against the invincible rocke of the holy Scriptures and seekes to turne them like a rowling stone against a barke they rowle and rebound back and tumbling upon him grind him to powder· For if hee had ten thousand instances of Scripture wherein the fruite and benefit which men receive are signified by the names of the things which are the causes and meanes of them yet still it will appeare that the fruite is not received except men have first an interest and propriety in the causes and meanes of it And thus you see his fift part or passage proved to bee a rotten heap of stinking lyes absurdities and grosse errors Socinianisme WHerefore to draw towards the close of this first Chapter and withall to give a little more light that it may bee seene to the bottome cleerely both what wee affirme and what we deny in the question propounded First when we affirme the faith of him that beleeveth to be imputed for righteousnes The meaning is not either 1o. That it should be imputed in respect of any thing it hath from a man himselfe or as it is a mans owne act nor yet in respect of any thing it hath from GOD himselfe or from the spirit of GOD producing raising of it in the soule though it be true it requires the lighting downe of the mighty arme of GOD upon the soule to raise it Neither 3 o is it imputed for righteousnes in respect of the object or as or because it layeth hold upon Christ or his righteousnes though it be also true that that faith that is imputed for righteousnes must of necessity lay hold upon Christ and no other faith is cable of this imputation besides because if faith should justifie or be imputed as it layes hold upon Christ it should justifie out of the inhaerent dignity worth of it and by vertue of that which is naturall and intrinsecall to it there being nothing that can be conceived more naturall and essentiall to faith then to lay hold upon Christ this is the very life and soul of it and that which gives it its specificall being and subsistence Therefore to make the object of faith as such the precise and formall ground of its imputation is to make hast into the midst of Samaria whilest men are confident they are travailing towards Dotha◠It s the giving of the right hand of felowship to the Romish justification which makes faith the meritorious cause of it in part But lastly when with the Scriptures we affirme that faith is imputed for righteousnesse our meaning is simply and plainely this that as GOD in the first covenant of workes required an absolute and through obedience to the whole Law with continuance in all things for every mans justification which perfect obedience had it beene performed had beene a perfect righteousnesse to the performer and so would have justified him So now in the new covenant of grace GOD requires nothing of any man for his justification but onely faith in his Sonne which faith shal be as availeable effectuall to him for his justification as a perfect righteousnes should have beene under the first covenant this is that which is meant when faith is said to bee imputed for righteousnes which is nothing but that which is taught generally by Divines both ancient and moderne Sic decretum dicit a Deo ut cessante lege solam fidem gratia Dei posceret ad salutem Ambrosius In Rom. 4. that is that the Apostle saying that to him that beleeveth his faith is imputed for righteousnes affirmeth that GOD hath decreed that the Law ceasing the grace of GOD will require of men onely faith for salvation and again upon Chap. 9. of the same Epistle Sola fides posita est ad salutem onely Faith is appointed to salvation Calvin writing upon Rom. 10.8 hath wordes of the same importance and somewhat more cleare and full ex hac distinctionis nota colligimus sicut lex opera exigit Evangelium nihil aliud postulas nisi ut fidem afferrent homines ad recipiendam Dei gratiam that is from this distinction we gather that as the Law exacted workes so the Gospell requires nothing else but that men bring faith to receive the grace of GOD. If GOD requires faith in the Gospell for that same end for which he requireth workes or perfect righteousnes in the law it necessarily followes that he shall impute this faith for that righteousnes that is accept from men upon the same termes and bee countable unto them the same favours rewards and priviledges upon it that should have beene given unto men in regard of that righteousnes had it beene performed or fulfilled otherwise he should require it for such an end or upon such tearmes as hee would refuse to make good unto it when the creature hath exhibited and tendered it unto him To require it for righteousnes or in stead of righteousnes and not to accept it for righteousnesse when it is brought to him should bee as apparant a breach of Covenant with GOD as it would be in a rich creditour that should compound and agree with his poore debtors for 1. in the pound or the like but when they brought the mony to him should refuse to take it upon any such tearmes or to discharge them of their debt and give them out their bonds Christianisme IN this last part or passage which is a meere confusion and distraction of wordes hee gives more then a little light that his Socinian heresie in this point of justification maintained with much non sense may bee seene to the bottome cleerely First hee takes upon him to shew that faith is imputed and how it is imputed Secondly hee strives to shew that Christs righteousnes is not imputed The first is in the wordes before recited The second followes hereafter First I will sift his wordes already rehearsed And after proceed to the second The summe of his speech last recited may be reduced into a Syllogisme of non sense without forme mood or figure The proposition and assumption whereof are contradictory And the conclusion damned Socinian heresie so that here I may say with the Poet. Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici His proposition runnes thus Faith is neither imputed for righteousnes in respect of any thing which it receives from man the proper subject of it nor as it is mans act who useth it and performes the acts of beleeving nor in respect of any thing which it hath from GOD or his spirit in the production of it nor in respect of the object Christ and his righteousnes nor in respect of the life and soule of it which gives to it the specificall being and subsistence to wit the application of Christ and laying hold on him The Assumption BVt faith is imputed to men and is counted and accepted as sufficiently for justification and upon the same tearmes under the Gospell as perfect righteousnes of workes and of obedience to the whole Law
and beleeving which wee on our part must performe for iustification life and salvation And hereby they abolish the freedome of the new Covenant and make it a Covenant conditionall and not of free grace For what soever is covenanted-and promised upon a condition to be performed is not absolutely free nor freely given and so according to their Doctrine they that are iustified by faith are not freely iustified by grace whereas they plead Scripture for their errour and alledge that iustification and life is promised upon condition of beleeving If you beleeve you shall be saved I answer that this is a grosse and absurd mistake For every conditionall proposition doth not propound the conditition of a Covenant which the party to whom a thing is promised must performe that the promise may bee made good to him for such a condition whensoever it is performed makes the thing covenanted a due debt which the promiser is bound to give But oftentimes a conditionall proposition propounds the meanes by which a free gift is received or the qualification by which one is made capable and fit to receive and enjoy a free gift as for example it is often said in Scripture if yee will heare and hearken yee shall eate the good of the land and shall live and not be destroyed Isay 1.19 Ier. 26.3 and many other places If we love one another GOD dwelleth in us 1 Iohn 4. If we walke in the light we have fellowship one with another 1 Iohn 1.2 If we confesse our sinnes hee is faithfull and just to forgive 1 Iohnâ— 9 If a man be just and do that which is right he shall surely live Ezech 18.5.21 In all which and the like places there is no condition of the Covenant propounded but onely the way and meanes to receive blessing or the quality condition by which men are made capable and fit to enjoy the blessing and somtimes the signes tokens and effects of them that are in a blessed estate And even so when GODS word saith If you believe yee shall be saved There is no condition of the Covenant propounded to be performed on our part for justification and salvation but onely the qualification by which GOD of his free grace doth qualify and fit us to be iustified and saved and the meanes by which hee enables us to receive righteousnes and to lay hold on salvation which is freely given to us in Christ. Vpon these particulars severally observed out of their owne words and writings I strongly conclude that this opinion being builded upon such a blasphemous and Hereticall ground and upheld and maintained by such blasphemous arguments must needs be most impious Hereticall and blasphemous Having already proved the Socinian and Arminian opinion to be most false and abominable I proceed to answere the particular arguments contained in this 2. Chapter which was by the Authors owne hand delivered unto me to be answered And because he and his followers shall not complaine of misrelating any of his words I will as I have done in the former Chapter first lay downe his owne words Socinianisme THe first argument brought to prove that faith and believing are in a proper sense Rom. 4. said to be imputed to the believer for righteousnes in justification and not the righteousnes of Christ. First the letter of this Scripture speakes what we affirme plainely and speakes no parable about it yea it speakes it once and twice yea it speakes it the third and fourth time and is not ashamed of it Abraham beleeved GOD and it was imputed to him for righteousnes verse 3. Againe to him that worketh not but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly his Faith is counted to him for righteousnes verse 5. And yet againe verse 22. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousnes The same phrase and expression is used also verse 23.24 Certainely there is not any truth in religion not any article of our beliefe that can boast of the letter of the Scripture more full expresse and pregnant for it what is maintained concerning the imputation of faith hath all the authority and countenance from the Scriptures that wordes can lightly give whereas the imputation of Christs righteousnes in that sense which many magnifie hath not the least reliefe either from any sound of wordes or sight of letter in the Scripture Christianisme HIs first argument reduced into the forme of a syllogisme runs thus That opinion which hath the Letter of the Scripture more full expresse and pregnant for it then any truth in religion or article of our beliefe and hath all the authority and countenance from the Scripture that wordes can lightly give is certainely true This opinion concerning the imputation of faith in a proper sense is such Therefore it is a true and sound opinion That this imputation of faith may boast of the letter of Scripture and of all the authority and countenance that wordes can give hee proves because the letter of the Scripture speakes it once twice yea thrice and foure times to wit in this Chapter Rom. verse 3.5 22 23 24. to which I will adde a fift time verse 9. The more true that the proposition is the more false is the assumption wherein hee assumes most falsely to his opinion that which in no wise belongs to it and thereupon inferres a most false conclusion I answere therefore that his assumption is an heap of impudent lyes First the killing letter of the Scripture may give some countenance to it that is speeches of Scripture understood and urged literally which are spoken by GODS spirit tropically and in a figure This Saint Austin calls the killing letter because they who take the words properly and so urge them obstinately they slay their owne soules But the true literall sense of the wordes which are improperly literall will never give any countenance to this hereticall opinion as I have shewed before most fully 2 I cannot but accuse him here of most intollerable impudency in that he affirmes that this most Hereticall opinion hath more full expresse and pregnant testimony from the letter of the Scripture then any truth in Religion or any article of Religion and hath all the authority and countenance from the Scripture that words can give when as in all the Scripture faith is not once said to be imputed for righteousnes in a proper sense in all the word of GOD and is onely seven times said to be counted or imputed for righteousnes and that tropically while the Apostle useth the phrase borrowed from that improper speech which is spoken of Abraham Gen. 15.6 That when Abraham believed GOD he counted it to him for righteousnes For it is manifest that in this Chapter he altogether insists upon that speech and doth but repeat it six times and so likewise Gal. 3.6 Saint Iames also once useth it speaking of declarative justification to prove that Abraham was justified by workes Iam. 2.23 that is declared before men to be
City to whom as yet I was unknown that I was a green headed novice carryed away with anger and passion rather then zeal yet divers of you my learned Brethren did judge otherwise of me and my labours and God blessed them and made them and your assistance of me therein powerfull and effectuall to the quelling of those errors and to the suppressing of them at that time by putting the Author of them to silence And now for 20. yeares and more they have been buryed in oblivion untill this new Adversary hath raked them up as coales out of ashes and out of a surreptitious Booke which the First Adversary had composed Printed beyond the Seas and procured to be brought in by stealth and sold underhand did bring them into the pulpit and from thence with a tumultuous noyse proclaymed them most confidently Now because I have sufficiently acted my part heretofore in opposing these errors and also divers of you have entered into the lists and with zeale and courage have begun to fight against the reviver of them I should have refrayned my selfe from further medling but because this common adversary hath singled me out and provoked me by a proud challenge to answere his writings I have once more undertaken to answer his challenge which Answer being sent to him privately might there have restâ—d if his most reproachfull and rayling reply full of lyes absurdities contradictions blasphemies and intollerable scoffes and reproaches had not forced me to send it abroad into the world to justifie it selfe from the rayling and slanderous clamours which he and his disciples and factious followers have raised against it I here commend it to your grave censure in hope that the goodnesse of the cause which herein I maintaine will cover mine infirmities and will stirre you up to perfect and finish what I have begun The Truth for which you shall fight is strong and will prevaile all power might glory and victory is Gods for whose cause you stand and our Lord Jesus Christ on whose perfect rigteousnesse you strive to keep the Crown hath all power given him in heaven and in earth To this God eternall and omnipotent and to his eternall Sonne our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to the most holy and blessed Spirit three persons in one God I commend you and your holy and faithfull labours in my dayly Prayers humbly supplicating to his Majesty for this Grace that I may continue till death Your fellow Soldier and labourer in his Vineyard GEORGE WALKER THE ANSWERERS PREFACE To the first Chapter THE question which is propounded and the state and drift thereof laid down in this first Chapter is in the Authors own words this whether the faith of him that truely beleeves or the righteousnesse of CHRIST be imputed for righteousnesse in the act of justification In this question the imputing of Faith is opposed to the imputing of Christs righteousnesse for righteousnesse to justification which no Orthodox Christian durst attenâ—â— to doe at any time for the godly learned in the Scriptures and acquainted with the writings of Orthodox divines both ancient and Moderne from the time of the Apostles to this day doe alwayes joyne Faith with Christs righteousnesse in the act of justification and do never account them such opposites as doe the one exclude the other and cannot both stand together and be reputed for righteousnesse to beleevers in justification Though the Apostle doth oppose justification by faith to justification by works of the Law performed by every man in his owne person as two opposites which cannot stand together in GODS justification of sinners And this all true Christians receive imbrace and hold for a solid truth and a fundamentall article of Christian Religion Yet they abhorre and detest the opposing of Faith and Christs righteousnes in GODS imputing of righteousnes to beleevers and doe with an unanimous consent teach that in this justifying act of GOD Christs righteousnesse of which all true beleevers have communion is that which GOD in a proper sense is said to accept and repute for righteousnesse and Faith as it receives and applies Christs righteousnesse is said to be imputed but in an improper speech the name of the act being used to signifie the object which we see frequently in Scripture as for example Gal. 3.2.25 where the name Faith is used to signifie the thing beleeved that is the doctrine of the Gospell and Coloss. 1.5 where the name Hope is used to signifie the thing hoped for that is the inheritance and reward laid up for us in Heaven of which kind many more instances may be produced But as for them who have called into controversie the imputation of Christs righteousnesse and having propounded this question whether Faith or the righteousnes of Christ is imputed in the act of justification have set up Faith and thrust out Christs righteousnesse they have ever beene branded by all true Churches of Christ for pestilent Heretikes and enemies of GODS saving truth The first mover of this question was one Petrus Abilardus a pestilent and blasphemous Heretick who being full of the spirit of pride and error did in disputing and writing deny the communion of Christs perfect satisfaction obedience and righteousnesse and the imputation of them for righteousnesse in the justification of true beleevers This filthie wretch was gelded for corrupting and defiling of a Maid and for his blasphemous heresies Saint Bernard and the Bishops of France caused him to be excommunicated and condemned for an Heretike and his blasphemous books to be burned publikely The next instrument of the Devill after him mentioned in former Histories was Servetus that blasphemous Heretike who for heresies and blasphemies which hee dispersed as a vagabond in several Countries in divers books was by Master Calvin discovered apprehended at Geneva condemned and burned and dyed blaspheming Christ most horribly as Beza testifieth in vita Calvini The third notorious Heretike who in writing and bookes published did maintaine this wicked errour and by his Disciples dispersed it in Transilvania Polonia and other adjoyning Countries was Faustus Socinus whose blasphemous faction and sect still continueth and infesteth those Countries at this day The fourth Grand Master and propagatour of this heresie who brought it into Holland nearer unto us was Arminius He did first secretly teach and instill it into the eares and hearts of many disciples and afterwards did openly professe it as we read in his Epistle ad Hyppolytum de collibus wherein he confesseth that he held Faith to be imputed for righteousnesse to justification not in a Metonymicall but in a proper sense And although this and other errours held by him are condemned in the late Synod of Dort yet his disciples the Remonstrants doe obstinately persist in this errour though some of that sect would seeme to decline and disclaime it The fift perverse publisher of this heresie who first openly professed it in England and in manuscript Pamphlets and Printed Bookes
