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
righteousnesse Yea whereas the Object of Faith as justifying is expressed with great varietie of words and termes in the Scriptures in all this varietie there is not to be found the least mention of the righteousnesse of Christ As if the holy Ghost foreseeing the kindling of this false fire had purposely with-drawne or with-held all fuell that might feed it Sometimes Christ in person is made the Object of this Faith Ioh. 3 16. that whosoever beleeveth in him c. Sometimes Christ in his Doctrine or the Doctrine and word of Christ Ioh. 5 46. Had yee beleeved Moses yee would have beleeved me Sometimes Christ in the relation of his person and that either as he stands related unto God as his Father Ioh 20 31. These things are written that yee might beleeve that Iesus is the Christ the Son of GOD. Or else as he stands related to those ancient promises of God made unto the Nation of the Jewes from time to time before his coming in the flesh concerning a Messia to be given or sent unto them Ioh. 8 24. Except yee beleeve that I am he you shal die in your sins Sometimes thâ—r aising up of Christ from the dead is made the Object of this Faith Rom. 10 9. For if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and shalt beleeve in thy heart that God raised him up from the dead thou shalt be saved Sometimes againe God himselfe is mentioned as the Object of this Faith 1 Pet. 1 21. that your Faith and hope might be in God and Iohn 12 44. He that beleeveth on me beleeveth not on me but on him that sent me Besides many like places Lastly to forbeare further enumeration of particulars in this kind which are of ready observation in the Scriptures Sometimes the record or testimony of God concerning his Son is made the Object of this Faith 1 Iohn 5 10. He that beleeveth not God hath made him a liar because he beleeved not the record God witnessed of his Son c. In all this varietie or diversitie of expressing the Object of Faith as justifying there is no sound or intimation of the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ Not but that the righteousnesse of Christ is and ought to be believed as well as other things that are revealed and written in the Scriptures yea I conceive it to be of nearer concernment to the maine to beleeve this righteousnesse of Christ then the beleeving of many other things besides comprehended in the Scriptures aswell as it But one principall reason why it should not be numbred or reckoned up amongst the objects of Faith as justifying may with great probability be conceived to be this because though it ought to be and cannot but be beleeved by that Faith which justifieth yet it may be beleeved also by such a Faith which is so far from justifying that it denyeth this Christ whose righteousnesse notwithstanding it beleeveth and acknowledgeth to be the Son of God Thus some of his owne Nation the Jewes have given testimony to his righteousnesse and innocency who yet received him not for their Messiah nor believed him to be God And this is the frame and constitution of the Turkish Faith for the most part concerning him at this day Fiftly SECT 6 that Faith which is here said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse ver 3. is that Faith by which he beleeved in God that quickeneth the dead and calleth the things that are not as if they were ver 17. But the righteousnesse of Christ can in no tolerable construction or congruitie of speech be called that Faith by which Abraham beleeved in God that quickeneth the dead c. Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is not that Faith that is here said to be imputed for righteousnesse Sixtly that Faith which was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse ver 3. is that Faith wherein it is said ver 19. that Abraham was not weak and is opposed to doubting of the promise of God through unbeliefe ver 20. But the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be conceived to be that wherein Abraham was not weake neither doth the righteousnesse of Christ carrie any opposition with it to a doubting of the promise of God through unbeliefe being a thing of a differing kind and nature from it But betweene Faith properly taken or a firme believing and a doubting through unbeliefe there is a direct perfect opposition Therefore it is Faith in this sense and not the righteousnesse of Christ that is said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse Sevently that Faith which was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse was that Faith by which he was fully assured that he which had promised was able also to doe it for thus it is described ver 21. and the imputation of faith so described is plainly affirmed ver 22. and therefore it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse But the righteousnesse of Christ is not capable of any such definition or description as this that by it Abraham was fully assured that he that had promised was also able to performe it Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is not that that was imputed for righteousnesse unto Abraham Eightly that which shall be imputed unto us for righteousnesse is said to be our beleeving on him that raised up the Lord Iesus Christ from the dead v. 24. But the righteousnes of Christ is not our believing on him that raised up our Lord Iesus Christ from the dead Therefore it cannot be that that is either said or meant to be imputed unto us for righteousnes Ninthly and lastly whereas the question or point of imputation in Iustification is handled only in this passage of Scripture Rom. 4. for those other places Gal. 3 and Iam. 2 only mention it but insist not at all upon any declaration or explication thereof it is no waies probable but that the Apostle should speake somewhat distinctly and plainely of the nature of it here Otherwise he might seeme rather desirous to have layd a stumbling block in the way of men then written any thing for their learning and comfort If we take the word FAITH or BELEEVING so often used in this Chapter in the proper and plaine signification of it for that Faith whereby a man beleeves in Christ or the promise of God concerning Christ then the tenor of the discourse is as cleare as the day and full of light the streame of the whole Chapter run's limpid and untroubled But if we bring in a tropicall and metonymicall interpretation and by Faith will needs compell Saint Paul to meane the righteousnesse of Christ we cloath the Sun with a Sackcloath and turne Pauls perspicuitie into a greater obscuritie then any light in the Scripture knoweth well how to comfort or relieve The word FAITH being a terme frequently used in the Scripture is yet never found to signifie the righteousnesse of Christ the Holy Ghost never putting this word into that sheath neither is there any either rule in
Grammar or figure in Rhetorique that know's how to salve up the inconsistencie of such an interpretation SECT 8 If it be objected and said that faith in the Scripture is sometimes put for the object of faith as Gal. 3 23. But before Faith came that is the Doctrine of Faith or Christ himselfe the object of Faith we were kept under the Law So Gal. 1 22. He preacheth the faith which sometimes he destroyed c. and may be so used with as good proprietie of speech as hope is put for the thing or things hoped for which is an expression not unusuall in the Scriptures To this I answere first by concession that true it is the name of the faculty is sometimes put for the object appropriated to it neither is there any hardnes or cause of offence or mistake in such an expression It rather add's grace comlinesse to the sentence wherein it is used if it be used seasonably as might be exemplified by severall Scripture instances if it were pertinent But secondly by way of opposition I answere First though the faculty be sometimes put for the Object yet the act seldome or never to my remembrance The actor exercise of the grace of hope is never put for the things hoped for but hope it selfe is sometimes found in that signification As Colos 1 5. for the hope which is layed up for you in the Heaven So Tit. 2 13. Looking for that blessed hope c. Now that which is here said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse was not the habit or grace of his Faith but Abraham beleeved God that is exercised or put forth an act of Faith it was imputed unto him for righteousnes So that though faith may be sometimes put for the object of Faith yet the exercise of this Faith or to believe is never put for it Secondly though it should be granted that aswell the act it selfe as the faculty or habit may be sometimes put for the Object yet when the act and Object have been named together and the act expressed and specified by an Object proper to it and further somewhat immediatly ascribed to this act under that consideration all which is plainly seene in this clause Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse in this case to conceive or affirme that what is so ascribed is neither ascribed unto the act it selfe there mentioned which is here Abrahams beleeving nor unto the Object mentioned likewise with it which is here GOD Abraham beleeved God but to some third thing really differing from them both and not so much as once mentioned or named in all the discourse as the righteousnesse of Christ is not once named throughout this whole Chapter no nor in any other Chapter neere at hand either antecedent or subsequent what is this but to turne a mans back upon the text to looke out an interpretation and to exchange that which is plainly affirmed with what is not so much as obscurely intimated or implied and to make the Apostle speake as man never spake besides not for wisdome or excellencie of speech but for the uncouth abstrusenesse of his meaning Doubtles no instance is to be found of any Author whatsoever sacred or prophane who so far abhorred to be understood in what he spake as to put his minde into words of such a construction Thirdly and lastly to the Objection I Answere that neither is the righteousnesse of Christ the object of Faith as justifying as hath been said and sufficiently made good nor doth the Scripture where it speakes of Faith as justifying which places are not a few make the least mention or give the least intimation of such a thing It is true the Scriptures sometimes propound the righteousnes of Christ or his obedience to the Law as that which is to be beleeved so it may be termed a partiall object of Faith that is somewhat that is ought to be believed but so the creation of the world is propounded to be beleeved and that Cain was Adams Son is somewhat to be beleeved And generally whatsoever the Scriptures do affirme may be called a partiall object of Faith But the object of faith properly as it justifieth is either Christ himselfe or the promise of GOD concerning the Redemption and salvation of the world by him The righteousnesse of Christ is no more the object of Faith as justifying then either his being borne of a Virgin or his ascending up into Heaven or the like and either the one or the other may in that respect be aswell here said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse as the righteousnesse of Christ Thus you see at large how many passages and circumstances in the context stand up in contestation against that exposition which by Abrahams Faith in this Chapter will needs understand Christs righteousnesse Fourthly SECT 9 and lastly this interpretation we contend for according to which the word Faith or beleeving is to be taken properly in all the passages mentioned and not tropically or metonymically was the common interpretation anciently received and followed by the principall lights I meane the Fathers of the Church of God from the primitive times and for 1500 yeares together as far as my reading and memorie together will assist me was never questioned or contradicted Neither did the contrary opinion ever looke out into the world at least was never contended for till the yesterday of the last age So that it is but a