applyed by the said efficients is the matter or materiall part of it So in the justification of a sinner neither is God himselfe who is the principall efficient of this effect of justification neither is Faith which is the iustrumentall efficient of it for God is said in Scripture to justifie men by or through it Rom. 3.30 which for the most part are symptomaticall particles of the instrumentall-efficient cause neither is the righteousnesse of Christ which is the meritorious effiâ—ient cause of it none of these are either matter or forme or any constituting cause of iustification but only remission of sins or absolution from punishment as the sorme applyed unto or put upon the matter and the matter or subject it selfe whereunto this forme is applyed by all the 3 efficients spoken of according to their severall and distinct manner of working viz. the person of the beleever This Argument to him that understands and will seriously consider that unchangable Law mentioned of the 4. kinds rally acknowledged by the contrary-minded themselves in this Controversie But that Christ should be reputed before God to have sinned in me seems unto me an assertion so uncouth and un-Christian that a Christian had need to borrow the eares of a Pagan to hear it with patience However the untruth of it is thus made manifest If Christ be reputed before God to have sinned in me he must be reputed to have had a being in me for as operatio consequitur esse i. the operation of a thing follows and depends upon the being of it so he that supposeth or reputeth a person to have done any thing either good or evill in another must necessarily suppose or repute him to have had a being there But what being Christ should be reputed by God to have had in me being yet an unbeleever is a speculation too high for me to attaine unto Againe Argum. 14 SECT 2 against this supposed imputation I oppose this consideration If the active obedience of Christ be imputed unto me in my justification then is the passive imputed also For there can be no sufficient reason given why the one should be taken and the other left Neither are the adversaries themselves partiall in this point to the one above the other they generally allow place for both in their imputation But that the death or sufferings of Christ are not in the letter and formalitie of them imputed unto me I thus demonstrate If the death and sufferings of Christ be imputed unto me then may I be accounted or reputed to have died and suffered in Christ But I can at no hand be reputed to have died or suffered in Christ Therefore the death and sufferings of Christ are not imputed unto me I meane still in the letter and formality of them as I would be understood in the maâ—or proposition also The reason of the sequel in that proposition is evident from the former argument To have any thing imputed to a man in the letter and formality of it and to be reputed and taken as the doer or sufferer of what is so imputed are termini aequipollentes et sese mutuò explicantes are expressions that differ not in sense but relieve one the other in their significations The Reason of the minor that no man is to be conceived or said to have suffered in Christ is this because in Christ we are justisied and absolved from punishment and therefore cannot be said to have been punished in him He hath made us freely accepted in his beloved Ephes 16. Therefore he poured not out his wrath upon us in his beloved And by his stripes we are healed which is contrary to being wounded or punished 1 Pet. 224. And to say that we suffered or were punished in Christ is in effect to unsay or gainsay what the Gospell every where speaketh touching our Redemption and deâ—iverance from punishment by Christ In what sence the sufferings of Christ may be said to be imputed tobeleevers is 〈◊〉 plained in the Second part cap. 3. Sect. 7. He that knoweth how to reconcile these two may undertake to make light and darknesse friends and needs not feare miscarying in his designe that God should freely forgive us our sinnes and yet punish us for them and that to the full which must be said by those that will say we were punished in Christ If Christ were punished for us or in our stead which is the Scripture language 2 Cor. 5.21 who made him sinne for us doubtlesse we our selves can in no sense wherein words and truth will agree be said to be punished or to have suffered in him One Reason more and no more of this Chapter If the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense so oft-expressed be imputed to us Argum. 15 SECT 3 then are we justifyed at least in part by the Ceremoniall Law This consequence is too good to be denyed because part of that righteousnesse which Christ wrought stood in obedience to the Ceremoniall Law he was circumcised kept the Passeover c. Therfore if the righteousnesse of Christ be imputed unto us in the letter and formality of it that part of his righteousnesse which stood in obedience ceremoniall must be imputed also But that we are not justified either in whole or in part by the Ceremoniall Law is a truth so neare scituate to every mans apprehension that it needs not be brought neerer by force of argumentation If it be replyed that there is no necessity that any part of his righteousnesse Ceremoniall should be imputed because his morall righteousnesse is sufficient for imputation To this I answere First there is no warrant or rule in Scripture thus to rend and teare in pieces the one halfe from the other that which was one entire and compleat righteousnesse in Christ and to take which part we please to our selves and leave the other as a cast piece Secondly if that part only of the righteousnesse of Christ which stood in his obedience to the Morall Law be imputed unto us for righteousnesse in our justification then will there not be found the same way or meanes of justification for the whole body of Christ but the beleeving Jewes before Christs death must be made righteous or justified with one kind of righteousnesse and the Gentiles with another For the Jewes before the death of Christ had a necessitie of both parts of this righteousnesse to be imputed to them in their justification supposing their justification had stood in such an imputation as some stand up to maintaine aswell ceremoniall as morall But that the Jewes should be justified with one kind of righteousnesse and the Gentiles with another as there is no colour of reason that I know to maintaine so there is substance and strength of Scripture to oppose Rom. 3.22.30 Thirdly and lastly that righteousnesse of Christ which is called Morall if separated and divided from the other part which is Ceremoniall was not a compleat and perfect righteousnesse in him because it
committed against the Law is doubtlesse out of the danger and reach of the curse of the Law Now it is fully consistent with the principles of that opinion it selfe which we oppose to ascribe a perfect forgivenesse of all sinnes to the passive obedience or death of Christ imputed without the imputation of the active obedience with it for that end Yea I never yet heard of any of that way and judgement who pleaded the necessity of Christs active obedience imputed for the bringing men off from the curse of the Law but only to bring them under the blessing or promise of the Law Doe this and live Therefore the argument in hand is no more a friend to that opinion it selfe which it seekes to establish then it is to the truth it selfe Falsum nunc vero nunc falso est conâ—â—arium Thirdly the imputation of a perfect fulfilling of the Law from another were it granted cannot make him a continuer in all things that are written in the Law to doe them who offends daily in many things and consequently will leave him in as bad a case in respect of the curse of the Law as it finds him All the imputations under Heaven of whatsoever from whomsoever cannot make him who hath not continued in all things of the Law to doe them to have continued in them It is well that this argument is weake for otherwise it is of a most bloody and unmercifull Spirit and would beare downe all the world before it into Hell If there be no other way or meanes for poore sinfull men to come off from the curse of the Law but by continuing in all things that are written therein to doe them Doubtlesse they must all fall under this curse and never rise againe Therefore Fourthly and lastly the direct intent and meaning of this passage of Scripture is this Cursed be every one that continueth not c. that is every one that expecteth Justification and salvation by the Law woe be to every such person man or woman if they continue not in all things that are written in the Law to doe them the curse of the Law will fall heavy and terrible upon them That this is the plaine and expresse meaning of the Apostle in this place and that that clause of universalitie Cursed be every one c. is to be limited to the universality of those only who depend upon the Law for Iustification is evident First SECT 28 As it is true that whatsoever the Law speaketh it speaketh to those that is to all those that are under the Law Rom. 3.19 so is it as true also that whatsoever the Law speaketh it speaketh only