and therefore the Lord reckoned him a righteous man even for that very acceptation and beleeving But that is not all but likewise be accounteth faith to him for righteousnes because faith doth Sanctifie and make a man righteous c. So that evident it is if there be any such thing as evidence in the writings and opinions of men that this mans thoughts were never so much as tempted to conceit that the Apostle should tropologize or metonymize in the word Faith or beleeving in this Scripture Mr. JOHN FORBS late Pastor of the English Church at Middleburgh a man of knowne gravity pietie and learning in his Treatise of Iustification cap. 28 p. 135. hath these words For faith in this sentence meaning where it is said that faith is imputed unto righteousnesse is in my opinion to be taken properly in that sense whereby in it selfe it is distinguished both from the word whereby it is begotten and from the object of it in the word which is Christ Thus I have cited the authority of many Authors by way of collaterall assurance for the securing the literall and proper interpretation of this Scripture Not that the interpretation it selfe needeth tali auxilio aut defensoribus istis but only to remove that great stumbling stone of the world which lieth in many mens way towards many truths called PREIUDICE CAP. III. Other proofes from Scripture to to establish the former conclusion vindicated likewise from such exceptions as may be layd in against them SEcondly that the active obedience of Christ SECT 1 or his fulfilling the Morall Law was never intended by God to be that righteousnesse wherewith we should be justified in any such way of imputation as is pretended may be I conceive further demonstrated from all such passages in Scripture where the works of the Law are absolutely excluded from justification As Rom. 3 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law So Gal. 2.16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ even we have beleeved in Iesus Christ that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law Againe Rom. 3.20 Therefore by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight Besides other Scriptures of like importance Now if a man be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto him he shall be justified by the works of the Law because that righteousnesse of Christ we now speake of consists of these works as every mans personall righteousnesse should have done had there been a continuance in the first Covenant Therefore this righteousnesse of Christ cannot be imputed to any man for that righteousnesse whereby he is to be justified Neither will these and the like Scriptures be charmed by words of any such glosse or interpretation as this No man shall be justified in the sight of God by the works of the Law viz. as personally wrought by themselves because no mans works will hold out weight and measure with the strictnesse and perfection of the Law But this hinders not but that a man may be justified by the works of the Law as wrought by another supposing this other to be as great in working or obeying as the Law it selfe is in commanding and withall that God is willing to derive these works of his upon us by imputation For to this I answere 4 things First SECT 2 where the holy Ghost delivers a truth simply and indefinitly and in way of a generall or universall conclusion for in materiâ necessariâ as this is propositio indefinita vim obtines universalis as Logicians the best oversees of reason generally resolve us not to be justified by the works of the Law is as much as not to be justified by any works of the Law whatsoever wi hout imposing any necessity upon men either in the same place or else where in the Scriptures to limit or distinguish upon it then for men to interpose with their owne wisdomes and apprehensions by distinctions and limitations and reservations of what they please to over-rule the plaine and expresse meaning and signification of the words is not to teach men obedience and submission unto but to usurp a power and exercise authority over the Scriptures Neither is there any practise so sinfull or opinion so erronous but may find a way to escape the word of the Spirit and to come fairely off from all Scripture censure if they be but permitted to speake for themselves by the mouth of such a distinction Give but the loose Patrons of an implicit Faith liberty to distinguish upon like terms where the Scriptures in the most explicit manner falls foulest upon their implicit Faith they will be able by the attonement of such a distinction to make their peace with the Scriptures He that beleeves not saith our Saviour Mar. 16 16. shall be damned He that beleeves not shall be damned True may these men say He that beleeves not either by himselfe or by another shall be damned but this hinders not but that he that beleeveth as the Church beleeveth may be saved though he knoweth nothing explicitely of what the Church beleeveth the explicit Faith of the Church is sufficient to save him So likewise by the Law of such a distinction the Antinomian Sect amongst us will be able to justify their non-necessitie of personall sanctification or inherent holynesse against those Scriptures that are most pregnant and peremptory for it Without holinesse saith the Apostle Heb. 12 14. no man shall see the Lord True saith the Antinomian without holinesse either in himselfe or in some other no man shall see the Lord but he that is in Christ by Faith hath holinesse in Christ and therefore hath no necessity of it in his owne person Who seeth not that in these and many like cases that might be mentioned that liberty of distinguishing which we implead would plainly beguile the Holy Ghost of his direct intentions and meanings in those and such like Scriptures Therefore when the Scriptures expressely and indefinitly deliver that by the works of the Law no man shall be justified if men will presume to distinguish as hath been said and exclude such works from justification only as performed by our selves but make thē every mans justificatiō as performed by another who tasts not the same spirit of an unwarrātable wisdome in this distinction which ruled in the former Secondly I answere that if the Apostles charge and commission had bin SECT 3 in the delivering the doctrine of justification either to have made or to have given allowance for any such distinction as is contended about betweene the works of the Law as performed by men themselves and the same works of the Law as performed by Christ that those indeed should have no hand in justification but these should be all in all these should be justification it selfe certeinly he should have
fundamentall yet do they dispose more or lesse unto apostacie and absolute unbeliefe so on the other hand a cleere and sound and comprehensive understanding of any one cariage or passage of the Gospell according to the Scriptures contributes much towards the setling and establishing of the heart and soule in a firme beliefe and confidence of the whole The truth is that the body and frame of the Gospell is so compacted so neerly related in the severall parts and passages of it one thing looking with that favourable and full aspect upon another all things set in that methodicall order of a rationall connexion and consequentiall dependance one upon another that if a man be master in his judgment of any one passage thereof he may by the light and inclination hereof rectifie his thoughts otherwise and worke himselfe on to a cleere discerning and upright understanding of other things Therefore a thorough and full explication of any one point of the Gospell is of precious consequence and use But Sixtly the weightinesse and high importance of the subject of the discourse pleads the usefulnesse and concernment of it with an high hand For what can be of a more rich and solemne concernment to a man then cleerely to see and fully and satisfyingly to understand from the Scriptures how and by what meanes and upon what termes he either is or is to be Justifyed in the sight of God Doubtlesse the prospect of the promised Land from Mount Nebo was not more satisfactory and pleasing unto Moses then a cleere beholding of the Counsell and good pleasure of God touching the justification of a sinner is to the soule and conscience of him that either hopes or desires to be justified Therefore to search and inquire into this with all possible exactnesse cannot seeme needlesse to any man that savours never so little the things of his own peace Add we Seventhly in further prosecution of the same plea that there is no veyne in all the body of the Gospell no point whatsoever in Christian Religion more tender and wherin the least variation from the truth and mind of GOD may endanger the soule then this of Justification An haires breadth of mistake in this is more to be feared then a broad error in other points The truth is that if a man be of a sound and cleere judgement in the Doctrine of Justification and shall so continue he may finde a way into life through the midst of many errors and mistakes in other Articles and arguments of Christian Religion but if he stumbles or enterfires with the counsell of God about his justification he is in danger of perishing for ever neither will the cleerest knowledge of all other mysteries relieve him Behold I Paul say unto you that if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing Gal. 5.2 A small addition we see to the Counsell of God for our justification may cause our part to be taken away out of the Booke of life If an error in other points of Religion as about election reprobation freewill discipline or the like be to be redeemed with thousands doubtlesse an error in justification is to be redeemed with thousands of thousands In so much that all possible exactnesse and diligence in pensiculation of Scriptures and reasons and arguments to lay this corner stone aright in the building of our Faith may rather seeme negligence and loosenesse then any impertinencie or superfluitie of labour And though I have no commission from Heaven to judge that opinion touching the imputation of Christs active obedience which I oppose in the ensuing Treatise to be inconsistent with the favour of God and acceptation unto life and salvation yet in the bowells of Iesus Christ I humbly and heartily and seriously beseech all those that build their comfort and peace upon that foundation seriously to consider and lay to heart these 4 things which I shall very briefly mention desiring their respective inlargments rather in the soules and consciences of those whom they so neerly concerne First that the bridg of Justification by which men must passe and be conveyed over from death unto life is very narrow as hath in effect bin said already so that an heedlesse or carelesse step may be the miscariage and losse of the precious soule for ever Secondly that to promise our selves justification and life in any other way or upon any other termes then upon the expresse word and will of God revealed is to build upon a sandy foundation and may and ought to be abhorred and trembled at by us as the first-borne of presumptions Thirdly and with neerer relation to the great businesse in hand that to seeke justification by the Law is by the determination and sentence of Scripture it selfe no lesse then an abolishing from Christ or a rendring of Christ of none effect to salvation Christ is become of none effect unto you saith Paul whosoever of you are justified by the Law that is that seek or promise unto your selves justification by the works of the Law Gal. 5.4 Fourthly and lastly that that distinction which you commonly make between the Law or workes of the Law as performed by your selves and as performed by another meaning CHRIST to salve the danger as you conceive of your being justified by the Law is but a devise of humane wisdome at the best and no where warranted much lesse necessitated unto in the Scriptures and consequently must needs be a dangerous principle or notion to hazard the everlasting estate and condition of your soules upon I have in the Discourse it selfe and that more then once demonstrated the insufficiencie and danger of this Distinction and withall shewed that the Scriptures doe no where ascribe the Justification of a sinner to the works of the Law no not as performed by Christ himselfe but only unto his death and sufferings Therefore I content my selfe heere only to mention it Eightly and lastly the usefulnesse of the Discourse will abundantly appeare in this The opening and through Discussion of that great and noble Question therein handled concerning the Active and Passive obedience of Christ in Justification hath an influence into many other great and master veynes and passages of the Gospell and tends much to the rectifying and cleering of our judgements in these The difference betweene the two Covenants the communication of Adams sinne to his Posteritie and the equity of Gods proceedings in making the world subject unto death and condemnation thereby the consideration in Faith which makes it justifying the non imputability of the works of the Law to the non-performers of them the necessitie of Christs death the righteousnesse whereby we stand formally just before God with many other particulars of sweet and precious consideration will receive much light and cleering and confirmation hereby So that to charge the Treatise with fruitlesnesse or impertinencie is an accusation framed by the same line of equitie and truth whereby Joseph was accused of incontinencie by his