calumnie or evill report brought upon the opinion and interpretation of this Scripture which we maintaine unworthy the tongue or pen of any learned and sober man to make either Arminius or Socinus the Authors or founders of either And for this last hundreth yeeres and upwards from about Luthers and Calvins times the fairest streame of Interpreters so runs as to water and refresh the same interpretation You will be easily inclin'd I presume to beleeve both the one and the other that both former and latter times have been friends and favourers of the interpretation given if you will please with diligence and without partiality to ponder and examine these few testimonies and passages following as they stand in their severall Authors respectively TERTULLIAN Caeterum quomodo filâ—â—â—let â—â—t â—â—tus fideâ— si non Aâ—â—aâ—â— Sâ—â—enim Aâ—â—cham Deo credidit et dâ—â—â—tatum est Iustitiae atque extudâ— Pate multatum natiorum mâ—ruit nuncupart noâ—â—atem credendo Deo magis protrdâ— justificamur sicut Abraham Tertull. contra Marc. l. 5. c. 3. Denique Abraham Deo credidit et justitiae deputatus ab isto est sed fidem ejus patientia probavit quum filium immolaere jussus est c. Idem de Patient c. 6. Videtur ergo eciam in prasenti â—oco quam multae fides Abrahae praecesserint in hoc nunc universa fides ejus esse collecta et ita ad justitiam ei reputata Origen l. 4. ad Ro. in c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Iust Mar. Dial. cum Tryph. post medium who lived and wrote about the yeare 194 in his fift Booke against Marcion writeth thus But how the Children of Faith or of whose Faith if not of Abrahams For if Abraham beleeved God and that was imputed unto him for righteousnesse and he thereby deserved the name of a Father of many Nations we by beleeving GOD more are therefore justifyed as Abraham was The same Father in his tract of Patience Abraham beleeved God and was accounted righteous by him but he tried his Faith by patience when he was commanded to offer his Son Therefor Tertullians opinion directly is that that Faith which is said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse is Faith properly taken and not the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by Faith because he saith that God tried his Faith by patience which cannot be applied to the righteousnesse of Christ ORIGEN Who lived about the yeare 203 in his fourth Booke upon the Romans writing on cap. 4. ver 3. speaketh thus It seemes therefore that in this place also that whereas many faiths that is many acts of believing of Abraham had gone before now all his faith was recollected and united together and so was accounted unto him for righteousnesse And in the same place not long after he hath more words to like purpose Therefore he joyned with Tertullian in the interpretation of this Scripture JUSTIN MARTYR Who liv'd before them both and not long after the Apostle Iohn's time about the yeare 130 in his Dialogue or disputation had at Ephesus with Trypho the Jew it seemes led them both the way to that Interpretation Abraham caried not away the testimony or commendation of righteousnesse because of his circumcision but because of his Faith For before he was circumcised this was pronounced of him Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse CHRYSOSTOM who lived somewhat after the yeare 380 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost ad Rom. cap. 4. v. 23. circa initium Serm. 9. et paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem ad Gal. 3. c. in the beginning of his ninth Sermon upon the Romans Having spoken saith he meaning Paul in the former part of that Chapter many and great things concerning Abraham and his Faith c. And a little after Wherefore saith he was it written but that we might learne that we also are justified as he was because we have beleeved the same God The same Father againe upon Gal. 3. For what was he the worse for not being under the Law nothing at all for his Faith was sufficient unto him for righteousnesse If Abrahams Faith was sufficient unto him for righteousnesse it must needs be imputed by God for righteousnesse unto him for it is this imputation from God that must make that sufficiency of it unto Abraham That which will not passe in accompt with God for righteousnesse will never be sufficient for righteousnesse unto the creature Saint AUGUSTINE who lived about the yeare 390 SECT 11 Credendo quippâ— invenimus quod illi Iudai non credendo amiserunt Quia credidit Abraham Deo et reputatum est illi ad justitiam Aug. in Psal 148. versus finem gives frequent testimony in his works both to the opinion and interpretation contested for Vpon Psal 148. For we by beleeving have found that which they the Iewes lost by not beleeving For Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes Therefore his opinion cleerely is that it was Abrahams Faith or Beleeving properly taken that was imputed unto him for righteousnesse and not the righteousnesse of Christ For that Faith of his which was so imputed he opposeth to the unbeliefe of the Jewes whereby they lost the grace and favor of God Now the righteousnesse of Christ is not opposed to unbeliefe but Faith properly taken Againe writing upon Psal 70 In eum credo qui justificat impium ut deputetur fides mea in justitiam Idem in Psal 70. For I beleeve in him that justifieth the ungodly that my faith may be imputed unto me for righteousnes Where by Faith he cannot meane the righteousnesse of Christ because he calleth it his owne before the imputation whereas the righteousnesse of Christ can no waies be imagined to be any mans till it be made his by imputation The same Father yet againe in his tract of nature and Grace But if Christ died not in vaine Si autem non gratu mortuus est Christus in illo solo justificatur impius cui credenti in eum qui justificat impium deputatur fides injustitiam Aug. De Nat. et Grat. non lorge ab initio Credidit Abraham Deo et deputatum est illi ad justitiam Ecce sine opere justificatur ex fideâ— et quicquid illi legali observatione potest conferri totum crdulitas sola donavit Idem de Temp. Serm. 68. the ungodly is justified in him alone to whom beleeving in him that justifieth the ungodly his Faith is accounted for righteousnesse And yet once more in his 68 Sermon of Time â—f that piece be his Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse See without any worke he is justified by Faith and whatsoever was possible to have bin conferred upon him by the observation of the Law his beleeving alone gave it all unto him Certainly this Author whoever he was by the word CREDULITIE for so the Latine word signifieth whereby he expresseth that Faith which was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse could not meane or understand the righteousnesse of Christ PRIMASIUS about the yeare 500 upon Rom. 4 ver 3. Tam magna fuit dono Dei fides Abrahae ut et pristina ei peccata donarentur et sola prae omni justitia doceretur accepta that is Abrahams faith by the guift of God was so great that both his former sins were forgiven him and this FAITH of his alone preferred in acceptation before all righteousnesse By Abrahams alone Faith he cannot meane Christs righteousnesse BEDA who lived somewhat before the yeare 700 upon Rom. 4. ver 5. hath these words What Faith Que fides nisi quam alio loco plenissime definit Apostolus Neque circuncisio neque praeputium aliquid valet sed fides que per dilectionem operatur Non qualisâ—â—nque fides sed sidâ—s que per dileâ—ta mem operatur Beda ad Ro. 4 5. Quia credidit Dâ—o reputatuÌ„ est et ad justitiam â— ad remissionem peccatorum quia per ipsaÌ„ sidem qua credidit justus effectus est Haymo in Rom. 4 3. Quod ita firmiter credidit reputatum est illi divinitus ad justitiam i. non solum liberatus est ab omni originali et actuali peccato per hanc credulitatem sed justus est a Deo reputatus Anselm Cant. in Rom. 4.3 but that which the Apostle in another place fully defineth neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing but faith which
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
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
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
his Children is of that opinion which mainteyneth men to be compleatly righteous by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the letter and formality of it But as sometimes it comes to passe that a man falling into love with a woman that hath a great charge of Children hanging upon her having maried the mother would willingly wrangle or beate the Children out of dores and turne them off to begg so it is often seene that when men have unadvisedly imbraced an opinion seeming in their eye a beautifull and lovely truth and did not at first before they were wedded to it apprehend and consider what rugged and harsh consequences it had attending upon it they shift and turne and winde themselves about every way to quit themselves of that dishonourable charge wherewith they finde themselves by reason of their opinion encumbred withall But how men that will owne an imputation of a perfect righteousnesse can with any tollerable appearance of reason shift off from themselves the opinion of Gods not seeing sin in those that are cloathed with it is I confesse beyond the line of my apprehension If God could see no sinne in Christ because he was perfectly and compleatly righteous how he should see it in any that are as compleatly and perfectly righteous as he and that with the same righteousnesse wherwith he was righteous is a riddle that cannot be made out but by him that plougheth with a better heyfer then yet I have met with any CAP. XVI Propounding a ninth Demonstration against the pretended imputation viz. the confounding of the two Covenants IT is true SECT 1 many that hold the way of imputation are nothing ashamed nor afraide of this consequent the confounding of the two testaments or covenants of God with men that of the works with that of grace and vice versa that of grace with that of works These conceive that God never made more covenants then one with man and that the Gospell is nothing else but a gracious aide or reliefe from God to helpe man out with the performance of the first Covenant of works so that that life and salvation which is said to come by Christ shall in no other sense be said to come by him but only as he fulfilled that Law of works for man which men themselves were not able to fulfill and by imputation as by a deed of guift makes over that his perfect obedience and fulfilling of the Law to those that beleeve so that they in the right of this perfect obedience thus made theirs by imputation shall come to inherit life and salvation according to the strict and rigid tenor of the Covenant of works Doe this and live But as far as I am able to conceive men may aswell say there was no second Adam really differing from the first as no second Covenant differing really from the first and that mount Sina in Arabia is the same mountaine with mount Sion in Judaea and that the Spirit of bondage is the same with the Spirit of Adoption and that Isaak and Ishmael were but the same Child If the second Covenant of Grace were implicitly and tacitly conteyned in the first then the meaning of the first Covenant conceived in those words Doe this and live must be thus Doe this either by thy selfe or by another thy surety and live There is no other way to reconcile them or to reduce them into one and the same Covenant If this were Gods meaning in the first Covenant that keeping the Law either by a man himselfe in person or by another should equally serve the turne and a man should live by either then 1º it must follow that a Mediator was promised before the fall for this Covenant was struck with man in Innocencie 2º that Adam either understood not his Covenant that was made with him or else knew of a surety and redeemer before his fall at least as being in a readinesse for him in case he should fall 3 if keeping the Law either by a mans selfe or by another were in Gods meaning in that Covenant a sufficient meanes of life then any