unto those that are under it and to none other Now those that expect and looke for Iustification by Faith in Iesus Christ and not by the Law are not under the Law but under grace Rom. 6.14 See also Rom. 7.1 2 3 4. Therefore the Cursings and threatningâ— of the Law doe no waies concerne or touch any of these So Gal. 5.23 speaking of those that were Christs that is that were dead to the Law as touching all hope and dependance upon it for Iustification and had cast themselves upon him for that blessing affirmeth that against such there was no Law meaning no Law to judge or condemne them And 1 Tim. 1.9 He denieth that the Law is given to a righteous man but unto the lawlesse and disobedient c. meaning that the Law as touching the curse and penalty of it was never intended by God for men that are holy and righteous that is that are true beleevers in Iesus Christ from whom all holinesse and righteousnesse proceed But Secondly the context it selfe apparantly leades us to this limitation and interpretation For 1º the words immediatly preceding in the beginning of the verse are these For as many as are of the works of the Law that is that seeke to be justified by the works of the Law as Calvin Musculus and all Protestant writers generally interpret are under the Curse To proove this he alledgeth that testimony of the Law mentioned For it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not c. So that this clause and the curse contained in it have only reference to those that are of the works of the Law that is that seeke to be justified by the Law and not by Christ Againe 2º the interpretation given is confirmed from the words of ver 9. immediatly foregoing Here he had pronounced those that were of Faith that is that sought Justification by Faith in Christ Blessed with faithfull Abraham Now to prove that these were the blessed ones of God and not those that would be justified by the Law which was the Spirit that now began to work among these Galathians he affirm's that all these are under the curse and consequently farre from being blessed And to prove this he cites the passage in hand from the Law it selfe Cursed be every one that continueth not c. So that it is evident from hence also that that continuance in all things which are written in the Law to do them is only required of those either for the removall of the Curse threatned or for the obteyning of the blessing promised who seeke to be justified by the works of the Law and not of those that beleeve with Abraham and depend upon Christ for justification 3º and lastly the tenor of the verse immediatly following is as the light of the Sunne to cleere and vindicate this interpretation For here the Apostle goeth on with the further proofe of his last conclusion viz. that those that are of the works of the Law are under the Curse thus And that no man is justified and then not blessed and consequently accursed by the Law is evident for the just shall live that is be justified and so live and be blessed by Faith when he saith that no man is justified by the Law he supposeth that no man can be said to continue in all things that are written in the Law to doe them for he of whom this may be truly affirmed may very properly be said to be justified by the Law The truth is there is no other way or meanes of Iustification by the Law imaginable but only this Therefore that Iustification which we have by Faith in Christ cannot be said to be by a continuance in all things that are written in the Law to doe them because this is nothing else but Iustification it selfe by the Law And whereas it might be objected SECT 29 but may not a man be justified by Faith and by the Law or righteousnesse of the Law together may not a man be entit'led to or invested with a righteousnesse of the Law in and by his Faith To this the Apostle answers by a preoccupation in the words immediatly following ver 12. And the Law is not of Faith that is a man doth not observe the Law in one kind or other by beleeving he cannot be said to have a
required on mans part to bring him into Communion and fellowship of that justification and redemption which Christ hath purchased for the Children of men and that without believing no man can have part or fellowship in that great and blessed businesse Sixtly It is evident from the Scriptures that God in the act of every mans justification doth impute or account righteousnesse unto him or rather somwhat for or instead of a righteousnesse the Scripture useth both expressions by meanes of which imputation the person justified passeth in accompt as a righteous man though he be not properly or perfectly such according to the Law and is invested accordingly with those great priviledges of a man perfectly righteous deliverance from death and condemnation and acceptation into the favor of God The reason of which imputation or why God is pleased to use such an expression of righteousnesse imputed in or about the justification of a sinner seemes to be this the better to satisfie the naturall scruple of the weake and feeble consciences of men who can hardly conceive or thinke of a justification or of being justified especially by God without an expresse literall and perfect legall righteousnesse Now the counsailes and purpose of God in the Gospell being to justifie men without any such righteousnesse being a righteousnesse indeed whereof man in his lapsed condition is wholly uncapable the better to salve the feares of the consciences touching such a defect and to prevent and stay all troublesome thoughts or queries that might arise in the minds of men who when they heare of being justified are still ready to aske within themselves but where is the righteousnesse conceiving a legall righteousnesse to be as necessary to a justification as Isaak conceived of a Lamb for a burnt offering Gen. 22 7. He GOD I meane is graciously pleased so far to condiscend to men in Scripture treatie with them about the weighty businesse of justification as in effect to grant and say unto them that though he finds not any proper or perfect righteousnesse in them no such righteousnesse as passeth under the name of a righteousnesse with them yet if they truely believe in him as Abraham did this believing shall in the consequences of it be as good as a perfect or compleate righteousnesse unto them or that he will impute righteousnesse unto them upon their believing So that now the state drift of the Q. SECT 3 is not either 1 whether Faith without an Object or as separated from Christ be imputed for righteousnesse for such a Faith doubtlesse in the point of justification was never dreamt of by any man that kept his wits company men may aswell fancy a living man without a Soule or a wiseman without his wits as a Faith without an Object much lesse was ever such a faith conceived by any to be imputed for righteousnesse Neither 2 is it any part of the intent of the Question to enquire whether Faith be the meritorious cause of a mans justification for both they that affirme and they that deny the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse deny the meritoriousnesse of faith every waies however it is true that they that would seem most to disclaime it and cast it furthest from them do yet in some of their most beloved tenets draw very neare unto it as will afterward appeare Neither 3 is it the Question whether Faith be the formall cause of justification that is whether God doth justifie a man with his Faith as a Painter makes a wall white with whitenesse or a Master makes his Scholar learned with knowledge for both parties make the forme of justification to be somwhat else differing from Faith contrary to that which is conceived to be the genuine tenet of Arminius Nor yet 4 doth the Question make any quere at all whether Christ be the sole meritorious cause of the Iustification of a sinner for both they that goe on the right hand of the Question and they that goe on the left are knit together in the same mind and judgment concerning this Neither 5 doth the Question as it is here propounded intend any dispute at all whether the active obedience of Christ falling in with the passive and considered in conjunction with it hath any influence into or contributeth any thing towards the Iustification of sinners for this also is acknowledged on both sides at least by the greater party of both But 6 and lastly the Question in precise termes is this whether the faith of him that truely believes in Christ or whether the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe that is the obedience which Christ performed to the Morall Law consisting partly of the inward habit of grace and righteous dispositions of his soule partly of all those severall and particular acts of righteousnesse wherein he obeyed be in the letter and proprietie of it that which God imputes to a believer for righteousnesse or unto righteousnesse in his Iustification So that he that believes is not righteous onely by accompt or by Gods gracious reputing and accepting of him for such but as rigidly literally and peremptorily righteous constituted and made as perfectly as compleatly as legally righteous as Christ himselfe is no difference at all betweene them quoad