there is no justification to be looked for before God by that which is unperfect but only by that which is perfect c. Ergo. To the Major Proposition I answere Answere by distinguishing that clause in the consequent or latter part of it then are we justified by that which is unperfect c. These words may have a double sense or meaning as either that we are justified without the concurrence of any thing that is simply perfect to our justification or that somewhat that is comparatively weake and unperfect may somewaies concurre and contribute towards our Iustification If the former sense be intended the proposition is absolutly false and the consequence to be denied it doth not follow If Faith be imputed for righteousnesse in the sense given then is there nothing that is perfect required as necessary unto Iustification this inconsequence is notorious Yea the truth is that the imputing of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense of the discourse presupposteth somewhat if not more things then one that is absolutly perfect as absolutly necessary unto Iustification Had not the Lord Christ who is perfect himselfe even as perfect as perfection it selfe could make him made a perfect attonement for sinne there had bin no place for the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse yea there had bin no place so much as for the being either of such a Faith or of any righteousnesse or Iustification at all for men For it is thorough the attonement made by Christ for us that either we beleeve in him or in God through him and it is through the same attonement also that God iustifieth us upon our beleeving that is imputes our Faith unto us for righteousnesse in the sense argued If the said clause be meant in the latter sense viz. that somwhat that is weake and unperfect may somtimes concurre or conduce towards Iustification so the Proposition is granted but then the Minor goes to wreck For Justification before God may be expected and looked for though that Faith whereby we beleeve yea and that Minister of the Gospell by whom we beleeve be both weake and unperfect and yet both these we know are somewaies contributorie towards Iustification Except yee beleeve that I am hee you shall die in your sinnes c. Joh. 8.24 and consequently never be iustified We have beleeved in Christ Iesus that we might be iustified c. Gal. 2.16 And that the Minister of the Gospell hath or at least may have his part or hand in our Iustification is evident How shall they beleeve in him of whom they have not heard and how shall they heare without a Preacher Rom. 10.14 He that hath any influence into our Faith or the working and raising that in the soule is somewaies instrumentall and helpfull towards our Iustification But neither doth our Iustification before God depend upon the perfection of our Faith but upon the truth of it neither doth the truth of our Faith depend upon the perfection of him by whom we beleeve but upon the truth of what he teacheth and delivereth unto us for that end So that the light of this truth shines on every hand that men may be iustified ministerially and instrumentally by things that are weake and unperfect Therefore this objection also is no better then his fellowes Sixtly Object 6 Some have opposed the imputation of Faith which we pleade for with this reason SECT 8 If Faith be imputed unto us for righteousnesse in the sense expressed then God should rather receive a righteousnesse from us then we from him in our Iustification But God doth not receive a righteousnesse from us but we from him in Iustification Ergo. I answere that in this syllogisme Answere the Major Proposition is guilty of the error and falshood in the conclusion For it no waies followes upon that imputation of Faith for righteousnesse which we defend that God should either receive a righteousnesse from us or that we should receive none from him in our Iustification Because First Gods imputing Faith for righteousnesse unto us in the sense which hitherto we have aided doth no waies imply or import that Faith is a righteousnesse properly so called but only that God by the meanes thereof and upon the tender of it looks upon us as righteous yet not as made either meritoriously or formally righteous by it but as having fulfilled and performed that condition or covenant upon the fulfilling and performance whereof hee hath covenanted and promised to make us righteous meritoriously by the death and sufferings of his own Sonne formally with the pardon and remission of all our sinnes Secondly Suppose such a position or inference as this lay in the bowells of what we hold that Faith were a proper righteousnesse yet neither would this argue that therefore God should receive a righteousnesse from us in our Iustification For we rather receive our Faith from God as was layd down in Answere to the fourth objection for our Iustification then God from us in our Iustification though I grant that in a sense a farre off and with much adoe it may haply be made a truth that God receives our Faith from us in Iustification But Thirdly and lastly that that imputation of Faith for righteousnesse which is protected by us supposeth a righteousnesse given unto and received by men from God in Iustification and consequently is farre from denying it is evident from hence because it could not be truly said that God doth impute Faith for righteousnesse unto any man excâ—pt he should make him righteous upon his beleeving Now as it is impossible possible that a man should be made righteous without a righteousnesse in one kinde or other so is it unpossible also that that righteousnesse wherewith a man is made righteous in Iustification should be given or be derived upon him from any other but from God alone For this righteousnesse as hath bin already proov'd at large can be none other but forgivenesse of sinnes and who can forgive sinnes but God alone And by this time the fire of this objection also I conceive is turn'd into smoke Some other exceptions I confesse there are against this Imputation we hold forth SECT 9 of lighter consideration but some of these if not the whole thripp of them I have Answered at large in my Answere to Mr. Walker now Printed by some as it seemes at the unreasonable importunity of my Antagonists Socinianisme Discovered c. which called for it and for 7 times more with open mouth and with multiplicitie of requests made of forged cavillations and ragged raylings But complaints I consider are here but impertinencies If the Reader please to set in about pag 32 of that Discourse and read on hee shall finde severall objections more such as they are against the Imputation in hand attended with their Answeres like mad-men with sober for feare of doing harme Aud as for those viperous and malignant imputations rather then objections of Socinianisme Arminianisme c. against the
is the act of Faith that Iustifieth As when a man putteth forth his arme and reacheth a pot or cup with drink in it wherewith he quencheth his thirst he may be said to quench his thirst instrumentally by reaching out his arme because this was a meanes to procure it So let men put what meaning or interpretation they please upon their words when they professe and acknowledg that it is Faith that Iustifieth if they meane at all as they say they must meane that it is the Act of Faith that Iustifieth because both that Faith by which a man beleeves in Christ is an act of Faith and againe that Faith by which a man is instrumentally Iustified is an act of Faith and that Faith that layeth hold upon the righteousnesse of Christ is an act of Faith too Therefore let men turne themselves any way and which way they please and make their words to fall either to the North or towards the South if they meane as they say that faith indeed Iustifieth they must meane that it is the act of faith that Iustifieth And when themselves will say that faith Iustifieth and yet will condemne it for an error in another that the act of faith should Iustify they cannot escape the hands of this dilemma but one of the horns will gore them either it must follow that they doe not meane as they say or that they condemne their owne opinion and meaning in another most true it is that it is far from truth to say that faith iustifyeth as it is an act and as far from truth it is to say that it is not the act of faith that Iustifieth If it be yet further replyed and said SECT 4 that when men say we are justified by Faith their meaning is that we are justified by that which faith apprehendeth and this is farre from saying that Faith is imputed for righteousnesse To this I Answer 1. if their meaning be simply and without limitation so that we are justified by that which Faith apprehendeth when they say we are justified by Faith then they speake more truth then they are aware of and as it seems more then they intend to speake For that Faith justifieth is most true but that whatsoever Faith apprehendeth should justifie hath no fellowship with truth no not so much as in appearance For By Faith we understand or apprehend the worlds were made Heb. 11.3 yet no man will say that the creation of the world justifies men Secondly if men ascribe justification in every respect and consideration to that which Faith apprehendeth they utterly overthrow that which generally they professe viz. the instrumentall justification of faith For if any thing that faith apprehendeth justifieth every way both materially and formally and meritoriously and principally and instrumentally c. Faith shall justifie no wayes and so when men say they are justified by Faith their meaning must be they are not at al justified by Faith but by some other thing Therfore of necessity it is that Faith must justifie some way if it iustifieth any way it must of neceility be by imputation or account from God for righteousnes because it is all that God requires of men to their iustification instead of the righteousnesse of the Law The fore if God shall not impute or account it unto them for this righteousnesse it would stand them in no stead at all to their iustificaetion because there is nothing usefull or availeable to any holy or saving purpose whatsoever but only to that whereâ—â— to God hath assigned it If God in the new Covenant of the Gospell requires faith in Christ for our iustification instead of the righteousnesse of the Law in the old and this Faith will not passe in account with him for such righteousnesse both his Commandement and Covenant for beleeving and the obedience it selfe of beleeving will both become voyd and of none effect the intire benefit of them being suspended upon the gracious pleasure and purpose of God in the designation of them to their end CAP. VIII Conteining the last proofe from Scripture for the Non-imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sence controverted THere is yet one Scripture remaining happily amongst many more that have not yet manifested themselves in this Controversie that seems yea I verily beleeve SECT 1 doth more then seem quite to overthrow and take away that which must be the groundworke and foundation to set this imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ upon if ever it stands viz. the imputability or transferiblenesse of it from one to another If the Scriptures doe not only no where establish but in any place absolutely deny a possibility of the translation or removing of the righteousnesse of Christ from one person to another this will strike the fatall stroke in deciding this Question This I conceive will be evicted with a pregnancie irrefragable from that Scripture Gal. 3.12 And the Law is not of Faith but the man that doth them shall live in them This Scripture doth not barely and simply deny a deceivablenesle or possibility of translation of the righteousnesse of the Law from one person to another but denies it emphatically and with the utmost advantage of a deniall For it denies a possibility of it to be done even by that hand expresly and by name I meane the hand of faith which was the ikelyest hand under Heaven to have done it if the nature of the thing to be done had not resisted the doing of it The Apostle denyeth unto faith it selfe the office and power of being a Mediatrix in this case to derive or carry over the righteousnesse of the Law from one person to another By which it appeareth also that he had an intent particularly to make the righteousnesse of the Law as performed by Christ himselfe uncapable of this translation or imputation because faith never pretended nor ever could have ground or colour to pretend a deriving or translating of any other legall righteousnesse from one person to another for Justification but only that which was performed by Christ If there were any thing in all the world that could have done the thing that is pleaded for Faith indeed hath the preheminence of likely hood to do it because it doth derive a righteousnesse from one to another such a righteousnesse as is deriveable an imputative righteousnesse you may call it because it is such by account or interpretation I meane remission of sins this Faith derives from Christ upon him that beleeveth but for a righteousnesse of the Law it cannot derive because such a righteousnesse is not deriveable Let the words and scope of the Scripture mentionedbe narrowly examined SECT 2 and all this that hath been said will be found in the bowells of it And the Law is not of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the man that doth them shall live in them or if you would translate the emphasis also which is in the originall thus the very doer of them the
