of that shrubbe that is apt to beare it in Summer the naturall season for such births Thus Levie as we heard is said to have beene i. to have had a being in the loynes of Abraham And this all mankinde even Adams whole posterity had a being and subsistence in Adam Now there are none of these kinds of beings and subsistences of things but have their acts and operations proportionable and proper to them the perfecter being the perfecter and lesse dependent operation Things that have an actuall and compleate being out of their causes act and worke of themselves their causes that produced them as such having no communion or fellowship with them in their actions Things that have their beings onely in their causes act and operate in and by and with these onely as having their whole dependence on them and subsistence in them yet are these acts and operations of things in their causes onely as truely theirs though not as perfectly and compleately theirs as they are the causes themselves in and by whom they were performed Thus Levie did as truely pay tythes in Abraham as Abraham himselfe did in whom he paied them otherwise wee make the Scripture lesse true in affirming the one then the other So that act of eating the forbidden fruit by Adam was as truely the act of all his posterity as his owne though not so compleately and perfectly theirs as his hee having no dependance on them or subsistence in any of them therein but they all depending on him as one in and by whom God had given them all their beings and having their subsistence in him as the naturall productive roote of all their actuall compleate beings a The Fathers generally have taught this inexistence or being of all men in Adam Fuit Adam in illo perierunt omnes Amb. in Luc. lib. 7. Adam erat nos omnes omnes eramus ille unus Adam Certum manifestumque est alia esse propria cuique peccata in quibus hi tantum peccant quorum peccata sunt aliud hoc unum in quo omnes peccaverunt quando omnes ille unus homo suerunt Aug. de Peccat Merit Remis l. 1. c. 10. In Adamo omnes peccavimus ib. c. 13. Si parvuli quod vera fides habet nasiuntur peccatoreâ— profecto eo modo quo sunt peccatores etiam pravaticatores legis illius quae in Paradise lata est agnoscuntur Aug. de Civi l. 16. c. 27. Qui non fuerit regeneratus interibit anima illa de genere ejus quia testamentum meum dissipavit quando in Adam cum omnibus etiam ipse peccavit ib. There being then a certaine and unquestionable truth in this that Adams sinne was the sinne of his posteritie as well as of his person this the Scripture affirmeth and holdeth forth unto us as one maine ground and consideration why and how the world comes to be involved in the guilt and punishment of Adams transgression 2. Adams sinne comes to relate or to have reference to his posteritie in matter of pollution and defilement and consequently of guilt and punishment by naturall descent and propagation from him Adams person the fountaine and spring-head of all his posteritie being corrupted and poysoned with him except God should have wrought miraculously and above the course of nature either by a through purging of the fountaine before any streame issued from it or by dissevering and untwisting as it were the poyson from the waters in the very point and moment of their issue and source neither of which he was any wayes bound to doe could not but send forth streames of like corruption and defilement with the fountaine it selfe This the Scripture plainely teacheth in many places Who can bring a cleane thing out of an uncleane not one Iob 14.4 God himselfe by his ordinary power cannot doe it So our Saviour Ioh. 3.6 That which is borne of the flesh corrupted and weakened by sinne is by the course of nature whereunto God himselfe hath righteously consented flesh i. a creature or thing of the same sinfull and weake nature and condition with it And to forbeare other texts of like importance this way the Apostle Rom. 5.19 expresly affirmeth that by the disobedience of one meaning Adam many were made sinners not by the imputation of the Act of his sinne to them this is neither Sunne nor Moone neither Scripture nor good Reason but by corrupting and defiling his owne person by reason whereof all that are borne of him in a way of naturall dissent and propagation must needs be borne sinners 3. And lastly death and condemnation are justly come upon the world no so much to speake properly and with the Scriptures for Adams transgression as by Adams transgression partly as this transgression of his was the sinne and transgression of the world as hath beene already said and proved partly as by meanes of this sin the world I meane all the sonnes and daughters of men that are borne into it are become personally and so compleately sinfull In this sence it is said that by the offence of one death reigned viz. over all by one Rom. 5.17 and so that death passed over all in that all had sinned ver 12. And againe that judgement came by one unto condemnation ver 16. And that all men by nature are children of wrath c. Ephes 23. If men can find any propriety in the word Imputation to signifie any of these three Considerations let the sinne of Adam be said to be imputed to his posterity I shall no wayes contradict it but for any such imputation as is pretended and pressed by many by which men should be constituted and made formally sinners before God and the sinne no wayes looked upon as theirs but onely by meanes of such imputation I neither finde the Scriptures affirming nor am otherwise able to comprehend Though justification and salvation came unto the world by Christ the second Adam Concusi 10 sect 14 as condemnation and death came by the first Adam yet are there many different considerations and circumstances betweene the comming and bringing in of salvation by the one and of condemnation by the other The Apostle himselfe gives instance in two particulars wherein they differ greatly Rom. 5.15.16 And besides these there are many others As first the sinne of Adam by which he brought condemnation upon the world was as well the act of all his posteritie as his owne in which respect they may as truely be said to have brought condemnation upon themselves as Adam but that obedience by which Christ brought salvation into the world can with no propriety of speech nor with any consistence of truth be said to have beene theirs or performed by them who are saved by it so that these cannot now be said with any more truth to have saved themselves then if they had not beene saved at all It is said indeede that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himselfe 2 Cor.
obedience of one shal many be made righteous Hence it is argued that as by the imputation of Adams disobedience men are made formally sinners in like manner by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse men are made formally righteous To this I answere First that somewhat hath bin already delivered in this Discourse touching the sense and meaning of this Scripture as likewise touching the includencie and insufficiencie of this argument See Part 1. c. 21. Sect. 2.3 c. Secondly it is not here said that by the imputation of Adams disobedience men are made formally sinners but simply sinners that is either obnoxious to death and condemnation as Bishop Davenant (c) Certum est illam ipsamactualem inobedientiam nobis imputari ita ut per eam stemus damnati c. Bish Daven de Iusti Act. c. p. 363. with some others interpret and as the word sinner is often used in Scriptures d 1 Kin. 1.21 Pro. 6.29 Psal 109.7 c. or else sinners by propagation not imputation as Augustine e Proinde Apostolus cum illud peccatum ac mortem commemoraret quae ab uno in omnes propagatione transissent eum Principemposuit à quo propagatio generis humani sumpsit exordium August de Peccat Mer. Rem l. 1. c. 9. vi etiam c. 13. c. c. 15. Apostolus opponit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adami non ut actionem actioni sed ut satisfactionem culpae ut remedium morbo Pareus de Iustic Christi Act â—et Pass p. 173. of old and Peter Martyr and Musculus of late with divers others as may be seene at large in their Commentaries upon this Scripture So that according to either of these interpretations of the word sinners here is neither little nor much for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse so much urged and contended for Thirdly neither doth the Apostle here oppose unto or compare the obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam as one act unto or with another but as satisfaction to and with the provocation or the remedie to and with the disease Otherwise he should make sinnes of omission to be no disobedience because omissions are no acts And Adams transgression did not only stand in the commission of evill but in the omission of that which was good also Therefore Fourthly by that obedience of Christ whereby it is here said that many are or shall be made righteous that is justified we cannot understand that righteousnesse of Christ which consists only in his obedience to the morall Law but that satisfactorie righteousnesse or obedience which he performed to that peculiar Law of Mediation which was imposed upon him and which chiefly consisted in his sufferings See for this what hath bin already laid down cap. 3. of this latter part Sect. 4. p. 45. And for this Exposition of the word obedience in this place there is as great a vote and voyce of Interpreters both ancient and moderne as for any one Scripture I know which hath the least degree of difficultie in it And for the most part they compare this place with that Philip. 2.8 where it is said of Christ that he humbled himselfe and became obedient unto death c. making both Scriptures to speake but of one and the same obedience Theophylact a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theop. in Rom. 5.19 Peter Martyr (b) Docat quodnam fuerat illud bonum quod per unum Christum Iesum salutem hominibus recuperavit Illud autem ait fuisse Christo obedientiam de qua scribens ad Philippenses c. P. Mart. ad Rom. 5.19 And a little after Quae verba docet id quod Apostolus ait per obedientiam Christi qua nostracausa mortem subiit c. Calvin (c) Quum pronunciat no Christi obedientia constitui justos hinc colligimus Christum eo quod Patri satisfecerit justitiam nobis comparasse Calv. ad Rom. 5.19 Musculus (d) His verbis aperit de qua justitia Christi loquatur videlicet de illius obedientia de qua legis Philip. 2 Musculus ad Rom. 5 19 Eadem fere habent Pareus Piscator Gualterus in locum Pareus Piscator Gualter and of our own Mr. Gataker (e) Vterque locus Rom 5 19 Philip. 3.8 intelligendus est de obedientia quam mediationis legi peculiari Christus exhibuit c. Mr Gatak in Elench Gomar p. 49. are men of this interpretation Amongst whom Pareus gives two reasons of this his Exposition The first is the antithesis or opposition which the Apostle makes betweene the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ which saith he will not constare if by the obedience of Christ we understand vniversalem ejus conformitatem cum lege that is his universall conformitie with the Law the disobedience of Adam being but singularis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a singular and particular transgression But his latter and greater reason is the effect which is here attributed to this obedience of Christ viz. the justification or righteous-making of many which saith he the Apostle hitherto hath constantly vindicated or appropriated to the death and blood of Christ yea and the whole Scripture throughout teacheth our Faith to seeke its righteousnesse in this obedience of his So that all this while here is nothing at all appeares for the countenancing of that imputation of the active obedience of Christ which takes so deeply with the thoughts of many 5. Suppose that by the obedience of Christ we should here contrary to the generall current aswell of Interpreters as the Scriptures themselves understand that active righteousnesse or obedience which he performed to the Morall Law yet will it not follow from hence that therfore men must be justified or made righteous by it in such a way of imputation as is contended for For certaine it is that that justification or righteous-making which the Apostle speaks of in this 19. verse is the same with that which he had spoken of v. 16 17 18. Now that righteousnesse as he calls it v. 17. is described v. 16. to be the guift i. the forgivenesse of many offences i. of all the offences whereof a man either doth or shall stand guilty before God unto justification and evident it is that that righteousnesse or justification which stands in the guift or forgivenesse of offences or sinnes cannot stand in the imputation of an observation or fulfilling of the Law 6. and lastly it is but a loose and very unsavourie kind of arguing to reason from a thing simply done to a determinate manner of doing it If a man should argue thus Peter was slaine with death therfore he was slaine by a Beast or therfore he was slaine with a Dagger were there the least shaddow or appearance of the certainty of the Couclusion in the premises So when the Apostle simply and barely affirmes that by the obedience of Christ men are made