bin unfaithfull in this trust and very injurious to these works of Christ in giveing away that place of honour in the opposition which was due unto them to another thing of a far inferior nature to them viz. Faith as it is evident he doth in the Scripture cited Gal. 2. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ He doth not say but by the works of Iesus Christ as if the opposition stood betweene the works of the Law as performed by men and the same works as performed by Christ which in all congruity of reason he should have done had the works of the Law as done by Christ any such preheminence this way above the other and not have ascribed that unto Faith which is somewhat wherein the poore and weake creature hath to do which was the right and prerogative of Christs righteousnesse Doubtlesse Paul was no such enemy to the righteousnesse of Christ as to set up an usurper upon the Throne which belonged to it Thirdly if Pauls intent had bin to have reserved a place in justification for the active righteousnesse of Christ or for the works of the Law as performed by Christ by way of opposition to the same works as performed by men themselves his indefinite expression excluding the works of the Law simply without the least in imation given of any difference of those works either as from the one hand or from the other would have beene of dangerous consequence and as a snare upon men to cause them to passe over the great things of their justification Certainly if Paul had ever digged such a pit as this he would have bin carefull first or last to have fil'd it up againe Fourthly and lastly if by excluding the works of the Law from justification Pauls meaning had been SECT 4 only to exclude these works as done by men themselves but had no intent to exclude them as don by Christ it can at no hand be thought or once imagined but that he would have made use yea made much of such a distinction or reservation himselfe and would have been a glad man if salva veritate Evangelij without trenching upon some Gospel truth he could have come over so neere to his Country-men the Jewes and have closed with them in the great point of justification upon such terms Such a distinction might have been a happy mediator betweene them For what was it that chiefly incensed the Jewes against Paul and the Preaching of the Gospell and the righteousnesse of Faith but that the Law and the observation of it should be passed over and not taken into the great businesse of justification Now if Paul keeping a streight course in the Gospel could have said unto them or treated with them after any such manner as this you have no reason to take offence or to be troubled that I preach justification by Faith in Christ because I do not exclude the righteousnesse or works of your Law no not from having the maine stroke in your justification nay that which I preach concerning Faith is purposely to advance the righteousnesse of the Law and to shew you how you may be justified by it I only Preach you cannot be justified by your owne observation of it because the holinesse excellency and perfection of it is such that you cannot attaine or reach it by your owne strength but God hath sent me to keep it for you by whose observation imputed to you you shall be justified Therefore I am no enemy to your justification by the works of the Law but only teach you that these works are done by another for your justification Who seeth not but by such an interpretation or mitigation of matters as this Paul might have taken off at least a great part of the violent and furious oppositions of the Iewes against him A little of this oyle poured into the wound would have much mollified it and in all likelyhood in time have healed it But Paul it seemes did not like the composition or make of it neither durst he administer any receite of it He cannot be thought to have bin ignorant of this distinction or meanes of mitigation and with as little probabilitie can it be thought that he that could be content not only to be made all things unto all men for their good but even to have been an anathema from Christ to win them to the Gospel would have withheld any such word of reconciliation from them whereby there had been the least hope of gaining them But we do not meet with so much as any one word of this qualification in all his writings which shewes that the difference and distance betweene them was deeper and greater then so The paroxysme or sharpe contention betweene him and them was not whether they were to be justified by the works of the Law either as performed and wrought by themselves or as wrought by another but simply and indefinitly this whether justification were by the works of the Law by whomsoever performed or by Faith as is more then manifest in all the passages in his Epistles wherein this question and dispute is brought upon the stage There is not the least intimation of any difference betweene them this way whether justification should be by the works of the Law either as performed by our selves or as performed by Christ Paul never puts them upon the works of the Law as done by Christ for the matter of their justification which shewes that both he and they though otherwise at as great a distance as can readily be conceived in the point of justification yet in this were both of one mind and one judgment Paul as far from holding Iustification by the works of the Law as performed by Christ as the stubbornest Jewes themselves were But there are two things that haply SECT 5 may be objected against the Answers given and that will seeme to make for the confirmation of that distinction or interpretation which we have so much opposed First that there is a sufficient ground laied even by Paul himselfe upon which to found the forenamed distinction viz. that by excluding the works of the Law from Justification he only excludes them as done by men themselves but not at all as done by Christ Secondly that there is mention also of the works of the Law as done by Christ or which is the same of Christs being made under the Law in one of the chiefest disputes Paul hath concerning Justification The former objection is built upon Tit. 3 5. The latter upon Gal. 4.4 The words of the former Scripture are theise Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had done but according to his mercy he saved us Vpon which words the objection getteth up thus Paul by so precise a rejection of works of righteousnesse done by us that is by our selves plainly implies an admission of these works as done by another for us Where one part or member
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
Christ could not have bin our justification either in whole or in part in case it had bin performed by our selves is evident from hence because man being once fallen by sinning against the Law and made obnoxious to condemnation can never be raised or recovered againe by ten thousand observations of this Law The Law was able to have given life had it alwaies bin fulfilled and never broken but unto him that had once failed in the observation of it though he had bin made able to have kept it ten times afterward it had no power at all to give either life or justification The guilt of that sinne wherin he had once sinned could never have bin purged by any Law-righteousnesse noactive obedience whatsoever would ever have bin an attonement for him Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sinnes Heb. 9.22 Let me joyne another argument of the same lineage and stock with the former That which men are not bound by any Law or command of God to doe in their owne persons Argum. 22 SECT 3 for their justification cannot be imputed from another to any such end But men are not bound by any Law or command from God to observe the Moral Law for their justificatiō Therefore the observation of it cannot be imputed unto them from any other for any such end The reason of the major proposition if the conclusion sticks there is because imputation in the sense it is still taken by our adversaries in this controversie must be found out and ordained by God to supplie personall defects and inabilities But where there is no Law or command given unto men to obey there can be no personall defect It is no sinne or defect in any man not to obey where he hath no command and consequently there is no place nor occasion for any imputation to supplie it For the minor there is both substance and appearance enough of truth in it to privilege it from being a proposition of any further contention or strife Most evident it is from the whole course and current of the Scriptures that man in his lapsed condition since the fall had not the Law of works or the observation of the Morall Law imposed upon him for his justification before God but the Law of Faith only The morall Law as it hath received a new authority and establishment from Christ obligeth and bindeth the conscience under the Gospell to the observation thereof by way of dutie and thankfulnesse unto God but neither now nor at any time since the fall did it ever bind any man to the practise of it for his justification And therfore where it is said Rom. 2.13 that the hearers of the Law are not just before God but the doers of the Law shal be justified the meaning is not as if God exacted the strict observing of the Law for their iustification or that none should be iustified without such an observance but either 1º the words may be conceived spoken in a kind of ironie as if God did deride the hope and confidence of all those that should stand upon any such doing of the Law for their instification A man that promiseth a reward or matter of benefit upon such termes and conditions which he knoweth will never be performed by him that undertakes the performance of them rather derides the pride and ignorance of his presumption then really intends the collation of what he seemes so to promise To this interpretation Beza much inclineth in his marginall note upon that clause Or else 2º the meaning of those words the doers of the Law shall be iustified may be only this that God will accept justifie and save only such who out of a sincere and sound Faith towards him by his Christ shall addresse themselves to serve and please him in a way of obedience to his Lawes In this sense which I rather conceive to be the expresse intent of the Apostle in the words the doing of the Law is mentioned not as the meanes or meritorious cause of the iustification adjoyning but either as a condition sine quinon without which iustification is not to be expected or rather as an outward signe and manifestation of the persons that shall be iustified but in another way viz. by Faith Thirdly and lastly by the Law in this place the doers whereof as is said shall be iustified is not meant the Morall Law only which restreyned signification was simply necessary to have given the clause any colour of opposition or contradiction to the proposition mentioned but the whole Mosaicall dispensation consisting according to the common distribution of Ceremonialls moralls and judicialls The observation of all which no man I think ever affirmed to have bin imposed by God upon men for their justification But I feare we stand too long about oyling a wheele which would run merrily enough without it Let us rather heare the voyce of a new argument speaking Jf God requires only Faith of men to their justification then he imputes this Faith unto them thereunto Argum. 23 SECT 4 But God requires only Faith to justification Ergo. The consequence in the Maior Proposition is blamelesse for this reason because to impute unto iustsfication and to accept unto justification are somwhat differing in sound but nothing at all in sence and signification Now if God should require faith of men and onely Faith to their Iustification and not accept it thereunto he should make a bargaine or Covenant with men and refuse to stand to it when he had done his overtures would be faire and gracious but his intentions would be to seek and no where in Scriptures to be found If it be here replyed and said that though God requires onely faith of men to their justification yet he requires somwhat more and besides at the hand of another thereunto therfore that which he imputes unto men for their justification is not necessarily that which he requires of themselves but rather that which he requires of another for them To this I answer if it were the righteousnesse of Christ which is presumed to be the thing required of another and not the faith that is required of themselves that God imputes for righteousnesse unto them in their justification then may this righteousnesse of Christ be imputed for this end and purpose before yea and without the faith of any man For it is certaine that the Faith of men addes no vertue or vaiue to the righteousnesse of Christ therfore if this be that which God imputeth for righteousnesse in justification it may be imputed aswell without faith as with it and so men might be justified without beleeving Neither will it help in this case to say SECT 5 that imputation followeth the will and pleasure of God and therfore the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed unto any but to him that beleeveth because the will and pleasure of God is not to make imputation of it in any other way or upon any other terms For To this