veritatem but only quoad modum the justified every whit as righteous as the justifier both righteous with the selfe same individuall righteousnesse only this difference betweene the one and the other the justified weares it as put upon him by another by imputation the Justifier weares it put upon him by himselfe or by inherency That the Scriptures no where countenanceth any such imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ as this I trust the Spirit of truth directing and assisting to make manifest in the sequell of this discourse and to give good measure of this truth unto the reader heaped up and pressed downe and running over heaped up by testimonies from the Scriptures themselves pressed down by the weight of many Arguments and demonstrations running over with the cleare approbation of many Authors learned and sound and every way greater then exception Only give me leave here to mention that by the way SECT 3 which may prevent many mistakes yea and offences too in reading the writings of many latter Divines especially of other Churches touching this point of imputation If we take the phrase of imputing Christs righteousnesse unproperly out of the usuall and formall signification of it as Luther and Caelvin and other Divines of the reformed Churches sometimes do in their writings viz. for the giving out or bestowing as it were the righteousnesse of Christ including his obedience aswell passive as active under one and the same terme of righteousnesse in the returne of it i. in the privileges blessings and benefits that are procured and purchased by it for men so a believer may be said to be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed But then the meaning can be no more but this A beleever is justified by the
very truth which this discourse seeketh and ensueth for if God justifieth or regenerates for the righteousnesse of Christ which imports the merit thereof he cannot either justify or regenerate with this righteousnesse of Christ as the formall cause of either the Reason is because it is unpossible that one and the selfe same thing in respect of one and the selfe same effect should put on the different habitude or consideration both of the formall and efficient cause Wherefore if the righteousnesse of Christ be any efficient cause of Iustification as all must grant that will acknowledg it for a meritorious cause thereof no man gainsaying but that the meriting cause is a species or kind of efficient unpossible it is that it should be brought in to any part or fellowship in the formall cause thereof as will further be demonstrated when we come to lay downe our grounds and reasons for what we hold This for Answere to the former exception Concerning the latter objection SECT 7 from Gal. 4.4 Where Christ is said to have been made under the Law From hence it is inferred against the answere given that Paul doth mention the works of the Law as done by Christ in this discourse of Iustification and hereupon concluded further that therefore he had no intent to exclude the works of the Law as done by CHRIST from having their part in Iustification For Answere hereunto not to insist againe upon that which was delivered in the first branch of my Answere to the former objection which yet is sufficient to ease the point in Question of the burden of this objection I ad this in the first place that the phrase of Christs being made under the Law doth not signify Christs obedience or subjection to the Morall Law or that part of the Law which we call Morall but rather his subjection to the Law Ceremoniall as is evident from the scope of the place and particularly from that which is delivered immediatly ver 5. as the end or intent of that his being made under the Law viz. that he might redeeme them that were under the Law There is no reason to conceive that Christ should be said to be made under any other Law then that from under which he was to redeeme others Wherefore we being not redeemed from the Morall Law or from that obedience due to that that being lex aeterna aeternae obligationis an eternall Law and of an eternall obligation but from the Law of Ceremonies it must needs follow that it was this Law under which Christ is here said to have been made So that if men will gather anything from hence for the imputation of Christs obedience in just sication it must be of that obedience which he performed to the Jewish or Ceremoniall Law and so not only the Jewes but we of the Gentiles also must be cloathed with the robes of a Ceremoniall righteousnesse imputed unto us for our Iustification Bâ— secondly if we follow that interpretation of tâ—is clause Christ was made under the Law which Luther â—clines unto and is an exposiâ—â—n of no hard aspect neither upon the place perhaps of a more favourable then the former then by Christs being made under the Law we shall neither understand his subject on to the Morall Law nor yet to the Ceremoniall Law in the preceptive part of either but his subjection unto the Curse of the Law And thus it expresseth both the gracious designation of God and likewise â—he voluntary submission of Christ himselfe unto deaâ—â— for the deliverance of men not only from death it selfe in the future but even from the feare of death in the pâ—â—sâ—nâ— as is plainly expressed Luke 1.74 and Heb. 2.15 In which respect the fruit or effect and benefit of this his being made under the Law is here v. 1.5 said to be the receiving the adoption of Sons If this exposition will stand as I see not how it will easily be overthrowne there being much more to be said for the justifying of it then is it a plaine case that here is nothing spoken nor intended of any such works of Christ as are pretended for imputation in the Iustification of a beleever No adversary I have yet met with in this controversie ever affirmed that either the death of Christ or the imputation of his death should be either the formall or materiall cause of Iustification Much more might be added for the taking of this clause of Scripture from intermedling at all to the prejudice or disturbance of that conclusion for which we have undertaken but having sufficiently cleared as I conceive our second order or sort of proofes from the Scriptures we proceed to others yet remayning CAP. IV. A third Demonstration from the Scriptures of the non-imputation of CHRISTS righteousnesse for justification in the sense ruling in this Controversie THirdly SECT 1 that the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed unto men for their righteousnesse or justification I demonstrate with more brevitie from that Scripture Rom. 3.21 But now is the righteousnesse of God made manifest without the righteousnes of the Law having witnes of the Law and the Prophets even the righteousnesse of God which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve From whence I thus reason if the righteousnesse of Faith which is here called the righteousnesse of God as else where it is in the writings of this Apostle either because he is the founder and contriver of it as Divines for the most part agree or because God bestowes it and gives unto men as Calvin conceives upon this place or because it is this righteousnesse only that will stand and hold out before God as the same Author varieth his conjecture here or whether it be called the righteousnesse of God by way of opposition to the righteousnesse of the Law which is and may well be called the righteousnesse of men Rom 10.3 because they can hardly rellish or savor any other righteousnesse but it or whether for som other reason not so necessary or pertinent to our present inquiry I say if this righteousnesse of Faith consists in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse then is it not nor can it be made manifest without the Law that is without the works of the Law as Calvin rightly interpreteth the meaning of the word But the righteousnesse of Faith is sufficiently manifested without the Law that is without the works or righteousnesse of the Law Therefore it doth not consist in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse The reason of the connâ—xion in the major propâ—sition against which exception must be made â—f the conclusion be denied because the minor is plaine Scripture in terminis is evident If the righteousnesse oâ— God consists in the imputation of Christs righteousnes then is it not made manifest without the Law that is without the works and righteousnesse of the Law because to such a righteousnesse the Law and the works thereof are every whit as necessary and
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
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
