portrait of John Goodwin JOHANNES GOODWIN. S: THEOL: CANTABRIG: Aᵒ AETAT 47. 1641. Thou see'st not whom thou see'st: then do not say That this is HE: who calls a lump of clay Without its soul a man's thou see'st n●● more, Nay, but the SHADOW of that lump● what store Of gifts and graces, what perfections rare, Among ten thousand persons scattered are: Gather in one, Jmagine it to be This SHADOWS substance and then say 'tis He. DT G G. fecit. IMPUTATIO FIDEI. or A Treatise of Justification wherein the imputation of faith for righteousness (mentioned Rom 43.5.) is explained & also that great Question largely handled. whether, the active obedience of Christ performed to the moral Law, be imputed in Justification or not, or how it is imputed. Wherein likewise many other difficulties and Questions touching the great business of justification viz the matter, & form thereof etc are opened & cleared. Together with the explication of divers scriptures, which partly speak, partly seem to speak to the matter herein discussed By John Goodwin, pastor in Coleman-street. Nisqua● legi sanctitutem humanani Christi 〈…〉, esse iustitiam nostram, vel ejus partem. Si quis legit, quoeso mihi ●●tendat, ut et ego legem et eredam. Partus De justice. Christi Act et Passus. Remis●i● peccaterum, est justicia imputata. Ch●●●●r. Tim. 3. lib. ●. C. i●. 9.10. L●am Abie●tisimi verbae in Ecclesia, non contem●●nda, sod audi: end et iudicanda sunt. Zuingl. in Epist. LONDON Printed by R. O. And G. D. And are to be sold by Andrew Crook at the Green Dragon in Paul's Churchyard, 1642. Small wyars sometimes Massic wayghts do carry. And on poor faith hangs great eternity. TO HIS DEAR BRETHREN the Reverend and Faithful Ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in, and near about the CITY of LONDON. Reverend and much honoured and respected in the Lord, I Presume you have all taken special knowledge of a Book not long since presented unto you by a levitical hand, entitled, Socinianism Discovered and Confuted: What Quarter the Divinity of the said Discourse hath in your approbations, I do not yet so well understand, as I desire I might; but for the morality of it, I make no question but you have done justice upon it, aswell to mine, as to other men's satisfaction. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2 Cor. 2.6. I do not here offer unto you, any formal answer or confutation of that piece, because if I could do the Truth, and myself right otherwise, I would willingly decline all personal contention and contestation: I only lay down more fully and at large, mine own judgement, concerning those things, about which the question is still depending between my Antagonist and me, conceiving it a special duty lying upon me, as the case stands, to give an ingenuous and fair account unto yourselves especially; and from you, to all men, of what I hold therein, aswell by making known what Scriptures, and reasons and grounds otherwise, have commanded my judgement to that point, whereat it now stands, as wherefore I judge both those Scriptures and arguments impertinent and insufficient to prove the contrary, which have hitherto been produced & insisted upon for that purpose, either by my Adversaries in the mentioned Discourse, or any other I can meet with. Nor do I make the least question, but that when you have diligently examined the particulars of my account, you will give me your quietus est, for the Totall. Or in case you shall deny me this, that you will give me in the stead thereof (that which will be of equal, or rather of superior consideration to me) better reasons and grounds for the contrary opinion, than I here deliver for mine. It is of sweet and comfortable importance, to be accompanied in the way of a man's judgement, by those that are learned and religious: yet is it much more desirable of the two, to be turned a side out of a way of error by an high hand of evidence and truth. Since God engaged me in these and some other controversies, and the oppositions of men grew strong and thick upon me, I have bestowed some time and thoughts to find out and possess myself throughly of such considerations, which might make me willing, yea & more than willing (if it might be) rejoicingly willing, to embrace such opportunities, wherein I may exchange error for truth. And if God hath not given me darkness for a vision herein, I apprehend a marvellous beauty, benefit, and blessing in such a frame of spirit, which makes a man able, and willing and joyful, to cast away even long endeared and professed opinions, when once the light hath shone upon them, and discovered them to be but darkness. I look upon ignorance and error and all misprision in the things of God, and of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, as that region in the soul, wherein only doleful creatures, as Owls and Satyrs, and Dragons, I mean fears and terrors and distractions, spiritual tumults, and storms and tempests are engendered and begotten. If all were light and truth in the judgement, all would be peace and sweetness and joy in the heart and soul Therefore to me it is no more grievous to abandon any opinion whatsoever, being once clearly detected, and substantially evicted for an error, than it is to be delivered out of the hand of an enemy, or to take hold of life and peace. But on the other hand, it argues childishness in understanding, and a bundle of weakness & folly bound up in the heart, to be baffled out of a man's judgement with every light and lose pretence. The rain fell as sore, and the floods came with as great rage; and the winds blew with as much violence against the house that was built upon the rock, as upon that which was built upon the Sand: yet that fell not, as this did Mat. 7.25, 26, 27. In like manner many opinions that are built upon the Rock and Foundations of the Scriptures, being truths of very dear and precious importance, are capable of as much opposition and contradiction from men, may have Forts and Bulwarks and Batteries of as much strength in apearance, raised up against them, as opinions that are lose, and lighter in the balance then vanity itself; yet are they not therefore to be forsaken. I presume my keen Adversary himself, had his patience been pleased to have awaited the sight and consideration of the whole body and frame of my discourse, would have kept his Sword in his Scabbard, and not drawn upon me with that violence and extremity of passion which now he hath done. However, I have presumed to follow him in the way of his Dedication: (fas est et ab hoste doceri) knowing none more able than yourselves to compromise a difference of this nature, according to equity and truth, and withal desiring none more indifferent and upright to give an award, than I hope to find a competent number (at least) of you. I make no question but you all study of conscience, and then you cannot make flesh your arm. I crave leave to be your remembrancer of this, that suspicion of falsehood hath always been a calamity incident to truth. Nor can the integrity, zeal, faithfulness, parts, learning, diligence of a Minister of Jesus Christ, quit or express themselves upon more honourable and worthy terms, then in vindicating and relieving a distressed truth, and breaking the staff of the oppressors thereof, be they never so many in number, never so great in Authority and power. The only art and method of raising an estate of honour and peace out of our errors, is by sacrificing them upon the honour and service of the truth. This is a way to circumvent the great circumventer the Devil, and to turn his weapons upon himself. He sends errors out of Hell, to curse the truth: but by this means you shall cause them to bless her altogether. Truth never gets up into her throne with that advantage, as when her enemy (the opposite error) is made her footstool. If we have built timber, hay, or stubble, upon the precious foundation jesus Christ, instead of silver, gold, and precious stones, it is a point of the greatest wisdom under Heaven, to prevent the trial of the fire, by a serious and strict examination of our own, or from our Errors, together with other lose and light materials in our spiritual buildings, leave us salvation indeed, but upon the hardest and least desirable terms that it can be received by a creature. 1 Cor. 3.15. If any man's work shall burn (saith the Apostle) he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. The laying of the right foundation, though it may keep us from being consumed, yet will it not keep us from being scorched with the fire of God's displeasure, if we miscarry in the walls, and raise these quite besides the foundation: we must look to abide a bitter blast of chiding from Heaven, if we be found remiss, and careless herein, and put in timber gilded with the consents and approbation of men, instead of beaten silver and gold. But I reflect upon my error and boldness in representing things of this nature unto you, who have much more need to learn both these and many other things from you myself. And if you will please to communicate of your light unto me when you meet me in the dark (which is a walk much frequented by mortality) I shall be as thankful a Proselyte of yours, as you can lightly wish or desire. The God of glory, whom you serve in the Gospel of his dear Son, double that anointing upon you which teacheth you all things, and shine in your hearts abundantly, to give the light of his knowledge in the face of jesus Christ, unto the world, and give you of the labour and travail of your souls, in the spiritual prosperity of your several Flocks and charges, that at last you may shine like stars in the firmament of Heaven, for ever and ever. This is none other but the hearty and affectuous prayer of, Your poor Brother, and fellow labourer in the Vineyard of CHRIST, JOHN GOODWIN. From my Study in Colemanstreet, Jan. 24. 1641. THE PREFACE TO THE READER. Good READER, IF Friends and enemies would have been so satisfied, it would have been satisfaction enough to myself, to have kept the world fasting from this Shewbread. Nor do I yet apprehend any more convincing argument of my calling to the Press at this time, than the unreasonableness of the one in one kind, & of the other in another. Friendship is but a sweet and pleasant bondage, & courtesy the great underminer of liberty Friends must have that done, which is done; not so much because of their wills or requests, as their interests. Yet these (I conceive) might easily have been overruled and taken off, had not the importune proceed of some men of opposite affection, rather than judgement, to the cause maintained in the Discourse, in gauged and pressed them with an high hand to prosecute their motion this way to the uttermost. If these men would have been content either to preach or maintain the truth themselves, or patiently to suffer others to teach it, yea or to burden them that should teach it only with their own errors, and not with other men's, yea with those, which they are ten degrees further from, than themselves (which had been no great work of supererogation) doubtless this piece had had its desert, (and that according to the severest censure that can lightly pass upon it) it had never seen the light of the Sun. In suspici●●●e hae. res●os nolo quenquam esse patientem. But suspicion or charge of heresy (according to Jeroms maxim of old) is more than a dispensation for speaking out: he could not bear the patience of any man under it. And yet loath I am, that men of hard language or thoughts, should fall softer any where, or where they might take less harm, then upon me: For God having graciously pleased to make the revilings & repoaches of men such benefactors unto me, as he hath done, hath put a golden bridle in my lips, to keep me in from much sharpness of complaint or contestation against them. It had been a very unseemly thing for Joseph, in the height of his preferment and honour in Egypt, either to have cried out of, or taken revenge upon the envy of his Brethren in selling him, which GOD had sanctified for the means of his advancement. It is an easy matter to forgive injuries, after that GOD hath once altered their properties, and turned them into blessings. Besides, my hope is, that those who are or have been zealous for supposed truths, will be zealous for truth indeed, when they come to see it: and in this case, I can freely set the one against the other, my hope against my experience, and so let my complaint fall. But as touching the hard measure which I have received from men, my best satisfaction resteth in this consideration, that GOD is both able to pardon the offenders, and to recompense the Sufferer. Concerning the Discourse itself, I can reasonably expect no better, then to see and hear it vexed from all quarters, with a spirit of zeal in some, of learning in others, of wisdom in a third, and of indiscretion in a fourth sort of men. The first will cry out against it, Heresy, Blasphemy, Socinianism, Arminianism, etc. without any more ado, and with a, what need we any more witnesses? The verdict of the second (it is like) will be, error and novelty. The profound and sage complaint of the third, uselessness and non-necessitie. The sober and soft exception of the last, unseasonableness, and, better at another time. For answer to the two first, which are the grand objections, the whole Treatise itself is engaged, and (I make no question) will do real and thorough execution. If any man hath the least mind or inclination to be satisfied touching the Doctrines here maintained, that there is neither Heresy nor Blasphemy, neither Socinianism nor Arminiarisme, neither error nor novelty in them, doubtless the Discourse itself will abundantly gratify him herein. But he that is full of prejudice, loatheth the hony-comb of satisfaction, Only to the charge and imputation of Novelty (besides what is effectually laid down in the ensuing discourse for the healing of this exulceration in the Spirits of men) I desire to suggest a few things here by the way. First, that America, though lately discovered unto us on this side of the World, was yet as ancient a Land and part of the World, as either Asia, Africa, or Europe itself. And what prohibition can there be served out of the Scriptures upon any tenet or opinion in Religion, to arrest it for error or untruth, or to prove it not to have been of as ancient Creation and standing as any other truths professed amongst us, only because we never saw the face or heard the name of it till yesterday? Might not nay did not, the Synagogue of Rome upon the same pretence, blaspheme and quarrel against all that glorious light brought into the Church by Luther and his compeers in the days of that reformation, and brought it under the censure and condemnation of darkness? If so great and considerable a part of the world as America is, being as large as all the other three so long known (within an eight or ) was yet unknown to all the world besides, for so many generations together: well may it be conceived, not only that some, but many truths, yea and those of main concernment and importance, may be yet unborn, and not come forth out of their Mother's womb (I mean the secrets of the Scriptures) to see the light of the Sun; especially considering, of how easy & ready a discovery visible things are, & by Name, lands and great tracts of Earth, in comparison of things that are Spiritual, and those especially whose situations and dwellings are fare remote from the common road or walk of men's studies and understandings: as also how poor and barren and empty the visible world is, of secrets and things to be known, and how soon the contents thereof may be read over and understood, in comparison of the infinite and endless variety of the riches and treasures of the Scripture, and the unknown abyss of truth there. Secondly, the Scriptures themselves give us a prophetical intimation of this, that in and towards the latter ages of the world, their foundations (as it were) shall be discovered, and their great depths broken up, and that knowledge shall abound, as the waters cover the face of the Sea. But thou, oh Daniel (saith the Angel to him, Dan. 12.4) shut up the words and seal the book even to the time of the end [meaning that Daniel should so carry the tenor of this part, at least, of his prophecy, that it should not be clearly understood till the drawing near of the time wherein it is to be fulfilled: and then] many shall run to and fro, [that is, shall discourse and beat out the secrets of GOD in the Scriptures with more liberty and freedom of judgement and understanding, and traverse much ground to and again, on which no man should set foot, till that time] and knowledge [by this means] shall be increased. Much more might be added from the Scriptures in this particular. Thirdly, that no man is competently furnished and instructed to the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, for the Ministry of the Gospel, and promoting the affairs of the Kingdom of Heaven that way, Ma●t. 13.25. but he that is like unto a man an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure, things new & old: i. who is not aswel able, to make some new discovery, & to bring forth somewhat of himself in the things of God in one kind or other, as to preach the common and received truths. Fourthly, that there are thousands of Scriptures, that have not yet opened, or delivered out their treasures, but reserve them as the proper and peculiar glory of the generations of the CHURCHES yet to come. Fiftly, that many interpretations of Scriptures, anciently delivered by Chrysostom, Augustine, and others of the Fathers, are wholly deserted by Luther, Calvin, Musculus, and other late Divines, and others of a quite differing importance substituted in their stead. Sixtly, that several opinions, not only maintained by some special Father, one or more, as those lately mentioned, or the like, but even such as generally ruled in the Church for some ages together, have been waved, yea and strongly opposed by their successors. It were easy to instance, were not brevity the greater necessity of the two. Seventhly, that divers interpretations of Scriptures, especially in the old Testament, and of some in the new, delivered by Luther, Calvin, Musculus and other learned and Orthodox Writers of that Centurie, are suspected, yea and more than suspected, even detected of misprision and mistake, by many of the most learned of this age. Eightly, that is neither new, nor unjustifiable by the practice of wise men, to examine, yea and to impugn received opinions, if they be found erroneous. He that will please to peruse the first Chapter of the first Book of Doctor Hakewills' learned Apology of the Power and providence of God, etc. shall meet with great variety of instances and examples, both in Divinity, Philosophy, in Ecclesiastical History, in Civil or Nationall History, in Natural History, of opinions which had a long time been generally received, and yet were at last suspected, yea and many of them evicted and rejected, upon due examination. Ninthly, that there are now many errors (erroneously so called) in the Christian World, which are made of the greatest and choicest truths: yea and which (doubtless) will be redeemed from their captivity, and restored to their Thrones and Kingdoms, by the diligence, gifts and faithfulness of the approaching generation. Tenthly, that it is of sweet consistence with the providence of God, and with the known method of his dispensations, to put honour upon that which lacketh, to discover and reveal himself in some particulars, unto those that are weak and of less esteem in the Church, wherein he reserv's himself from persons of fare greater light and knowledge otherwise, and which are counted pillars of the Church, as is said of james, and Cephas, & John. Gal. 2.9. This made Zuingl. to say, (a) Etiam abjectissimi verba in Ecclesia, non conteyn nda sed a●dienda er judic●nda sunt. Zuingl. in Epist. that the words even of him that is most abject and despicable in the Church, aught to be heard, examined, and considered of: and a late writer of our own, H. W. True original of the Soul p. 3. that they are not always the learnedst m●●, that find out the greatest mysteries. Eleventhly, that to oppose and cry down for error, every thing that is not generally received and taught, is to quench proceed, and to interdict unto the Churches, growth in the Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently, increase and growth in grace also. 2 Peter. 3. Twelfthly, that notwithstanding all that hath been said for the vindication of new apprehensions or opinions, substantially proved from the Scriptures, yet the Doctrine maintained in the following Discourse, hath no need of any sanctuary in this kind to protect it, being nothing but what hath an army both of ancient and modern worthies to make it good. Insomuch that as touching the two main points avouched herein, viz. the imputation of Faith for righteousness (in the sense specified in the entrance of the Discourse) and the non-imputation of the righteousness of Christ (in the sense disclaimed) I here make this open, ingenuous, and solemn profession, that what I cannot pregnantly and irrefragably demonstrate (to any unpartial and disengaged judgement) to have been both anciently held and taught by the chief Fathers of the Primitive times, as likewise by the best and most considerable part (at least) of the late Reformed Writers, Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, Musculus, Pareus, &c (at least if their judgements and to●chings may be judged of by their writings) I will no ways own, but disclaim. Only this I must confess, that few of these Authors always speak so evenly or steadily, but that some expressions from their pens, are very obnoxious and opportune for a contrary interpretation. But my meaning is, that take them either in their more frequent and constant expressions, or in their more perspicuous and clear expressions, they cannot but by an unprejudicate eye be discerned fairly to sympathise in judgement with the points mentioned. As for the contrary opinion, it is (as Mr. Gataker modestly enough expresseth his judgement) to be feared, that for more than a few ages together, it was unknown to all Antiquity (a) Verecy ne illa potius, quam tuetur ipse, quamque assertores ejusdem nonnulli, pro lapide primario insidei pietatisque fundamentu habent, per secula haud pauca, antiquitati omni penitus ignota fuerit; cum ea, quam de Christi morto ae perpessionibus nos tutamur, tum in Scripturu sacru, tum et in antiquorun scriptu, passim occurrat. Mr. Gata. in his defence of his Animadversions upon Piscator's and Lucius' disp. p. 16. . This by way of salve for the sore of novelty. The next impeachment of the Discourse, was the emptiness, and slender importance, use, or consequence of it. Many (it is like) will not be fare off from saying of it, as Judas said of Mary's box of ointment poured out upon our Saviour's head, Mat. 26.8. What needeth this waist? Here is a great deal of pains, bestowed to little purpose. Might not men make Heaven, and be saved aswell in the contrary opinion, which is commonly received and taught, as in this, whatsoever it be? The Author might have employed himself and his time better otherwise. Give me leave to ease the discourse and myself of this burden also, by tendering these things to consideration. First, Luk 12, 7. that if God be so tender and respectful of us, that even all the hairs of our heads are numbered, and kept upon account by him: much more respectful and tender aught we to be, not only of the main limbs, or principal members of his truth, Verbum onim ●n est res lovieula ut phanatici hodie putant, sed ē Vnus apex major est coelo et terra. Luther. in Gal c. 5.12. Nihil putandum exiguum: siquidem spiritus Sanctus noluis literu mandare quod non prosit. Luther. in Gen 12. Maledicta sit chariras, & comcordia, propter quam conservandar● periclitars necesse sir verbum Dei. Luther. in Gal. 5. Maledicta sit charitas quae servatur cum jactura Doctrinae fidei, cui emnia cedere debent, charitas, Apostolus, Angelus è coelo etc. Idim ibid. Pax est omni bello tristior, que veritatu et justitiae ruina Constat. but even of all the hairs of the head thereof, I mean