righteous to inferre and conclude a particular and determinate manner of rigteous-making from hence as viz. by imputation of this obedience there being other waies or manners of righteous-making as hath bin proved hath no power nor authority at all of an Argument in it Another text imployed in the service aforesaid SECT 11 is found Rom. 8.4 That the righteousnes of the Law might be fullfilled in us who walke not after the flesh but after the spirit From the former clause it is argued that the righteousnes of the Law can in no sence be said to be fullfilled in us but only by the righteousnes or obedience of Christ unto the Law imputed to us But to this also I Answere 1. That some both learned and Orthodox Rom. 4.8 cleared understand this clause of sanctification rather then of justification and by the fullfilling of the righteousnes of the Law that Euangelicall obedience to the Precepts thereof which all those that truly beleeve in Christ doe in part performe and desire and strive to performe more perfectly This was the exposition of Ambrose of old and seems to be the judgement of Peter Martyr (a) Quomodo autem praecepta legis in nobis impleantur per communionem cum Christo qui pro nobis mortuus est ita potest declarari quod illis qui credunt in eum spiritus conceditur quo vires corum instaurantur us obedientiam legis praestare possint non quidem perfectam et absolutam c. P. Marty ad Rom. 8.4 upon the place Nor is this exposition rejected by Musculus though he inclines more to another in which propension I shall willingly give him the right hand of fellowship So that however this place is not so cleere or demonstrative for the pretended Imputation But 2. That by the righteousnesse of the Law which is here said to be fullfilled in those that beleeve cannot be meant the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ imputed is evident from hence because it must of necessity be such a righteousnesse and such a fulfilling in beleevers which may be apprehended as a proper and sutable effect of Christs condemning sinne in the flesh immediately preceding in the end of v. 3. The very purport and frame of the context plainly sheweth this relation between them and that the latter was intended by God as a fruit or end of the former For what the Law could not doe saith the Apostle in that it was weake through the flesh God sending his own Sonne in the likenesse of sinnefull of flesh and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh That the righteousnesse of the Law might be fullfilled c. That ratiocinative particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that imports the fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the Law in those that beleeve to be a naturall and direct effect of or thing intended by God in Christs condemning sinne in the flesh Now unpossible it is that the active obedience of Christ or the imputation of it should be any proper effect of his condemning sinne in the flesh For by this expression of condemning sin in the flesh Interpreters generally agree and besides it is a thing evident in it selfe that the Apostle meanes the abolishing or taking away the guilt or the accusing and condemning power of sinne by the death of Christ The phrase of condemning sinne to note this by the way is metonymicall the antecedent put for the consequent condemning for disabling to accuse or being a means of the condemnation of another which we know are the consequents or effects of any mans being condemned in course of Law The testimony of a condemn'd person against any man is of no force in Law But to our purpose how the abolishing or taking away the guilt and condemning power of sinne by the death of Christ should be a means of the Imputation of the righteousnes of his life I am no wayes able to conceive or comprehend no more then I am how the present fullnesse of the stomacke should be a means to make a man stand in need of a second dinner immediately For certaine it is See the first and fourth Conclusions in the second chapter of this latter part p. 3.5 c. as hath bin reasoned home elsewhere in this discourse that he that hath the guilt of his sinne purged and taken away by the death of Christ needs no other righteousnesse nor imputation whatsoever for his justification or acceptation in the sight of God no more then he that is full needeth the honey-combe 3. It is a very uncouth and hard expression SECT 12 to call the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to beleevers a fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the Law in them For that clause in them still notes either a subjective inhesion of some thing in persons or else some kind of efficiencie Now the Friends themselvs of that Imputation which we oppose unanimously and constantly affirme the righteousnesse of Christ to be subjectively and inherently in himselfe only and to become ours onely by imputation which they still make a modification contradistinguished against subjective inhesion So that in this sense the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be said to be fulfilled in them Nor can they say that the righteousnesse of the Law or of Christ is fulfilled in them in a way of efficiencie for they are not the workers of this righteousnesse Therefore an imputed righteousnesse can in no tolerable construction of speech be said to be fulfilled in men 4. If by the righteousnesse of the Law we understand that entire and compleate obedience which every beleever according to the great varietie of their severall conditions callings and relations stands bound to performe it can with no agreeablenesse to truth be said to be fulfilled in them by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse unto them Because as hath bin largely proved in the former part of the Discourse there is scarce any beleever if any at all but stands bound in a way of duty to God and his Law to the performance of many particular acts yea of many kindes of acts of obedience which are not to be found nor can it without sinne be conceived that they should be found in all that golden catalogue of workes of righteousnesse performed by Christ Therefore the righteousnesse of the Law in the sense declared which is the sense stood upon by our adversaries cannot be said to be fulfilled in those that beleeve only by the active obedience of Christ imputed to them 5. Neither doth the originall word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here translated righteousnesse signifie obedience unto or conformity with the Law but rather that justification which was the end and intent of the Law but that it was disabled through the weaknesse that is the sinfulnesse of the flesh to ataine it ver 3. And so Calvin Piscator Musculus with divers other learned Interpreters and Tremellius out of the Syriaque render the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by the Latine word
latter thus Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for or concerning remission of sinnes that are past c. It plainly appeares from these Scriptures compared together First that the righteousnesse of God that is the way meanes or course which God holds for the Justification of men stands in remission or forgivenesse of sinnes Secondly that this righteousnesse or Iustification of his is witnessed that is asserted and vindicated by the Law that is the writings of Moses and consequently may well be called the righteousnesse or Iustification of the Law Thirdly and lastly that this righteousnesse of God testified and asserted by the Law in the sense given and exercised by him under the Law in the forgivenesse of the sinnes of those that then beleeved was not manifested or declared or as our other Scripture had it fulfilled that is fully revealed and discovered to the roote bottome and foundations of it till the coming of Christ into the world and his dying for sinne which in that other place is called his condemning sinne in the flesh This for answere in full to this Scripture The next place SECT 15 which I understand hath bin of late taken hold of by some to supply that which it seemes is wanting in others for the defence of that imputation which we oppose is Rom. 9.31.32 But Israel which followed after the Law of righteousnesse hath not attained to the Law of righteousnesse Wherefore because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the workes of the Law c. From hence it is thus argued that had Israel that is the Jewes who followed after the Law of righteousnesse beleeved in Christ they had attained the Law of righteousnesse that is should have had the righteousnesse of the Law performed by Christ imputed unto them But to this also I Answere 1. that by the Law of righteousnes Rom. 9.31.32 answered which the Jewes are here said to have sought after but could not attain is not meant the Moral Law nor indeed any Law properly so called either Morall Ceremoniall or Judicial for God had preveÌ„ted them with the guift of all these Laws so that they need not have sought after them If it be objected that their studie endeavor of keeping the Law which they had may be called a seeking or following after the Law I answere be it so yet this studie and endeavor of theirs could be no cause of their coming short of righteousnesse or Iustification which yet is ascribed to that seeking or following after the Law of righteousnesse here mentioned As Christians are never the further off from being justified by living holily and keeping the commandements of God So neither was the care and endeavor of the Jewes to observe the precepts of that Law which God had given them any cause of their miscariage in point of Iustification Abraham and those that were justifyed by Faith in Christ as he was were as conscientious and careful observers of al Gods Lawes as any of those were who stumbling at the stumbling stone were never justified Therefore by the Law of righteousnes in this Scripture is not meant any Law properly so called much les definitively the Morall Law Secondly in this expression the Law of righteousnesse in the former clause of the verse Calvin findes an hypallage the Law of righteousnesse put for the righteousnesse of the Law (a) Iam priere loco legem justiciae per hypallagen posuisse mihi videtur pro justicia legis in repetitione secundi membri alio sensu sic vocasse justiâ—iae formam seu regulam Calvin in Rom. 9 1. Nam illud sectandâ— legem justiciae simpliciter esse dictum de legis justitia i. ea quae ex operibus legu est patebit infra c. Mus in Rom. 9.31 in the latter clause he takes it in somewhat a different signification for a forme or rule of righteousnesse Musculus dissents little if any thing at all from this interpretation by the Law of righteousnesse understanding that righteousnesse which stands in the works of the Lawb. So that neither of these Authors nor any other that I have yet met with restreyne the word Law in these phrases determinatly to the Morall Law Thirdly neither is there any reason nor colour of reason to limit the Apostles expressions in this place of the Law of righteousnesse to the Morall Law only and the righteousnesse thereof because it is notoriously knowne and hath bin more then once observed formerly that the Jewes never hoped for nor sought after righteousnesse SECT 16 or Iustification by the Morall Law only or the works thereof alone but by the Ceremoniall Law also and the observances hereof yea principally by these as hath bin els where in this Treatise prooved from the Scriptures So that by the Law of righteousnesse whereof they miscaried by not seeking it by Faith cannot be ment determinatly the Moral Law or the righteousnes therof because they never travaild of this upon such termes they never had thought or hope of being iustified or made righteous by the Morall Law or righteousnesse thereof only And so Paraeus by the Law of righteousnesse in this place understands aswell the Ceremoniall as the Morall Law (a) Iudaeos ait sectatos legem justiciae quae praescribit justiciam operibus perfectam hoc est conatos esse tum ceremoniarum observatione tum moralium operum meritu justificari coram Deo Pateus in Rom. 9.31 4. Neither would the righteousnes of the Moral Law alone suppose they should have attained it by beleeving have stood the Jewes in any stead for their justification being aswell bound to the observation of the ceremoniall law as of it Therfore it was not this law or the righteousues of it which should have bin imputed to them in case they had trruly beleeved consequeÌ„tly no imputation of any law righteousnes whatsoever from Christ can be concluded from this place But 5. lastly to give the cleere sence and meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel is said to have followed after but not to have attained because he sought it not by Faith c. can be meant nothing else but justification it selfe or righteousnesse simply and indefinitely taken in which acception it is oft put for justification as was observed cap. 3. Sect and elsewhere which the Jewes seeking to attaine it by the works of the Law that is by themselves and the merit of their own doings and not by faith in Iesus Christ were never able to attain but lost the favour of God perished in their sinnes That this is the direct and expresse meaning of the place may be several waies confirm'd 1. To call righteousnesse simply that is SECT 17 justification the Law of righteousnesse is agreeable to this Apostles dialect elswhere For Rom. 7.23 25. by the Law of sinne he means nothing else but sinne
properly notes the act not the object of beleeving Againe afterwards in the same place But when he firmly beleeved God promising that very Faith was imputed to him in the place or stead of righteousnesse that is he was of God reputed righteous for that Faith and absolved from all his sins BULLINGER likewise gives the same right hand of fellowship to the same interpretation upon Rom. Concredidit se Abraham Deo et illud ipsum illi pro justitia imputatum est Bulling ad Ro. 4. Imputatum est illi adjustitiam c. hoc est illa ipsa Abrahae fides ipsi adjustiam imputata est cum ad huc ageret in praputio Idem ad Gal. 3 6. Credidit Abraham Deo et impuravit ei scilicet Deus hanc fidem pro justitia Gualt Ad Rom. 4.4 Imputavit ei justitiam quod est fidem giatam habuit adeo ut justum ex eo haberet justitia imputativa Aret. ad Rom. 4. Fides tam firma et pia pro justitia Abrahamo imputata est Aret. ad Rom. 4 22. 4 Abraham committed himselfe unto God by beleeving and this very thing was imputed unto him for righteousnesse And the second time upon Gal. 3 6. It was imputed unto him for righteousnesse that is that very Faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righteousnesse whilst he was yet uncircumcised GUALTER comes behind none of the former in avouching the Grammaticall against the Rhetoricall interpretation upon Rom. 4.4 Abraham beleeved God and he viz. God imputed unto him THIS FAITH for righteousnesse ARETIUS no whit digresseth from the former expositions upon Rom. 4. He imputed righteousnesse unto him which is as much as to say he so far accepted or thought well of his faith as thereupon to accompt him righteous with an imputative righteousnesse Where note by the way he doth not call an imputative or imputed righteousnesse any thing that is a righteousnesse properly so called any righteousnesse that should be in one person inherently and become anothers by imputation neither do I remember the phrase of an imputed righteousnesse in that sense in any classique Author but by an imputative righteousnesse he meanes somewhat imputed or accounted by God for righteousnesse which literally and in strictnesse of consideration is not such Againe the same Author more plainly and succinctly upon ver 22. of the same Chapter A faith so firme and pious was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse Illud credere ei imputatum est ad justitiam vel pro vera justitia Illyr ad Ro. 4.3 Et paulo post Mendica illa fites apprehendeus Christi justiciam imputata ipsi est loco propriae justitiae ILLYRICUS forsakes not his fellow-interpreters in this point Vpon Rom. 4 3. That same beleeving was imputed unto him for righteousnesse And afterwards That same poore begging faith apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ was imputed unto him instead of a proper righteousnesse PELLICAN â—s breakes not this ranke Credidit simpliciter verbo Dei et non postulavit signum a Dâ—mino et imputabat cam sidem ipsi Abrahae Deus pro justitia qua creditur propersus Deus in nostrum bonum Pelican to Gen. 15.6 Fides qua promittentâ— Deo credidit Abâ—aham et fuit ad justitiam imputata Hunnius ad â—om 4 3. Hic agitur de eo quod ipsi imputatum est nempe de ipsius side â—re ad Rom. 4.3 Eum quan vis justitia carenteÌ„ numeravitque pro justo habuit in justitâ— loco quod promissiones firma fide ample â—us est I câ—mel et Iun. Not. in Gen. 15.6 Intelligimus fideâ— nomine acqutesâ—â—ntiam Abrahâ—e non in se sunvâ— mâ—titu sed in Dei promissione et benevolentia Par. ad Ro. 4.3 Vpon Gen. 15 6. Abraham simply beleeved the word of God and required not a signe of the Lord and