other surety any other Mediator would have made the reconciliation aswell as he that was God and man For God might have created a meere man with abilities to have kept the Law as fully as Adam or any of his posterity was bound to doe 4 and lastly if the fulfilling of the Law by any surety whatsoever were a sufficient meanes of life unto Adam and his then was the death of Christ no waies necessary because Christ had perfectly kept and fulfilled the Law before his death Againe 2 SECT 2 If the first and second Covenant were in substance the same then must the conditions or teâ—ms of agreement in both be the same For the conditions or terms of agreement in a Covenant are as formall and essentiall a part of a Covenant as any other thing belonging to it Though there be the same parties Covenanting and the same things Covenanted for or about yet if there be new articles of agreement it is really a new bargaine and another Covenant Now if the conditions or terms of agreement be the same in both those Covenants then to DOE THIS and TO BELEEVE Faith and works are really the same whereas the Scripture from place to place makes the most irreconcileable opposition betweene them But it may be there are some that are more shie of this consequence that stick not to hold the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense opposed and yet demuire upon an identitie of the two Covenants they doe not conceive this to be the fruite of that wombe Wherefore to prove that the mother hath no wrong at all in having this dead child layed by her side for her owne I thus reason Where the parties covenanting are the same and the things covenanted for the same and the conditions or agreement the same there the Covenants are every waies the same But if the righteousnesse of the Law imputed to us be the agreement or condition of the Now Covenant all the three persons things conditions are the same Therefore the two Covenants first and second the old and the new are every waies the same because as concerning the other two the parties Covenanting and the things covenanted for it is agreed on both sides that they are the same If it be Objected and said That the righteousnesse of the Law imputed from another and personally wrought by a mans selse are two deffering conditions therfore it doth not follow that the Covenants should be the same To this I Answere that the substance of the agreement will still be found the same notwithstanding the works or righteousnesse of the Law are the same by whomsoever wrought If Adam had fulfilled the Law as Christ did he had bin justified by the same righteousnesse wherewith Christ himselfe was righteous If it be yet said that Imputation in the second Covenant which was not in the first makes a reall difference
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
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
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
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
worketh by love not any faith but that faith which worketh by love Certainty that Faith which Paul defineth or describeth to be a Faith working by love cannot be conceived to be the righteousnesse of Christ and yet this Faith it was in the judgment of this Author that was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse HAYMO about the yeare 840 in Rom. 4 3. Because he beleeved God it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse that is unto remission of sinnes because by that Faith wherewith he beleeved he was made righteous ANSELME Arch-Bishop of Canterbury about the yeare 1090 upon Rom. 4 3. That he meaning Abraham beleeved so strongly was by God imputed for righteousnesse unto him that is c. by this beleeving he was imputed righteous before God From all these testimonies it is apparant that that interpretation of this Scripture which we contend for hath anciently ruled in the Church of God and no man found to open his mouth or lift up his pen against it till it had bin established upon the Throne for above a thousand yeares Come we to the times of Reformation here we shall finde the right and title of it still maintained by men of greatest authority and learning Sec. 12 Christiana justitia est fiducia in filium Dei quae fiducia imputatur ad iustitiam propter Christum Luther ad Gal. 3 6. Deus reputat istam imperfectam fidem ad justitiam perfectam propter Christum in quem coepi credere ibid. LUTHER in Gal. 3 6. Christian righteousnesse is an affiance or faith in the Son of God which affiance is imputed unto righteousnes for Christs sake And in the same place not long after God for Christs sake in whom J have begun to beleeve accompts this my imperfect faith for perfect righteousnes Doubtlesse this Author was for the interpretation given or else his words and he were not of the same mind BUCER upon Rom. 4.3 Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes that is he accounted this FAITH or beleeving Abraham fidem habuit Iehovae et reputavit id ei justitiamâ— hoc est habuit ei pro justitia hanc fidem Credendo igitur id accepit ut Deus cum pro justo haberet Buceâ— Ad Ro. 4 3. Imputari ad justitiam alio modo significat â—d per quod nos ipsi habemur in censu justorum Atque id Paulus tantummodo fidei tribuit c. P. Mart. Ad Rom. 4 3. Quare Abraham credendo nihil aliud quam obla tam sibi gratiam amplectitur ne â—rrita sit Si hoc illi imputatur in justitiam sequitur non aliter esse justum nisi quia Dei bonitate consisus omnia ab ipso sperare audet Calvin ad Rom. 4 3. Fides reputatur in justitiam non quâ—d ullum a nobis meritum afferat sed quia Dei bonitatem apprehendit ibid. in v. 4. for righteousnesse unto him So that by beleeving he obtained this that God esteemed him a righteous man PETER MARTYR declares himselfe of the same judgment upon Rom. 4 3. To be imputed for righteousnesse in another sense signifieth that by which we our selves are reckoned in the number of the righteous And this PAUL attributes to FAITH only CALVIN abetteth the same interpretation with as high a hand as any of his fellowes upon Rom. 4 3 Wherefore Abraham by beleeving doth only imbrace the grace tendred unto him that it might not be in vaine If this be imputed unto him for righteousnesse it followes that he is no otherwise righteous but as trusting or relying upon the goodnesse of God he hath boldnesse to hope for all things from him Againe upon verse 5. Faith is reputed for righteousnesse not because it carieth any merit from us but because it apprehends the goodnesse of God If all this be not home to the point in Question I desire the Reader that desires further satisfaction concerning the judgment of this Author therein to peruse and ponder what he hath commented at large upon the sixt verse of Gal. 3. Whosoever thinks it prejudiciall to Calvin that he should be thought to hold Imputation of Faith in a proper sense for righteousnesse may if he will pittie him and lament over him but without an Index expurgatorius and that in folio can never relieve him In the place last mentioned to omit many other passages and expressions here extant as pregnant for that imputation of Faith which is pleaded for as eyes can looke upon he describes at large that Faith of Abraham which is there said to be imputed for righteousnesse by the nature and property of it and differenceth it from other perswasions that men may have of the truth of God By which cariage of the businesse it is as manifest as manifestation it selfe knowes how to make any thing manifest that his thoughts were never tempted with any insinuation either of a tropicall or metonymicall sense in the word Faith but that the plaine ready and Grammaticall signification was that which he wrought upon Sec. 13 and fram'd his interpretation unto MUSCULUS Commendata debebat esse haec sides non proprâ—e qualitatu sed propositi Dei respectu quo constituit illa credentibus in Christum propter ipsum justitiae loco imputare Musc Loc. de Iustif sect 5 Quid enim fecit Abraham quod imputaretur illi ad justitiam nisi quod credidit Deo Idem Ad Gal. 3 6. Sic de hac Abrahâ— fide loquitur ut manifestum sit disputare ipsum de fide qua non simpliciter Deo sed in Deum creditur Idem in Gen. 15 6. Verum vbi promittenti Deo firmiter credidit est illi ejusmodi fides justitiae loco imputata hoc est obeam fidem justus est a Deo reputatis et ab omnibus deiâ—ctis absolutus ibid. as far as his judgment and learning will reach engageth himselfe for this Imputation also In his common place of Iustification Sect. 5. This Faith should be in high respect and esteeme with us not in regard of the proper quality of it but in regard of the purpose or decree of God whereby he hath decreed for Christs sake to impute it this faith for righteousnesse unto those that beleeve in him The same Author upon Gal. 3 6. What did Abraham that should be imputed unto him for righteousnesse but only this that he beleeved God Words plaine enough to our purpose yet behold from the same pen more plaine then they in another place Vpon Gen. 15 6. you shall finde words of this importance He so speakes of Abrahams Faith that manifest it is that he disputes of that Faith wherewith a man beleeveth not God simply but in or on God Where though he makes a difference betweene beleeving God simply and beleeving in God yet evident it is that if there be either trope or metonymie in the word BELEEVING he was not aware of it because be interprets it of such a Faith as
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
yea many of them meet by the way in the justification of such before they come to their journeys end yet to justifie the wonderfull and deep wisdome of God as we ought to doe in bringing about this great work of the salvation of the world we must enquire after and find out peculiar and distinct reasons and ends for all that variety of things which is to be found in or about Christ as why he should be God and why he should be Man what both the one and the other of these peculiarly contributes towards the salvation of men why he should be born why born of a Virgin why he should grow up and live till he came to the perfect stature and age of a man why he should be circumcised why fullfill the Law why preach the Gospell before his death why at last he should suffer death why die upon the Crosse why hee should be buried why hee should rise againe c. with many more particulars of like nature that might be mentioned all which have their speciall and peculiar working towards the great worke of salvation as in a benigne constellation every Staire gives out his peculiar influence by himselfe As all Rivers fall into the Sea and meet there in one though the course of their waters lie from all parts under Heaven from the East and from the West from North and South So whatever Christ was and whatever he did spake and suffered though they are things much differing in themselves and in their immediate and proper effects yet they all meet and center in that common and glorious effect the salvation of those that beleeve And for men not to distinguish these in due manner aswell in their effects and purposes as in their natures is not only to confound themselves but which is worse to confound that most exquisite and admirably-beautifull frame of the Gospell and as it were of a defenced City to make a ruinous heap From the guilt of which confusion-making in the Gospell how unpossible it is fairely to acquit such an imputation of Christs righteousnesse as hitherto we have opposed will further appeare in the reasons ensuing Fiftly and lastly if remission of sinnes be but a part of justification SECT 10 and the imputation of Christs righteousnesse must be added as another part of it to make it perfect and compleat then must the formall cause of one and the same effect be double the absurdity which Calvin as we heard truly charged upon the Trent Councellors and Bellarmine as falsely recharged upon him yea that which makes the absurditie swell yet higher one and the same formality or formall part of a thing which is ever most simple and indivissible shall be compacted and compounded of two things not only of a differing but of a diverse yea and of an opposite importance and consideration as the sequell of the businesse rightly interpreted will make manifest For where there is a perfect and compleat righteousnesse imputed as the righteousnesse of Christ is and must be apprehended there is no place for remission of sinnes CAP. XII A fourth reason against the pretended Imputation it frustrates the grace of Adoption MY fourth ground against the supposed imputation of Christs righteousnesse I dispose in this Syllogisme That which dissolves and takes away the necessity and use of that sweet and Euangellicall grace of Adoption SECT 1 cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hold a streight course with the truth of the Gospell But this imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense controverted dissolves and takes away the necessity c. of Adoption Ergo. The proposition I conceive will be yeelded sine sanguine et sudore otherwise the sword of the Spirit the word of God would soone command it The Scriptures speake much of the grace of Adoption or Sonship of beleevers being made the Children and Sonnes of God That we might receive the Adoption of Sons Gal. 4.5 And because yee are Sonnes ver 6. Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Sonne c. ver 7. To passe by other places without number Joh. 1.12 But as many as received him to them hee gave power or prerogative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be made or to become the Sonnes of God Doubtlesse this grace or prerogative of Adoption and Sonne-ship is not given unto men by God in vaine not for the sweet sound only that the letter or name of Adoption makes in the cares it hath relation to some further matter of moment and consequence depending thereon It is given as an immediate capacitie or qualification to those that beleeve to make them capable of their everlasting inheritance their Son-ship is the proper and next ground of that investiture unto them The Scriptures are in nothing more expresse then this If we be Children then also heires even heires of God and heires annexed with Christ Rom. 8.17 So againe Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Son if a Son then an heire of God through Christ Gal. 4 7. As if he should say we are therefore made Sonnes or adopted to be Sonnes that so by right of this Sonship we might be heires of God and by the right of this Heyr-ship come to inherit that immortall undefiled inheritance which fadeth not away with Iesus Christ himselfe The reason or strength of that inference or consequence If Sonnes then Heires seems to stand in this because though amongst men all that are Sons are not Heires if we speake of Sonnes by nature but only he that is the first borne yet Sonship by Adoption I conceive hath alwaies respect to an inheritance a man never adopteth a child but with an intent or purpose to make him his heire So that though in the case of Son-ship by nature it will not follow If Sons then heires yet in the case of Adoption it will And this we know is the case and condition of Beleevers they are Sons of God not by nature but by Adoption Vnlesse perhaps we will rather conceive the reason of the inference to lye in this that the Apostle argueth and concludeth upon the supposition of this truth that the Kingdome of Heaven or that inheritance which God hath provided for his Saints is of another nature and hath a preheminence and perfection above any earthly inheritance as in a thousand other respects so particularly in this that it may be injoyed possessed and inherited by all the Children of God though in number never so many upon such terms that every one may enjoy and possesse the whole and no mans portion or possession here suffers any losse or diminution at all though all his Brethren enjoy the same Portion and possession with him And in this respect haply with some others it may be caâ—ed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the inheritance of the Saints IN LIGHT Colos 1.12 The light of the Sun we know is of that nature and property that it is enjoyed by the whole world and by all the Inhabitants of the
of it beyond the person of the fulfiller Some indeed conceive that Adams standing in obedience to the Law had bin the standing and perpetuall confirmation in grace of all his posterity If this opinion could be made to appeare any thing more then conjecturall Divinitie I grant that then in respect of the intent and purpose of God the righteousnesse of the Law had been as imputable as the transgression of it but this will not prove it such in the nature of it but only by way of Covenant and so the consequence in the proposition will still languish and be infirme But though I can be confident with Paul to call Christ the last Adam 1 Cor. 15.45 Yet I am somwhat tender to call Adam the first Christ To say that Adam by his righteousnesse should have merited the justification of himselfe and all his posterity is I take it to make him somwhat more then a figure of him that was to come But to say that by his transgression he merited the condemnation both of himselfe and posterity is no such hard saying I conceive in the cares of any man Therefore however the righteousnesse of the Law is not as imputable as the transgression of it Secondly whereas demand was made SECT 3 by way of absolute confirmation of that former proposition what should make any such difference betweene the obedience of the Law and the transgression of the Law that the former should not be as imputable as the latter the obedience as the transgression I answere there may be this conceived as a ground of difference betweene them in that respect Sinne or disobedience to a Law is ever greater in ratione demeriti in way of demerit or desert of punishment then obedience or subjection to a Law is in ratione meriti in deserving a reward One that takes a purse or murders a man by the high way side deserveth to receive more in punishment then a thousand deserve in reward that suffer men to travaile peaceably by them Though he that dishonestly refuseth to pay a debt where it is due may deservedly be cast into prison yet it doth not follow that he that keeps touch and payeth at his day deserves to be exalted to a Throne So might Adam by his transgression of the Law merit death and condemnation to himselfe and posterity and yet not have merited life and salvation to both by his obedience The reason of which difference is evident because if he had obeyed and kept the Law he had only done that which was his duty to doe and this by our Saviours rule Luk 17.10 makes but an unprofitable servant i. I conceive is no ground to demand or challenge any great matters at his masters hand except it be by Covenant or promise from him Adams obedience to the Law was a debt due unto God from him severall waies and in sundry respects or considerations First God was his soveraigne Lord and had absolut power over him to command him what service or obedience he pleased Secondly he was his maker and Creator and had given him his being and in this respect had full right and title to imploy him as he pleased Thirdly God had bin liberall and exceeding bountifull unto him many waies he created him in his owne image and likenesse furnished him with principles of righteousnesse made him Lord over the works of his hand placed him in a Paradise of all delight and contentment In all these respects Adam was a debtor yea and more then a debtor unto God of that obedience unto his Law which he required of him Now the greater debtor Adam was unto God the more and greater bands and ingagements were upon him to make good that obedience which God required of him to his Law the lesse meritorious had this obedience bin in case Adam had stood and performed it and the more demeritorious also was his transgression and disobedience Therefore that consequence in the major proposition of the objection If the transgression of the Law be imputable then is the obedience imputable also is so farre from being legitimate and solid that the imputablenesse of the transgression of it rather overthroweth the imputablenesse of the obedience of it then any waies proveth or establisheth it For the more imputable that is punishable the transgression of it is the lesse imputable that is rewardable is the obedience of it So that you see now we have touch'd the hollow of the right thigh of the Objection how it halts right downe upon it And you see withall how we might fairely and honestly discharge our selves from having any thing more to doe with the Minor Proposition or with the instance of the imputation of Adam's sin which was insisted upon for the proofe of it because if either Proposition be disabled the glory of the whole Argument is layed in the dust Notwithstanding because the imputation of Adams sinne to his posteritie as it is ordinarily phrased is conceived to be a master veyne in this Controversie and is frequently produced to prove the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by way of analogie or proportion I shall be willing to lay downe with as much brevitie and plainenesse as I can how and in what sense onely either the Scriptures themselves or sound reason will countenance the notion of that imputation The issue will be that neither the one nor the other will be found either to owne or favour any other imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity then we have hitherto granted of Christs righteousnesse to those that beleeve The righteousnesse of Christ is imputed i. is made over or given to those that beleeve not in the letter or formality of it as hath bin often said but in blessings priviledges and benefits purchased of God by the merit or mediation of it So the sinne of Adam is imputed to his posterity not in the letter and formality of it which is the imputation commonly urged but in the demerit of it i. in the curse or punishment due to it which is the imputation commonly urged but in the demerit of it i. in the curse or punishment due to it or deserved by it Therfore as concerning this imputation of Adams sin I answere First the Scripture no where affirms either the imputation of Adams sin to his posterity or of the righteousnesse of Christ to those that beleeve neither is the phrase or manner of such speaking any waies agreeable to the Dialect or language of the Holy Ghost For still in the Scriptures whersoever the word or term of IMPUTING is used it is only applyed unto or spoken of somthing of the same persons to whom the imputation is said to be made and never to my remembrance to or of any thing of anothers Rom. 4.3 Abraham beleeved God and it was IMPUTED to him for righteousnesse i. his own beleeving was imputed to him not another mans So verse 5. But to him that worketh not but beleeveth His Faith is IMPUTED to him for