for us to satisfie in our stead and his holy spirit to unite us to his Sonne and to bring us to communion of his satisfaction Thus wee see that they shut up the doore of Heaven and stop that onely way to eternall life by overthrowing justification which is the making and accounting of men righteous by that onely righteousnes of Christ besides which there is not any other to be found sufficient and able to beare us out before GODS tribunall of justice Now let all true Christians well weigh and consider the difference betweene truth and errour life and death true Christianity and Antichristian infidelity for such is the damned Socinianisme before discovered And if any man in the midst of the light of the Gospell shining so clearely and discovering so plainely cursed heresie will be blind let him bee more blind still and if any will be filthie let them bee more filthie still And if any love not the LORD Jesus but hate and blaspheme his truth let him be Anathema Maranatha Amen THE SECOND CHAPTER OF Socinianisme Wherein the imputation of faith for righteousnesse in a proper sense is undertaken to be proved from the Scriptures and the interpretation of those Scriptures confirmed both by reason and authority as well of ancient as moderne Divines THE PREFACE WHat it is that should be imputed for righteousnesse in justification all the wisdome and learning under heaven is not so fit or able to determine as the holy Ghost speaking in the Scriptures being the great Secretary of heaven and privie to all the wayes and counsels of GOD and therefore there is none to him to take up any difference or to comprimise betweene the controverters about any subiect in Religion All the difficulty and question is because though hee speakes upon the house top yet hee interprets in the eare all the Christian world either knowes or readily may know what hee speakes in the Scripture But what his meaning and intent is in any thing he leaves unto men to debate and make out amongst them To some indeed hee reveales the secret of his counsell the Spirit of his letter in some particulars but because these are not marked in the forehead therefore their apprehensions and thoughts though the true begotten of the truth are yet in common esteeme but like other mens till some stamp or superscription of rationall authority be set upon them to make the difference yea many times the nearer the truth the further off from the approbation of many and sometimes even of those that are greatest pretenders to the truth The Answere THe first part or speech is a solid truth to wit that no wisdome and learning under heaven is so fit or able to determine what is imputed for righteousnes in justification as the holy Ghost speaking in the Scriptures But this truth he contradicts in the next words which follow immediately where he saith that the holy Ghost leaues his meaning and intent to men to debate which if it be true then men are to determine and to take up every difference about any subject in Religion This beginning with contradiction is very ominous and prodigious and from hence we may gather what we are likely to find in his ensuing discourse The rule by which men are to judge of the Spirits meaning is the stamp and superscription of rationall authority set upon them so hee here expressely affirmes and in this hee openly professeth himselfe to be of the faction of the Socinian and Arminian remonstrants who doe teach that the best judge of the meaning of the Scriptures is recta ratio that is their owne carnall reason rectified by the art of Sophistrie Againe hee affirmes that all the Christian world knowes or readily may know what the holy Ghost speaks in the Scripture If this be true then they are all taught of GOD and the Spirit leaues not his meaning to men to debate and to promise betweene controverters Here is another contradiction Hee proceeds yet further in his absurdities and tells us that the holy Ghost reveales not to all the Christian world but to some the secret of his counsell the Spirit of his letter this is a contradiction to that which went next before And whereas before hee saith that all the Christian world knowes what the holy Ghost speakes in Scripture that is all saving truth here hee saith that hee reveales the secret of his counsell but in some particulars thus in every thing he contradicts himselfe and like a lunatick broken out of Bedlam he raves first saying and affirming and immediately denying and gainesaying in the same things But yet a lunatick persons have high conceits of themselves that they are of noble and royall blood right heires to Crownes Kingdoms and Empires or if not the holy Ghost himselfe yet persons wonderfully illuminated and inspired by him And many times they will not utter their conceits in expresse words but tell you of such great persons and complaine of your blockish dulnesse and stupidity if you doe not presently discerne that they speake of themselves and they are the men So here doth this illuminated Doctor deale with us He tells us of some speciall ones to whom the Spirit interprets in the eare and reveales the secret of his councell the Spirit of his letter who are the true begotten of the truth and that hee takes himself to be a chiefe among these it appeares first by his undertaking to give a reason of the counsell and purpose of GOD in his former Chapter as I have there noted Secondly by his taking upon him here to determine this question which none but such illuminated ones can be able to do And hee breakes off his prologue with a kind of complaint and exprobration full of disdaine namely this that because they meaning himselfe and his fellowes are not marked in the forehead by the Spirit of illumination therefore their thoughts and apprehensions are yet in common esteeme like other men you see non sapit humanum nec est mortale quod optat till some stamp and superscription of rationall authority be set upon them to make the difference Here hee seemes in this last clause to take courage and to conceive some hope that by the rational authority of his new coined Logick of which he lately gave us a tast whē he told us that causes are opposit ex diametro therefore the efficient impulsive instrumentall materiall formall and finall causes of mans justification and salvation cannot all or the most of them concurre in one person Christ though GOD and man hee will make the difference knowne betweene his excellency and other mens ignobility and obscurity The last clause of his complaint wherewith hee concludes his Preface is an overthwart blow to some where speaking of those first begotten of the truth he saith yea many times the nearer the truth the further off from the approbation of many and sometimes even of those that are the greatest pretenders to the
truth A shrewd nip if you marke it to you learned Doctors Preachers of the Citie of London who are great pretenders to the truth and yet the nearer that hee is come to the truth and makes his unlearned followers able to see it to the bottom as he hath often told us the further off hee is from your approbation If hee be thus bold and ready to nip you who doe not approve his opinion it is no marvaile that his rude followers doe lay all slaunders reproach and aspersions on us who oppose him and charge him with Socinian haeresie and blasphemy whom they admire and proclaime to bee the great light of GODS Church in these last dayes Socinianisme Foure things there are especially which much commend an Interpretation when they are found in conjunction and establish it like that King upon his Throne Prov. 36.31 against whom there is no rising up First if the Letter or Grammar of the Scripture will fairely and strongly beare it 2º If the scope of the place will close directly and intirely with it 3º When the interpretation which is set up against it cannot stand before the circumstances of the text 4º And lastly when the judgement of able learned and unpartiall men are found in concurrence with it If these foure be sufficient to furnish out an interpretation with authority and power then shall wee need no more Scriptures to prove the innocency of our affirmative viz. the imputation of faith for righteousnes the truth of the negative inseparably accompanying it but that one Chapter onely Rom. 4. Christianisme IN these wordes hee makes his enterance into the disputing of the point before propounded to wit faith in a proper sense is imputed for righteousnes in justification which speech excludes the righteousnes of Christ from being the onely righteousnes by which being communicated and imputed to true beleevers they are justified and stand righteous before GOD. First he propounds foure things which when they are found in coniunction with an interpretation of any Scripture they commend and establish it as he saith like that King upon his Throne against whom there is no rising up Prov. 30.31 These foure things First the literal sense strongly bearing it Secondly the scope of the place concurring Thirdly the inconsistence of the circumstances of the place with the interpretation which is contrary Fourthly the Judgement of able learned men agreeing with it these I say may passe for current But whether that one place of Scripture in the interpretation whereof these concurre bee alone without more Scriptures sufficient to prove the innocency of an assertion which is agreeable to that interpretation is a question many interpretations seeme to have all these and yet are contradicted by other Scriptures as that place Hosea 11.1 When Israel was a child out of Egypt have I called my Sonne being interpreted of the Nation of the Israelites was borne up by the letter concurred with the scope and circumstances more then many contrary expositors and all the learned and able Jewes so understood it and yet the Gospell expounds it another way Mat. 2.15 The place of Scripture upon the interpretation whereof established by these foure things hee intends to build his whole dispute in this Chapter is the fourth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans so that his proofes by which hee goeth about to set the royall Crowne which is due to Christ and his righteousnes on the head of mans imperfect faith are according to these foure things divided into foure rankes First he undertakes to prove that the Letter of that Scripture Rom. 4. doth beare up his interpretation to wit that faith in it selfe and in a proper sense is said to bee imputed for righteousnes in justification Secondly by the scope of the place Thirdly by shewing that the circumstances of that Scripture cannot beare the Doctrine of Christs righteousnes imputed Fourthly by the judgement and testimonies of able learned and unpartiall men But how poorely he performes his undertakings and how pitifully hee faileth in them wee shall in the progresse shew That his disputation is like to be very Illogicall we may gather from the foule flaw which appeares in his Logicke in this his first enterance where hee saith wee need no more Scriptures to prove the innocency of our affirmative viz. the imputation of faith for righteousnes the truth of the negative inseparably accompanying it but that Chapter onely Rom. 4. First it is against all true reason and Logicke that the affirmative should be innocent from untruth and that the negative which is opposed to it should have truth accompanying it If his affirmative faith is imputed for righteousnesse in a proper sense be true then the negative must needs be false to wit faith in a proper sense is not imputed But perhaps by the negative he doth not meane the negative of his affirmative but some other negative proposition the subject whereof is different from the subject of his affirmative His hatred and envy against Christs righteousnesse least it should get the Crowne from faith is so great that wee may well conceive that by the negative hee in heart meanes this Christs righteousnes is not imputed in justification which if hee doth wee cannot but blame him for speaking ambiguously which Logick in a disputation abhorreth But I leave his trifling and come to the ground and foundation of his discourse even that fourth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans on which he labours to build his hereticall opinion The words of that Chapter which seeme most to favour him are these Verse 3. Abraham beleeved GOD and it was counted to him for righteousnes and verse 5. To him that beleeveth his faith is counted for righteousnes and verse 9. For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousnes That the truth may more plainly appeare and the contrary falshoode and errour be made more fully manifest I will first lay down the true orthodoxe exposition of the words which is according to the common judgement of the most godly learned and judicious Divines of the best reformed Churches Secondly I will truely rehearse the corrupt exposition of the Apostles wordes made by the hereticke Socinus and his followers the Arminians and other fanaticall Sectaries unto which this adversary adheres and grounds his whole disputation upon it The orthodox exposition I will illustrate and confirme by the scope and circumstances of the rext and by arguments drawne from other Scriptures The corrupt exposition also I will prove to be false and hereticall And afterwards I will proceed to answer this adversaries discourse in every particular The true Exposition explained FIrst these wordes that Abraham beleeved GOD and it was counted to him for righteousnes are generally held to be improper and tropicall and that the meaning of them is not that Abrahams faith or act of beleeving by it selfe in a proper sense was counted to him for righteousnes but that the object of his faith even that
righteous because the Scripture saith Abraham believed GOD and it was imputed to him for righteousnes So that of Saint Iames may be believed faith is not the righteousnesse for which man is accepted with GOD as the Socinians teach but that by which man obteines the testimony of righteousnes as Iustine Martyr understands this phrase Now that Christ and his fulfilling of the law is truely and properly the righteousnes by which all believers are justified constituted and made righteous before GOD the Scriptures do in proper literall speech as well as improperly more often affirme as Isa. 61.10 Rom. 3.24 Rom. 4 6. Rom. 5.17 18 19· Rom. 8.4 and 10.3.4 and Phil. 3.9 and 1 Cor. 1.30 and 2 Cor. 5.24 these twelve places do plainely teach and affirme that the righteousnes by which men are made and constituted righteous in iustification is Christs obedience and satisfaction made to the Law for our redemption and nine of them are proper speeches so that here wee see the communion of Christs righteousnesse which hee opposeth hath more authority and countenance from the Scripture and more full expresse and pregnant testimony from the letter of it If I should instance in other truths of Religion as that there is one true GOD even Jehovah and none beside him or that hee created all things or concerning the deity of Christ and of the holy Ghost or concerning redemption by Christ or the last Iudgment resurrection and life eternall ten expresse and pregnant testimonies of Scripture might be brought to prove any one of them for every one wherein imputation of faith is named So that here we see what he cannot proue by argument he goeth about by impudent outfaceing to impose upon his hearers and readers But let us examine the proofe of this bold assertion even his assumption which certainely is as poore weake and begerly as his forehead is strong like brasse in impudent affirming it The letter of the Scripture saith hee affirmes it plainely once and twice yea a third and fourth time Therefore it is most certainely true To this I answere that the letter of the Scripture affirmes that faith and believing was counted to Abraham and is to other believers but not in a proper sense but tropically and so many things are often affirmed by the letter of the Scripture which if we understand them in a proper sense are most false as for example GOD is said to repent Gen 6. two severall times to wit ver 6.7 and Ier. 26. three severall times viz. ver 3 13.19 and Amos 7.3 6. and Iud 2.18 and 1 Sam. 15.11 Psal. 135.14 Ier. 18.10 with many more So likewise an hand and armes and eyes and mouth are often attributed by the letter of the Scripture to GOD which speeches if wee should understand in a proper sense they would prove a killing letter to us therefore this is a most absurd and ridiculous proofe well beseeming the thing which it is brought to prove And as he falters in his Logick and his reasons so he shewes ignorance of rhethorik for he takes it for a certaine truth that one phrase foure times used must needs be taken in a proper literall sense But rhetorik would have taught him that to use divers tropicall speeches together is an Allegory and elegancy of speech often used in Scripture as the places last cited shew To which let me add one most pregnant instance Gal. 3. where the word faith in a discourse of justification is used ten times in an improper sense for the Gospel which is the word of faith and teacheth iustification by Christ and by believing in him and not by our owne workes which the Law requires to wit verses 3 5 7 8 9 12 14 22 23 25. Now it may be he perceived little strength in his argument brought for his imputation of faith notwithstanding his great braggs and therefore he shootes one fooles bolt against the imputation of Christs righteousnes which is an argument or syllogisme consisting of an assumption without a proposition or a conclusion expressed but I can coniecture what he meant to conclude namely that the imputation of Christs righteousnes in iustification is a mere faction and ought not to be believed The imputation of Christs righteousnesse in that sense which many magnifie hath not the least reliefe either from sound of words or light of letter in the Scripture To which I answer first that if this were granted which is most false yet it doth not follow that faith alone in a proper sense is imputed Ridiculum caput saith he in the Comedie quasi necesse sit si justitia Christi non dicitur imputari fidem reputari pro justitia It is a ridiculous conceipt to thinke that if Christs righteousnes be not imputed therefore faith alone in a proper sense must be said to bee imputed David tells us that Phinees his executing of iudgement was imputed to him for righteousnes and Saint Iames saith that Abraham was iustified by works not by faith alone why then are not works as well as faith imputed But secondly I answer that his assertion is most false and I prove it from the very wordes of the Apostle in the 4. Chapter verse 6. where he saith that to the blessed man righteousnes is imputed without workes and verse 11. where he gathereth that to the beleeving Gentiles though uncircumcised righteousnes shal be imputed Now faith is not righteousnes as hee himselfe confesseth for righteousnes is perfect conformity to GODS law this is not to bee found in all the world but only in Christ he alone hath in mans nature fulfilled the law As for faith evē in Abrahā himselfe it was stained with many doubtings and feares at some times as when he called his wife his sister for better safety and so it is in the best beleevers Beleeving also is but a dutie and a worke of obedience to the Law but this which is here said to bee imputed is a righteousnes without workes or any thing performed in our owne persons therefore faith is not the righteousnes which is here said to be imputed but the righteousnes of Christ apprehended by faith and couched under the name of faith and beleeving Socinianisme SEcondly the scope of the place rejoyceth also in this interpretation that faith should be taken properly in all those passages cited and from tropes and metonymies it turneth it selfe away It is apparent to the circumspect Reader that the Apostles maine intent and drift in this whole discourse of justification was to hedge up with thornes as it were that false way of justification which lay through workes and to put men from attempting any going that way and to open and discover the true way of justification wherein men shall not faile to attain that Law of righteousnes before GOD that is in plaine speech to make knowne unto them what they must doe and what GOD requireth of them to their justification and what he will accept at their hands this