those that seem of smallest consequence and importance, that we suffer not the least of them to fall to the ground, or to be trampled upon by the foot of negligence or contempt. Especially if we consider Secondly, that the least hair, I mean the least jot or tittle of divine truth, is more worth a thousand fold then our whole heads, yea then all our heads put together. One tittle of the word (saith Luther) is greater than Heaven and Earth. And in another place: nothing in the Scriptures is to be thought little, in as much as the Holy Ghost would not have caused that to be written, which should not be profitable, which consideration drew from him many such expressions as these: Cursed be that charity and agreement, which must be preserved and kept with the danger of the word of God: and again, Cursed be that charity, which is kept with the loss of the Doctrine of Faith, unto which all things must give place, charity, Apostle, Angel from Heaven, etc. It was the saying of another, that that peace is more grievous than any War, which costs the loss of truth and honesty. But the Lord Christ himself gives us the best and most certain account of the infinite worth and value of the least strictures or filings of the word of God, in that passage to his Disciples, Mat. 5, 18, 19 Verily I say unto you, till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all things be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. Doubtless if God so highly prizeth the anise, mint, and cummin of his Law, as to recompense the tithing of them with such high preferment in the Kingdom of heaven; much more (or at least every whit as much) doth he esteem, the jots and titles, the meanest and least considerable things of his Gospel, which is his darling and most beloved manifestation of himself unto the world. And therefore it must needs argu much profaneness of heart, and great estrangement in mind and spirit from the worth and excellency of the things of God, either to despise the knowledge, or to censure a just discussion and examination of the smallest of them, as a thing needless, and of little use. Hierom was fare from such a conceit as this, when he said, In Scriptures me minima differentia omitti debet. Nam singuli semenes, syllaba, apices et puncta, plena sunt sensibus. Hieronymus. that the smallest difference in the Scriptures was not to be lightly passed over, because every word, syllable, title and point, are full of sense and meaning. Thirdly, it is very considerable, that misprisions and errors in Divinity, aswell as in other arts and Sciences, go (as it were) by tribes and families; so that there is no one error, but hath many more linked in affinity with it, and related to it, some greater (it may be) and more dangerous than itself, and some lesser. Now when a man's judgement is matched into a stock or lineage of error, suppose it be but with the lightest and least dangerous in all the tribe, yet is he engaged hereby to own and maintain all the rest of the same descent and blood, be they never so foul and dangerous, and if he be true to his principles, cannot But do it. Gen. 19.20. So that Lot's plea to the Angel for the sparing of Zoar, is it not a little one? is at no hand to be admitted for the sparing of an eror. A small eror cannot lightly be favoured or connived at, but that great errors will be comprehended in the indulgence also. The foundation of a building may be endamaged and at last perish, by the rain or wet that sals through the roof, and settles upon it. So may the judgement soon come to be corrupted and tainted in the great and fundamental points of Religion, if it hath once miscarried in others that seem at first to be of harmless consequence, and fare enough off from the foundation: Therefore it was a provident and prudent saying, from whomsoever it came: Minimum non est, non negligere minima. that is, It is not a thing of the least consequence, to look after things that seem to be of the least. The judgement will corrupt and putrify aswell downwards as upwards, though I conceive it corrupts soon and fastest upwards. A man that at first sets in, and couples himself with a great or fundamental error, is fare more apt to embrace and swallow all lesser errors depending thereon, than he that is first tainted with a lighter error only, is to admit of those that are more dangerous, though of the same stock & lineage. Therefore Fourthly, to condemn or censure the teaching and searching out of any truth, but what is of precise and absolute necessity to be known unto salvation, as impertinent and needless, favours of much ignorance and profaneness. For 1. what understandingman will undertake to make any such umpirage between the things or truths of God, that shall determine these or these by name, and no other, to be of absolute necessity to salvation? Or where hath God given any Commission or authority to men, to make any such election and reprobation as this, amongst his divine truths? Secondly, it is much to be feared, that those that are so wise as not to trouble themselves about knowing any thing, but what is of an absolute and peremptory necessity to salvation, will prove so foolish, as not to know so much. He that will constantly walk as near the edge or brink of a ditch or pit, as is possible, runn's a desperate hazard of falling in, first or last. It is a saying of chrysostom; that it is not possible for a man to be saved, without a continual reading or studying spiritual things (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. Hom. 3. do LaZ. . Thirdly, to desire or care to know nothing more in the things of God, than what is of precise necessity to salvation, is fare more unfavoury, then to labour or care for nothing more in outward things, as in meats, drinks, apparel etc. than what is of absolute necessity to keep life and soul together, or not to eat one morsel of bread more, or drink the least drop of water more, then without which nature must of necessity give up the Ghost. As such a desire or resolution as this, in the way of nature were very unnatural, and near unto monstrous: so is that temper and frame of Spirit hardly (if at all) consistent with the nature of grace, which disdeigneth the knowledge even of the sweetest and most pleasant truths, if it apprehends a possibility of being saved without them. Fourthly, to censure the knowledge of all things as impertinent, which are not simply necessary to salvation, is to involve the fare greatest part of the Scriptures themselves, (and much more of the writings of the best of men otherwise) in the same condemnation. For who (lightly) can conceive, that the knowledge either of the Historical, or Prophetical part of the Scriptures, is of that precise and indispensable necessity to salvation, which we speak of? Nay it is evident from that passage in the Scriptures themselves, Joh. 20.31. that the Gospel written by this Evangelist alone, is sufficient to salvation: and consequently that the rest of the Scriptures are not of that austere and strict necessity thereunto. But these things are written (saith the Holy Ghost in this place) that ye might believe, that jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing, ye might have life through his Name. Fiftly, as to attempt to be wise above that which is written, is presumption and offensive unto GOD on the one hand; so not to attempt, or desire to be wise up to that which is written, is (as AUGUSTINE somewhere terms it) damnable unthankfulness, and every whit as much (if not more) displeasing unto GOD, on the other hand. Certainly there is no piece of divine inspiration, but is too sacred and precious, to be offered up upon the service of slothfulness and contempt. Sixtly (and last to this particular) if things were duly examined and compared together, I believe it would be found, that the knowledge even of those things which are not of so absolute a necessity to salvation, is of greater consequence, and more to be desired in itself, than salvation itself; at least then salvation, considered only as the good and benefit of the creature. As to generous huntsmen the game is ever more than the prey; the nature and quality of the exercise more desirable than the Venison: so to dispositions eminently spiritual and heavenly, that mystery of the will of God (as the Gospel is somewhere called) the wonderful carriages and contrivances of that profound and glorious project of his by Jesus Christ, to bring about their salvation, is more precious and of sweeter contemplation (at least ought to be both to them and others) than that salvation itself which they attain by it, especially if it be looked upon, as their own concernment only. It is the saying of Calvin: that the glory of God alone, Vua Dei gloria preferri meretur centum mundu. Calvin. deserves to be preferred before an hundred worlds. Now there is no such rise or advantage for the soul to glorify GOD, as the clear and full knowledge of him in his Christ. It is not the salvation of his creature simply, but this salvation as effected and wrought about by the way of JESUS CHRIST, that is the first borne of all the discoveries and manifestations of the fullness of GOD. Again Fiftly, to vindicate the innocence of the Treatise yet further from the crimes of fruitlessness and impertinency, it is considerable, that as ignorance, error, and mistake in any one point of the Gospel whatsoever, though it seems fare remote from any thing which we call fundamental, yet do they dispose more or less, unto apostasy and absolute unbelief: so on the other hand, a clear and sound and comprehensive understanding of any one carriage or passage of the Gospel according to the Scriptures, contributes much towards the settling and establishing of the heart and soul in a firm belief and confidence of the whole. The truth is, that the body and frame of the Gospel is so compacted, so nearly related in the several parts and passages of it, one thing looking with that favourable and full aspect upon another, all things set in that methodical order of a rational connexion, and consequential dependence one upon another, that if a man be master in his judgement of any one passage thereof, he may by the light and inclination hereof rectify his thoughts otherwise, and work himself on to a clear discerning, and upright understanding of other things. Therefore a thorough and full explication of any one point of the Gospel, is of precious consequence and use. But Sixtly, the weightiness and high importance of the subject of the discourse pleads the usefulness and concernment of it with an high hand. For what can be of a more rich and solemn concernment to a man, then clearly to see, and fully and satisfyingly to understand from the Scriptures, how, and by what means and upon what terms, he either is or is to be Justified in the sight of God? Doubtless the prospect of the promised Land from Mount Nebo, was not more satisfactory and pleasing unto Moses, than a clear beholding of the Counsel and good pleasure of God touching the justification of a sinner, is to the soul and conscience of him, that either hopes, or desires to be justified. Therefore to search and inquire into this with all possible exactness, cannot seem needless 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 vein in all the body of the Gospel, no point whatsoever in Christian Religion, more tender, and wherein the least variation from the truth and mind of GOD may endanger the soul, than this of Justification. An hair's breadth of mistake in this, is more to be feared, than a broad error in other points. The truth is, that if a man be of a sound and clear judgement in the Doctrine of Justification, and shall so continue, he may find 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 counsel of God about his justification, he is in danger of perishing for ever; neither will the clearest 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 Counsel of God for our justification, may cause our part to be taken away out of the Book 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, doubtless an error in justification is to be redeemed with thousands of thousands. In so much that all possible exactness and diligence in pensiculation of Scriptures and reasons and arguments, to lay this corner stone aright in the building of our Faith, may rather seem negligence and looseness, than any impertinency or superfluity of labour. And though I have no commission from Heaven to judge that opinion, touching the imputation of Christ's 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 bowels of jesus Christ I humbly and hearty, 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 souls and consciences of those, whom they so nearly concern. First, that the bridge of Justification, by which men must pass and be conveyed over from death unto life, is very narrow (as hath, in effect, been said already) so that an heedless or careless step, may be the miscarriage and loss of the precious soul for ever. Secondly, that to promise ourselves justification and life in any other way, or upon any other terms, then upon the express word and will of God revealed, is to build upon a sandy foundation, and may and aught to be abhorred and trembled at by us, as the firstborn of presumptions. Thirdly (and with nearer relation to the great business in hand) that to seek justification by the Law, is by the determination and sentence of Scripture itself, no less than an abolishing from Christ, or a rendering 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 yourselves justification by the works of the Law. Gal. 5.4. Fourthly (and last) that that distinction which you commonly make, between the Law or works of the Law, as performed by yourselves, 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 wisdom at the best, and no where warranted, much less necessitated unto, in the Scriptures: and consequently, must needs be a dangerous principle or notion, to hazard the everlasting estate and condition of your souls upon. I have in the Discourse it self, and that more than once, demonstrated the insufficiency and danger of this Distinction, and withal showed, that the Scriptures do no where ascribe the Justification of a sinner to the works of the Law, no not as performed by Christ himself, but only unto his death and sufferings. Therefore I content myself here only to mention it. Eightly and lastly, the usefulness of the Discourse will abundantly appear 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 veins and passages of the Gospel, and tends much to the rectifying and clearing of our judgements in these. The difference between the two Covenants, the communication of Adam's sin to his Posterity, and the equity of God's proceed 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 necessity of Christ's death, the righteousness whereby we stand formally just before God, with many other particulars of sweet and precious consideration, will receive much light and clearing and confirmation hereby. So that to charge the Treatise with fruitlessness or impertinency, is an accusation framed by the same line of equity and truth whereby Joseph was accused of incontinency by his Mistress. I have only the fourth and last (and indeed the least and lightest) imputation of unseasonableness to wipe off: and then (I trust) the Discourse will be innocent. The troublesome workings of the times, the labouring both of Church and State as it were in the fire (for the present) will (I make no question) be pleaded by many, as repugnant and much dissuasive to the publication of such a piece as this: This offence (I hope) will be thoroughly healed, by these and the like lenitives. First, the publication of it (at least of part of it) was intended, whilst all things were yet in peace amongst us. Secondly, as the mother cannot choose her time wherein she shall bring forth, or the child be borne, but must be content with the time which God and nature have appointed her, though it be in never so many respects unseasonable for her: so neither had I liberty to carve an opportunity to my own mind & liking for the putting forth of this piece, but was by a special hand of necessity and providence cast upon this season, such as it is, My time, was some years since: but God's time (it seems) was not till now. 3. When a man is fallen into a kennel, and become all miry and dirty thereby, it is not unseasonable for him to take the first opporitunity he can meet with, to wash and make himself clean. In like manner when he is dangerously wounded, there is no place for scanning opportunities or fitnesses of seasons wherein to be healed. Those numberless base reproaches, and forged cavillations and slanders under which I have a long time suffered far and near (yea and yet suffer daily, not only in City and Country, but in Kingdom and Kingdom, yea aswell beyond the Seas, as on this side; are (I conceive) in the judgement of all reasonable men, an authentic dispensation unto me, to neglect curiosity of times or seasons for my vindication. Fourthly, nor do I conceive what ill aspect such a subject as this can have upon the times, or affairs of the Church or State depending. Those that are Interessed in the procuration of these, have (doubtless) both their hearts and their heads and their hands full of employment otherwise, and during the time of these engagements, will have little list or leisure to traverse writings of this nature. Or if they should, I know not what antipathy the Doctrine here maintained, should have either to the prudent, or peaceable composure of our troubles. Nay, Fiftly, certain I am, that if the Doctrine of Justification, that is, the opening of the door of life and salvation unto men, be more seasonable at one time then another, the advantage lies for times of troubles, and dangers, of fears and distractions in the world. When can it be of deeper and dearer concernment to the soul, to see (with Stephen) the Heaven's open, then when the earthly house of this Tabernacle (as the Apostles metaphor is) gins to be shaken, and is ready to fall, as it was with Stephen, when he saw that vision? Sixtly, the fittest season for a calm and quiet debating of matters in controversy, between parties engaged, is, when both parties are involved in the same condition of danger or trouble. The Martyrs in Q. Mary's days being together in prison, argued their differences in points of Religion, as Election, Reprobation, etc. with more meekness, moderation, and mutual equanimity, then in all likelihood they would have done in fullness of peace and liberty on both sides. We have many examples in History, where a common enemy proved a mediator between those, that were at variance before; yea and were like so to have continued, had not the atonement been made by a way or means displeasing to both, I mean by a danger threatening both. Seventhly (and last) to support so great and important a truth of the Gospel, as that contended for in the Discourse, is by a fair interpretation, a means fare more likely to advance both the peace and safety of Church and State, and to heal the sores and troubles of both, than any ways to prejudice or set back the cure. It is much to be feared, that among many other grounds and causes of that sore controversy, which God is at this day (and hath been some years past) pleading with the land and his people in it, these three have done their parts, and helped forward the displeasure. First, that those to whom God hath graciously revealed himself amongst us, and withal endued with gifts and abilities for such a purpose, have raised the line of Evangelicall knowledge among us so little, above what was delivered unto us by our first Reformers. We have done little else with that talon of gospel-light, which God at first gave us as a stock to set up and Trade withal for him, but only put in a Napkin. We have scarce added an hair's breadth to our stature in the knowledge of Christ, whereas a cubit at least, might well be expected from us. Secondly (that which is worse and of more provocation, than the former) by our unworthy symbolising with the Church of Rome in that ignoble Principle of hers, so dishonourable to Heaven, to believe as the Church believeth, we swallow down many of those misprisions and mistakes in matter of Religion, which were found in our first Reformers, and teach them for Doctrines and Orthodox truths. As if it were not lawful to think that there may be more light in the air when the Sun is risen in his might upon the earth, than there was at the first dawning and breaking of the day. Thirdly and lastly, and that which is more unworthy the Name of Christians then either of the former; we have quite lost (as it were) and let fall amongst us many precious truths and streynes of the Gospel, which God by the hand of the former generation, had conveyed over to us, and entrusted us withal. An instance whereof may be that very point of truth, which is so copiously handled and defended in this Treatise, and withal so fully demonstrated to have been delivered unto us, by Luther, Calvan, Musculus, and other worthies of that band. Now that such a negligence and sinful deportment of a Church or people towards God as this, is a just occasion of his breaking out in wrath and judgement upon them, may be gathered from Rev. 3.11. Hold that fast, which thou hast (saith the Lord Christ to the Church of Philadelphia) that no man take thy Crown: implying, that either the loose-holding, but especially the letting go of any Gospel's truth, which sometimes a Church hath had in custody and professed, endangers the Crown of it, that is, the peace, safety and continuance of it. Therefore to endeavour to keep an ancient truth alive, which was ready to die amongst us, is rather a means to ease and lighten the burden of that guilt which lieth upon us, and consequently to turn away, or to abate the displeasure of God, and so to further the healing of the Land, than any ways to increase or foment the troubles of it. And thus much more then enough by way of Apology. I have only two things to require of thee (good Reader) by way of courtesy, in reading this Discourse, which I hope will recompense thee for them; though they be both fair, and equal to be granted, even without demand, & much more without recompense. First, in case thou meetest with the same sense or substance of matter, clothed with different expressions; one or some whereof thou canst well bear and understand, others being more hard and offensive unto thee (which I conceive may be a case frequently incident in the perusal hereof) my request is, that thou wilt reduce that which seems crooked, to that which is straight, and make an atonement of the better for the worse. Secondly, whereas one and the same proposition or assertion in words, may admit of different explications and meanings, in the one whereof it may be true, and accordingly either affirmed or granted by me; in another false, and so by me denied; my request in this place is, that thou wilt not judge me a man of contradictions, though in one place I deny that assertion in words, which in another I affirm or grant, but that thou wilt relieve me in such passages and reconcile me to myself, by the mediation of mine own distinctions and particular explications of myself elsewhere. I give thee notice in one place, (a) Part. 2. c. 3. soct. 9 p. 57 that there is scarce any proposition can be framed, wherein the word, impute or imputation, is used indefinitely and without special limitation and explication, but may both be granted and denied, according to a different sense and acceptation thereof. And who knoweth not, but that assertions and say otherwise, are very frequently thus conditioned? Now to grant a proposition in one sense, and to deny it in another, is so fare from being contradictions, that it can hardly be avoided in any close reasoning upon any theme or subject whatsoever. But for the greatest part of ambiguities incident to matters discussed in the subsequent Treatise, I explain myself and mine own apprehensions in two places chief, viz. in the first Chapter of the first Part, but especially in the third of the second. If any man shall please publicly to oppose, and write against what is here published, I have two requests to make unto him likewise. First, that