righteousnesse So Psal 106.30 31. Phineas stood up and executed judgement c. and that viz. act of his was IMPUTED to him for righteousnesse i. received a testimony from God of being a righteous and holy act So againe 2 Cor. 5.19 not IMPUTING their trespasses i. their own trespasses unto them Secondly SECT 5 when a thing is said simply to be imputed as viz. sinne folly and so righteousnesse or the like c. the meaning of the phrase is not to be taken concerning the bare acts of the things as if for example to impute sin to a man signified this to repute the man to whom sin is imputed to have committed a sinfull act or as if to impute folly were simply to charge a man to have done foolishly but the phrase of imputing when it is applyed to things that are evill and attributed to persons that have a power of judicature over those to whom the imputation is made in which posture only to my remembrance the word is found in Scripture signifieth the charging of the guilt or demerit of what is said to be imputed upon the head of the person to whom the imputation is made with an intent of inflicting some condigne punishment upon him So that to impute sinne in Scripture phrase is to charge the guilt of sin upon a man with a purpose to punish him for it Thus Rom. 5.13 Sinne is said not to be IMPUTED whilest there is no Law The meaning cannot be that that act which a man doth whether there be a Law or no Law should not be imputed to him The Law doth not make any act to be imputed or ascribed to a man which might not aswell have bin imputed without it But the meaning is that there is no guilt of any act charged by God upon men nor any punishment inflicted upon men for any thing done by them but only by vertue of the Law prohibiting or restreyning it In which respect the Law is said to be the strength of sinne viz. because it giveth a condemning power against the doer to that which otherwise would have had none 1 Cor. 15.56 So againe Job 24.12 when it is said that God doth not lay folly to the charge of them i impute folly to them that make the soules of the slaine to cry out c. the meaning is not that God doth not repute them to have committed the acts of oppression murder c. For supposeing they did such things it is unpossible but that God should repute them to have done them but the meaning is that God doth not visibly charge the guilt of these sins upon them or inflict punishment for them So 2 Sam. 19.19 When Shimei prayeth David not to IMPUTE wickednesse unto him his meaning is not to desire David not to think he had done wickedly in rayling upon him for himselfe confesseth this in the very next words but that David would not inflict that punishment upon him which that wickednesse deserved This was that non-imputation of wickednesse which Shimei desired of David So when David himselfe pronounceth the man blessed to whom the Lord IMPUTETH not sinne his meaning is not as if there were any man whom the Lord would not repute to have committed those acts of sin which indeed they have committed but that such are blessed upon whom God will not charge the demerit of their sins in the punishment due to them So yet againe to forbeare further citations in this point 2 Cor. 5.19 when God is said not to IMPUTE their sinnes unto men the meaning is not that God should not repute men to have committed such and such sins against him but this that he freely discharged them from the punishment due unto them By all which testimonies and instances from the Scriputres concerning the constant and solemne use and signification of the terme imputing or imputation it is evident that the Mâ—nor Proposition in the Objection viz. that the transgression of the Law is imputable from one mans person to anothers hath no such cleere or certaine soundation in the Scriptures SECT 6 And therfore thirdly and lastly to come home to the instance of the imputation of Adam's sinne to his posterity which is brought for the confirmation of it I answere also First that either to say that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to his posteritie of beleevers or the sin of Adam to his are both expressions at least unknowne to the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures There is neither line nor word nor syllable nor letter nor tittle of any such thing to be found there But that the faith of him that beleeveth is imputed for righteousnesse are words which the Holy Ghost counteth neither errour nor heresie to use But secondly because I would make no exception against words further then necessitie I meane a necessitie of making provision for the truth enforceth I doe not like that any mans words that will take salt and be made savourie by interpretation should be cast out upon the dunghill though I know a man that hath received this measure pressed down heaped up and running over from many gran that there are expressions in Scripture concerning both both the communication of Adams sinne with his posterity and of the righteousnesse of Christ with those that beleeve that will fairely enough beare the terme of imputation if it be rightly understood and according to the use and importance of it in Scripture upon other occasions as we lately cited many instances but as it is commonly taken and understood by many it is no currant language but occasions much error and mistake Concerning Adam's sinne or disobedience SECT 7 many are said to be made sinners by it Rom. 5.19 And so by the obedience of Christ it is said in the same place that many shall be made righteous But now if men will needs exchange language with the Holy Ghost they must see to it that they make him no loser If when they say that Adams sinne is imputed to all unto condemnation their meaning be the same with the Holy Ghosts when he saith that by the disobedience of one many were made sinners there is no harme done to exchange upon such terms is not to rob But it is much to be suspected nay it is too evident by what many of themselves by way of interpretation speake that the Holy Ghost and they are not of one mind touching the imputation or communication of Adams sinne with his posterity but that they differ as much in meaning as in words If when they say that Adams sinne is imputed to all unto condemnation their meaning be plaine and right downe this that the demerit or guilt of Adams sin is charged upon his whole posteritie or that the punishment of Adams sinne redounded and ran over as it were from his person to his whole posterity a maine part of which punishment lyeth in that originall defilement wherin they are all conceived and borne and wherby they are made truly and
is the same a perfect fulfilling of the Law imputed to him So that besides that perfect remission of sinnes which hath beene purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ for those that beleeve there is no neede of indeede no place for the imputation of any righteousnesse performed by Christ unto the Law because in that very act of remission of sinnes there is included an imputation of a perfect righteousnesse or to speake more properly and with Scripture exactnesse that act of God whereby he remitteth and pardoneth sinne is interpretatively nothing else but an impuattion of a perfect righteousnesse or of a fulfilling of the Law Compare Rom. 4. ver 6. with ver 7. and 11. Even as that act of the Physition by which he recovereth his patient from his sicknesse may with full proprietie of speech be called that act whereby he restoreth him to his health this expression were but a plaine interpretation of the other and no more nor any thing else in substance but it And so that Act by which the Sunne dispells the darkenesse may indifferently be called that act by which hee fills the Aire with light And as the Physitian doth not heale the disease by one act and recover or restore health by another act really differing from it but doth both by one and the same act healing the disease and restoring of health being but two differing names or considerations of one and the same thing In like manner God doth not heale sinne that is forgive sinne by one act and restore the life of righteousnesse that is impute righteousnesse by another act at all differing from it but in and by one and the same punctuall and precise act hee doth the one and the other forgivenesse of sinnes and imputation of righteousnesse being but two different names expressions or considerations of one and the same thing And as it is but one and the same person that is sometimes called Iesus and sometimes Christ and the person Iesus is sometimes called by the name of Christ to import and signifie that he is an annointed one and againe the person Christ is sometimes called by the name Iesus to signifie that he is a Saviour even so one and the same act of God is sometimes called forgivenesse of sinnes and sometimes an imputing of righteousnesse and the forgivenesse of sinnes is sometimes called an imputing of righteousnesse to shew and signifie that a man needs nothing to a compleate righteousnesse or justification but the forgivenesse of his sinnes and againe the imputing of righteousnesse is sometimes called the forgivenesse of sinnes to shew that God hath no other righteousnesse to conferre upon a sinner but that which stands in forgivenesse of sinnes So that these two termes or expressions imputing righteousnesse and forgiving sinne do but aide and assist one the other towards a full explication of the nature and importance of that act of God which sometimes goeth under the one name and sometimes under the other If it be here demanded SECT 5 but how can God be said to impute a righteousnesse to a man which never was nor ever had a being no righteousnesse at least of that kinde whereof we now speake having ever beene but that perfect obedience which Christ performed to the Law I answer 1. That there is as expresse and compleate a righteousnesse in the Law as ever Christ himselfe performed yea a righteousnesse more proper and appropriable to all sorts and conditions of men than that personall righteousnesse which Christ himselfe performed as was shewed at large in the former part of this Treatise And what if it be said that God in remission of sins through Christ from and out of the Law imputeth to every man that beleeveth such a righteousnesse as is proper to him This I am certaine is a thousand times more agreeable both to reason and to the Scriptures then to hold an imputation of such a righteousnesse that is of such a systeme and frame of actions which were indeed a righteousnesse to him that wrought them the Law requiring them of him but can be a righteousnesse to none other person whatsoever the Law requiring the same acts for no man is therefore just or righteous because he doth the things which the Law simply requireth but because he doth those things which the Law requireth of him in reverence to his personall condition calling and relations in every kinde A man may be as wicked and sinfull by doing that which the Law requireth of another man as by doing that which the Law prohibiteth unto all men But of this enough already But 2. To the Objection propounded I answer further that to say God cannot impute a righteousnesse which never had a being i. which never was really and actuually performed by any man is to deny that he hath power to forgive sinnes Because for givenesse of sinne is an imputation of righteousnesse as hath beene proved yea and of such a righteousnesse which as the Scripture teacheth us is without workes Rom. 4 6. Rom. 3.28 c. i. a righteousnesse not consisting or made up of any workes performed to the Law by any man and what is this but such a righteousnesse as never had a being Conclusi 5 Hee that is fully acquitted and discharged from his sinnes SECT 6 needeth no other righteousnesse to give him a right or title unto life See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 27.34 c. The Reason of this is evident also Death is the wages of sin and of sin only being due to no creature in any other respect nor upon any other terme whatsoever and therefore cannot in a way of ordinary justice be inflicted by God upon any creature but for sin Now he that is free from death and no wayes obnoxious thereunto See Mr. Bradshaw Iustific p. 79. cannot but be conceived to have a right unto life there being neither any middle condition betweene death and life wherein it is possible for a reasonable creature to subsist nor againe any capacity of life but by some right and title thereunto Adam whilst his innocency and he stood together and whilst he was free from sinne had a right and title unto life yea and had the possession and fruition of it given unto him for how could he be threatned with death Gen. 2.17 who was not actually possessed of life though he had not yet performed the Law either by himselfe or any other for him in any such sence as is contended for by some as of absolute necessitie to give a right and title unto life and if he had not a right unto life by his freedome from sinne but was to purchase this right by an actuall fulfilling of the Law it would be known what quantities of obedience to the Law hee must have paid before he had made this purchase and how long he must have obeyed and kept the Law before this right and title unto life would have accru'd unto him For had he lived a 1000.