SOCINIANISME in the Fundamentall point of Justification discovered and confuted Or an Answer to a written Pamphlet maintaining that faith is in a proper sense without a trope imputed to Beleevers in justification Wherein The Socinian fallacies are discovered and confuted and the true Christian Doctrine maintained viz. That the righteousnesse by which true beleevers are justified before God is the perfect righteousnesse and obedience which the Lord Iesus Christ God and man did performe to the Law of God both in his life and death By George Walker B of Divinity and Pastor of S. Iohn the Euangelists Church in Watling-street London A man that is an Hereticke after the first and second admonition reiect knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth being condemned of himselfe Tit. 3.10 11. LONDON Printed by R. O. for Iohn Bartlet at the Signe of the gilt Cup in Pauls Church-yard neare S. Augustins Gate 1641. To his Reverend Brethren the Godly Orthodox Pastors and Preachers of Gods Word in and about the City of London the Author of this brief discovery and confutation wisheth all increase of Grace peace and happinesse with the abundance of blessings from God on their faithfull labours MY Reverend and dearely beloved Brethren it is not unknown to divers of you what great conflicts I have had with the adversaries of this Socinian Faction about this main fundamentall point of Justification what pains I have taken to vindicate the truth above six and twenty yeares agoe from the opposition and subtile Sophistry of a cunning adversary who by the fame and opinion which men had of his great Learning and no lesse Piety had drawn many zealous Professors of Religion into some liking of his Errours His written Pamphlets went currently through the City and were to be found in the hands of many men in which he First utterly renounced the Law in whole and part performed by our selves or any other in our stead for the justifying of us in the sight of God Secondly rejected as a meere device of our late Divines the imputation of Christs righteousnesse and satisfaction not onely his habituall righteousnesse but also his whole obedience both active and passive and affirmed it to be a thing wherof there was no testimony or proof in Scripture nor any necessary end or use thereof Thirdly he professed and undertook to prove thot Faith even the act of beleeving and trusting in Christ for salvation after a generall and confused manner as a favourite of God and not as a perfect satisfyer of his justice and just Law is that which God accounts and accepts for righteousnesse to justification in stead of righteousnesse and perfect obedience performed to the will and Law of God either by Christ or our selves These and divers other errors which were here and there interlaced I did at the first discover in some sermons to be no Doctrines of sacred Truth by him digged out of the deep mines of holy Scripture and newly brought to light as his seduced Disciples proclaymed them to be for the inlightning of the blind world in these last dayes of darknesse and perillous times but the old errors and Heresies of Servetus and Socinus newly revived and raked out of hell by Arminius Bertius and others of their Faction Divers of his Friends who had begun to imbrace his opinion were not a little terrified at the hearing of these things and earnestly besought me to give him a meeting who at that time was to me unknown by face I condescended to their desire but wheras I came with an heart full of tender compassion and with Prayers in my mouth and teares in mine eyes layd open before him the danger of his errors and the evill and mischiefe which by meanes of his obstinate persisting in them might accrue to himselfe and those who were by him seduced and misled he on the contrary hardened his heart to maintain per fas et nefas and dolo malo his foresaid erroneous opinions shewing out of Luther on the Galatians some words which seemed to favour his error and to exclude the righteousnesse of the Law from justification which words he applyed to the righteousnesse of the Law performed by Christ for us and did most stiffly so urge them but the words which immediately followed to wit that God justifies us by the righteousnesse of his Son Jesus Christ and by his fulfilling of the Law for us he covered with his fingers till I pluckt the Book out of his hands and read them to those that were present whereby he was much confounded Now the issue of my fair and Christian dealing with him and of my modest and mild opposing of him without such sharpnesse as the cause and his carriage did require was the same which the gentle behaviour of Orthodox Divines towards perverse Hereticks hath commonly had in all former ages For his Factious disciples did impute it to the weaknesse of my Cause and to his arguments convincing my Conscience that his opinions were not so dangerous as I had censured them to be but rather unreprovable yea and laudable And upon my departure out of the City immediately after to Cambridge whither my occasions called me in my absence they reported that at our meeting he did so convince and confound me with strong arguments that I humbled my selfe to him confessed my ignorance imbraced his opinions and promised to hold and maintaine them till death This wicked and Jesuiticall policy which they used to retaine divers of his disciples who wer ready to fall off from him to recall those who were fallen off already did produce a quite contrary effect For when I returned again to the City and was saluted as a Socinian onvert and informed of their false reports lying forgeries I was inflamed with a double desire to vindicate both the truth of God and mine own reputation from their slanderous aspersions and hereupon I betook my selfe to handle and expound that place of Scripture Rom. 5.17 18 19. which doth most pithily and plainly set forth the Doctrine of Justification by the communion of Christs righteousnes and obedience And because I discerned in mine Adversaries a perverse Hereticall spirit and that they had made lyes their refuge and did sinne being condemned of themselves I did with all zeale confute their errours lay open the deadly poyson and malignity of them and cloath them with such reproachfull titles as divers grave and learned Divines of the best reformed Churches had before shaped and fitted to them I proved them to be profane and abominable Doctrine even the damned Heresie of Servetus and Socinus as Sibrandus Lubertus had before stiled them And that their denying of the reciprocall imputation of Christs righteousnesse and satisfaction to the faithfull and of their sinnes to Christ was impiety and blasphemy as learned Beza calls it Though by this meanes my adversaries were enraged and did suggest into the eares and minds of many godly people in the
any come to us and bring not the true Doctrine of Christ but damnable Socinianisme errour and heresie we must not show so much curtesie as to bid him God speed 2 Iohn 10. The Analysis of his first Chapter in generall THe first Chapter of his Socinianisme which he cals his premising of somewhat for cleare underderstanding of the state and drift of the question consists of sixe parts In the first part he goeth about to rehearse the severall significations of the words justification and justifying and to determine in what sense the words are used in those Scriptures which speake of the justification of a sinner before GOD. In the second he layes downe 4. Propositions which he takes for granted on all hands and by none denyed but Heretikes In the third he comes to speak of imputation of righteousnesse for justification or rather of somewhat which God in the act of every mans justification doth impute for or instead of righteousnesse to invest him in all priviledges of a man perfectly righteous and withall to shew the reason of this imputation and afterward to determine that Faith is that somewhat imputed In the fourth part hee shewes first negatively how Faith is not imputed and excludes out of his question fiue severally quaeres Secondly affirmatively that Faith as he holds it to be imputed is opposed to the righteousnesse of Christ as to a competitor which receives the repulse In the fift part to cover the shame and scandall of his Hereticall opinion he doth admit Christs righteousnesse into part of the honour for peace and fashion sake as Esau was admitted unto some vanishing participation of some temporary blessings with Iacob For he forgeth a strange and false kind of imaginary imputation of Christs righteousnesse unto which he laboureth to wrest the words of Luther Calvin and the Homilies and Articles of our English Church In the last part hee undertaketh to shew more light that it may be seene to the bottome clearely what he affirmes and what he denyes in the question propounded The particulars whereof we shall see when I come to the answer of them But first I will begin with the first part and will proceed to answer the rest in order Socinianisme THat the termes of Justifying Justification c. are not to be taken in this question nor in any other that are usually moved about the Justification of a sinner either 1. Physico sensu in a Physicall sence as if Justification signified to make just with any habituall actual or any positive or inhaerent righteousnesse 2. Sensu forensi proprie dicto in a juridicall or judiciary sense properly so called when the Judge hath onely a subordinate or derived power of judging and is bound by oath or otherwise to give sentence according to the rule of the Law as to justify were to pronounce a man just or to absolve him from punishment according to the strict termes or rules of that Law wherof he was accused as a transgressor though this sense be received and admitted by many But 3. and lastly Sensu forensi improprie dicto in a Iudiciary sense lesse properly and usually so called viz. Where he that sits Judge being supreme Magistrate hath an Independency and Soveraignety of power to moderate and dispense with the Law as reason and equity shall require So that justifying in this question imports the discharging or absolving of a man from the guilt blame and punishment of those things whereof he is or might justly be accused not because he is cleare of such things or justifiable according to the letter and strictnesse of the Law for then he could not be justly accused But because the Judge having a sufficient and lawfull Soveraignety of power is willing upon sufficient and weighty consideration knowne unto himselfe to remit the penalty of the Law and to deliver and discharge him as if he were an Innocent and righteous man As for that Physicall sence of making just by inhaerent righteousnesse though Bellarmine and his Angels earnestly contend for it yet till the Scriptures be brought low and Etymologie exalted above them til use and custome of speaking deliver up their Kingdome into the Cardinalls hand that sense must no way be acknowledg'd or receiv'd in this dispute yet to give reason and right even unto those that demand that which is unreasonable Its true that GOD in and upon a mans Justification begins to justifie him Physically that is to infuse habituall and inhaerent righteousnesse into him But here the Scriptures and the Cardinall are as far out in termes as in 1000. other things they are in substance and matter That which hee will needs cal Justification the Scripture will as peremptorily call Sanctification Concerning that other sense of judiciary Justification usually so called wherein the Iudge or justifier proceeds upon legall grounds to acquit and absolve the party guilty and accused neither can this be taken in the question propounded except the Scripture be forsaken because the Scripture constantly speakes of this act of GOD Iustifying a sinner not as of such an act whereby he will either make him or pronounce him legally Iust or declare him not to have offended the Law and hereupon justifie him but as of such an act whereby he freely forgives him all that he hath done against the Law and acquits him from all blame and punishment due by the Law for such offences So that in that very act of GOD by which he justifies a sinner as there is a discharge from all punishment due unto sinne so there is a profession withall or plaine intimation of the guiltinesse of the person now to be justified according to the Law and that he is not acquited or discharged upon any consideration that can be pleaded for him according to the Law but that consideration upon which GOD proceeds to justifie him is of another order the consideration of somewhat done for him in this case to relieve him out of the course or order and appointment of the Law He whose Justification stands whether in whole or in part it 's not materiall here in the forgivenesse of sinne can in no construction be said to be Iustified according to the Law because the Law knowes no forgivenesse of sinne neither is there any rule for any such thing nor the least intimation of so much as any possibility of any such thing there The Law speakes of the curse death and condemnation of a sinner but for the Justification of a sinner it neither takes knowledge nor gives any hope thereof Christianisme IN this first part here are onely three significations of the word Justification and Iustifying rehearsed The first is Naturall or Physicall that is making a man just with habituall inhaerent righteousnesse The second is a Iudiciary sense properly so called when a subordinate Iudge doth according to the strict termes and rules of the Law acquit and absolve a man from punishment which is due by the Law to him being a
transgressor and doth pronounce him just The third is a Iudiciary sense lesse properly so called when a supreme Iudge by soveraignety of power doth acquit and absolve a man and remit the penalty of the Law which he deserves upon weighty consideration knowne to himselfe and doth deliver him and discharge him as if he were an innocent and righteous man The first Physicall sense he rejects and playes upon Bellarmine for reteining and using the word Iustifie in that sense And yet he himselfe immediatly acknowledgeth that GOD upon a mans Iustification begins to Iustifie him Physically by infusing into him habituall and inhaerent righteousnesse But this he saith is in Scripture called Sanctification The second sense he also disclaimes and in this dispute embraceth the third sense to wit that Iustification signifies GODS forgiving a man freely all that he hath done against the Law and his acquiting and discharging of a man from the guilt and punishment due by the Law for such offences not for any consideration which can be pleaded for him according to the Law but for somwhat done for him in this case to relieve him out of the course order and appointment of the Law His reason why he embraceth this sense is because he conceives Iustification to stand in forgivenesse of sinne which belongs to the Law in no respect at all In all this part and passage I find not one particle of solid truth but many grosse errors and falshoods for of all the three significations of the word Iustifie by him here named onely the first may passe in some tollerable construction but not in his sense for though GOD in the creation made our first Parents after his owne Image and similitude in perfect righteousnesse indued with a naturall and habituall uprightnesse conformable to his revealed will and Law and in this respect may be said to have Iustified that is made them upright as the wise Preacher saith Eccles. 7.29 GOD made man upright Yet whether this act of creation was a Physicall act of GOD or rather a voluntary act of his will of his wisdome and counsell and so may be called Artificial is something disputable As for the framing and making of the man Christ the blessed seed by the power of the holy Ghost pure holy upright and iust from his first conception this was a spirituall and supernaturall act and the holinesse and righteousnesse was a supernaturall gift given from above not introduced by naturall generation nor raised from naturall principles That making of men righteous in their sanctification which Bellarmine speaks of is not iustification in a naturall but in a spirituall sense For the spirit of GOD worketh those habits and graces of holinesse in men whom GOD hath begotten of his owne will in the word of truth And therefore when Bellarmine or Goodwin or any other call this a Physicall iustifying they erre grossely For if it be any iustification at all it is spirituall and morall But for my part I finde not that by the Spirit of GOD in Scripture any habituall holinesse of men begun in this life is called righteousnesse simply in it selfe But as the Saints regenerate and faithfull are called righteous in respect of their communion with Christ and participation of his righteousnes So their sanctity or habituall holinesse is called righteousnesse not simply in it selfe but by coniunction with the righteousnesse of Christ the head of the body which as it iustifies them by constituting and making them righteous so also it iustifies their rectified holy actions which they performe by the moâ—ions of the spirit and by Faith in Christ as learned Beza well observed and truth affirmeth Lib. contra Anonymum and their sanctification cannot be called iustification but by reason of coniunction with iustification in the same person For if it were possible for a sinfull man to be made perfectly holy and conformable to GODS Law in his owne person yet having formerly transgressed the Law and failed in many things â—his nâ—w conformity to the Law by reason of those sinnes and failings will prove a lame righteousnesse not fit to satisfie the Law and to be accepted for perfect righteousnesse to justification because if a man keepe the whole Law and faile in one point he is guilty of all Iam. 2 10. No righteousnesse can justifie which is not a perfect obedience and conformity of the whole man to the whol law in his whole life froÌ„ the beginning to the end Secondly that signification of the word Iustification which hee calls a judiciary sense properly so called is as he describes it a foolish fiction of his owne braine for never did any but a mad-man dreame of Iustifying sinners by a subordinate Judge absolving them from punishment according to the strict termes and rules of the Law for that were to give a false sentence and to pronounce a man free from all transgression of the Law and a perfect fulfiller of it in his owne person All our learned and Iudicious Divines doe hold that the full satisfaction and obedience of CHRIST being communicated and imputed to true believers they are absolved and have their sinnes pardoned and are counted and iudged righteous by GOD as men who have satisfied the Iustice and iust Law of GOD by CHRIST their head and surety not in their own persons which the Law in strict termes requires this is justification in the Iudiciary sense which is approved by the learned Thirdly that Iudiciary sense improperly so called which he approves allows in this dispute is an Hereticall and Socinian conceipt for so long as GOD the supreme Iudge of all the world is immutable and infinite in Iustice he neither can nor will dispense with his eternall iust Law in any iot or tittle but will have it perfectly fulfilled either by our selves or some sufficient surety in our behalfe and will forgive no sinner without a full suffering and satisfaction made to the Law in the same kind which the law requires though not in every mans person and this full satisfaction must be communicated to every one and made his owne by union with CHRIST his head before that GOD will iudge or account him righteous and pardon al his sinnes To imagin a somewhat in consideration whereof GOD forgives sinners and accepts them as if they were righteous besides the full satisfaction of GODS Justice and just law is to conceive GOD to bee mutable and not the same in his infinite justice at all times and to affirme it is Samosatenian and Socinian Blasphemy Fourthly in arguing against the second sense by him propounded he wrestles with his owne shadow and fights against a fiction of his owne braine and discovers his blindnesse and ignorance of the dictinction and difference betweene Legal and Evangelicall justification and righteousnesse Legal righteousnesse is the condition of the first covenaÌ„t of works and consists in perfect conformity and obedience to the law performed by every man in his owne person and