he will bend the main body and strength of his discourse against the main of mine; and not browse or nibble upon some twiggs, or outward branches, but strike at the root or main body of the tree, or at least at some of the principal arms and limbs thereof. A tree may stand firm, and be choice timber, and yet the smaller boughs and branches thereof being tender, easily broken. It is no damage or prejudice to a Discourse, though some sentences or expressions may be picked out here and there, which being separated from their trunk or stem wherein they grow, seem weak, and very capable of opposition. My other request to such a man is, that he will please to interdict his pen all passionate language and expression, and return no worse measure in this kind, then is here measured unto him. Truth is not to be drawn out of the pit where she lieth hid, by a long line of calumnies, reproaches, and personal aspersions upon him who is supposed to oppose her: but by the golden chain of solid demonstrations, and close inferences from the Scriptures. The readiest way to overtake her, is to follow after her in love. When men are fierce and fiery in their disputes, it is much to be feared, that they want the truth, or at least the clear and comprehensive knowledge of the truth, to cool and qualify them. I take little notice in the ensuing Treatise of that passionate piece of Discourse lately published, and styled by the Author. Socinianism Discovered and confuted; a title better fitting the work, than the Author was ware of, or intended. For herein he discovers Socinianism in his own opinion; and then crosseth and confuteth it, when he hath done. This I have made apparent in the Answer to part of that Discourse which I sent unto him, and which since hath been thought meet (it seems) to some, to be made more public. In consideration whereof, as likewise by the advice of some friends otherwise, I took off my pen, and suspended the finishing of a full and particular Answer to that Discourse (which I began immediately upon the publishing thereof) after I had made some considerable progress therein. As upon advice I desisted, so upon advice I may be brought on again to perfect and publish those beginnings, In this Treatise, I no where trouble the rest and peace of Mr. Walkers Socinianism, but only in the fourth Chapter of the second Part: nor here do I meddle with any other particular thereof, but only with that, which is the heart and soul (such as it is) of that whole discourse, viz. his delineation or description of the whole Doctrine of Justification. I have detained thee somewhat long in the entrance: but thou seest there was cause. I desire now to open the door unto thee, which leadeth into the Discourse itself, by earnest prayer & addressement of my heart and soul unto God on thy behalf, that he will give thee a spirit of discerning, a sound and upright and unpartial judgement in all things, that thou mayst call no man Master on Earth, but reserve the glory and honour of this Name whole end entire, for thy great Master in Heaven: that he will so bless and sanctify the Discourse unto thee, that in the reading of it, it may pour thee out a blessing of knowledge for thine understanding, of establishment for thy judgement, of peace for thy conscience, of joy and gladness for thine heart and soul, and all this and much more through Jesus Christ, by whom he is able to do it, to whom be everlasting confessions and acknowledgements of all Grace and Glory, and every excellency, by every Creature AMEN. Thine in the LORD JESUS assured, J. GOODWIN. From my Study in Colemanstreet. A brief view of the Method and carriage of the whole Discourse of the first PART. CAP. 1. THe Question stated; and declaration made, in what sense the Discourse either affirmeth, or denieth, the Imputation of Christ's righteousness in justification. From p. 1. to 18. CAP. 2. Those Scriptures, Rom. 4. ver. 3.5, 9, 22. etc. managed for the Imputation of Faith for righteousness, in a proper, not a metaphorical or metonymical sense; with the testimonies of many Authors both ancient and modern, standing by this Interpretation. From p. 19 to 54. CAP. 3. Several Scriptures, wherein the works of the Law are absolutely excluded from Justification, as Rom. 3.28. Gal. 2, 16. etc. not admitting the Imputation of the Active obedience of Christ, in the sense opposed in this Discourse; with several objections against such an Interpretation of them, propounded and answered. From p. 55, to 68 CAP. 4. The non-imputation of Christ's righteousness, in the sense ruling in this Controversy, argued from Rom. 3.21. The argument made good against an objection. From p. 69. to 72. CAP. 5. The said non-imputation further proved and established from Rom. 5.16.17. comp●●ed together, with an objection answered. The sufficiency of the Answer attested by Galvin, Musoulus, Luther, Melancthon, Beza, Zanchie, Fox, and Chamier. From p. 73. to p. 83. CAP. 6. A further proof for the imputation of Faith, in the sense explained, against the imputation of the righteousness of Christ in the sense refused, from Philip. 3.9. From p. 84. to 88 CAP. 7. Further proofs for the imputation of Faith as aforesaid, from such Scriptures wherein Justification is ascribed unto Faith, as Rom. 3.18. Rom. 1.5. etc. with 4 objections against the carriage of these Scriptures answered. From p. 88 to 92. CAP. 8. The Non-imputation of Christ's righteousness (in the sense first rejected) clearly argued and proved, from Gal. 3.12. being the last of our Scripture proofs. From p. 93, to 98. CAP. 9 The Jmputation of Christ's righteousness (in the sense challenged) disproved from the incompetiblenesse of it to many, if not to all, believers (without exception) in respect of many particulars wanting in it, which must be found in a law-righteousness appropriable unto them. Two objections against this argument answered. From p. 98, to p. 106. CAP. 10. A second argument against the said Imputation, drawn from the precise and exact proportion and fitness of that righteousness for the person of Christ alone, as being the only Mediator, between God and men: with two objections answered. From p. 107, to 117. CAP. 11. A third ground against the said Imputatison, viz. the non-necessitie of it: with an objection anwered; the answer, pleading for entireness of justification in remission of sins alone, absolutely consemans' with the judgement of Calvin (a) That Calvin placed justification simply and absolutely, and not comparatively, in Remission of sins alone, see fully proved part 2. c. 7. Sect. 15. p. 213.214. of this Discourse. , relieved by Par●us in some passages, which Bellarmine and some others would wrest to a contrary interpretation. From p. 118. to 135. CAP. 12. A fourth demonstration against the saia Imputation, viz. the dissolving or frustration of the Evangelicall Grace of Adoption: with an objection Answered. From p. 136. to p. 144. CAP. 13. The fift and sixth grounds against the said Imputation. The former, the taking away the necessity of Repentance: the latter, the necessity of Christ's death; with two objections against the former, and as many against the latter, Answered. From p. 145. to 150. CAP. 14. A seaventh ground against the said Imputation, viz. the taking away for givenesse of sins; with an objection answered. From p. 151. to 153. CAP. 15. Enforcing an eight Reason against the Imputation questioned, viz. a manifest compliance with that dangerous error, that God seethe no sin in his people. From p. 153. to 155. CAP. 16. A ninth Demonstration against the pretended Imputation, viz. the confounding of the two Covenants, with two objections propounded and answered. From p. 154. to 157. CAP. 17. Three Arguments more managed against the already-impugned Imputation: all of them drawn from the meritoriousness of that righteousness (according to the professed tenets of those against whom we argue) which is said to be imputed. From p. 158. to 164. CAP. 18. Three further Reasons against the opinion prerejected: with an objection propounded against the last of them, and Answered. The first, drawn from the unsoundness of this assertion, that Believers wrought righteousness in Christ. The second, from the non-imputation of the passive obedience of Christ, in the letter and formality of it. The last, from the non-intermedling of the Ceremonial Law with justification. From p. 165. to 169. CAP. 19 Five further Demonstrations of the conclusion undertaken for. The first, drawn from the non-imputation of our sins to Christ, in the letter or formality of them. The second, from the uncleanness of this saying, that God should look upon us as worthy of that justification, which we receive from him. The third, from the erroneousness of this, that men are made formally sinful by God's act of imputing Adam's sin. The fourth, from the absurdity of this, that there is a double formal cause of justification. The last, from the evidence of this truth, that there is no necessity of bringing in this imputation, either in respect of the justice, or mercy of God or for the salving or advancement of any other Attribute. From p. 170. to 179. CAP. 20. Four Reasons more, to strengthen the Conclusions taken into protection. The first, drawn from the insufficiency of a Law righteousness, to justify those that have once sinned, though personally performed. The second, from the non-obligation of any man to keeps the Law for his justification. The third from Gods requiring only Faith of men, to their justification: with two objections answered. The last from the imputation of Faith made unto Abraham. From p. 180, to 187. CAP. 21. The last Reason propounded against the Imputation of Christ's righteousness, drawn from the Non-imputabilitie of the Law, or the righteousness thereof: with an objection answered, and some things considered about the Imputation of Adam's sin. Of the Second PART. CAP. 1. THe method and contents of the Second Part of the Discourse p. 1, 2. CAP. 2. Fourteen Conclusions laid down and proved, to give further light into the Controversy depending, and to repair a way for answering the remaining objections The first, is this: He for whose sins a plenary satisfaction hath been made, is as just and righteous as he that never sinned p. 3. 2. There is no medium, or middle condition, between absolution from all sin, and a perfect and complete righteousness. p. 3.4. 3 Adam till his fall by sin, was completely righteous, and in an estate of justification before God. p. 4.5. 4. Perfect remission or forgiveness of sins, includes the imputation or acknowledgement of the observation of the whole Law. p. 5.6.7.8 5. He that is fully acquitted and discharged of his sins, needeth no other righteousness, to give him a right or title unto life. p. 8 9 6 That satisfaction which Christ made for sin, and whereby he procured remission of sins for those that believe, consists only in that obedience of his, which is commonly called Passive, and not in that subjection which he exhibited to that common Law of nature which we call, Moral, p. 9.10. 7 If Christ had kept the Law for us, that is in our stead, during his life, so that we might be counted perfectly righteous by the imputation thereof unto us, there had been no occasion or necessity of his dying for us. p. 10.11. 8. That union and communion which Believers have with Christ, doth no ways require or suppose any such imputation of his righteousness unto them, as is conceived. p. 11, 12, 13. 9 No other imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, can be proved either by Scripture, or sound reason, then that which stands, either in a communion of his posterity with him therein, or in the propagation of his nature defiled therewith, unto them: or in that punishment and condemnation which is come upon them by it. p. 13, 14, 15, 16. 10. Though justification and salvation came unto the world by Christ the second Adam, as condemnation and death came by the first: yet there are many different considerations, between the coming and bringing in of salvation by the one, and of condemnation by the other. p. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. 11. That which makes true Faith instrumental in justification, is nothing that is essential or natural to it, whether descent, property, or act, but somewhat that is extrinsecall and purely adventitious, as viz. the force and efficacy of the will, good pleasure, ordination and covenant of God in that behalf. p. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. 12. It hath no foundation either in Scripture or reason, to say that Christ by any imputation of sin, was made formally a sinner. p. 26. 13. Faith doth not only (if at all) declare a man to be righteous, or in a justified estate, but is the very means by which justification or righteousness it obtained. p. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33. 14. The sentence or curse of the Law, was not properly executed upon Christ in his death: but this death of Christ was a ground or consideration unto God, whereupon to dispense with his Law, and to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty or curse therein threatened, as concerning those that believe. p. 33, 34, 35, 36. CAP. 3. Seven Distinctions propounded and explained, necessary for the further understanding of the business in question, and the clearing of many difficulties incident to it. As 1. justification, is taken in a double sense, either actively or passively. p. 37, 38, 39 2. justice or righteousness, is sometimes in Scripture attributed to God, and sometimes to men: and in both relations, hath a great diversity and variety of acceptions. p. 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45. 3. The righteousness or obedience of Christ, is tw●fold, or of two kinds: the one by Divines called, Justitia personae, the righteousness of his person: the other, Justitia meriti, the righteousness of his merit 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50. 4. The term of Imputing, or imputation, will admit of nine several acceptions or significations. p. 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56. 5. Obedience unto the moral Law, may be said to be required of men in two respects: either 1º, by way of justification: or 2º, by way of sanctification. p. 57, 58. 6. Christ may be said to have kept the Law, in reference to our justification, two ways: either 1º, for us, or 2º, in our stead. p. 58. 7. The justification of a sinner, though it be but one and the same entire effect, yet may it be ascribed unto many (and those very different) causes respectively, according to their several influences, and differing manner of concurrence thereunto. p. 59, 60. CAP. 4. A delineation or survey of the entire body of justification, in the several causes of it, according to the tenor of the Conclusions and distinctions laid down in the two former Chapters. P. 61. wherein I. are premised 4 general rules touching the number, nature and property of causes in the general. p. 62, 63, 64, 65. 2. Some more particular and special kinds of causes, comprehended under the 4 general heads, are mentioned and explained, p. 65, to p. 77. 3. The causes of justification are inquired into. As 1. The efficient causes thereof. From p. 77, to 84. 2. The final causes thereof. p. 84, 85. 3. The material cause thereof, from p. 85, to p. 90. 4. The formal cause thereof, from p. 90, to 121. 4. A Description of justification raised from the former discussions in the Chapter. p. 121. CAP. 5. Scriptures alleged for the Imputation of Christ's righteousness or active obedience in Justification, cleared and answered: and the true sense and interpretation of them respectively established according to the judgement of the best Expositors. A reason given by the way of men's confidence, and impatiency of contradiction, in respect of some opinions above others. p. 122, 123. The Scriptures urged, and answered are. 1. From the Old Testament. Psal. 32, 1, 2, answered, p. 124, 125, 126. Jer. 23, 6, and 33, 16. answered, p. 127, 128. Esa 45.24. answered p. 129, 130. Esa 61, 10. answered p. 130. to p. 136. where by the way 3 other Scriptures also are opened and cleared, as viz. Rev●●. 19, 7, 8, p. 134, and Rom. 13, 14, with Gal. 3, 27, p. 136. 2. From the New Testament, As Rom. 3, 21, answered, p. 136, 137. Rom. 3, 31, answered, p. 137, 138, 139. Rom. 4, 6. answered. p. 140, 141. Rom. 5, 19, answered, p. 142. to 145. Rom. 8, 4 answered, p. 145, to p. 152. Rom. 9, 31, 32, answered, p. 153, to 157. Rom. 10, 4, answered. p. 157, to 162. 1 Cor. 1, 30. answered, p. 162, 163, 164. 2 Cor. 5, 21 answered, p. 165, to 168. Gal. 3, 10, answered, p. 168. to 173. CAP 6 Six Arguments against the Imputation of Faith for righteousness, propounded and answered. As 1. That such an Imputation impeacheth the truth or justice of God, answered, p. 175, 176, 177. 2. That this Imputation maketh justification to be by works, answered p. 178, 179. 3. That such an Imputation is inconsistent with the free grace of God in justification answered. p. 179, 180 4. That this Imputation ministereth occasion of boasting unto the flesh, answered p. 180, 181, 18●, 183. 5. That such an Jmputation supposeth Justification by somewhat that is imperfect, answered p. 183, 184, 185. 6. That such an Imputation implieth, that God should rather receive a righteousness from us, than we from him, in our justification, answered. p. 185, 186. The opinion opposed in this Discourse, of much more affinity with the master-vein of Socinian Heresy, and that by the verdicts of Pareus, Piscator, and Mr. Gataker, than the opinion maintained in it. p. 187, 188, 189. CAP. 7. The chief grounds and Arguments for the Imputation of Christ's Active obedience (in the sense hitherto opposed) proposed and answered. As 1. That there is no standing in judgement before God without the imputation of this righteousness, answered, p. 192, 193. 2. That justification cannot be by the righteousness of another, except this imputation be supposed, answered p. 194, 195. 3. That a true and real Communion between Christ, and those that believe in him, cannot stand, except this Imputation be granted, answered. p. 195, 196. 4. That there can be no other reason or necessity assigned, why Christ should fulfil the Law, but only this imputation, answered from p. 196, to 207. 5. That we are debtors unto the Law, not only in matter of punishment for our transgression, but in perfection of obedience also, answered, p. 208, 209, 210. 6. That there can be no justification without a perfect righteousness; nor any such righteousness, but the righteousness of Christ, Answered, p. 211, 212 213, 214, 215. 7. That Do this and live, is an everlasting rule, and which shall never be dissolved, answ. p. 216, 217. 8 That the righteousness of Christ is that righteousness, which God accepteth on our behalf, answ. p. 217 218, 219. 9 That Christ was a public Person, standing in the stead of all those that should believe in him, answ. p. 220 221, 222 223, 224. 10. That there is no way of being justified by the righteousness of Christ, but only by the imputation of it, answered p. 225. 11. That we may as truly and as properly be said to have fulfilled the Law, in or with Christ, as to be dead, crucified, quickened, raised, to sit in Heavenly places with him, etc. (all which the Scripture affirmeth) answered p. 226, 227, 228. 12. That those that are sinners, and so continue whilst they live, can be no otherways justified then by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, answered, p. 229, 230. The Conclusion, p. 231. Good Reader, the Correctors request unto thee is, that upon a particular confession of some of these faults, which here follow, and whereby thou mayest relieve thyself, thou wouldst pardon him. IN THE FIRST PART. PAg 2. l. 6. for, term read, terms. p. 3. l. 31. for Law, he. r. Law. Herald p. 5. l. 35. for, consciences, r. conscience. p. 7. l. 24. for, habit, r. habits. p. 20. l. 16. for, circumstance. r. circumstances. p. 21. l. 10. for, word. r. words. p. 22. l. 2. l. 2. for, of, r. which. p. 36. l. 1. for, Rom. 24, r. Rom. 2, 4. p. 41. l 24. for, word, r. sword. p. 52. l. 5. after, is, t. belee●ed. p. 60. l. 6. for, me, r. one. p. 65. l. 13. for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 66. l 32. after, mediately, r. before. p. 71. l. 12. for, because, r. although. p. 80. l 20. deal, our p. 9●. l. 18. for deceivableness, r. deriveablenesse. p. 99, l. 22. for, defects, r. defect. p. 113, l. 26. for, and r. to. p. 117. l. 19 for of, r. of it. p. 125. l. 24. for as, r. as if. p. 126. l. 31. for, boltring, r. bolting. p. 136. l. 9 for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 138. l. 16. for, the. r. that. ibid. for, that is, r. that it is. p. 144. l. 1. for, infallably, r. infallibly. p. 146. l. 29. deal, not. p. 154. l. 30 for, into, r in. p. 154. l. 8. delo, the. p. 163. l. 3. for into. r. for. p 171. l. 26. for, that, r. the p. 175. l. 16. for, formaliter, r. normali●er. l. 17. for, this, r. his. p. 180 l. 14. for them, r. men. p. 200. l. 18. for, unanswerable, r. answerable. p. 202 l. 8. for, deserved, r. served. p. 204. l. 26. after, sin, r. a full satisfactionto him. l. 28. for, received at, r. received it at. IN THE SECOND PART. Pag 1. l. 15. deal, to. p. 4. l. 26. for, and, r. and in. p. 5. l. 7. for, equivolant, r. equivalent. p. 7. l. 32. after, acts. r. of no other person besides. l. 35. for, reverence, r. reference. p. 10. l. 35. atter life, r. so that we might be counted perfectly righteou, by the imputation thereof unto us p 11. l. 28. for, and, r. that. p. 13. l. 8 deal in. p. 15. l. 30. for, him, ●. sin. p. 20. l 29. for, passage, r. passage of. l. 38. f●r, employed, r. implied. l. 41. for, clear, r. certain. p. 28, l. 35. foe relation, r. reason. p. 31. l. 3. for, objections r. objection. p. 34, l. 14. for term, r term, death. p. 49, l. 2. for, called, r. called by p. 50. l. 20, for inconsistence, r. in consistence. p. 57 l. 35. for, impossible, r. possible. p. 59 in the margin. for, Cap Sect. r. Cap. 20. Sect. 3. p. 66. l. 4. for working, r. working) p. 68 l. 21. for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 74. l. 16. for, properlyr. r. properly. p. 80. l. 7. for, both, r. both the. p. 86. l. 26. for, otion, r. notion. p. 89. l. 10 deal, of. l. 31. for, proper, 1. unpt oper. p. 95, l. 19 for, simplify, r. simplify p. 99, l. 31, for, Sect. r Sect. 2. p. 110. l. 35, for, which, r. which is. p. 119. l. 25, for, that, r. then. p. 125 l. 4. for, Rom. 47, r. Rom. 4.7. p. 135. l. 14, 15, for his, his, r. her, her l. 34, deal, to. l. 33, for, Scripture, r, Scripture to. p. 142. l. 14, for, includencie, r. inconcludencie. p. 146. l. 12. deal, of. p. 148, l. 29, deal, of. p. 157, l. 20. for, resemblance, r. semblance. p. 176 l. 23, for, God r. God, as such. p. 194. l. 31. for, predicatum r. pradicatum. p, 207. l. 7. for, address, r. addressed. p. 213. l. 8. deal, of. p. 222. l 22. for be, r. by. Some other lighter escapes there are, as mis-pointings, mis-joynings, and mis-dividings of words, mis-placing parentheses, sometimes singulars for plurals, defects of Capital Letters, with some oversights in the marginal citations, etc. In all which, the Corrector submits himself to thy censure. Reader, if thou hadst rather take a little pains, then be angry; I desire thee to relieve the Printer with thy pen, and to reform thy Book, before thou readest it, according to these subsequent directions. In the PREFACE. PAg 9 line 5. for, serapp. r. scrap. p. 11. l. 1. for, present, r. pleasant. l. 18. for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 12. l. 25. for, passages, r. pages. p. 13. l. 13. for, discrologie, r. dischrologie. l. 14. for, messenger, r. messengers. l. 15. for, magnificant, r. magnificent. In the DISCOURSE. Pag 6. l. 31. for, corponeris, r. componens. p. 8. l. 29. for opinion any, r. opinion, that any. p. 13. l. 13. for, Divinity (who, r. Divinity at Leyden (who ibid. f●●, of judgement, r. of that judgement. p. 15. l. 22, for, urge a little. r. urge. A little. p. 20. l. 10. for, defended here, r. defended, etc. Here. l. 18. for, word, discourse, r. wordie discourse. l. ult. for, too, r. to. p. 22. l. ult. for, misperisian, r. misprision. p. 26. l. 13. for, our, r. own. p. 29. l. 27. for, no satisfaction, r. no