in the condition To this I answere two things in two words 1. Imputation of works or of righteousnesse is not the condition of the new Covenant but beleeving If imputation were the condition then the whole Covenant should lye upon God and nothing should be required on the creatures part for imputation is an act of God not of men 2. I answere that if it were granted that the righteousnesse or the works of the Law imputed from Christ were that whereby we are iustified yet they must iustifie not as imputed but as righteousnesse or works of the Law Therfore imputation makes no difference in this respect Imputation can be no part of that righteousnesse by which we are iustified because it is no conformity with any Law nor with any part or branch of any Law especially of any Law that Man was ever bound to keep Therfore it can be no part of that righteousnesse by which he is to be iustified So that the condition of both Covenants will be found every waies the same and consequently both Covenants every wayes the same if iustification be maintained by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed CAP. XVII Wherin three Arguments more are managed against the already-impugned Imputation THere is no kind of error SECT 1 that requires or will take more strength and plenty of truth for the conviction and demolishing of it then that which is fortified with the pleasing appearance of a speciall confederacie with the glory of God or of an intire sympathie with the honour of Christ Knowing that enemie against which we conflict and wrastle in this discourse to have as much or more of that advantage then most other opinions have that are as legitimate as it I conceive it necessary in that respect to arme and imploy the more reasons and arguments in this warfare and service Therfore in the Tenth place against the Imputation so much contended for I oppose this Demonstration That for which righteousnesse is imputed to those that beleeve that cannot be imputed unto them for righteousnesse But the righteousnesse of Christ is that for which righteousnesse is imputed to those that beleeve Therfore it selfe cannot be imputed for righteousnesse The Assumption I presume no man will deny except those that deny the righteousnesse of Christ to be the meritorious cause of that righteousnesse or justification which is conferred upon men an opinion to which no man I know ever said live but onely Socinus and his peeres The Major Proposition I demonstrate thus If it be unpossible that the thing merited should be the same thing with that which is the meritorious cause of it then it is not only untrue but unpossible that the righteousnesse of Christ should be the righteousnesse of a beleever Sed verum prius Ergo et posterius For the consequence in the Major Proposition it is so evident in common apprehension that to labour any further illustration of it were but to light up a Candle to the Sun Because the righteousnes of Christ and the righteousnesse or justification of a Beleever stand in that relation we speake of the one to the other as the cause to the effect the righteousnesse of Christ being the meritorious cause and the righteousnesse of a beleever or person justified as the effect merited and effected by that cause And for the Minor that is every whit as evident and undeniable as it viz. that the thing merited cannot be the same with that which is the meritorious cause of it for so the same thing should be the meritorious cause of it selfe a conclusion so broad that there is no apprehension so weake but hath strength enough to disclaime Neither can it be here said SECT 2 that though the righteousnes of Christ cannot be meritorious of it selfe simply yet being a righteousnesse wrought by Christ it may be the meritorious cause of its own imputation and this imputation may be the formall cause of the iustification of a beleever For to this an answere is ready that suppose it should merit it 's owne imputation though this be very unproper and requires an interpretation more then abounding with charity to make truth of it any waies yet is not this imputation that which men say is imputed for righteousnesse unto any man but the righteousnesse it selâ—e of Christ Therfore if the righteousnesse of Christ be the meritorious cause of that righteousnesse which is imputed to a beleever and this righteousnesse which is imputed be the righteousnesse of Christ then it is evident that the righteousnesse of Christ must be directly and plainly the meritorious cause of it selfe Againe in the Eleventh place to second the former argument with another like unto it SECT 3 If the righteousnesse of Christ be imputed to a beleever for righteousnesse in his instification then the meritorious cause of his iustification is imputed unto him for righteousnesse But the meritorious cause of a mans iustification cannot be thus imputed unto him Therfore the righteousnes of Christ cannot be thus imputed neither The truth of the Major Proposition the former Argument will maintaine against any contradiction besides it is pregnant with an innate evidence of truth The reason of the Minor is this because the meritorious cause being a kind of efficient as is confessed on all hands cannot be either the matter or the forme of that whereof it is efficient Wherfore if the righteousnesse of Christ be the meritorious-efficient cause of our iustification unpossible it is that by any contriving or casting or bringing about either by imputation or otherwise it should ever be found or made either the matter or the forme of this iustification For this is famously known to be an indispensable and inviolable Law amongst the foure kinds of causes materiall formall finall and efficient that the two former only doe ingredi compositum or effectum and are partes reiconstitutae i. are intrinsecall and essentiall parts of the effect or thing produced and that the two latter viz. the finall and efficient are all waies extrinsecall and stand without As for example when a Plaisterer or Painter whites a wall the effect of his worke is the whitenesse of the wall or the wall as made white Now into this effect this whitenesse of the wall there is none of the efficient causes producing lt either any part of it or any ingredient into it neither the plaisterer himselfe who is the principall efficient cause of it nor his brush or pensill which is the instrumentall efficient cause nor the money or wages he receives for the doing it which is as the meritorious efficient cause of it None of all these is any intrinsecall or constituting part of the effect neither as the matter nor as the forme thereof The whitenesse applyed or put upon the matter or subject viz. the wall by all the three efficients according to their severall operations about it is the forme or formall part of it and the wall it selfe whereunto this form is joyned coupled or
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
himselfe is iustified with the same Iustification wherewith sinners are iustified and consequently hath sinnes forgiven him aswell as they Because that communion which is betweene Christ and us who beleeve is but one and the same Communion and wherein Christ partakes aswell as we Therefore if the same forme of Iustification be found in him which is in us the same Iustification must be found in him or on him likewise 2º That communion which is betweene Christ and those that beleeve cannot be the formall cause of Iustification because it is no righteousnesse nor conformity with any Law either directly or indirectly either properly and precisely or by way of equivalencie and interpretatively himselfe likewise affirming p. 138 that in the act of iustification God makes men righteous by the perfect righteousnesse and full satisfaction of Christ expressing hereby if be expresseth any thing the formall cause at least according to his owne apprehension of Iustification So then the communion which is betweene Christ and us being a farre differing thing from the righteousnesse and full satisfaction of Christ it followes as well agreeably to his owne pen as to the truth it selfe that the Communion he speakes of is not the formall cause of Iustification 3º The formall cause of Iustification SECT 19 must needs be as we shall hereafter further demonstrate the proper impression or effect of the act of Iustification and consequently the effect of God who justifieth or exerciseth that act that is of God the Father as himselfe rightly supposeth p. 137. whereas that Communion betweene Christ and us which hee speakes of ariseth and floweth as himselfe also acknowledgeth in the passage cited from the Holy Ghost Therefore unpossible it is that this Communion should bee theformall cause of Iustification 4º This Communion betweene Christ and us is a consequent of our Iustification and taketh not place hath no being till after we be fully and compleately iustified This himselfe likewise upon the matter acknowledgeth in the words cited affirming that it ariseth and floweth from the Spirit which God sheds on us through Christ c. Now that the Spirit is not shed upon us till after or upon our beleeving and consequently till after we be iustified for Iustification followeth Faith as close as imagination it selfe can imagine is evident from those and many the like Scriptures This spake he of the Spirit which they that believed in him should receive c. John 7.39 And God which knoweth the heart gave them witnesse viz. that they truly beleeved as appeares from the former verse in giving unto them the Holy Ghost even as he did unto us Act. 15.8 Then Peter said unto them Amend your lives and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ for the Remission of sinnes and yee shall receive the guift of the