legall righteousnesse put upon him by his Faith This he proveth from the expresse tenor and condition of the Law it selfe which requires a personall observation of the things contained therein by every man that shall live that is that shall be justified thereby But the man that doth them shall live in them the full importance of which clause you shall finde opened in the 8. Chapter of the first part of this Discourse By all that we have reasoned upon the passage of Scripture in hand it is more then double evident that here is no refuge or sanctuary for the preteÌ„ded imputation but rather an high hand of Heaven against it to overthrow it Some further plead that of the same Apostle Phil. 3 9. That I may be found in him not having mine owne righteousnesse c. but we have elswhere (a) In the first part of the Dis course cap. 6. upon a diligent search and inquirie found this Scripture looking a quite contrary way Other Scriptures then these alledged with any face or colour of reason in the cause of that Imputation which I disclaime I verily know none If I did I would not favor my selfe or the cause I maintain in the least by dissembling or suppressing any of them As for those that are consideÌ„t that they see that imputation of Christs righteousnes which we oppose in that and the like Scriptures Deliver me from blood guiltinesse ô God Lob. 41 27. and my tongue shall sing of thy righteousnesse Psal 51.14 and againe in that Do this and live Luk. 10.28 I leave them and their confidence to the convictions of miracles and signes from heaven For doubtlesse as for texts and interpretations they are turned into Stubble with them and reasons demonstrations are esteemed by them but as Leviathan esteemeth yron and brasse that is as straw and rotten wood Iob. 41.27 CAP. VI. VVherin the Arguments against the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense stated in the beginning of the Discourse are propounded and answered THere have bin two opinions the one affirmative the other negative hitherto promiscuously argued and maintained in this Discourse The former pleads the Imputation of Faith in a proper sense for righteousnesse in an unproper as was declared in the beginning The latter denyeth the imputation of Christs active obedience in the letter and formalitie of it in Iustification which expressions likewise have long since bin interpreted and cleered from all ambiguitie We shall now towards the close of our worke distinguish them and answere the arguments or objections against the one and the other apart by themselves I begin with the reasons or arguments urged against the affirmative SECT 1 The first and great argument or objection against the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense taken usually presents it selfe in this or the like shape That which impeacheth the truth or justice of God Object 1 can have no consistence or agreement with the truth But the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense declared impeacheth or trencheth upon the truth and justice of God Ergo The reason of the assumption which is only questionable is rendred thus because if God should impute Faith for righteousnesse he should account that to be a righteousnesse which is none and therein should be untrue or unjust The major proposition in this syllogisme is an anoynted truth and not to be touch'd but it is unequally yok'd the minor being of a contrary Spirit and therefore to be denied And to the proofe or confirmation of it I answere First that this was in effect the plea and argument of that fanatique Spirit of Suencfeldius as it stands upon record in Zanshie (a) Dei tribunal est multo justius quam Iureconsultorum ubi impii non absolvuntur Ergo in Theologia verbum justificandi non juridicâ— pro absolutione est accipiendum sed pro justum integrum gratum Deo reddere Zanch. in Epist l. 1. p. 215. and likewise of the Counsell of Trent as Calvin hath observ'd (b) Iterum enim affirmant nos verè justos esse non tantum reputari Ego contrà c Calvi Antidos ad sess 6. p. 324. to prove that the word Iustification in the Scripture was not to be taken in a juridicall sense viz. for absolution but in a physicall or morall sense for the making or constituting of a man properly and compleatly just or righteous and is the common argument of the Papists for their Justification by inherent grace and works (c) Bellarminus dicit verbo imputandi non significari nudam existimationem sed existimationem cui veritas in reipsa respondear Chamier t. 3. l. 21. c. 13. p. 886. This notwithstanding I conceive it very unjust to charge those that use it either with Swenchfeldianisme or Popery But Secondly neither doth it follow that God should account that for righteousnesse which is no righteousnesse though he should count Faith for righteousnesse For any obedience or action conformable to a righteous Law or rule may truly and oft in Scripture is be called righteousnesse Then stood up Phineas and executed judgement c. and it was counted unto him for righteousnesse c. Psal 106 30. By righteousnesse in this place cannot be meant a conformity or obedience to the whole Law one particular act as this was whatsoever it were cannot beare the appellation of righteousnesse in such a sense Therefore it signifies only a conformity with some particular and speciall precept or rule See the word used much in a like sense Gen. 30.33 2 Cor. 9.9.10 Hebr. 11.33 c. Now then Faith or beleeving being a subjection or obedience to a speciall commandement of God 1 Iohn 3.23 2 Pet. 2.21 Rom. 1.5 c. it may both with truth and in sufficient proprietie of speech be called righteousnesse yea the weakest or most imperfect believing looke what degree of sincerity and truth there is in it so farre it may truly be called and counted righteousnesse yet by righteousnesse in that clause where God is said to impute the Faith of him that beleeveth for righteousnesse SECT 2 Non hoc diciturâ— Deum apud se judicare illos pro quâ—um peocatis universis Christus satisfocit nihil mali unquam commisisse aut boni debiti omisisse sed eodem haberâ— loco quoad mortu reatum et jus ad vitam aeternum acsi nihil vel mâ—li ad misissent vel boni debâ—ti admisissent Gat. Elench p. 35.36 Sâ—e also my answere to Mr. Walker p. 24. 25. c. I do not conceive is meant an act of obedience or conformity to any speciall or particular precept of God Therefore Thirdly when with the Scriptures we affirme that God imputeth or accounteth any mans Faith unto him for righteousnesse we do not meane that God only accounteth such a beleeving for a righteous act unto him much lesse do we meane that he esteemeth it a perfect literall and compleate observation or
fulfilling of the whole Morall Law but that which we meane is this that God lookes upon a man who truly beleeveth with as much grace and favor and intends to doe as graciously and bountifully by him as if he were a man of perfect righteousnesse and had entirely kept and fulfilled the whole Law In this sense to account Faith for righteousnesse hath not the least colour or appearance either of injustice or repugnancie with the truth The Reader may please to see the substance of this answer further opened and confirmed in the former part of this Discourse Cap. 19. Sect. 6 and 7. Fourthly and lastly there is scarce any thing affirmed more frequently or familiarly by the best reformed writers then that God esteemes or accounts those just or perfectly just who properly and in exactnesse and strictnesse of speech are not such but only have their sinnes forgiven Therefore they apprehended no matter of unjustice or contrarietie unto truth in that which the objection impeacheth of both From hence we gather saith Calvin (a) In Rom. 4.3 that Pauls dispute is not what men are in themselves sed quo loco Deus ipsos censeat that is but in what place or condition God is pleased to account them And elsewhere (b) De vera Loâ—es Refor ratione p. 368. It followes then that we are just or righteous and consequently may justly and righteously be so accounted by God quia nobis peccata non imputantur because our sinnes are not imputed to us Therefore we stand just or righteous before God saith Mr. Fox (c) De Christo gratu Iustine l 3. p. 280. because our sinnes are forgiven us We have Remission of sinnes saith Melancthon (d) In Exam. Theol. de Iustific p. 529. for and through Christ which having obteyned justi sumus coram Deo we are righteous before God Paul saith Calvin estimates the blessednesse of a man from hence quia hoc modo justus est non reipsà sed imputatione that is because he is after this manner righteous not in very deed but by imputation And a little after going on with his confutation of Osiander he must grant saith he at least that as farre as that imputation of his extendeth justos conseri qui reipsa non sunt that is that they are accounted meaning by God righteous who yet are not righteous indeed It were easy to weaâ—â—e the Reader over (e) Instit l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 11. Gratuâ—ta Dei acceptatio subrogatur in locum justiciae idem Non magu ve ritati screutiae justeque Dei judicio repugnat cos pro quorum peccatâ—â— tam commissionus quam omnissionis satisfastio per Christi mortem plenissime est prastita tales judicare qui nihil mali commiserint nihilque boni omiserent quam eos perfecte justos judicare ut pote qui perfectam legi obedientiam prassi teriut cum id ipsi tamè noutiquam fecerint pro quibus Christus tandem prâ—stitisse perhibetur Gatak Elench Gomar p. 35. vi seqq and over with heaping up such expressions as these out of these and other Authors of like Authentique Name with them But the objection was at least as much as answered before therefore proceed we to doe as much for another A second objection rais'd by some against the Imputation of Faith in a proper sense for righteousnesse SECT 3 Object 2 is this If Faith in such a sense should be imputed for righteousnesse then should justification be by works or by somewhat in our selves But the Scripture every where rejecteth works and all things in our selves from having any thing to doe in Iustification Ergo. I answere to both propositions and first to the major by distinguishing the consequent therein That justification should be by works or by somewhat in our selves may be understood two waies Either 1o. by way of merit so that by works should signifie by the merit of works which is still the Scripture sense or else 2o. by way of simple performance If the Proposition be taken in the former sense it is altogether false and the consequence thereof denied Faith may be imputed for righteousnesse in the sense oft declared and yet no man justified by the merit of any work or works in himselfe If it be taken in the latter sense so the minor Proposition is false to touch upon this in the second place For the Scripture no where rejecteth every thing that may goe under the name of a worke or that may be said to be done by us in respect of a simple performance from having to doe in the matter of justification Nay it expressely requireth of us and enjoyneth that as of absolute necessitie to justification yea and attributeth Justification to it from place to place which it selfe calleth a work This is the worke of God saith our Saviour to the Jewes that yee beleeve in him whom he hath sent And when Paul exhorts the Philippians to worke out their salvation with feare and trembling doubtlesse he doth not exclude their Faith or beleeving in Christ Now that beleeving in Christ is required as of absolute necessitie aswell to Iustification as salvation at least of those that are adulti and of yeares of discretion is a thing I conceive so well knowne and of that universall confession that I may forbeare the citation of Scripturs without prejudice to the truth of it Thus our best and soundest writers without scruple call that beleeving by which we are justified a work or the doing of something Faith saith Calvin (a) Fides praecâ—puum opus est quod a nobis Deus exigit Calvin in Iac. 1.22 is the chiefe work that God requireth of us And what did Abraham saith Musculus (b) Quid enim feeit Abraham quod imputaretur c. Musc in Gal. 3.6 that should be imputed for righteousnesse but only beleeve God The Reader may please to see more to this purpose in my Answere to Mr. Walker p. 67 c. So that the treasure of this objection is but coales also A third Objection is this Object 3 That which maketh Justification not to be of grace or of free grace SECT 4 cannot stand with the truth of the Gospell But the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense now contended for makes Iustification not to be of Grace Ergo. Reverencing the innocencie of the major Proposition I come with a rod unto the minor Answere charging this with untruth and that upon this ground and evidence because the Scripture still makes or acknowledgeth a perfect and entire consistence of grace or free grace with the condition of Faith in Iustification For by Grace yee are saved through Faith Ephes 2.8 And are freely justified by his Grace c. Rom. 3.24 through Faith in his blood c. ver 25. Nay the truth is that the worke of beleeving as our Saviour called it is so farre from carrying any opposition in it to the freenesse of Gods grace in
increase and growth in grace also 2 Peter 3. Twelfthly that notwithstanding al that hath bin said for the vindication of new apprehensions or opinions substantially prooved from the Scriptures yet the Doctrine maintained in the following Discourse hath no need of any sanctuary in this kinde to protect it being nothing but what hath an armie both of ancient and moderne worthies to make it good Insomuch that as touching the two maine points avouched herein viz. the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense specified in the entrance of the Discourse and the non-imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense disclaimed I here make this open ingenuous and solemne profession that what I cannot pregnantly and irrefragably demonstrate to any unpartiall and disengaged judgment to have bin both anciently held and taught by the chiefe Fathers of the Primitive times as likewise by the best and most considerable part at least of the late Reformed Writers Luther Calvin Melancthon Musculus Pareus c at least if their judgements and toâ—chings may be judged of by their writings I will no waies owne but disclaime Onely this I must confesse that few of these Authors alwaies speake so evenly or steadily but that some expressions from their pens are very obnoxious and opportune for a contrary interpretation But my meaning is that take them either in their more frequent and constant expressions or in their more perspicuous and cleere expressions they cannot but by an unprejudicate eye be discerned fairely to sympathize in judgement with the points mentioned As for the contrary opinion it is as Mr. Gataker modestly enough expresseth his judgement to be feared that for more then a few ages together it was unknown to all Antiquitie (a) Verecy ne illa potius quam tuetur ipse quaÌ„que assertores ejusdem nonnulli pro lapide primario insidei pietatisque fundameÌ„tu habent per secula hand pauca antiquitati omni penitus ignota fuerit cum ea quam de Christi morto ae perpessionibus nos tutamur tuÌ„ in Scripturu sacru tum et in antiquoruÌ„ scriptu passim occurrat Mr. Gata in his defeÌ„ce of his Animadversioâ—s upon Piscators and Lucius disp p. 16. This by way of salve for the soare of noveltie The next impeachment of the Discourse was the emptinesse and slender importance use or consequence of it Many it is like will not be farre off from saying of it as Judas said of Maries box of oyntment poured out upon our Saviours head Mat. 26.8 What needeth this wast Here is a great deale of paines bestowed to little purpose Might not men make Heaven and be saved aswell in the contrary opinion which is commonly received and taught as in this whatsoever it be The Author might have imployed himselfe and his time better otherwise Give me leave to ease the discourse and my selfe of this burthen also by tendering these things to consideration First Luk 12 7. that if God be so tender and respectfull of us that even all the haires of our heads are numbred and kept upon accompt by him much more respectfull and tender ought we to be not only of the maine limbs or principall members of his truth Verbum onim â—n est res lovieula ut phanatici hodie putant sed eÌ„ Vnus apex major est coelo et terra Luther in Gal c. 5.12 Nihil putandum exiguum siquidem spiritus Sanctus noluis