Conclus 12 either in the Scriptures or Reasons to say SECT 19 that Christ by any imputation of sinne was made formally a sinner nor that sinne in any other sence should be said to be imputed to him then as the punishment due unto it was inflicted on him I shall not neede to insist upon the justification of this Conclusion partly because it hath beene sufficiently argued and cleered in the former part of this Treatise a Cap. 19. Sect. 1.2 but chiefely because it is given in with both hands by the chiefe masters of that way of Imputation which we oppose Christ saith Bishop Downham b Tract of Iustifica p. 40. was made sinne or a sinner by our sinnes not formally God forbid but by imputation c. And Bishop Davenant c De Iustit Habit â—â—einhaerent Desp c. 24. p. 33. Voluit Christus peccata ita in se suscipere ut non inde peccator sed hostia pro peccato constitueretur idem p. 333. calls it a thing repugnant to the salvation of men and blasphemous once to imagine that Christ should be made wicked i. formally a sinner by any imputation of sinne to him And a little before hee makes the impuâ—ation of sinne to Christ to stand in the translation of the punishment of sinne and curse of the Law upon him And in another place Christ was willing so farre to take our sinnes upon him not as to be made a sinner hereby but onely a sacrifice for sinne So that if the men with whom wee have to doe in this businesse of imputation would but stand their owne ground and walke peaceably with their owne principles wee should soone comprimize For their great maxime is that in that manner wherein our sinnes are imputed unto Christ in the same Christs righteousnesse is imputed unto us If so then are not we made formally righteous by any righteousnesse of Christ imputed to us because Christ is not made formally a sinner by any sinne of ours imputed to him Conclusi 13 SECT 20 Faith doth not onely if at all declare a man to be righteous or in a justified estate but is the very meanes by which Justification or righteousnesse is obtained so that no man is to be reputed nor indeede is a person justified in the sight of God specially if we speake of yeares of discretion untill hee obtaines this grace of justification by beleeving This is the constant Doctrine of the Scriptures and there is not one of many of our Reformed Divines that doe oppose it He that beleeveth not saith our Saviour himselfe Mar. 16.16 shall be damned If Justification were in order of time before faith it might very possibly be that many might escape damnation who yet never beleeved because they might die in that interim of time which is supposed to lie betweene a mans justification and his beleeving The like argument might be framed from that passage also Ioh. 8.24 Except you beleeve that I am he you shall die in your sinnes But there are other texts of Scripture so pregnant for this truth that there is no rising up with reason against them Therfore we conclude saith the Apostle that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3.28 That which hee had laboured hitherto and laboureth on in some Chapters following to prove was not how or by what meanes a man might know or be declared either to himselfe or others that he is a justified person but how and by what meanes he might come to be justified These two are of a very farre differing consideration and importance It is of a thousand times more concernement to a man to be justified than to know that he is justified Besides if the Apostles scope and intent here had beene to argue the declaration or to propound the meanes of a discovery or manifestation of a person justified and not simply to prove and shew how and by what meanes justification it selfe is to be attained there can no reason be given either why he should have excluded the workes of the Law or insisted upon Faith rather than many other graces as love patience c. especially why he should have insisted on Faith onely without the association of other graces For it is certaine that obedience to the Law and so love patience temperance humilitie c. are as effectuall nay have a preheminence above Faith it selfe for the discovery of a man in the estate of Justification Shew me thy faith by thy workes and I will shew thee my faith by my workes Iam. 2.18 Therefore workes are more easie to be seene and more apt for discovery or manifestation then Faith for that which discovereth or maketh things manifest is light Ephes 5.13 whereas that which needs manifestation is darkenesse in comparison and therefore the more unfit and uncapable of being a meanes for the discovery and manifestation of other things So elsewhere love is represented as a grace of speciall use and service this way I meane for the discovery and manifestation of justification or of a man in a justified condition but is never mentioned as of any use for justification it selfe Wee know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brethren 1 Iohn 3.14 The Scripture doth not any where ascribe the like discoverie of justification unto Faith but justification it selfe it ascribeth unto Faith againe and againe Therefore being justified by Faith c. Rom. 5.1 So ver 2. so Gal. 3.8 The Scriptures foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles by faith c. It would make a sence very unsavoury and weake to carry the interpretation of these words thus The Scriptures foreseeing that God would declare by Faith that the Gentiles were justified neither would such a sence any wayes accommodate that which followeth But I hasten SECT 21 passing over many places wherein Justification it selfe not the discovery of Justification is attributed unto Faith and conclude with that one testimony Gal. 2.16 We knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Iesus Christ Even we have beleeved in Iesus Christ that wee might be justified by the faith of Christ c. not because we were righteous or justified or that we might know our selves to be justified but that we might be justified by the faith of Iesus If the Apostle should here speak of a declarative justification there is no relation why he should have excluded the workes of the Law these being every whit of as declarative an importance this way as beleeving it selfe nay above it as we proved before and the Scripture it selfe plainely intimates Little children saith Iohn let no man deceive you He that doth righteousnesse is righteous c. i. is thereby viz. by his doing righteousnesse declared to be righteous or a person justified it is no where said in such a sence that he that beleeveth is righteous Therefore it is evident that the opposition which
latter thus Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for or concerning remission of sinnes that are past c. It plainly appeares from these Scriptures compared together First that the righteousnesse of God that is the way meanes or course which God holds for the Justification of men stands in remission or forgivenesse of sinnes Secondly that this righteousnesse or Iustification of his is witnessed that is asserted and vindicated by the Law that is the writings of Moses and consequently may well be called the righteousnesse or Iustification of the Law Thirdly and lastly that this righteousnesse of God testified and asserted by the Law in the sense given and exercised by him under the Law in the forgivenesse of the sinnes of those that then beleeved was not manifested or declared or as our other Scripture had it fulfilled that is fully revealed and discovered to the roote bottome and foundations of it till the coming of Christ into the world and his dying for sinne which in that other place is called his condemning sinne in the flesh This for answere in full to this Scripture The next place SECT 15 which I understand hath bin of late taken hold of by some to supply that which it seemes is wanting in others for the defence of that imputation which we oppose is Rom. 9.31.32 But Israel which followed after the Law of righteousnesse hath not attained to the Law of righteousnesse Wherefore because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the workes of the Law c. From hence it is thus argued that had Israel that is the Jewes who followed after the Law of righteousnesse beleeved in Christ they had attained the Law of righteousnesse that is should have had the righteousnesse of the Law performed by Christ imputed unto them But to this also I Answere 1. that by the Law of righteousnes Rom. 9.31.32 answered which the Jewes are here said to have sought after but could not attain is not meant the Moral Law nor indeed any Law properly so called either Morall Ceremoniall or Judicial for God had preveÌ„ted them with the guift of all these Laws so that they need not have sought after them If it be objected that their studie endeavor of keeping the Law which they had may be called a seeking or following after the Law I answere be it so yet this studie and endeavor of theirs could be no cause of their coming short of righteousnesse or Iustification which yet is ascribed to that seeking or following after the Law of righteousnesse here mentioned As Christians are never the further off from being justified by living holily and keeping the commandements of God So neither was the care and endeavor of the Jewes to observe the precepts of that Law which God had given them any cause of their miscariage in point of Iustification Abraham and those that were justifyed by Faith in Christ as he was were as conscientious and careful observers of al Gods Lawes as any of those were who stumbling at the stumbling stone were never justified Therefore by the Law of righteousnes in this Scripture is not meant any Law properly so called much les definitively the Morall Law Secondly in this expression the Law of righteousnesse in the former clause of the verse Calvin findes an hypallage the Law of righteousnesse put for the righteousnesse of the Law (a) Iam priere loco legem justiciae per hypallagen posuisse mihi videtur pro justicia legis in repetitione secundi membri alio sensu sic vocasse justiâ—iae formam seu regulam Calvin in Rom. 9 1. Nam illud sectandâ— legem justiciae simpliciter esse dictum de legis justitia i. ea quae ex operibus legu est patebit infra c. Mus in Rom. 9.31 in the latter clause he takes it in somewhat a different signification for a forme or rule of righteousnesse Musculus dissents little if any thing at all from this interpretation by the Law of righteousnesse understanding that righteousnesse which stands in the works of the Lawb. So that neither of these Authors nor any other that I have yet met with restreyne the word Law in these phrases determinatly to the Morall Law Thirdly neither is there any reason nor colour of reason to limit the Apostles expressions in this place of the Law of righteousnesse to the Morall Law only and the righteousnesse thereof because it is notoriously knowne and hath bin more then once observed formerly that the Jewes never hoped for nor sought after righteousnesse SECT 16 or Iustification by the Morall Law only or the works thereof alone but by the Ceremoniall Law also and the observances hereof yea principally by these as hath bin els where in this Treatise prooved from the Scriptures So that by the Law of righteousnesse whereof they miscaried by not seeking it by Faith cannot be ment determinatly the Moral Law or the righteousnes therof because they never travaild of this upon such termes they never had thought or hope of being iustified or made righteous by the Morall Law or righteousnesse thereof only And so Paraeus by the Law of righteousnesse in this place understands aswell the Ceremoniall as the Morall Law (a) Iudaeos ait sectatos legem justiciae quae praescribit justiciam operibus perfectam hoc est conatos esse tum ceremoniarum observatione tum moralium operum meritu justificari coram Deo Pateus in Rom. 9.31 4. Neither would the righteousnes of the Moral Law alone suppose they should have attained it by beleeving have stood the Jewes in any stead for their justification being aswell bound to the observation of the ceremoniall law as of it Therfore it was not this law or the righteousues of it which should have bin imputed to them in case they had trruly beleeved consequeÌ„tly no imputation of any law righteousnes whatsoever from Christ can be concluded from this place But 5. lastly to give the cleere sence and meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture by the Law of righteousnesse which Israel is said to have followed after but not to have attained because he sought it not by Faith c. can be meant nothing else but justification it selfe or righteousnesse simply and indefinitely taken in which acception it is oft put for justification as was observed cap. 3. Sect and elsewhere which the Jewes seeking to attaine it by the works of the Law that is by themselves and the merit of their own doings and not by faith in Iesus Christ were never able to attain but lost the favour of God perished in their sinnes That this is the direct and expresse meaning of the place may be several waies confirm'd 1. To call righteousnesse simply that is SECT 17 justification the Law of righteousnesse is agreeable to this Apostles dialect elswhere For Rom. 7.23 25. by the Law of sinne he means nothing else but sinne
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