Holy Ghost Act. 2.38 They were to beleeve before they were Baptized but the receiving of the Holy Ghost is promised after See further to this purpose Act. 6.5 Act. 8.15.16 Act. 11.17 with the 15. Act. 19.2 c. So then the Communion that is betweene Christ and us flowing from the Spirit which God sheds on us through Christ and this act of sheding being still performed by God after or upon our beleeving and consequently after or upō our compleate Iustificatiō it undeniably followes that this Communion cannot be the formall cause of our JUSTIFICATION because this is accomplished and accomplished it cannot be without the formall part or cause of it in being before the other receives it's being 5º SECT 20 If the communion that is betweene Christ and us were the formall cause of Iustification Christ himselfe might be truly said to be iustified by the same act of Iustification with us This is evident because the Communion spoken of relates aswell to him as to us and is inherent in him as much as in us and whatsoever partakes of the same forme or formall cause with another is doubtlesse in respect of this form capable of the same denominatiō with it If the forme of that Iustification be as well or as much in Christ as it is in us Christ may as wel be said to be iustified thereby as we But to say that Christ should be iustified by that communion which is betweene him and us is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a hard saying to the tender cares of Christians Therefore certainly though that Communion which is betweene Christ and us be a sweete and precious thing yet is it not the formall cause of Iustification no more then Samuel was therefore Isaak Abrahams Son because he was a good Sonne like him And 6o. If the Communion betweene Christ and us be the formall cause of Iustificatton then is not the reciprocall imputation of our sinnes to Christ and of his righteousnesse and full satisfaction to us this cause also which is yet affirmed by the same Author and with the same breath This consequence is pregnant and conquering because this reciprocall imputation is an act of God the Father and so supposed by the Author himselfe and if rightly understood not with any variation from the truth whereas the Communion mentioned floweth from the Holy Ghost as hath bin already observed and is here likewise expressely affirmed Now unpossible it is that two acts really differing the one from the other should ever so combine or incorporate as to make the forme or formall cause of any thing which as hath bin said is alwaies a single and simple being and voyd of composition This reason stands in force though we take his reciprocall imputation which he joynes with his communion to make up the forme of Iustification in a passive sense viz. for the effect of that act of God whereby he maketh that reciprocall imputation For neither can two effects really differing ever so complie or consent together to simplisie one the other as to raise a third thing or being betweene them of simplicitie enough to make the formall being of any thing 7º Neither can this reciprocall imputation taken by it selfe be the formall cause of Iustification because 1º it comprehends and includes two severall and distinct acts of God or two distinct and severall effects of two such acts of his The imputation of our sinnes to Christ is an act or effect really differing from the imputation of his righteousnesse and satisfaction unto us This is evident because as the rendring Christ obnoxious unto death is a thing really differing and of opposite consideration from the making of us righteous and capable of life so the acts by which these are effected must needs be really differing also the one from the other Now as hath bin already argued it is unpossible that any forme or formall cause should be made of any pluralitie of ingredients or be a composition made of severall things really differing the one from the other 2º It is impossible that this reciprocall imputation should be the forme we inquire after because only the beleeving sinner
that alwaies gives the denomination by the meanes or reason whereof the subject is so or so denominated I assume But a sinner is therefore and thereby iustified because or in that he hath his sinnes forgiven him Ergo. The reason of the latter proposition is because that Iustification we speake of being still opposed to condemnation as hath bin formerly observed from the Scriptures must needs stand in a vindication or exemption from punishment which being interpreted is nothing else but the having of a mans sinnes forgiven For there is no exemption from punishment at the hand of an infinite Judge for him that is guilty but by having his sinnes forgiven as on the other hand the forgivenesse of sinnes is a full exemption in this kind Thirdly SECT 31 that alteration or change in the condition of the person justified which is caused therein by that act whereby God justifieth him must of necessitie be the forme or formall cause of his justification The third particular premised is a sufficient light wherby to see the truth of this proposition Therefore I assume But remission of sinnes or absolution and acquitting from punishment which are interpretatively the same is that alteration or change which is made in the condition of a person justified by that act of God whereby he justifieth him Ergo this alteration or change is the formall cause of justification The reason of the latter propositioÌ„ is this Iustification being as I suppose is confessed on alhands a civil or politique act as all actions of Iudicature are must needs produce a civil or politique effect answerable to it Al acts actions beget only in their own similitude likenesse A natural action cannot produce a morall effect nor a morall action a naturall effect Neither can a civill or politique action produce either a naturall or morall but only a civill or politique effect When a Judge acquits and so when he condemn's a man from a crime or accusation brought in against him this makes neither any naturall nor morall change in the person of him that is so acquitted except it be occasionally by accident as when by such a sentence of absolution a man is recovered out of those feares which were prejudiciall to his health whilst he lay under danger of the sentence of the Law or the like but properly and directly such an act produceth a civill or politique change in his condition For whereas he was before in danger of the Law and obnoxious unto punishment he is now at liberty and free therefrom So when a beleeving sinner is justified by God the effect of this act of God is not any naturall or morall change made upon him but a change in his estate and condition Now there is no other change that can be imagined should be made in the spirituall estate or condition of a man by the act of Gods Iustification falling on him but onely his acquitting from the guilt of sinne and punishment due unto the same Before this act of God passed upon him he was under the guilt of sinne and obnoxious to the wrath of God but by the coming of this upon him he is absolutly free and exempt from danger that way Fourthly SECT 32 that which makes a justified person formally and compleatly just or righteous before God is questionlesse the formall cause of Iustification This proposition is greater then exception nor will I conceive be denied by our keenest adversaries in the maine I assume therefore But remission of sinnes is that which makes a iustified person formally and compleatly righteous before God Therefore this is the formall cause of Iustification The reason and ground of the assumption is this because he that stands as cleere and as free from sinne or the guilt of sin in the sight of God as he that having liv'd a 1000 yeeres should alwaies have observ'd the Law and never transgressed in the least point is doubtlesse formally compleatly righteous in the sight of God Now that remission of sins gives this privilege to him that hath received it in as ful amplea manner as the exemplified observation of the Law or any other of the longest continuance that is imaginable can do hath bin more then once demonstrated in this Treatise especially in the fift Conclusion layd down in the second Chap. of this second Part. Sect. 6. p. 8. Fiftly If remission of sinnes be a perfect and complete righteousnesse then is it the formall cause of Iustification This proposition is much of the same spinning with the Major in the former argument and so partaker of like evidence of truth with it Neveâ—-the-lesse once to light up a candle wherby to see the Sunne the reason of it is briefly this be-because no perfect or compleate righteousnesse can be found in any man that hath sin'd but that which is given and conferr'd by God upon him in his Justification and that which is in this way conferr'd upon him is without contradiction the formall cause thereof Therefore let us make forward But remission of sinnes is a perfect and compleate righteousnesse therefore doubtlesse the formall cause also of Iustification The minor proposition hath oft already bin exalted upon the Throne of evidence and unquestionablenesse of truth yet if you desire a little of