such satisfaction. p. 32. l. 15. for, this is, r. is this. p. 33. l. 27. for, first, r. fullest. p. 34. l. 20. for, saith further, r. saith he further. p. 37. l. 24. for, skill, r. still. p. 40. l. 33, for, promises, r. premises. p. 43. l. 2. for, justification, r. or free justification. p. 47. l. 9 for, hihobular, r. triobular. p. 48. l. 19 for, black, in so, r. so black and. p. 55. l. 26. for, neighbours, r. neighbour. p. 59 l. ●3. for, me, r. men. p. 65. l. 25. for, contradiction, r. contradictions. p. 70. l. 2. for, believed, r. believing. p. l. 10. for, not for, r. not of us for. p. 74. l. 2. for, to speak r, to speak to. p. 86. l. 12. for, interpres, r. interpretesse. p. 95. l. 37. for, censured, r. conceived. CAP. I. Wherein the state of the question is opened, and the sense EXPLAINED: Wherein aswell the Imputation of FAITH is affirmed, as the imputation of the RIGHTEOUSNESS of CHRIST denied, in JUSTIFICATION. FOR the clear understanding of the state and drift of the question, some things would be premised, which for their evidence sake might be privilledged and exempted from passing under much dispute or contradiction, yet if any thing be not sufficiently prepared for assent in the brief proposal of it, the ensuing discourse will labour to reconcile the disproportion, and in the progress make satisfaction for what it shall receive upon courtesy in the beginning. As 1. That the terms justifying, justification etc. are not to be taken in this question (nor in any other usually moved about the justification of a sinner) either 1 sensu physico, in a Physical sense, as if to justify, signified to make just, with any habitual or actual, any positive or inherent righteousness. Nor yet, 2. sensu forensi propriè dicto, in a juridical or judiciary sense (properly so called) where the judge hath only a subordinate and derived power of ●udicature, and is bound by Oath or otherwise to give sentence according to the strict rule of the Law, as if to justify were to pronounce a man just, or 〈◊〉 absolve him from punishment according to the strict term of precise rule of that Law whereof he was accused as a transgressor, (though this sense be admitted and received by many) But 3. (and last) sensu forensi improprié dicto, in a judiciary sense, less properly and usually so called, vizr. where he that Titteth judge being the supreme Magistrate, hath an independency or sovereignty of power, to moderate and dispense with the Law, as reason or equity shall require: So that to justify in this question, imports the discharging or absolving of a man from the guilt, blame, and punishment of those things, whereof he either is, or justly might be accused; not because he is clear of such things, or justifiable according to the letter or strictness of the Law (for then he could not be justly accused) but because the Judge having a sufficient & lawful sovereignty of power is willing upon sufficient & weighty considerations known unto him, to remit the penalty of the Law, and to deliver and discharge him as if he were an innocent or righteous man. As for the Physical sense of making just by inherent righteousness, though Bellarmine and his Angels, earnestly contend for it, yet till Scriptures be brought low, and Etymologies be exalted above them, till use and custom of speaking deliver up their Kingdom into Cardinal's bands, that sense must no way be acknowledged or received in this dispute: Yet (to give reason and right, even to those that demand that which is unreasonable) it is true, that God in or upon a man's justification, gins to justify him Physically, that is, to infuse habitual or inherent righteousness into him. But here the Scriptures and the Cardinal are as far out in terms, as in a thousand other things they are in substance and matter: that which he will needs call justification, the Scriptures will as peremptorily call Sanctification. Concerning the other sense of a judiciary justification usually and strictly so called, SECT. 2 wherein the judge or justifier proceeds upon legal grounds to acquit and absolve the party guilty or accused, neither can this be taken in the Question propounded, except the Scriptures be forsaken, because the Scriptures constantly speak of this act of God justifying a sinner, not as of such an act whereby he will either make him or pronounce him legally just, of declare him not to have offended the Law, and hereupon justify him; but of such an act, whereby he freely forgives him all that he hath done against the Law, and acquits him from all blame and punishment due by the Law unto such offences. So that in that very act of God whereby he justifies a sinner, as there is a discharge from all punishment due unto him, so there is a profession withal, or plain intimation of the guiltiness of the person now to be justified according to the Law, and that he is not discharged or acquitted upon any consideration that can be pleaded for him according to the Law, but that consideration upon which God proceeds to justify him, is of another order; the consideration of somewhat done for him in this case to relieve him out of the course and order or appointment of the Law, he whose justification stands (whether in whole or in part, it is not material herein) in the forgiveness of sin, can in no construction be said to be justified according to the Law, because the Law knows no forgiveness of sins, neither is there any rule for any such thing there. The Law speaks of the curse, death, and condemnation of a sinner; but for the justification of a sinner, it neither takes knowledge, nor gives any hope thereof. Secondly, That jesus Christ the natural Son of God, and supernatural Son of the Virgin, ran a race of obedience with the Law (aswell Ceremonial as Moral) and held out with every letter, jot, and tittle of it, as fare as it any ways concerned him, during the whole continuance of his life in the flesh, no man's thoughts ever risen up to deny, but those that denied him the best of his being (I mean his Godhead) Which of you convinceth me of sin? was his challenge to the Nation of the Jews whilst he was yet on earth (joh 8, 46.) and remains through all ages as a challenge to the world. He that can ●ast the least aspersion or imputation of sin upon Christ, shall shake the foundations of the peace and safety of the world. Thirdly, that this Christ offered up himself as a Lamb without spot in sacrifice upon the Cross to make an atonement for the world, and to purge the sin of it, I know no spirit at this day abroad in the Christian world that denies, but that which wrought in Secinus formerly, and still works in those that are baptised into the same spirit of error with him. Fourthly, I conceive it to be a truth of greater authority amongst us, then to meet with contradiction from any man, that jesus Christ is the sole and entire meritorious cause of every man's justification, that is justified by God; or that that righteousness or absolution from sin and condemnation which is given to every man in his justification, is somewhat, yea a principal part or member of that great purchase which Christ hath made for the world. Evan as God for Christ's sake freely forgave you. Ephes. 4.32. Forgiveness of sins or justification is from God for Christ's sake; he is worthy to be gratified and honoured by God, with the justification of those that believe in him, whatsoever he is worthy of more. Fiftly, It is a truth that hath every man's judgement concurring with it, that Faith is the condition appointed by God, and required on man's part to bring him into Communion and fellowship of that justification and redemption which Christ hath purchased for the Children of men, and that without believing, no man can have part or fellowship in that great and blessed business. Sixtly, It is evident from the Scriptures, that God in the act of every man's justification doth impute or account righteousness unto him, or rather somewhat for or instead of a righteousness (the Scripture useth both expressions) by means of which imputation the person justified passeth in account as a righteous man (though he be not properly or perfectly such according to the Law) and is invested accordingly with those great privileges of a man perfectly righteous, deliverance from death and condemnation, and acceptation into the favour of God. The reason of which imputation, or why God is pleased to use such an expression of righteousness imputed in or about the justification of a sinner seems to be this; the better to satisfy the natural scruple of the weak and feeble consciences of men, who can hardly conceive or think of a justification or of being justified (especially by God) without an express, literal, and perfect legal righteousness. Now the counsels and purpose of God in the Gospel being to justify men without any such righteousness (being a righteousness indeed whereof man in his lapsed condition, is wholly uncapable) the better to salve the fears of the consciences touching such a defect, and to prevent and stay all troublesome thoughts or queries that might arise in the minds of men, who when they hear of being justified, are still ready to ask within themselves, but where is the righteousness? conceiving a legal righteousness to be as necessary to a justification, as Isaak conceived of a Lamb for a offering, Gen. 22, 7.) He (GOD I mean) is graciously pleased so far to condescend to men in Scripture treaty with them about the weighty business of justification, as (in effect) to grant and say unto them, that though he finds not any proper or perfect righteousness in them, no such righteousness as passeth under the name of a righteousness with them, yet if they truly believe in him, as Abraham did, this believing shall in the consequences of it, be as good, as a perfect or complete righteousness unto them, or that he will impute righteousness unto them upon their believing. So that now the state & drift of the Q. SECT. 3 is not either 1, whether Faith without an Object, or as separated from Christ, be imputed for righteousness, for such a Faith (doubtless) in the point of justification was never dreamt of by any man that kept his wit's company: men may aswell fancy a living man without a Soul; or a wiseman without his wits, as a Faith without an Object: much less was ever such a faith conceived by any to be imputed for righteousness. Neither 2, is it any part of the intent of the Question to inquire, whether Faith be the meritorious cause of a man's justification, for both they that affirm, and they that deny the imputation of Faith for righteousness, deny the meritoriousness of faith every ways: however it is true, that they that would seem most to disclaim it, and cast it furthest from them, do yet in some of their most beloved tenets draw very near unto it (as will afterward appear) Neither 3, is it the Question, whether Faith be the formal cause of justification, that is, whether God doth justify a man with his Faith, as a Painter makes a wall white with whiteness, or a Master makes his Scholar learned with knowledge, for both parties make the form of justification to be somewhat else differing from Faith (contrary to that which is conceived to be the genuine tenet of Arminius) Nor yet 4, doth the Question make any quere at all, whether Christ be the sole meritorious cause of the justification of a sinner; for both they that go on the right hand of the Question, and they that go on the left, are knit together in the same mind and judgement concerning this. Neither 5 doth the Question (as it is here propounded) intent any dispute at all, whether the active obedience of Christ falling in with the passive, and considered in conjunction with it, hath any influence into, or contributeth any thing towards the justification of sinners, for this also is acknowledged on both sides, (at least by the greater party of both) But 6, (and last) the Question in precise terms is this whether the faith of him that truly believes in Christ, or whether the righteousness of Christ himself, that is, the obedience which Christ performed to the Moral Law, consisting partly of the inward habit of grace, and righteous dispositions of his soul, partly of all those several and particular acts of righteousness wherein he obeyed, be in the letter and propriety of it, that which God imputes to a believer for righteousness, or unto righteousness in his justification; So that he that believes, is not righteous only by account, or by God's gracious reputing and accepting of him for such, but as rigidly, literally, and peremptorily righteous, constituted and made as perfectly, as completely, as legally righteous, as Christ himself is, no difference at all between them, quoad veritatem, but only quoad modum, the justified every whit as righteous as the justifier, both righteous with the self same individual righteousness, only this difference between the one and the other, the justified wears it as put upon him by another, by imputation: the Justifier wears it put upon him by himself, or by inherency. That the Scriptures no where countenanceth any such imputation of the righteousness of Christ as this, I trust (the Spirit of truth directing and assisting) to make manifest in the sequel of this discourse, and to give good measure of this truth unto the reader, heaped up, and pressed down, and running over; heaped up by testimonies from the Scriptures themselves; pressed down by the weight of many Arguments and demonstrations; running over, with the clear approbation of many Authors, learned and sound, and every way greater than exception. Only give me leave here to mention that by the way, SECT. 3 which may prevent many mistakes, (yea and offences too) in reading the writings of many latter Divines, (especially of other Churches) touching this point of imputation. If we take the phrase of imputing Christ's righteousness unproperly, out of the usual and formal signification of it (as Luther and Caelvin, and other Divines of the reformed Churches sometimes do in their writings) viz. for the giving out or bestowing (as it were) the righteousness of Christ including his obedience aswell passive as active, under one and the same term of righteousness, in the return of it, i. in the privileges, blessings, and benefits, that are procured and purchased by it for men, so a believer may be said to be justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed. But then the meaning can be no more but this. A believer is justified by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, that is, God justifies a believer for Christ's righteousness sake, and not for any righteousness of his own: Such an imputation of the righteousness of Christ as this is, is no way denied or once questioned. And thus such passages as those in Calvin. Nos gratis justificat Deus, Christi obedientiam nobis imputando. i. God freely justifieth us by imputing the obedience of Christ unto us: and again, Homo non inse ipso justus est, sed quia Christi justitia imputatione cum illo communicatur (Instit. l. 3, c. 17, ss. 23.) i. A man is not righteous in himself, but because the righteousness of Christ is communicated or Imputed unto him by imputation: These and such like expressions in this Author, are to be interpreted by such passages as these (which are frequent also in the same Author, Christus suaobedientia gratiam nobis apud Patrem acquifivit & promeritus est (Instit. l. 2, c. 17. ss. 30.) 1. Christ by his obedience, procured and merited for us grace or favour with God the Father. And again, l. 3, c. 14. ss 17. Christus per suam obedientiam nobis justitiam acquisivit. i. Christ by his obedience procured or purchased righteousness for us. And again in Gal. 3, 6. Omnes istae locutiones peraequè valent, justificari nos Dei gratia, Christum esse justitiam nostram justitiam, morte & resurrectione Christi nobis acquisitan etc. i. All such expressions as these import the same thing, that we are justified by the grace of God, that Christ is our righteousness, that righteousness was procured for us by the death and resurrection of Christ etc. By all which passages and many more of like Importance, that might be produced out of the same Author, it is fully evident, that when he mentioneth any imputation of the righteousness of Christ in justification, his meaning is only, that the righteousness of Christ, meaning chief his passive obedience or righteousness, haply not excluding his active) is the meritorious cause of our justification and hath procured and purchased this for us at God's hand, that upon our believing we should be accounted righteous by him, or (which is but the same) that our Faith should be imputed for righteousness to us. To which purpose he speaks yet more significantly and expressly in the place last mentioned in Gal. 3, 6. Quum autom justitiam in se repositam non habeant homines, imputatione hanc adipiscuntur. i Men not having any righteousness lodged ●n themselves they obtain it by imputation, which Imputation he thus explicates and interprets, quia Deus fidem illis fert acceptam pro justitia: because (saith he) God doth Impute or account their faith unto them for righteousness. Divers like passages might be drawn together out of other Authors, which must be seasoned with the same salt of Interpretation, to be made savoury and meet for Spiritual nourishment. In the Homilies of our own Church, SECT. 4 there are some passages that mention the Imputation of Christ's righteousness in justification, for the genuine sense whereof, if we consult with the eleventh Article of Religion (which is concerning justification, and is framed with all possible exactness this way, that so few words are capable of) that will directly lead us to the same Interpretation of them: we are accounted righteous before God (saith our Article) only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Where ●, it is to be observed that we are not said to be constituted and made righteous before God in justification (though such an expression may in a sense be admitted) but only that we are accounted or reputed such. 2. It is not said, that we are accounted righteous with the righteousness of our Lord and Saviour, no nor yet with his merits, but only thus, we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord by Faith. i. The merit of Christ or of his righteousness, hath so fare prevaled with God on our behalf, that by or upon our Faith we shall be accounted righteous before him; which (in effect) is the same truth we maintain, viz. that God for Christ's sake or Christ's merits sake, doth impute our faith for righteousness unto us, requiring nothing more at our hands for justification. And thus Musculus expresseth himself roundly, Fides reputatur in justitiam propter Christum: Faith is accounted for righteousness for Christ's sake: And again, Commendata debet esse haec fides etc. quam constituit credentibus in Christum propter ipsum, justitiae loco imputare (Loc. Com. de justif. sect 5) i. This faith ought to be esteemed of us, etc. which God purposeth for Christ's sake to impute for righteousness to those that believe in him. So Luther also, ad Gal. 3.6. Deus reputat istam imperfectam fidem ad justitiam perfectam propter Christum. i. God for Christ's sake accounts this imperfect faith, for perfect righteousness. And Chamier calls remission of sins that righteousness which is imputed unto us. Remissio peccatorum est justitia imputatat. 3, l. 21. c. 19 ss. 10. And Vrsinus: Idem sunt justificatio & remissio peccatorum. Cat. part 2. Qu. 60, ss. 3. Therefore wheresoever, whether in the Homilies of our own Church, or in other Authors, we meet with any such expression, as of the righteousness of Christ imputed in justification, we must not understand this righteousness in the Letter, propriety, or formality of it, but in the Spirit, or merit of it, to be imputed, justificamur per justitiam Christi, non personae, qua ipse est vestitus, sed meriti, quae suos vestit, nobis imputatam. Dr. Prideaux Lect. 5, ss. 11. And this manner of speech, to put the name of a thing in the propriety of it, instead of the value, worth, benefit or return of it, is both usual and familiar, in ordinary passage of discourse amongst us, and very frequent in the Scriptures. When we say a Merchant grew rich by such or such a Commodity, our meaning is, that he grew rich by the game or return he made of the commodity: He may be enriched by the Commodity, and yet have never a wh●t of it with him, or under his hand. So when we say such a man grew rich by his place or Office, our meaning plainly is but this, that he grew rich by such gains or matters of profit as his place or Office afforded him; we do not mean, that his place or Office itself was his riches. So may it be said, that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and yet not have the righteousness itself upon us by imputation or otherwise, but only a righteousness procured or purchased by it, really and essentially differing from it, viz. remission of sins (as will appear in due time.) Thus in the Scriptures themselves, there is no figure or form of speech more frequent, then to name the thing itself in the propriety of it, in stead of the fruit or effect of it, good or bad, benefit or loss, vantage or disadvantage, merit, or demerit of it. Thus Job 33, 26. God is said to render unto man his righteousness, i. The fruit or benefit of his righteousness, in the favour of GOD, and manifestation of it, in his deliverance and restauration: the righteousness itself in the propriety of it, cannot be rendered unto him. So Ephe. 6, 8. Whatsoever good thing any man doth, the same shall he receive of the Lord. i. he shall receive benefit and consideration from God for it. So Revel. 15, 12. Here is the patience of the Saints, and c. 13, 10. Here is the patience and faith of the Saints, i, Here is the benefit and unspeakable reward of the patience and faith of the Saints to be seen, when the Beast and all that worship him, or adhere to him shall be tormented in fire and brimstone for evermore, and those that have constantly suffered for not worshipping of him, shallbe delivered from drinking of that bitter cup. So again, So work is often put for the wages due to it. Levit. 19, 13. job 7, 2. jor. 22, 13 Esa. 49.4. etc. Psal. 128, 2. Thou shalt eat the labour of thy hands, that is, the fruit of this labour. So on the other hand, Heb. 9, 28. it is said of Christ, that to those that look for him he shall appear the second time without sin: that is, without the guilt or punishment of sin charged upon him, for otherwise, if we take sin in the formal and proper signification of it, there will be no difference implied between his first and second appearance, in as much as he was as free from the defilement or pollution of sin in his first appearing, as he can or shallbe in his second. So Ezech. 