literu mandare quod non prosit Luther in Gen 12. Maledicta sit chariras comcordia propter quam conservandarâ— periclitars necesse sir verbuÌ„ Dei Luther in Gal. 5. Maledicta sit charitas quae servatur cum jactura Doctrinae fidei cui emnia cedere debent charitas Apostolus Angelus è coelo c. Idim ibid. Pax est omni bello tristior que veritatu et justitiae ruina Constat but even of all the haires of the head thereof I meane those that seeme of smallest consequence and importance that we suffer not the least of them to fall to the ground or to be trampled upon by the foote of negligence or contempt Especially if we consider Secondly that the least haire I meane the least jot or tittle of divine truth is more worth a thousand fold then our whole heads yea then all our heads put together One tittle of the word saith Luther is greater then Heaven and Earth And in another place nothing in the Scriptures is to be thought little in asmuch as the Holy Ghost would not have caused that to be written which should not be profitable which consideration drew from him many such expressions as these Cursed be that charitie and agreement which must be preserved and kept with the danger of the word of God and againe Cursed be that charity which is kept with the losse of the Doctrine of Faith unto which all things must give place charity Apostle Angell from Heaven c. It was the saying of another that that peace is more grievous then any Warre which costs the losse of truth and honesty But the Lord Christ himselfe gives us the best and most certaine account of the infinite worth and value of the least strictures or filings of the word of God in that passage to his Disciples Mat. 5 18 19. Verily I say unto you till Heaven and Earth passe one jot or one title shall in no wise passe from the Law till all things be fulfilled Whosoever therefore shall breake one of these least commandements and shall teach men so he shall be called the least in the Kingdome of Heaven but whosoever shall do and teach them the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven Doubtlesse if God so highly prizeth the anise mint and cummin of his Law as to recompence the tithing of them with such high preferment in the Kingdome of heaven much more or at least every whit as much doth he esteeme the jots and titles the meanest and least considerable things of his Gospell which is his darling and most beloved manifestation of himselfe unto the world And therfore it must needs argu much prophanenesse of heart and great estrangement in minde and spirit from the worth and excellencie of the things of God either to despise the knowledg or to censure a just discussion and examination of the smallest of them as a thing needlesse and of little use Hierom was farre from such a conceit as this when he said In Scripturis me minima differentia omitti debet Nam singuli semenes syllaba apices et puncta plena sunt sensibus Hieronymus that the smallest difference in the Scriptures was not to be lightly passed over because every word syllable title and point are full of sense and meaning Thirdly it is very considerable that misprisions and errors in Divinity aswell as in other arts and Sciences goe as it were by tribes and families so that there is no one error but hath many more link'd in affinitie with
either by Scripture or sound reason then that which stands either in a communion of his posteritie with him therein or in the propagation of his nature defiled therewith unto them or in that punishment and condemnation which is come upon them by it p. 13 14 15 16. 10. Though Iustification and salvation came unto the world by Christ the second Adam as condemnation and death came by the first yet there are many different considerations betweene the coming and bringing in of salvation by the one and of condemnation by the other p. 16 17 18 19 20 21. 11. That which makes true Faith instrumentall in Iustification is nothing that is essentiall or naturall to it whether descent property or act but somewhat that is extrinsecall and purely adventitious as viz. the force and efficacie of the will good pleasure ordination and covenant of God in that behalfe p. 21 22 23 24 25 26. 12. It hath no foundation either in Scripture or reason to say that Christ by any imputation of sinne was made formally a sinner p. 26. 13. Faith doth not only if at all declare a man to be righteous or in a justified estate but is the very meanes by which Iustification or righteousnesse it obtained p. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33. 14. The sentence or curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death but this death of Christ was a ground or consideration unto God whereupon to dispense with his Law and to let fall or suspend the execution of the penaltie or curse therein threatned as concerning those that beleeve p. 33 34 35 36. CAP. 3. Seven Distinctions propounded and explained necessary for the further understanding of the businesse in question and the cleering of many difficulties incident to it As 1. Iustification is taken in a double sense either actively or passively p. 37 38 39. 2. Iustice or righteousnesse is sometimes in Scripture attributed to God and sometimes to men and in both relations hath a great diversitie and varietie of acceptions p. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45. 3. The righteousnesse or obedience of Christ is twâ—fold or of two kindes the one by Divines called Justitia personae the righteousnesse of his person the other Justitia meriti the righteousnesse of his merit 45 46 47 48 49 50. 4. The terme of Imputing or imputation will admit of nine severall acceptions or significations p. 51 52 53 54 55 56. 5. Obedience unto the morall Law may be said to be required of men in two respects either 1º by way of justification or 2º by way of sanctification p. 57 58. 6. Christ may be said to have kept the Law in reference to our justification two waies either 1º for us or 2º in our stead p. 58. 7. The justification of a sinner though it be but one and the same entire effect yet may it be ascribed unto many and those very different causes respectively according to their severall influences and differing manner of concurrence thereunto p. 59 60. CAP. 4. A delineation or survey of the intire body of Iustification in the severall causes of it according to the tenor of the Conclusions and distinctions laid downe in the two former Chapters P. 61. wherein I. are premised 4 generall rules touching the number nature and propertie of causes in the generall p. 62 63 64 65. 2. Some more particular and speciall kinds of causes comprehended under the 4 generall heads are mentioned and explained p. 65 to p. 77. 3. The causes of Iustification are inquired into As 1. The efficient causes thereof From p. 77 to 84. 2. The finall causes thereof p. 84 85. 3. The materiall cause therof from p. 85 to p. 90. 4. The formall cause thereof from p. 90 to 121. 4. A Description of Iustification raised from the former discussions in the Chapter p. 121. CAP. 5. Scriptures alledged for the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse or active obedience in Justification cleered and answered and the true sense and interpretation of them respectively established according to the judgement of the best Expositors A reason given by the way of mens confidence and impatiencie of contradiction in respect of some opinions above others p. 122 123. The Scriptures urged and answered are 1. From the Old Testament Psal 32 1 2 answered p. 124 125 126. Jer. 23 6 and 33 16. answered p. 127 128. Esa 45.24 answered p. 129 130. Esa 61 10. answered p. 130. to p. 136. where by the way 3 other Scriptures also are opened and cleered as viz. Revâ—â— 19 7 8 p. 134 and Rom. 13 14 with Gal. 3 27 p. 136. 2. From the New Testament As Rom. 3 21 answered p. 136 137. Rom. 3 31 answered p. 137 138 139. Rom. 4 6. answered p. 140 141. Rom. 5 19 answered p. 142. to 145. Rom. 8 4 answered p. 145 to p. 152. Rom. 9 31 32 answered p. 153 to 157. Rom. 10 4 answered p. 157 to 162. 1 Cor. 1 30. answered p. 162 163 164. 2 Cor. 5 21 answered p. 165 to 168. Gal. 3 10 answered p. 168. to 173. CAP 6 Six Arguments against the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse propounded and answered As 1. That such an Imputation impeacheth the truth or justice of God answered p. 175 176 177. 2. That this Imputation maketh Iustification to be by workes answered p. 178 179. 3. That such an Imputation is inconsistent with the free grace of God in Iustification answered p. 179 180 4. That this Imputation ministreth occasion of boasting unto the flesh answered p. 180 181 18â— 183. 5. That such an Jmputation supposeth Justification by somewhat that is imperfect answered p. 183 184 185. 6. That such an Imputation implieth that God should rather receive a righteousnesse from us then we from him in our Iustification answered p. 185 186. The opinion opposed in this Discourse of much more affinity with the master-veyne of Socinian Heresie and that by the verdicts of Pareus Piscator and Mr. Gataker then the opinion maintained in it p. 187 188 189. CAP. 7. The chiefe grounds and Arguments for the Imputation of Christs Active obedience in the sense hitherto opposed proposed and answered As 1. That there is no standing in judgement before God without the imputation of this righteousnesse answered p. 192 193. 2. That justification cannot be by the righteousnesse of another except this imputation be supposed answered p. 194 195. 3. That a true and reall Communion betweene Christ and those that beleeve in him cannot stand except this Imputation be granted answered p. 195 196. 4. That there can be no other reason or necessitie assign'd why Christ should fulfill the Law but only this imputation answered from p. 196 to 207. 5. That we are debtors unto the Law not only in matter of punishment for our transgression but in perfection of obedience also answered p. 208 209 210. 6. That there can be no justification without a perfect righteousnesse nor any such righteousnesse but the righteousnesse
imputation of Christs righteousnesse that is God justifies a beleever for Christs righteousnesse sake and not for any righteousnesse of his owne Such an imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ as this is is no way denyed or once questioned And thus such passages as those in Calvin Nos gratis justificat Deus Christi obedientiam nobis imputando i. God freely justifieth us by imputing the obedience of Christ unto us and againe Homo non inse ipso justus est sed quia Christi justitia imputatione cum illo communicatur Instit l. 3 c. 17 ss 23. i. A man is not righteous in himselfe but because the righteousnesse of Christ is communicated or Imputed unto him by imputation These and such like expressions in this Author are to be interpreted by such passages as these which are frequent also in the same Author Christus suaobedientia gratiam nobis apud Patrem acquifivit promeritus est Instit l. 2 c. 17. ss 30. 1. Christ by his obedience procured and merited for us grace or favor with God the Father And againe l. 3 c. 14. ss 17. Christus per suam obedientiam nobis justitiam acquisivit i. Christ by his obedience procured or purchased righteousnesse for us And againe in Gal. 3 6. Omnes istae locutiones peraequè valent justificari nos Dei gratia Christum esse justitiam nostraÌ„ justitiaÌ„ morte resurrectione Christi nobis acquisitaÌ„ c. i. All such expressions as these import the same thing that we are justified by the grace of God that Christ is our righteousnes that righteousnes was procured for us by the death and resurrection of Christ c. By al which passages and many more of like Importance that might be produced out of the same Author it is fully evideÌ„t that when he mentioneth any imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in Iustification his meaning is only that the righteousnesse of Christ meaning chiefly his passive obedience or righteousnesse haply not excluding his active is the meritorious cause of our Iustification and hath procured and purchased this for us at Gods hand that upon our believing wee should be accompted righteous by him or which is but the same that our Faith should be imputed for righteousnesse to us To which purpose hee speakes yet more significantly and expressely in the place last mentioned in Gal. 3 6. Quum autom justitiam in se repositam non habeant homines imputatione hanc adipiscuntur i. Men not having any righteousnesse lodged â—n themselves they obtaine it by imputation which Imputation he thus explicates and interprets quia Deus fidem illis fert acceptam pro justitia because saith he God doth Impute or accompt their faith unto them for righteousnesse Divers like passages might be drawne together out of other Authors which must be seasoned with the same salt of Interpretation to be made savory and meete for Spirituall nourishment In the Homilies of our owne Church SECT 4 there are some passages that mention the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse in Iustification for the genuine sense whereof if we consult with the eleventh Article of Religion which is concerning Iustification and is framed with all possible exactnesse this way that so few words are capable of that will directly lead us to the same Interpretation of them we are accompted righteous before God saith our Article only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ by faith and not for our owne works or deservings Where â— it is to be observed that we are not said to be constituted and made righteous before God in Iustification though such an expression may in a sense be admitted but only that we are accompted or reputed such 2. It is not said that we are accounted righteous with the righteousnesse of our Lord and Saviour no nor yet with his merits but only thus we are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord by Faith i. The merit of Christ or of his righteousnesse hath so farre prevaled with God on our behalfe that by or upon our Faith we shall be accounted righteous before him which in effect is the same truth we maintaine viz. that God for Christs sake or Christs merits sake doth impute our faith for righteousnesse unto us requiring nothing more at our hands for Iustification And thus Musculus expresseth himselfe roundly Fides reputatur in justitiam propter Christum Faith is accounted for righteousnesse for Christs sake And againe Commendata debet esse haec fides c. quaÌ„ constituit credentibus in Christum propter ipsum justitiae loco imputare Loc. Com. de Iustif sect 5 i. This faith ought to be esteemed of us c. which God purposeth for Christs sake to impute for righteousnesse to those that beleeve in him So Luther also ad Gal. 3.6 Deus reputat istam imperfectam fidem ad justitiam perfectam propter Christum i. God for Christs sake accounts this imperfect faith for perfect righteousnesse And Chamier calls remission of sinnes that righteousnesse which is imputed unto us Remissio peccatorum est justitia imputatat 3 l. 21. c. 19. ss 10. And Vrsinus Idem sunt justificatio remissio peccatorum Cat. part 2. Qu. 60 ss 3. Therefore wheresoever whether in the Homilies of our own Church or in other Authors we meet with any such expression as of the righteousnesse of Christ imputed in Iustification we must not understand this righteousnesse in the Letter proprietie or formalitie of it but in the Spirit or merit of it to be imputed Iustificamur per Iustitiam Christi non personae qua ipse est vestitus sed meriti quae suos vestit nobis imputatam Dr. Prideaux Lect. 5 ss 11. And this manner of speech to put the name of a thing in the proprietie of it instead of the valew worth benefit or returne of it is both usuall and familiar in ordinary passage of discourse amongst us and very frequent in the Scriptures When we say a Merchant grew rich by such or such a Commoditie our meaning is that he grew rich by the game or returne he made of the commodity He may be enriched by the Commodity and yet have never a whâ—t of it with him or under his hand So when we say such a man grew rich by his place or Office our meaning plainly is but this that he grew rich by such gaines or matters of profit as his place or Office afforded him we do not meane that his place or Office it self was his riches So may it be said that we are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ and yet not have the righteousnesse it selfe upon us by imputation or otherwise but only a righteousnesse procured or purchased by it really and essentially differing from it viz. remission of sinnes as will appeare in due time Thus in the Scriptures themselves there is no figure or forme of speech more frequent then to name the thing it selfe in the propriety of it in