what is more then enough take this for a further demonstration of it That righteousnesse which needeth not feare the presence oâ— most district Judgement of God is doubtlesse a compleate and perfect righteousnesse But remission of sinnes is a righteousnesse that needeth not to feare the presence or districtest judgement of God Therefore it is a perfect and compleate righteousnesse The Sunne at noone day shineth no cleerer light then both these propositions do truth For the former I make no question but contradiction it selfe will be ashamed to oppose it Peccata sola separant inter hominem et Deum quae solvuntur Christi gratia per quem mediatorem reconciliamur cum justificat impium Aug De Pecc Merit et Rem l. 1. c 20. That righteousnesse which will hold out waight and measure by the standerd of Heaven no man I presume will call defective or imperfect And for the latter who can with any reason lift up a thought of heart against it For what cause hath any man to feare any displeasure or hard sentence from God who hath all his sinnes fully pardoned There is nothing can separate betweene God and his creature but only sinne and when this is taken away what shall hinder but that there should immediatly ensue a perfect union of love and peace betweene them Sixtly SECT 33 If forgivenesse of sinnes be the righteousnesse which God imputes in the Justification of a sinner then is it the formall cause of Iustification But forgivenesse of sinnes is the righteousnesse imputed by God in the Iustification of a sinner Ergo. The ground of the sequell in the first proposition is this because the righteousnesse which God imputes in Iustification
fulfilling of the whole Morall Law but that which we meane is this that God lookes upon a man who truly beleeveth with as much grace and favor and intends to doe as graciously and bountifully by him as if he were a man of perfect righteousnesse and had entirely kept and fulfilled the whole Law In this sense to account Faith for righteousnesse hath not the least colour or appearance either of injustice or repugnancie with the truth The Reader may please to see the substance of this answer further opened and confirmed in the former part of this Discourse Cap. 19. Sect. 6 and 7. Fourthly and lastly there is scarce any thing affirmed more frequently or familiarly by the best reformed writers then that God esteemes or accounts those just or perfectly just who properly and in exactnesse and strictnesse of speech are not such but only have their sinnes forgiven Therefore they apprehended no matter of unjustice or contrarietie unto truth in that which the objection impeacheth of both From hence we gather saith Calvin (a) In Rom. 4.3 that Pauls dispute is not what men are in themselves sed quo loco Deus ipsos censeat that is but in what place or condition God is pleased to account them And elsewhere (b) De vera Loâ—es Refor ratione p. 368. It followes then that we are just or righteous and consequently may justly and righteously be so accounted by God quia nobis peccata non imputantur because our sinnes are not imputed to us Therefore we stand just or righteous before God saith Mr. Fox (c) De Christo gratu Iustine l 3. p. 280. because our sinnes are forgiven us We have Remission of sinnes saith Melancthon (d) In Exam. Theol. de Iustific p. 529. for and through Christ which having obteyned justi sumus coram Deo we are righteous before God Paul saith Calvin estimates the blessednesse of a man from hence quia hoc modo justus est non reipsà sed imputatione that is because he is after this manner righteous not in very deed but by imputation And a little after going on with his confutation of Osiander he must grant saith he at least that as farre as that imputation of his extendeth justos conseri qui reipsa non sunt that is that they are accounted meaning by God righteous who yet are not righteous indeed It were easy to weaâ—â—e the Reader over (e) Instit l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 11. Gratuâ—ta Dei acceptatio subrogatur in locum justiciae idem Non magu ve ritati screutiae justeque Dei judicio repugnat cos pro quorum peccatâ—â— tam commissionus quam omnissionis satisfastio per Christi mortem plenissime est prastita tales judicare qui nihil mali commiserint nihilque boni omiserent quam eos perfecte justos judicare ut pote qui perfectam legi obedientiam prassi teriut cum id ipsi tamè noutiquam fecerint pro quibus Christus tandem prâ—stitisse perhibetur Gatak Elench Gomar p. 35. vi seqq and over with heaping up such expressions as these out of these and other Authors of like Authentique Name with them But the objection was at least as much as answered before therefore proceed we to doe as much for another A second objection rais'd by some against the Imputation of Faith in a proper sense for righteousnesse SECT 3 Object 2 is this If Faith in such a sense should be imputed for righteousnesse then should justification be by works or by somewhat in our selves But the Scripture every where rejecteth works and all things in our selves from having any thing to doe in Iustification Ergo. I answere to both propositions and first to the major by distinguishing the consequent therein That justification should be by works or by somewhat in our selves may be understood two waies Either 1o. by way of merit so that by works should signifie by the merit of works which is still the Scripture sense or else 2o. by way of simple performance If the Proposition be taken in the former sense it is altogether false and the consequence thereof denied Faith may be imputed for righteousnesse in the sense oft declared and yet no man justified by the merit of any work or works in himselfe If it be taken in the latter sense so the minor Proposition is false to touch upon this in the second place For the Scripture no where rejecteth every thing that may goe under the name of a worke or that may be said to be done by us in respect of a simple performance from having to doe in the matter of justification Nay it expressely requireth of us and enjoyneth that as of absolute necessitie to justification yea and attributeth Justification to it from place to place which it selfe calleth a work This is the worke of God saith our Saviour to the Jewes that yee beleeve in him whom he hath sent And when Paul exhorts the Philippians to worke out their salvation with feare and trembling doubtlesse he doth not exclude their Faith or beleeving in Christ Now that beleeving in Christ is required as of absolute necessitie aswell to Iustification as salvation at least of those that are adulti and of yeares of discretion is a thing I conceive so well knowne and of that universall confession that I may forbeare the citation of Scripturs without prejudice to the truth of it Thus our best and soundest writers without scruple call that beleeving by which we are justified a work or the doing of something Faith saith Calvin (a) Fides praecâ—puum opus est quod a nobis Deus exigit Calvin in Iac. 1.22 is the chiefe work that God requireth of us And what did Abraham saith Musculus (b) Quid enim feeit Abraham quod imputaretur c. Musc in Gal. 3.6 that should be imputed for righteousnesse but only beleeve God The Reader may please to see more to this purpose in my Answere to Mr. Walker p. 67 c. So that the treasure of this objection is but coales also A third Objection is this Object 3 That which maketh Justification not to be of grace or of free grace SECT 4 cannot stand with the truth of the Gospell But the Imputation of Faith for righteousnesse in the sense now contended for makes Iustification not to be of Grace Ergo. Reverencing the innocencie of the major Proposition I come with a rod unto the minor Answere charging this with untruth and that upon this ground and evidence because the Scripture still makes or acknowledgeth a perfect and entire consistence of grace or free grace with the condition of Faith in Iustification For by Grace yee are saved through Faith Ephes 2.8 And are freely justified by his Grace c. Rom. 3.24 through Faith in his blood c. ver 25. Nay the truth is that the worke of beleeving as our Saviour called it is so farre from carrying any opposition in it to the freenesse of Gods grace in