16, 58. Thou hast borne thy lewdness and thine abominations (saith the Lord) viz. in punishments or judgements answerable to them. So 1 Kings 8, 32. To bring his way upon his head, that is, the punishment he hath deserved by his way of sin. So (to let pass many other instances of like construction) Gen. 19, 15. Lest you be destroyed in the iniquity of the City; that is, in that judgement or punishment that fell upon the City by means of the iniquity of it. In such a construction of speech as the holy ghost himself useth in these and many such like passages in the Scripture, the righteousness of Christ (Active and Passive) may be said to be the righteousness by which we are justified, or which is imputed unto us in our justification, and not in any other. Wherefore (to draw towards a close of this first Chapter, and withal to give a little more light, SECT. 5 that it may be seen clear to the bottom, both what we affirm, and what we deny, in the question propounded.) i, when we affirm the faith of him that believeth, to be imputed for righteousness, the meaning is not either I, that it should be imputed in respect of any thing it hath from a man himself, or as it is a man's own act: nor yet 2. in respect of any thing it hath from God himself, or from the Spirit of God in the production or raising of it in the soul, (though it be true it requires the lighting down of the Almighty arm of God upon the soul to raise it) Neither 3, See this further opened and proved in the second part of this Discourse. Cap. 2. ss. 17. Is it imputed for righteousness in respect of the Object, or because it layeth hold upon Christ, or Christ's righteousness, (though it be true also that that faith that is imputed for righteousness, must of necessity lay hold upon Christ, and no other faith is capable of this Imputation besides) because if faith should justify or be imputed for righteousness, as it lays hold upon Christ, it should justify out of the Inherent dignity and worth of it, and by virtue of that which is natural and intrinsecall to it, there being nothing that can be conceived more natural or essential unto faith, then to lay hold upon Christ, this is the very life and soul of it, and that which gives it its specifical being and subsistence: Therefore to make the Object of FAITH as such, the precise and formal ground of the Imputation of it, is to make haste into the midst of Samaria, whilst men are confident they are travailing towards Dothan: It is the giving the right hand of fellowship to the Romish justification, which makes faith the meritorious cause of it (in part). But 4 and lastly, when with the Scripture we affirm, that faith is imputed for righteousness, our meaning is simply and plainly this, that as God in the first Covenant of works, required an absolute and through obedience to the whole law with continuance in all things, for every man's justification, which perfect obedience, had it been performed, had been a perfect righteousness to the performer, and so would have justified him. So now in the New Covenant of grace, God requires nothing of any man for his justification, but only faith in his Son; which faith shallbe as a vaileable and effectual unto him for his justification, as a perfect righteousness should have been under the first Covenant: this is that which is meant when faith is said to be Imputed for righteousness, which is nothing but that which is generally taught by Divines both ancient and modern: Sic decretum dicit à Deo, ut cessante lege, Solam fidem gratia Dei posceret ad salutem. Ambrose in Rom. 4. that is, the Apostle saying that to him that believeth, his faith is Imputed for righteousness, affirmeth, that God hath so decreed, that the Law ceasing, the grace of God will require (of men) only faith to salvation. And again, upon Ch. 9, of the same Epistle, Sola fides posita est ad salutem, only faith is appointed or ordained to salvation. Calvin writing upon Rom. 10, 8. hath words of the same importance, and somewhat more clear and full, Ex hac distinctionis nota, colligimus, sicutilex opera exigit, sic Evangelium nihil aliud postulare, nisi●ut fidem afferant homines, ad recipiendam Dei gratiam. that is, From this distinction we gather, that as the Law required works, so the Gospel requires nothing else, but that men bring faith to receive the grace of God. If God requires Faith in the Gospel for the same end for which he required wor●●s or perfect righteousness in the Law: it necessarily follows, that he should impute this faith for that righteousness, that is, accept it from men upon the same terms (in respect of justification) and bestow the same favours, rewards, and privileges upon the tender of it, that should have been given unto men, in regard of that legal righteousness, had it been fulfilled: otherwise he should require it for such an end, or upon such term's as he would refuse to make good unto it, when the creature hath exhibited it and tendered it unto him; to require it for righteousness, or instead of righteousness, and not to accept it for righteousness, when it is brought unto him, would be as apparent a breach of Covenant with God, as it would be in a rich Creditor that should compound and agree with his poor Debtors for twelve pence in the pound, (or the like) but when they brought the money to him, should refuse to take it upon any such terms, or to discharge them of their debt, and give them out their bands. Secondly, SECT. 6 when we deny the Imputation of Christ's righteousness in Justification, we neither deny the righteousness of Christ in itself, we rather suppose and establish it; Neither 2 do we deny the absolute necessity of it, both to the Justification and salvation of a sinner: Neither 3, do we deny a meritorious efficiency or causality in this righteousness, in respect of the justification of a sinner: but verily believe and conceive, that God justifieth all that are justified, not simply and barely for Christ's sake, or for his righteousness sake (for a man may do a thing for his sake whom he much loves and respects, though he hath not otherwise deserved it at his hands) but for the merits sake of Christ's righteousness, there being a full and real consideration in this righteousness of Christ (I mean his death or passive righteousness chief) why God should justify those that believe in him. But 4, (and last) that which we deny in denying the Imputation of Christ's righteousness, is this, that God should look upon a believing sinner in his justification, and account of him as one that had himself done all that Christ did in obedience to the Moral Law, and hereupon pronounce or account him righteous, or (which is the same) that God should Impute unto him those particular acts of obedience which Christ performed ● the nature and propriety of them, so that he should stand as righteous before God, as Christ himself, or (which is the same) righteous with the self same righteousness wherewith Christ was righteous, and so God make himself countable unto him for such obedience imputed, in as great matters of reward as he would have been for the like obedience personally performed by himself: In a word, this is that which we deny, & this is that which we affirm concerning the righteousness of Christ in the justification of a sinner, that God cloaths no man with the letter of it, but every man that believes with the Spirit of it, that is, that this righteousness of Christ is not that that is imputed unto any man for righteousness, but is that for which righteousness is imputed to every man that believeth. A Justified person may in such a sense be said to be clothed with Christ's righteousness, as Paul's necessities were relieved & supplied by his hands, Act. 20, 34. These hands (saith he) have ministered unto my necessities. PAUL neither eat his fingers, nor spun out the flesh of his hands into clothing, and yet was both fed and clothed with them; so may a believer be said to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and yet the righteousness of Christ itself not be his clothing, but only that which procured this clothing unto him; and so Calvin calls that clothing of righteousness wherewith a believer is clad in his justification, justitiam morte & resurrectione Christi acquisitam, a righteousness procured or purchased by the death and resurrection of Christ: This righteousness of Christ may be said to be the righteousness of a believer in such a construction of speech, as the knowledge of God and of Christ is said to be eternal life (joh. 17, 3.) viz in way of causality not in the formality of it: And again, the righteousness of a Believer in his justification, may be termed the righteousness of Christ in such a sense, as the favour of God in deliverance out of trouble, is called a man's righteousness, job 33, 26. or as a bond servant under the Law is said by God himself to be his Master's money, Exo. 21, 21. because he was bought with his money: or as the Nation and people of the Jews is often in the Scriptures called jacob, they were not jacob in the propriety of his person, but in his descent and propagation. So may the righteousness of a Believer be called the righteousness of Christ, viz. in the fructification of it, because it is a righteousness descended from it, and issuing (as it were) out of the loins of it. What hath been affirmed, and what hath been denied in the Question: We come now to prove and to demonstrate the truth of both. 1. from the authority of the Scriptures. 2. from the grounds of reason: as for the third kind of proof or confirmation, consent of Authors, we shall not assign a peculiar place for that by itself, but enterlace our other proofs occasionally with such testimonies, as we have received from learned and judicious men for confirmation of the point to be discussed the greatest part whereof notwithstanding, you shall meet with in the second and fift Chapters. CAP. II. Wherein the imputation of Faith for righteousness, is proved from the Scriptures, and the interpretation of those Scriptures confirmed both by reason and authority aswell of ancient as modern Divines. What it is, that is imputed for righteousness in justification, all the wisdom or learning under Heaven, is not so fit or able to determine, as the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture; being the great Secretary of Heaven, and privy to all the ways and counsels of God; and therefore there is none to him to take up any difference, or to compromise between the Controverters about any Subject in Religion. All the difficulty and question is, because though he speaks upon the house top, yet many times and many things he interprets in the ear: All the Christian world, either knows, or readily may know, what he speaks in the Scriptures, but what his meaning and intent is in many things there delivered, he leaveth unto men to debate and make out amongst them: To some indeed he reveals the secret of his counsel, the Spirit of his Letter, in some particulars, but because these are not marked in the forehead, therefore their thoughts and apprehensions (though the true begotten of the spirit of truth) are yet in common esteem, but like other men's, till God himself shall please to make the difference by causing a clearer light of evidence and conviction to arise upon them; yea many times the nearer the truth, the further off from the approbation of many, and sometimes even of those that are the greatest pretenders to the truth. Four things there are especially, SECT. 2 that much commend an interpretation, when they are found in conjunction, and establish it like that King upon his Throne, Prov. 30 31. against whom there is no rising up. First if the Letter or Grammar of the Scripture will fairly and strongly bear it. Secondly, If the scope of the place will close directly and entirely with it. Thirdly, If the interpretation that is set up against it, cannot stand before the circumstance of the context about it. Fourthly, and lastly, when the judgement of able, learned, and unpartial men, is found in perfect concurrence with it. If these considerations be sufficient to furnish out an interpretation with authority and power, then shall we need no more Scriptures to vindicate the innocence of our affirmative, viz. that Faith is that which is imputed by God for righteousness in justification (the truth of our negative inseparably accompanying it, viz. that the righteousness of Christ is not imputed) but only that one Chapter, Rom. 4. For the first, SECT. 3 the Letter of this Scripture speaks what we affirm plainly, and speaks no parable about it, yea, it speaks it once and twice, yea, it speaks it the third and fourth time, and repenteth not. Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, v. 3. Again, but to him that worketh not, but believeth in him, that justifieth the ungodly, his Faith is counted unto him for righteousness. ver. 5. So again, We say that Faith was imputed to him for righteousness ver. 9 And yet again, And therefore it was imputed unto him for righteousness. v. 22. The same phrase and expression is used also ver. 23, 24. Certainly there is not any truth in Religion, not any Article of the Christian belief, that can boast of the Letter of the Scripture, more full, express, and pregnant for it. What is maintained in this discourse concerning the imputation of Faith, hath all the authority and countenance from the Scriptures, that word can lightly give: whereas the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (in that sense which is magnified by many) hath not the least relief, either from any express sound of words or sight of Letter in the Scriptures. Secondly, for the scope of the place, this also rejoiceth in the interpretation given, viz. SECT. 4 that the word FAITH, should be taken properly and in the Letter, in all those passages cited, and from tropes and metonymies, it turneth away. Apparent it is to a circumspect Reader, that the Apostle's main intent and drift in this whole discourse of justification (extending from the first Chapter of the Epistle to some Chapters following) was to hedge up with thorns (as it were) that false way of justification, which lay through works and legal performances, and so to put men by from so much as attempting to go or seek that way: and withal to open and discover the true way of justification, wherein men might not fail to attain the Law of righteousness (as he speaks elsewhere) before God: that is (in plain speech (to make known unto them what they must do, and what God requireth of them, to their justification, and what he will accept at their hands this way, and what not. As our Saviour's answer was to the Jews, ask him what they should do to work the works of GOD, meaning for their justification: This (saith he) is the work of God (i. All the works of God requireth of you for such a purpose) that you believe in him, whom he hath sent, john 6, 28, 29. So that that which God precisely requires of men to their justification, instead of the works of the Law, is FAITH, or to believe (in the proper and formal signification) He doth not require of us the righteousness of Christ, for our justification, this he required of Christ himself for it, that which he requires of us for this purpose, is our Faith in Christ, himself, not in the righteousness of Christ, that is, in the active obedience of Christ, (as hereafter is showed). Therefore for Paul to have certified or said unto men, that the righteousness of Christ should be imputed for righteousness unto them, had been quite beside his scope and purpose in this place, which was plainly and directly this (as hath been said) to make known unto men, the counsel and good pleasure of God concerning that which was to be performed by themselves (though not by their own strength) to their justification, which he affirmeth from place to place, to be nothing else, but their Faith, or believing. To have said thus unto them, that they must be justified by Christ, or by Christ's righteousness, and withal not to have plainly signified, what it is that God requires of them, to give them part and fellowship in that righteousness, or justification which is by Christ, and without which they could not be justified, had been rather to cast a snare upon them, then to have opened a door of life and peace unto them. And therefore he is careful, when he speaks of justification, or redemption by Christ often to mention Faith, as the means whereby this redemption is communicated unto men. See Rom. 3, 25. Rom. 5, 1, 2. By the light of which, and such like expressions, the sense and meaning of those Scriptures are to be ruled wherein justification or Redemption by Christ are taught, without any express mention of Faith, as Rom. 3, 24. Rom. 5.9, etc. as likewise of those wherein justification by Faith is affirmed, without express mention of Christ, or any thing done or suffered by him. As Rom. 3, 28.30. And here by the way, I cannot but reflect a little upon the unsavoriness and inconsiderateness of their conceit, who to avoid the strength of the interpretation given of these Scriptures, will needs force themselves (contrary to all Interpreters both ancient and modern, that I have yet met with, and most apparently contrary to the most apparent scope of the Apostle, throughout this whole disputation,) to suppose that the Apostle doth not here speak of that Faith of Abraham, whereby he was justified or made personally righteous before God, but of such a Faith only, as God did approve of and commend in him, and impute unto him as a particular act of righteousness, in such a sense as that act of Phineas mentioned Num, 25, 8. is said to have been imputed to him for righteousness, Psal. 106, 31. Alas Paul was now in the heat of his Dispute, concerning the great and weighty business of justification, travailing as it were in birth with his Romans, t●ll he had convincingly satisfied them from the Scriptures, that the way of justification was not by the works of the Law, but by Faith in jesus Christ. Now how importune, and impertinent to this design had it been for him to interpose a whole Chapter only to prove that, which was never doubted of nor questioned by any? To wit, that Abraham did well in believing God, and was approved by him for it. His business here was not to argue what was lawful, and what was unlawful, or whether Abraham was justifiable in his act of believing God. But to demonstrate and show, how and by what means a poor miserable sinner, might come to be justified, and accounted righteous before God, which he clearly and fully demonstrates to be by way of Faith or believing, from the example of Abraham, whose faith was by God himself, imputed for righteousness unto him, that is, upon and by the means of his Faith he was looked upon by God as a righteous man. But the conceit against which we now argue, is too weak to bear any great weight of confutation. If that yet sticks with any man, that Abraham having believed formerly (as appears from his History) and thereby justified, should be said to be justified by a second, or after act or believing. I answer 1. Be it granted that Abraham believed, and was thereby justified before that act of believing, whereunto this Testimony is subjoined, that it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Gen. 15, 6) yet doth it not follow, that this testimony should be precisely limited to, or only understood of that particular act of his believing, whereunto it is subjoined, but it may indifferently relate as well to the first as the last act of his believing, (yea happily rather to the first then to the last) for it is not said (in the place cited) that Abraham believed the Lord in this particular promise now made or renewed unto him, but indefinitely, and in the general, that Abraham believed or had believed the Lord, and it was imputed, or accounted unto him for righteousness. So that howsoever Abraham was precisely justified by the first act of a sound Faith, which ever he put forth, yet the testimony or record of his justification by believing might be suspended by the Holy Ghost, till his Faith became more conspicuous, and was further manifested. Thus Heb. 11, 4. the testimony of Abel's righteousness by Faith, was (as it seems) deferred, till the manifestation of his Faith, by offering such a sacrifice unto God as he did: whereas it cannot be thought, but that he was a righteous or justified person, and that by means of his Faith, before the offering of that sacrifice. So that this Objection, is easily answered. Besides further answer might be, that the intent of the Holy Ghost in this testimony and passage concerning Abraham, was not to show the time when, but the manner or means how and whereby he was justified. Now all succeeding acts of justifying Faith as justifying (for there are many acts of a justifying Faith, which are not of that kind of act, whereby such a Faith justifieth) being of the same kind and nature with that primary and first act of believing, whereby he was justified, may in sufficient propriety of speech have the effect of justification ascribed as well to them, as it is to the first act itself. As suppose a man hath been a true believer in God through Jesus Christ for seven years together, during which space he hath constantly every day renewed or repeated the very same act of believing, whereby he was at the first of a sinner made righteous, this man's justification or making righteous, may according to the frequent tenor of Scripture language, be aswel ascribed to any of these after acts of believing, as to the first of all, it being usual with Scripture to ascribe effects, though not really and actually effected and done, to such means or actions of men, which are apt to produce and effect them. Thus he is said to destroy the Temple of God. 1 Cor. 3, 16. who shall do any thing that endanger's it, or is apt to destroy it. The like expression we have Romans 14, 15, and verse 20. See also and consider Mat. 16, 6. Esther 8, 7. Rom. 24. Mat 5, 32. with other like places without number. Thirdly, SECT. 5 that interpretation which is set up against it, and which contendeth, that by the word FAITH, or BELIEVING, in all those passages cited, is meant, not Faith properly and formally understood, but Faith tropically or metonymically, that is, the righteousness of Christ is clearly overthrown by many considerations and passages in the context. First, it colour's not with any appearance or likelihood of truth, that the Apostle in the great and weighty point of justification, wherein (doubtless) he desired (if in any Subject beside) to speak with his understanding (as his own phrase is) that is, that what he himself conceiveth and understands, may be clearly understood by others, should time after time, in one place after another, without ever explaining himself throughout the whole disputation, use so strange and harsh, and uncouth an expression or figure of Speech, as is not to be found in all his writings, nor in all the Scriptures besides. To say that Faith, or believing, is imputed for righteousness, but to mean, that indeed it is not Faith, but the righteousness of Christ that is imputed, must needs argue the speakers design to be this; the making sure that his meaning should not get out at his mouth. If Paul should manage the great point and mystery of justification, in such language and phrase of speech as this, he might truly say of what he had said herein, EDIDI, ET NON EDIDI, that he had said, and not said. Secondly, it is evident, that that Faith or beleeveing, which ver. 3. is said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousness, is opposed to works or working ver. 5. Now between Faith properly taken, and works, and so between believing and working, there is a constant opposition in the writings of this Apostle, yea and reason itself demonstrates an opposition between them (as occasion will be to show more at large in the second part of this discourse) but between the active obedience or righteousness of Christ, and works, neither doth Paul ever make opposition, neither would reason have suffered him to have done it. Thirdly, it is said, ver. 5. that to him that believeth, HIS faith is imputed to him for righteousness. From which clause it is evident, that that Faith (whatsoever we understand by it) which is imputed for righteousness is HIS, that is, somewhat that may truly and properly be called his, before such imputation of it be made unto him. Now it cannot be said of the righteousness of Christ, that that is any man's, before the imputation of it be made unto him, but Faith properly taken is the believers, before it be imputed (at least in order of nature, if not of time) Therefore by Faith, which is here said to be imputed, cannot be meant the righteousness of Christ. Fourthly, SECT. 6 if we should grant a trope or metonymy in this place, so that by FAITH, should be meant the Object of it, or the thing that is to be believed: yet will it not follow from hence, that the righteousness of Christ, should be here said to be imputed, but either God himself, or the promise of God made unto Abraham. For it is said, Abraham believed God, ver. 3. not that he believed the righteousness of Christ, except we set up another trope to maintain the former, and by God, will say is meant, the righteousness of Christ, which would be, not a trope or figure, but rather (indeed) a monster of speech. Therefore the righteousness of Christ cannot be here said or meant to be imputed for righteousness, Yea whereas the Object of Faith, as justifying, is expressed with great variety of words and terms in the Scriptures: in all this variety there is not to be found the least mention of the righteousness of Christ. As if the holy Ghost foreseeing the kindling of this false fire, had purposely withdrawn or withheld all fuel that might feed it. Sometimes Christ in person is made the Object of this Faith. joh. 3, 16.