECT 1 The first and great argument or objection against the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense taken usually presents it selfe in this or the like shape That which impeacheth the truth or justice of God Object 1 can have no consistence or agreement with the truth But the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense declared impeacheth or trencheth upon the truth and justice of God Ergo The reason of the assumption which is only questionable is rendred thus because if God should impute Faith for righteousnesse he should account that to be a righteousnesse which is none and therein should be untrue or unjust The major proposition in this syllogisme is an anoynted truth and not to be touch'd but it is unequally yok'd the minor being of a contrary Spirit and therefore to be denied And to the proofe or confirmation of it I answere First that this was in effect the plea and argument of that fanatique Spirit of Suencfeldius as it stands upon record in Zanshie (a) Dei tribunal est multo justius quam Iureconsultorum ubi impii non absolvuntur Ergo in Theologia verbum justificandi non juridicâ— pro absolutione est accipiendum sed pro justum integrum gratum Deo reddere Zanch. in Epist l. 1. p. 215. and likewise of the Counsell of Trent as Calvin hath observ'd (b) Iterum enim affirmant nos verè justos esse non tantum reputari Ego contrà c Calvi Antidos ad sess 6. p. 324. to prove that the word Iustification in the Scripture was not to be taken in a juridicall sense viz. for absolution but in a physicall or morall sense for the making or constituting of a man properly and compleatly just or righteous and is the common argument of the Papists for their Justification by inherent grace and works (c) Bellarminus dicit verbo imputandi non significari nudam existimationem sed existimationem cui veritas in reipsa respondear Chamier t. 3. l. 21. c. 13. p. 886. This notwithstanding I conceive it very unjust to charge those that use it either with Swenchfeldianisme or Popery But Secondly neither doth it follow that God should account that for righteousnesse which is no righteousnesse though he should count Faith for righteousnesse For any obedience or action conformable to a righteous Law or rule may truly and oft in Scripture is be called righteousnesse Then stood up Phineas and executed judgement c. and it was counted unto him for righteousnesse c. Psal 106 30. By righteousnesse in this place cannot be meant a conformity or obedience to the whole Law one particular act as this was whatsoever it were cannot beare the appellation of righteousnesse in such a sense Therefore it signifies only a conformity with some particular and speciall precept or rule See the word used much in a like sense Gen. 30.33 2 Cor. 9.9.10 Hebr. 11.33 c. Now then Faith or beleeving being a subjection or obedience to a speciall commandement of God 1 Iohn 3.23 2 Pet. 2.21 Rom. 1.5 c. it may both with truth and in sufficient proprietie of speech be called righteousnesse yea the weakest or most imperfect believing looke what degree of sincerity and truth there is in it so farre it may truly be called and counted righteousnesse yet by righteousnesse in that clause where God is said to impute the Faith of him that beleeveth for righteousnesse SECT 2 Non hoc diciturâ— Deum apud se judicare illos pro quâ—um peocatis universis Christus satisfocit nihil mali unquam commisisse aut boni debiti omisisse sed eodem haberâ— loco quoad mortu reatum et jus ad vitam aeternum acsi nihil vel mâ—li ad misissent vel boni debâ—ti admisissent Gat. Elench p. 35.36 Sâ—e also my answere to Mr. Walker p. 24. 25. c. I do not conceive is meant an act of obedience or conformity to any speciall or particular precept of God Therefore Thirdly when with the Scriptures we affirme that God imputeth or accounteth any mans Faith unto him for righteousnesse we do not meane that God only accounteth such a beleeving for a righteous act unto him much lesse do we meane that he esteemeth it a perfect literall and compleate observation or
fulfilling of the whole Morall Law but that which we meane is this that God lookes upon a man who truly beleeveth with as much grace and favor and intends to doe as graciously and bountifully by him as if he were a man of perfect righteousnesse and had entirely kept and fulfilled the whole Law In this sense to account Faith for righteousnesse hath not the least colour or appearance either of injustice or repugnancie with the truth The Reader may please to see the substance of this answer further opened and confirmed in the former part of this Discourse Cap. 19. Sect. 6 and 7. Fourthly and lastly there is scarce any thing affirmed more frequently or familiarly by the best reformed writers then that God esteemes or accounts those just or perfectly just who properly and in exactnesse and strictnesse of speech are not such but only have their sinnes forgiven Therefore they apprehended no matter of unjustice or contrarietie unto truth in that which the objection impeacheth of both From hence we gather saith Calvin (a) In Rom. 4.3 that Pauls dispute is not what men are in themselves sed quo loco Deus ipsos censeat that is but in what place or condition God is pleased to account them And elsewhere (b) De vera Loâ—es Refor ratione p. 368. It followes then that we are just or righteous and consequently may justly and righteously be so accounted by God quia nobis peccata non imputantur because our sinnes are not imputed to us Therefore we stand just or righteous before God saith Mr. Fox (c) De Christo gratu Iustine l 3. p. 280. because our sinnes are forgiven us We have Remission of sinnes saith Melancthon (d) In Exam. Theol. de Iustific p. 529. for and through Christ which having obteyned justi sumus coram Deo we are righteous before God