God imputed THAT VERY Faith unto Abraham himselfe for righteousnes whereby GOD is inclineable or propense to doe us good HUNNIUS another Reformed Divine sets to his seale that the avouched interpretation is true On Rom. 4.3 The faith whereby Abraham beleeved GOD promising was imputed unto him for righteousnesse BEâ—A himselfe upon the same Scripture is as deep in the same way as any Here â—aâ—th he the businesse is concerning that that was imputed unto him viz his faith JUNIUS and TREMEILIUS are likewise of the former conspiracie aginst the tropicall interpretation On Gen. 15 6. God esteemed or accounted him for righteous though wanting righteousnesse wherewith to stand before God and reckoned this in the stead or place of righteousnesse that he imbraced the promise with a firme beliefe PARAEUS the last we shall name of forreigne Divines dealeth out this interpretation as freely as his fellowes On Rom. 4.3 We understand by the name or word FAITH which is said to be impuâ—ed unto Abraham for righteousnesse Abraham's acquietation or resting â—ot in himselfe or in his owne merits but in the promise and graciousnesse of God Neither are there wanong from amongst our selves men of soundest learning and jâ—dgment holding forth the light oâ— the same interpretation a so Doctor ROBERT ABBOT â—â—â—â—wards Bishop of Saâ—um in his Apologie against Bishop SECT 15 Part 1 c p. 9. not far from the beginning Hâ—vingâ—e downe those passages of the Apostâ—e Rom. 4 5 and 6. he addeth as followeth In which words we see how the Apostle affiâ—meth accordingly as I said an Imputation of righteousnesse without works which he expresseth to be The repuâ—ing of Faith for righteousnesse for that thereby we obtaine remission and forgivenesse of sinnes Againe not long after for in the imputation of righteousnesse without works what is it that is reputed for righteousnesse Faith saith the Apostle is reputed for righteousnesse Tell us then Mr. Bishop is faith with you reputed for righteousnesse without works Spit out man and tell us whether in your first or second justification you hold that a man for his faith is reputed righteous c. with more of like importance in the page following He that will undertake to divide bâ—â—weene this Author and the opinion we contend for must be more severe then to give a man leave to be of his owne minde Dr. PRESTON also maketh himselfe a stranger to the tropicall interpretation of this Scripture and imbraceth that which is litterall and proper without scruple or question In his Treatise of Gods Allsufficiency pag 12 13. In this sense faith is said to be accounted or imputed for righteousnesse Abraham beleeved God Gen. 15. God indeed made the same proposition that he doth here for substance he tells him what be would do for him and saith the text Abraham beleeved God and it was counted unto him for righteousnesse Now it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse chiefly in this sense as it is interpreted Rom 4 that his very taking of the promise and his accepting of the Covenant in that he did receive that which God gave that put him within the Covenant
12.37 Rom. 5.16 and else where And that this was Calvins opinion SECT 5 Justification is compleate in forgivenesse of sins is most evident from many and frequent passages in his writings by which it is apparent against all confidence of contradiction that he held no such imputation of Christs righteousnesse for justification as some charge him withall except they will conceive of him that like unto Rebecca he had two nations in his womb two contrary opinions in his judgment at once His words are expresse againe and againe on Rom. 4.6 Huc accedit oppositum membrum quod Deus homines justificet peccatum non imputando c. that is Adde hereunto the opposite member viz. that God justifieth men by not imputing sinne And immediatly after Quibus etiam verbis docemur justitiam Paulo nihilaliud esse quam remissionem peccatorum that is by with words we are taught that righteousnesse with Paul is nothing else but remission of sins So some Popish Authors charge this very opinion upon Calvin as his error Alioqui error Calvinianus est dicere ril aliud esse justificationem quam remissionem peccatorum Lorin in Act. 5. v. 31. Whether this Author was of that judgment or no which we now ascribe to him certaine it is that if he had been of this judgement he could never have delivered himself in more significant and pregnant words this way then these are And yet againe not long after the former words Manet ergosalva nobis pulcherrima sententia justificari hominem side quia gratuita peccatorum remissione coram Deo purgatus sit that is This most lovely saying remaines unshaken and safe that a man is justified by Faith because he is purged by a free forgivenesse of his sins before God But we shall meet with a second opportunity hereafter for the further insuring this Author unto us in the Question now under disputation Musculus is as far engag'd for the point in hand SECT 6 as he on Rom. 4.6 Notandum primò remissionem peccatorum esse justitiam nostram i. This is first to be noted that forgivenesse of sins is our righteousnesse And a little after ergo justitia Dei est quae gratis imputatur non imputari peccatum i. therefore the righteousnesse of God which is freely imputed is that sinne is not imputed And immediatly after Quid autem iustum esse aliud est quam peccatis esse liberum i. what is it else to be righteous but to be freed from sins i. from the guilt of them And yet once more not far off ergo qui credit iustus est et beatus propter remissioneus peccatorum i. He therefore that beleeveth is RIGHTEOUS and blessed because of the remission of his sins The same Author upon Psal 32. towards the beginning Iucunducu est quòd institia et beatitudo nostra est remissio peccatorum per fidem in Christum i. It is a sweet thing that our righteousnesse blessednesse stands in the remission of our sins by Faith in Christ See more of like importance in the same place So Luther in his Summarie of that Psalme Iustitia nostra proprie est remissio peccatorum seu ut loquitur Psalmus peccata non imputare peccata tegere i. Our righteousnesse properly is the forgivenesse of our sins or as the Psalme speaketh the non-imputation or covering of our sinnes So Malancthon in his common place of JUSTIFICATION Justificatio significat remissionem peccatorum seu acceptationem personae ad vitam aeternam i. Justification signifieth remission of sins or acceptation of a mans person to eternall life Againe upon the twentieth Article of the Augustan Confession Significat iustificatio in his Pauli sententiis remissionem peccatorum seu reconciliationem seu imputationem iustitiae hoc est acceptationem personae i. sustification in Pauls saying signifieth REMISSION OF SINS or reconciliation or imputation of righteousnesse i. the acceptation of a mans person And in his Prolegomena upon the Epistle to the Romans Justi reputamur Deo remittente peccata i. we are accounted righteous when God forgives our sins Hyperius upon Rom 4.6 Declarat Apostolus imputare ad justitiam idem esse quod non imputare peccata sponte graiis ea remittere i. The Apostle declares that to impute for righteousnesse is but the same as not to impute sinnes or freely and willingly to forgive them Beza himselfe holds the truth as fast as any man in this point though sometimes againe he seemes to let it goe in some expressions about the imputation of Christs righteousnesse In his Treatise of the Supper of the Lord Cuinam iustificationem tribuemus uni certè Deo vnus siquidem Deus peccata remittit Pofita est autem omnis iustificatio in remissione peccatorum et ìdeò justitia hac in imputatione pofita justitia Dei vocatur i. To whom shall we attribute or ascribe Justification doubtlesse to God alone because it is God alone that forgiveth sins And all justification standeth in remission of sins and therefore this righteousnesse which standeth in imputation is called the righteousnesse of God Ro. 1.17 3 21. c. Zanchius in his Common places of Divinity in the head concerning Iustification hath this title Quòd justitia fidei nihil aliud sit quà m reconciliatio cum Deo quae solà remissione peccatorum constat i. That the righteousnesse of Faith is nothing else but reconciliation with God which stands in nothing else but forgivenesse of sins Mr. Fox our Countryman gives place to none in holding forth the light of this truth In his tract of Christ Iustifying and first Booke Iustos eos accipio quos quotidiana remissio per fidem accepta divino conspectui tanquam justos representat i. I take them for just or righteous who by a daily remission of sinnes received by faith are represented as righteous before the presence of God Againe in the second B ok of the same Argument Ideò justicoram Deo consistimus quod remissa sunt nobis peccata i. We therfore stand rignteous before God because our sins are forgiven us Chamier SECT 7 in the third Tome of his Panstratiae pag. 907. challengeth the Paternity of Trent for denying remission of sins to be the form or formall cause of justisication affirming and â—vincing this to have bin Augustins opinion And speaking of himselfe and his Protestant party saith thus Sed ijdem justitiae proram et puppim constituimus inremissione peccatorum nimirum quia haec nos apud Deum constituit justos i. We Protestants place the first and last the beginning and end of our righteousnesse in the forgivenesse of ou sinnes because this makes us righteous before God And a little after Itaque justitiam nostram quatenus constat remissione peccatorum cum Paulo justificationem eam autem quae perfectione virtutum sanctificationem appellamus i. We therfore call our righteouâ—â—esse as it consists in remission of sins with Paul we call Justification but that
having their sins pardoned hath been already proved at large cap. 5. by expresse testimonies of the Scripture whereunto we found the judgment of Calvin with other learned Divines of the resormed Religion fully conformable Here we observed that to justifie in Scripture dialect constantly signifies absolution from guilt and punishment but never any qualifying or investing with a positive or legall righteousnesse either by imputation or otherwise To those Scriptures which were there produced and insisted upon being many yet many more might be added of like importance there being no streame of truth running fuller or cleerer along the Scriptures then this But because we shall have assistance enough from those very places alledged to vindicate the interpretation given against all that is or can be objected against it we will spare that time and labor But against the Exposition given of these Scriptures wherein it was affirmed SECT 2 that the Scriptures know no other justification of a sinner but that which stands in remission of sinnes or discharge from the punishment or condemnation due unto them it is objected that forgivenesse of sins is indeed a part of justification but not the whole imputation of righteousnesse must be likewise added To this I answere First that Calvin is as expressely of another judgment as words can make him a professed enemie to this biformed or double justification On Rom. 4. ver 6 7. c. he hath these words Quibus etiam verbis docemur justitiam Paulo nihil aliud esse quam remissionem peccatorum i. in which words we are taught that righteousnesse with Paul is nothing else but remission of sins He doth not say that Paul placeth righteousnesse or justification partly in remission of sins partly in somewhat else but plainely affirmes that that righteousnesse by which we are justified or made righteous before God is NOTHING ELSE but this forgivenesse Againe in his Institutions lib. 3. cap. 11. sect 21. Iustitia fidei est reconciliatio cum Deo quae SOLA REMISSIONE PECCATORUM constat The righteousnesse of Faith is our reconciliation with God which consists of remission of sins ONLY Againe in the same Section Constat quos Deus amplectitur NON ALITER fieri justos nisi quòd abstersis peccatorum remissione maculis purificentur ut talis justitia VNO VBRBO appellari queat REMISSIO PECCATORUM i. It is evident that those whom God embraceth are NO OTHER-WAIES made righteous but because they are purifyed having their spots washed off by the forgivenesse of sins so that this righteousnesse may IN ONE VVORD be called REMISSION OF SINNES Againe in the following Section Sic remissionem peccatorum cum justitiá connectit Apostolus Act. 13.38 ut IDEM PRORSUS esse ostendat i. The Apostle Act. 13.38 doth so couple or conjoyne forgivenesse of sins with righteousnesse that he plainely shewes them to be ABSOLVTELY OR ALTOGETHER THE SAME Again in the third Section of the same Chapter Cum Scriptura dicit Deum justificare impium quiest ex side Christi quis sensus esse potest nisi fideibeneficio a damnatione liberare quam ipsorum impietas merebatur Et paulo pòst Iustificare ergo NIHIL ALIUD EST quam eum quireus agebatur tanquam approbatâ innocentiâ à reatu absolvere i. When the Scripture saith that God justifieth the wicked that is of the Faith of Jesus what else can be meant then the freeing or absolving him from that condemnation by the benefit of his Faith which his sin deserved And a little after in the same Section To justifie therefore is nothing else then to absolve a man from guilt as one of approved innocencie who was accused as one guiltie Yet once more in the same Chapter Sect. 15. Hic est fidei sensus c. quòd intercedente Christi justitiâ impetratâ remissione peccatorum justificatus sit 1. This is the meaning of a mans Faith c. that by the mediation or intercession of Christs righteousnesse he is justified by remission of sins obtained Laftly in the fourth Sect. of the same Chapter Quarto autem capite ad Romanos c. i. In the fourth Chapter to the Romans he first calls justification the imputation of righteousnesse and doubteth not to place it in REMISSION OF SINS And presently citing the testimony of David Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven c. commenteth thus upon the words Illie saneâ—nonde justificationis parte c. i. Questionlesse he doth not here dispute of a part of justification but of the whole The definition whereof he further affirmeth to be set downe by David when he pronounceth those blessed to whom a free forgivenesse of sins was given From whence it appeareth that that righteousnesse whereof we speake is simply opposed to guilt of sinne c. You see we have not sought far for all this abundance of this Authors minde and judgement touching the point in Question all these testimonies the first excepted are found within the compasse of one only Chapter and that none of the first magnitude neither Hee that in the presence of all these witnesses speaking so distinctly and fully from the Authors owne pen will yet say that Calvin â—â—â—d not remission of sinnes to be our entire and compleate justification had need be able to prove to the world that Calvins Hâ—ad and hand were at ods when these things were written or that his pen was suborned and bribed by some adversarie to conspire against his meaning end to betray his judgement in the point Notwithstanding a great Master of the opposite way in this controversie SECT 3 being loath to lose a man of such authority as Calvin is from his partie attempts yet by force to bring him through all this fire and water over to him and therefore pretends to finde more ingenuitie in Papists and in Bellarmine himselfe towards this Author then in men of his owne profession Protestants I meane that are of an opposite judgment to him in this point Bellarmine saith he doth confesse and acknowledg that though Calvin doth againe and againe place justification in remission of sinnes only yet he holds imputation of Christs righteousnesse too To this I answere First that which is here called ingenuity in Bellarmine I fully conceive to be nothing else but a peece of Jesuiticall cunning to make his adversaries opinion the more irrationall that so he might have the more advantage against him in disputation which will further appeare by and by Secondly I conceive that as Paul in Christian wisdome pleaded his Pharisaisme when time was to helpe himselfe at a pinch though otherwise hee little regarded it or as Sampson tooke up the jaw-bone of an Asse to revenge himselfe of the Philistins and threw it away when he had done so this man findesingenuity in Bellarmines to quit himselfe in a strcight seast Calvin should be taken from him and to avenge himselfe of his adversaries in this Question but otherwise cares little for it But thirdly and