Iust Mar. Dial. cum Tryph. post medium who lived and wrote about the yeare 194 in his fift Booke against Marcion writeth thus But how the Children of Faith or of whose Faith if not of Abrahams For if Abraham beleeved God and that was imputed unto him for righteousnesse and he thereby deserved the name of a Father of many Nations we by beleeving GOD more are therefore justifyed as Abraham was The same Father in his tract of Patience Abraham beleeved God and was accounted righteous by him but he tried his Faith by patience when he was commanded to offer his Son Therefor Tertullians opinion directly is that that Faith which is said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse is Faith properly taken and not the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by Faith because he saith that God tried his Faith by patience which cannot be applied to the righteousnesse of Christ ORIGEN Who lived about the yeare 203 in his fourth Booke upon the Romans writing on cap. 4. ver 3. speaketh thus It seemes therefore that in this place also that whereas many faiths that is many acts of believing of Abraham had gone before now all his faith was recollected and united together and so was accounted unto him for righteousnesse And in the same place not long after he hath more words to like purpose Therefore he joyned with Tertullian in the interpretation of this Scripture JUSTIN MARTYR Who liv'd before them both and not long after the Apostle Iohn's time about the yeare 130 in his Dialogue or disputation had at Ephesus with Trypho the Jew it seemes led them both the way to that Interpretation Abraham caried not away the testimony or commendation of righteousnesse because of his circumcision but because of his Faith For before he was circumcised this was pronounced of him Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse CHRYSOSTOM who lived somewhat after the yeare 380 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost ad Rom. cap. 4. v. 23. circa initium Serm. 9. et paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem ad Gal. 3. c. in the beginning of his ninth Sermon upon the Romans Having spoken saith he meaning Paul in the former part of that Chapter many and great things concerning Abraham and his Faith c. And a little after Wherefore saith he was it written but that we might learne that we also are justified as he was because we have beleeved the same God The same Father againe upon Gal. 3. For what was he the worse for not being under the Law nothing at all for his Faith was sufficient unto him for righteousnesse If Abrahams Faith was sufficient unto him for righteousnesse it must needs be imputed by God for righteousnesse unto him for it is this imputation from God that must make that sufficiency of it unto Abraham That which will not passe in accompt with God for righteousnesse will never be sufficient for righteousnesse unto the creature Saint AUGUSTINE who lived about the yeare 390 SECT 11 Credendo quippâ— invenimus quod illi Iudai non credendo amiserunt Quia credidit Abraham Deo et reputatum est illi ad justitiam Aug. in Psal 148. versus finem gives frequent testimony in his works both to the opinion and interpretation contested for Vpon Psal 148. For we by beleeving have found that which they the Iewes lost by not beleeving For Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes Therefore his opinion cleerely is that it was Abrahams Faith or Beleeving properly taken that was imputed unto him for righteousnesse and not the righteousnesse of Christ For that Faith of his which was so imputed he opposeth to the unbeliefe of the Jewes whereby they lost the grace and favor of God Now the righteousnesse of Christ is not opposed to unbeliefe but Faith properly taken Againe writing upon Psal 70 In eum credo qui justificat impium ut deputetur fides mea in justitiam Idem in Psal 70. For I beleeve in him that justifieth the ungodly that my faith may be imputed unto me for righteousnes Where by Faith he cannot meane the righteousnesse of Christ because he calleth it his owne before the imputation whereas the righteousnesse of Christ can no waies be imagined to be any mans till it be made his by imputation The same Father yet againe in his tract of nature and Grace But if Christ died not in vaine Si autem non gratu mortuus est Christus in illo solo justificatur impius cui credenti in eum qui justificat impium deputatur fides injustitiam Aug. De Nat. et Grat. non lorge ab initio Credidit Abraham Deo et deputatum est illi ad justitiam Ecce sine opere justificatur ex fideâ— et quicquid illi legali observatione potest conferri totum crdulitas sola donavit Idem de Temp. Serm. 68. the ungodly is justified in him alone to whom beleeving in him that justifieth the ungodly his Faith is accounted for righteousnesse And yet once more in his 68 Sermon of Time â—f that piece be his Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse See without any worke he is justified by Faith and whatsoever was possible to have bin conferred upon him by the observation of the Law his beleeving alone gave it all unto him Certainly this Author whoever he was by the word CREDULITIE for so the Latine word signifieth whereby he expresseth that Faith which was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse could not meane or understand the righteousnesse of Christ PRIMASIUS about the yeare 500 upon Rom. 4 ver 3. Tam magna fuit dono Dei fides Abrahae ut et pristina ei peccata donarentur et sola prae omni justitia doceretur accepta that is Abrahams faith by the guift of God was so great that both his former sins were forgiven him and this FAITH of his alone preferred in acceptation before all righteousnesse By Abrahams alone Faith he cannot meane Christs righteousnesse BEDA who lived somewhat before the yeare 700 upon Rom. 4. ver 5. hath these words What Faith Que fides nisi quam alio loco plenissime definit Apostolus Neque circuncisio neque praeputium aliquid valet sed fides que per dilectionem operatur Non qualisâ—â—nque fides sed sidâ—s que per dileâ—ta mem operatur Beda ad Ro. 4 5. Quia credidit Dâ—o reputatuÌ„ est et ad justitiam â— ad remissionem peccatorum quia per ipsaÌ„ sidem qua credidit justus effectus est Haymo in Rom. 4 3. Quod ita firmiter credidit reputatum est illi divinitus ad justitiam i. non solum liberatus est ab omni originali et actuali peccato per hanc credulitatem sed justus est a Deo reputatus Anselm Cant. in Rom. 4.3 but that which the Apostle in another place fully defineth neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing but faith which
of a distinction is given the opposite member being implied is still to be framed to it as readily it may Therefore Paul had no intent to shut out but to bring in the works of the Law as wrought by Christ into the businesse of Iustification To this I answere sundry things First that the active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ should be wholly excluded and be made a stander-by so as to have nothing at all to do in the great businesse of Iustification this discourse hath no where affirmed hitherto neither doth it savor any where of the spirit of that affirmation It hath been expressely acknowledged from the beginning to have a gracious and blessed influence thereinto as it issueth and falleth into his passive obedience which together may be called a righteousnesse for which but at no hand with which we are justified Therefore this objection contending and pleading for an admission of the workes of the Law as done by Christ into Iustification doth no waies contradict the answere given in any part of it except it can prove the necessity of this admission of the active righteousnesse of Christ either for the materiall or formall or instrumentall cause of Iustification which it no waies doth nor pretendeth to do And the truth is whosoever shall doe it that is goe about to make this righteousnesse of Christ either the formall o◠materiall or instrumentall cause of Iustification will be found upon a due examination wholly to dissolve and overthrow the merit of it the establishment whereof is yet pretended as the great and pious designe of that opinion Secondly I answore that the inference insisted upon in the objection from the Scripture mentioned comes heavily and with much unwillingnesse and reluctation out of the premisses there is no necessitie nor indeed so much as a face of probabilitie in it The Holy Ghost may reject the works of men from being the cause of such or such a thing and yet no waies suppose or intimate that the works of another should be the cause thereof As when we deny either the Faith or works of any man foreseene to be the cause of his election we do not imply that the Faith or works of Christ foreseene are the cause of such election No more doth it follow that because Paul rejects the works of righteousnesse which men do from their justification that therefore he must needs imply a substitution of the workes of Christ in their stead If the words had gone thus Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we OUR SELVES had done this had beene somewhat a higher ground and a more rationall advantage to have infer'd the opposite member of the distinction viz. but by the works of another or of Christ As Act. 20 24. where Paul expresseth himselfe thus Neither is my life deare unto my selfe c. here the opposite member of the division may with good probability be conceived to be implied after this manner my life is not deare unto my selfe THOUGH IT MAY BE DEERE UNTO OTHERS And yet even such an intimation here is not of absolute necessitie neither But if the tenor of the words had only run thus Neither is my life deere unto me so that I may fulfill my course with joy No man would ever have dream't or thought of any further thing to be implied then what was expressed So when the Holy Ghost in a direct and plaine tenor of Speech speaketh only thus Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had wrought not which we our selves had wrought for men to conclude or inferre an implying of workes wrought by another is in plaine and necessary interpretation to make themselves wise above that which is written But thirdly to put the matter out of all question that excluding the works of the Law which we had done he had no intent by way of opposition to imply the works which another might doe he expresseth plainly the opposition himselfe and tells us that it was according to his mercy that he saved us not by the works of righteousnesse which we had done but according to his mercy he saved us Therefore here can be nothing implied by way of opposition because the opposition is fully and distinctly set downe And Fourthly least any might yet say that it may be according to Gods mercy and yet by the works of righteousnesse wrought by Christ too these two may easily be reconciled and stand together the Apostle delivers himselfe distinctly of that wherein this mercy of God he speaks of consisteth not in saveing of us by the works of Christ imputed to us but in regenerating of us and washing us in the new birth Fiftly and lastly as such an inference is no waies necessarie SECT 6 nor so much as probable so is it no waies pertinent to the purpose for which it is so earnestly contended for though it should be granted Because it is evident that the Apostle here rejects the workes of righteousnesse which he names from being any causes antecedaneously moving God to save us and not from being the formall cause of justification So then let us give the objection it s owne hearts desire even that it murmur's so much after viz. that the works of Christ must of necessity be here implied yet will it perish and come to nothing even whilst this meat is in the mouth of it For all that will follow or can be concluded by the imaginary advantage of such a supposition is only that whereof themselves will be ashamed when it is brought forth unto them viz. this that it is not the works of the Law which we have done our selves but those which Christ hath done that have moved God to save us by the washing of the new birth and by the renewing of the Holy Ghost Which if it be understood and meant of the decree and purpose of God so to save us is against the truth if it be understood of the execution of this decree is against themselves For that which moved God to decree or intend this salvation unto us was nothing out of himselfe but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that good and gracious pleasure of his will Eph. 1.5 or as that clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his will is somewhat more emphatically with more of the Spirit and life of the originall in it rendred by our Translators ver 11. of his owne will implying as I conceiv◠that that will wherewith God willeth and purposeth to save his people is intirely his owne borne and begotten as it were only out of himselfe without the seed of any consideration of any thing whatsoever out of himselfe As for the execution of this decree in the actuall justification or regeneration of those whom he hath purposed to save if this be ascribed to the works of righteousnesse done by Christ as the cause moving God thereunto this cleerely establisheth the merit of the righteousnesse of Christ in justification but overthroweth the formality of it which is that