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
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
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
must needs be the formall cause thereof otherwise it must be said either a man is formally just by some righteousnesse of his own or which he hath not received from God or else that he is not made righteous in or by his Iustification but afterwards The minor is the assertion of the Holy Ghost almost in terminis Rom. 4. For that which ver 6. is called Gods imputing righteousnesse ver 7. is interpreted to be his forgiving iniquities and covering sinne Seventhly If remission of sinnes reacheth home unto and be given unto men by God for their Iustification then is it the formall cause thereof This is evident because by the formall cause of Iustification we meane nothing else as hath bin often said but Iustification passive or that guift which by God is given unto men and by them received accordingly in and by that act of his whereby he iustifieth them So that if remission of sinnes be that which is given unto sinners by God for or unto their Iustification it must of necessitie be conceived to be the formall cause thereof Therefore I assume but remission of sinnes is given by God unto men for their Iustification and reacheth home unto it Therefore it must needs be the formall cause thereof This latter proposition againe is in effect and well nigh in terms nothing but what the Holy Ghost himselfe affirmeth Rom. 5.16 And not as it was by one that sinned so is the guift for the iudgment was by one unto condemnation but the free guift is of many offences unto Justification that is God by the free guift that is by the free forgivenesse of mens sinnes doth fully justify them The free guift of offences or the forgivenesse of sins could not be said to be unto Iustification except a man were fully and entirely justifyed thereby Lastly if remission of sinnes and the non-imputing of sinne to those that have sinned be expressions of one and the same importance and signifie the same privilege estate or condition of a person iustified then is remission of sinnes the formall cause of Iustification The strength of this consequence lieth in this that the Holy Ghost describeth or interpreteth the righteousnesse which God imputeth in Iustification by the non-imputation of sinne This is evident by comparing Rom. 4.6 with ver 8. And it was prooâ—ed before in the sixt argument that the righteousnesse imputed by God in Iustification must of necessity be the formall cause thereof Therefore it undeniably followes that if remission of sinnes and the non-imputing of sinne be expressions of one and the same condition that remission of sinnes is the formall cause of Iustification Now that the importance of these two expressions is but one and the same is apparant enough without proofe For what doth God more or otherwise in remitting sinne then he doth in not imputing it or what doth he more or otherwise in the not-imputing of sinne then he doth in remitting it Not to impute sinne to him that hath sinned can implie nothing else but not to charge the demerit or guilt thereof upon him and what doth remission of sinnes import either more or lesse And hence doubtlesse it is that David sets the same Crowne of the same blessednesse upon the head of the one and the other Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven whose sinne is covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquitie c. Psal 32.1.2 Rom. 4.7.8 Much might be further argued both from the Scriptures and otherwise SECT 34 for the cleering and countenancing of this opinion which placeth formall justification in Remission of sinnes but inasmuch as this tasque hath bin learnedly and throughly performed by another (a) Mr. Wotton De Reconciltat Part 1 lib. 2. c. 3.4.5.6.7.8 though in another languag and to ease the present discourse of length and tediousnesse what we may without any sensible de râ—ment to the cause undertaken I forbeare And the rather because whatsoever I am able to conceive may possibly with any colour or pretext of reason be objected against the opinion hath for the most part bin already answered or cleered or else will be found answered in the two following Chapters As First Object 1 That Remission of sinnes is no true or compleate righteousnesse ou shall finde satisfaction touching this in the second Chap. of this latter part in the 4 Conclusion Sect. 4. Secondly Object 2 That the righteousnesse of Christ is to be joyned with remission of sinnes to make the compleate forme of Iustification See this cleered at large Cap. 11. of the first part Thirdly Object 3 That Remission of sinnes is the consequent or effect of Iustification and therefore not the formall cause See whereof to make a sufficient answere to this Sect. 8. and Sect. 29. of this Chapter where it is fully prooved that the formall cause of Iustification must needs be the consequent of Iustification that is of that act of God whereby he justifieth Fourthly that the righteousnesse of Christ imputed is this formall cause Object 4 you shall finde this counter-argued Sect. 23 24 25 26 27. of this Chapter Fiftly Object 5 that the imputation of this righteousnesse is the formall cause The inconsistencie of this with the truth is evicted Sect. 22. of this Chapter Sixtly Object 6 That the communion that is betweene Christ and beleevers is this formall cause How little communion this hath with the truth hath bin shewed at large Section 18 19 20 21. of this Chapter Seventhly That Iustification may be Object 7 where there is no remission of sinnes and remission of sinnes where there is no justification See the opinion set cleere of this objection in the latter end of Sect. 1. of the 3 Chap. of this second part as also Sect. 29. of this present Chapter What further may be objected I doe not for the present apprehend but ready and willing I am to take any thing into a serious and unpartiall consideration that shall be tendred unto me as matter of further question or difficultie in the businesse In the meane time out of all that which hath bin reasoned at large in this Chapter concerning justification and the severall causes thereof some such description of it as this may be framed wherein the attentive Reader may observe either all or the greatest part of the causes insisted upon briefly comprehended Justification is an act of God whereby having out of his owne unspeakable free grace and goodnesse towards poore miserable sinners given his only begotten Sonne Jesus Christ to make attonement or satisfaction for them by his death in consideration of this attonement freely pardoneth and remitteth the sinnes of all those that beleeve in him through Jesus Christ preached or otherwise revealed by the Holy Ghost unto them CAP. V. VVhere in the Scriptures alledged for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse or active obedience in Justification are cleered and answered and the true sense and interpretation of them respectively established according to
then when God promiseth to cloath his Church being yet in bondage and miserie with the garments of salvation he implieth that for the present they were cloathed like exiles and prisoners and captives that is that they were in these conditions and so subject to all the inconveniences and miseries incident to them But he will change their garments that is alter their estates and conditions of servants he will make them free of banished he will make them possessors of their own land of poore he will make them rich of vile and contemptible he will make them honourable c. The full and entire happinesse of which new condition the Prophet by the figure synecdoche expresseth by the change of their garments according to the usuall manner of the Scripture which often signifieth the estate or condition by the garments proper to it As Junius hath well observed in his annotations upon Esay 22.17 (a) Dignitas ut ab insignibus vestimentis cognoscitur ita Synecdochicâ—egrave in Scripturis designatur vestirnentorum appellatione Iunius Annot. in Esa 22.17 As ominencie of place or office saith he is known by garments sutable and proper to it so is it in the Scriptures by a synecdoche often signified and expressed thereby As when GOD threatened Shebna with the losse of his great Place and with Captivity and that he would put his servant Eliakim into it he expresseth this investiture of Eliakim into this new condition or office thus And I will cloath him with thy Robe and strengthen him with thy Girdle Esa 22.21 To passe by all other Scriptures wherein the observation of Iunius mentioned might be exemplified the Booke of the Revelation represents unto us both the dignitie of Christ himselfe and likewise of his Saints after the same manner by robes and garments and that more then once or twice And in the midst of the 7 Candlesticks one like unto the Sonne of man cloathed with a garment down unto the feet Revel 1.13 This represents the great dignitie of Christ In like manner the honour of his Saints and faithfull ones is thus expressed cap. 3 4 5. And they shall walke with me in white for they are worthy He that overcommeth shall be cloathed in white array c. So the dignitie of the 24 Elders is represented by their cloathing in white rayment cap. 4.4 Againe the whole multitude of Saints out of all Nations are said to stand before the Lamb cloathed with long white robes robes I conceive of the same importance with these robes of salvation in Esa and Palmes in their hands cap. 7.9 â—o also cap. 19 14. where it is said that it was granted to the Lambs wife the Church that she should be arrayed with pure white linnen and shineing which is said to be the righteousnesse of the Saints cap. Revel 19.7 8. cleered and answered by the way 19.7.8 it is evident that nothing is spoken or meant concerning Iustification by Christ or his righteousnesse but only that great honour and reward is hereby signified which Christ was now pleased to conferre upon his Church and Saints who were justified by him long before The pure fine and shining linnen is said to be the righteousnesse of the Saints to shew that the greate glory honour and dignitie which Christ now conferreth upon his Church is the gracious and bountifull reward of her Husband by him given unto her in consideration and remembrance of her righteousnesse that is her holinesse faithfulnesse zeale constancie c. under the persecution of the Beast and great Apostacie of the Christian world It is an usuall manner of speech in Scripture to expresse the reward of a thing by the Name of the thing it selfe whereof it is a reward Thus Numb 22.7 the Elders of Midian and Moab are said to have departed having Divinations for so it is in the originall in their hand that is the money or reward of Divinations So 2 Sam. 4.10 Good tidings is put for the reward of good tidings Againe Revel 13.10 Here is the patience and Faith of the Saints that is the reward and recompence of the patience and faithfull cleaving of the Saints unto Christ when they shall see vengeance executed upon their enemies and themselves made Actors in it Many other instances in this kinde have I remember bin else where in this Treatise (a) Part 1. c. 1. Sect. 4. drawne together So the pure and shining linnen that is the