Paul saith Calvin estimates the blessednesse of a man from hence quia hoc modo justus est non reipsà sed imputatione that is because he is after this manner righteous not in very deed but by imputation And a little after going on with his confutation of Osiander he must grant saith he at least that as farre as that imputation of his extendeth justos conseri qui reipsa non sunt that is that they are accounted meaning by God righteous who yet are not righteous indeed It were easy to weaâ—â—e the Reader over (e) Instit l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 11. Gratuâ—ta Dei acceptatio subrogatur in locum justiciae idem Non magu ve ritati screutiae justeque Dei judicio repugnat cos pro quorum peccatâ—â— tam commissionus quam omnissionis satisfastio per Christi mortem plenissime est prastita tales judicare qui nihil mali commiserint nihilque boni omiserent quam eos perfecte justos judicare ut pote qui perfectam legi obedientiam prassi teriut cum id ipsi tamè noutiquam fecerint pro quibus Christus tandem prâ—stitisse perhibetur Gatak Elench Gomar p. 35. vi seqq and over with heaping up such expressions as these out of these and other Authors of like Authentique Name with them But the objection was at least as much as answered before therefore proceed we to doe as much for another A second objection rais'd by some against the Imputation of Faith in a proper sense for righteousnesse SECT 3 Object 2 is this If Faith in such a sense should be imputed for righteousnesse then should justification be by works or by somewhat in our selves But the Scripture every where rejecteth works and all things in our selves from having any thing to doe in Iustification Ergo. I answere to both propositions and first to the major by distinguishing the consequent therein That justification should be by works or by somewhat in our selves may be understood two waies Either 1o. by way of merit so that by works should signifie by the merit of works which is still the Scripture sense or else 2o. by way of simple performance If the Proposition be taken in the former sense it is altogether false and the consequence thereof denied Faith may be imputed for righteousnesse in the sense oft declared and yet no man justified by the merit of any work or works in himselfe If it be taken in the latter sense so the minor Proposition is false to touch upon this in the second place For the Scripture no where rejecteth every thing that may goe under the name of a worke or that may be said to be done by us in respect of a simple performance from having to doe in the matter of justification Nay it expressely requireth of us and enjoyneth that as of absolute necessitie to justification yea and attributeth Justification to it from place to place which it selfe calleth a work This is the worke of God saith our Saviour to the Jewes that yee beleeve in him whom he hath sent And when Paul exhorts the Philippians to worke out their salvation with feare and trembling doubtlesse he doth not exclude their Faith or beleeving in Christ Now that beleeving in Christ is required as of absolute necessitie aswell to Iustification as salvation at least of those that are adulti and of yeares of discretion is a thing I conceive so well knowne and of that universall confession that I may forbeare the citation of Scripturs without prejudice to the truth of it Thus our best and soundest writers without scruple call that beleeving by which we are justified a work or the doing of something Faith saith Calvin (a) Fides praecâ—puum opus est quod a nobis Deus exigit Calvin in Iac. 1.22 is the chiefe work that God requireth of us And what did Abraham saith Musculus (b) Quid enim feeit Abraham quod imputaretur c. Musc in Gal. 3.6 that should be imputed for righteousnesse but only beleeve God The Reader may please to see more to this purpose in my Answere to Mr. Walker p. 67 c. So that the treasure of this objection is but coales also A third Objection is this Object 3 That which maketh Justification not to be of grace or of free grace SECT 4 cannot stand with the truth of the Gospell But the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense now contended for makes Iustification not to be of Grace Ergo. Reverencing the innocencie of the major Proposition I come with a rod unto the minor Answere charging this with untruth and that upon this ground and evidence because the Scripture still makes or acknowledgeth a perfect and entire consistence of grace or free grace with the condition of Faith in Iustification For by Grace yee are saved through Faith Ephes 2.8 And are freely justified by his Grace c. Rom. 3.24 through Faith in his blood c. ver 25. Nay the truth is that the worke of beleeving as our Saviour called it is so farre from carrying any opposition in it to the freenesse of Gods grace in
â—a Priest also or an High Priest and that righteousnesse of his we speake of qualifieth him that is contributeth towards his qualification for Priest-hood aswell as it did for sacrifice If he had not been perfectly righteous and consequently fulfill'd the Morall Law aâ— well as any other Law which concern'd him he had bin uncapable of that great place or dignitie of Priest-hood which now he executes to the great benefit and blessing of the world This is evident from that Scripture Heb. 7.26 27. For such an High â—riest it became us to have who is holy harmelesse undefiled separated from sinners c. meaning that no Priest whatsoever without these qualifications could have stood us in that great stead had bin sit to intercede with God for us as Christ now doth Eightly and lastly that holy pleasure and contentment which Christ himselfe tooke in those works of righteousnesse wherein hee addresse himselfe to God his Father by obedience to his Law may well be look'd upon as