— that whosoever believeth in him etc. Sometimes Christ in his Doctrine, or the Doctrine and word of Christ, joh. 5, 46. Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me. Sometimes Christ in the relation of his person: and that either as he stands related unto God, as his Father. joh 20 31. These things are written, that ye might believe that jesus is the Christ the Son of GOD. Or else as he stands related to those ancient promises of God made unto the Nation of the Jews from time to time before his coming in the flesh, concerning a Messia to be given or sent unto them. joh. 8 24. Except ye believe that I am he, you shall die in your sins. Sometimes th●r aising up of Christ from the dead, is made the Object of this Faith. Rom. 10, 9 For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart, that God raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Sometimes again. God himself is mentioned as the Object of this Faith. 1 Pet. 1, 21.— that your Faith and hope might be in God. and john 12, 44. He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me: Besides many like places. Lastly, (to forbear further enumeration of particulars in this kind, which are of ready observation in the Scriptures) Sometimes the record or testimony of God concerning his Son, is made the Object of this Faith. 1 john 5, 10. He that believeth not God, hath made him a liar, because he believed not the record God witnessed of his Son, etc. In all this variety or diversity of expressing the Object of Faith as justifying, there is no sound or intimation of the righteousness or active obedience of Christ. Not but that the righteousness of Christ, is and aught to be believed, as well as other things that are revealed and written in the Scriptures, yea I conceive it to be of nearer concernment to the main, to believe this righteousness of Christ, than the believing of many other things besides comprehended in the Scriptures aswell as it. But one principal reason, why it should not be numbered or reckoned up amongst the objects of Faith as justifying, may (with great probability) be conceived to be this: because, though it ought to be, and cannot but be believed by that Faith, which justifieth, yet it may be believed also by such a Faith, which is so far from justifying, that it denyeth this Christ (whose righteousness notwithstanding it believeth and acknowledgeth) to be the Son of God. Thus some of his own Nation the Jews, have given testimony to his righteousness and innocency, who yet received him not for their Messiah, nor believed him to be God. And this is the frame and constitution of the Turkish Faith (for the most part) concerning him at this day. Fiftly, SECT. 6 that Faith which is here said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousness, ver. 3. is that Faith by which he believed in God, that quickeneth the dead, and calleth the things that are not as if they were, ver. 17. But the righteousness of Christ, can in no tolerable construction, or congruity; of speech, be called that Faith, by which Abraham believed in God that quickeneth the dead etc. Therefore the righteousness of Christ is not that Faith, that is here said to be imputed for righteousness. Sixtly, that Faith which was imputed unto Abraham for righteousness ver. 3. is that Faith, wherein it is said ver. 19 that Abraham was not weak, and is opposed, to doubting of the promise of God through unbelief, ver. 20. But the righteousness of Christ cannot be conceived to be that, wherein Abraham was not weak, neither doth the righteousness of Christ carry any opposition with it, to a doubting of the promise of God through unbelief, being a thing of a differing kind and nature from it. But between Faith properly taken or a firm believing, and a doubting through unbelief, there is a direct & perfect opposition. Therefore it is Faith in this sense, and not the righteousness of Christ, that is said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousness. Sevently, that Faith which was imputed unto Abraham for righteousness, was that Faith, by which he was fully assured, that he which had promised, was able also to do it (for thus it is described, ver. 21.) and the imputation of faith so described, is plainly affirmed ver. 22. and therefore it was imputed unto him for righteousness. But the righteousness of Christ, is not capable of any such definition or description, as this, that by it Abraham was fully assured, that he that had promised, was also able to perform it. Therefore the righteousness of Christ, is not that, that was imputed for righteousness unto Abraham. Eightly, that which shall be imputed unto us for righteousness, is said to be our believing on him, that raised up the Lord jesus Christ from the dead. v. 24. But the righteousness of Christ is not our believing on him that raised up our Lord jesus Christ from the dead. Therefore it cannot be that, that is either said or meant to be imputed unto us for righteousness. Ninthly, (and last) whereas the question or point of imputation in justification, is handled only in this passage of Scripture, Rom. 4. (for those other places Gal. 3, and jam. 2, only mention it, but insist not at all upon any declaration or explication thereof) it is no ways probable, but that the Apostle should speak somewhat distinctly and plainly of the nature of it here. Otherwise he might seem rather desirous to have laid a stumbling block in the way of men; then written any thing for their learning and comfort. If we take the word FAITH or BELIEVING, so often used in this Chapter, in the proper and plain signification of it, for that Faith whereby a man believes in Christ, or the promise of God concerning Christ, than the tenor of the discourse is as clear as the day, and full of light: the stream of the whole Chapter runs limpid and untroubled. But if we bring in a tropical and metonymical interpretation, and by Faith, will needs compel Saint Paul to mean the righteousness of Christ, we cloth the Sun with a Sackcloth, and turn Paul's perspicuity into a greater obscurity, than any light in the Scripture knoweth well how to comfort or relieve. The word FAITH, being a term frequently used in the Scripture, is yet never found to signify the righteousness of Christ, the Holy Ghost never putting this word into that sheath: neither is there any, either rule in Grammar, or figure in Rhetoric, that knows how to salve up the inconsistency of such an interpretation. SECT. 8 If it be objected and said, that faith in the Scripture is sometimes put for the object of faith, as Gal. 3, 23. But before Faith came (that is, the Doctrine of Faith, or Christ himself the object of Faith) we were kept under the Law. So Gal. 1, 22. He preacheth the faith, which sometimes he destroyed. etc. and may be so used with as good propriety of speech, as hope is put for the thing or things hoped for (which is an expression not unusual in the Scriptures.) To this I answer, first, by concession, that true it is, the name of the faculty is sometimes put for the object appropriated to it: neither is there any hardness or cause of offence or mistake in such an expression. It rather adds grace & comeliness to the sentence wherein it is used, if it be used seasonably, as might be exemplified by several Scripture instances, (if it were pertinent). But secondly, by way of opposition I answer, First, though the faculty be sometimes put for the Object, yet the act seldom (or never) to my remembrance. The actor exercise of the grace of hope, is never put for the things hoped for, but hope itself is sometimes found in that signification. As Colos. 1, 5. for the hope which is laid up for you in the Heaven. So Tit. 2, 13. Looking for that blessed hope, etc. Now that which is here said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousness, was not the habit or grace of his Faith, but Abraham believed God (that is, exercised or put forth an act of Faith, & it was imputed unto him for righteousness. So that though faith may be sometimes put for the object of Faith, yet the exercise of this Faith, or to believe, is never put for it. Secondly, though it should be granted, that aswell the act itself, as the faculty or habit, may be sometimes put for the Object, yet when the act and Object have been named together, and the act expressed and specified by an Object proper to it, and further, somewhat immediately ascribed to this act under that consideration (all which is plainly seen in this clause, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness) in this case to conceive or affirm, that what is so ascribed, is neither ascribed unto the act itself there mentioned (which is here, abraham's believing) nor unto the Object mentioned likewise with it (which is here, GOD: Abraham believed God) but to some third thing really differing from them both, and not so much as once mentioned or named in all the discourse (as the righteousness of Christ is not once named throughout this whole Chapter, no nor in any other Chapter near at hand, either antecedent, or subsequent) what is this but to turn a man's back upon the text, to look out an interpretation? and to exchange that which is plainly affirmed, with what is not so much as obscurely intimated or implied? and to make the Apostle speak as man never spoke besides, not for wisdom or excellency of speech, but for the uncouth abstruseness of his meaning? Doubtless no instance is to be found of any Author whatsoever, sacred or profane, who so far abhorred to be understood in what he spoke, as to put his mind into words of such a construction. Thirdly, and lastly, to the Objection I Answer: that neither is the righteousness of Christ the object of Faith, as justifying (as hath been said, and sufficiently made good) nor doth the Scripture, where it speaks of Faith as justifying (which places are not a few) make the least mention, or give the least intimation of such a thing. It is true, the Scriptures sometimes propound the righteousness of Christ or his obedience to the Law, as that which is to be believed, & so it may be termed a partial object of Faith, that is, somewhat that is & aught to be believed: but so the creation of the world is propounded to be believed, and that Cain was Adam's Son, is somewhat to be believed. And generally whatsoever the Scriptures do affirm, may be called a partial object of Faith. But the object of faith properly, as it justifieth, is either Christ himself, or the promise of GOD concerning the Redemption and salvation of the world by him. The righteousness of Christ is no more the object of Faith as justifying, then either his being borne of a Virgin, or his ascending up into Heaven, or the like, and either the one or the other, may (in that respect) be aswell here said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousness, as the righteousness of Christ. Thus you see at large how many passages and circumstances in the context, stand up in contestation against that exposition, which by Abraham's Faith in this Chapter, will needs understand Christ's righteousness. Fourthly, SECT. 9 (and last) this interpretation we contend for: according to which, the word Faith or believing, is to be taken properly in all the passages mentioned, and not tropically or metonymically) was the common interpretation anciently received and followed by the principal lights, (I mean the Fathers) of the Church of God from the primitive times, and for 1500 years together (as far as my reading and memory together will assist me,) was never questioned or contradicted. Neither did the contrary opinion ever look out into the world (at least was never contended for) till the yesterday of the last age. So that it is but a calumny or evil report, brought upon the opinion, and interpretation of this Scripture which we maintain (unworthy the tongue or pen of any learned and sober man) to make either Arminius or Socinus, the Authors or founders of either. And for this last hundreth years and upwards, from about Luther's and calvin's times, the fairest stream of Interpreters so runs, as to water and refresh the same interpretation. You will be easily inclined (I presume) to believe both the one and the other, that both former and latter times have been friends and favourers of the interpretation given, if you will please, with diligence and without partiality, to ponder and examine these few testimonies and passages following, as they stand in their several Authors respectively. TERTULLIAN, Caeterum quomodo fil●●●let ●●t ●●tus fide●, si non A●●a●● S●●enim A●●cham Deo credidit, et d●●●tatum est justitiae, atque extud● Pate multatum natiorum m●ruit nuncupart: no●●atem credendo Deo, magis protrd● justificamur sicut Abraham. Tertull. contra Marc. l. 5. c. 3. Denique Abraham Deo credidit, et justitiae deputatus ab isto est: sed fidem ejus patientia probavit, quum filium immolaere jussus est etc. Idem. de Patient. c. 6. Videtur ergo eciam in prasenti ●oco quam multae fides Abrahae praecesserint, in hoc nunc universa fides ejus esse collecta: et ita ad justitiam ei reputata. Origen. l. 4. ad Ro. in c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iust. Mar. Dial. cum Tryph. post medium. who lived and wrote about the year 194, in his fift Book against Martion, writeth thus, But how the Children of Faith? or of whose Faith, if not of Abraham's? For if Abraham believed God, and that was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he thereby deserved the name of a Father of many Nations, we by believing GOD more, are therefore justified as Abraham was. The same Father in his tract of Patience, Abraham believed God, and was accounted righteous by him, but he tried his Faith by patience, when he was commanded to offer his Son. Tertullia's opinion directly is, that that Faith which is said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousness, is Faith properly taken, and not the righteousness of Christ apprehended by Faith, because he saith that God tried his Faith by patience, which cannot be applied to the righteousness of Christ. ORIGEN, Who lived about the year 203 in his fourth Book upon the Romans, writing on cap. 4. ver. 3. speaketh thus. It seems 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 righteousness. And in the same place not long after, he hath more words to like purpose. Therefore he joined with Tertullian in the interpretation of this Scripture. JUSTIN MARTYR, Who lived before them both, and not long after the Apostle John's time, about the year 130, in his Dialogue or disputation had at Ephesus with Trypho the Jew, it seems led them both the way to that Interpretation. Abraham carried not away the testimony (or commendation) of righteousness, because of his circumcision, but because of his Faith. For before he was circumcised, this was pronounced of him, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. CHRYSOSTOM, who lived somewhat after the year 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, etc. And a little after, Wherefore (saith he) was it written, but that we might learn that we also are justified, as he was, because we have believed the same God? The same Father again 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 righteousness. If Abraham's Faith was sufficient unto him for righteousness, it must needs be imputed by God for righteousness unto him, for it is this imputation from God, that must make that sufficiency of it unto Abraham. That which will not pass in account with God for righteousness, will never be sufficient for righteousness unto the creature. Saint AUGUSTINE, who lived about the year 390, SECT. 11 Credendo quipp● invenimus, quod illi (judai) non credendo amiserunt. Quia credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, Aug. in Psal. 148. versus finem. giveth frequent testimony in his works, both to the opinion and interpretation contested for. Upon Psal. 148. For we by believing have found that which they (the jews) lost by not believing. For Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Therefore his opinion clearly is, that it was Abraham's Faith or Believing properly taken, that was imputed unto him for righteousness, and not the righteousness of Christ. For that Faith of his, which was so imputed, he opposeth to the unbelief of the Jews, whereby they lost the grace and favour of God. Now the righteousness of Christ is not opposed to unbelief, but Faith properly taken. Again, writing upon Psal. 70, In eum credo, qui justificat impium, ut deputetur fides mea in justitiam. Idem in Psal. 70. For I believe in him that justifieth the ungodly, that my faith may be imputed unto me for righteousness. Where by Faith he cannot mean the righteousness of Christ, because he calleth it his own before the imputation: whereas the righteousness of Christ can no ways be imagined to be any man's, till it be made his by imputation: The same Father yet again, in his tract of nature and Grace: But if Christ died not in vain, 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 fide● 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, believing in him that justifieth the ungodly, his Faith is accounted for righteousness. And yet once more, in his 68 Sermon of Time (●f that piece be his) Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. See, without any work, he is justified by Faith, and whatsoever was possible to have been conferred upon him by the observation of the Law his believing alone gave it all unto him. Certainly this Author (whoever he was) by the word CREDULITY (for so the Latin word signifieth) whereby he expresseth that Faith which was imputed unto Abraham for righteousness, could not mean or understand the righteousness of Christ. PRIMASIUS about the year 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, Abraham's faith by the gift of God was so great, that both his former sins were forgiven him, and this FAITH of his alone preferred in acceptation before all righteousness. By Abraham's alone Faith, he cannot mean Christ's righteousness. BEDA, who lived somewhat before the year 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 qualis●●nque fides, sed sid●s que per dile●ta mem operatur. Beda ad Ro. 4 5. Quia credidit D●o, reputatum est et ad justitiam ●. ad remissionem peccatorum, quia per ipsam 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 worketh by love, not any faith, but that faith which worketh by love. Certainty that Faith, which Paul defineth or describeth to be a Faith working by love, cannot be conceived to be the righteousness of Christ, and yet this Faith it was, in the judgement of this Author, that was imputed unto Abraham for righteousness. HAYMO, about the year 840, in Rom. 4, 3. Because he believed God, it was imputed unto him for righteousness, that is, unto remission of sins, because by that Faith, wherewith he believed, he was made righteous. ANSELME, Archbishop of Canterbury, about the year, 1090, upon Rom. 4, 3. That he meaning (Abraham) believed so strongly, was by God imputed for righteousness unto him: that is, etc. by this believing he was imputed righteous before God. From all these testimonies it is apparent, that that interpretation of this Scripture which we contend for, hath anciently ruled in the Church of God, and no man found to open his mouth, or lift up his pen against it, till it had been established upon the Throne for above a thousand years. Come we to the times of Reformation, here we shall find the right and title of it still maintained by men of greatest authority and learning. Sec. 12 Christiana justitia est fiducia in filium Dei: quae fiducia imputatur ad iustitiam propter Christum. Luther. ad Gal. 3, 6. Deus reputat istam imperfectam fidem ad justitiam perfectam propter Christum, in quem coepi credere. ibid. LUTHER in Gal. 3, 6. Christian righteousness is an affiance or faith in the Son of God, which affiance is imputed unto righteousness for Christ's sake. And in the same place not long after: God for Christ's sake, in whom I have begun to believe, accounts this (my) imperfect faith, for perfect righteousness. Doubtless this Author was for the interpretation given, or else his words and he, were not of the same mind. BUCER, upon Rom. 4.3. Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, that is, he accounted this FAITH or believing, Abraham fidem habuit jehovae, et reputavit id ei justitiam● hoc est, habuit ei pro justitia hanc fidem. Credendo igitur id accepit, ut Deus cum pro justo haberet. Buce●. Ad Ro. 4, 3. Imputari ad justitiam, alio modo significat ●d, per quod nos ipsi habemur in censu justorum. Atque id Paulus tantummodo fidei tribuit etc. (P. Mart. Ad Rom. 4, 3. Quare Abraham credendo nihil aliud, quam obla, tam sibi gratiam amplectitur, ne ●rrita sit. Si hoc illi imputatur in justitiam, sequitur non aliter esse justum, nisi quia Dei bonitate consisus, omnia ab ipso sperare audet, Calvin. ad Rom. 4, 3. Fides reputatur in justitiam, non qu●d ullum a nobis meritum afferat, sed quia Dei bonitatem apprehendit. ibid. in v. 4. for righteousness unto him. So that by believing he obtained this, that God esteemed him a righteous man. PETER MARTYR declares himself of the same judgement, upon Rom. 4, 3. To be imputed for righteousness in another sense, signifieth, that by which we ourselves are reckoned in the number of the righteous. And this PAUL attributes to FAITH only. CALVIN abetteth the same interpretation with as high a hand as any of his fellows, upon Rom. 4, 3, Wherefore Abraham by believing doth only embrace the grace tendered unto him, that it might not be in vain. If this be imputed unto him for righteousness, it follows, that he is no otherwise righteous, but as trusting or relying upon the goodness of God, he hath boldness to hope for all things from him. Again, upon verse 5. Faith is reputed for righteousness, not because it carrieth any merit from us, but because it apprehends the goodness of God. If all this be not home to the point in Question, I desire the Reader that desires further satisfaction concerning the judgement of this Author therein, to peruse and ponder what he hath commented at large upon the sixth verse of Gal. 3. Whosoever thinks it prejudicial to Calvin, that he should be thought to hold Imputation of Faith (in a proper sense) for righteousness, may if he will, pity him, and lament over him, but without an Index expurgatorius (and that in folio) can never relieve him. In the place last mentioned (to omit many other passages and expressions: here extant, as pregnant for that imputation of Faith which is pleaded for, as eyes can look upon) he describes at large that Faith of Abraham (which is there said to be imputed for righteousness) by the nature and property of it, and differenceth it from other persuasions that men may have of the truth of God. By which carriage of the business, it is as manifest as manifestation itself knows how to make any thing manifest, that his thoughts were never tempted with any insinuation either of a tropical or metonymical sense in the word Faith: but that the plain, ready, and Grammatical signification, was that which he wrought upon, Sec. 13 and framed his interpretation unto. MUSCULUS, Commendata debebat esse haec sides, non propr●e qualitatu, sed propositi Dei respectu, quo constituit, illa, credentibus in Christum, propter ipsum, justitiae loco imputare. Musc. Loc. de. justif. sect. 5 Quid enim fecit (Abraham) quod imputaretur illi ad justitiam, nisi quod credidit Deo? Idem Ad Gal. 3, 6. Sic de hac Abrah● fide loquitur, ut manifestum sit disputare ipsum de fide, qua non simpliciter Deo, sed in Deum creditur. Idem in Gen. 15, 6. Verum ubi promittenti Deo firmiter credidit, est illi ejusmodi fides justitiae loco imputata: hoc est, obeam fidem, justus est a Deo reputatis, et ab omnibus dei●ctis absolutus. ibid. as far as his judgement and learning will reach, engageth himself for this Imputation also. In his common place of justification. Sect. 5. This Faith should be in high respect and esteem with us; not in regard of the proper quality of it, but in regard of the purpose or decree of God, whereby he hath decreed, for Christ's sake, to impute it (this faith) for righteousness unto those that believe in him. The same Author upon Gal. 3, 6. What did (Abraham) that should be imputed unto him for righteousness, but only this, that he believed God? Words plain enough to our purpose, yet behold from the same pen, more plain than they in another place. Upon Gen. 15, 6. you shall find words of this importance. He so speaks of Abraham's Faith, that manifest it is, that he disputes of that Faith, wherewith a man believeth, not God simply, but in or on God. Where though he makes a difference between believing God simply, and believing in God: yet evident it is, that if there be either trope or metonymy in the word BELIEVING, he was not ware of it, because be interprets it of such a Faith, as properly notes the act, not the object of believing. Again, afterwards, in the same place: But when he firmly believed God promising, that very Faith was imputed to him, in the place, or stead of righteousness, that is, he was of God reputed righteous for that Faith, and absolved from all his sins. BULLINGER likewise gives the same right hand of fellowship to the same interpretation, upon Rom. Concredidit se Abraham Deo, et illud ipsum illi pro justitia imputatum est. Bulling. ad Ro. 4. Imputatum est illi adjustitiam etc. hoc est, illa ipsa Abrahae fides ipsi adjustiam imputata est, cum ad huc ageret in praputio. Idem. ad Gal. 3, 6. Credidit Abraham Deo, et impuravit ei, scilicet Deus, hanc fidem, pro justitia. Gualt. Ad Rom. 4.4. Imputavit ei justitiam, quod est, fidem giatam habuit, adeo ut justum ex eo haberet justitia imputativa. Aret. ad Rom. 4. Fides tam firma et pia, pro justitia Abrahamo imputata est. Aret. ad Rom. 4, 22. 