bright glory wherewith the Church is now invested is said to be the righteousnesse of the Saints because it is the reward of it This to be the plaine and direct meaning of the place might be further argued from that ratiocinative particle FOR For the linnen is the righteousnesse c. In which words it is evident that there is a reason given of the grant made to the Church mentioned in the former part of the verse viz. that she should be so arrayed or cloathed that is dignified this reason is said to be the righteousnesse of the Saints It is as if it had bin said that the Lamb's wife should be thus gloriously recompenced is nothing but that which well agreeth with the righteousnesse and bounty of God who thus liberally and bountifully rewardeth and returneth his righteousnesse into his bosome as he had promised This place doubtlesse parallel's with that cap. 3.4 These shall walke with me in white for they are worthy The worthinesse of the one and the righteousnesse of the other are but the same and both are assign'd as the reason of the honour done unto them The riches jâ—llitie and prosperous condition whilst it lasted of Babylon or Rome is likewise expressed by the metaphor of garments And that great Citie that was cloathed in fine linnen and purple and scarlet c. Revel 18.16 By all which Scriptures diligently compared with many more of like expression that might be added it is more then manifest that by those metaphors of garments and robes in Esa there is nothing meant touching the inward and spirituall condition of the Church much lesse his Iustification by the active righteousnesse of Christ imputed And indeed it may seeme very strange to build a dogmaticall point of Faith upon figurative and metaphoricall expressions there being no plaine or to pregnant Scripture confirme or warrant it As for those expressions in Paul of putting on Christ Induere ChristuÌ„ hic significat virtute spiritus ejus vndique nos muniri qua idonei ad omnes sanctitatis partes reddamur Calvin in Rom. 13.14 Quemadmodum quotquot circuÌ„ciduntur MoseÌ„ induunt hoc est Mosis se profitentur esse discipulos ut secuÌ„duÌ„ illius institutionem ambulent ita qui baptizantur Christum induunt profitentes se illius discipulos c. Musculus in Gal. 3.27 Rom. 13.14 Gal. 3.27 c. there is neither of them speaks of Justification but the former of sanctification and the latter of profession both which if they were not apparant enough unto any man
latter thus Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for or concerning remission of sinnes that are past c. It plainly appeares from these Scriptures compared together First that the righteousnesse of God that is the way meanes or course which God holds for the Justification of men stands in remission or forgivenesse of sinnes Secondly that this righteousnesse or Iustification of his is witnessed that is asserted and vindicated by the Law that is the writings of Moses and consequently may well be called the righteousnesse or Iustification of the Law Thirdly and lastly that this righteousnesse of God testified and asserted by the Law in the sense given and exercised by him under the Law in the forgivenesse of the sinnes of those that then beleeved was not manifested or declared or as our other Scripture had it fulfilled that is fully revealed and discovered to the roote bottome and foundations of it till the coming of Christ into the world and his dying for sinne which in that other place is called his condemning sinne in the flesh This for answere in full to this Scripture The next place SECT 15 which I understand hath bin of late taken hold of by some to supply that which it seemes is wanting in others for the defence of that imputation which we oppose is Rom. 9.31.32 But Israel which followed after the Law of righteousnesse hath not attained to the Law of righteousnesse Wherefore because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the workes of the Law c. From hence it is thus argued that had Israel that is the Jewes who followed after the Law of righteousnesse beleeved in Christ they had attained the Law of righteousnesse that is should have had the righteousnesse of the Law performed by Christ imputed unto them But to this also I Answere 1. that by the Law of righteousnes Rom. 9.31.32 answered which the Jewes are here said to have sought after but could not attain is not meant the Moral Law nor indeed any Law properly so called either Morall Ceremoniall or Judicial for God had preveÌ„ted them with the guift of all these Laws so that they need not have sought after them If it be objected that their studie endeavor of keeping the Law which they had may be called a seeking or following after the Law I answere be it so yet this studie and endeavor of theirs could be no cause of their coming short of righteousnesse or Iustification which yet is ascribed to that seeking or following after the Law of righteousnesse here mentioned As Christians are never the further off from being justified by living holily and keeping the commandements of God So neither was the care and endeavor of the Jewes to observe the precepts of that Law which God had given them any cause of their miscariage in point of Iustification Abraham and those that were justifyed by Faith in Christ as he was were as conscientious and careful observers of al Gods Lawes as any of those were who stumbling at the stumbling stone were never justified Therefore by the Law of righteousnes in this Scripture is not meant any Law properly so called much les definitively the Morall Law Secondly in this expression the Law of righteousnesse in the former clause of the verse Calvin findes an hypallage the Law of righteousnesse put for the righteousnesse of the Law (a) Iam priere loco legem justiciae per hypallagen posuisse mihi videtur pro justicia legis in repetitione secundi membri alio sensu sic vocasse justiâ—iae formam seu regulam Calvin in Rom. 9 1. Nam illud sectandâ— legem justiciae simpliciter esse dictum de legis justitia i. ea quae ex operibus legu est patebit infra c. Mus in Rom. 9.31 in the latter clause he takes it in somewhat a different signification for a forme or rule of righteousnesse Musculus dissents little if any thing at all from this interpretation by the Law of righteousnesse understanding that righteousnesse which stands in the works of the Lawb. So that neither of these Authors nor any other that I have yet met with restreyne the word Law in these phrases determinatly to the Morall Law Thirdly neither is there any reason nor colour of reason to limit the Apostles expressions in this place of the Law of righteousnesse to the Morall Law only and the righteousnesse thereof because it is notoriously knowne and hath bin more then once observed formerly that the Jewes never hoped for nor sought after righteousnesse SECT 16 or Iustification by the Morall Law only or the works thereof alone but by the Ceremoniall Law also and the observances hereof yea principally by these as hath bin els where in this Treatise prooved from the Scriptures So that by the Law of righteousnesse whereof they miscaried by not seeking it by Faith cannot be ment determinatly the Moral Law or the righteousnes therof because they never travaild of this upon such termes they never had thought or hope of being iustified or made righteous by the Morall Law or righteousnesse thereof only And so Paraeus by the Law of righteousnesse in this place understands aswell the Ceremoniall as the Morall Law (a) Iudaeos ait sectatos legem justiciae quae praescribit justiciam operibus perfectam hoc est conatos esse tum ceremoniarum observatione tum moralium operum meritu justificari coram Deo Pateus in Rom. 9.31 4. Neither would the righteousnes of the Moral Law alone suppose they should have attained it by beleeving have stood the Jewes in any stead for their justification being aswell bound to the observation of the ceremoniall law as of it Therfore it was not this law or the righteousues of it which should have bin imputed to them in case they had trruly beleeved consequeÌ„tly no imputation of any law righteousnes whatsoever from Christ can be concluded from this place But 5. lastly to give the cleere sence and meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel is said to have followed after but not to have attained because he sought it not by Faith c. can be meant nothing else but justification it selfe or righteousnesse simply and indefinitely taken in which acception it is oft put for justification as was observed cap. 3. Sect and elsewhere which the Jewes seeking to attaine it by the works of the Law that is by themselves and the merit of their own doings and not by faith in Iesus Christ were never able to attain but lost the favour of God perished in their sinnes That this is the direct and expresse meaning of the place may be several waies confirm'd 1. To call righteousnesse simply that is SECT 17 justification the Law of righteousnesse is agreeable to this Apostles dialect elswhere For Rom. 7.23 25. by the Law of sinne he means nothing else but sinne
it selfe So Rom. 3.27 By the Law of Faith faith it selfe and againe Rom. 8.2 by the Law of sinne and death he means sinne and death simply For none of these have any Law properly so called onely the word Law added to them seems to represent them under a more emphaticall and weighty consideration 2. When this Apostle speaks of the righteousnesse of the Law elsewhere he never useth this hypallage to call it the Law of righteousnesse but still in plaine and direct language The righteousnesse of the Law See Rom. 2.26 Rom. 8.4 3. This exposition makes the double antithesis or opposition which the Apostle apparently makes between the Gentiles v. 30. and the Jewes v. 31. pregnant cleere and full wheras any other interpretation dissolves the strength and darkens the light of them The Gentiles saith he v. 30 followed not after righteousnesse that is had no thoughts of took no care or course for any justification before God But Israel v. 31. sought after the Law of righteousnesse that is propounded unto themselves as a busines of maine importance a righteousnesse or justification in the sight of God and ran a course of means such as it was to obteyne it Againe The Gentiles saith he v. 30. attained unto righteousnesse that is unto justification in the sight of God many of them have bin justified and saved But Israel could not attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse v. 31. that is could not compasse a justification of themselves in the sight of God as the Gentiles did The strict Law of opposition enforceth this or the like interpretation 4. And lastly that by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel could not attaine unto he meanes righteousnes simply or justification in the sight of God appeares from the latter reason or latter part of the reason which he renders v. 3◠of Israels miscarriage and falling short in this kind Wherfore saith he could not Israel attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse which he followed after because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the works of the Law If by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel is said to have sought after we understand the righteousnesse or obedience of the Law the reason which is