no man can be legally justified but by his owne personall righteousnesse Evangelicall righteousnesse is CHRISTS perfect righteousnesse and fulfilling of the Law in the behalfe of all the elect and faithfull It was not the Law nor our works of the Law which moved GOD to give CHRIST to be our surety and redeemer but he of his owne free love and bounty gave Christ and Christ the Sonne of GOD out of his love humbled himselfe to become man and to fulfill the law for us Neither doe wee obtaine Communion of Christs satisfaction and righteousnesse by the workes of the Law but by the Gospell preached believed as the Apostle teacheth Gal. 3.2 And therefore though Christ his righteousnes be a perfect fulfilling of all obedience which the law requires of man GOD did exact of him every farthing of our debt both in active and passive obedience and in respect of the matter and substance his satisfaction may be called after a sort legall and is so called by Luther yet as it was for us not for himselfe and performed by him our head not by every one of us in our owne persons and is received and applied by Faith not by our workes of the Law and is brought unto us by the Gospell not by the Law and is given to us freely by GODS grace not merited or procured by any thing in our selves so it is not legall but Evangelicall and GODS justifying of us and counting us righteous by it is not a proceeding upon legall grounds nor pronouncing us legally just as this calumniator doth either foolishly imagine or falsely slander and misreport our Doctrine Fiftly in arguing for his owne false and forged sense of the word Justification he hath three reasons all which are for us and prove our Doctrine not his opinion For if this make a sense of the word Justification good because it doth intimate the former guiltinesse of him that is justified as wel as it doth discharge him from all punishment which is his first reason then is our Doctrine of justification by imputation of Christs satisfaction for all our sinnes very good and sound for it intimates a guiltinesse in him who is to bee iustified as well as a discharge from punishment Secondly we doe not plead for our iustification any consideration according to the Law that is wee doe not plead our owne innocency nor satisfaction and righteousnes performed in our own persons but we plead more then somewhat done for us even all Christs obedience active and passive by GODS free grace communicated to us not obtained or merited by our works of the law Thirdly though the law iustifies no sinner but threatens the curse death and condemnation as the due reward of the transgressors of it Yet it iustifies all who are free from all sinnes committed against it and are made righteous by the perfect fulfilling of it to the utmost And therefore when the Gospell hath brought us to the Communion of Christs full satisfaction by which we are made free from all sinne and perfect fulfillers of the law in him our head as GOD doth forgive us our sinnes and counts us righteous so the law is no more against us 1 Tim. 1.9 but is witnesse for us that in Christ we are worthy of remission and iustification By this are manifest the grosse errours and absurdities which he uttereth in this first part of his preparative Chapter But that his ignorance in the Doctrine of justification may more fully appeare I will lay downe the severall significations of the words justification and justifying wherein the Spirit of God doth use them in the holy Scriptures First the word iustifie and iustification signifie making men righteous or constituting or seting them in the state of righteousnesse This signification is justified by several testimonies of Scripture as Rom. 5.19 Where many are said to be made or constituted righteous by the obedience of Christ even as by Adams disobedience many were made sinners and 1 Cor. 1.30 and 2 Cor. 5.21 Where Christ is said to bee made unto us righteousnesse and wee are said to be made the righteousnesse of God in him And Rom. 3.24 and 4 5. Where we are said to be iustified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ. And God is said to justifie the ungodly which cannot be meant of counting judging and pronouncing but of making them righteous by the Communion of Christs righteousnesse For to iustifie the wicked by judging and pronouncing them righteous without making them such is aoâ—mination to the LORD Prov. 17.15 And in this sense Preachers of GODS Word are as instruments under GOD said to iustifie many by bringing them unto righteousnesse and are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iustifiers Dan. 12.3 This iustifying wee may very fitly call radicall or fundamentall iustification This Luther and other learned Divines call actionem individuam because it is GODS action of communicating Christs righteousnesse in a moment and not by degrees successively and in it men are mere patients and do not worke with GOD no more then Adam did in GODS first creating of him upright in his Image Even regenerate Infants may thus be iustified and are iustified before they actually beleeve Secondly the word iustifie signifieth GODS iustifying of men by Faith that is his counting and reputing them righteous upon their actuall beleeving and his enableing them to feele themselves partakers of the righteousnesse of Christ and to enioy it by Faith in this sense the word is used Rom. 4. Where GOD is said to iustifie us by imputing righteousnesse and counting Faith for righteousnesse that is counting a true beleever a righteous person And thus the word is to bee taken where we are said to bee iustified by Faith without the workes of the Law The Apostle doth much urge and presse this iustification Rom 4 and Gal. 3. because though in this taken actively GOD onely acteth yet taken passively as it is received of us and we by Faith feele and discerne in what account we are with GOD and by beleeving enioy Christs satisfaction for remission of sinnes and for righteousnes wee may be said to worke with GOD by way of receiving as a begging hand doth in receiving gifts freely given and put into it This iustifying doth necessarily presuppose the former and doth assure us of it For the iust GOD whose iudgement is according to truth cannot râ—pute us righteous till we have communion of Christs righteousnesse and be thereby truly righteous And this Justification Divines call imputative It springs from the former as from the root and is builded on it as on the foundation Thirdly this word iustifie signifies a manifesting and declaring of men to be righteous and iustified and that three wayes First in foro conscientiae in the court or iudgement of our own conscience when a man being troubled in his conscience with the sight of his sinnes and his want of righteousnesse after humble prayer and poenitent seeking
saying To us a Child is borne and to us a Son is given Thirdly as he denies the satisfaction of Christ to be imputed to us so he denies the imputation of our sinnes to Christ and that very closely and cunningly under colour of that challenge which Christ made to the Iewes which of you can convince me of sinne For our Saviour speakes of sinne committed by himselfe and such aspersion none can say upon him But all our iniquities GOD laid upon him and he bare all our sinnes Esa. 53. And was made sinne for us 2 Cor. 5 21. and to cast this aspersion of all our sinnes on him is a sure foundation of the peace and safety of the Church In the second proposition hee doth most notoriously aequivocate and play the Hypocrite First in that he seemes to acknowledg the sacrifice of Christ to be an attonement and satisfaction for the world and a propitiatory sacrifice for the sinne of it Secondly in that he denyeth his Lord and Master Socinus and calles the Spirit which wrought in him a Spirit of error whereas indeed he himselfe is lead by the same Spirit and doth deny Christ to be the propitiatory sacrifice for our sinnes as far as Socinus ever did For in a propitiatory sacrifice offered to purge sinne and to make attonement there were three necessary requisits First the thing offered must be of his owne proper goods for whom it was offered so the Law required and therefore David durst not offer for his sinne that which was not his owne Purchased with his money 2. Sam. 24 24. Secondly the owner whose expiatory sacrifice it was did lay his hand upon the head of the Beast which was to be offered and thereby in a type imposed all his sinne and guilt upon it so that it became 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his guilt Levit 5 6. and Exod. 30.10 and did beare upon it all his sins Lev. 16.22 Thirdly this sacrifice offered up by the Priest in that manner which GOD praescribed in the Law GOD accepted as a propitiation for him it was set on his skore and covered his sinne as the Hebrew words signifie Levit. 1.4 He who denies any one of these overthrowes the sacrifice of attonement Now this dissembler doth with Socinus deny all these things in Christs offering of himselfe a sacrifice of attonement to purge sinne First he denies the true reall Spirituall union betweene Christ and the persons pardoned and justified by which Christ and they are made one body and hee is their head and they his members For if he and the faithfull be one then all his goods are theirs and their debts are his and his satisfaction and righteousnesse is theirs and is set on their skore which he denyeth and altogether opposeth and so denyes their interest and propriety in Christ and their union with him as his Master Wotton did in expresse word In his Essayes of Justification Secondly he also denieth that the sinnes of the faithfull were layd on Christ and imputed to him and in this he chargeth GOD with notorious injustice who laid the punishments of all our sinnes on Christ without the sinnes For he saith that Christ bare the punishmeÌ„ts though hee had no share in our sinnes by any imputation Thirdly he denyeth that the sacrifice of Christs suffering and obedience offered up by him is imputed to us set on our skore and accepted for us And thus in the doctrine of Christs sanitisfaction and attonement he declares himselfe a true disciple of Socinus lead by the same spirit of error and of the same opinion though in words he denyes it And what he here seemes to grant is no more but what all Socinians yeeld unto In the third proposition viz. that Christ is the sole and entire miraculous cause of every mans justification c. Hee doth aequivocate and delude the simple and while hee deceives them hee is deceived himselfe as the Apostle saith of wicked seducers 2 Tim. 3 13. For if he doth understand his owne words that Christ is the sole meritorious cause of every mans justification that is justified by GOD he must needs grant that Christs satisfaction made to GODS justice and his perfect righteousnesse as it is meritorious and of great value in it selfe so it is appropriated communicated imputed to him that is it is made actually meritorious for him and makes him worthy to be counted righteous and to be iustified for his words signify so much though hee is in his purpose and meaning as contrary as darknesse is to light for he meanes no more but that Christ meritted for himselfe that GOD should gratifie and honour him with the justification of those that believe in him so hee explaines himselfe in the last words It is certaine that a thing may be merritorious in it selfe for the worth of it but it cannot be meritorious to any particular person till it be appropriated to him and set on his skore Wotton his Master this point being proved to his face with undeniable arguments was driven to disclaime the word merit denyed Christs meritting for the faithfull and rejected it as a thing not named in Scripture in his Essayes of Justification Besides this deceiving of himselfâ— and misconceiving of his owne words I find here much absurdity First in that he is wavering and not setled in his Iudgment for in many places he holds faith to be the righteousnesse of a man justified and here he calles absolvtion from sinne and condemnation the righteousnesse which is given to every man in his justification I grant that in a man iustified there is no righteousnesse inhaerent but his cleanenesse from guilt of all sinnes both of commission and omission and in this sense Calvin Luther and others say that all the righteousnesse in a man iustified is the remission of his sinnes that is his cleanenesse from the guilt of them but this is not the righteousnesse which iustifieth him and which is communicated to him to make him cleane and to worke this cleannesse from the guilt of his sin that is the righteousnesse inhaerent in Christ which makes him cleane and puts him in a stare of righteousnesse before GOD but this profound Doctor with that stamp and superscription of rationall authority which hee conceiveth to be set on him hath not yet searched into the deep things oâ— GOD. Secondly he is most absurd in imagining that Christ hath purchased favour and honour witâ— GOD that he might iustifie theâ—… that believe in him by Procuring that faith in a proper sense should be accepted for righteousnesse For Christ as he was GOD man was infinitely of himselfe in favour and honour with GOD and humbled himselfe onely for us and in our behalfe fulfilled the Law not to purchace honour and favour to himselfe nor to make himselfe worthy to be gratified and honored by GOD as hee affirmeth Thus wee see his absurdities and his deceiving of himselfe The fourth
proposition is that faith in the judgement of every man is the condition required by GOD on mans part to bring him into that communion of justification and redemption which Christ hath purchased c. In which I finde delusion and falshood First hee doth not meane a gift grace or Spirituall qualification appointed by GOD by which as by the hand of the soule stretched out wee must lay hold on Christs satisfaction and righteousnesse for justification and redemption though his words pretend so much but hee meanes that faith is the condition of the new covenant which man must on his part performe in stead of all righteousnesse which the Law requires and so it is in the new covenant the condition of life as workes of the Law and of righteousnesse were the condition of the old covenant This is the very haeresie and damned error of Socinus Secondly he doth here make the covenant of grace a covenant of life not freely but upon a condition performed on mans part and so a covenant of workes contrary to Scripture Rom. 11.6 Thirdly hee erres grossly in imagining faith not to be a free gift of grace but a worke performed on mans part as workes were required in the old covenant Fourthly hee falsely chargeth all honest and godly men to be of his judgment I know that all Orthodox Divines abhorre and detest this opinion Fiftly hee affirmes a manifest untruth in saying that without beleeving none can have part in justification and redemption for no regenerate Infants which die in their Infancy do actually believe and yet being by the Spirit of regeneration engraffed into Christ they have communion of his ransome and righteousnesse are justified before GOD and saved Socinianisme IT 's evident from the Scriptures that GOD in the act of every mans justification doth impute or account righteousnes to him or rather somewhat for or in stead of righteousnes by meanes of which imputed the person justified passeth in account as a righteous man though hee be not properly or perfectly such and is invested accordingly with those great priviledges of a man perfectly righteous deliverance from death and condemnation and acceptation into favour with GOD. The reason of which imputation or why GOD is pleased to use 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 conscience of men who can hardly conceive or thinke of a justification or of being justified especially by GOD without a perfect legall righteousnesse Now the purpose and counsell of GOD in the Gospell being to justifie men without any such righteousnesse the better to salve the feares of the conscience touching such a defect and to prevent and stay all troublesome thoughts or quaeres which might arise in the mindes of men who when they heare of being justified are still ready to aske within themselves but where is the righteousnesse conceiving a legall righteousnes to be as necessary to justification as Isaac conceived of a Lamb for a burnt offering Gen. 22. He GOD I meane is graciously pleased so far to condescend to men in Scripture treatie with them about the weighty businesse of justification as in effect to grant and say to them that though hee findes no proper or perfect righteousnes in them no such righteousnesse as passeth under the name of righteousnes with them yet if they truely beleeve in him as Abraham did this beleeving shall be as good as a perfect compleat righteousnes unto them or that hee will impute rihteousnes to them upon their beleeving Christianisme THe first thing in this passage to wit GOD imputing righteousnesse to every man in his justification is a thing evident by the Scriptures and I willingly grant it But I abhorre and detest as heresie that which he adds out of his owne conceit to wit that GOD doth rather impute somewhat in stead of righteousnes which cannot make a man properly or perfectly righteous This is a blasphemous imagination that GOD can iudge falsly and account a thing for righteousnes which is not and esteeme a man righteous who is not properly righteous Secondly that which immediately followes is no lesse blasphemous to wit that a man may be invested by GOD with the great priviledges of a man perfectly righteous namely delivâ—rance from sinne and condemnation and acceptation into favour with GOD though he be no such man For hereby GOD is charged either with injustice and iniquitie or with errour in his judgement Thirdly his taking upon him to give a reason of GODS purpose and counsell is Luciferian pride and presumption For who knoweth the minde of GOD or hath beene of his counsell Rom. 11.34 Saint Paul who was taken up into the third heaven could never finde out any such counsell of GOD neither durst give a reason of GODS purpose and counsell but onely the good pleasure of his owne will Fourthly in the declaration of his reason I find many errours and untruths as first that a mans conscience can hardly thinke of being justified by GOD without a perfect legall righteousnesse Every regenerate man and true beleever can upon his owne knowledge and experience give him the lye and tell him that the weakest conscience of any who hath true Faith being taught by the Gospell can very easily thinke and beleeve that GOD justifies him by an Evangelicall righteousnesse even Christs perfect fulfilling of the Law which is farre more perfect then that legall righteousnesse which the Law requires of every man in his owne person This Abraham beleeved and was fully perswaded of it this David professes and Saint Paul preached and I know no true Christian who doth not both thinke and beleeve it If any man be found doubting of this it is because the spirit of Antichrist and Socinus doth worke strongly in him Secondly the thing which he imagineth being so notoriously false there can be no reason given of it but a reason as false as the thing it self And indeed so it is here For first hee assure most falsely that GODS purpose in the Gospell is to justifie men without any such righteousnesse as the Law requires in every man that is the perfect fulfilling of the Law For though GOD doth not purpose to iustifie men by their owne fulfilling of the Law every one in his owne person yet by Christs righteousnesse and his fulfilling of the Law in their stead and by communicating and imputing that righteousnesse to them he purposeth in the Gospell and professeth that men shall bee and are by him iustified and this is in Christ such a righteousnes as the Law requires for proofe of this see Rom. 8.4 and 10.4 Secondly the fathers upon GOD his own false and wicked conceits to wit First that GOD goeth about to cure an infirmity in his people which is not to be found in any of them after they are called to beleeve in Christ and to be his people for then