directly and entirely with it Thirdly If the interpretation that is set up against it cannot stand before the circumstance of the context about it Fourthly and lastly when the judgment of able learned and unpartiall men is found in perfect concurrence with it If these considerations be sufficient to furnish out an interpretation with authority and power then shall we need no more Scriptures to vindicate the innocencie of our affirmative viz. that Faith is that which is imputed by God for righteousnesse in Iustification the truth of our negative inseparably accompanying it viz. that the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed but only that one Chapter Rom. 4. For the first SECT 3 the Letter of this Scripture speakes what we affirme plainly and speakes no parable about it yea it speakes it once and twice yea it speakes it the third and fourth time and repenteth not Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes v. 3. Againe but to him that worketh not but beleeveth in him that justifieth the ungodly his Faith is counted unto him for righteousnes ver 5. So againe We say that Faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse ver 9. And yet againe And therefore it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse v. 22. The same phrase and expression is used also ver 23 24. Certainly there is not any truth in Religion not any Article of the Christian beliefe that can boast of the Letter of the Scripture more full expresse and pregnant for it What is maintained in this discourse concerning the imputation of Faith hath all the authority and countenance from the Scriptures that word can lightly give whereas the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in that sense which is magnified by many hath not the least reliefe either from any expresse sound of words or sight of Letter in the Scriptures Secondly for the scope of the place this also rejoyceth in the interpretation given viz. SECT 4 that the word FAITH should be taken properly and in the Letter in all those passages cited and from tropes and metonymies it turneth away Apparent it is to a circumspect Reader that the Apostle's maine intent and drift in this whole discourse of justification extending from the first Chapter of the Epistle to some Chapters following was to hedg up with thornes as it were that false way of Iustification which lay through works and legall performances and so to put men by from so much as attempting to goe or seek that way and withall to open and discover the true way of justification wherein men might not faile to atteyne the Law of righteousnesse as he speaks elsewhere before God that is in plaine speech to make known unto them what they must doe and what God requireth of them to their justification and what he will accept at their hands this way and what not As our Saviours answer was to the Jews asking him what they should do to worke the works of GOD meaning for their justification This saith he is the worke of God i. All the workes of God requireth of you for such a purpose that you beleeve in him whom he hath sent Iohn 6 28 29. So that that which God precisely requires of men to their justification instead of the workes of the Law is FAITH or to beleeve in the proper and formall signification He doth not require of us the righteousnesse of Christ for our Iustification this he required of Christ himselfe for it that which he requires of us for this purpose is our Faith in Christ himselfe not in the righteousnes of Christ that is in the active obedience of Christ as hereafter is shewed Therefore for Paul to have certified or said unto men that the righteousnesse of Christ should be imputed for righteousnesse unto them had been quite beside his scope and purpose in this place which was plainly and directly this as hath been said to make known unto men the counsel and good pleasure of God concerning that which was to be performed by themselves though not by their owne strength to their justification which he affirmeth from place to place to be nothing else but their Faith or beleeving To have said thus unto them that they must be justified by Christ or by Christ's righteousnesse and withall not to have plainly signified what it is that God requires of them to give them part and fellowship in that righteousnesse or justification which is by Christ and without which they could not be justified had bin rather to cast a snare upon them then to have opened a dore of life and peace unto them And therefore he is carefull when he speakes of Iustification or redemption by Christ often to mention Faith as the meanes whereby this redemption is communicated unto men See Rom. 3 25. Rom. 5 1 2. By the light of which and such like expressions the sense and meaning of those Scriptures are to be ruled wherein justification or Redemption by Christ are taught without any expresse mention of Faith as Rom. 3 24. Rom. 5.9 c. as likewise of those wherein justification by Faith is affirmed without expresse mention of Christ or any thing done or suffered by him As Rom. 3 28.30 And here by the way I cannot but reflect a little upon the unsavorinesse and inconsideratnesse of their conceipt who to avoyd the strength of the interpretation given of these Scriptures will needs force themselves contrary to all Interpreters both ancient and moderne that I have yet met with and most apparantly contrary to the most apparant scope of the Apostle throughout this whole disputation to suppose that the Apostle doth not here speake of that Faith of Abraham whereby he was justified or made personally righteous before God but of such a Faith only as God did approve of and commend in him and impute unto him as a particular act of righteousnesse in such a sense as that act of Phineas mentioned Num 25 8. is sayd to have beene imputed to him for righteousnesse Psal 106 31. Alas Paul was now in the heat of his Dispute concerning the great and weighty businesse of Iustification travailing as it were in birth with his Romans tâ—ll he had convincingly satisfied them from the Scriptures that the way of Iustification was not by the workes of the Law but by Faith in Iesus Christ Now how importune and impertinent to this designe had it beene for him to interpose a whole Chapter only to prove that which was never doubted of nor questioned by any To wit that Abraham did well in believing God and was approved by him for it His businesse here was not to argue what was lawfull and what was unlawfull or whether Abraham was justifiable in his act of believing God But to demonstrate and shew how and by what meanes a poore miserable sinner might come to be justified and accounted righteous before God which he clearly and fully demonstrates to be by way of Faith or beleeving from the example of Abraham
whose faith was by God himselfe imputed for righteousnesse unto him that is upon and by the meanes of his Faith he was looked upon by God as a righteous man But the conceit against which we now argue is too weake to beare any great waight of confutation If that yet stickes with any man that Abraham having believed formerly as appeares from his History and thereby justifyed should be said to be justified by a second or after act or believing I answere 1. Be it granted that Abraham believed and was thereby justified before that act of beleeving whereunto this Testimony is subjoyn'd that it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse Gen. 15 6 yet doth it not follow that this testimony should be precisely limited to or only understood of that particular act of his believing whereunto it is subjoyned but it may indifferently relate as well to the first as the last act of his believing yea happily rather to the first then to the last for it is not said in the place cited that Abraham believed the Lord in this particular promise now made or renewed unto him but indefinitely and in the generall that Abraham believed or had believed the Lord and it was imputed or accounted unto him for righteousnesse So that howsoever Abraham was precisely justified by the first act of a sound Faith which ever he put forth yet the testimony or record of his justification by beleeving might be suspended by the Holy Ghost till his Faith became more conspicuous and was further manifested Thus Heb. 11 4. the testimony of Abels righteousnesse by Faith was as it seemes deferred till the manifestation of his Faith by offering such a sacrifice unto God as he did whereas it cannot be thought but that he was a righteous or justified person and that by meanes of his Faith before the offering of that sacrifice So that this Objection is easily answered Besides further answere might be that the intent of the Holy Ghost in this testimony and passage concerning Abraham was not to shew the time when but the manner or meanes how and whereby he was justified Now all succeeding acts of justifying Faith as justifying for there are many acts of a justifying Faith which are not of that kind of act wherby such a Faith justifieth being of the same kind and nature with that primary and first act of beleeving whereby he was justified may in sufficient propriety of speech have the effect of Iustification ascribed as well to them as it is to the first act it selfe As suppose a man hath beene a true beleever in God through Jesus Christ for seven yeares together during which space he hath constantly every day renewed or repeated the very same act of believing wherby he was at the first of a sinner made righteous this mans Iustification or making righteous may according to the frequent tenor of Scripture language be aswel ascribed to any of these after acts of believing as to the first of all it being usuall with Scripture to ascribe effects though not really and actually effected and done to such meanes or actions of men which are apt to produce and effect them Thus he is said to destroy the Temple of God 1 Cor. 3 16. who shall do any thing that endanger 's it or is apt to destroy it The like expression we have Romans 14 15 and verse 20. See also and consider Mat. 16 6. Esther 8 7. Rom. 24. Mat 5 32. with other like places without number Thirdly SECT 5 that interpretation which is set up against it and which contendeth that by the word FAITH or BELEEVING in al those passages cited is meant not Faith properly and formally understood but Faith tropically or metonymically that is the righteousnesse of Christ is clearely overthrowne by many considerations and passages in the context First it colour 's not with any appearance or likelyhood of truth that the Apostle in the great and weighty point of justification wherein doubtlesse he desired if in any Subject beside to speake with his understanding as his owne phrase is that is that what he himselfe conceiveth and understand's may be clearely understood by others should time after time in one place after another without ever explaining himselfe throughout the whole disputation use so strange and harsh and uncouth an expression or figure of Speech as is not to be found in all his writings nor in all the Scriptures besides To say that Faith or beleeving is imputed for righteousnesse but to meane that indeed it is not Faith but the righteousnesse of Christ that is imputed must needs argue the speakers designe to be this the making sure that his meaning should not get out at his mouth If Paul should manage the great point and mystery of justification in such language and phrase of speech as this he might truely say of what he had said herein EDIDI ET NON EDIDI that he had said and not said Secondly it is evident that that Faith or beleeveing which ver 3. is said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse is opposed to works or working ver 5. Now betweene Faith properly taken and workes and so betweene beleeving and working there is a constant opposition in the writings of this Apostle yea and reason it selfe demonstrates an opposition betweene them as occasion will be to shew more at large in the second part of this discourse but betweene the active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ and works neither doth Paul ever make opposition neither would reason have suffered him to have done it Thirdly it is said ver 5. that to him that believeth HIS faith is imputed to him for righteousnesse From which clause it is evident that that Faith whatsoever we understand by it which is imputed for righteousnesse is HIS that is somewhat that may truely and properly be called his before such imputation of it be made unto him Now it cannot be said of the righteousnesse of Christ that that is any mans before the imputation of it be made unto him but Faith properly taken is the beleevers before it be imputed at least in order of nature if not of time Therefore by Faith which is here said to be imputed cannot be meant the righteousnesse of Christ Fourthly SECT 6 if we should grant a trope or metonymie in this place so that by FAITH should be meant the Object of it or the thing that is to be beleeved yet wil it not follow from hence that the righteousnes of Christ should be here said to be imputed but either God himselfe or the promise of God made unto Abraham For it is sayd Abraham beleeved God ver 3. not that he beleeved the righteousnesse of Christ except we set up another trope to maintaine the former and by God will say is meant the righteousnesse of Christ which would be not a trope or figure but rather indeed a monster of speech Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be here said or meant to be imputed for