lastly if either Bellarmines or his interpreters who finds this miracle of ingenuity in him meaning be that Calvin holds the imputation of Christs righteousnesse neceslary to justification by way of merit only we are no further adversaries in this point But if their meaning be and other it cannot be without apparant prevarication that over and besides remission of sinnes Calvin holds a necessity of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in justification as a second part or member of it really distinct from remission of sins to make it compleate and perfect this is to burthen Calvin with such an imputation as is not lightly incident to a considering and learned man as he was He himselfe in his Antidote against the Counsell of Trent in their sixt Session takes those Fathers tardie with that Logicall Soloecisme in their Divinitie of making the formall cause of justification double acsi partìm remissione peccatorum partim spirituali regeneratione justi essemus i. as if we were righteous partly by remission of sins partly by spirituall regeneration Now if he should place justification partly in remission of sinnes partly in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse who seeth not that himselfe is in the same condemnation with his adversaries and builds up by example what he pulls downe by reproofe But he washeth his hands in perfect innocencie this way Ego autem saith he unicam et simplicem esse assero i. but I hold and affirme meaning the formall cause of justification to be but one and simple Bellarmine indeed doth not admit of this purgation of himselfe but will needs finde him foule in the businesse notwithstanding and recriminates upon him the same imputation wherewith he had burdened the counsell Quippe qui saith he of Calvin De Justificatione lib. 2. Cal. Inst l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 2. cap. 2. disertis verbis justificationem in peccatorum remissione et justitiae Christi imputatione sitam esse scribat i. Carvin in expresse words delivers it that justification consists in remission of sinnes and in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse And here is the interpretation of that ingenuity whereof we heard the innocent Jesuit lately accused we see how kindly and lovingly he dealt by his adversarie when he would needs give him in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by way of sub-intelligence to remission of sinnes wherein alone he had placed justification The old adage was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The guifts of enemies are but guile Bellarmine was willing to enlarge Calvins opinion and to adde more then enough to it that so he might make it the fairer marke to shoot at But Paraeus fairely delivers this Souldier of Christ out of the hands of that Romish Champion SECT 4 only by an ingenuous and faire interpretation of that passage whereat his adversary tooke this advantage against him Paraeus contrâ— Bellarmun lib. 2 cap 2. Lect. 247. See the same Author in his Tâ—ract De justiâ—ia Christi Act. Pass p. 179 c. where he interprets the said passage of Calvin much after the same manne Hinc videre potuit adversarius saith Paraeus c. i. Hence his adversary meaning Bellarmine might see and perceive that saying in his Institutions that Justification consisted in remission of sinnes and imputation of Christs righteousnesse his meaning was not that there should be a double formall cause of Iustification as if we were righteous partly by remissió of sinnes partly by imputation and neither of them a compleate and full Iustification for so hee should fight both against himselfe and against the Scriptures but his intent was by two Scripture-termes equipollent the one to the other to expresse one and the same formall cause or to joyne these two expressions together exegetically i. So that one might helpe to explaine the other quia remissio peccatorum sit imputatione justitiae et vicissim imputatio justitia fit remissione peccatorum teste Apostolo Rom. 4. ver 6.7 c. i. because remission of sinnes is made by or in the imputation of righteousnesse and againe impu tation of righteousnesse made in remission of sinnes witnesse the Apostle Rom. 4.6.7 c If this Author be further consulted with in the sequel he will tell you more at large how Calvin placeth integram justificationem modò sola remissione peccatorum c. i. intire and compleate JUSTIFICATION sometimes in remission of sinnes onely sometimes in remission of sinnes and imputation of Christs righteousnesse without any contradiction Neither is it hard to conceive how the one may be the sole and intire formall cause and the other the meritorious Which to have been the very expresse meaning and minde of Calvin is so apparant by comparing and laying together passage with paslage from him that except a mans conceit were much relieved and strengthened by his will he would finde it a matter of much difficulty to thinke otherwise SECT 5 Bellarmine himselfe when the pange of ingenuity is but a little of him can finde out his adversaries opinion cleerely enough For explaining those words of the Trent Councell wherein it is said that righteousnesse doth not consist in Remission of sinnes only Reijcitur saith he sententia Calvini de justificatione more forensi c. i. Calvins opinion concerning Justification after a juridicall manner is here rejected And so generally when he undertakes the confutation of that error as he calls it which placeth Justification in Remission of sinnes only he still chargeth Calvin with it and seldome any other as on the contrary when he disputes against that opinion which placeth Iustification in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse he still layes on upon CHEMNI TIUS Compare the 6 and 7 Chapters together in his Second BOOKE of JUSTIFICATION Let me adde but onething more here out of the Councell of Trent it selfe SECT 5 which seems directly to point at Calvin as the Anthor or maintainer of that very opinion where with we have laboured hitherto to honour him as with an Lonour which belongs unto him Or if Calvin be not conceived to be the man yet the opinion we shall evince from hence to have bin famous in the Reformed Churches when the Conncell thus thundred out against it 〈…〉 11. Si quis dixerit hominem justificari velsola imputatione justitiae Christs vel sola peccatorum remissione c. Anathema sit i. If any man shall say that a man is justified either by the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ alone or by remission of sins alone c. let him be accursed From whence observe first that to place iustification in remission of sins alone was an opinion by it selfe distinct from the other that held iustification by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse alone For it is evident by the disjunctive particles in this Canon that the Councell being as it seems good Husbands of their thunderbolts had an intent to strike down two opinions at once And so Bellarmine as we heard explains the Councell Secondly observe that
forgivenesse of a mans own sins and imputation of Christs righteousnesse if it should be true yet is it no wayes necessary neither is it any waies apparent that these are parts of the same whole of one and the same iustification neither is there any thing expresly delivered in any part of the Scripture to establish it Therfore it is no wayes probable even in these respects that when Paul placeth a mans righteousnesse before God in the forgivenesse of his sinnes that he should doe it by the figure Synecdoche onely mentioning one part and implying another Againe SECT 8 2. if forgivenesse of sins be but a part and the worser halfe of our iustification then when the Scripture saith We are iustified by his blood as Rom 5.9 the interpretation must be we are justified by halfe through his blood but the better of our iustification must come another way For by his blood or death we cannot have his active righteousnesse imputed to us So where it is said againe vers 16. that the guift viz. of righteousnesse by Christ is of many offences unto iustification if the guift of many offences iâ— the forgivenesse of a mans sins will not amount to a iustification without the imputation of a legall righteousnesse joyned with it we must give a checke to Pauls pen as the High Priests did unto Pilate Joh. 16.21 Write not the King of the Iewes but that he said I am the King of the Jewes So must we say unto Paul doe not write that the guift is of many offences unto Iustification but the guift is of many offences and of many acts of righteousnesse too imputed to Iustification Pauls pen had made more hast then good speed as we say to come at Iustification before its time And thus we must draw blood instead of milke out of many other Scriptures besides these to nourish that opinion of the imputation of a formall righteousnesse for Iustification if you meane to keep it alive for the sincere milk of the word will not nourish it Thirdly that forgivenesse of sinnes is a mans entire and compleat Iustification and that there is no such further piece or part of it as is pretended concerning the imputation of Christs righteousnesse will appeare from hence because that end for which this imputed righteousnesse of Christ is thus brought into the businesse of iustification viz. to be the right or title of the iustified to their heavenly inheritance is otherwise supplyed by the wisdome and counsell of God and that in a way more Euangelicall and of more sweetnesse and deernesse to the children of God viz. by the grace of adoption or Son-ship as we shall further shew God willing in the reason following Fourthly SECT 9 if men will have the active righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto them for one part of their iustification by it selfe and the passive obedience or death of Christ for another part by it selfe and so separate and divide the benefit of his active obedience from that which we have by his passive in Iustification this is a method or course to destroy and lose both the benefit of the one and of the other For if men substract the righteousnesse of his life upon a conceit that that will doe them service alone which it will not doe as we shall see afterwards then must they want it in his death or in his blood and so that wil be ineffectuall too If it had bin possible under the Law for a man to have separated those qualifications which God required in the Beast for sacrifice as viz. the Sex the soundnesse spotlessenesse c. from the Beast it selfe neither would these qualifications separated from the sacrifice have bin of any use to the man neither would the Beast without these have made a sacrifice of acceptation So neither will the active obedience of Christ profit men if they separate it from the passive Joh. 12.24 neither will the passive it selfe be found it selfe In the cleansing of the Leâ—e the blood of the flame Syarrow was to â—e joyned and mixed with pure water in an â—â— then vessell and the person cleansed to be sprinkled with â—â—th Lev. 14.4.5.6 that is an attonement or expiation for sinne according to the will and purpose of God except we bring in the active to it For as it is most true which the Apostle affirmes Heb. 9 22. Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sinnes so is it as true that without shedding of righteous blood there is no remission neither And howsoever the personall union of the humane nature with the Godhead in the person of Christ was the great qualification requisite in his person to make the sacrifice of himselfe compleatly satisfactory for the sinne of the world yet was it as God willing we shall hereafter demonstrate more at large but a remote qualification in this respect there being a necessity not onely in respect of the decree and purpose of God but of other ends and conveniences also that this qualification we now speake of the fullfilling of the Law should intervene and come between that union and his sacrifice In the mean time whilest I would not have the active obedience of Christ separated from the passive nor againe the passive from the active in respect of this common and joynt effect of forgivenesse of sins or justification ariseing from a concurrence of them both yet would I not have Christ in his mystery tumbled up together on a heap for this would be to deface the beauty and excellencie of that wisdome which shines forth gloriously in the face thereof I would have every thing that Christ was and every thing that Christ did and every thing that Christ suffered to be distinguished not only in themselves but also in their proper and immediate effects respectively ariseing and flowing from them severally A pluralitie of causes may meet together in one and the same effect and yet the diversitie and difference of their severall operations and influences contributing towards the raiseing and produceing of such an effect may easily be distinguished and apprehended The goodnesse of the soyle the labour of the Oxe the Plough the seed that is sowne the Husbandmans paines in ploughing in sowing his skill in both the raine given from heaven to water that which is sowne all these and such like meet together in one joynt and common effect at the time of Harvest viz. the Husbandmans benefit or increase Yet is there scarce any man so much a stranger to the method and principles of Husbandry but can assigne to every one of these causes their proper and speciall effect though all meeting together in that great and common effect we speake of the soyle is for one purpose the Oxe for another the Plough for a third c. So is it true that all that Christ was and all that he did and all that he suffered meet together in that great and common effect the salvation of them that beleeve