one considerable end or use of this obedience of his My meat is saith himselfe Ioh. 4.34 to doe the will of him that sent me and to finish his work Christ was inwardly and secretly refresh'd and satisfied with every act or worke of righteousnesse which he wrought as generally men are by acting and working out of such principles as are connaturall and pleasing to them It is joy to the just to doe judgement saith Solomon Prov. 21.15 Then the people rejoyced when they offered willingly c. 1 Chr. 29.9 Especially the Lord Christ being full of grace and of the Spirit of holinesse and withall knowing perfectly and throughly apprehending the full excellencie and beauty of all righteousnesse and subjection unto God could not but take and tast very high and excellent contentments in all that he did in such a way So that were there no other end use or necessitie of that righteousnesse of Christ about which we now reason but only his own personall satisfaction and contentment in the working it this is abundantly sufficient to salve the the usefulnesse and necessitie of it How many things are done even by wise men with no relation to any further end but only their owne pleasure satisfaction and contentment in doing them Therefore the Argument last propounded to establish the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense supposed viz. the uselesnesse of it otherwise is weaker then its fellowes though neither have these cause to boast of much strength A fift argument imployed in the same service SECT 12 Argum. 5 is this If we be debtors unto the Law and that not only in matter of punishment deserved by our disobedience to it but in perfection of obedience also then did Christ not only suffer death for us that we might be delivered from the punishment or curse due unto our sinnes but also fulfilled the Law for us that so we may be reputed to have fulfilled the Law in him or by the imputation of his fulfilling the Law unto us otherwise the Law should yet remaine to be fulfilled by us But we are debtors unto the Law not only in matter of punishment for our transgression but in perfection of obedience also otherwise our sinning against the Law should exempt and privilege us from subjection to the Law Ergo. A short Answere I conceive may do sufficient execution upon a long argument Answere Therefore I say nothing to the major proposition but only in what we shall charge upon the minor to this I answere that it labours of an infirmity very incident to reasonings especially against the truth called homonymia or ambiguitie of expression For when it affirmoth that we are debtors to the Law in perfection of obedience aswell as in matter of punishment as this debt of obedience may be variously interpreted and understood the proposition may either be true or false If this be the meaning that we that are beleevers are debtors unto the Law in perfection of obedience for our justification it is utterly false For we have no need to depend upon it or any obedience to it for our justification in the sight of God but are fully and freely justified by Christs blood Ro. 5.9 Neither are such debtors to it so much as in matter of punishment Christ having cased their shoulder of this burden by taking it upon his own It is true those that beleeve not in Christ may in this sense be said to be debtors to the Law aswell in matter of perfect obedience as of punishment that if they meane to be justified and to escape the punishment and condemnation under which they lye otherwise then by Christ they must keep the whole Law because no third way of justification from punishment due to the transgression of the Law was ever heard of nor is imaginable but either by Faith in Christ or by a personall obstervation of the whole Law And in this sense the Apostle Gal. 5.3 testifieth to every man that is circumcised viz. with reserence to his justification 〈◊〉 God this he is bound to keepe the whole Law as well as to be circumcised I because he that sticketh not wholly and entirely unto Christ for justification must of necessitie keep and observe the whole Law even every jot and tittle of it and not some part or parts of it only to obtaine justification with God But Secondly If the proposition meaneth that beleevers are debtors of perfect obedience to the Law in a way of sanctification and thankfulnesse unto God for that unspeakable grace of Iustification and forgivenesse of sinnes by Christ so it is and hath bin formerly acknowledged for a truth cap. 3. Sect. 10. of this second Part. But in this sense it concerneth not the question in hand Thirdly we are not therefore exempted or priviledged from fulfilling or keeping the Law no not in respect of Iustification it selfe because we have transgressed it but 1º having once transgressed we are utterly uncapable of such an observation or keeping it whether personally or by imputation which may amount to a Iustification or exemption from punishment 2º that relaxation or release which we have from an observation of or dependance upon the Law for Iustification accrueth unto us by meanes of our dependance upon Christ for Justification thorough his death and suffering the curse of the Law for us Rom. 7.4 For Fourthly SECT 13 God never required of any man but only of Christ both exactnesse of obedience to the Law and subjection to punishment due to the transgression of the Law coniunction but divisim only He that shall perfectly keep the Law is no where threatned or bound to suffer the penaltie due to the transgression of the Laâ—â— nay the very expresse renor of the Law promiseth exemption or freedome from punishment unto such Dee this and thou shall live The Law doth not make any man a debtor in respect of punishment simply and absolutely but conditionally only and upon supposition of sinne Fiâ—â—ly and lastly