worketh by love not any faith but that faith which worketh by love Certainty that Faith which Paul defineth or describeth to be a Faith working by love cannot be conceived to be the righteousnesse of Christ and yet this Faith it was in the judgment of this Author that was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse HAYMO about the yeare 840 in Rom. 4 3. Because he beleeved God it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse that is unto remission of sinnes because by that Faith wherewith he beleeved he was made righteous ANSELME Arch-Bishop of Canterbury about the yeare 1090 upon Rom. 4 3. That he meaning Abraham beleeved so strongly was by God imputed for righteousnesse unto him that is c. by this beleeving he was imputed righteous before God From all these testimonies it is apparant that that interpretation of this Scripture which we contend for hath anciently ruled in the Church of God and no man found to open his mouth or lift up his pen against it till it had bin established upon the Throne for above a thousand yeares Come we to the times of Reformation here we shall finde the right and title of it still maintained by men of greatest authority and learning Sec. 12 Christiana justitia est fiducia in filium Dei quae fiducia imputatur ad iustitiam propter Christum Luther ad Gal. 3 6. Deus reputat istam imperfectam fidem ad justitiam perfectam propter Christum in quem coepi credere ibid. LUTHER in Gal. 3 6. Christian righteousnesse is an affiance or faith in the Son of God which affiance is imputed unto righteousnes for Christs sake And in the same place not long after God for Christs sake in whom J have begun to beleeve accompts this my imperfect faith for perfect righteousnes Doubtlesse this Author was for the interpretation given or else his words and he were not of the same mind BUCER upon Rom. 4.3 Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes that is he accounted this FAITH or beleeving Abraham fidem habuit Iehovae et reputavit id ei justitiamâ— hoc est habuit ei pro justitia hanc fidem Credendo igitur id accepit ut Deus cum pro justo haberet Buceâ— Ad Ro. 4 3. Imputari ad justitiam alio modo significat â—d per quod nos ipsi habemur in censu justorum Atque id Paulus tantummodo fidei tribuit c. P. Mart. Ad Rom. 4 3. Quare Abraham credendo nihil aliud quam obla tam sibi gratiam amplectitur ne â—rrita sit Si hoc illi imputatur in justitiam sequitur non aliter esse justum nisi quia Dei bonitate consisus omnia ab ipso sperare audet Calvin ad Rom. 4 3. Fides reputatur in justitiam non quâ—d ullum a nobis meritum afferat sed quia Dei bonitatem apprehendit ibid. in v. 4. for righteousnesse unto him So that by beleeving he obtained this that God esteemed him a righteous man PETER MARTYR declares himselfe of the same judgment upon Rom. 4 3. To be imputed for righteousnesse in another sense signifieth that by which we our selves are reckoned in the number of the righteous And this PAUL attributes to FAITH only CALVIN abetteth the same interpretation with as high a hand as any of his fellowes upon Rom. 4 3 Wherefore Abraham by beleeving doth only imbrace the grace tendred unto him that it might not be in vaine If this be imputed unto him for righteousnesse it followes that he is no otherwise righteous but as trusting or relying upon the goodnesse of God he hath boldnesse to hope for all things from him Againe upon verse 5. Faith is reputed for righteousnesse not because it carieth any merit from us but because it apprehends the goodnesse of God If all this be not home to the point in Question I desire the Reader that desires further satisfaction concerning the judgment of this Author therein to peruse and ponder what he hath commented at large upon the sixt verse of Gal. 3. Whosoever thinks it prejudiciall to Calvin that he should be thought to hold Imputation of Faith in a proper sense for righteousnesse may if he will pittie him and lament over him but without an Index expurgatorius and that in folio can never relieve him In the place last mentioned to omit many other passages and expressions here extant as pregnant for that imputation of Faith which is pleaded for as eyes can looke upon he describes at large that Faith of Abraham which is there said to be imputed for righteousnesse by the nature and property of it and differenceth it from other perswasions that men may have of the truth of God By which cariage of the businesse it is as manifest as manifestation it selfe knowes how to make any thing manifest that his thoughts were never tempted with any insinuation either of a tropicall or metonymicall sense in the word Faith but that the plaine ready and Grammaticall signification was that which he wrought upon Sec. 13 and fram'd his interpretation unto MUSCULUS Commendata debebat esse haec sides non proprâ—e qualitatu sed propositi Dei respectu quo constituit illa credentibus in Christum propter ipsum justitiae loco imputare Musc Loc. de Iustif sect 5 Quid enim fecit Abraham quod imputaretur illi ad justitiam nisi quod credidit Deo Idem Ad Gal. 3 6. Sic de hac Abrahâ— fide loquitur ut manifestum sit disputare ipsum de fide qua non simpliciter Deo sed in Deum creditur Idem in Gen. 15 6. Verum vbi promittenti Deo firmiter credidit est illi ejusmodi fides justitiae loco imputata hoc est obeam fidem justus est a Deo reputatis et ab omnibus deiâ—ctis absolutus ibid. as far as his judgment and learning will reach engageth himselfe for this Imputation also In his common place of Iustification Sect. 5. This Faith should be in high respect and esteeme with us not in regard of the proper quality of it but in regard of the purpose or decree of God whereby he hath decreed for Christs sake to impute it this faith for righteousnesse unto those that beleeve in him The same Author upon Gal. 3 6. What did Abraham that should be imputed unto him for righteousnesse but only this that he beleeved God Words plaine enough to our purpose yet behold from the same pen more plaine then they in another place Vpon Gen. 15 6. you shall finde words of this importance He so speakes of Abrahams Faith that manifest it is that he disputes of that Faith wherewith a man beleeveth not God simply but in or on God Where though he makes a difference betweene beleeving God simply and beleeving in God yet evident it is that if there be either trope or metonymie in the word BELEEVING he was not aware of it because be interprets it of such a Faith as
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
man shall live The former clause after Pauls succinct and presse manner of expressing himselfe is very briefe and therefore somewhat obscure in it selfe but the latter clause easeth the burden of the dificulty and casteth a sufficient light upon it Whereunto if we adde but the dependance and reference that this verse hath upon the former Pauls meaning will bee found as cleere as the noone day Therefore when he saith the Law is not of faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the originall by or out of faith his meaning can be no other but this that the righteousnesse of the Law doth not arise or come upon any man out of his Faith or by his beleeving or that no man is made partaker of a legall righteousnesse by beleeving but saith he the very doer the man he shall live in or by them He proves the truth of the former clause from the expresse tenor of the Law or legall righteousnesse as standing in full opposition to any derivation of it from one to another even by Faith it selfe As if he should say no legall righteousnesse can come upon any man by beleeving because it is only the man himselfe that doth the things of the Law that shall be justified and live by them the righteousnesse of the Law never goeth further in the propriety or formalitie of it to the justification of any man then to the person of him that fulfills the Law That by the word Law in this place is meant the righteousnesse or fulfilling of the Law besides that there can hardly be made any reasonable interpretation of the clause if this word be taken in any other sense may appeare by the like acception of the same word the Law in other passages of this Apostle when it is used upon like occasion Rom. 4.13 for the promise was not to Abraham or his seed through the LAW i. through the righteousnes of or obedience unto the Law viz. that it should be obtained and enjoyed by any such righteousnesse as is evident by the opposition in the following clause but through the righteousnesse of faith i. this promise was not made unto him and his seed that the benefit and blessing of it should be obtained by the former but by the latter righteousnesse The word is againe used in the same signification in the very next verse For if they that be of the Law be heires i. that are for the righteousnesse of the LAVV. and will stand to be justified by that besides other places without number The scope likewise of the place and the dependence of the clause with the former ver SECT 3 apparantly evinceth this interpretation The Apostle in the former verse had delivered it for a truth that no man could be justified in the sight of God by the Law i. by the righteousnesse or works of the Law for this reason because the Scripture saith that the just shall live by faith Now because this consequence might seeme somewhat doubtfull and insuâ—ficient lying open to some such exception against it as this what though the just doe or must live by faith may they not be justified by the works of the Law too and live by them also may not the righteousnesse of the Law be made over unto them by faith and so compound righteousnesse be made for them of both together No saith Paul the Law is not of faith there can be no legal righteousnesse derived or drawn upon men by faith and that for this reason because such a righteousnesse is by the expresse letter and tenor of the Law consined and appropriated to the person of him that fulfills it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man himselfe that doth them shall live by them q. d. there is a repugnancy and contradiction in it ex naturarei in the very nature and effence of the thing that the righteousnesse of the Law should â—ver be removed or caried over from one mans person to another though it were attempted by the hand of Faith it selfe God never intended that the Law and faith should meet together to jumble up a justification for any man And whereas it is frequently charged as a matter of deep prejudice upon the opinion laboured for in this discourse that it magnityeth faith above measure and makes an Idol of it the truth is that the contrary opinion which ascribes to it a power of transferring a legall righteousnesse â—â—â—gnifieth it 7 times more and ascribes a power even of impossibilities to it Faith may boast of many great things otherwise and may remove mountaines but for removing any legall righteousnesse in the sense we speake of it must let that alone for ever There is a greater contrariety and indisposition in the severall natures of faith and the Law in respect of mixing or working together to make up a Iustification then was betweene the lion and Clay in Nebuchadnezzars vision Dan. 2.43 though in other things they well agree Repugnantia legis et fidei est saith Calvin in Gal. 3.12 in causa justificationis facilius enim aquam igni copulabis quam haec duo concilies homines fide et lege esse justos 1. There is a repugnancie betweene the Law and faith in the matter of Iustification and a man may sooner couple fire and water together then make these two agree that men are righteous by faith and yet by the Law too Consonant to this Scripture last opened is that Rom. 4.14 For if they which are of the Law be heires faith is made voyde and the promise is made of none effect Where you see as full and as irreconcileable an opposition betweene the righteousnesse of the Law and the righteousnesse of faith in respect of justification as is betweene East and West it is unpossible they should be brought together There is a greater gulfe fixed betweene them then was betweene Abraham and Dives faith cannot go over to the righteousnesse of the Law to joyne with that in Iustification neither can the righteousnesse of the Law bee brought over unto faith What reason there may bee conceived for this Non-imputabilitie of the righteousnesse of the Law See Cap. 21 we shall have a faire opportunity to declare in the prosecution of our grounds and reasons for the point we favor in this discourse which is the next thing we hast unto CAP. IX Wherein the first ground or argument for the conclusion undertaken is propounded and established HAving considered with as much diligence and faithfulnesse as frailty would permit how the Scriptures stand affected and incline in the controversie depending we are lead in the next place by the hand of a plaine and familiar method to propound such Arguments and considerations for the confirmation of the premisses as reason and sobriety of thoughts about the stated Question have suggested My first ground and argument to prove that the righteousnesse of Christ in the sence now under dispute viz. in the letter and proprietie of it cannot be imputed unto any for their