4 Abraham committed himself unto God by believing and this very thing was imputed unto him for righteousness. And the second time upon Gal. 3, 6. It was imputed unto him for righteousness. that is, that very Faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righteousness, whilst he was yet uncircumcised. GUALTHER comes behind none of the former in avouching the Grammatical against the Rhetorical interpretation, upon Rom. 4.4. Abraham believed God, and he, viz. God, imputed unto him THIS FAITH for righteousness. ARETIUS no whit digresseth from the former expositions upon Rom. 4. He imputed righteousness unto him, which is as much as to say, he so far accepted or thought well of his faith, as thereupon to account him righteous with an imputative righteousness. Where note by the way, he doth not call an imputative or imputed righteousness, any thing that is a righteousness properly so called, any righteousness that should be in one person inherently, and become another's by imputation (neither do I remember the phrase of an imputed righteousness in that sense, in any classic Author) but by an imputative righteousness, he means somewhat imputed or accounted by God for righteousness, which literally and in strictness of consideration is not such. Again, the same Author more plainly and succinctly upon ver. 22. of the same Chapter, A faith so firm and pious, was imputed unto Abraham for righteousness. Illud credere, ei imputatum est ad justitiam, vel pro vera justitia. Illyr. ad Ro. 4.3. Et paulo post: Mendica illa fites apprehendeus Christi justiciam, imputata ipsi est loco propriae justitiae. ILLYRICUS forsakes not his fellow-interpreters in this point. Upon Rom. 4, 3. That same believing was imputed unto him for righteousness. And afterwards, That same poor begging faith, apprehending the righteousness of Christ, was imputed unto him instead of a proper righteousness. PELICAN ●s breaks not this rank, Credidit simpliciter verbo Dei, et non postulavit signum a D●mino: et imputabat cam sidem ipsi Abrahae Deus pro justitia qua creditur propersus Deus in nostrum bonum. Pelican to Gen. 15.6. Fides qua promittent● Deo credidit Ab●aham, et fuit ad justitiam imputata. Hunnius' ad ●om. 4 3. Hic agitur de eo. quod ipsi imputatum est, nempe de ipsius side ●re. ad Rom. 4.3. Eum quan vis justitia carentem numeravitque pro justo habuit, in justit● loco, quod promissiones firma fide ample ●us est. I c●mel. et jun. Not. in Gen. 15.6. Intelligimus fide● nomine acqutes●●ntiam Abrah●e non in se sunv● m●titu, sed in Dei promissione et benevolentia. Par. ad Ro. 4.3. Upon Gen. 15 6. Abraham simply believed the word of God, and required not a sign of the Lord and God imputed THAT VERY Faith unto Abraham himself for righteousness, whereby GOD is inclineable or propense to do us good. HUNNIUS another Reformed Divine sets to his seal that the avouched interpretation is true, On Rom. 4.3. The faith whereby Abraham believed GOD promising, was imputed unto him for righteousness. BE●A himself, upon the same Scripture is as deep in the same way as any. Here (●a●th he) the business is, concerning that, that was imputed unto him, viz his faith. JUNIUS and TREMEILIUS, are likewise of the former conspiracy against the tropical interpretation. On Gen. 15, 6. God esteemed (or accounted) him for righteous though wanting righteousness wherewith to stand before God, and reckoned this in the stead or place of righteousness, that he embraced the promise with a firm belief. PARAEUS (the last we shall name of foreign Divines) dealeth out this interpretation as freely as his fellows. On Rom. 4.3. We understand by the name or word FAITH (which is said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousness) Abraham's acquietation or resting, ●ot in himself, or in his own merits, but in the promise and graciousness of God. Neither are there wanong from amongst ourselves, men of soundest learning and judgement, holding forth the light o● the same interpretation a so. Doctor ROBERT ABBOT (●●●●wards Bishop of Sa●um) in his Apology against Bishop, SECT. 15 Part 1 c p. 9 not far from the beginning: H●ving●e down those passages of the Apostle, Rom. 4, 5, and 6. he addeth as followeth. In which words we see, how the Apostle affirmeth (accordingly as I said) an Imputation of righteousness without works: which he expresseth to be, The reputing of Faith for righteousness; for that thereby we obtain remission and forgiveness of sins. Again not long after; for in the imputation of righteousness without works, what is it that is reputed for righteousness? Faith (saith the Apostle) is reputed for righteousness. Tell us then Mr. Bishop, is faith with you reputed for righteousness without works? Spit out man and tell us, whether in your first or second justification, you hold that a man for his faith is reputed righteous, etc. (with more of like importance, in the page following) He that will undertake to divide between this Author, and the opinion we contend for, must be more severe then to give a man leave to be of his own mind. Dr. PRESTON also, maketh himself a stranger to the tropical interpretation of this Scripture, and embraceth that which is literal and proper without scruple or question. In his Treatise of God's all-sufficiency, pag 12 13. In this sense faith is said to be accounted (or imputed) for righteousness. Abraham believed God, Gen. 15. God indeed made the same proposition, that he doth here for substance, he tells him what be would do for him: and (saith the text) Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now it was accounted unto him for righteousness chief in this sense, as it is interpreted Rom 4 that his very taking of the promise, and his accepting of the Covenant in that he did receive that which God gave that put him within the Covenant, and therefore the Lord reckoned him a righteous man, even for that very acceptation and believing But that is not all: but likewise be accounteth faith to him for righteousness, because faith doth Sanctify, and make a man righteous, etc. So that evident it is (if there be any such thing as evidence in the writings and opinions of men) that this man's thoughts were never so much as tempted, to conceit that the Apostle should tropologize or metonymize in the word Faith, or believing, in this Scripture. Mr. JOHN FORBS, late Pastor of the English Church at Middleburgh, a man of known gravity, piety, and learning, in his Treatise of justification, cap. 28, p. 135. hath these words, For faith in this sentence (meaning, where it is said that faith is imputed unto righteousness) is in my opinion, to be taken properly, in that sense whereby in itself 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 collateral assurance, for the securing the literal and proper interpretation of this Scripture. Not that the interpretation itself needeth tali auxilio, aut defensoribus istis: but only to remove that great stumbling stone of the world (which lieth in many men's way towards many truths) called PREJUDICE. CAP. III. Other proofs from Scripture to to establish the former conclusion, vindicated likewise from such exceptions, as may be laid in against them. SEcondly, that the active obedience of Christ, SECT. 1 or his fulfilling the Moral Law, was never intended by God, to be that righteousness 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 jesus Christ, even we have believed in jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law, Again, 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 righteousness of Christ imputed unto him, he shall be justified by the works of the Law, because that righteousness of Christ we now speak of, consists of these works, as every man's personal righteousness should have done had there been a continuance in the first Covenant? Therefore this righteousness of Christ cannot be imputed to any man, for that righteousness, whereby he is to be justified. Neither will these and the like Scriptures be charmed by words of any such gloss 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 man's works will hold out weight and measure with the strictness 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 itself is in commanding, and withal, that God is willing to derive these works of his upon us by imputation. For to this I answer 4 things. First, SECT. 2 where the holy Ghost delivers a truth simply and indefinitely, and in way of a general or universal 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) 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 own wisdoms and apprehensions, by distinctions and limitations, and reservations of what they please, to overrule the plain and express 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 practice so sinful, or opinion so erronous, but may find a way to escape the word of the Spirit, and to come fairly off from all Scripture censure, if they be but permitted to speak for themselves by the mouth of such a distinction. Give but the lose 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 atonement of such a distinction to make their peace with the Scriptures. He that believes not (saith our Saviour Mar. 16, 16.) shall be damned. He that believes not shall be damned. True (may these men say) He that believes not, either by himself or by another, shall be damned, but this hinders not, but that he that believeth as the Church believeth, may be saved, though he knoweth nothing explicitly of what the Church believeth: 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 personal sanctification or inherent holiness, against those Scriptures that are most pregnant and peremptory for it. Without holiness saith the Apostle. Heb. 12, 14.) no man shall see the Lord: True (saith the Antinomian) without holiness either in himself, or in some other, no man shall see the Lord: but he that is in Christ by Faith, hath holiness in Christ, and therefore hath no necessity of it in his own person. Who seethe 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 expressly and indefinitely 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 ourselves, but make them every man's justification, as performed by another, who tastes not the same spirit of an unwarrantable wisdom in this distinction, which ruled in the former? Secondly I answer, that if the Apostles charge and commission had been, 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, between 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 itself: certainly he should have been unfaithful in this trust, and very injurious to these works of Christ, in giving 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 jesus Christ. He doth not say, but by the works of jesus Christ, as if the opposition stood between 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 pre-eminence this way above the other; and not have ascribed that unto Faith (which is somewhat wherein the poor and weak creature hath to do) which was the right and prerogative of Christ's righteousness. Doubtless Paul was no such enemy to the righteousness of Christ, as to set up an usurper upon the Throne, which belonged to it. Thirdly, if Paul's intent had been to have reserved a place in justification for the active righteousness 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 been of dangerous consequence, and as a snare upon men, to cause them to pass over the great things of their justification. Certainly if Paul had ever digged such a pit as this, he would have been careful first or last to have filled it up again. Fourthly (and last) if by excluding the works of the Law from justification, Paul's 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 himself, and would have been a glad man, if salva veritate Evangelij, without trenching upon some Gospel truth, he could have come over so near to his Countrymen the Jews, and have closed with them in the great point of justification upon such terms. Such a distinction might have been a happy mediator between them. For what was it that chief incensed the Jews against Paul and the Preaching of the Gospel and the righteousness of Faith, but that the Law and the observation of it, should be passed over and not taken into the great business of justification. Now if Paul keeping a straight 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 righteousness or works of your Law, no not from having the main stroke in your justification: nay that which I preach concerning Faith, is purposely to advance the righteousness of the Law, and to show you how you may be justified by it. I only Preach, you cannot be justified by your own observation of it, because the holiness, excellency and perfection of it is such, that you cannot attain or reach it by your own 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 seethe 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 jews against him? A little of this oil poured into the wound, would have much mollified it, and (in all likelihood) in time have healed it. But Paul (it seems) did not like the composition or make of it, neither durst he administer any receit of it. He cannot be thought to have been ignorant of this distinction or means of mitigation, and with as little probability 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 shows that the difference and distance between them, was deeper and greater than so. The paroxysm or sharp contention between 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 indefinitely this, whether justification were by the works of the Law (by whomsoever performed) or by Faith (as is more than 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 between them this way, whether justification should be by the works of the Law, either as performed by ourselves, 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 shows, 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 judgement. Paul as far from holding justification by the works of the Law as performed by Christ, as the stubbornest Jews themselves were. But there are two things that (haply,) SECT. 5 may be objected against the Answers given, and that will seem to make for the confirmation of that distinction or interpretation, which we have so much opposed. First, that there is a sufficient ground laid even by Paul himself, 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 Christ's 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 these: Not by the works of righteousness, which we had done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Upon which words the objection getteth up thus: Paul by so precise a rejection of works of righteousness done by us, that is, by ourselves, plainly implies an admission of these works as done by another for us. Where one part or member 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 business of justification. To this I answer sundry things: First, that the active obedience or righteousness of Christ should be wholly excluded, and be made a stander-by, so as to have nothing at all to do in the great business of justification, this discourse hath no where affirmed hitherto, neither doth it savour any where of the spirit of that affirmation. It hath been expressly 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 righteousness for which, but at no hand, with which, we are justified. Therefore this objection, contending and pleading for an admission of the works of the Law, as done by Christ, into justification, doth no ways contradict the answer given in any part of it, except it can prove the necessity of this admission of the active righteousness of Christ, either for the material, or formal, or instrumental cause of justification: which it no ways doth, nor pretendeth to do. And the truth is, whosoever shall do it, that is, go about to make this righteousness of Christ either the formal, o● material, or instrumental cause of justification, 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 design of that opinion. Secondly I answore, that the inference insisted upon in the objection from the Scripture mentioned, comes heavily and with much unwillingness and reluctation out of the premises: there is no necessity, nor indeed so much as a face of probability in it. The Holy Ghost may reject the works of men from being the cause of such or such a thing, and yet no ways 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 foreseen to be the cause of his election, we do not imply that the Faith or works of Christ foreseen are the cause of such election. No more doth it follow, that because Paul rejects the works of righteousness which men do, from their justification, that therefore he must needs imply a substitution of the works of Christ in their stead. If the words had gone thus, Not by the works of righteousness which we OURSELVES had done, this had been somewhat a higher ground, and a more rational advantage to have inferred the opposite member of the distinction, viz. but by the works of another, or of Christ. As Act. 20, 24. where Paul expresseth himself thus, Neither is my life dear unto myself, etc. here the opposite member of the division may with good probability be conceived to be implied, after this manner: my life is not dear unto myself, THOUGH IT MAY BE DEAR UNTO OTHERS. And yet even such an intimation here, is not of absolute necessity neither. But if the tenor of the words had only run thus, Neither is my life dear unto me, so that I may fulfil my course with joy: No man would ever have dreamt or thought of any further thing to be implied, than what was expressed. So when the Holy Ghost in a direct and plain tenor of Speech speaketh only thus: Not by the works of righteousness which we had wrought (not which we ourselves had wrought) for men to conclude or infer, an implying of works wrought by another, is (in plain 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 do, he expresseth plainly the opposition himself, and tells us that it was according to his mercy that he saved us, not by the works of righteousness 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 down. And Fourthly, lest any might yet say, that it may be according to God's mercy, and yet by the works of righteousness wrought by Christ too, these two may easily be reconciled and stand together: the Apostle delivers himself 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 last) as such an inference is no ways necessary, SECT. 6 nor so much as probable, so is it no ways 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 works of righteousness which he names, from being any causes antecedaneously moving God to save us, and not from being the formal cause of justification. So then let us give the objection it's own 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 ourselves, 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 intent this salvation unto us, was nothing out of himself, 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 original in it rendered by our Translators ver. 11. of his own will, implying (as I conceiv●) that that will, wherewith God willeth and purposeth to save his people, is entirely his own, borne and begotten (as it were) only out of himself, without the seed of any consideration of any thing whatsoever, out of himself. As for the execution of this decree in the actual justification or regeneration of those whom he hath purposed to save, if this be ascribed to the works of righteousness done by Christ, as the cause moving God thereunto, this clearly establisheth the merit of the righteousness of Christ in justification, but overthroweth the formality of it (which is that very truth, which this discourse seeketh and ensueth) for if God justifieth or regenerates for the righteousness of Christ (which imports the merit thereof) he cannot either justify or regenerate with this righteousness of Christ, as the formal cause of either: the Reason is, because it is impossible, that one and the self same thing in respect of one and the self same effect, should put on the different habitude or consideration both of the formal and efficient cause. Wherefore if the righteousness of Christ be any efficient cause of justification (as all must grant that will acknowledge it for a meritorious cause thereof, no man gainsaying but that the meriting cause is a species or kind of efficient) impossible it is that it should be brought in to any part or fellowship in the formal cause thereof, as will further be demonstrated, when we come to lay down our grounds and reasons for what we hold. This for Answer to the former exception. Concerning the latter objection, SECT. 7 from Gal. 4.4. Where Christ is said, to have been made under the Law, From hence it is inferred against the answer given, that Paul doth mention the works of the Law, as done by Christ, in this discourse of justification, and hereupon concluded further, that therefore he had no intent to exclude the works of the Law, as done by CHRIST, from having their part in justification. For Answer hereunto (not to insist again upon that which was delivered in the first branch of my Answer to the former objection, which yet is sufficient to ease the point in Question of the burden of this objection) I add this in the first place: that the phrase of Christ's being made under the Law, doth not signify Christ's obedience or subjection to the Moral Law, or that part of the Law which we call Moral, but rather his subjection to the Law Ceremonial, as is evident from the scope of the place: and particularly, from that which is delivered immediately (ver. 5.) as the end or intent of that his being made under the Law, viz. that he might redeem them that were under the Law. There is no reason to conceive that Christ should be said to be made under any other Law, then that, from under which he was to redeem others. Wherefore we being not redeemed from the Moral Law, or from that obedience due to that (that being lex aeterna, & aeternae obligationis, an eternal Law, and of an eternal obligation) but from the Law of Ceremonies, it must needs follow, that it was this Law, under which Christ is here said to have been made. So that if men will gather anything from hence, for the imputation of Christ's obedience in just sication, it must be of that obedience which he performed to the Jewish or Ceremonial Law, and so not only the Jews, but we of the Gentiles also, must be clothed with the robes of a Ceremonial righteousness imputed unto us for our justification. B● secondly, if we follow that interpretation of t●is clause, Christ was made under the Law, which Luther ●clines unto (and is an exposi●●n of no hard aspect neither upon the place, perhaps of a more favourable than the