the man faith the Law that continueth not in all things c. Therefore a man that hath not been alwaâ—es righteous can never be made righteous by the righteousnesse of the Law imputed or not imputed or howsoever it may be conceived to come upon him Thirdly and lastly I answere if a mans sins be once forgiven him he hath no need of any imputation of any further righteousnesse for his Iustification because forgivenesse of sins reacheth home and amounteth unto a full Iustification with GOD. This is plaine from the words mentioned Rom. 5 16. The guift saith Paul that is the guift of righteousnesse as it is explained in the next verse is of many offences unto Iustification that is when God hath given men their offences or debts or forgiven them for to give a debt or forgive it is all one he hath fully justified them For that righteousnesse which God is said to impute unto men through Faith is nothing else being interpreted but the forgivenesse of sins or the acquiting of them from that death and condemnation which are due unto them And this is all the Iustification the Scripture knowes or speaks of the forgivenesse of our sins or acquitting from condemnation the genuine and proper signification of which word misapprehended hath been a maine occasion of leading many out of the way of Truth in this point A man may in a manner as plainely discerne where mens feet have faild them here as sometimes where a Horse foot hath slip'd upon an ice For reading in Scriptures of the justification of sinners or of men being made just or righteous by Christ they have conceived that such a thing cannot be but by a positive and formall Law righteousnesse somewaies put upon them and there being no such righteousnesse indeed any where to be found but only the righteousnesse of Christ hence they have apprehended that this justification must needs be by this righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto them whereas that righteousnesse which we have by Christ and wherewith we are said to be justified before God by beleeving is only a negative righteousnesse not a positive it is nothing else but a non-imputation of sin which I therefore call a righteousnesse by accompt or interpretation as having the privileges but not the nature and substance of a perfect legall righteousnesse The Scripture shines with as much cleernesse and evidence of this truth SECT 3 as the Sun doth with light when he riseth in his might Rom. 4 6. compared with ver 7 8. Even as David declareth the blessednesse of the man unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works A righteousnesse without works must needs be a negative or privative righteousnesse as is fully expressed in the following verses Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes not sinne You see the imputation of righteousnesse ver 6. is here interpreted to be nothing else but a not imputing of sin And so Calvin upon Rom. 3 21. calls this a definition of the righteousnesse of Faith Beati quorum remissa sunt iniquitates that is Blessed are they whose sinnes are forgiven And not long after Paulus tradit Deum homines iustificare peccata non imputando that is Paul teacheth that God justifieth men by not imputing their sins The like description of this righteousnesse you have 2 Cor. 5. that which ver 19. he calls in God the not-imputing of our sins unto us he calls in us ver 21. a being made the righteousnesse of God in him But most plainely Act. 13.38 39. Be it knowne unto you saith Paul to the Jewes that through this man CHRIST is preached unto you forgivenesse of sins which forgivenesse of sins he immediatly calls their Iustification And by him all that beleeve are iustified from all things from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Moses You see how he expresseth the nature of this Iustification we have by Christ viz. by the way of negative or privative righteousnesse as was said not a positive All that beleeve are iustified from all things that is all sins from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses So that that Iustification which we have by Christ in the Gospel is not a Iustification with righteousnesse properly so called but a Iustification from sinne and from the guilt of sinne and condemnation due to it when Christ said to men and women in the Gospel Thy sins are forgiven thee then he justified them the forgivenesse of their sins was their Iustification This is the most usuall and proper signification of the word Iustifie both in Scriptures SECT 4 and other Authors but in the Scriptures especially not to signifie the giving or bestowing of a complete positive righteousnesse but only an acquitting or discharging and setting a man free from the guilt and penaltie due unto such things as were laied to his charge In the Scripture it is usually opposed to condemning or condemnation He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just both these are abhomination unto the Lord. Prov. 17 15. What is here mâ—ant by justifying the wicked not making them righ eous and just men by putting a morall righteousnesse upon them he that can make a wicked man righteous or just so shall be so far from being an abhomination to the Lord that hee shall shine as the starres in the Firmament for ever and ever Dan. 12.3 Therefore by justifying the wicked in this place can be nothing else meant but the making of them just in the rights and privileges of just men which are freedome from censure punishment and condemnation as appeares by the opposition in the other member of the clause and condemneth the righteous So that by justifying the wicked is nothing else meant but the not-condemning him So Rom. 8 33 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen it is God that justifyeth who shall condemne c. Where you see againe the opposition betweene being justified and condemned See likewise Rom. 5.9 Therefore by justifying is nothing else meant but acquiting from condemnation and so to be justified and to live that is to be freed from death and condemnation are made equivalent or equipollent the one to the other Gal. 3.11 And that no man is justified by the works of the Law it is evident for the iust shal live by Faith that is shal be justified by Faith for otherwise there is no strength in the argument So againe ver 21. If there had bin a Law which could have given life that is could have justified men surely righteousnesse or Iustification should have been by the Law By his knowledge faith Esay c. 53.11 shall my righteous servant iustify many for he shall beare their iniquities that â—s by bearing the punishment or condemnation due unto their sinnes he shall deliver them from punishment This opposition we speake of betweene justification and condemnation is cleere in other Scriptures as Mat
yea many of them meet by the way in the justification of such before they come to their journeys end yet to justifie the wonderfull and deep wisdome of God as we ought to doe in bringing about this great work of the salvation of the world we must enquire after and find out peculiar and distinct reasons and ends for all that variety of things which is to be found in or about Christ as why he should be God and why he should be Man what both the one and the other of these peculiarly contributes towards the salvation of men why he should be born why born of a Virgin why he should grow up and live till he came to the perfect stature and age of a man why he should be circumcised why fullfill the Law why preach the Gospell before his death why at last he should suffer death why die upon the Crosse why hee should be buried why hee should rise againe c. with many more particulars of like nature that might be mentioned all which have their speciall and peculiar working towards the great worke of salvation as in a benigne constellation every Staire gives out his peculiar influence by himselfe As all Rivers fall into the Sea and meet there in one though the course of their waters lie from all parts under Heaven from the East and from the West from North and South So whatever Christ was and whatever he did spake and suffered though they are things much differing in themselves and in their immediate and proper effects yet they all meet and center in that common and glorious effect the salvation of those that beleeve And for men not to distinguish these in due manner aswell in their effects and purposes as in their natures is not only to confound themselves but which is worse to confound that most exquisite and admirably-beautifull frame of the Gospell and as it were of a defenced City to make a ruinous heap From the guilt of which confusion-making in the Gospell how unpossible it is fairely to acquit such an imputation of Christs righteousnesse as hitherto we have opposed will further appeare in the reasons ensuing Fiftly and lastly if remission of sinnes be but a part of justification SECT 10 and the imputation of Christs righteousnesse must be added as another part of it to make it perfect and compleat then must the formall cause of one and the same effect be double the absurdity which Calvin as we heard truly charged upon the Trent Councellors and Bellarmine as falsely recharged upon him yea that which makes the absurditie swell yet higher one and the same formality or formall part of a thing which is ever most simple and indivissible shall be compacted and compounded of two things not only of a differing but of a diverse yea and of an opposite importance and consideration as the sequell of the businesse rightly interpreted will make manifest For where there is a perfect and compleat righteousnesse imputed as the righteousnesse of Christ is and must be apprehended there is no place for remission of sinnes CAP. XII A fourth reason against the pretended Imputation it frustrates the grace of Adoption MY fourth ground against the supposed imputation of Christs righteousnesse I dispose in this Syllogisme That which dissolves and takes away the necessity and use of that sweet and Euangellicall grace of Adoption SECT 1 cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hold a streight course with the truth of the Gospell But this imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense controverted dissolves and takes away the necessity c. of Adoption Ergo. The proposition I conceive will be yeelded sine sanguine et sudore otherwise the sword of the Spirit the word of God would soone command it The Scriptures speake much of the grace of Adoption or Sonship of beleevers being made the Children and Sonnes of God That we might receive the Adoption of Sons Gal. 4.5 And because yee are Sonnes ver 6. Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Sonne c. ver 7. To passe by other places without number Joh. 1.12 But as many as received him to them hee gave power or prerogative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be made or to become the Sonnes of God Doubtlesse this grace or prerogative of Adoption and Sonne-ship is not given unto men by God in vaine not for the sweet sound only that the letter or name of Adoption makes in the cares it hath relation to some further matter of moment and consequence depending thereon It is given as an immediate capacitie or qualification to those that beleeve to make them capable of their everlasting inheritance their Son-ship is the proper and next ground of that investiture unto them The Scriptures are in nothing more expresse then this If we be Children then also heires even heires of God and heires annexed with Christ Rom. 8.17 So againe Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Son if a Son then an heire of God through Christ Gal. 4 7. As if he should say we are therefore made Sonnes or adopted to be Sonnes that so by right of this Sonship we might be heires of God and by the right of this Heyr-ship come to inherit that immortall undefiled inheritance which fadeth not away with Iesus Christ himselfe The reason or strength of that inference or consequence If Sonnes then Heires seems to stand in this because though amongst men all that are Sons are not Heires if we speake of Sonnes by nature but only he that is the first borne yet Sonship by Adoption I conceive hath alwaies respect to an inheritance a man never adopteth a child but with an intent or purpose to make him his heire So that though in the case of Son-ship by nature it will not follow If Sons then heires yet in the case of Adoption it will And this we know is the case and condition of Beleevers they are Sons of God not by nature but by Adoption Vnlesse perhaps we will rather conceive the reason of the inference to lye in this that the Apostle argueth and concludeth upon the supposition of this truth that the Kingdome of Heaven or that inheritance which God hath provided for his Saints is of another nature and hath a preheminence and perfection above any earthly inheritance as in a thousand other respects so particularly in this that it may be injoyed possessed and inherited by all the Children of God though in number never so many upon such terms that every one may enjoy and possesse the whole and no mans portion or possession here suffers any losse or diminution at all though all his Brethren enjoy the same Portion and possession with him And in this respect haply with some others it may be caâ—ed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the inheritance of the Saints IN LIGHT Colos 1.12 The light of the Sun we know is of that nature and property that it is enjoyed by the whole world and by all the Inhabitants of the