be imputed to us For certainly this righteousnesse of his life was as capable of such an imputation before and with out his death as after or with it For what defect or impediment can be conceived that should hinder it Adams sin according to the principles of that opinion against which we argue was capable of imputation as soone as â—t was committed and why should the righteousnesse of Christ require any further qualification or recommendation to put it off upon the like terms but onely the working and performance of it If it be yet said but the persons of men had not bin capable of this imputation without the death of Christ therfore there was a necessity of this death of his in this respect To this I Answer True indeed the persons of men are not capable of this imputation without the death of Christ but neither are they made the more capable by it But if this righteousnesse of Christ we speake of were in it selfe imputable in the sense contended for why should not the persons of men be capable of the imputation thereof in the midst of their sins aswell as Christ was capable of the imputation of their sins in the midst of his righteousnesse Especially considering that as it appeares from Rom. 5.14 the grace and guift of God which is by Iesus Christ saveth by a stronger and higher hand then sin condemneth CAP. XIV Opening a Seventh ground against the pre-refused Imputation viz. the taking away of forgivenesse of Sinnes THat opinion which makes and constitutes men perfectly and compleatly righteous with allegall righteousnesse as righteous as Christ himselfe though it be but quoad veritatem SECT 1 non quoad modum as some of that way think to distinguish themselves safe yet it comes to the same in this respect leaves no place for forgivenesse or remission of sinnes in persons so made righteous it evacuates that high and soveraigne power of God at least in the use and exercise of it towards those that beleeve whereby he forgiveth sins God we know forgave Christ no sinne why because he was perfectly righteous and in him was no sinne as Iohn speaketh 1 Iohn 5.3 Therefore if men be righteous with the same righteousnesse wherewith Christ was righteous as compleatly righteous as he they have no more sin to be pardoned then he had If it be said that God first gives remission of sinnes unto men and then imputes this perfect righteousnesse unto them To this exception answere hath bin made already Cap. 5. Sect. 2. To that which is there delivered I adde that Christ hath taught us to pray for forgivenesse of sinnes even after this imputation of righteousnesse if any such thing were except we will say that he fram'd that patterne of Prayer usually called the Lords Prayer onely for the use of infidels and unbeleevers Now to aske forgivenesse of sinnes of God and yet to conceit our selves as righteous as Christ was is rather to mock then to worship him whom we pray unto If it be here objected as the like objection was made against the fift ground SECT 2 in the former Chapter that this inconvenience sits as close to the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse as to the Imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ for that purpose For if faith be imputed for or instead of the righteousnesse of the Law must it not derive a righteousnesse upon the person to whom such imputation is made as perfect and compleat as the righteousnesse of the Law it selfe and consequently as the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe How then doth that opinion leave any other place for remission of sinnes in those that beleeve then that which standeth for the Imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ Are they not both under the same condemnation this way Not to repeat what was so lately delivered in full for satisfaction and Answere to this Objection I yet further adde ex abundanti that when Faith is said to be imputed for righteousnesse in justification instead of the righteousnesse of the Law it is evidently implyed that it is not the righteousnesse of the Law it selfe that is imputed for righteousnesse but another thing Faith by name instead of it Now any other righteousnesse or any other thing imputed for righteousnesse besides the righteousnesse of the Law will apparently beare a consistencie of sinne with it and so leave a place for forgivenesse of sins but the righteousnesse of the Law excluding the former cannot give entertainment to the latter When a perfect sanctification is imputed to a Man for his justification that Man can be no more reputed or thought to have sinne in him then to be obnoxious to death and condemnation which is most opposite to justification But when that which either is no sanctification or at most but an imperfect sanctification is imputed for righteousnesse in a mans justification there may be as full a justification as perfect a deliverance from death and condemnation as in the former case and yet place left in the person so justified for an inherencie of sin and consequently for the forgivenesse of it CAP. XV. Enforceing an Eight Reason against the Imputation questioned viz. a manifest compliance with that dangerous errour That God seeth no sinne in his people WHat communion hath light with darknesse saith the Apostle and what concord hath Christ with Belial 2 Cor. 6.14 15. SECT 1 If this Imputation of Christs righteousnesse which we oppose were from Christ doubtlesse it would have no intelligence or compliance with any opinion so opposite to him and his truth as this That God seeth no sinne in his people The opinion it selfe is an error so grosse and like the darknesse of Egypt that it is even palpable and may be felt Therefore we will not spend time in arraigning it as guilty which is already so generally condemned But that the opinion against which the face of this discourse is set is of the same confederacie with this and gives the right hand of fellowship to it nay leades and caries men directly into it will cleerely appeare by this Demonstration Whosoever is perfectly righteous or as righteous as Christ is in him God can see no sinne But every beleever saith this opinion which we impugne is as perfectly and compleatly righteous as Christ himselfe is Therefore in such God can see no sinne You see in this Syllogisme how the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense contended for by many brings in that error with a high hand and therefore is to be cut off from the Sanctuary of God And those that will hold and maintaine such an imputation and yet crie out upon and condemne the opinion of Gods not seeing sin in his Children are in a spirituall or morall sense like those Idolaters of old that caused their owne Children to passe through the fire Ismael was not the more naturall and genuine fruite of Hagars wombe that bare him then this conclusion oâ— tenet that God seeth no sinne in
formally sinners before God if this I say be the meaning of the terme Imputation when it is applyed to Adams sin Transeat let it passe But if the meaning be Adams sin is imputed to his posteritie i. that sinfull act wherein Adam transgressed when heate the forbidden fruit is in the letter and formalitie of it and as it was Adams owne personall sinne imputed to his posteritie so that by this imputation all his posterity are made formally sinners before any part of the punishment of that siâ—ne comes upon them this is an imputation which I am certaine the Scripture wil never justifie neither in the letter of it nor in the spirit of it yea and reason it selfe riseth up against it with a high hand The equitie on Gods part for the involving of Adams posteritie SECT 8 in the punishment due to his first sinne for I do not conceive it to be an act either of district and essentiall justice in God or yet of absolute or pure prerogative but a certaine mixt act betweene both seemeth to be founded upon 3 things Sine dubio potuit Deus si sic ei visum fuisset Adae peccatum aut ipsi condonare aut in ipso tantum ulcisci posterisque omnibus gratiam salutarem co neutiquam obstante liberare gratificari Dr. Twist and yet none of them the act of Adams sinne nor yet the imputation of it But 1º the demerit or sinfullnesse of the sinne which is a thing much differing from the act of it the act of it being principally from God him elfe and that by way of efficiencie properly so called as all Divines unanimously agree but the sinfulnesse of it wholly from the creature Secondly the streightnesse or narrownesse or scantnesse of Adams person Thirdly and lastly that speciall and neere relation that his posterity had to his person From the posture I conceive or standing up of these or the like circumstances before God may be demonstrated the equitie of his proceedings in involving or binding over aswell Adams posterity as his person in and to the same condemnation and punishment with him for his first sinne First for the fullnesse and weight of the demerit or sinfulnesse of it it is almost unconceiveable of what aggravations it is capable of if all those circumstances and considerations were but made to speake home which are able to charge it in this kind Some we touched towards the begining of this Chapter and many others there are which I do not purpose now to insist upon because the sinfullnesse of this sin is generally confessed and acknowledged by all though it be true also there are some circumstances on the other hand which doe much case and lighten the provocation and offensiâ—â—nesse of it as we shall have occasion to shew hereafter in the second part Onely I desire to mention one thing SECT 9 which to my best remembrance I have not often met with under observation in this kind though it be a consideration obvious and neere at hand The sinne of Adam hath this peculiar streyne or burden of sinfulnesse in it wherein it justifieth the sinne even of the reprobate Angells themselves being in that respect a sinne more intolerable then theirs These wicked Angells were entrusted but with their owne portions respectively and therefore what they sinned they sin'd to themselves they sin'd away ruin'd only their personall estates in blessedness But Adam had a deerer and deeper ingagement upon him to keep him upright he had the estates of all his posterity put into his hand and knew that if he sinned and fell he should draw thousands thousands of soules after him into the same perdition with him and those such the things of whose peace safety and welfare the Law of nature it selfe obliged him to provide for with more care and tendernesse then of all other creatures whatsoever being those that were to be his owne naturall children even flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone the ingagement of which relation the Apostle averreth in this respect 2 Cor. 12.14 where he saith that Children ought not to lay up for the Parents but Parents for the Children If it be esteemed a sore brand as well it may upon the wickednesse of Ieroboam that he made Israel to sinne and yet this was no other making to sinne then what possibly might and ought to have bin resisted and withstood by those that were drawne to sinne by it then must it needs be a far soarer charge upon the sinne of Adam who made not Israel onely but the whole world to sinne and that in such a way and by such a making against which there was not the least strength or power in the world to make the least resistance or opposition So then the exceeding sinfulnesse or demerit of this sinne of Adam being granted it cannot be judged any waies unequall in God or repugnant to the rules of justice to inflict an unanswerable measure or weight of punishment upon it Punishment is a kind of payment or recompence for an injury or losse susteyned J paied or restored saith David Psal 69.4 the things that I never tooke i. I went under censure and was punished in my good Name and otherwise for offences whereof I was never guilty The like phrase of restitution by way of punishment you shall finde Iob 20.18 So that now to require or take in punishment valuably to the losse or injury a man hath susteyned hath thus far no appearance of unrighteousnesse in it Therefore 2º SECT 10 consider we further the narrownesse or scantnesse of Adams person of how small receipt or capacitie his vessell was to containe that abundance of wrath or that fulnesse of punishment which God might lawfully require for the great injury or dishonor done unto him in that mighty sin and this will bring you to confesse and acknowledge this further that either God must sit downe by the losse as we use to say and want meanes of coming againe into his owne or else he must looke out beyond Adams person for more to be joyned in the punishment with him to supplie as it were that was wanting in him in that respect In civill and politique States it is not more usuall then equall and reasonable that when the offence is of a very high nature as in the case of Treason and the like c. the punishment should not be confin'd to the person of the offender which how great soever is ever lesse then an offence of that nature but be further extended untill the qualitie of the offence be somewaies answered Vpon this ground of equitie I conceive it was that God would not be satisfied with the personall destruction though in a way of extraordinary judgement of Korah Dathan and Abiram their sin of rebellion against Moses and Aaron riseing to a greater height then so but involved their Families their wives their Sons their little ones yea their Tents and all their goods in the punishment with