they bid their owne workes of the Law adiew and do no more dreame of iustification by them Secondly that GOD for the cure of their weak consciences tells them in the Gospell that if they beleeve in Christ this beleeving shall bee as good as a perfect compleat righteousnesse by this hee would make GOD a pure Socinian one who takes the Crowne from Christ and the righteousnes from GOD and man and sets it on the head of mans Faith which in the best beleevers and even in Abraham himselfe was mingled with much doubting and many infirmities In a word though all Orthodox Divines doe according to the Scriptures acknowledge that upon a mans beleeving truly in Christ GOD doth impute to him the perfect and compleat righteousnes of Christ which is made his before he can truly apply it by Faith Yet it can never enter into the heart of a true Christian but his soule will abhorre to thinke that any mans beleeving should bee to him as good as perfect compleat righteousnes or that GOD should accept it in stead of perfect righteousnesse and rather then the righteousnes of Christ GOD and man who is made unto us of GOD righteousnes 1 Cor. 1.30 and in whom we are found to have the righteousnes of GOD by faith Philip. 3.9 To conclude this passage let me adde this as a foule absurdity For if hee speake by experience that conscience leads men naturally to thinke that there can be no iustification without righteousnesse which is a perfect fulfilling of the Law Which I confesse my conscience and my reason tell mee and GODS word teacheth mee plainely Then what is become of his conscience who contrary to all truth and reason and the common conscience of all men will teach iustification without any true righteousnesse at all either of Christ or our owne and will crowne mans weak Faith with the Crown of righteousnesse which onely belongs to Christ and his perfect obedience Socinianisme SO that now the state and drift of the question is not either First whether Faith without an object or as separated from Christ bee imputed for righteousnesse for such a Faith doubtles in the point of justification was never dreamt of by any man that kept his 〈◊〉 company men may as well fancy a living man without a soulâ— or a wise man without his witts as a Faith without an object much lesse was such a Faith conceived by any man to bee imputed for righteousnesse Christianisme IN the fourth part or passage he first propounds five foolish quaeres which he denieth to concerne the state of the question Secondly he propounds a sixt quaere and that in plaine and precise termes hee affirmes I will first particularly answere the 5. quaeres and after lay downe the â—iâ—t at large and addresse my selfe to the confutation of his discourse upon it And first whereas he pronounceth him a mad man who dreames of faith without Christ the object or thinks that faith which believes not in Christ should be imputed for righteousnesse Here I must be bold to put him in mind that thus he dreames in the next Chapter where he boldly affirmes and by divers arguments laboureth to prove that the Faith of Abraham which was imputed to him for righteousnes was not a beleeving in Christ neither was Christ and his righteousnes the object of it And therefore by his owne confession and his owne wordes hee doth there play the mad man and keepes not his wits company but his fancy runs wild while he strives to prove that Abrahams Faith imputed to him for righteousnesse was not a beleeving in Christ. The second Quaere NEither is it any part of the intent of the question to enquire whether Faith bee the meritorious cause of a mans justification For both they that affirme and they that deny the imputation of Faith for righteousnes deny the meritoriousnes of Faith every way how ever it is true that they thaâ— would seeme most to disclaime it and cast it further from them doe yet in some of their most beloved tenets draw very neare unto it as will afterwards appeare Answer HEre behold either grosse ignorance or wilfull lying against knowledge and conscience For all the learned know that Faith and beleeving are held by the Church of Rome to be a principall part of mans righteousnesse and workes which GOD imputes and accounts meritorious of justification and of eternall life ex condigno Yea he himselfe in the passage next before hath plainely affirmed that Faith to him that beleeveth as Abraham did is as good as perfect and compleat righteousnes which if it be true then Faith must needs be as perfect and compleat righteousnesse is the meritorious cause of justification And therefore that which he here saith is verified in himselfe though he would seeme most to disclaime the merit of Faith and to cast it furthest from him yet in some of his most beloved tenets hee drawes very neare to it yea hee embraceth it with his heart in his whole discourse the maine drift whereof is to exalt Faith into the place of Christs most meritorious righteousnesse and to put the Crowne upon it For what can be imagined more meritorious of justification then that which GOD in a proper sense judgeth and counteth for righteousnes and for which he doth justifie men and counts them righteous The third Quaere NEither 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 whitenes or as a Master makes his Scholler learned with knowledge or learning conveyed into him for both parties make the forme of justification to be somewhat really different from Faith which is the genuine tenet of Arminius Answer THis quere is very ridiculous for to imagine a quality or act in man to be the formall cause of justification which is GODS act is the fancy of a distempered braine and the conceit of a mad man His exposition of his quaere shews his want of Logicall skill For the whitenesse wherewith the Painter makes a wall white is a forme introduced into the wall it is not the formall cause of his action of painting and so learning produced in a scholler is forma docti the forme of a Scholler as hee is made learned not the formall cause of his masters teaching surely his expounding of his quaere by such dissonant similitudes sheweth that hee had need of a Master to teach him some better knowledg and learning and to set on him some better stamp and superscription of rationall authority His phrase of learning conveyed is somewhat improper for learning is not conveyed into a Scholer but produced and begotten in him Let him not therefore condemne tropes of speech seeing he himselfe can and doth often speak tropically and improperly But to come home to his quaere If by justification hee meanes imputative justification in which GOD justifies a man by imputing
of obedience none denyeth For suppose our Saviour by reason of imprisonment or some other restraint and impediment had beene hindered from doing divers of those workes of mercy charity and piety which hee did performe being at liberty this had not diminished his righteousnes so long as he had a ready will to doe good upon all occasions and did good workes when liberty and opportunity served Secondly none of our Divines doe thinke or write that Christs righteousnes imputed and communicated to beleevers doth make them rigidly literally and peremptorily righteous constituted and made us perfectly compleatly and legally righteous as Christ himselfe for though they are iustifiâ—d by the Communion of Christs satisfaction and have so much interest in it as to make them truely righteous yet they have it not as Christ hath it performed legally by himselfe in his owne person neither have they power to give the Spirit whereby they may communicate it to others to justifie them to make them righteous The Wife is endowed with her Husbands honours and riches and made honourable and rich but she is not endowed with her Husbands Lordship and dominion over them so far that she may give them away at her pleasure but onely posseseth them in him and with him for her owne use And so it is betweene Christ and the faithfull he is righteous rigidly and legally according to the letter of the Law They are righteous Evangelically by the Communion of his righteousnes that is originally righteous as the head in a naturall body is sensitive and hath sense and motion in it as the root and fountaine They are righteous by Communion from him and possesse his righteousnes as all the rest of the members in a living body possesse life by derivation from the heart not in the same degree as the heart doth to communicate it to others but every one so far as to be a living member Therefore all that hee here saith is but subtilty calumny and falsehood neither Scriptures nor any sound and learned Authors will minister arguments or demonstrations to him to prove any thing contrary to our Doctrine concerning the imputation of Christs righteousnes for iustification The more he strives to wrest and abuse testimonies of Scripture and learned Authors the more evident demonstrations will he give of his wickednesse and wilfull contending against GODS sacred truth Socinianisme GIve me leave here to mention that by the way which prevents many mistakes yea and offences too in reading the writings of many later Divines especially of other Churches touching this point of Justification If we take the phrase of imputing Christs righteousnes unproperly and out of the usuall and formall signification of it as Luther and Calvin and other Divines of the reformed Churches sometimes doe in their writings viz For the giving out and bestowing as it were the righteousnes of Christ in the returne of it that is in the priviledges blessings and benefits that are procured and purchased by it for men So a beleever may be said to be justified by the righteousnes of Christ imputed But then the meaning can be no more but this A beleever is justified by the imputation of Christs righteousnes That is GOD justifies a beleever for Christs righteousnes sake and not for any righteousnes of his owne Such an imputation of the righteousnes of Christ as this is is no wayes denyed or once questioned And thus such passages as those in Calvin GOD freely justifies us by imputing the obedience of Christ unto us Instit. 1. c. 3.11 and againe a man is not righteous in himselfe but because the righteousnes of Christ is communicated or imparted to him by imputation these and such like expressions in this Author are to be interpreted by such passages as these which are frequent in the same Author Christ by his obedience procured and merited for us grace and favour with GOD the Father and againe Instit. 1.2.17 and againe 1.3 c. 11.12 Christ by his obedience procured or purchased righteousnes for us And againe in Gal. 3.6 All such expressions as these import the same thing that wee are justified by the grace of GOD that Christ is our righteousnesse and that righteousnes was procured for us by the death and resurrection of Christ. By all which passages and many more of like importment that might be produced out of the same Author it s fully evident that where he mentions any imputation of the righteousnes of Christs in justification the meaning is onely this that the righteousnes of Christ is onely the meritorious cause of our justification and hee hath procured and purchased this for us at GODS hand that upon our beleeving we should bee accounted righteous by him or which is but the same that our faith should be imputed for righteousnes to us To which purpose hee speakes more significantly and expressely in the place last mentioned Gal. 3.6 men not having righteousnes lodged in them they obtaine it by imputation which imputation he thus explicates and interprets Because GOD doth impute or account their faith unto them for righteousnes Divers like passages might be drawne together out of other Authors which must be seasoned with the same salt of interpretation to bee made savorie and meet for spirituall nourishment In the Homilies of our Church there are severall passages that mention the imputation of Christs righteousnes in justification for the genuine sense whereof if wee consult with the 11. article of Religion which is concerning justification and is framed with all possible exactnes this way that so few words are capable of that will lead us directly to the same interpretation of them Wee are accounted righteous before GOD saith our Article onely for the merit of our LORD and Saviour Iesus Christ by faith and not for our owne workes or deservings Where it s to be observed that we are not said to bee constituted or made righteous before GOD in justification but onely that we are accounted or reputed such 2. It s not said that wee are accounted righteous with the righteousnes nor yet with the merit of Christ but onely wee are accounted righteous before GOD onely for the merit of our LORD Christ by faith The merit of Christ or of his righteousnes hath so farre prevailed with GOD on our behalfe that by our faith we shall bee accounted righteous before him which is in effect the same truth wee maintaine viz. that GOD for Christs sake or for Christs merits sake doth impute our faith for righteousnes unto us And thus Musculus expresseth himselfe roundly Faith is accounted for righteousnes for Christs sake And againe Loc. com de justifica This faith ought to be esteemed of us as that which GOD purposeth for Christs sake to impute for righteousnes to those that beleeve in him So Luther also ad Gal. 3.6 GOD for Christs sake accounts this imperfect faith for perfect righteousnes And Chamier calls remission of sinnes the righteousnes which is imputed to us
Therefore wheresoever whether in the Homilies of our Church or in other Authors we meet with any such expressions of the righteousnes of Christ imputed in justification wee must not understand this righteousnesse of Christ in the letter propriety and formality of it but in the Spirit or merit of it to be imputed And this manner of speech to put the name of a thing in the propriety of it instead of the value worth benefit and returne of it is both usuall and familiar in ordinary passage of discourse amongst us and very frequent in the Scriptures when we say a Merchant grew rich by such or such a commodity our meaning is that hee grew rich by the gaine or returne of it hee may be made rich by the commodity and yet have never a whit of it with him so when we say such a man grew rich by his place or office our meaning is that he grew rich by such gaine or profit as his office afforded him we do not meane that the place it selfe or office were his riches so it may be said that wee are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ and yet not have the righteousnesse it selfe upon us by imputation or otherwise but onely a righteousnesse procured and purchased by it really and essentially differing from it viz. remission of sinnes as will appeare in due time Thus in the Scriptures themselves there is no figure or forme of speech more frequent then to name the thing it selfe in the propriety of it in the stead of the fruite of it good or bad benefit or losse vantage or disadvantage merit or demerit of it Thus Iob 33.26 GOD is said to render unto man his righteousnesse the fruit and benefit of his righteousnesse in the favour of GOD and manifestation of it in his deliverance and restauration the righteousnesse it selfe in the propriety of it cannot bee rendered unto him So Ephes. 6.8 Whatsoever good thing any man doth the same hee shall receive of the LORD hee shall receive benefit and consideration from GOD for it so Reve. 14.12 and 13.10 here is the patience and faith of the Saints that is the benefit and unspeakable reward of the faith and patience of the Saints to bee seene when the Beast and all that worship him shall bee tormented in fire and brimstone for evermore and those that have constantly suffered for not worshiping him shall be delivered from drinking of that bitter cup so Psal. 128.2 Thou shalt eate the labour of thy hands that is the fruite of thy labour So on the other hand Heb. 9.28 To those that looke for him hee shall appeare the second time without sin without the guilt or punishment of sinne charged upon him Gen. 19.15 Least thou be destroyed in the iniquitie of the citie that is in that judgement which fell upon them by meanes of their iniquity In such a construction of speech as the holy Ghost himselfe useth in these and such passages in Scripture the righteousnesse of Christ may be said to be the righteousnes by which we are justified or which is imputed unto us in justification Christianisme THis fifth part or passage is nothing else but first the propounding of a new and strange imputation of Christs righteousnesse contrary to sense and reasoÌ„ to the common signification of the phrase of imputing righteousnesse or counting a thing for righteousnesse Secondly a wresting and abusing of some speeches of Scripture and learned writers that hee may father on them an opinion which they abhorred and in expresse words disclaimed and confuted First hee saith that the phrase of imputing Christs righteousnesse is by Luther Calvin and other Divines taken unproperly and out of the usuall and formall signification for the giving and bestowing of the returne that is the priviledges blessings and benefits which are purchased by Christs righteousnesse for men and the meaning can be no more but this that GOD justifies a believer for Christs righteousnesse sake and not for any righteousnes of his owne To this I answere First that this signification of the phrase is so unproper unusual deformed that it is never found in all the Scriptures nor any approved Author as hereafter I shall make manifest onely Socinus they of his faction are coiners and forgers of such strange barbarismes Secondly it is so contrary to common sense and reason that if any man should say the Sun the ayre or other Elements are imputed to us by GOD because GOD hath given us the benefit of them every man would laugh at such a barbarisme even the most simple would discerne it to be ridiculous If Master Goodwin or any of his disciples comeing into some country house for shelter from some cruel tempest which overtooke him as hee travelled on his journy should for the benefit which hee received under the mans roofe presently chaleng that the house is imputed to him and is to be counted his and set on his skore it is a thousand to one that the owner of the house would take him for a mad man and put a fooles feather in his cap or cast him out of the doores by the head and shoulders for a sawcy companion hee had not best therefore use such speeches nor write such phrases with his pen for if they once proceed out of his mouth and come to other mens eares hee will thereby purchase to himselfe much scorne and derision But let us proceed to examine the instances by which hee goeth about to proue this strange signification of the word imputing righteousnesse wherein righteousnesse is put for the fruit of it by a metonymie of the cause for the effect imputing is put for bestowing by a new Socinian trope and GODS bestowing for mans receiving by a monstrous metonymie of one opposit for another I wonder here by the way how this man who disclaimes in the next Chapter the Apostles using of tropes and figures in the waighty Doctrine of justification and calles it a monster of speech to use two tropes in one phrase dares here make in this one phrase so many tropes and monstrous figures The first instance which hee brings to prove that Calvin did use the phrase in this signification is this GOD freely justifies us by imputing Christs obedience to us and againe a man is not righteous in himselfe but because the righteousnesse of Christ is communicated and imparted to him by imputation I might here blame his false quotations to wit Instit. 1. c 3.1.11 and 1.2.17 and 1.3.14.17 In which places no such wordes are to be found but I willingly embrace these words as Calvins for they are most cleare and manifest to prove that GOD not onely give us the returne or benefits of Christs righteousnesse but also doth by imputation communicate and impart to us the righteousnesse it selfe so that if this man had studied all his dayes to contradict his owne opinion and to confute his forged signification hee could not have found more ful plaine and pâ—rspicuous