this Apostle still makes betweene the works of the Law and beleeving in the point of justification is not at all in respect of the notification or discovery of it either to the justified themselves or others but simply and absolutely in respect of the effecting it Besides to make Paul say thus that they had beleeved in Christ that they might know that they had beene justified by beleeving in him is to make him speake at a very low rate of reason and understanding and not much short of contradictions For with what tolerable congruity or construction of reason can a man be said to beleeve with this intent or for this end that hee may know he is justified by beleeving The doing of a thing for a certaine end is no meanes to certifie or assure any man that the end is or shall be much lesse that it hath already beene obtained by the doing it Much more might be argued both from the Scriptures and reason and testimony of Authors for this Conclusion if it were either necessary or seasonable in this place Neither are the things that can be objected against it SECT 22 of any such weight but that they may receive a faire and ready answer I have heard onely of two Arguments that are made against it The first is this If a man must beleeve before he be justified then God doth not justifie the ungodly because he that beleeveth cannot be counted an ungodly man To this I answer in few words that when the Scripture saith that God justifieth the ungodly the meaning is not as if the person to be justified must needs be ungodly i in the midst of his prophanenesse in the very nicke and instant of time wherein God justifieth him But God may be said to be he that justifieth the ungodly because he hath found out a way and meanes whereby to juftifie sinners and ungodly men viz. Faith in Jesus Christ which neither the Law knoweth nor could ever the wisedome of men or Angels have imagined The justification of the ungodly is ascribed unto God as an high and excellent clogium of his wisedome and goodnesse as when Christ is said to save sinners the meaning is not that men are actually wicked and sinfull when salvation is actually conferr'd upon them but that he affords meanes to those that are sinners as viz. the grace of Faith Repentance c. whereby they may be and many are saved Or else secondly Answer might be that God may be said to justifie not onely when hee absolves and perfecteth the act or worke of justification i. when hee passeth a sentence of absolution upon the beleever but even when hee beginneth it i. when he first toucheth moveth or incline the heart to beleeve upon which justification properly so called dependeth and followeth immediatly Now before and untill this supernaturall touch or motion of the heart from God a man in strictnesse and proprietie of speech may be called ungodly It is a common rule among Divines for the interpretation of many Scriptures In Scripturis saepe fieri dicitur quod fieri incipit In Scripture that is often said to be done which is onely begun to be done and whereof the cause onely is yet in being Thus Prov. 11.2 Shame is said to come when pride commeth viz. because pride is the cause of shame and Tit. 3.5 God is said to have saved men when he hath conferred regeneration or the washing of the new birth upon them because regeneration is a meanes of salvation besides many like instances that might be added In like manner justification may be said to come when Faith commeth and God may be said to justifie when he giveth men Faith whereby they shall be justified c. In this sence therefore God may be said to justifie the ungodly because he giveth Faith unto men being yet sinfull whereby they are justified Thirdly and lastly Further answer might be that there being no prioritie of time at all but onely of nature between a mans beleeving and his being justified so that in the very first instant and touch of time wherein he can be conceived truely to beleeve he is to be conceived justified also God may as properly be said to justifie the ungodly though he justifieth onely those that beleeve as to give Faith or the grace of beleeving unto the ungodly The reason is plaine because in respect of time a man is as immediately ungodly before his justification as he is before his beleeving though he be not justified SECT 23 till hee beleeveth The later Objections against the Conclusion in hand is if a man hath the Spirit of God given him before hee beleeveth he must needs be justified before he beleeveth otherwise it must be said that a man may have the Spirit of grace and sanctification and yet be in an estate of wrath and condemnation And that a man hath and must have the Spirit of Grace before hee beleeveth it is evident because otherwise he could not beleeve To this I answer first by concession that a man is not able of himselfe and without the speciall presence and assistance of the Spirit of grace to raise an act of a true beleeving in his soule But secondly by way of exception I answer two things first that though a man cannot beleeve without the gracious assistance of the Spirit of God yet doth it not follow from hence that there should be the least imaginable distance or space of time betweene a mans receiving the Spirit and his beleeving wherein hee should remayne liable to condemnation because the first touch of the Spirit upon the soule the act of beleeving may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sticke as fast and close together in respect of time as the scales of Leviathan doe in respect of place which by the description and testimony of God himselfe who best knowes their composure and frame are so neere one to another that no ayre can come between Ioh. 41.16 The Sunne was not first made and afterwards shined but his shining in respect of time is as ancient as his creation there was not the least distance or space of time betweene wherein any thing could be done or the least motion performed So may the comming of the Spirit of Grace unto the soule and the act of the soules beleeving touch in one and the same point of time an infinit power being able to worke any thing in a moment in which case it is evident that there is no place for the inconvenience mentioned in the objection viz. that a man endued with the spirit of grace should for a time be in an estate of condemnation except hee were justified before he beleeveth 2. SECT 24 Be it supposed that the spirit of grace should be at worke in the soule for any space of time before the soule hath put forth an act of true beleeving yet till there be a saving worke of Faith wrought by him in the soule it is no wayes inconvenient nor
and agreeable to that nature in him which we call JUSTICE or severity against sinne and if he had pardoned sinne without it he had lost or passed over an opportunity of the declaration and manifestation of it to the world but had done nothing repugnant to it or to the prejudice or disparagement of it And thus far I can willingly subscribe to the opinion But whether such a free and satisfactionlesse condonation may be conceived to have had any possible consistence with the wisdome of God and therefore whether it had bin simply possible or no I am yet somewhat unsatisfied For a man to over-slip an opportunity that might lawfully be taken hold of and managed by him to some speciall advantage to himselfe either in point of Reputation Estate c. or the like is repugnant to the principles of sound wisdome and discretion but not of Justice at least not of Justice properly so called And the Holy Ghost Heb. 2.11 making it a thing so well becoming God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. For it became him c. intending to bring many children unto glory to consecrate the Prince of their salvation through sufferings i. not to save men without the death and sufferings of Christ seems rather to ascribe this cariage and method of the businesse to the wisdome of God then to his Justice But because confidence requires better grounds then present conceptions and apprehensions I forbeare further contending about the point in hand for the present Only I desire this may be considered and remembred as fully evident from the tenour of the Conclusion last estsblished that neither did the Law require of Christ the suffering of those things which he suffered nor were the things which he suffered every waies the same though in consideration value and importance the same fully with those the suffering whereof the Law threatned against all transgressors CAP. III. Certaine distinctiōs propounded and explained necessary for the further understanding of the businesse in question and the cleering of many difficulties incident to it THe word Iustification is taken in a double sense Distincti 1 SECT 1 either actively or passively In the active signification as farre as concern's the question in hand and as the Scripture use of it extendeth in the great businesse of the Justification of a sinner before God it most usually signifieth that act of God whereby he justifieth i. absolveth a beleeving sinner from the guist of and punishment due to his sinnes It may in this active signification signifie also any act of any other efficient cause of Iustification whatsoever of which kind there are many as we shall shew afterwards whereby it operates or contributes any thing towards this effect the justification of a sinner Yea to this active signification of the word may be referred the act of the forme it selfe or formall cause of Iustification which also in a way proper to it may be said to justify In the passive sense justification may signifie the effect it selfe of any or of all the former actions but most properly and frequently it signifieth that comcompleate and intire effect wherein all their severall influences and contributions meet and center together viz. that alteration or change which is made in the person or rather in the estate or condition of a person when he is justified which effect alteration or change standeth in this that whereas he was before the passing of such an act upon him a man under the guilt of sinne and liable to condemnation now he is a free man acquited and discharged from both In the former sense justification is atributed to God 1 Rom. 8.30 Whom he hath called them also he hath justified c. and ver 33. it is God that justifieth and so to Faith often In the latter sense it is attributed to or spoken of men Rom. 5.1 Therefore being justified by Faith c. and ver 18. Even so by the righteousnesse or justification of one the free guift came upon many to the justification of life i. to the full discharge and acquitting them from all sinne upon which life and salvation alwaies follow So that if the Question be asked what our justification is or wherein it stands it must first be inquired what justification it is that the Question intends for active justification is one thing and passive another and answere is to be made accordingly In like manner remission of sinnes signifieth either Gods act whereby he remitteth a manssinnes or else the effect of this act in and upon him whose sinnes are so remitted And generally all actions either have or in sufficient propriety of speech may have the same name with their proper passions or effects yea and sometimes with the relations resulting from them As calefaction frigefaction c. It is true there are severall other acceptions and significations of the word Iustification besides absolution from sinne when it is or as it may be used in other cases or upon other occasions as Christ himselfe is said to have bin justified 1 Tim. 16. who yet had no sinnes forgiven him and Abraham is said to have bin justified by workes Jam. 2.21 who yet had not his sinnes forgiven by or through his works So a man that is falsely accused may be justified and yet have no offence forgiven him as Christ was by Pilate when he professed that he found no fault in him Luk 23.4 But in the case and Iustification of a sinner before God the word justification still signifies and imports absolution from or remission of sinnes together with the punishment due to them Neither can there any instance be produced from the Scriptures of any other signification Iustice or righteousnesse Distincti 2 SECT 2 hath severall acceptions in the Scriptures when it is atributed unto God it signifies sometimes that universall and absolute holynesse and integritie of his nature which maketh him infinitely averse from doing any thing little or much contrary to the true rules of Iustice and Equity and inclines him only to do things agreeable hereunto Thus it seemes to be taken Psal 11.7 For the righteous Lord loveth righteousnesse c. So Dan. 9.14 Rove 16.5 besides many other places Sometimes againe and that very frequently it signifieth that nature in God which we commonly call truth or faithfulnesse in keeping promise Thus it is taken Psal 36.6 Thy righteousnesse is like the great Mountaines i. thy truth in thy promises can never be shaken or removed Thus Heb. 6.10 God is said not to be unrighteous i. as Paraeus well interprets not unfaithfull in his promise c. So againe 1 Ioh. 1.9 God is faith full and Iust to forgive us our sinnes i. constant in his promise this way Thirdly by the righteousnesse of God is often meant that gracious affection and disposition of his towards his people by reason whereof he is still propense and inclineable to doe them good as either to relieve and support them in trouble or to