Scriptures that are conceived to make against the opinion contended for in this Treatise according to the tenour and importance of the former grounds and distinctions 5. And lastly I shall with like brevitie close the whole businesse by propounding and answering the reasons and Arguments that seeme chiefely to lye against the Doctrine hitherto maintained CAP. II. Some Conclusions laid downe and proved for the further clearing of the Point in Question and for answering sundry of the Objections following HE for whose sinnes a plenary satisfaction hath beene made either by himselfe or another for him Conclusion 1 SECT 1 and hath beene accepted by him against whom the transgression was committed is as just and righteous as he that never sinn'd but had done all things that were requisite and meete for him to doe This is evident because there is as much justice and righteousnesse in repairing the wrongs and injuries done to any as there is in abstaining from doing wrong Hee that by his cattel or otherwise hath made spoile in his neighbours corne and hath given him full satisfaction for the spoyle done to his contentment is as good a neighbour and deales as justly and honestly with him as he that never trespassed in that kind upon him The essence and nature of Justice or righteousnesse in the sense we now speake of is this as the knowne definition gives it Suum cutque tribuere to give to every one his owne i. that which in a way of equity and right is due from us unto them Now when we have injured or damnified any man in any of his rights or things belonging to him there is nothing more due to him from us then that which is his owne i. that which is fully valuable to the injurie we have done unto him Therefore he that tenders a valuable consideration or satisfaction for an injurie done to another is just according to the height and utmost exigencie of justice and consequently as just as he that never was injurious or did wrong There is no medium or middle condition or standing beteewne a perfect absolution and freedome from all sinne and a perfect and compleate righteousnesse Conclu 2 SECT 2 but hee that is fully discharged and freed from sinne ipso facto is made perfectly and compleately righteous See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 34. And Mr. Bradshaw Iustisi p. 78. c. The reason of this is evident nothing can any way diminish or prejudice the perfection of righteousnesse but only sin as nothing can hinder perfection of light but darkenesse in one degree or other or perfection of sight but blindnes in some degree or other So that as the aire when it is free from all degrees of darkenesse must of necessitie be perfectly and fully light and a man that is in no measure or degree blinde must needs be perfectly sighted so he that is perfectly freed from all sinne whatsoever must of necessitie be compleately and perfectly righteous withall It is unpossible to conceive a man defective in any part or point of righteousnesse and yet withall to conceive him free from all sinne sinne and righteousnesse being in subjecto capaci contraria immediata as Logicians speak The Scriptures themselves stil make an immediate opposition between the two Natures or Conditions we speake of Sinne and righteousnesse never acknowledging or so much mentioning a-any third between them As by one mansdisobedience saith Paul many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous To findout a third estate betweene sina nd righteousnesse we must find out a third Adam from whom it should be derived An estate of neutrality here is such an estate or condition as the man in the Moone enjoyeth Adam Conclusion 3 SECT 3 See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 28. whilst his innocencie stood with him and till his fall by sinne was compleately righteous and an estate of justification before God yea for the truth and substance of righteousnesse as righteous as he could or should have beene if he had liv'd to this day in the most entire and absolute obedience to the Law His righteousnesse by this meanes had beene of a longer continuance but not of any greater perfection or truth Even as the second Adam the Lord Christ himselfe was as compleately and perfectly righteous from the wombe and so from his first entrance upon his publique ministery as he was at last when he suffered death And had there beene any defect or want of righteousnesse in Christ at any time from his conception to his death it must needs have beene sinfull all absence of righteousnesse necessarily including a presence of sinne as the absence of light a presence of darkenesse answerable thereunto and consequently the great worke of the salvation of the world had miscarried in his hand To say that Adam was not perfectly righteous and consequently in a justified estate or condition before God untill his fall by sin is to place him in an estate of condemnation before his sinne there being no middle or third estate betweene these two Justification and Condemnation as the Scriptures evidently imply in many passages as Rom. 5.18 Deut. 25.1 Rom. 33.34 c. in all which places with some others you shall finde an immediate opposition betweene them But especially this appeareth from Rom. 8.1.2 compared with verse 3. and 4. where you will finde Justification described by non-condemnation or freedome from the Law of sinne and death if there were a third estate or condition betweene justification and condemnation non-condemnation would not so much as necessarily imply justification much lesse be used as a clause or terme equivolant thereunto Therefore to grant that forgivenesse of sinne puts a man into the same estate and condition wherein Adam stood before his fall which is generally granted by men of opposite judgement in this controversie and nothing granted neither in this but the unqeustionable truth is to grant the Point in question and to acknowledge the truth laboured for throughout this whole Discourse Perfect remission or forgivenesse of sinnes includes the imputation or acknowledgement of the observation of the whole Law Conclu 4 SECT 4 See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 27.28 Omnia mandata factadeputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur Aug. Retra l. 1. c. 19. even as the imputation of the Law fulfilled necessarily includes the non-imputation of sinne or the forgivenesse of all sinne in case any hath beene committed For how can he be said to have all his sinnes fully forgiven who is yet look'd upon or intended to be dealt withall as one that hath transgressed either by way of omission or commission any part of the Law and he that is look'd upon as one that never transgressed any part of the Law neither by omission nor commission must needs be conceived or look'd upon as one that hath fulfilled and kept the whole Law which is nothing else but to have a perfect righteousnesse or which
if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. q.d. If the sinne of Adam being but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an inconsiderate stumbling or a sinne proceeding from incogitancie and Adam hmselfe but one hath yet beene able to involve many i. his whole posteritie all that shall be borne of him in death and condemnation much more must it needs be conceived that the grace i. the gracious intent purpose of God towards men and the gift by that grace viz. of righteousnes justification by such a man as Iesus Christ is who is both God and man should abound unto many i. justifie and save with farre greater efficacie power and authority and as it were with an higher hand all those that by spirituall regeneration and a true faith shall descend from him The strēngth of of the Apostles reasoning and inference in this passage Scripture lyeth in this The salvation of the world faith he must needs proceede with farre higher hand by Christ then the condemnation of it did or doth by Adam Because 1. The foundation and ground worke of the one was the free and gracious intent and purpose of God which is a stronger and more active and lively principle or spring to set all the wheeles and worke on going that depend upon it then a permissive decree onely which as seemeth here intimated and imployed is the maine foundation the other viz. the condemnation of the world by Adam had in respect of God This permissive decree though it be as cleare as the other in respect of the event and comming to passe of such things as are comprehended in it yet is the motion of it but slow and heavie in comparison of the other Gods permissive decrees are chiefely executed by second meanes or by occasion of his withdrawing himselfe and leaving the creature to it selfe but his gracious decrees have his heart and soule and strength and might in their execution And secondly that which is the more proper and immediate cause of the difference here laid downe by the Apostle the condemnation of the world as touching matter of provocation and offence given unto God proceeds onely in the demerit and strength 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one inconsiderate act of sinne and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from one onely meere man whereas the salvation of the world advanceth in the strength of such a righteousnesse attonement or justification as was procured indeed by one man but this one man was Jesus Christ who is valuable with thousand thousands of men and ten thousand times ten thousand thousands So that what he hath purposely and with all his might done for the justification and salvation of the world must needs be of an incomparable farre greater efficacie to carry these before it then the stumbling or unadvised sinne of one poore meere and meane man in comparison can be to procure the condemnation of it Onely I desire that it should be here considered and remembered that there is nothing said in all this Conclusion any wayes to extenuate either the demerit or guilt of Adams sinne beneath their just proportions and degrees but onely to shew that there is a great excesse of merit in the obedience of Christ above the rate and proportion of demerit in the disobedience of Adam There being these and other differences betweene Adam in his condemning the world and Christ in his Act or Worke in saving it it is evident that all such arguments or reasonings which are drawne from specialites and particularities of agreement betweene them are invalid and insufficient except they have some other foundation to beare them That which makes a true and lively Faith instrumentall in Justification Conclusi 11 SECT 17 is nothing that is essentiall or naturall to it whether descent propertie or act but somewhat that is extrinsecall and purely adventitious viz. the force and efficacie of that will good pleasure ordination covenant and appointment of God in that behalfe As it was neither the stature nor comelinesse of Aarons person nor his descent from Levie nor his grace nor his wisedome nor his knowledge nor any service formerly done by him either unto God or his Church nor any thing that in any proprietie of speech could be called his that made him an high Priest but Gods calling him unto and investing him with that honour and function he might have beene all that hee was otherwise and might have done all that hee did otherwise and yet without this anointing and appointment from God another might have beene high Priest and not he So might Faith have beene Faith both in the Originall and descent of it from the Spirit of God as likewise in all that native beautie and excellencie that belongs to it yea and put forth all those acts which otherwise it puts forth as to bring men to Christ to lay hold of Christ c. and yet never have attained the honour that is now put upon it never have beene instrumentall in Justification And as the same anointing or calling from God which were confer'd upon Aaron would have made any other man Priest though of another Tribe though lesse gracefull of person of meaner gifts and abilities every-wayes than Aaron was had they beene conferred upon him so had any other grace as love patience temperance or the like the force and power of the same covenant or ordination from God to assist them it cannot be conceived but that any of these would justifie as effectually as faith it selfe now doth Therefore it is unquestionably evident that Faith doth not justifie as it relates to Christ or as it apprehends him or redemption by him or the like because all these and such like properties or acts as these are essentiall and naturall unto Faith I meane to such a Faith as we speake of and that Faith which hath not or doth not all this is no true lively or effectuall Faith or instrumentall in justification Wherefore if Faith should justifie in regard or by vertue of any of these it should justifie by it selfe or by some dignity quality or act that is proper to it or inherent in it Hence it is that Scripture still suspends the justifying power or propertie of Faith upon the will free grace and good pleasure of God but never upon any act or qualitie proper to it selfe This is the will of him that sent me saith our Saviour Ioh. 6.40 that every man that seeth the Sonne and beleeveth in him should have everlasting life c. clearely implying 1. That it is not any seeing of Christ either corporally or spiritually nor any beleeving in him that could carry eternall life had it not the efficacie of the will of God to strengthen it thereunto And 2 that had this Will of God fallen in conjunction with any other grace or act of
must needs be the formall cause thereof otherwise it must be said either a man is formally just by some righteousnesse of his own or which he hath not received from God or else that he is not made righteous in or by his Iustification but afterwards The minor is the assertion of the Holy Ghost almost in terminis Rom. 4. For that which ver 6. is called Gods imputing righteousnesse ver 7. is interpreted to be his forgiving iniquities and covering sinne Seventhly If remission of sinnes reacheth home unto and be given unto men by God for their Iustification then is it the formall cause thereof This is evident because by the formall cause of Iustification we meane nothing else as hath bin often said but Iustification passive or that guift which by God is given unto men and by them received accordingly in and by that act of his whereby he iustifieth them So that if remission of sinnes be that which is given unto sinners by God for or unto their Iustification it must of necessitie be conceived to be the formall cause thereof Therefore I assume but remission of sinnes is given by God unto men for their Iustification and reacheth home unto it Therefore it must needs be the formall cause thereof This latter proposition againe is in effect and well nigh in terms nothing but what the Holy Ghost himselfe affirmeth Rom. 5.16 And not as it was by one that sinned so is the guift for the iudgment was by one unto condemnation but the free guift is of many offences unto Justification that is God by the free guift that is by the free forgivenesse of mens sinnes doth fully justify them The free guift of offences or the forgivenesse of sins could not be said to be unto Iustification except a man were fully and entirely justifyed thereby Lastly if remission of sinnes and the non-imputing of sinne to those that have sinned be expressions of one and the same importance and signifie the same privilege estate or condition of a person iustified then is remission of sinnes the formall cause of Iustification The strength of this consequence lieth in this that the Holy Ghost describeth or interpreteth the righteousnesse which God imputeth in Iustification by the non-imputation of sinne This is evident by comparing Rom. 4.6 with ver 8. And it was prooâ—ed before in the sixt argument that the righteousnesse imputed by God in Iustification must of necessity be the formall cause thereof Therefore it undeniably followes that if remission of sinnes and the non-imputing of sinne be expressions of one and the same condition that remission of sinnes is the formall cause of Iustification Now that the importance of these two expressions is but one and the same is apparant enough without proofe For what doth God more or otherwise in remitting sinne then he doth in not imputing it or what doth he more or otherwise in the not-imputing of sinne then he doth in remitting it Not to impute sinne to him that hath sinned can implie nothing else but not to charge the demerit or guilt thereof upon him and what doth remission of sinnes import either more or lesse And hence doubtlesse it is that David sets the same Crowne of the same blessednesse upon the head of the one and the other Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven whose sinne is covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquitie c. Psal 32.1.2 Rom. 4.7.8 Much might be further argued both from the Scriptures and otherwise SECT 34 for the cleering and countenancing of this opinion which placeth formall justification in Remission of sinnes but inasmuch as this tasque hath bin learnedly and throughly performed by another (a) Mr. Wotton De Reconciltat Part 1 lib. 2. c. 3.4.5.6.7.8 though in another languag and to ease the present discourse of length and tediousnesse what we may without any sensible de râ—ment to the cause undertaken I forbeare And the rather because whatsoever I am able to conceive may possibly with any colour or pretext of reason be objected against the opinion hath for the most part bin already answered or cleered or else will be found answered in the two following Chapters As First Object 1 That Remission of sinnes is no true or compleate righteousnesse ou shall finde satisfaction touching this in the second Chap. of this latter part in the 4 Conclusion Sect. 4. Secondly Object 2 That the righteousnesse of Christ is to be joyned with remission of sinnes to make the compleate forme of Iustification See this cleered at large Cap. 11. of the first part Thirdly Object 3 That Remission of sinnes is the consequent or effect of Iustification and therefore not the formall cause See whereof to make a sufficient answere to this Sect. 8. and Sect. 29. of this Chapter where it is fully prooved that the formall cause of Iustification must needs be the consequent of Iustification that is of that act of God whereby he justifieth Fourthly that the righteousnesse of Christ imputed is this formall cause Object 4 you shall finde this counter-argued Sect. 23 24 25 26 27. of this Chapter Fiftly Object 5 that the imputation of this righteousnesse is the formall cause The inconsistencie of this with the truth is evicted Sect. 22. of this Chapter Sixtly Object 6 That the communion that is betweene Christ and beleevers is this formall cause How little communion this hath with the truth hath bin shewed at large Section 18 19 20 21. of this Chapter Seventhly That Iustification may be Object 7 where there is no remission of sinnes and remission of sinnes where there is no justification See the opinion set cleere of this objection in the latter end of Sect. 1. of the 3 Chap. of this second part as also Sect. 29. of this present Chapter What further may be objected I doe not for the present apprehend but ready and willing I am to take any thing into a serious and unpartiall consideration that shall be tendred unto me as matter of further question or difficultie in the businesse In the meane time out of all that which hath bin reasoned at large in this Chapter concerning justification and the severall causes thereof some such description of it as this may be framed wherein the attentive Reader may observe either all or the greatest part of the causes insisted upon briefly comprehended Justification is an act of God whereby having out of his owne unspeakable free grace and goodnesse towards poore miserable sinners given his only begotten Sonne Jesus Christ to make attonement or satisfaction for them by his death in consideration of this attonement freely pardoneth and remitteth the sinnes of all those that beleeve in him through Jesus Christ preached or otherwise revealed by the Holy Ghost unto them CAP. V. VVhere in the Scriptures alledged for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse or active obedience in Justification are cleered and answered and the true sense and interpretation of them respectively established according to
the judgment of the best Expositors of the Protestant party ALL errour and mistake in matters of Christian Religion SECT 1 is occasioned either in the conception or continuance or both by somwhat which God in the Scriptures hath well said but is by men not well understood And as Gregory long since well observ'd it in matter of practise (a) Cum vitium virtus putatur culpa fine meâ—n cumulatur Greg Do Paster Cur. l 3. c. 1. that when men conceive of sinne under the notion of a duty there it is committed with an high hand and without measure the reason whereof is because conscience and concupiscence are then in conjunction which for the most part are in opposition about the committing of sin whereby the course of it is somwhat broken and impaired so it is likewise in point of judgement when men conceive of their by-thoughts and misapprehensions as countenanced from Heaven in the Scriptures their confidence lifts up it selfe very high and the mildest contradiction is little lesse then an abhomination unto them The reason whereof I conceive to be this the opinion in this case being their owne must needs have a strong and perfect sympathie with all the powers of nature yet unsanctified and so must needs engage these and then againe being look'd upon as a truth of a divine parentage and issuing from God by means of this apprehension it engageth all the powers of Grace and of the new man also to contend for it And thus what by the nature and substance of it on the one hand being erronious and sinfull and what by the appearance and shew of it on the other hand being as if it were indeed spirituall and divine it is apt to transport a man with an extasie of zeale even above himselfe for the maintenance of it and to inspire him with resolutions of sacrificeing credit Name estate friends himselfe upon the honour and service of it in case it be opposed Now amongst many signes that might be given of an opinion of that very frame and constitution we speak of darknesse for substance and light in appearance this is one of frequent observation when the maintainers of it are ambitious to heap up citations of Scripture proofes without end and to overwhelm their adversaries with Divine testimonies For as the saying is Nusquam est qui ubique est he that is every where is no where so it is much to be suspected that such an opinion is no where in the Scriptures which is pretended to be every where When men sharke about for Scriptures and cannot find those that willingly and freely offer themselves in the service of an opinion but labour and toyle as it were in the fire to redeem the defect of full and pregnant proofes with multitudes and numbers of such as they can find it is a ground of much suspicion that the opinion is not of God but of men The Scriptures are many which are mustered up by the Masters of that way of Imputation which we oppose for the service of their opinion but amongst them all there is not one that comes roundly on or that speaketh plainly or directly to the businesse in hand which is a plaine signe that it is not indeed they that speak at all but the spirit of the men that speaketh in them whatsoever they seem to speake in this kind I make no question but I shall be able to give a thorough and perfect accompt of what I now affirme by a particular examination of the Scriptures themselves alledged in that behalfe The greatest part of them I conceive have bin occasionally touch'd already and in part cleered in this discourse But because a true and solid understanding of them carryes the maine stroke in the Question and controversie depending I thought good to assigne an intire Chapter for the interpretation and solution of them so that the Reader may more readily know where to find and whither to repaire for explication of them al together I begin with those usually alledged from the old Testament which are not many The first place is Psal SECT 2 32.1 Blessed is the man whose transgression is forgiven Psal 32.1 2. Answered whose sinne is covered Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not transgression c. The covering of sin mentioned in the middle clause is by some conceived to be the righteousnes or active obedience of Christ which God imputing to beleevers covereth all their sinnes therewith To this I Answer 1. That some of our best Expositors conceive all the three expressions here mentioned to be but synonymous i. of one and the same signification and importance and yet with all conceive this variety to be emphaticall and to note that abundance of Grace in God whereby our sins are forgiven Doctor Ames in his sixt Document upon this Psalme carryes the tenour of these passages thus (a) Magâ—a est Dei gratia qua peccata nostra remittuntur Hoc eo ipso innuitur quod taÌ„ emphatica repetitione et quasi congerie verborum declaraâ—ar quia rei tantae nulla sufflcis Orationis forma Amesius in Psal 32. Document 6. Et â—ex Gratia Dei abundans est ad â—mnia peccata tollenda levat tegit et non imputat And Luther in his Summarie of the Psalme is not farre from it (b) Iustitia nostra propriè est remissio peccatorum seu ut loquitur Psalmus peccata non imputare peccata regere Luther in Summ. Ps 32. Peccatorum remissionem tribus loquendi generibus exprimit quae tamen omnia in idem cadunt Sâ—ph Fabrit in Psal 32. Parcus likewise on Rom. 47. is of the same judgement and cites Ambrose with him 2. For those two expressions not-imputing of sin and covering of sinne Calvin holds them to be the same in sence and signification and that they are of the same importance with those other Scripture phrases where God is said not to remember sinne to blot it out to cast it behind his backe or into the depths of the Sea and the like and moreover cites Augustine as his Predecessour in this Interpretation (c) Peccatorum non recordari est ea non postulare ad poenam Id ipsum alibi dicitur proij ere post tergum delere in star nubu demergere in profundum maris non imputare tectumque habere Certè si punit Deus peccata imputat Si vindicat recordatur si ad judicium vocat tecta non habet c. Atque in hune moduâ— interpretatur Augustin claru verbis c. Calvin Inst lib. 3 c 4. So that none of all these with twenâ—y more that might be put to them never dreamt of the righteousnesse of Christ lying so close under this covering of sin 3. Neither can sinne be said to be covered with the righteousnes i. the active obedience of Christ since according to the grounds and principles of that very opinion against which we argue sinne is wholly
Theophylact b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in Rom. 10.4 Sect. 20 and Theodoret make Christ in this sense to be called by the Apostle the end of the Law for righteousnesse unto those that beleeve viz. because hee performed or exhibited unto them that which the Law propounded to it selfe as its end and would have performed but could not viz. their Iustification But Fourthly some Interpreters conceive that Christ in this sense is said to be the end of the Law for righteousnesse to him that beleeveth because the Law by convincing men of sinne and exacting of them a righteousnesse which it doth not enable them to performe and againe by threatning and condemning them for the want of it it doth as good as lead them by the hand unto Christ by whom they are freely justified This Exposition calls Musculus Master (a) Nam finis Legis est Christus Intelligendum est quod Lex ad Christum ducit Dum enim peccatum revelar arguit ac damnat justiciamque exigit quamnon praestat nihil aliud agit quam quod ad Christum ducit per quem justificemur gratis Musc in Rom. 10.4 and Calvin in one touch upon the place is not farre from it (b) Id autem fieri nequit quin omni justicia spoliats peccati agnitione confusi ab ipso justiciam gratuitam petamus Calvin in Rom. 10.4 But neither doth this seem to be the meaning of the place however because it maketh not at all against us in the present controversie we shall not at present insist upon any refutation of it Fiftly some think Christ is therefore called the end of the Law because by his coming in the flesh and by his sacrifice of himselfe he put an end to the Law and Mosaicall dispensation Both Musculus and Parous mention this exposition but name not the Author This exposition is a truth but doubtlesse not a true exposition Therefore Sixtly and lastly the plaine and direct meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture seemes to be this Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that beleeveth that is the Law meaning the whole Mosaicall Oeconomie or dispensation which is the frequent signification of the word Law in the writings of this Apostle as was formerly observed and exemplified was therefore and for that end and purpose given by God unto the Jewes his people that whilst it did continue it might instruct and teach them concerning the Messiah who was yet to come and by his death to make attonement for their sinnes that so they might beleeve in him accordingly and be justified and further that in time that people and Nation might be trained up nurtured and prepared for the Messia himselfe and that oeconomie and perfection of the worship and service of God which he should bring with him and establisheth in the world at his coming This interpretation including the whole Mosaicall administration within the meaning of the word Law was both Chrysostoms of old c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Rom. 10.4 and is Mr. Gatakers d Verum ego potius Christum finem legu ea ratione simpliciter dictum existimo quia Lex revera Dei populo lata est quae ad Messiam illu viam pramuniret quod erat ministerij Mosaici munus pracipuum Gatak Elench Gomar p. 53. yet living amongst us and Parcus likewise is large in the vindication and explication of it and Calvin himselfe a Indicat eâ—am legis praposterum Interpretem esse qui per cjus opera justificari quaerit quaniam in hoc lexdata est quo nos ad aâ—â—ara justitiam manuduceret Imo quicquid doceat Lex â—uicquid pracipiat quiequid promittaet semper Christum habet pro scepo ergo â—n ipsum dirigendae sunt omnes Partes c Cal. in Ro. 10.4 in his commentary upon the place seemes very inclineable to it This interpretation might be further confirmed First from the cariage and tenor of the context it selfe For doubtlesse the Apostles meaning is that Christ should be the end of that Law for righteousnesse by the observation whereof as being their own righteousnesse ver 3 the Jewes against whom he here reasons sought to be justified Now it hath bin often said and once at least sufficiently prooved that the Jewes sought righteousnesse and selfe Iustification afwell from the observation of the Ceremoniall as of the Morall Law Secondly from the full consent and entire sympathy of other Scriptures of like propension and phrase 2 Cor. 3.13 It is said that the Children of Israel could not stedfastly looke to the end of that which is abolished that is of the whole ministerie or dispensation of Moses as is evident from the cariage of the whole Chapter Now what was the end of this dispensation but CHRIST and Iustification by him So Gal. 3.24 Wherefore the Law was our Schoolemaster unto Christ that we might be justified by Faith By the Law in this place cannot be meant the Morall Law the whole series of the context from ver 13 to 25. riseth up against such an interpretation neither is there any Expositor I know that so understands it but by the Law which is here said to be our Schoolemaster unto Christ is unquestionably meant the whole frame or body of the administration of Moses yet with a more peculiar reference to the Ceremoniall part of it See Mr. Gatakers judgement touching this Scripture in his little Tract against Gomarus p. 54.54 and againe in his Scripta adversaria as he call's them p. 43. of the first part and p. 96. of the second together with Mr. Perkins upon the place Thus at last we have I suppose abundantly vindicated the Non-imputation of the Active obedience of Christ in the sense controverted out of the hand of all those reasonings and pleadings that are usually or that readily I thinke can be build upon the Epistle to the Romans wherein notwithstanding the greatest part of the strength and confidence of our Adversaries lyeth And therefore I shall make bold to accoÌ„modate the Reader with more brevity ingiving answere to those other Scriptures which yet remain The next of which SECT 22 is that 1 Cor. 1.30 But yee are of him in Christ Iesus who of God is made unto us wisdome anarighteousnesse and sanctification and Redemption Because Christ is heresaid to be made righteousnesse unto us by God it is argued that therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed us But to this I answer that here is a little or lesse colour for the deemed imputation then in any of the former Scriptures For First 1 Cor. 1.30 answered Christ is here no otherwise nor after any other manner affirmed to be or to be made righteousnes unto us then he is to be made wisdome or sanctification unto us Therefore there is no more ground to conclude from hence the imputation of Christs righteousnesse for our righteousnesse then of his wisdome for our wisdome or