here assigned by the Holy Ghost at least in part why they could not atain it viz. because they sought it by the works of the Law will be very incongruous and absurd For what savour either of reason or truth is there in it to say that a man therfore cannot attaine the righteousnesse or obedience of the Law because he seeks to attaine it by the works of the Law But to say that a man cannot attaine unto righteousnesse or justification before God if or because he seeks it by the works of the Law hath perfect consistence with both I mean both with reason and truth Lastly I might further strengthen this exposition with the Authority of Theophylact if need were who expounds that clause v. 31. they could not attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse of a simple and plaine non-justification a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in Rom. 9.31 The next Scripture proofe and last out of this Epistle to the Romans which is frequently alledged for the supposed Imputation is Rom. 10.4 The words these For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnes to every one that beleeveth Therfore say the Masters of that way of Imputation which we desire to hedge up with thorns the righteousnes of Christ or the obedience performed by him to the Morall Law is imputed to those that beleeve for their righteousnes But neither doth this Scripture know any such imputation more then its fellows For 1. Rom. 10.4 answered There is not the least resemblance or colour of reason that by the Law in this place should be meant precisely and determinately the Morall Law because as was both lately and formerly observed the Jews with whom chiefly the Apostle grapples in this place as is evident from the beginning of the chapter never so much as dreamt of justification by the Moral Law only but chiefly by the Ceremoniall Neither doth Calvin or any other Interpreter that yet I have met with understand the place of the Morall Law Besides it is evident from that which immediately follows v. 5. that he doth not speake here of the Morall Law for there he citeth that description which Moses giveth of the righteousnesse of the Law not out of any part or passage of the Morall Law but out of the heart and midd'st as it were of the Ceremoniall Law Those words the man which doth these things shall live by them wherein he placeth Moses's description of the righteousnesse which is of the Law are taken from Levit. 18.5 and are in speciall manner spoken of the Ceremonialls and Judicialls For thus the words lye ye shall therfore keep my Statutes and my Judgements which if a man doe he shall live in them Therfore doubtlesse the Apostle doth not speake here of the Morall Law Secondly SECT 19 neither is it any waies agreeable to truth that the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to beleevers suppose such an imputation were simply granted should be called the end of the Morall Law For doubtlesse no Law whatsoever considered simply as a Law is any cause or meanes of justifying a person in any other way or by any other meanes then by the observation of it selfe and consequently Iustification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of the Morall Law For nothing can properly be said to be the intent or end of a thing but only that which in reason and likelyhood may be procured and obtained by it Now there is an utter and evident impossibilitie that Justification by Christ should be procured or attained by the Morall Law Neither obedience nor disobedience thereunto hath any relation of causalitie to such an effect a man being never the neerer Justification by Christ either for the one or for the other It may be said with farre a more favourable aspect both upon reason and truth that Christ is the end of the Ceremoniall Law and yet not of this neither considered simply as a Law but as comprehending in it such and such usages or rites wherein Christ and Iustification by his blood were typified and resembled and which were to expire and to lose the binding power of a Law which it had before upon Christs coming As for the observation or transgression of this Law neither the one nor the other contributed any thing more towards any mans Iustification by Christ then the observation or transgression of the Morall Law did or doth Nay the observation both of the one and the other though very unperfect and lame have bin a stumbling block in the way of many and cast them quite off from Iustification by Christ as the Apostle implieth ver 3. Therefore Thirdly the Greek Expositors as Chrysostom a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Hom. 17. in Rom.
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
which men must be justified and so saved so that no man can be justifyed but he only that may truly be said to have done this that is performed an universall obedience to all the precepts to every jot and tittle of the Law in this sense I say it neither is nor ever was nor ever shall be a rule of God nor a rule of truth For God hath alwaies had and for ever will have Repugnantia legis et fidei est i◠causa justificationis facilius enim aquam igni copulabis quam haec duo concilis es homines lego et side esse justos Calvin in Gal. 3.12 another Law or rule for the Iustification of men besides Doe this and live even that Law or rule which is still in Scripture opposed to this Beleeve this and live Compare Rom. 3.27 with Rom. 10.5.6 c. See likewise cap. 4. of the first part of this discourse throughout together with the Answere given to the Scripture Gal. 3.10 in cap. 5. of this second part These passages perus'd and considered will perfectly allay all the heat and burning of this Argument Another foundation to build the imputation counter-argued upon is laid by some after this manner SECT 18 Argum. 8 That righteousnesse which God accepteth on our behalfe as the righteousnesse imputed to us in Justification But the righteousnesse of Christ is that righteousnesse which God accepteth on our behalfe Ergo I answere briefly 1º by denying the Major 2º Answer by distinguishing upon the Minor The reason of my deniall to the Major is because God may and doth accept that for us or on our behalfe which yet hee need not in the sense contended for in this Treatise impute to us God accepted Abrahams prayer on the behalfe of Ismael and yet did not impute this prayer to Ismael himselfe as if he had prayed it In like manner he accepted the prayer of Elisha for the Shunamites Sonne and yet did not looke upon the child as if he had made it for himselfe It is true in these and many other cases of like consideration which might be added the persons prayed for by others received benefit by the prayers that were made for them but there is no colour of reason to conceive that God must necessarily looke upon such prayers as if they had bin made by the persons themselves for whom they were made and who were profited by them It is like they had the greater acceptation with God and prevailed more on the behalfe of those for whom they were made because they were made by others for them especially by persons of such grace and interest with God as they were who did make them then if they had bin made by themselves In like manner those on whose behalfe Christs sufferings were accepted receive an unspeakable blessing and benefit by them but this operates nothing towards such an inference or conclusion as this that therefore God must looke upon these sufferings of Christ as if they had personally endured them on whose behalfe they are accepted which is the imputation principally opposed in this Treatise nay such a supposition or imputation as this rather tends to destroy or prejudice their acceptation then any waies to further it The sufferings of Christ doubtlesse have the height of their acceptation with God on the behalfe of those that beleeve because they are look'd upon by him as the sufferings of himselfe I meane of Christ and of no other Againe 2º to the minor I answere likewise by Distinction If by the righteousnesse of Christ the proposition meaneth precisely that obedience which he exhibited to that generall and common Law whereunto all other men are oblieged considered apart from his obedience to that peculiar Law of Mediator given to himselfe alone so it is altogether false For God did not accept this righteousnesse of Christ on our behalfe so or upon such termes as to justifie us either with it or for it as hath bin ten times said and oft enough proved already If by this righteousnesse be meant that obedience of Christ commonly knowne by the name of Passive or both Active and Passive together so this proposition may be granted but then the other will be found tar die as hath bin shewed unlesse we make foure termes in the syllogisme instead of three by taking the same words in one sense in the Major and in another sense in the Minor and then it is no longer a syllogisme but a Paralogisme So that neither can this argument do any thing Therefore let us further trie the strength of those that are yet behind Some conceive that the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense taken and left may be firmly established upon the publiquenesle of his person SECT 19 Argumt 9 and reason after this manner If Christ were a publique person standing in the place or stead of all those that should beleeve in him then all that he did and all that he suffered are to be looked upon and are reputed by God as done and suffered by these and consequently are imputed to them But Christ was a publique Person standing in the place and stead of all that should beleeve in him Ergo. In this argument Answere I charge the former Proposition with weaknesse and untruth Because the publiquenesse of Christs person or his standing in the place of those that should beleeve is no sufficient ground to build this inference upon therefore all that he did and all that he suffered are looked upon by God as done or suffered by them This is evident his conception incarnation birth circumcision subjection to Ioseph his supposed Father his apposing the Doctors in the Temple his whipping the buyers and sellers out of the Temple his Redemption of the world with other particulars more of like consideration without number were all either things done or suffered by him yet are they not looked upon by God as done or suffered by all those that beleeve in him For to what purpose for example should I being a beleeving Gentile and so not only free from the Yoke of Iewish Ceremonies but further under command not to use them be looked upon by God as one circumcised so what can it in reason advantage me to be look'd upon by God as one who in Christ was in subjection unto Ioseph especially how shall I not feare and tremble to take the least hold of such a conceipt that God should looke upon me as having redeemed the world which yet was one of the greatest acts that Christ did Therefore this proposition is no Oracle Princes and Magistrates are publique persons yet God forbid that all that they doe should be look'd upon by God as done by all those that are in subjection under them Adam was as publique a person yea and more publique in a sense then Christ himselfe yea and is conceived by the most to have stood as much in the place or stead of his posteritie as Christ did in the stead of