God in their working towards the effect having other efficients under it which worke likewise towards the same effect but depend upon it the principall cause in their working and these are causes lesse principall or instrumentall The Carpenter is the principall efficient cause of the house his Axe Saw and Hammer c. are but instrumentall efficients because though these conduce and contribute somewhat towards the building of it yet they are assum'd and ordered in their working by the Carpenter and would do nothing if they were not acted and moved by him whereas himselfe worketh independantly being acted and guided in his worke by a principle within himselfe It is true in a sense the Carpenter may be said to depend upon his instruments in working viz. as being unable to worke or build without them but in point of causalitie that only is counted a dependance when a thing is either assumed supported or directed by another in it's efficiencie none of which can be verifyed of the Carpenter in respect of his instruments wherewith he worketh Againe of causes efficient whether created or increated principall or lesse principall some are naturall some artificiall and some morall By the efficient naturall I meane that cause which hath it's efficiencie or contributes towards the effect by the exercising or putting forthâ— of some power that is naturall and essentiall to it Thus the Sun is the naturall efficient cause of the light in the ayre and of all other sublunarie effects which it produceth because it produceth them all only by the exercise and putting forth of such principles as of light motion influence c. as are naturall to it In this sense that kinde of efficient which otherwise is called voluntary i. that workes freely and with the knowledge of its owne working and is contradistinguished to that which is purely and simply naturall may sometimes and in respect of some effects be termed naturall also as viz. when it acteth towards any effect by any faculty principle or power that is naturall to it In this sense David may be called the naturall efficient cause of the motion of the stone wherewith Goliah was slaine Yea the increated efficient cause himselfe God I meane who in other respects is termed the supernaturall efficient may in this sense be called the naturall efficient or producing cause of the world and so of all other effects whatsoever produced by him viz. as he effecteth them either by that power or by that authority which are naturall or essentiall to him Secondly the efficient cause artificiall is that which produceth its effect by the exercise of some acquired or superadded principle or habit of art But of this kinde of cause we shall have no use in the businesse of Iustification therefore we passe by it Thirdly and lastly the morall efficient cause is that which contributes towards an effect by inclining or moving the will or desire of the naturall efficient cause capable of such motion towards the doing or effecting of any thing Thus first the wages for which a workman contracts to build an house or the like and secondly the hope he hath of receiving this wages upon the performance of this work and thirdly the inward disposition which is in the workman to undertake such a worke in consideration of such wages with the like may all be called morall efficient causes of that worke or effect whatsoever it be that is performed by him So the love and kindnesse which Ionathan in his life-time shewed to David were the morall eâ—â—â—cient causes of that favour which David shewed to Mephibosheth his Sonne With this kinde of causaâ—ity the greatnesse of the sinne of Sodom and Gomorrah together with the severity which is in the nature of God against such sinnes and sinners was the cause of that horrible destruction that came in fire and brimstone upon it and the sinne of Achan the cause both of his owne ruine and of his whole Family with infinite more of like consideration For that likewise is to be knowne and remembred for our better understanding of the businesse of Iustification when we come to it that this impulsive or morall efficient cause is of two sorts or kinds First that which moves the naturall efficient from within himselfe to doe such or such a thing which Logicians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly that which from without moves or inclines him accordingly which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for example when a man upon the knowledg or sight of another mans miserie in any kind is perswaded to administer comfort or reliefe to him the miserie of the man being knowne to him is the latter kinde of cause of that comfort or reliefe which he administers and the inward tendernesse or compassionatnesse of his nature towards those that are in miserie is the former Of both these kinds of efficients there may be many in respect of one and the same effect some more principall i. more effectually moving and some lesse as will cleerely appeare in the ease of Iustification Thirdly SECT 5 of the efficient causes some are more remote and mediate others againe more neere and immediate The remote cause of a thing is that which contributeth towards the effecting of it but yet doth not reach the effect it selfe but by the interposall and mediation of another The next and immediate cause is that which produceth the effect without the interveening of any other cause betweene Thus a mans eating and drinking are the remote causes of his health and strength by meanes of a good digestion distribution and incorporation of what is so digested into the severall parts of the body coming betweene which latter are the neerer and more immediate causes thereof So the capacitie and diligence of an Apprentice in learning his Trade are remote causes of that estate or subsistence which afterwards he raiseth by working upon it and consequently of all that good which he doth in any kind with his estate so gotten So that abstinence or temperance which the Apostle speaketh of 1 Cor. 9 25. in him that striveth for masteries is the remote cause of all those victories and prizes which he obteyneth and carrieth away by running wrestling c. And generally whatsoever prepares or qualifies the naturall efficient for the producing or accomplishing of any effect may properly be called a remote cause of the same And in this respect the personall holinesse and the active obedience of Christ to the Law may be called the efficient causes of Iustification but causes remote not immediate because they qualifyed him for such sufferings whereby this great effect of justification was procured but had no immediate influence thereinto Onely that is briefly to be remembred concerning this division of causes efficient that as there may be many remote causes of one and the same effect so there may be many immediate and conjunct causes also though some great Artists conceite otherwise (a) Keckerman System Logic. l. 1.
mak's an alteration in the person or rather in the condition of the person justified See this also further explained in the forenamed Section of this Chapter 3º That that alteration or change which is made in the condition of the person justified by his Iustification that is that which the immediate proper and precise effect of that act of God whereby hee iustifieth in or about the person justified is and nothing else but this is or can with any coulor of reason and congruitie of speaking be called the forme or formall cause of Iustification Of this also you have some further accompt in the 8 Section of this Chapter 4º That is especially to be remembred that wee doe not in this inquirie seeke after the forme or formall cause of Iustification simply or of Justification largely taken but of that particular and speciall kinde of Iustification whereby a beleeving sinner is justified by God through the redemption which is in Christ Iesus For if we take Iustification in a large sense it is evident that remission of sinnes cannot be the formall cause of it Because in such a sense of the word Iustification a man may be said to be iustified that is acquitted and cleered who hath noe sinnes or sinne at all forgiven him viz. in case hee hath bin falsely accused And so on the other hand a man may have his offence or offences remitted and forgiven and yet not be justified I meane with any such kinde of Iustification as we now speake of viz. that is built upon a just and plenary satisfaction for the offence given But otherwise any remission of an offence upon what termes soever may in a large sense be called a Justification viz. See more of this Cap. 3. Sect. 1. of this second part as the word connoteth and many times even in the Scriptures themselves signifieth a discharge or absolution from punishment 5º and lastly whereas there may be a double or or twofold Iustification ascribed unto God the one we may call Declarative or Pronunciative the other Constitutive it is the formall cause of the latter rather then of the former which we inquire after The difference betweene these two Iustifications may be thus conceived that which I call Constitutive hath a precedencie in the order of nature and for the most part of time also before the other and is some kinde of cause thereof When God is said to justifie the sinner or ungodly as Rom. 4.5 it is meant of his Constitutive Iustification not of his Declarative For God never declareth or pronounceth a sinner righteous till hee hath made him righteous which is the proper act of that which I call Constitutive Iustification Againe when Christ saith by thy words thou shalt be iustified Mat. 12.13 and Iames concerning Abraham that he was iustified through workes these and such like passages speake of a declarative Iustification The formall cause of Gods declarative Iustification cannot be conceiv'd to stand in remission of sinnes because remission of sinnes is alwaies precedaneous to it and therefore cannot be the effect of it and so not the formall cause thereof according to the 2 and 3 grounds premised The formall cause of this kinde of Iustification is rather the knowledge in those to whom such declaration is made whether it be the person himselfe that is iustified or some other of remission of sinnes granted unto him concerning whom such declaration is made Onely to prevent cavilling that is acknowledged that even that which I call Constitutive Justification may in this sense be called declarative also viz. as the grounds terms and conditions upon which it proceeds are declared and made knowne by God in his Gospell But by declarative Iustification I meane onely such an act or expression of God whereby he declares the actuall Justification of those or any of those that have their sinnes forgiven them These things remembred SECT 30 I proceed to demonstrate the truth of the opinion mentioned and undertaken for which was that Remission of sins is the forme or formall cause of Iustification First if Remission of sinnes be the first immediate and precise effect of that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner in or upon the sinner so justified then is Remission of sinnes the proper formall cause of Iustification This consequence is built cleere and strong upon the third particular premised Therefore I assume But remission of sinnes is the first immediate and precise effect of that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner in or about the sinner so iustified Ergo c. The reason of this latter proposition is because there is no other imaginable effect that should interveene betweene such an act and the effect specified The Scriptures themselves make an immediate connection betweene Gods act of Justification and the sinners exemption or absolution from his sinnes that is from the guilt and punishment due unto his sinnes when they call Iustification a Iustification from sinne Be it knowne unto you men and Brethren saith Paul Act. 13.38 that through this man is preached unto you remission of sinnes and by him all that beleeve are justified from all things from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Moses Where we see that Iustification is immediatly and directly from sinne i. from the guilt or condemnatorie power of sinne The like expression you have Rom. 6 7. He that is dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is iustified from sinne So that this is the first priviledge or blessing that comes upon a sinner by meanes of his Iustification or of that act of God whereby he justifieth him the remission of his sinnes and consequently must needs be the forme of his Iustification Secondly that which gives the denomination of justified to those that are justified must needs be the forme or formall cause of Iustification The reason of this proposition is apparant it is still proper to every forme to give a sutable denomination to the subject Sutable I meane not only to the forme it selfe but to the action or motion also whereby this forme was introduced into the subject As for example whitenesse in a wall that was made white out of some other colour gives the denomination of whited unto the wall which doth not answere the forme it selfe onely which is whitenesse but that action also of the Plaisterer or Painter which wee call whitening Therefore it is evident that the forme or formall cause of this act of whitening is the whitenesse or whitednesse of the wall Thus farre then the ground is firme under us Let us therefore goe forward and assume But remission of sinnes gives the denomination of iustified to those that are iustified Therefore remission of sinnes is the forme or formall cause of Iustification The assumption I thus further demonstrate If a sinner be therefore and thereby iustified because he hath his sinnes remitted unto him then remission of sinnes gives the denomination of iustified unto him This consequence is pregnant because