which strâ—ngthen the hands of men of opposite judgement to us to contend and pleade for it Meete and equall it is that men who pleade reason that is any thing that is like unto equity or truth should either obtaine the cause they pleade and be assented unto or else receive a valuable consideration to the full in their own coyne I meane in reason by way of Answere But inasmuch as some of these arguments have bin already answered upon occasion in some former passages of the Discourse I presume I may so farre entrust my Reader with the concernments of the cause in hand being in part his own without danger as the accepting of Answers els-where given in case they be sufficient doth amount unto only with reference without repetition The first argument for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense refused SECT 2 is thus framed If there be no standing in judgment before God unlesse we be endued with perfect righteousnesse then must the righteousnesse of Christ be imputed to us in our Iustification But there is no standing for us in judgment before God unlesse we be endu'd and furnished with a perfect righteousnesse Ergo. I Answere by denying the consequence in the former proposition Answere there may be no standing in judgment before God without a perfect righteousnesse and yet the righteousnesse of Christ in the sense controverted not be imputed The reason is because remission of sinnes which is the purchase and procurement of the death and sufferings of Christ for us as our Adversaries themselves acknowledg is a perfect righteousnesse and every waies able to support and beare us out in judgement before God as hath bin abundantly proved in the five first conclusions laid down and proved in the second Chapter of this latter part of the Discourse p. 3 4 c. Yea and our best Reformed Divines finde a sufficient strength of confidence for beleevers in the presence of God in the death and sufferings of Christ alone Calvin (a) Instie l. 2. c. 17. Sect. 9. having mentioned that of the Apostle Rom. 3.24 c Being justified freely by his grace through the Redemption that is in Iesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood addeth as followeth Paul commendeth the grace of God in this that he hath given the price of our redemption in the death of Christ and then willeth us to betake our selves unto his blood that so obteyning righteousnesse we may stand secure before the judgement of God And elsewhere (b) Instit l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 9. interpreting that clause against Osiander that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 he first delivereth himselfe thus Osiander here triumpheth as if he descried the spectrum or image of his essentiall righteousnesse when as the words sound quite another way viz. that we are righteous by the expiation or attonement made by Christ for us And a little after somewhat more fully to our purpose thus sed hoc loco c. that is but in this place readers that have but their wits about them though I should say nothing cannot but acknowledge that nothing else is meant quam nos mortis Christi piaculo suffultos apud Dei tribunal stare that is then that we stand at Gods judgement seat underpropt or borne up with the expiation or attonement of Christs death If God will judge thee said Anselme long before him say Lord Si Deus voluerit te judicare dic Domine mortem Domini nostri Iesu Christi obijcio â—nter 〈◊〉 et te et judicium tuum alâ—ter tecum non conteâ—do Anselm I interpose the death of our Lord Iesus Christ betweene me and thee and thy judgement otherwise I strive not with thee And Ambrose before him to the like effect though not altogether so plainly Gloriabor non quia vacuus peccati sum c. that is I will glory not that I am void of all sinne but that my sinnes are forgiven So that evident it is as hath bin formerly signified that a man needs not take care or thought for any other righteousnesse in the presence of God then only the forgivenesse of his sinnes which he is confidently to expect in and through the death and sufferings of Christ Againe secondly the Imputation we oppose SECT 3 is by some protected with the shield and Buckler of this Argument He that is justified by the righteousnesse of another Argum. 2 and not by his owne must needs be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed The reason is because there is no righteousnesse to be found in any other fit for the justification of any man but the righteousnesse of Christ alone But every man that is justified is justified by the righteousnesse of another and not by his owne Ergo. I Answere First Answere to the major proposition by denying it and oppose this contradictory for a truth against it A man may be justified by the righteousnesse of another and not his own and yet no necessitie of the righteousnesse of Christ that is of his active obedience for of this only the question is to be imputed unto him The reason hereof is more then manifest out of what hath bin already delivered viz. because the passive obedience of Christ is the righteousnesse of another and men may be and are fully and throughly justified by the merit hereof communicated unto them in the free pardon of their sinnes without any further righteousnesse derived upon them either from him or from any other in a way of imputation or however To make this good there needs nothing be added to what the Reader may please to finde in the 4th and fift Conclusions premis'd in the second Chap. of this latter part Sect. 4. and 5. p. 567. To the minor proposition Answere 2 I answere likewise by distinguishing the predicaeum or latter clause of it A man may be said to be justified by the righteousnesse of another and not by his owne in a double sense either 1º by way of merit or 2º by way of forme In the first sense the proposition is admitted whosoever is justified is justifyed by the righteousnesse of another and not by his owne that is is justified by the merit of the righteousnesse of another and not by the merit of his owne But this sense maketh nothing to the point in hand In the latter sense it is altogether untrue for that righteousnesse wherewith a man is formally justified or made righteous is alwaies a mans owne I meane by donation and possession and not anothers except only in respect either of procurement and so it is Christs or of collation and so it is Gods Remission of sinnes whereby a beleever is formally justified as hath bin often said and once at least largely proved (a) part 2. c. 4. Sect. 30 31.32.33 is a mans owne righteousnesse in such a sense as his Repentance or Faith is his own being all
his I meane of those that were-to descend Spiritually from him by Faith though for my selfe I had rather demurre then joyne issue in this And yet how ridiculous is it on the one hand and of dangerous consequence on the other to suppose that all that Adam did and all that very possibly he might have done either may or might have bin so imputed to all his posteritie as if they had done it Of what advantage or concernment can it be unto me that God should looke upon me as one that gave Names to all Cattell and to the foules of Heaven and to every Beast of the Field which yet Adam did Gen. 2.20 Or as upon one that first propagated man-kinde and begat Cain which we know were done by Adam with twenty things more of like nature In case he had stood and continued in his righteousnesse the publiquenesse of his person had bin no waies touched nor impaired hereby and yet is it of very doubtfull importance to conceive that all that righteousnesse which Adam in this case had wrought should have bin look'd upon as the righteousnesse of all his posteritie and imputed to them for their Justification For from hence it would follow 10 that all his posteritie should have bin saved 20 that they should all have bin sinlesse which are two principall regions of terra incognita 30 and lastly that they should all have bin justified by a double righteousnesse one personall and wrought by themselves another imputative wrought by another and so in this respect at least should have bin better provided for their justification then those that are now justified by Christ Secondly it hath bin formerly demonstrated SECT 20 how little consistence it hath either with truth See cap. 2. Sect. 14. of this second Part. or with the manner of Scripture expression to say that the sufferings of Christ are by God look'd upon as our sufferings or to conceive that we should suffer in him It is not all one to say saith Doctor Willet we are punished in Christ and Christ was punished for us and in our stead this is warranted by the Scripture Esa 53.6 But the other cannot be affirmed for seeing in Christs death we have remission of our sins we cannot be said for the same sinnes to be punished in and with Christ whereof we have remission in his death Comment on Dan. 9. Qu. 25. p. 289. Thirdly the publiquenesse of a person who negotiates the businesse and affaires of others as Christ did of those that shall beleeve in him doth no further or any otherwise interesse those whose affaires they manage in what they do in or about such a transaction but only with reference to the issue and successe of what they do for them in that behalfe If a man undertakes the ordering and issuing of such a businesse for me and deales dishonestly or unconscionably with others therin and at last makes a conclusion with much damage and disadvantage to me which might be a wise and saire cariage of things on my behalfe have bin prevented I am in this case liable to suffer all the detriment and damage which the unconscionablenesse or weaknesse of my Agent hath brought upon me but I am not to be look'd upon as one that have us'd the same unconscionablenesse with him or as if his weaknesse were mine Or in case he had dealt wisely or faithfully for me and had brought my businesse to a good end or issue I here receive benefit and good by such a mans wisdome and faithfulnesse but these are not ascribed orimputed unto me as mine owne because he was my Agent that used them The Client that prevailes against his adversary before the Judge by the skill of his Advocate or