wants a literal or legall righteousnesse upon him especially supposing he hath another righteousnesse holding any analogie or proportion thereunto as he may account any mans uncircumcission circumcission Rom 2.26 Or call the un-circumcised Gentiles the circumcision Philip. 3.3 O◠pronounce and call Iohn Baptist Elias Mat. 11.14 Or call the two witnesses two O live Trees and two Candle-sticks Revel 11.4 besides other instances in Scripture of like interpretation without number Now as Christ spake as truly when he called John Elias as he should have done if he had called him only Iohn and the Holy Ghost spake as truly when he called those that beleeve though uncircumcised in the flesh the circumcision as if he called them the uncircumcision or as if they had bin literally circumcised So may God with as much righteousnesse and truth pronounce and call or account a man righteous that is not strictly properly or literally such if he hath any qualification upon him that any way answereth or holds proportion in any point with such a righteousnesse as he should doe in case this man had this legall righteousnesse as he should doe in case this man had this legall righteousnesse upon him in the absolutest perfection of the letter For as in those and such like Scripture instances the ground of the communication of the Name is only some particular agreement betweene either the persons or things not an universall concent or identitie in all things So when God pronounceth or accounteth a man righteous it is not necessarie that he should be literally properly morally and every way RIGHTEOUS it is sufficient to beare out the justice and truth of God in giving either the Name or esteeme of a righteous man unto him if his person be under any such relation or condition Idemsunt habere temissionem peccarorum et esse justum Vrsinus Cat. part 2 Qu. 56. Sect. 1. Idem sunt justificatio et remssio peccatorum ibid. Q. 60. Sect. 3. as belongeth to a legall righteoussesse or which a legall RIGHTEOUSNESSE would cast upon him Now one especiall privilege or benefit we know belonging to a perfect legall righteousnesse is to free the person in whom it is found from death and condemnation Doe this and thou shalt live and he that hath his sinnes forgiven him is partaker with him in the fullnesse of this privilege is as free from condemnation as he and may with truth and proprietie of speech enough in this respect be either called or accounted a righteous man Thirdly and lastly answere might be made in few words that forgivenesse of sinnes is a true yea a compleate righteousnesse in the kind though it be not a through conformity with the morall Law Remission of sins is a passive righteousnesse as absolute perfect in the kind of it as any active righteousnes which consists in an entire observation of some Law And for him that hath once sinned or ever failed in the observation of the Law there is no other righteousnesse appliable unto him or whereof he is capable but only this passive righteousnesse of forgivenesse of sinnes Which for all other ends purposes advantages privileges whatsoever is as effectuall to him that is invested with it as the active righteousnesse it selfe could be except only for selfe-boasting and glorying in the flesh which is a privilege if it must needs be so called altogether inconsistent with and numeet for the lapsed weake and sinfull condition of man So that God when he hath forgiven any man his sinnes may with abundance both of justice and truth pronounce and call him a righteous man though he be as far from that legall righteousnesse as the East is from the West CAP. XX. Conteyning the 21 22 23 and 24 Reasons to prove the imputation of Faith and the non-imputation of the righteousnesse of CHRIST TRuth may have many Reasons for her SECT 1 though many times she hath but few friends But Reasons give them time will make friends and the usurpation of error will cease from the judgements and understandings of men when her nakednesse and filthinesse shall be discovered But they shall proceed no further saith Paul of men that resist the truth 2 Tim. 3.8.9 and gives this signe or reason of their period approching for their follie shall be manifest unto all them c. Men that either are or would be esteemed wise will owne nothing that is foolish when the follie thereof is made manifest unto them Now as some things are more visible and easier to be seene or discerned then other for the manifestation whereof a lesser light is sufficient whereas things lesse perceptible require an advantage of light more condensed and fortified to make a cleere and distinct representation of themselves to the sight so are some truths in Religion better prepared and fitted for the understandings and judgments of men in themselves and consequently the errors opposite to them have a more pregnant inconsistencie with reason and for the discoverie of such both errors and truths a weaker and fainter light of argumentation is for the most part sufficient but againe there are other truths whose scituation lyeth at a greater distance from those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common principles of reason or that have a more subtile and lesse perceptible connexion with them and for the manifestation of these together with their opposite errors to the judgments and consciences of men many times the most strongest and cleerest and-most multiplied light of discourse and argumentation is found lesse then enough Therefore let us yet contend with some further demonstrations to bring the conclusion laboured for into a cleere and perfect light that it may be no charge or trouble at all to the minds and thoughts of men to receive it That which having bin done in our owne persons Argum. 21 SECT 2 could not have bin our Iustification nor any part of the righteousnesse by which we could have bin justified cannot be made our justification nor any part of it by imputation from another But the righteousnesse of the Law pretended to be imputed from Christ in justification had it been wrought by our selves in our owne persons could not have been our iustification nor any part of that righteousnesse by which we were to be justified Therefore this righteousnesse of Christ cannot be made our justification nor any part of it by imputation from him The major I conceive hath more reason in it then to be denyed If a personall fulfilling of the Law could have bin no justification nor part of justification to us certainly an imputative fulfilling of it could not have bin either The imputation of a thing from another cannot adde any strength or vertue to it above a personall acting or working yea the nature and intent of imputation in the sense we now speake of it is only to supplie the defect of personall performance therefore it cannot exceed it For the minor that the righteousnesse of the Law which was performed by
righteousnesse So Psal 106.30 31. Phineas stood up and executed judgement c. and that viz. act of his was IMPUTED to him for righteousnesse i. received a testimony from God of being a righteous and holy act So againe 2 Cor. 5.19 not IMPUTING their trespasses i. their own trespasses unto them Secondly SECT 5 when a thing is said simply to be imputed as viz. sinne folly and so righteousnesse or the like c. the meaning of the phrase is not to be taken concerning the bare acts of the things as if for example to impute sin to a man signified this to repute the man to whom sin is imputed to have committed a sinfull act or as if to impute folly were simply to charge a man to have done foolishly but the phrase of imputing when it is applyed to things that are evill and attributed to persons that have a power of judicature over those to whom the imputation is made in which posture only to my remembrance the word is found in Scripture signifieth the charging of the guilt or demerit of what is said to be imputed upon the head of the person to whom the imputation is made with an intent of inflicting some condigne punishment upon him So that to impute sinne in Scripture phrase is to charge the guilt of sin upon a man with a purpose to punish him for it Thus Rom. 5.13 Sinne is said not to be IMPUTED whilest there is no Law The meaning cannot be that that act which a man doth whether there be a Law or no Law should not be imputed to him The Law doth not make any act to be imputed or ascribed to a man which might not aswell have bin imputed without it But the meaning is that there is no guilt of any act charged by God upon men nor any punishment inflicted upon men for any thing done by them but only by vertue of the Law prohibiting or restreyning it In which respect the Law is said to be the strength of sinne viz. because it giveth a condemning power against the doer to that which otherwise would have had none 1 Cor. 15.56 So againe Job 24.12 when it is said that God doth not lay folly to the charge of them i impute folly to them that make the soules of the slaine to cry out c. the meaning is not that God doth not repute them to have committed the acts of oppression murder c. For supposeing they did such things it is unpossible but that God should repute them to have done them but the meaning is that God doth not visibly charge the guilt of these sins upon them or inflict punishment for them So 2 Sam. 19.19 When Shimei prayeth David not to IMPUTE wickednesse unto him his meaning is not to desire David not to think he had done wickedly in rayling upon him for himselfe confesseth this in the very next words but that David would not inflict that punishment upon him which that wickednesse deserved This was that non-imputation of wickednesse which Shimei desired of David So when David himselfe pronounceth the man blessed to whom the Lord IMPUTETH not sinne his meaning is not as if there were any man whom the Lord would not repute to have committed those acts of sin which indeed they have committed but that such are blessed upon whom God will not charge the demerit of their sins in the punishment due to them So yet againe to forbeare further citations in this point 2 Cor. 5.19 when God is said not to IMPUTE their sinnes unto men the meaning is not that God should not repute men to have committed such and such sins against him but this that he freely discharged them from the punishment due unto them By all which testimonies and instances from the Scriputres concerning the constant and solemne use and signification of the terme imputing or imputation it is evident that the Mâ—nor Proposition in the Objection viz. that the transgression of the Law is imputable from one mans person to anothers hath no such cleere or certaine soundation in the Scriptures SECT 6 And therfore thirdly and lastly to come home to the instance of the imputation of Adam's sinne to his posterity which is brought for the confirmation of it I answere also First that either to say that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to his posteritie of beleevers or the sin of Adam to his are both expressions at least unknowne to the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures There is neither line nor word nor syllable nor letter nor tittle of any such thing to be found there But that the faith of him that beleeveth is imputed for righteousnesse are words which the Holy Ghost counteth neither errour nor heresie to use But secondly because I would make no exception against words further then necessitie I meane a necessitie of making provision for the truth enforceth I doe not like that any mans words that will take salt and be made savourie by interpretation should be cast out upon the dunghill though I know a man that hath received this measure pressed down heaped up and running over from many gran that there are expressions in Scripture concerning both both the communication of Adams sinne with his posterity and of the righteousnesse of Christ with those that beleeve that will fairely enough beare the terme of imputation if it be rightly understood and according to the use and importance of it in Scripture upon other occasions as we lately cited many instances but as it is commonly taken and understood by many it is no currant language but occasions much error and mistake Concerning Adam's sinne or disobedience SECT 7 many are said to be made sinners by it Rom. 5.19 And so by the obedience of Christ it is said in the same place that many shall be made righteous But now if men will needs exchange language with the Holy Ghost they must see to it that they make him no loser If when they say that Adams sinne is imputed to all unto condemnation their meaning be the same with the Holy Ghosts when he saith that by the disobedience of one many were made sinners there is no harme done to exchange upon such terms is not to rob But it is much to be suspected nay it is too evident by what many of themselves by way of interpretation speake that the Holy Ghost and they are not of one mind touching the imputation or communication of Adams sinne with his posterity but that they differ as much in meaning as in words If when they say that Adams sinne is imputed to all unto condemnation their meaning be plaine and right downe this that the demerit or guilt of Adams sin is charged upon his whole posteritie or that the punishment of Adams sinne redounded and ran over as it were from his person to his whole posterity a maine part of which punishment lyeth in that originall defilement wherin they are all conceived and borne and wherby they are made truly and
exactnesse ever after to the worlds end without the least failing in the least point of obedience thereunto the condition of a legall justification being that a man must continue à carcere ad metas from the very first entrance upon his being to the last end thereof in all things that are written in the Law to doe them so that the least trip or stumbling throughout all his course wholly dissolves and overthrowes such a justification Secondly because God hath opened another way for the justification of sinners viz. Faith in Jesus Christ and certaine it is that he never sets up one way against another or one ordinance against another so that what he intends should be effected by one he should intend to be effected by another also as hath bin argued and proved more at large in the former part of this Treatise (a) cap. 12. Sect. 2. c. Therefore to affirme that the fulfilling of the Law is required of any man either by himselfe or by another in his stead for his justification is to affirme either that a man that hath sin'd hath not sin'd or that which God hath said he hath unsaid Christ may be said to have kept the Law Distincti 6 SECT 11 in reference to our justification two waies or in a double sense either 1º for us or 2º in our stead In the former sense it may be admitted that Christ kept the Law for our justification but not in the latter The former sense only imports that this obedience of his had an influence into our justification and did contribute that which was of absolute necessity thereunto which hath bin explained and granted and in part proved formerly The latter sense imports that the keeping of the Law was primarily required of every man for his justification since the fall and that God in respect of the personall disabilities of men for such performance in reference to such an end sent his Sonne Iesus Christ to performe it in their roomes and places Which supposition stands convict of a manifest untruth in the former Distinction and elswhere in this Treatise (a) Part 1. cap. Sect. Distincti 7. SECT 12 The Iustification of a sinner I meane Passive though it be but one and the same entire effect yet may it be ascribed to many and those very diffâ—rent causes respectively according to their severall influences and differing manner of concurrence thereunto God may be said to iustifie Christ may be said to iustifie yea the Holy Ghost in a true and proper sense may be said to iustifie Faith may be said to iustify the Minister may be said to iustifie as well as to save 1 Tim. 4.16 remission of sinnes may be said to iustifie c. Whatsoever contributeth any thing more or lesse either in a superior or inferior way towards the raising and producing any effect the effect it selfe may not onely according to truth but in ordinary propriety of speaking be ascribed unto it It is as true to say and not unproper that the sling in Davids hand or the smooth stone which he slang or his act of slinging killed Goliah as to say that David himselfe killed him though it 's true David was the principall efficient in this action and the other were but inferior and instrumentall So that to reason thus Christ iustifies therefore Faith doth not iustifie or thus Christ is our righteousnesse therefore Faith is not our righteousnesse or remission of sinnes is not our righteousnesse c. is as if a man should argue