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
In case a man hath transgressed the Law and hath undergone and suffered whe ther by himselfe or some other for him the full punishment or penaltie threatned in the Law he is no further a debtor unto the Law neither in point of obedience nor of punishment nor hath any thing to doc with the Law more or lesse for his Iustification as hath bin said because the punishment which hath bin so suffered either by him or for him is of indisserâ—â—t and equall consideration to the Law with the most absolute conformity that could have bin held with the precepts and injunctions of it So that as no man is or ever was or can be bound to fulfill the Law twice over for his Iustification or to make him righteous So neither is it equall or reasonable to conceive that he that hath suffered in full the penaltie of the Law which suffering is every waies as satisfactorie to the Law as the exactest obedience to all things conteyned in it and of one and the same consideration with it as hath bin said should be still bound to the observation of the Law whether by himselfe or any other for him for his Justification this being all one as the requiring of a double or second obedience unto the Law after a man hath perfectly fulfill'd it once This for answere to this Argument Sixtly SECT 14 Argumt 6 for the imputation of Christs active obedience in the sense disparaged some have made triall of this If there be no Iustification without a perfect righteousnesse and no such righteousnesse to be found but the righteousnesse of Christ performed to the Law then of necessitie this righteousnesse must be conceived to be imputed to us in Iustification But neither can there be any Iustification without a perfect righteousnesse nor any such righteousnesse found but only the righteousnesse of Christ performed to the Law Ergo. Intending to have nothing to doe with the innocencie of the major I addresse my selfe to the minor Answere where we shall find guilt and weaknesse more then enough to worke upon To this therefore I answere First that however true it be that Iustification cannot take place without a perfect righteousnesse being nothing else but the making of a man perfectly righteous yet such a righteousnesse as the Sonnes of this argument intend a righteousnesse consisting determâ—nitely of such a number or tale of righteous acts as Christ performed unto the Morall Law is not of any absolute necessitie thereunto For if the Jewes under the Law were justified by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse this righte usnesse of his is not to be limited or measured by the righteous acts performed by him only to the morall Law but to the Ceremoniall also See cap. 18. Sect. 3. of the first pa t c. as hath bin formerly observ'd and proved more then once Secondly SECT 15 neither is it so absolutly true as our adver aries haply conceive it is that there is no perfect righteousnesse take righteousnesse in their owne notion and sense to be found but only the righteousnesse of Christ We have heretofore shewed that there is a righteousnesse in the Law as absolute and complete as the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe and that it is much more probable of the two that if God imputes a legall righteousnesse unto men in Iustification that he furnisheth them this way out of the Law it selfe for Christs sake then that he should impute the righteousnesse of Christ unto them See cap. 2. Sect. 5. and c. 5. sect 9. of this second Part. But Thirdly lastly that perfect righteousnesse wherin Iustification consists and wherewith men are made formally righteous when they are justified is nothing else but remission of sinnes as hath bin abundantly proved both in the second and fourth Chapters of this latter part of the Discourse This forgivenesse of sinnes is that righteousnesse which the Scripture calls a righteousnesse without works Rom. 4. ver 6 7. compared together And which Augustine (a) ipsâ— nostra justitia quamviâ— vera sit propter veri bonifineÌ„ ad quam refertur tamen tanta est in hac vita ut potius peccatorum remissione constet quaÌ„ perfecticne virtutum Aug. de Civit. l. 19. c. 27. Haymo (b) Quia credidit Deo reputatum est ei ad justitiam id est ad remissianem peccatorum Haym ad Rom. 4.3 Bernard (c) Dei justitia est non peccare hominis autem justitia Dei indulgentia Bernaidus Serm. 23 in Cantic Christus factus est nobu justitia in absblutione peccatorum Ibid. Serm. 22. with others of former times as likewise Luther (d) Iustitiane stra proprie est remissio peccatorum seâ— ue loquitur Psalmus peccata non imputare c. Luther in Summa Ps 32 Calvin (e) Sequitur ergo eo nos esse justos quia nob is peceata non imputantuy Calv de vera Eccles Reform ratione p. 368. Musculus (f) Iucundum est quod justitia et beatitudo nostra est remissio peccatorum per fidem in Christum Muscu in Psal 32. p. 298. Quid enim est justum esse et reputari in peccatu conceptum et natuÌ„ quam peccatu esse liberum ibid. Pareus (g) Sic Deus Abrahae et omnibus nobu peccatoribus fidem imputat pro justitia quando credentes in fillium justificat hoc est absolvir c. Pal cus ad Rom. 2.3 p. 363. Fide accepit justitiam sen remisslonem peccatorum a Deo gratis donatam c. ibid. Chamier (h) Remissio peccatorum est Iustitia imputata Cham. Panstrat t. 3 l. 21. c. 19. Sect. 10. Iidem justitie proram et pupp im constituionut in remissâ—â—â—peccato um ibid. Sect. 9. withothers more of satter times without number yea and the Homilies of our own Church (i) Because all men are sinners and offender against God c. every man of necessitie is constrained to seeke for another righteousnesse or justification to be received at Gods own hands that is to say the forgivenesse of his sinnes and trespasses in such things as he hath offended Homil. of salvation part 1. p. 13. Iustitia Christi est absolntio a peccatu per Christum ex side Pet. Mart. ad â—om 10.8 Credimus totam nostram justitiam positam esse in peccatorum nostrorum Remissione c. Harm Confess Gallic art 13. have still with confidence and without scruple called by the Name of a righteousnesse See cap. 5. Sect. 5. of the first part and cap. 4. Sect. 28. of this latter part And because some who have a great minde to make Calvin of theirs in the imputation of Christs active obedience will needs have all those passages in him which are very many wherein he placeth justification or righteousnesse in Rem ssion of sinnes alone to be meant only in way of opposition to that Popish opinion which together with remission of sinnes coupleth infusion of grace to make up the
his Children is of that opinion which mainteyneth men to be compleatly righteous by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the letter and formality of it But as sometimes it comes to passe that a man falling into love with a woman that hath a great charge of Children hanging upon her having maried the mother would willingly wrangle or beate the Children out of dores and turne them off to begg so it is often seene that when men have unadvisedly imbraced an opinion seeming in their eye a beautifull and lovely truth and did not at first before they were wedded to it apprehend and consider what rugged and harsh consequences it had attending upon it they shift and turne and winde themselves about every way to quit themselves of that dishonourable charge wherewith they finde themselves by reason of their opinion encumbred withall But how men that will owne an imputation of a perfect righteousnesse can with any tollerable appearance of reason shift off from themselves the opinion of Gods not seeing sin in those that are cloathed with it is I confesse beyond the line of my apprehension If God could see no sinne in Christ because he was perfectly and compleatly righteous how he should see it in any that are as compleatly and perfectly righteous as he and that with the same righteousnesse wherwith he was righteous is a riddle that cannot be made out but by him that plougheth with a better heyfer then yet I have met with any CAP. XVI Propounding a ninth Demonstration against the pretended imputation viz. the confounding of the two Covenants IT is true SECT 1 many that hold the way of imputation are nothing ashamed nor afraide of this consequent the confounding of the two testaments or covenants of God with men that of the works with that of grace and vice versa that of grace with that of works These conceive that God never made more covenants then one with man and that the Gospell is nothing else but a gracious aide or reliefe from God to helpe man out with the performance of the first Covenant of works so that that life and salvation which is said to come by Christ shall in no other sense be said to come by him but only as he fulfilled that Law of works for man which men themselves were not able to fulfill and by imputation as by a deed of guift makes over that his perfect obedience and fulfilling of the Law to those that beleeve so that they in the right of this perfect obedience thus made theirs by imputation shall come to inherit life and salvation according to the strict and rigid tenor of the Covenant of works Doe this and live But as far as I am able to conceive men may aswell say there was no second Adam really differing from the first as no second Covenant differing really from the first and that mount Sina in Arabia is the same mountaine with mount Sion in Judaea and that the Spirit of bondage is the same with the Spirit of Adoption and that Isaak and Ishmael were but the same Child If the second Covenant of Grace were implicitly and tacitly conteyned in the first then the meaning of the first Covenant conceived in those words Doe this and live must be thus Doe this either by thy selfe or by another thy surety and live There is no other way to reconcile them or to reduce them into one and the same Covenant If this were Gods meaning in the first Covenant that keeping the Law either by a man himselfe in person or by another should equally serve the turne and a man should live by either then 1º it must follow that a Mediator was promised before the fall for this Covenant was struck with man in Innocencie 2º that Adam either understood not his Covenant that was made with him or else knew of a surety and redeemer before his fall at least as being in a readinesse for him in case he should fall 3 if keeping the Law either by a mans selfe or by another were in Gods meaning in that Covenant a sufficient meanes of life then any other surety any other Mediator would have made the reconciliation aswell as he that was God and man For God might have created a meere man with abilities to have kept the Law as fully as Adam or any of his posterity was bound to doe 4 and lastly if the fulfilling of the Law by any surety whatsoever were a sufficient meanes of life unto Adam and his then was the death of Christ no waies necessary because Christ had perfectly kept and fulfilled the Law before his death Againe 2 SECT 2 If the first and second Covenant were in substance the same then must the conditions or teâ—ms of agreement in both be the same For the conditions or terms of agreement in a Covenant are as formall and essentiall a part of a Covenant as any other thing belonging to it Though there be the same parties Covenanting and the same things Covenanted for or about yet if there be new articles of agreement it is really a new bargaine and another Covenant Now if the conditions or terms of agreement be the same in both those Covenants then to DOE THIS and TO BELEEVE Faith and works are really the same whereas the Scripture from place to place makes the most irreconcileable opposition betweene them But it may be there are some that are more shie of this consequence that stick not to hold the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sense opposed and yet demuire upon an identitie of the two Covenants they doe not conceive this to be the fruite of that wombe Wherefore to prove that the mother hath no wrong at all in having this dead child layed by her side for her owne I thus reason Where the parties covenanting are the same and the things covenanted for the same and the conditions or agreement the same there the Covenants are every waies the same But if the righteousnesse of the Law imputed to us be the agreement or condition of the Now Covenant all the three persons things conditions are the same Therefore the two Covenants first and second the old and the new are every waies the same because as concerning the other two the parties Covenanting and the things covenanted for it is agreed on both sides that they are the same If it be Objected and said That the righteousnesse of the Law imputed from another and personally wrought by a mans selse are two deffering conditions therfore it doth not follow that the Covenants should be the same To this I Answere that the substance of the agreement will still be found the same notwithstanding the works or righteousnesse of the Law are the same by whomsoever wrought If Adam had fulfilled the Law as Christ did he had bin justified by the same righteousnesse wherewith Christ himselfe was righteous If it be yet said that Imputation in the second Covenant which was not in the first makes a reall difference