formall cause of justification as if by the word only or alone he meant to shut out this infusion of grace only and not the active obedience of Christ imputed I shall by a passage or two from him in the point cleere his intention in such expressions and fully manifest how importune and at open defiance with the truth any such interpretation of his minde and meaning must needs be In which words saith Calvin meaning those of the Apostle Rom. 4.6 in his commentaries upon the place we are taught justitiam Paulo nihil esse quà m remissionem peccatorum that is that righteousnesse with Paul is nothing else but remission of sinnes And not long after upon the 9th verse of the same Chapter So iustitia Abrahae est peccatorum remissio quod securè ipsepro confesso assumit c. that is If Abrahams righteousnesse be the forgivenesse of his sinnes which he meaning Paul without any further care or thought about it takes for granted c. By these passages it is evident that whatsoever his own minde or judgement was in the point now under question viz. whether remission of sins simply alone without any other additioÌ„ whatsoever were the righteousnesse of a Beleever in justification he attributes the affirmative unto Paul and makes his opinion and judgement to stand for Remission of sinnes simply excluding not the infusion of grace only but all other things whatsoever Except haply men Gyant-like will attempt to set Pelion upon Ossa heap presumption upon presumption and say that Paul likewise expressed himselfe in the Point only by way of opposition to the Popish opinion concerning grace infused and had no intent to be understood simply that Remission of sinnes was a Beleevers righteousnesse Otherwise for Calvin to ascribe one opinion unto Paul in the point of justification and to be himselfe of another is neither better nor worse then to professe himselfe wiser then he in the businesse yea then the Holy Ghost himselfe speaking by him Which horrid blasphemy those men unadvisedly bring upon the head of this holy and faithfull servant of God who labour to make him of a quite differing judgment himselfe especially in so weighty a point as justification is from that which he acknowledgeth to be the judgment of so great and glorious an Apostle as Paul was I might adde a third passage yea and three more to that of his ex abundanti of the same importance and perhaps somewhat more pregnant Therefore Paul saith he (a) Merite Paulus fidei justitiam in peccatorums ormissiene simpliciter includit docevs earn a Davide describi cum beatum heminem pronunciat cui non imputantur peccata Calvin De vera Ecales Res ratione p. 368. doth well simply to include the righteousnesse of Faith in Remission of sinnes teaching us that David so describeth it when he pronounceth the man happy whose sinnes are not imputed unto him Whether Calvin himselfe did simply and absolutly and not with limitation and restraint place the righteousnesse of Faith in remission of sinnes or no most unanswerably undeniable it is that he conceived Paul so to doe Nor is there any reasonable ground or cause to adde a word of this in the close of this Answere why men should be so averse or shie as some are SECT 16 from looking upon Remission of sinnes as a righteonsness yea as a perfect and complete righteousnesse since it is equivalent unto and vertually conteynes and comprehends in it the most absolute and entire obedience unto the Law and will of God as hath bin already fully demonstrated cap. 2. Sect. 4. of this second Part where also the authority and confent of Augustine in this behalfe was produced who plainly affirmeth Omnia mandata facta deputantur quonde quiequid non fit ignoscitur Ang. Retract l. 2. c. 19. that all the commandements of God are reputed to be kept or done when whatsoever is not done is forgiven Againe â— o it may well and in sufficient proprietie of speech beare the nature of a righteonsnesse vea and that perfect and compleate because it hath all those great and high privileges annexed to it and depending upon it which a righteousnesse most literally and strictly so called could have as the love favor acceptation and approbation of God yea life and salvation themselves It hath bin elsewhere as I remember observed in this discourse that the names of things are very usually enterchanged in Scripture upon occasion of a similituda or likenâ—sse of use or offect betweene them John Baptist is called by the name of â—liah because he was servicenble unto God and his cause after the same manner and with the same spirit that Eliah was So Peter and Iohn were counted Pillars Gal. 2.9 because they were conceiv'd to stand the Church of Christ in some such stead as Pillars doe the house that is supported by them So Christ himselfe to omit other instances in this kinde without number is called Bread a Vine a Dore a Way a Roote a Branch the morning Starre c. because in something or other he resembles the nature or use or both of all these things In like manner Remission of sinnes though it had not the nature or essence of a perfect righteousnesse in it may yet be called a perfect righteousnesse because it is of the same consideration benefit and use unto the creature with a perfect righteousnesse indeed But enough for this argument I hope it will be from henceforth contented and complaine no more for want of satisfaction A seventh argument which is likewise layd hold on by some as a Shield and Buckler to defend the imputation assailed SECT 17 Argum. 7 is this If Doe this and live be an everlasting rule of God and which shall never be dissolved cancelled or growne out of date then must the active obedience of Christ be imputed unto men in justification that so they may be said to have done this that is to have fulfilled the Law and so live But Doe this and live it an everlasting rule of God which shall never be dissolved c. Ergo. I answere that all the strength of this argument lyeth in the hollownesse of those words take them out of which proposition you please is an everlasting rule c. In this sence I grant that do this and live is an everlasting rule it is and hath bin and shall be everlastingly true that whosoever shall do this that is fulfill the Law perfectly shall live and enjoy the favor of God c. But this sence makes nothing to the purpose neither is there so much as the face of a consequence in the major if it be taken whosoever continueth in all things that are written in the Law to do them shall live and be saved whether Christs righteousnesse be imputed unto them or not But if the meaning of the clause be is an everlasting rule that is is the only perpetuall and standing rule or Law whereby and according to
it selfe So Rom. 3.27 By the Law of Faith faith it selfe and againe Rom. 8.2 by the Law of sinne and death he means sinne and death simply For none of these have any Law properly so called onely the word Law added to them seems to represent them under a more emphaticall and weighty consideration 2. When this Apostle speaks of the righteousnesse of the Law elsewhere he never useth this hypallage to call it the Law of righteousnesse but still in plaine and direct language The righteousnesse of the Law See Rom. 2.26 Rom. 8.4 3. This exposition makes the double antithesis or opposition which the Apostle apparently makes between the Gentiles v. 30. and the Jewes v. 31. pregnant cleere and full wheras any other interpretation dissolves the strength and darkens the light of them The Gentiles saith he v. 30 followed not after righteousnesse that is had no thoughts of took no care or course for any justification before God But Israel v. 31. sought after the Law of righteousnesse that is propounded unto themselves as a busines of maine importance a righteousnesse or justification in the sight of God and ran a course of means such as it was to obteyne it Againe The Gentiles saith he v. 30. attained unto righteousnesse that is unto justification in the sight of God many of them have bin justified and saved But Israel could not attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse v. 31. that is could not compasse a justification of themselves in the sight of God as the Gentiles did The strict Law of opposition enforceth this or the like interpretation 4. And lastly that by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel could not attaine unto he meanes righteousnes simply or justification in the sight of God appeares from the latter reason or latter part of the reason which he renders v. 3◠of Israels miscarriage and falling short in this kind Wherfore saith he could not Israel attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse which he followed after because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the works of the Law If by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel is said to have sought after we understand the righteousnesse or obedience of the Law the reason which is here assigned by the Holy Ghost at least in part why they could not atain it viz. because they sought it by the works of the Law will be very incongruous and absurd For what savour either of reason or truth is there in it to say that a man therfore cannot attaine the righteousnesse or obedience of the Law because he seeks to attaine it by the works of the Law But to say that a man cannot attaine unto righteousnesse or justification before God if or because he seeks it by the works of the Law hath perfect consistence with both I mean both with reason and truth Lastly I might further strengthen this exposition with the Authority of Theophylact if need were who expounds that clause v. 31. they could not attaine unto the Law of righteousnesse of a simple and plaine non-justification a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl in Rom. 9.31 The next Scripture proofe and last out of this Epistle to the Romans which is frequently alledged for the supposed Imputation is Rom. 10.4 The words these For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnes to every one that beleeveth Therfore say the Masters of that way of Imputation which we desire to hedge up with thorns the righteousnes of Christ or the obedience performed by him to the Morall Law is imputed to those that beleeve for their righteousnes But neither doth this Scripture know any such imputation more then its fellows For 1. Rom. 10.4 answered There is not the least resemblance or colour of reason that by the Law in this place should be meant precisely and determinately the Morall Law because as was both lately and formerly observed the Jews with whom chiefly the Apostle grapples in this place as is evident from the beginning of the chapter never so much as dreamt of justification by the Moral Law only but chiefly by the Ceremoniall Neither doth Calvin or any other Interpreter that yet I have met with understand the place of the Morall Law Besides it is evident from that which immediately follows v. 5. that he doth not speake here of the Morall Law for there he citeth that description which Moses giveth of the righteousnesse of the Law not out of any part or passage of the Morall Law but out of the heart and midd'st as it were of the Ceremoniall Law Those words the man which doth these things shall live by them wherein he placeth Moses's description of the righteousnesse which is of the Law are taken from Levit. 18.5 and are in speciall manner spoken of the Ceremonialls and Judicialls For thus the words lye ye shall therfore keep my Statutes and my Judgements which if a man doe he shall live in them Therfore doubtlesse the Apostle doth not speake here of the Morall Law Secondly SECT 19 neither is it any waies agreeable to truth that the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to beleevers suppose such an imputation were simply granted should be called the end of the Morall Law For doubtlesse no Law whatsoever considered simply as a Law is any cause or meanes of justifying a person in any other way or by any other meanes then by the observation of it selfe and consequently Iustification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of the Morall Law For nothing can properly be said to be the intent or end of a thing but only that which in reason and likelyhood may be procured and obtained by it Now there is an utter and evident impossibilitie that Justification by Christ should be procured or attained by the Morall Law Neither obedience nor disobedience thereunto hath any relation of causalitie to such an effect a man being never the neerer Justification by Christ either for the one or for the other It may be said with farre a more favourable aspect both upon reason and truth that Christ is the end of the Ceremoniall Law and yet not of this neither considered simply as a Law but as comprehending in it such and such usages or rites wherein Christ and Iustification by his blood were typified and resembled and which were to expire and to lose the binding power of a Law which it had before upon Christs coming As for the observation or transgression of this Law neither the one nor the other contributed any thing more towards any mans Iustification by Christ then the observation or transgression of the Morall Law did or doth Nay the observation both of the one and the other though very unperfect and lame have bin a stumbling block in the way of many and cast them quite off from Iustification by Christ as the Apostle implieth ver 3. Therefore Thirdly the Greek Expositors as Chrysostom a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Hom. 17. in Rom.