after this manner It is God that maketh rich therefore money maketh not rich or a diligent hand maketh not rich which yet is a truth and is affirmed by the Holy Ghost aswell as the other Or thus It is God that purifieth the heart therefore man purifieth it not neither doth Faith purifie it nor doe afflictions purifie c. Or thus The Physician recovered the sick therefore his Physique did not recover him It is a weake reasoning à positione causae principalis ad remotionem accessorie Christ may Justifie and Faith may justifie and remission of sinnes may justifie yea Christ doth not iustifie without Faith nor without remission of sinnes more then either oâ— these iustifie without Christ though it be true Christ iustifieth after a manner peculiar to himselfe and Faith and Remission of sinnes each of them after a manner proper to it selfe and the manner of Iustification which is proper to Christ is more excellent and of superior consideration to the manner wherein either Faith or Remission of sinnes Iustifie Therefore the argument doth not follow from the affirmation of Iustification by Christ to the negation of the same Iustification by Faith or any other thing but it well fâ—llowes from the affirmation of the peculiar manner of Iustification which is proper to Christ to the negation of the same manner as belonging either to Faith or to Remission of sinnes or any thing besides This arguing is substantiall Christ Justifieth by way of merit or satisfaction or attonement for sinne therefore neither Faith nor remission of sinnes nor any thing else iustifieth either by way of merit satisfaction or attonement Therefore care must be had to distinguish the simple act from the peculiar manner of Iustification CAP. IIII. Conteyning a briefe Delineation or survey of the intire body of Justification in the severall causes of it according to the tenour of the Conclusions and Distinctions layd downe in the two former Chapters AS well to give a full and free accompt of mine owne judgement SECT 1 and of what I conceive and hold touching the great businesse of Iustification and the whole cariage of it in the Scriptures and counsaile of God as also to furnish my Reader with some further and cleerâ—r light whereby to comprehend the darknesse and to discover the insufficiency and weaknesse of those arguments that either are brought from the Scriptures or otherwise framed against the maine Conclusion defended in this Treatise I thought it not amisse to inlarge the Discourse by one Chapter the more wherein to delineate and represent according to the modell of my weake insight into so great a mystery that faire piece or frame wherein the grace justice and wisdome of God have sweetly conspired for the justification of a poore sinner And because the perfect knowledge hereof I meane of the gracious designe of God in and about the Iustification of a sinner depends upon the knowledge and right apprehension of the severall causes concurring and contributing thereunto as indeed the true knowledg of all thâ—ngs whatsoever ariseth from the knowledge of the causes thereof I desire leave to premise some few generall rules touching the number nature and property of causes in generall but only such which are generally acknowledged and subscribed unto by sober men that have had their wits exercised in discerning things agreeable to reason and who can be no waies suspected as partiall or any waies engaged either on the right hand or
inhereth or whereby it is supported in being the righteousnesse of Christ hath no dependance at all in respect of the being of it upon Iustification Not in the latter because that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner is not acted or exercised upon or about the righteousnesse of Christ nor terminated in this neither is there any change or alteration made in the righteousnes of Christ by that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner which yet must be if it were that matter we now speake of that is the object of Justification Because Iustification being a transient act in God it must of necessitie make some change or alteration in that upon which it falleth or is acted whatsoever it be the truth is that the righteousnesse of Christ being as hath bin proved the efficient impulsive cause of Iustification rather acteth and worketh upon God then he upon it when he iustifieth any man Therefore doubtlesse the righteousnesse of Christ can in no sense agreeable to truth and ordinary construction of speech be called the matter of Iustification Wherefore in the last place concerning the matter of or materiall cause of Iustification SECT 16 it can be none other but either the subject or the object of â—ustification that is either God himselfe or the person that is to be iustified For as for that kinde of matter which we called ex qua matter properly so called Iustification being an act or action is altogether uncapable of it as hath bin already said Neither hath any action whatsoever any materiall cause at all in this sense It remaineth therefore that the matter of Justification must be of that kinde of matter which is lesse properly so called whereof there are but these two species or sorts as hath bin said the matter in qua and the matter circa quam i. the the subject and the object If we take the subject of Iustification or him on whom the act it selfe of Iustification in respect of the production and being of it dependeth and will call that the matter of it then God himselfe must be the matter we inquire after because the act of Iustification in respect of the raising and bringing forth of it dependeth only upon him But this I confesse is a very uncouth and proper expression to call God the matter of justification neither hath the tongue or pen of any man I conceive ever taken any pleasure in it Or if by the subject of Iustification we understand the subjectum recipieâ—s that is the subject receiving and wherein the act of Iustification is terminated which is as proper a signification of the word as the other the old tried rule being that actio est in patiente tanquam in subjecto then the subject and the object will prove but one and the same viz the person that is to be iustified that is the beleeving sinner Thus it is in all other actions likewise the subject receiving the action or impression of the Agent and the object upon which the Agent acteth or worketh are still the same And for any other matter of Iustification besides that which hath bin now assign'd viz. the sinner who beleeveth I verily beleeve there is none to be found who though he be both the object and subject in the sense given of Iustification yet may he more properly be called the matter of Iustification as he is the object then as the subject thereof because the notion of matter better agreeth of the two to that which is called circà quam or the object then to the other which is the subject And this for the matter or materiall cause of Iustification the person to be iustified or beleeving sinner Fourthly and lastly to make forward towards the consideration and inquirie of the formall cause of Iustification SECT 17 about which the tongues and pens of men are turn'd into the sharpest swords First for the Popish opinion which as Bellarmine describes it from the Counsell of Trent subscribing himselfe also with both hands unto it (a) Certe concilium causam formalem justificatioâ—â— in ipsi us justitie infusione constituit c. Bellarm. De Iustific lib. 2. c. 2. versus sinem placeth the formall cause of Iustification in the infusion of inherent righteousnesse I shall not make it matter of long confutation The opinion is built upon another opinion as rotten as it viz. perfection of inherent righteousnesse for if this be found to be imperfect and it will never be found other till this mortall hath put on immortalitie the credit of that other opinion is lost and that by consent of their owne principles who teach that in Iustification men are made perfectly and compleately righteous So that any one sinne little or great veniall or mortall proceeding from any one of their iustified ones utterly overthrowes the opinion of their Church touching the formall cause of Iustification It stands them in hand if they desire to build up this determination of their Councell with authority and honour to raise the levell of another enterprize of theirs and to prove not only a possibilitie but a necessity also of a perfect observation of the Law of God by those that are iustified and regenerate When they have quitted themselves like men in this and have layd the foundations of such a necessitie firme and strong we shall haply then consider further of their Doctrine touching the formall cause of Iustification in the meane time we shall be at libertie to make inquirie after a better Yet Secondly SECT 18 I conceive the Doctrine of the late Socinian Discoverer touching the same businesse to be no whit better but rather at a farre deeper defiance both with reason and truth The formall cause of Justification saith he (a) Mr. George Walker Socinian Discovered p. 139. is that communion betweene Christ and us and that reciprocall imputation of our sinnes to Christ and of his righteousnesse and full satisfaction to us which communion ariseth and floweth from the spirit which God sheds on us through Christ which spirit dwelling in us in some measure so as he dwelleth in the man Christ from whom he is derived to us doth make us one spirituall body with Christ and workes in us Faith and all holy graces and affections by which we adhere and cleave to Christ and apply and inioy his righteousnesse c. Doubtlesse here is a great deale too much matter to make a good forme The essentiall character of a forme or formall cause is to be a single simple and uncompounded being whereas that which is here presented to us for the forme of Justification is rudis indigestaque moles an indigested heape of compositions Surely this forme is so deformed that the Author need nor feare any corrivall or competitor with him for it Quin sine rivali seque et sua solus amabit For 1º if the Iustification we speake of or the forme of it stands in that communion which is betweene Christ and us then Christ
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
that shall but a little consider the context in either place might further have bin prooved without much labour Let Calvin Musculus and other Protestant Interpreters be consulted with about them We have found nothing in those Scriptures of the old Testament which are look'd upon with an eye of the greatest confidence for the building up of that imputation which we endeavour to cast downe Let us passe from Prophets to Apostles and consider whether they also be not made to speake the mindes of other men and not their own when they are made to speake for this imputation The farre greatest part of testimonies brought against us out of the new Testament are lodg'd within the compasse of that one Epistle to the Romans the rest are but few The first place alledged by some is that Rom. 3.21.22 But now is the righteousnesse of God made manifest without the Law having witnesse of the Law and of the Prophets Even the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ c. By the righteousnesse of God say they is here meant the righteousnesse or active obedience of Christ who is God imputed to all that beleeve c. I answere Rom. 3.21 cleared First this Scripture hath bin already fully opened in the first part of this Treatise cap. 4. throughout where upon due examination it was found to speake plainly for the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse but no waies for the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ for any such purpose Secondly Some by the righteousnesse of God in this place understand the truth and faithfulnesse of God in keeping promise This was the exposition of Ambrose long since And that this faithfulnesse of God is frequently in Scripture called his righteousnes hath bin already observed 3. cap. Sect. 2. p. 93. Thirdly and lastly by the righteousnesse of God in these Scriptures is meant doubtlesse either that way method or meanes which God himselfe hath found out to justifie or make men righteous See cap. 3. Sect. 2. p. 40. of this second part or else which comes to the same that very righteousnesse by which we stand justified or righteous in the sight of God This is the generall interpretation of the best Protestant Expositots as Calvin (a) Iustitiam Dei accipi pre ea quâ— Deo prâ—batur notum esse debuerat elementariis Calvin Instit l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 9. Dubium est qua ratione Dei justiciam appellet quam per sidem obtinemus ideone quia sola coram Deo consistit an quod eam nobis Dominus sua miscericordia largiatur Calv. in Rom. 3.21 Musculus (b) Exponi patestde ea justicia qua nos coram Deo justificamur c. Musculu in Rom. 3.21 Beza (c) Posita est omnis justificatio inremissione peccaterum et idea justicia haec in imputatione posita justitia Dei vocatur Beza De Coena Dom. Iusticia Dei id est salus vel redemptio quam Deus praestat Cam Myroth p. 178. Iusticia imputata rectè dicitur justicia Christi quia Christus eam sua obedientia nobis acquisivit Sicut etiam dicitur justicia Dei Juia Deus propter Christi meritum eam nobis imputat Pareus de Iusti l. 2. c. 2. p. 388. Sect. 8. Ro. 3.31 cleered c. Neither have I met with any that understands it of the righteousnesse of Christ nor is there the least appearance in the context of any necessitie so to take it Againe the last verse in the same Chapter is layd hold on by some as a favorer of their Imputation Do we then make the Law of none effect through Faith God forbid yea we establish the Law They conceive that the Law cannot be said to be established by Faith or by the Doctrine of Faith but only by imputation of Christs fulfilling it unto Beleevers I answere I that there is no necessity that by Law in this place should be meant precisely the Morall Law Calvin understands it aswell of the Ceremoniall Law as of the Morall and explaines how aswell the one as the other may be said to be established by Faith (d) Quare hanc Pauli excusationem uequae de ceremoniis seorsim neque de mandatis ut vocant moralibus sed in universum de tota lege accipio Calvin In Rom. 3.31 Therfore he is farre from conceiving that the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse should be established by Pauls affirming the Law to be established by faith Ambrose likewise long before him conceived the same things of this Scripture 2. It is much more probable that of the two Paul should here assert the establishing rather of the Ceremoniall Law then of the Morall 1. because the Jewes to whom he addresseth himselfe in this excusation seeking to ease and qualifie their spirits touching the Doctrine of Faith were more tender and jealous over the Ceremoniall part of their Law then over the Morall placing the far greatest part of their hope if not the whole of their justification and salvation in the observation hereof as appeares from Act. 15.1 Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses yecannot be saved c. So from Gal. 5. v. 2. compared with the 4. as also from diverse other places both of the Old and New Testament Now it is no waies like that the Apostle should seek to prevent the lesser and lighter offence in this people and wholly neglect them under the greater 2. because the Doctrine of faith and justification by Christ taught by the Apostle did not carry any such colour or appearance of opposition to the morall part of their Law as it did to the Ceremoniall The Gospell buildeth up moralities and that with an high hand but it abrogateth and casteth downe Ceremonialls altogether that is it calls men off from the further use and practise of them though it confirmes indeed their precedent use benefit and authority and so establisheth them Now it is but a weake conceit to think that Paul should goe about to vindicate or purge either himselfe or his Doctrine from a lighter and weaker suspicion and leave both obnoxious to a greater But 3. Suppose that the Apostle here speaks precisely and determinately of the Morall Law yet is there no necessity gain'd from hence that this should be said to be established by the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse For 1. both Austin and Chrysostome affirme that the Law is therfore said to be established by faith because faith compasseth and attaines that righteousnesse which the Law sought after and could not attaine Chrysostom's expression is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Ro. Homil. 7. that faith establisheth the will of the Law by bringing that to perfection which the Law would have done 2. The Morall Law may in this sence also be said to be established by faith because faith purgeth the hearts of those that beleeve and works out those corruptions and sinfull inclinations which disable men from doing the