clothing of righteousnes wherewith the beleever is cloathed in his justification Justitiam morte resurrectione Christi acquisitam a righteousnes procured by the death and resurrection of Christ. This righteousnes of Christ may be said to be the righteousnes of a beleever in such construction of speech as the knowledge of GOD and of Christ is said to be eternall life Iohn 17.3 viz. in way of causality not in that formality of it and againe the righteousnes of a beleever in his justification may be tearmed the righteousnes of Christ in such sense as the favour of GOD in deliverance of a man out of trouble is called a mans righteousnes Iob. 33. verse 26. or as the nation and people of the Jewes are often in the Scriptures called Iacob they were not Iacob in the propriety of his person but in his descent and propagation so may the righteousnes of a beleever bee called the righteousnes of Christ because it is a righteousnes descended from it and issuing as it were out of the loynes of it What hath been affirmed and what hath beene denyed in the question wee come now to prove and demonstrate the truth of both 1 o From the authority of Scriptures 2 o From the grounds of reason as for the third way of proofe and confirmation by consent of Authors we shall not assigne a peculiar place for that by it selfe but interlace our other proofes occasionally with such testimonies as we have received from learned and judicious men for confirmation of our point to be discussed Christianisme THe second thing in this last part or passage is a profession of his meaning in denying Christs righteousnes to be imputed in justification First because he would have an adversarie for him to triumph over and least his admired sophistry should be idle for want of an opposite against which it might magnifie it selfe in the eyes of senselesse sectaries hee suffers Christs righteousnes to have a being and doth not deny it in it self but doth approve and establish it and so by good hap hee escapes one base absurdity in his disputing to wit denying of the subject of the question Secondly because he would have his competitor or corrivall to be of some great note the more to glorifie his victory over him hee doth not deny an absolute necessity of Christs righteousnes both to the justification and salvation of sinners we thanke him that for saving of himselfe from the hatred and skorne of the world he would grant so much of truth openly testified in Scripture Thirdly he doth not deny a meritorious efficiency or causality of Christs righteousnesse in respect of the justification of a sinner In this hee comes somewhat neere to us but I doubt it is not in sincerity and truth but rather in show to make the ignorant to conceive better or at least not to judge so hardly of his opinion for marke his slubbering and dawbing with untempered morter I verily believe saith hee that GOD justifieth them that are justified not simply or barely for Christs sake or for his righteousnesse sake but for the righteousnesse of Christ his death being taken into consideration with it here you see a plaine contradiction for Christs righteousnesse his death being taken into consideration with it is no more but his perfect righteousnesse because his active obedience without his passive obediēce to death is no perfect fulfilling of the Law so that here is a contradiction even an affirmation and negation of one and the same thing in one continued sentence The parenthesis also which hee inserts to trouble the reader is false and frivolous to wit for a man may doe a thing for his sake whom hee much loves and respects though hee hath not otherwise deserved it at his hands First let mee aske him what is his drift in these words It seemes to mee either to be wholly superfluous or to intimate that Christs righteousnes did not deserve our justification at GODS hands but that GOD out of love and respect to Christs person without the merit of his righteousnesse doth accept us and count us righteous Secondly let mee tell him that when a man doth any thing for another out of love without desert hee doth it for his owne loves sake and for the magnifying of his kindnes and free bounty and thus GOD did in giving his Sonne for us undeserving sinners But when justice doth stand up in strength and pleades for right as in the justification of sinners then a full satisfaction must come between love can no otherwise be rightly and lawfully shewed but by making a satisfaction or by apposing one who is sufficient to make satisfaction that no evill but good may be done to the party loved and respected and thus the case stands in justification of sinners Thirdly though a man out of his corrupt and carnall love may doe a thing for his favorite without desert or just consideration yea contrary to justice yet it is not so with GOD who is no respecter of persons in matter of justice and justification Hee doth never out of his free love decree to doe any thing but withall hee decrees and ordeines a just consideration why hee should doe it so that this is a frivolous parenthesis both false and from the matter In the fourth place hee sheweth what hee denies in denying the imputation of Christs righteousnesse viz. That GOD lookes upon a believing sinner and accounts him as one that hath done in his owne person all that Christ did in obedience to the morall Law and hereupon pronounceth him righteous so that he doth stand as righteous before GOD as Christ himselfe because righteous with the same righteousnesse and so GOD makes himselfe countable to him for such obedience imputed in as great matters of reward as hee would have beene for the like obedience particularly performed by himselfe In this expression of himselfe here is much calumny error and untruth First he doth calumniate and slander the true Doctrine of Christ professed by us concerning the imputation of Christs righteousnesse for no man in his right wits did ever hold that imputation of Christs righteousnesse to believers is GODS accounting them to have performed in their owne persons every act of obedience which Christ performed to the Law This is a manifest contradiction fitter for a giddy fancy to imagine then for any true Christian to professe The truth which wee professe is this that true believers being by that one spirit which workes faith in them united to Christ and made partakers of his righteousnesse and believing and applying by faith to themselves his satisfaction particularly are accounted truly righteous before GOD by communion and imputation not by legall performance in their owne persons And though the righteousnesse by which they are justified is the very same which is in Christ and which hee performed yet it doth not follow that they thereby are as fully righteous as Christ himselfe for he is originally righteous by
his owne personall righteousnes as the justifier they are righteous by communion and imputation as justified And as the hands and feet and other inferior members live by the same life and are sensitive by the same sense which is originally in the heart and head of the same body yet they are not so lively and sensitive as the heart and head but in a competent measure and proportion fit for every one of them So it is in the mysticall body of Christ betweene him the head and them his believing and justified members as I have before touched So that here we have an intollerable calumny and slander laid upon GODS sacred truth and the true professors of the same Secondly he utters a notorious untruth when he saith that to bee righteous by the same righteousnes which Christ performed is nothing else but to be performers of every act of his obedience in our persons Thirdly it is a wicked error to thinke as hee doth that obedience and righteousnes ether performed by ourselves or communicated to us should make GOD countable to us that is bound to give us the greatest rewards For the righteousnes of justification and the holynes and obedience of sanctification are onely free gifts which GOD gives to make us capable of eternall life and fit to stand in his presence and to see and enjoy his glory not bands to tye himselfe and to make him countable to us for if we be righteous what give we to him or what receiveth he at our hands Iob 35.7 eternall life though by Christ purchased for us yet is the free gift of GOD in Christ. Rom. 6.23 Here therefore this sublimate Doctor doth bewray his owne ignorance in the maine mysteries of salvation and is as David saith Psal. 14. become filthy stinking and abominable in his thoughts and imaginations concerning GOD himselfe while hee doateth after Socinian subtilties and sets himselfe to be singular by preaching his fond errors and heresies Lastly after all this in conclusion hee takes upon him to elude and evacuate those most plaine testimonies of holy Scripture wherein Christ is sayd to cloath and cover us with the garments of salvation and the robe of his righteousnesse Isa 61.10 that our sinnes and staines being thereby covered Psal. 32.1 sinne might no more be imputed to us but we in the robes of his righteousnesse may stand cloathed as with long white linnen robes Revel 19.8 And like Iacob in the garments of the first borne yeelding a sweet smelling savour may be accepted of GOD our heavenly father First hee saith that GOD in the justification of sinners cloathes none with the letter of Christs righteousnesse but every man that believes with the Spirit of it that is not with the righteousnesse it self but with the fruite and benefit of it that is with faith counted for righteousnesse where note that in his conceipt the righteousnesse of a justified man is a thing inhaerent in himselfe and a worke performed in his owne person not communicated to him from another ab extra as garments are and so no cloathing here is one grosse absurdity like as if one should say a mans cloathes are not on him but in him That speech of Paul these hands have ministred to my necessitie Act 20.34 are nothing to the purpose for he doth not say his hands were his necessary meat and cloathes but by working did get him necessaries and so Christ by his obedience procured righteousnesse for us which he doth communicate to us and cloathes us with and by GOD it is imputed to us and this Calvin calles righteousnesse gotten by Christs death and resurrection and all this is for us and against himselfe The other instances which hee brings from Scripture to prove that Christs righteousnesse is by a metonymie of the cause for the effect used to signifie the fruite and effect of it in us prove no such thing at all The first of them Iohn 17.3 this is eternall life to know thee the onely true GOD c. It is mistaken for to know GOD and Christ that is to have experimentall knowledge of GOD and Christ and to enjoy GOD in Christ as the word know by an Hebraisme signifies is not there mentioned as the efficient cause of eternall life but as the thing wherein it doth formally consist So also that speech Iob 33 26. as Master Perkins truely expounds it doth not speake of the fruite of a mans righteousnesse which GOD renders to him but of the righteousnesse of Christ which GOD renders to a man a fresh and after temptation doubting and distresse makes him feele and enioy it in himselfe when by repentance and humble and faithfull prayer hee seekes it And although the nation of the Israelites are often as hee alledgeth called by the name of Jacob in Scripture because he was their Father and they his naturall progeny yet this proves onely that the Scripture useth tropes of speech many times which we acknowledge willingly and in the next Chapter will prove fully Where hee forgetting and contradicting himselfe utterly disclaimes tropes and figures and exclaimes against all the learned who hold that Saint Paul useth a trope in saying that faith is imputed for righteousnesse Well for the present wee will grant him that our cleannesse from the guilt of sinne and the state of righteous and justified persons wherein we stand before GOD being the issue and fruite of Christs satisfaction communicated to us may very well be called by a trope the righteousnesse of Christ but this doth not overthrow but rather strongly prove the communion and imputation of Christs righteousnes to us Thus we see how hee labours in the fire and in vaine beats his braines and out of the confusion and distemper of them doth say and gainsay affirme and deny the same things oftentimes being like a clowd without water carried about with winds sometimes one way and againe the contrary way and never settling upon solid truth nor building upon a sure foundation Now what he promiseth in the conclusion of this Chapter you shall see how hee performeth by my answer to his second Chapter wherein as he begins here so he goeth on entangling and beating himselfe forging and falsifying and in every passage discovering his ignorance and folly mingled with much impudency hereticall perversenesse and pravity which that it may better appeare and that we may see his Socinian heresie to the bottome clearely I will lay downe the chiefe heads of the Doctrine of Justification as it is taught in the Scriptures and maintained by all Orthodox Divines both ancient and moderne Justification taken in a full sense is that act of GOD by which he justifies his elect and faithfull in his son Iesus Christ by the communion of his spirit that is doth make them righteous by Christs perfect righteousnes and full satisfaction spiritually made theirs and doth count them righteous by imputing the same unto them and doth declare them to be righteous inwardly to
with him then are our sinnes made his by communion and in him satisfied and his righteousnes and satisfaction is made ours and we thereby are pardoned and iustified by it as it is made ours and is not the righteousnes of a stranger nor of one who is another so different from us but that he and we are one spirituall body and all his benefits are ours and we have an interest in them and possesse them and enioy them so far as every one hath need of them As this argument tends to overthrow our union with Christ so A. Wotton in a manuscript of essayes doth professe that our union with Christ is onely metaphoricall Secondly they argue that the righteousnes of Christ cannot be sufficient for the elect nor counted to them for all righteousnesse which is in effect a denying of Christ to be GOD and man in one person for if they acknowledg him to be GOD they must needs hold that his righteousnes and fulfilling of the Law is of more worth and value then if all men in the world had fulfilled the Law in their owne persons without failing in one point Thirdly they argue that if Christ his righteousnes and satisfaction be so made ours and imputed to us that the Law may be said to be fulfilled in us we may said to have satisfied GODS iustice in him our head and by him our surety then is there no place left for pardon and free forgivenesse of our sinnes for pardon and satisfaction are contrary By which they overthrow the Doctrine of redemption and of Christs satisfaction for us and deny Christ to be our redeemer and to have paid our ransome and made a full satisfaction to the justice of GOD for our sinnes contrary to the Scriptures and the judgement and beliefe of all Christian Divines who teach that Christ hath paid our ransome is our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our redeemer And though GODS justice exacted of Christ our surety a full ransome and did not abate him the least farthing of our debt yet we are freely pardoned and have free forgivenesse and are freely iustified by GODS grace because hee did freely give his owne son to satisfy fulfill the Law for us doth freely by his grace and the free gift of his spirit unite us to Christ and make us partakers of his satisfaction imputing his satisfaction freely to us doth for it freely forgive our sinnes and justifie us Fourthly while they argue that faith in a proper sense is all the righteousnes which the faithfull have for justification and yet faith is not any formall righteousnes by their owne confession yea they deny that any formall righteousnes is required in justification hereby they deny the Saints justified to be righteous contrary to the Scriptures which call them the righteous and the generation of the righteous Psal. 1.6 and 14.5 and the righteous nation Isa. 26.2 and in many other places which title GODS spirit would never give to them if they were not formally righteous by righteousnes communicated to them after a spirituall heavenly manner For to hold as they doe that men are justified and counted righteous without any formall righteousnes which doth constitute and give being to a righteous and justified man as he is righteous and justified is a monstrous opinion contrary to reason Fiftly while they deny that the faithfull are constituted and made formally righteous by the obedience of Christ communicated and imputed to them which the Apostle in expresse wordes doth affirme Rom. 5.19 and 8.4 and Rom. 10.4 they in heate of argument fall into the Pelagian heresie and are forced to deny that Adams sinne and disobedience is communicated and imputed to his posterity so as that they are formally sinners by it And rather then they will yeeld that infants which dye before they commit actuall transgression in their owne persons are punished with death because they are guilty of Adams sinne they doe blasphemously affirme that GOD being offended and moved to wrath by the sinnes of parents will out of the magnificence of his judgement and rage of his iustice destroy innocent babes with their sinfull parents for terrour to others which is contrary to GODS word and Law which teach that children shal not dye for the sinnes of their parents unlesse they bee partakers with them either by communion and imputation or by imitation and approbation Whereas they bring for instance that the children of Korah were destroyed with their father though they were innocent and not partakers in the sinne herein they contradict the Scriptures which expressely affirme that the children of Korah dyed not numb 26.11 For they undoubtedly upon Moses his threatning of sudden destruction fled from their fathers tents and escaped and onely they perished who would not be admonished by Moses to separate themselves from the congregation of Korah but adhering to him were partakers of his conspiracy and sinne of rebellion Sixtly when they to colour their heresie proclayme Christs righteousnes to bee the meritorious cause of iustification and yet deny communion and imputation of it to true beleevers what is this but to hold that Christs righteousnes is meritorious to them who have no interest in it which being granted it will follow That Christs righteousnes doth merit for infidels and damned reprobates and doth as much for the justifying of them as it doth to justifie the Elect and faithfull For true reason can conceive no cause why Christ doth merit more or conferre more to the justification of the elect and faithfull by his righteousnesse then hee doth to Infidels and reprobates but onely this that he communicates it to the elect gives them a proper interest in it and makes them truely partakers of it so that it is imputed to them and made their meritorious ransome this while these men deny they deny Christs righteousnes to merit any more for the faithfull then for damned reprobates And thus their bent is to set up Pelagian and Arminian free will and to make this the onely difference betweene them that are justified and them that are damned that whereas both alike have equall share in Christs merits and Christ hath merited as much for the one as the other and given as much grace for iustification the one having power of free will doth use it and will beleeve and so is iustified by his faith imputed for righteousnes the other will not use the universall grace given to him nor beleeve which he might doe if he would and therefore is damned which is a most horrible and abominable Doctrine and hereticall opinion Lastly they argue that as in the first Covenant GOD required workes of the Law performed by every man in his owne person and this was the condition which man was to performe for iustification and eternall life and so that Covenant was not free but conditionall So in the new Covenant GOD requires faith