Lawyer is not therefore reputed as skilfull in the Law as his Advocate nor to have pleaded his own cause as substantially and effectually as his Lawyer did In like manner as farre as Adam had a Commission or power from God to deale for me or in my affaires being one of his posteritie I am bound to undergoe and suffer my share in that evill or miserie which he brought upon the world through his weaknesse or unfaithfulnesse in that transaction but this weaknesse or unfaithfulnesse of his as a Commissioner for me is not look'd upon as my personall weaknesse or unfaithfulnesse only so farre as my person was in his they are ascribed and imputed unto me as mine own See for this cap. 2. Sect. 11. of this second part So againe on the other hand as farre as Christ had a power from God to deale for me and in mine affaires being one that beleeve in him I have my part and portion in that blessed end and issue whereunto by his holinesse wisdome faithfulnesse and patience he brought the affaires of the world entrusted in his had but God doth never the more looke upon me as if that holinesse wisdome faithfulnesse and patience had bin mine nor is it any waies necessary that he should to make me capable of that which falls to my share as I am a beleever in that great and blessed transaction of Christ Fourthly and lastly to part with this argument also upon such terms SECT 21 that we may never need to meete more neither is it altogether so solid or sound a truth as haply is supposed that Christ stood in the place or stead of those that should beleeve in him especially in all things performed by him and which tended to the qualification of his person for the accomplishing of that great work of Redemption To stand in the place or stead of another implies a necessitie of his being in the same place and doing the same things himselfe wherin he stands and which he doth who is supposed to stand in his stead unlesse they had bin done by this other for him Now Christ did a thousand things yea and suffered many for the doing and suffering wherof there lay no personall necessitie upon many Beleevers whether Christ had done or suffered them or no. As for example there was no necessitie either in way of duty or of penaltie lying upon any Beleever one or other to be conceived or borne of a virgin to turne water into wine to command the winds and the Seas to ordain Apostles or the like Againe there was no necessitie lying upon any beleeving Gentile to have bin circumcised to have bin in subjection unto Ioseph to have eaten the Passeover at Hierusalem c. Therefore in all these Passages of his life with many others it is full evident that he stood not in the place or stead of all Beleevers All that the Scripture speaketh in this case is that he suffered for us was made a curse for us c. which expressions though they imply indeed in the generall a necessitie of our sufferings unlesse Christ had suffered for us yet do they not imply a necessitie of our sufferings in the same kinde or after the same manner in all particulars
with Christ so neither if there were would it make any thing at all to salve the truth of the proposition under question if the sense and meaning of it were caried according to the line of the interpretation of those other expressions mentioned For what if we should be said either to professe such a fulfilling of the Law which holds a spirituall analogie or proportion with Christs fulfilling the Law or really and personally to fulfill the Law after such a manner were there any thing in this to inferre an imputation of Christs personal fulfilling the Law in the letter and formalitie thereof unto us Doubtlesse Christ's quickening and rising againe are not in the letter and formalitie of them imputed unto the Saints for their quickening and rising againe in the same manner if they were Hymeneus and Philetus had bin no Heretiques for teaching that the resurrection was past already 2 Tim. 2.18 Therefore neither is there any thing in this reason more then in its fellowes to repaire the breaches that have bin made upon that imputation which with them it seeks to fortifie We have but one encounter more SECT 24 Argum. 12 and then the battaile ceaseth for the present The last argument I shall propound and Answere is this Whosoever is a sinner and so continueth whilst he lives cannet be justified otherwise then by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse But every man Christ excepted is a sinner and so continueth whilst he lives Therefore no man can be justified but by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse An answere to this and an end Answere though the truth is that more then an answere hath bin given already I repeate therefore rather then adde in reference to the former Proposition that if there be no other way or means for the justifying of a sinner then by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense so often sentenced doubtlesse the condition of the whole world is miserable and help-lesse there is no way or dore of life yet opened unto sinners For imputation of this righteousnesse upon such terms there is none as hath bin largly proved and if I be not mistaken beyond all reasonable deniall throughout the bodie of this discourse But blessed be the Father of mercies and God of all comfort who without the key of such an imputation hath opened an effectuall dore of Iustification unto poore sinners yea even unto those who are like to be no better then sinners whilst they live in the world however this justification coming upon them makes them the best and happiest of sinners in that kinde Those that truly beleeve in Iesus Christ being not under the Law but under grace are not liable to condemnation for the things they commit daily against the Law If any man sinne as we ast do whilst we live we have an Advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sinnes 1 Jâ—n 2.1.2 So that for the dissolving and taking away all the gurâ—t danger and inconveniences of the â—inuâ—s of beleevers in every kinde there needs no imputation of the active obedience of Christ the propitiation which he is unto them by his blood and intercâ—ision hath done this service for them to the uttermost before this imputation is supposed to come at them And doubtlesse it is no more to the justification of a sinner then the Midwifes were to the deliverâ—e of those Hebrew women who were fully and safely delivered before the Midwifes came at them Que apud Dominum propitiatio est nisi sacrisiciciumâ— et quod est sacri ficium nisi quod pro noâ—is oblatum est in morte Christi Aug. Exod. 1. What propitiation saith Augustine is there with the Lord but sacrifice and what sacrifice is there but that which was offered for us in the death of Christ Nor are we to thinke that the fulnesse of the merit of the death of Christ is so exhaust and spent upon the purchase of the parden and forgivenesse of our sinnes that it will not hold out to procure our acceptation also with God Yes by the redundancie of this merit saith Mr. Reynolds (a) The life of Christ p. 402. after satisfaction made thereby unto his Fathers justice for our debt there is further a purchase made of grace and glory and all good things in our behalfe Yea Adoption it selfe and the acceptation of our persons and admittance into the high favour of God to be made heyres of selvation spring all from one and the same most precious and fruitfull roote of the blood of Christ the perfect holinesse of his person and righteousnesse of his life presupposed as hath bin said So that he that hath communion in the fulnesse of his death shall not know what to doe with the imputation of the righteousnesse of his life after it were it made unto him or conferred upon him But enough if not more then enough of this heretofore Thus have we at last overcome and fully answered all those arguments and pieâ—â—â— which to my knowledge have yet bin insisted upon and consâ—â—ed in by anâ— for the up-bearing of thâ—â—â—utation 〈◊〉 Christs righteousnesse in the sense 〈…〉 contradicted in the discourse viz. in the letter and formality of it or as the formall cause whether in whole or in part of Iustification If any man of conâ—â—ary judgment and yet unsatisfied will vouchsase in a spirit of meekenesse and love either to diâ—â—â—â— the insufficiencie and weaknesse of any of there Answers in case he conceives them insufficient and weake or else further to object what he conceives to be of greater weight and importance then the arguments already answered I shall willingly and unpartially consider of either And if in either I shall finde any thing of pregnant and solid conviction and above answere I shall soone turne Proselyte and be glad to be so delivered of an error I had much rather be imployed in cancelling and desacing mine owne errors then other mens and desire to make it my daily trade and occupation to exchange darknesse for light crooked things for streight errors for truths The Lord by his Spirit lead us into the way of all â—ruth and keepe us that we turne not aside either to the right hand or to the lest that so we may be soundly built up in our most holy Faith and be prepared hereby for his everlasting Kingdome FINIS