this Apostle still makes betweene the works of the Law and beleeving in the point of justification is not at all in respect of the notification or discovery of it either to the justified themselves or others but simply and absolutely in respect of the effecting it Besides to make Paul say thus that they had beleeved in Christ that they might know that they had beene justified by beleeving in him is to make him speake at a very low rate of reason and understanding and not much short of contradictions For with what tolerable congruity or construction of reason can a man be said to beleeve with this intent or for this end that hee may know he is justified by beleeving The doing of a thing for a certaine end is no meanes to certifie or assure any man that the end is or shall be much lesse that it hath already beene obtained by the doing it Much more might be argued both from the Scriptures and reason and testimony of Authors for this Conclusion if it were either necessary or seasonable in this place Neither are the things that can be objected against it SECT 22 of any such weight but that they may receive a faire and ready answer I have heard onely of two Arguments that are made against it The first is this If a man must beleeve before he be justified then God doth not justifie the ungodly because he that beleeveth cannot be counted an ungodly man To this I answer in few words that when the Scripture saith that God justifieth the ungodly the meaning is not as if the person to be justified must needs be ungodly i in the midst of his prophanenesse in the very nicke and instant of time wherein God justifieth him But God may be said to be he that justifieth the ungodly because he hath found out a way and meanes whereby to juftifie sinners and ungodly men viz. Faith in Jesus Christ which neither the Law knoweth nor could ever the wisedome of men or Angels have imagined The justification of the ungodly is ascribed unto God as an high and excellent clogium of his wisedome and goodnesse as when Christ is said to save sinners the meaning is not that men are actually wicked and sinfull when salvation is actually conferr'd upon them but that he affords meanes to those that are sinners as viz. the grace of Faith Repentance c. whereby they may be and many are saved Or else secondly Answer might be that God may be said to justifie not onely when hee absolves and perfecteth the act or worke of justification i. when hee passeth a sentence of absolution upon the beleever but even when hee beginneth it i. when he first toucheth moveth or incline the heart to beleeve upon which justification properly so called dependeth and followeth immediatly Now before and untill this supernaturall touch or motion of the heart from God a man in strictnesse and proprietie of speech may be called ungodly It is a common rule among Divines for the interpretation of many Scriptures In Scripturis saepe fieri dicitur quod fieri incipit In Scripture that is often said to be done which is onely begun to be done and whereof the cause onely is yet in being Thus Prov. 11.2 Shame is said to come when pride commeth viz. because pride is the cause of shame and Tit. 3.5 God is said to have saved men when he hath conferred regeneration or the washing of the new birth upon them because regeneration is a meanes of salvation besides many like instances that might be added In like manner justification may be said to come when Faith commeth and God may be said to justifie when he giveth men Faith whereby they shall be justified c. In this sence therefore God may be said to justifie the ungodly because he giveth Faith unto men being yet sinfull whereby they are justified Thirdly and lastly Further answer might be that there being no prioritie of time at all but onely of nature between a mans beleeving and his being justified so that in the very first instant and touch of time wherein he can be conceived truely to beleeve he is to be conceived justified also God may as properly be said to justifie the ungodly though he justifieth onely those that beleeve as to give Faith or the grace of beleeving unto the ungodly The reason is plaine because in respect of time a man is as immediately ungodly before his justification as he is before his beleeving though he be not justified SECT 23 till hee beleeveth The later Objections against the Conclusion in hand is if a man hath the Spirit of God given him before hee beleeveth he must needs be justified before he beleeveth otherwise it must be said that a man may have the Spirit of grace and sanctification and yet be in an estate of wrath and condemnation And that a man hath and must have the Spirit of Grace before hee beleeveth it is evident because otherwise he could not beleeve To this I answer first by concession that a man is not able of himselfe and without the speciall presence and assistance of the Spirit of grace to raise an act of a true beleeving in his soule But secondly by way of exception I answer two things first that though a man cannot beleeve without the gracious assistance of the Spirit of God yet doth it not follow from hence that there should be the least imaginable distance or space of time betweene a mans receiving the Spirit and his beleeving wherein hee should remayne liable to condemnation because the first touch of the Spirit upon the soule the act of beleeving may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sticke as fast and close together in respect of time as the scales of Leviathan doe in respect of place which by the description and testimony of God himselfe who best knowes their composure and frame are so neere one to another that no ayre can come between Ioh. 41.16 The Sunne was not first made and afterwards shined but his shining in respect of time is as ancient as his creation there was not the least distance or space of time betweene wherein any thing could be done or the least motion performed So may the comming of the Spirit of Grace unto the soule and the act of the soules beleeving touch in one and the same point of time an infinit power being able to worke any thing in a moment in which case it is evident that there is no place for the inconvenience mentioned in the objection viz. that a man endued with the spirit of grace should for a time be in an estate of condemnation except hee were justified before he beleeveth 2. SECT 24 Be it supposed that the spirit of grace should be at worke in the soule for any space of time before the soule hath put forth an act of true beleeving yet till there be a saving worke of Faith wrought by him in the soule it is no wayes inconvenient nor
contrary to truth to judge the person in an estate of condemnation though he may be comming on in a way towards justification As men that never come to be justified but perish in their sinnes everlastingly are said to be partakers of the holy Ghost Heb 6.4 that is may have many great and excellent workings of the holy Ghost within them and upon them so may men to whom the grace of justification and salvation upon it is intended by God have the like workings of the Spirit upon them for a time and yet have no worke at all upon them truely saving i. which hath an essentiall and necessary connexion with salvation And till some such worke as this is wrought though the Spirit of God be in them yet are they under condemnation and dying in their present condition without somefurther worke of grace should certainely perish Now though there may be many workings of the Spirit of God in men before they beleeve which may be called Saving in regard of their issue and event yet is there none formally saving that is that hath salvation promised unto it till Faith it selfe be wrought The first touch of any worke upon the soule that is either truly sanctifying or necessarily saving is that whereby the soule is inabled to touch upon Christ for its justification neither is the habit of Faith first planted in the soule by the holy Ghost and afterwards the soule enabled by it 'to exercise and put forth an act of beleeving whereby it is justified but as the common and more probable opinion is that fruit-bearing trees were at first created with ripe fruits upon them so doth God at first create both the habit and act of faith in the soule in the same moment of time and not the one before the other So that the first act of beleeving whereby the creature is primarily justified is not rais'd out of any pre-existent habit or grace of Faith as all after acts of beleeving are but is as immediately the product or effect of the power of God as the habit of Faith it selfe is even as the fruits which according to the opinion mentioned were created with and upon their trees did not grow out of these trees nor were produced in a naturall way by them as all after fruits growing upon them were but were as proper and immediate effects of the creative power of God as the trees themselves So we see at last that the conclusion laid downe is no waies prejudic'd nor shaken by either of these objections Conclu 14 SECT 25 The sentence or curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death but this death of Christ was a ground or consideration unto God whereupon to dispence with his Law and to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty or curse therein threatned This is evident because the threatning and curse of the Law was not at all bent or intended against the innocent or righteous but against transgressors onely Therefore God in inflicting death upon Christ being innocent righteous did not follow the purport or intent of the Law If he had inflicted death upon all the transgressors of the Law this had bin a direct execution of the Law because this was that which the Law threatned and intended But God in spareing and forbearing the transgressors who according to the tenor of the Law should have bin punished manifestly dispenceth with the Law and doth not execute it As when Zaleucus the Locrian Lawgiver caused one of his owne eyes to be put out that one of his Sons eyes might be spared who according both to the Letter and intent of the Law should have lost both he did not precisely execute the Law but gave a sufficient account or consideration why it should for that time be dispenced with and not put into execution In this sense indeed Christ may be said to have undergone or suffered the penalty or curse of the Law 1º it was the curse or penalty of the Law as now hanging over the head of the world and ready to be executed upon all men for sinne that occasioned his suffering of those things which he endured Had not the curse of the Law either bin at all or not incurr'd by man doubtlesse Christ had not suffered at all Againe 2º and somewhat more properly Christ may be said to have suffered the curse of the Law because the things which he suffered were of the same nature and kind at least in part with those things which God intended by the curse of the Law against transgressors namely death But if by the curse of the Law we understand either that intire systeme and historicall body as it were of penalties and evills which the Law it selfe intends in the terme or else include and take in the intent of the Law as touching the quality of the persons upon whom it was to be executed in neither of these senses did Christ suffer the curse of the Law neither ever hath it nor ever shall be suffered by any transgressor of the Law that shall beleeve in him So that God required the death and sufferings of Christ not that the Law properly either in the letter or intention of it might be executed but on the contrary that it might not be executed I meane upon those who being otherwise obnoxious unto it should beleeve Neither did God require the death and sufferings of Christ as a valuable consideration whereon to dispence with his Law towards those that beleeve SECT 26 more if so much in a way of satisfaction to his justice then to his wisdome For doubtlesse God might with asmuch justice as wisdome if not much more have passed by the transgression of his Law without consideration or satisfaction For him that hath a lawfull authority and power either to impose a Law or not in case he shall impose it it rather concern's in point of wisdome and discretion not to see his Law despised and trampled upon without satissaction then in point of justice No man will say that in case a man hath bin injured and wrong'd that therefore he is absolutly bound in Justice to seeke satisfaction though he be never so eminent in the grace and practise of Justice but in many cases of injuries susteyned a man may be bound in point of wisdome and discretion to seeke satisfaction in one kind or other Austin of old and D. Twist of late besides many other Orthodox learned Divines a See Mr. Gataker Defence of Mr. Wotton p. 59.60 hold that God if it had pleased him might have pardoned Adams transgression without the atonement made by the death of Christ Therfore according to the opinion of these men it had bin no waies contrary to the Justice of God nor derogatory to the glory of it if he had freely pardoned it without any consideration or attonement Only it is true his requiring that full satisfaction which hath now bin made by Christ is very sutable