as it comprehends Christs righteousnesse is counted to him that hath it righteousnes and Christs righteousnesse which the beleever by faith possesseth is set on his skore for iustification A second notorious untruth is that such a figure of speech as this is not to be found in all the Apostles writings besides For the same expression and figure of speeches used by this Apostle Cap. 2.26 as I have before plainely shewed Yea foure times in the foure last verses is the same trope used uncircumcision first for a man uncircumcised and secondly for the state of an uncircumcised Gentile and circumcision for a circumcised Iew and againe for inward sanctification whereof circumcision was the signe and Sacrament and ten severall times doth he tropically by faith meane the Gospell and Doctrine thereof which is the obiect of faith Gal. 3 as I have before noted where he discourseth about this weighty point of iustification A third impudent lye and manifest falshood is that the Apostle time after time and in one place after another useth the word faith or beleeving imputed without ever explaining himselfe or changing his speech For that which he calls faith and beleeving and faith it is imputed for righteousnes vers 3. and 5. he explaining himselfe and changing his speech v. 6.11 calls it righteousnes and saith GOD imputeth righteousnes and righteousnesse is imputed In a word I doe challenge him to shew one place in all the writings of this Apostle wherein he useth this phrase of faith or beleeving imputed for righteousnes except onely here in this Chapter and in Gal 3. In both which places he cites that testimony of Moses concerning Abraham that GOD counted faith to him for righteousnes and urgeth it in the phrase of Moses but in all other places where he writes of iustification he useth his owne expressions and saith that wee are iustified by Christs satisfaction made for our redemption as Rom. 3.24 and by his obedience and fulfilling of the Law Rom. 5.19 and 8.4 and 10.3.4 and that Christ is made to us righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 and we are made the righteousnes of GOD in him 2 Cor. 5.21 If he cannot shew any place besides these then let him bee ashamed of his doings in that he hath bent his tongue and pen like a bow for lyes and shootes out in every passage so many notorious untruthes that hee may bee suspected to have full furnished his quiver from the armorie of the father of lyes the Prince of darknesse The second Argument SEcondly verse 5. it is said that to him that beleeveth his faith is imputed to him for righteousnes From which clause it is evident that that faith whatsoever we understand by it which is imputed is his somewhat that wayes truely and properly called his before such imputation of it bee made unto him Now it cannot be said of the righteousnesse of Christ that it is any mans before the imputation of it to him but faith properly taken is the beleevers before it be imputed at least in order of nature though not in time Therefore by faith which is here said to be imputed cannot be meant the righteousnesse of Christ. Answer THe righteousnes of Christ by spirituall union and communion which every true beleever hath with Christ is as truely his as his faith For Christ is made unto him righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 and he is made the righteousnesse of GOD in Christ 2 Cor. 5.22 and that in order of nature before it is counted his righteousnesse For GOD whose judgement is according to truth doth not count that to the beleever which he hath not before communicated or at the same time doth communicate to him Secondly I answer that if faith which is here called his faith be faith in a proper sense and be imputed for righteousnesse to justification then is man justified by his owne inherent righteousnesse and by a worke done and performed in his owne person which every Orthodox Divine will tell him is flat popery or worse The third Argument THirdly granting a trope or Metonymie in this place and that by faith is meant the object of it or the thing beleeved yet it will not follow from hence that the righteousnesse of Christ should be said to bee imputed here but either GOD himselfe or the promise of GOD made to Abraham For it is said verse 3. that Abraham beleeved GOD not that he beleeved Christs righteousnes except we set up another trope to maintaine the former and by GOD will say is meant the righteousnes of Christ which would bee not a trope or figure but rather a monster of speech Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is not here said to be imputed for righteousnesse but faith properly taken Yea whereas the object of faith as justifying is expressed with great variety of words and termes in Scripture in all this variety there is not once to bee found the least mention of the righteousnes of Christ as if the holy Ghost foreseeing the kindling of this false fire had purposely withdrawne or withheld all fuell that might feed it Sometimes Christ in person is made the obiect of this faith Iohn 3.16 besides many such expressions Sometimes Christ in his Doctrine or the Doctrine and word of Christ Iohn 5.46 had yee beleeved Moses yee would have beleeved mee Sometimes Christ in the relation of his person and that either as he stands related unto GOD as his father Iohn 20.31 or else as hee stands related to those ancient promises of GOD made unto the Iewes concerning a Messiah to be given and sent unto them Iohn 8.24 except yee beleeve that I am hee yee shall dye in your sinnes Sometimes the raising up of Christ from the dead as Rom. 10.9 Sometimes GOD himselfe is made the obiect of faith 1. Pet. 1.21 Sometimes the record or testimony of GOD concerning his sonne is made the obiect of faith 1. Ioh. 5.10 In all this variety or diversity of expressing the obiect of faith as iustifying there is no sound or intimation of the righteousnes or active obedience of Christ. Not but that the righteousnesse of Christ is and ought to bee beleeved as well as other things revealed and affirmed in the Scriptures yea it is of nearer concernment to the maine to beleeve it then the beleeving of many things besides comprehended in the Scriptures as well as it but the reason I conceive why it is not numbred or reckoned up among the obiects of faith as iustifying is because though it ought and cannot but be beleeved by that faith which iustifyeth yet it may be beleeved also by such a faith which is so farre from iustifying that it denyeth this Christ whose righteousnesse notwithstanding it beleeveth to be the sonne of GOD. Thus some of his owne nation the Iewes have given testimony to his righteousnesse and innocency who yet received him not for their Messiah nor beleeved him to be GOD. And this is the frame constitution of the Turkish faith for the
most part at this day Answere IN this third argument he undertakes to prove that if faith were said to be imputed by a trope or metonymie and that by faith were meant the object of it yet Christs righteousnesse cannot be meant because the object of that faith which is said to be imputed is GOD himselfe or the promise of GOD But to understand that by GOD is meant Christs righteousnes would be not a trope or figure of speech but a monster of speech To which I answere that Abrahams faith which was imputed was a believing that GOD in Christ was his shield and his exceeding great reward Gen. 15.1 Now no man can in believing by a true faith separate the righteousnes and full satisfaction of Christ GOD and man from Christ himselfe To beleeve GOD to be our reward is to believe that GOD is become our righteousnes and so our reward for the reward of blessednes is the reward of righteousnes and is called the Crowne of righteousnes 2. Tim. 4. So that the argument may be turned thus against himselfe Whosoever truely believes GOD to be his reward he believes that GOD is righteousnesse and so Christ as he is IEHOVAH his righteousnes Abraham when his faith was counted to him for righteousnesse believed that God was his reward Therefore hee believed that God was his righteousnes and so Christ as hee is IEHOVAH our righteousnes was the obiect of his justifying faith Secondly he hath here one most grosse and absurd speech which shewes either his palpable ignorance in Rhetorick or desperat impudency That is that if one should speak of believing God and meane believing Christs righteousnes this were not a trope or figure but a monster of speech Here I will intreat him to tell me ingenuously whether he doth hold the Lord Christ who appeared and spake to Abraham and the Fathers and whom they believed to be the true God If he denyeth him to be the true God then wee shall take him to be in all points of heresie a compleat Socinian if hee grants that Christ is God and his righteousnes performed in our nature is the righteousnes of God and inseparable from his person then hee who truely believes in Christ and enjoyes him must needs believe his righteousnes and enjoy it and to speak of believing in Christ God our shield and reward and to meane not his Godhead barely or his naked person but his righteousnes also and that he is IEHOVAH our righteousnes this is but a metonymie of the subject which non cane call a monster of speech but hee who is ignorant in the grounds of Rhetorick Thirdly in his denying that Christs righteousnes is the object of justifying faith he doth most openly contradict that which hee hath writ in the former Chapter in the 6 part where hee professeth that Christ and his righteousnes is the object of that faith which is imputed and if it doth not lay hold on Christ it is not capable of imputation His rehearsing of the variety of the objects of faith mentioned in the Scripture and denying Christs righteousnes to be any object or thing beleeved hee doth notoriously delude and gull his readers and shewes great impudency for what more often required in the Scripture to be beleeved then that Christ is our true sacrifice for sinne and our sacrifice of righteousnes and that he is the end and fulfilling of the Law for righteousnes to every one that beleeveth yea he gives himselfe the ly and by his owne argument overthrowes his conclusion For among the things which the Scriptures require that we should believe he reckons Christ himselfe and the doctrine of Christ and the promise of Christ the testimony which GOD hath given of his Son and the resurrection of Christ every one of which includes in it Christs righteousnes for if wee believe in Christ aright wee believe him to be the righteous servant of GOD in whom his soule delighteth who hath fulfilled all righteousnesse is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every beleever and is Iehovah our righteousnes such a one he was promised to be The Gospel which is his doctrine teacheth him to be such a one The testimony which GOD hath given of him is that in him we have eternall life which is the crowne of righteousnes His resurrection is the evidence of his righteousnes and that the Law was fulfilled by him and death therefore could not hold him captive so that by rehearsing these as the objects of faith hee confuts himselfe and confirmes our doctrine And lastly he professeth vaine tergiversation openly by granting that Christs righteousnes is to be believed But whereas hee saith that Turkes and Iewes believe not Christ and yet believe his righteousnes this is a monster in speech sense and reason For how can a man beleeve that a person which is not is righteous and that righteousnes may subsist without a subject None can beleeve Christs righteousnes to be as the Scripture calles it the righteousnes of GOD unlesse he believe Christ to be GOD. Some Turks acknowledg Christ to have beene a Prophet but his perfect righteousnes performed to the whole Law for us they do not believe And the Iewes to this day blaspheme Christ and call him a lyar an Impostor a deceiver and malefactor justly crucified for his wickednes And therefore in this argument he sheweth that his tongue and pen are applied to ly and forge to contradict himselfe and to be constant in nothing but in holding obstinately his hereticall conclusions 4 Argument FOurthly that faith which is said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse ver 3. is that faith by which he believed in God that quickeneth the dead and calleth the things which are not as if they were ver 17. But the righteousnesse of Christ can in no tollerable construction or congruity of speech be called that faith by which Abraham beleeved in God that quickeneth the dead Therefore the righteousnes of Christ is not that faith which is here said to be imputed for righteousnesse Answere I Answere first that a true believer may truely say my righteousnes which I have in Christ is this that I believe in God who quickneth the dead and graciously calleth and counteth me who am not righteous in my selfe nor by my owne righteousnes a righteous and justified person Secondly that God did not quicken and raise up Christ till he had perfectly fulfilled all righteousnesse and satisfied the law for us as our surety Neither doth hee quicken any dead but through his righteousnes and by his spirit communicating it to them the debtor or his surety layd up in prison cannot be released til the debt be fully discharged And therefore Christs righteousnes is comprehended by that faith which believeth in God who quickeneth the dead because quickning the dead necessarily presupposeth their communion of the righteousnes of Christ and under the name of that faith may by a metonimie be truely said to be imputed to justification
5 Argument FIftly the faith imputed to Abraham ver 3. is that faith wherein he is said not to be weak ver 19. and is opposed to doubting of the promise of God through unbeliefe ver 20. But the righteousnes of Christ cannot be conceived to be that wherein Abraham was not weak neither doth the righteousnes of Christ carry in it any opposition to doubting of the promise through unbeliefe being a thing of a differing kind and nature from it But betweene faith properly taken or a firme beleeving and doubting through unbeliefe there is a direct and perfect opposition And therefore it is faith in this sence and not the righteousnes of Christ which is said to bee imputed for righteousnesse Answer I Answer that though Christs righteousnesse bee a thing different from the beleevers faith yet when the beleever by a strong faith and without doubting possesseth Christ and his faith doth spiritually comprehend in it Christs righteousnesse then GOD counts it to him for righteousnes that is judgeth him a righteous man by communion of Christs righteousnesse but doth not iudge his faith and Christs righteousnes to be one the same very thing This argument is not to the matter It may bee turned against himselfe thus The more strong a man is in faith and farre from doubting of the promise through unbeliefe the more firmely he is united to Christ and the more full communion hee hath of Christs righteousnesse and with more reason may hee being so faithfull be counted righteous and Christs righteousnes under the name of faith be imputed to him This was Abrahams case he was strong in faith and doubted not and therefore having firme union with Christ and communion of all his benefits GOD justly imputed faith to him for righteousnesse and counted him so beleeving iustified and righteous by Christs righteousnesse and so in like case GOD will deale with other beleevers The sixt Argument SIxtly that faith which was imputed to Abraham was that by which he was assured that he who had promised was able also to doe it verse 21. and 22. But the righteousnesse of Christ is not capable of any such description as this that by it Abraham was fully assured c. Therefore it is not that which was imputed to Abraham Answer I Answer to this as to the former It is not to the matter untill he first prove that the name of one thing may not bee used by a Metonymie to expresse another except these two things be both one the same thing we wil deride such foolish arguments Though Christs righteousnesse be not one and the same thing with faith yet the more it doth assure us of the performance of GODS promise in Christ the more closely it comprehends Christs righteousnes and the more iust cause there is that under the name of faith Christs righteousnesse should be imputed by a Metonymie The seventh Argument SEventhly that which shall be imputed unto us for righteousnesse is said to be our beleeving in him that raised up Christ from the dead verse 24. But the righteousnesse of Christ is not our beleeving on him that raised Christ from the dead therefore it cannot be that that is said to bee imputed for righteousnesse unto us Answer THere is no faith under the name whereof Christs righteousnesse may so fitly bee expressed as that which is a beleeving on him who raised up Christ from the dead for we cannot truely beleeve GODS raising of Christ from death but withall wee must beleeve that GODS justice is by him our surety fully satisfied and his Law fulfilled in our behalfe and we being partakers thereof and enjoying it by faith GOD may justly impute this faith to us for righteousnesse Thus his arguments being all from his matter are easily turned upon himselfe 8 Argument EIghtly whereas the question or point of imputation in justification is handled onely in this passage of Scripture for those other places Gal. 3. and Iames 2. onely mention it but insist not at all upon any declaration or explication thereof it is no wayes probable but that the Apostle should speake somewhat distinctly and plainely of the nature of it otherwise hee might seeme rather to lay a stumbling block in our way then to have written any thing for our learning and comfort If wee 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 then the tenour of the discourse is as cleere and full as may be the streame of the whole Chapter runnes limpid and untroubled but if wee bring in a tropicall and metonymicall signification and by faith will compell Paul to meane the righteousnesse of Christ we cloath the Sun with sackcloath and turne Pauls perspicuity into a greater obscurity then any light in the Scripture knoweth how to comfort or to relieve The word faith being a terme frequently used in Scripture is yet never found to signifie the righteousnesse of Christ the holy Ghost never putting this sword into that sheath neither is there any rule of Grammar or figure in Rethorick that knowes how to salve up the inconsistence of such an interpretation Answer THis argument is no more but his owne bare affirmation that it is probable the Apostle in this place where he handles the point of imputation would speak plainly and it is more plaine to speak of faith imputed in a proper sense the tropicall and metonymicall sense or interpretation brought in is a compelling of Paul to meane by faith the righteousnesse of Christ and thereby we cloath the sun with sackcloath in which multiplicity of words wee finde much vanity As for imputation in justification it is not the maine and principall point which the Apostle insists upon the maine and principall points of justification are in the 3. and 5. Chapter handled plainely and in the 8 9 and 10. Chapters where he plainely teacheth that the righteousnes by which wee are constituted and made righteous before GOD is Christs obedience and fulfilling of the Law The imputation of faith comes in onely by the way being occasioned by that testimony of Moses concerning Abraham which the Apostle brings to prove that iustification is not by our owne performance or workes of the Law but by a righteousnes which GOD gives even the fulfilling of the Law by Christ for our redemption which wee receive and enioy by faith so certainely that if we bee faithfull beleevers in Christ then are wee righteous euen in GODS account for true faith cannot be nor subsist in any who hath not communion of Christs righteousnesse This to all iudicious men is more plaine and limpid and cleere then to take faith in a proper sense and to set on it the Crowne of Christs righteousnesse especially seeing the Apostle in the 6. and 11. verses sheweth that the thing properly imputed is righteousnesse and therefore not faith which cannot properly be called or counted righteousnes yea he
tells us it is a propitiation to cover our sins which in no case can bee properly said of faith As for his words wherein he affirmes that there is more comfort in faith imputed then in the righteousnesse of Christ imputed they are most wicked and more hatefull then any poperie yea blasphemous in exalting mans faith into the royall Throne of Christs righteousnesse and calling the teaching of the imputation thereof the laying of a stumbling block in our way It is to be feared that he who thus speakes and writes hath stumbled at Christ the precious stone which GOD hath laid in his Zion as the Apostle intimates speaking of them who make the righteousnes of Christ a stumbling block and stone of offence Rom. 9.33 In the next place after these frivolous arguments hee takes upon him to answer some places of the Apostle which are produced by us and objected against him wherein faith and hope are used to signifie their obiects that is the things beleeved and hoped for as Gal. 1 22· and 3.23 and Colos. 1.5 And here he doth use notable trifling and most absurd tergiversation First hee grants the Apostle doth use in his writings such tropes of speech which is a thing so manifest that impudency it selfe is ashamed to deny it And by granting this he contradicts what hee hath before affirmed to wit that in all the Apostles writings such a trope is not to be found Secondly hee opposeth what before hee granted by a forged and false distinction affirming that the habit of faith may bee used to signifie the obiect but not the act Cujus contrarium est verissimum For in the places obiected the act as well as the habit and especially the act of faith and hope are to be understood for the habit is ordained to be exercised about the proper obiect but it never is exercised about it nor reacheth to it but by the act faith by believing comprehends Christ and his righteousnes and so doth hope by the acts of it reach that within the vaile And indeed if wee observe it we shall see in this discourse that faith which signifies the habit as well as believing which is the act is here said to be imputed for righteousnes as ver 5. and 9. and therefore this distinction helpes him nothing at all Thirdly hee contradicts himselfe againe and grants that the act may be used to expresse the object but then he flees to his old shift saying that Christs righteousnesse is not the object of justifying faith or of faith as justifying which error I have before confuted and indeed it is contrary to all reason for the proper object of faith as it is an instrument of justification is nothing else but righteousnes Fourthly he utters a notable untruth when he saith that the Scripture where it speakes of faith as justifying makes not the least mention of Christs righteousnes and fulfilling of the Law Let him read Rom. 3.24 and 10.4 and tell me whether the believing of the man to whom Christ is the end or fulfilling of the Law for righteousnes be not justifying faith when we are said to be justified by the redemption which is in Jesus Christ whether our beleeving of that our redemption be not a true justifying faith Lastly he argues without reason that though Christs righteousnes be a thing which is to be belived so is a partial object of faith yet it is not the object of justifying faith because creation of the world Christs being born of a virgin and his ascention are partiall objects and yet not of faith as it is justifying but either Christ himselfe or the promies of God concerning the redemption and salvation of the world by him To which I answere 1 that his sylogism is without mood or figure it is as if I should thus reason That Master Goodwin though he be a living creature yet because some living creatures as Asses and Apes are not reasonable creatures therefore he is not a reasonable creature 2. I must tell him there is but one true saving faith and that is iustifying faith and he who can by true holy faith beleeve aright the creation or the nativity of Christ borne of a virgin or his ascention he hath iustifying faith though when faith is acting about iustification the proper obiect is righteousnes even Christs full satisfaction for our redemption and salvation and the iustifying act is beleeving that Christ is made unto us of God righteousnes and we are made the righteousnes of God in him And faith imputed for righteousnes ver 3. is righteousnes imputed ver 6. and 11. Thus you see all circumstances in the context stand up in contestation with his exposition which by faith here said to be imputed understands faith in a proper sense and per se not faith in respect to Christs righteousnes But that I may not seeme to conceale any thing nor give any thing for his upon trust I will set downe these tergiversations in his owne words Socinianisme IF it be obiected that faith is sometimes put for the obiect of faith as Gal. 3.23 before faith came and Gal. 1.22 he preacheth the faith c. And may be so used with a good propriety of speech marke this bull that faith put for the obiect of it is a proper speech as hope is put for the thing hoped for which is an expression usuall in Scripture To this I answere first by concession it is true the name of the faculty is sometimes put for the obiect appropriated to it neither is there any hardnes or cause of offence or mistake in such an expression but it rather addes a grace and countenance to the sentence wherein it is used seasonably and with iudgement as might be exemplified by severall Scripture instances if it were pertinent But 2. by way of opposition I answer Here observe how he playes Jack a both sides First though the faculty bee sometimes put for the obiect yet the act is seldome or never to my remembrance the act or exercise of hope is never put for the things hoped for but hope it selfe is sometimes found in that signification as Col. 1.5 for the hope which is laid up in heaven so Tit. 2.13 looking for the blessed hope Now that which is here said to bee imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse was not the habit of his faith but Abraham beleeved GOD that is exercised or put forth an act of faith and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse Secondly though it should bee granted that as well the act as the habit or faculty may be sometimes put for the object yet when the act and object have beene named together and the act expressed and specified by an object proper to it and somewhat immediately ascribed to the act under that consideration all which is plainely seene in this clause Abraham beleeved GOD and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse in this case to conceive or to affirme that what is so ascribed
is neither ascribed unto the act it selfe there mentioned which is here Abrahams beleeving nor to the obiect mentioned likewise with it which is here GOD Abraham beleeved GOD but to something really differing from them both not so much as once mentioned in all the discourse as namely to the righteousnes of Christ what is this but to turne a mans back upon the text to looke out an interpretation to exchange that which is plainly affirmed with what is not so much as is obscurely intimated or implyed to make the Apostle to speake as never man spake besides not for the wisedom and excellency of his speech but for the uncouth abstrusenes of his meaning Doubtlesse no instance is to be found of any Author whatsoever sacred or prophane who so farre abhorred to be understood in what he spake as to put his mind into wordes of such a construction Thirdly and lastly neither is the righteousnesse of Christ the object of faith as justifying as hath bin said nor doth the Scripture where it speaks of faith as justifying which are places not a few make the least mention or give the least intimation of such a thing It is true the Scriptures often propound the righteousnes of Christ or his obedience to the law as that which is to be beleeved and so it may be termed a partiall object of faith somewhat that is and ought to be beleeved but so the creation of the world is propounded to bee beleeved and that Cain was Adams sonne is somewhat to bee beleeved And generally whatsoever the Scriptures affirme may be called a partiall obiect of faith But the obiect of faith properly as it iustifieth is either Christ himselfe or the promise of GOD concerning the Redemption and salvation of the world by him The righteousnes of Christ is no more the object of faith as iustifying then either his being borne of a Virgin or his ascending into heaven or the like and either the one or the other might as well be here said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousnes in that respect as his righteousnesse Thus you see at large how many passages and circumstances in the context stand up in contestation with that exposition which by Pauls faith in this Chapter will needes understand Christs righteousnesse Answere THat which I have noted before gives light to see many tergiversations and much trifling in this passage Let mee onely here desire him to repeat the wordes which he chiefly stands upon to wit Abraham beleeved GOD and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse and tell mee whether righteousnes bee not named which was imputed to Abraham and all who truely beleeve as appeares verse 6. and 11. and what righteousnesse can bee found fit to justifie a man before GOD besides Christs righteousnesse Socinianisme FOurthly and lastly this interpretation we contend for according to which the word faith or beleeving is to bee taken properly in all the passages mentioned and not tropically or metonymically was the common interpretation anciently received and followed by the Church of GOD from the primitive times and for 1500. yeares was never questioned or contradicted neither did the contrary opinion ever looke out into the world till the yesterday of the last age I speak this somewhat above the analogie and proportion of mine owne reading in matters of antiquitie which I confesse will not amount to any such confidence but I am confident in this behalfe upon the undertaking of another who searched diligently what interpretation of this Scripture ruled amongst the learned and Orthodox writers from time to time so that it is but a calumny of evill report brought upon the opinion and interpretation of this Scripture which we maintaine unworthy the tongue or pen of any learned or sober man to make either Arminius or Socinus the Authors or first founders of either And for the last hundred yeares and upward from Luther and Calvins times the fairest streame of interpreters so runs as to water and refresh the same interpretation you will easily incline I presume to beleeve both the one and the other that both former and latter times have beene friends and favourers to the interpretation given if you will please with diligence and without partiality to examine these few testimonies and passages following as they stand in their severall Authors respectively Christianisme HEre he enters into his fourth last way of confirmation that is to confirme his opinion and interpretation by testimony of learned Divines both ancient and moderne writers even from the Primitive times to the yeare 150. after Christ. His beginning is with great swelling words and with wonderfull confidence though builded not upon any reading or knowledg of his owne but upon the testimony of another doubtles of some Socinian braggadogo or impudent Arminian whom hee is ashamed to name who are all of this spirit that when they build upon weakest ground and are most strongly convinced by testimonies of Scripture and unanswerable arguments then they affirme and outface most impudently and brag and ly as if they contended to winne the whetstone Nay we think that this confession of his small reading is out of modesty or out of Satanicall subtilty that as the Divel in the person of the Serpent vented his lies to our first Parents so he may belch out desperate lies and forgeries under the person of another concealed Author verily I feare the latter because on anothers word hee doth so boldly and impudently charge all the learned of the best note in this age with calumny and false report raised upon his opinion unworthy the tongue and pen of sober and learned men in that they make Arminius or Socinus chiefe and first Authors of it and with out blushing affirmes that the fairest streame of interpreters from the time of Luther and Calvin runnes as water to refresh his interpretation In both which I find such manifest falsehood that no man of any reading can so speake and affirme without a brasen face maintaining wilfull and manifest lies against his owne conscience First to the bold charge of our learned Divines with calumny for taxing Socinus and Arminius as chiefe and first Authors of his opinion I answere That although that infamous heretick Petrus Abailardus who was gelded for his incontinence by a man whose daughter hee had abused laid the first ground of this opinion that Christs satisfaction is not imputed to iustification as Saint Bernard shewes Epist. 190. Yet the first Authors who expressely affirmed that fides per se that is faith by it selfe in a proper sense without a trope is by the Apostle said to be imputed for righteousnes were Servetus as Calvin shewes in opusculis Socinus part 4. cap. 4 and 11. de Christo Servatore And Arminius in Epist. ad Hippolitum de collibus thes 5. Secondly to his false pretence of the maine streame of writers since Luther and Calvin so running as water to refresh his interpretation I do answere and
are not to seeke righteousnes by our owne workes but by faith in Christ for if wee can obtaine grace to believe in him and to lay hold on his righteousnesse wee are for Christ and his righteousnesse sake upon our believing counted righteous before GOD because by our communion which wee have with Christ by the Spirit dwelling in us and enabling us to believe The righteousnesse of the Law is fulfilled in us imputatively by the righteousnesse of another even of Christ which is also ours for we are flesh of his flesh that is one with him these are Musculus his owne words in which hee roundly expresseth himselfe in Rom. 8.4 and 10.3.4 Luthers words at which hee catcheth in vaine are to the same purpose in Gal. 3.6 GOD for Christs sake accounts this imperfect faith for perfect righteousnesse Here Luther doth not charge GOD with error or iniquity in judgement by judgeing and accounting that for perfect righteousnesse which is imperfect for his speech is tropicall imitating the phrase of the Apostle by imperfect faith hee meanes a true believer by a weak faith laying hold on Christs righteousnesse and by perfect righteousnesse a man set in a state of perfect righteousnesse by communion with Christ and this is the sense of the words that if a true believer doth lay hold on Christ by faith which in the best of us is but weake and imperfect yet GOD accounts him perfectly righteous with the righteousnesse of Christ which is most perfect and compleat Thus Luther expounds himselfe 1 Tom. pag 32. Editionis Ienensis Christ saith hee is in us by faith yea one with us but Christ is righteousnesse and a fulfiller of all GODS commaundements therefore wee also doe by him fulfill all GODS commandements when hee is by faith made ours And 2 Tom. pag. 515. Faith puts us upon Christs workes of righteousnesse without our owne workes and translates us out of the exile of our sinnes into the Kingdome of his righteousnes And Tom. 1. pag 106. By faith our sinnes are made no more our owne but Christs upon whom GOD hath laid the iniquities of us all and againe all Christs righteousnesse is made ours for he layeth his hand on us If a man had the tongue of men and Angels hee could not speake more fully for the communion and imputation of Christs righteousnes to believers for justification and of their sinnes to Christ for remission then Luther doth in these and divers other places as I shall more fully shew in the second Chapter As for Chamiers words who calles remission of sinnes the righteousnesse which is imputed to us they shew that faith is not that imputed righteousnesse for faith or believing is our act remission is GODS act who can forgive sinnes but GOD But indeed the meaning of Chamier is the same with Calvin to wit that our cleannesse from the guilt of sinne which is Passive remission or justification is that which GOD lookes upon in us when hee counts us righteous in Christ as I have before shewed wherefore I conclude with the contradictory of his conclusion which hee inferres upon the speeches of our Homilies and of other learned Authors to weet thus That wheresoever we find in the Scriptures or any Authors of sound learning this phrase of faith or believing imputed for righteousnesse we must not understand faith in a proper sense but the righteousnesse of Christ even his fulfilling of the Law for us which together with the power and merit of it so far as every believer hath need is communicated to him and imputed to him for justification For as a Merchant cannot be said to be enriched by the gaine of a commodity which never was his owne and in which hee never had any interest or propriety nor any man by an office which was never his owne nor by him executed So none can have the merit and benefit of Christs righteousnesse nor be said to bee thereby justified neither can any such thing be imputed to them except they have a propriety in it and communion of it Thus his instances and similitudes are turned against himselfe to the confusion of his haereticall opinion But that his sinne may appeare out of measure sinfull hee doth not content himselfe with his abusing wresting and perverting of the godly sayings of other Authors and using similitudes which are most contrary to his purpose but hee also layeth profane hands on the holy Scriptures That excellent saying Iob 33 26. which Master Perkins learnedly expounds to be meant of Christs righteousnesse which when men humbly seeke to GOD by repentance and faithfull prayers GOD renders unto them by renuing their sense and assurance of their communion with Christ in his whole satisfaction This Doctor novice most Popishly applyes to a mans owne righteousnesse and saith that GODS rendring to a man his righteousnesse is giving him the benefit of it not the righteousnesse it selfe And yet if wee should grant what hee perversely seekes it will availe him nothing for as the fruite and benefit which GOD renders to a man is not the fruit of a righteousnesse in which he hath no propriety or interest but is his righteousnesse so the fruite and benefit which we receive of Christs righteousnesse GOD renders to us when that righteousnesse is become ours in the propriety of it That place Ephes. 6.8 whatsoever good a man doth the same hee shall receive of the LORD it is for us and against himselfe for as the good which a man receives from GOD for well doing is the good fruite of his owne well doing so is the fruite and benefit which wee receive in our justification the fruite of Christs righteousnes made ours and imputed to us Those speeches Revel 13.10 and 15.10 here is the faith and patience of the Saints c. are not to be understood of the fruite and reward of their patience as the circumstances shew which are killing and slaying and leading into captivitie but of the patience and faith themselves that in such times they are seene tride and proved and GOD at such times gives them patience and faith by threatning and foretelling the finall destruction of their enemies as learned Brightman truely expounds the wordes Besides if patience and faith were here used to signifie the fruit and benefit of patience and faith yet he cannot say it is the fruit of any patience or faith but of the Saints themselves who receive the benefit Likewise if wee grant that in the other places Psal. 128.2 Labour signifies the fruit of labour and Heb. 9.28 Sin signifies the punishment of sinne and Gen. 19.15 iniquitie signifies the judgement of GOD on Sodom for iniquitie by a trope or Metonymie of the cause for the effect This proves that faith which is the hand or instrument of the soule receiving Christ with his righteousnes may by the same trope be used to signifie that state of righteousnes which we receive by it as by an hand or instrument Thus while he runs