former) then by Christ's being made under the Law, we shall neither understand his subject on to the Moral Law, nor yet to the Ceremonial Law, in the preceptive part of either, but his subjection unto the Curse of the Law. And thus it expresseth both the gracious designation of God, and likewise ●he voluntary submission of Christ himself unto dea●● for the deliverance of men, not only from death itself (in the future) but even from the fear of death (in the p●●s●n●) as is plainly expressed Luke 1.74. and Heb. 2.15. In which respect, the fruit or effect and benefit of this his being made under the Law, is here (v. 1.5.) said to be, the receiving the adoption of Sons. If this exposition will stand (as I see not how it will easily be overthrown, there being much more to be said for the justifying of it) then is it a plain case, that here is nothing spoken, nor intended, of any such works of Christ, as are pretended for imputation, in the justification of a believer. No adversary I have yet met with in this controversy, ever affirmed, that either the death of Christ, or the imputation of his death, should be either the formal or material cause of justification. Much more might be added, for the taking of this clause of Scripture from intermeddling at all to the prejudice or disturbance of that conclusion, for which we have undertaken: but having sufficiently cleared (as I conceive) our second order or sort of proofs from the Scriptures, we proceed to others yet remaining. CAP. IU. A third Demonstration from the Scriptures of the non-imputation of CHRIST'S righteousness for justification, in the sense ruling in this Controversy. THirdly, SECT. 1 that the righteousness of Christ is not imputed unto men for their righteousness or justification, I demonstrate (with more brevity) from that Scripture, Rom. 3.21. But now is the righteousness of God made manifest without the righteousness of the Law, having witness of the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, which is by the Faith of jesus Christ, unto all and upon all that believe. From whence I thus reason: if the righteousness of Faith which is here called the righteousness of God, (as else where it is in the writings of this Apostle) either because he is the founder and contriver of it (as Divines for the most part agree) or because God bestows it and gives unto men (as Calvin conceives upon this place) or because it is this righteousness only that will stand, and hold out before God (as the same Author varieth his conjecture here) or whether it be called the righteousness of God by way of opposition to the righteousness of the Law, which is (and may well be) called the righteousness of men Rom: 10.3. because they can hardly relish or savour any other righteousness but it, or whether for some other reason (not so necessary or pertinent to our present inquiry) I say if this righteousness of Faith consists in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, then is it not, nor can it be made manifest without the Law, that is, without the works of the Law (as Calvin rightly interpreteth the meaning of the word) But the righteousness of Faith is sufficiently manifested without the Law, that is without the works or righteousness of the Law: Therefore it doth not consist in the imputation of Christ's righteousness: The reason of the connexion in the major proposition (against which exception must be made, ●f the conclusion be denied, because the minor is plain Scripture in terminis) is evident. If the righteousness o● God consists in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, then is it not made manifest without the Law, that is, without the works and righteousness of the Law, because to such a righteousness, the Law and the works thereof, are every whit as necessary, and more necessary than Faith itself, for Faith is made only a means of the derivation of it upon men: but the body and substance of the righteousness itself is nothing else but the pure Law and the works of it. And how a righteousness should be said to be made manifest without the Law, whose essence, strength and substance is nothing but the Law, I conceive to be out of the reach of better apprehensions than mi●● to comprehend. If it be here objected and said, SECT. 2 that this righteousness of God or of Faith, may be said to be made manifest without the Law or the works of it, because there are no works required of us towards the raising of it: but this hinders not but that the works of the Law, as performed by Christ, may be the matter and substance of it. To this I answer. First, this Sanctuary hath been already polluted, and the horns of this Altar broken down, in the demonstration of the former proof. Secondly, there is not the least intimation given, that the Apostle should have any such by or back meaning as this: but that this righteousness of Faith should be fully taught and apprehended without any consideration of the Law, or the works thereof, as an ingredient into it. Thirdly, the works of the Law, are nevertheless the works of the Law, because performed by Christ. The greatness or holiness of the person working according to the Law, doth not alter or change the nature or property of the works, but they are the works of the Law, whosoever doth them, Christ's being Christ, doth not make the Law, not to be the Law. Fourthly, this righteousness is said to receive testimony or witness from the Law, that is, from that part of Scripture, which is often called the Law, viz. the Books of Moses, Mat 5, 17. and c. 7, 12. (as Calvin here well interprets) and from the Prophets: therefore it cannot be a righteousness consisting in the imputation of a legal righteousness, because there will be found no testimony given either by the Law, or by the Prophets, to such a righteousness, except it be in aenigmate, a testimony in a riddle, which no man can find out but by divination, instead of an interpretation (whereas it is repugnant to the nature of a testimony, not to be somewhat plain and express; that it may be well understood) But if we interpret this righteousness of God, to be a righteousness procured or derived upon a man by Faith o● believing, there is express testimony to be found given unto it, both by the Law, and also by the Prophets (as the holy Ghost expressly here affirmeth) by the Law: Gen. 15, 6, And he (Abraham believed in the Lord, and he counted it unto him for righteousness. By the Prophets: Hab. 2.4. But the just shall live by his Faith. Fiftly (and last) this righteousness of God is said to be unto all, & upon all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by or through Faith, by way of opposition to the works of the Law, ver. 20. Now between Faith and the Law, or works of the Law, there is a constant opposition in the writings of this Apostle, Rom. 3.27.28. and ag. c. 4.13, 14. and c. 9.32. and c. 10.5, 6. Gal. 2, 16. and c. 3.5. and ver. 11.12. etc. But between the Law, and the works or righteousness of Christ, there is no opposition, but a perfect agreement. Therefore that righteousness which is by Faith, cannot stand in the righteousness of Christ imputed. CAP. V. A Fourth Demonstration from Scripture of the avouched Conclusion. FOurthly, SECT. 1 against the imputation of the righteousness of Christ in the sense already disclaimed) for that righteousness by which we are justified in the sight of God, I argue from Rom. 5. ver. 16. and 17. compared together. The gift of righteousness (as it is called ver. 17.) which is by Christ in the Gospel, is said (ver. 16.) to be a free gift of many offences unto justification. From whence I thus reason. That righteousness which is the gift of many offences, that is, the forgiveness of many offences or sins unto justification, cannot be a perfect legal righteousness imputed unto us, or made ours by imputation. But the righteousness which is by Christ in the Gospel, by which we are justified, is the gift of many offences unto justification: Therefore it cannot be a perfect legal righteousness made ours by imputation. The minor is the proposition of the Holy Ghost (in terminis) The major I demonstrate thus: That righteousness which extends unto a man's justification by the forgiveness of sins, can be no perfect legal righteousness imputed: But the righteousness of Christ in the Gospel by which we are justified, extendeth unto a man's justification by the forgiveness of sins. Therefore it can be no legal righteousness imputed. The Reason of the former proposition (the weakness of which only it must be, that ministers strength to an adversary for further dispute in this question, the authority of heaven being too pregnant in the other) is this, because a legal or perfect righteousness, doth not preceded to j●st●●y a man's person by way of forgiveness of sins: but is of itself intrinsically and essentially a man's justification: yea such a justification with which forgiveness of sins is not compatible. For what need hath he that is legally righteous, or hath a legal righteousness imputed unto him, of forgiveness of sins, when as such a righteousness excluds all sin, and all guilt of sin from his person? If it be here objected and said, SECT. 2 that a man's sins are first forgiven him, and then this perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed unto him and so he is justified. To this I answer. First, if we will needs distinguish the effects of the active and passive obedience of Christ after this manner, so as from the active part of this obedience, to fetch a perfect righteousness for imputation, and from the passive remission of sins: yet whether it be any ways reasonable, to invert the order of these effects, and dispose of them (a● pleasure) in a cross method, to their causes producing them, I leave it to sober consideration. Christ ●●d not first die, and after death keep the Law for us, but he first kept the Law and then suffered death for us. Therefore i● we will needs make the imputation of the one a distinct b●n sit from the imputation of the other, reason require●●, that that which was first purchased, should be first received or applied, and consequently hat imputation of righteousness should have a precedency in order, of remission of sins. Secondly, if a man hath once sinned (which must needs be acknowledged of every man that hath sins forgiven) it is not any legal righteousness whatsoever imputed, that can justify him: no, if it were possible for him to keep the Law perfectly in his own person ever after to the days of eternity, this would not justify him, because such a justification is repugnant to the express tenor of the Law. Cursed is the man (faith the Law) that continueth not in all things, etc. Therefore a man that hath not been alwa●es righteous, can never be made righteous by the righteousness of the Law imputed, or not imputed, or howsoever it may be conceived to come upon him. Thirdly (and last) I answer, if a man's sins be once forgiven him, he hath no need of any imputation of any further righteousness, for his justification, because forgiveness of sins reacheth home and amounteth unto a full justification with GOD. This is plain from the words mentioned. Rom. 5, 16. The gift (saith Paul) that is, the gift of righteousness (as it is explained in the next verse) is of many offences unto justification, 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 righteousness which God is said to impute unto men through Faith, is nothing else (being interpreted) but the forgiveness of sins or the acquitting of them from that death and condemnation which are due unto them. And this is all the justification the Scripture knows or speaks of, the forgiveness of our sins, or acquitting from condemnation: the genuine and proper signification of which word misapprehended, hath been a main occasion of leading many out of the way of Truth in this point. A man may (in a manner) as plainly discern where men's feet have failed them here, as sometimes where a Horse foot hath slipped 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 formal Law: righteousness somewaies put upon them, and there being no such righteousness indeed any where to be found, but only the righteousness of Christ, hence they have apprehended, that this justification must needs be by this righteousness of Christ imputed unto them, whereas that righteousness which we have by Christ, and wherewith we are said to be justified before God by believing, is only a negative righteousness, not a positive, it is nothing else but a non-imputation of sin: which I therefore call a righteousness, by account or interpretation, as having the privileges, but not the nature and substance of a perfect legal righteousness. The Scripture shines with as much clearness 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 blessedness of the man, unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works. A righteousness without works must needs be a negative or privative righteousness, 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 sin. You see the imputation of righteousness, 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 righteousness of Faith, Beati quorum remissa sunt iniquitates, that is, Blessed are they whose sins 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 righteousness 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 righteousness of God in him. But most plainly Act. 13.38, 39 Be it known unto you (saith Paul to the Jews) that through this man (CHRIST) is preached unto you forgiveness of sins: which forgiveness of sins he immediately calls their justification. And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses. You see how he expresseth the nature of this justification we have by Christ, viz. by the way of negative or privative righteousness (as was said) not a positive. All that believe are justified from all things, that is, all sins from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses. So that that justification which we have by Christ in the Gospel, is not a justification with righteousness (properly so called) but a justification from sin, and from the guilt of sin, and condemnation due to it, when Christ said to men and women in the Gospel, Thy sins are forgiven thee, than he justified them: the forgiveness of their sins, was their justification. This is the most usual and proper signification of the word, justify, both in Scriptures, SECT. 4 and other Authors (but in the Scriptures especially) not to signify the giving or bestowing of a complete positive righteousness, but only an acquitting or discharging and setting a man free from the guilt and penalty due unto such things as were laid 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 abomination unto the Lord. Prov. 17, 15. What is here m●ant by justifying the wicked? not making them right eous and just men, by putting a moral righteousness upon them: he that can make a wicked man righteous or just so, shall be so far from being an abomination to the Lord, that he shall shine as the stars 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 freedom from censure, punishment, and condemnation, as appears 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 condemn etc. Where you see again the opposition between being justified and condemned. See likewise Rom. 5.9. Therefore by justifying is nothing else meant but acquitting 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 just shall live by Faith, that is, shallbe justified by Faith (for otherwise there is no strength in the argument) So again, ver. 21. If there had been a Law, which could have given life (that is, could have justified men) surely righteousness (or justification should have been by the Law. By his knowledge (faith Esay c. 53.11.) shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities, that ●s, by bearing the punishment or condemnation due unto their sins, he shall deliver them from punishment. This opposition we speak of between justification, and condemnation, is clear in other Scriptures, as Mat 12.37. Rom. 5.16. and else where. And that this was calvin's opinion, SECT. 5 Justification is complete in forgiveness of sins, is most evident from many and frequent passages in his writings: by which it is apparent (against all confidence of contradiction) that he held no such imputation of Christ's righteousness for justification, as some charge him withal, except they will conceive of him, that (like unto Rebecca) he had two nations in his womb, two contrary opinions in his judgement at once. His words are express again and again, on Rom. 4.6. Huc accedit oppositum membrum, quod Deus homines justificet peccatum non imputando, etc. that is, Add hereunto the opposite member, viz. that God justifieth men by not imputing sin. And immediately after, Quibus etiam verbis docemur, justitiam Paulo nihilaliud esse, quam remissionem peccatorum. that is, by with words we are taught, that righteousness with Paul is nothing else but remission of sins. So some Popish Authors charge this very opinion upon Calvin, as his error. Alioqui error Calvinianus est dicere, ril aliud esse justificationem, quam remissionem peccatorum. Lorin. in Act. 5. v. 31. Whether this Author was of that judgement or no, which we now ascribe to him, certain it is, that if he had been of this judgement, he could never have delivered himself in more significant and pregnant words this way, than these are. And yet again not long after the former words: Manet ergosalva nobis pulcherrima sententia, justificari hominem side, quia gratuita peccatorum remissione coram Deo purgatus sit. that is, This most lovely saying remains unshaken and safe, that a man is justified by Faith, because he is purged by a free forgiveness of his sins before God. But we shall meet with a second opportunity hereafter, for the further insuring this Author unto us, in the Question now under disputation. Musculus is as far engaged for the point in hand, SECT. 6 as he, on Rom. 4.6. Notandum primò, remissionem peccatorum, esse justitiam nostram i. This is first to be noted, that forgiveness of sins is our righteousness. And a little after: ergo justitia Dei est, quae gratis imputatur, non imputari peccatum. i. therefore the righteousness of God which is freely imputed, is, that sin is not imputed. And immediately after: Quid autem iustum esse aliud est quam peccatis esse liberum? i. what is it else to be righteous, but to be freed from sins, i. from the guilt of them. And yet once more, not far off ergo qui credit, iustus est et beatus, propter remissioneus peccatorum. i. He therefore that believeth, is RIGHTEOUS and blessed, because of the remission of his sins. The same Author, upon Psal. 32. towards the beginning. jucunducu est, quòd institia et beatitudo nostra est remissio peccatorum per fidem in Christum. i. It is a sweet thing, that our righteousness & blessedness stands in the remission of our sins by Faith in Christ. See more of like importance in the same place. So Luther in his summary of that Psalm: justitia nostra proprie est remissio peccatorum seu (ut loquitur Psalmus) peccata non imputare, peccata tegere. i. Our righteousness properly is the forgiveness of our sins, or (as the Psalm speaketh) the non-imputation, or covering of our sins. So Malancthon, in his common place of JUSTIFICATION: Justificatio significat remissionem peccatorum, seu acceptationem personae ad vitam aeternam. i. Justification signifieth remission of sins, or acceptation of a man's person to eternal life. Again upon the twentieth Article of the Augustan Confession. Significat iustificatio in his Pauli sententiis, remissionem peccatorum, seu reconciliationem, seu imputationem iustitiae, hoc est, acceptationem personae. i. sustification in Paul's saying, signifieth REMISSION OF SINS, or reconciliation, or imputation of righteousness i. the acceptation of a man's person. And in his Prolegomena upon the Epistle to the Romans, Justi reputamur, Deo remittente peccata. i. we are accounted righteous, when God forgives our sins. Hyperius upon Rom 4.6. Declarat Apostolus, imputare ad justitiam, idem esse, quod non imputare peccata: sponte & graiis ea remittere. i. The Apostle declares, that to impute for righteousness, is but the same, as not to impute sins: or freely and willingly to forgive them. Beza himself holds the truth as fast as any man in this point (though sometimes again he seems to let it go in some expressions about the imputation of Christ's righteousness) In his Treatise of the Supper of the Lord: Cuinam iustificationem tribuemus? uni certè Deo, unus siquidem Deus peccata remittit. Pofita est autem omnis iustificatio in remissione peccatorum: et ìdeò justitia hac in imputatione pofita, justitia Dei vocatur. i. To whom shall we attribute or ascribe Justification? doubtless to God alone, because it is God alone that forgiveth sins. And all justification standeth in remission of sins: and therefore this righteousness which standeth in imputation is called the righteousness of God. Ro. 1.17. & 3, 21. etc. Zanchius in his Common places of Divinity, in the head, concerning justification, hath this title: Quòd justitia fidei nihil aliud sit, quàm reconciliatio cum Deo, quae solà remissione peccatorum constat. i. That the righteousness of Faith is nothing else, but reconciliation with God, which stands in nothing else but forgiveness of sins. Mr. Fox our Countryman gives place to none in holding forth the light of this truth. In his tract of Christ justifying, and first Book: justos eos accipio quos quotidiana remissio per fidem accepta, divino conspectui tanquam justos representat. i. I take them for just or righteous, who by a daily remission of sins received by faith, are represented as righteous before the presence of God. Again, in the second B ok of the same Argument, Ideò justicoram Deo consistimus, quod remissa sunt nobis peccata. i. We therefore stand rignteous before God, because our sins are forgiven us. Chamier, SECT. 7 in the third Tome of his Panstratiae, pag. 907. challengeth the Paternity of Trent for denying remission of sins to be the form, or formal cause of justisication, affirming and evincing this to have been Augustins' opinion. And speaking of himself and his Protestant party, saith thus, Sed ijdem justitiae proram et puppim constituimus inremissione peccatorum, nimirum quia haec nos apud Deum constituit justos. i. We (Protestants) place the first and last, the beginning and end of our righteousness in the forgiveness of ou sins, because this makes us righteous before God. And a little after, Itaque justitiam nostram, quatenus constat remissione peccatorum, cum Paulo justificationem: eam autem, quae perfectione virtutum, sanctificationem appellamus, i. We therefore call our righteousness, as it consists in remission of sins, with Paul we call, Justification: but that which stands in any perfection of virtues, sanctification. Somewhat before the former words alleged: Nos verò quod dat, admittimus, reciprocart inter se justificationem, et remissionem peccatorum. i. We admit of what he (Bellarmine) grants, that justification and remission of sins are one and the else same thing. And again, pag. 908. Remissio peccatorum, est justitia imputata i. Forgiveness of sins is that righteousness that is imputed to us. Stephanus Fabritius to like purpose, commenting upon Psal 32.1. desines justification thus: Justificatio est actio Dei. quà eum qui in Christum mediatorem credit, ex solà gratià et misericordi propter satisfactionem et meritum Christi, à peccat is absolvit, et justum ac innocentem pronunciat. i. Justification is an act of God, whereby of his mere grace and mercy, for the satisfaction and merit of Christ, he absolves him from his sins that believeth in Christ the Mediator, and pronounceth him just and innocent. Lastly Amesius upon the same Psalm and verse, makes remission of sins and justification terms equipollent and reciprocal. Descriptio beatitudinis petiturà causa efficiente et continente, quae est remissio peecatorum, vel justificatio cum ejus effectis etc. i. The description of blessedness is drawn from the efficient and holding cause thereof, which is Forgiveness of sins, or justification, with its effects. It were easy (I presume) for him that hath leisure, SECT. 8 to traverse the writings of these and other Reformed Divines, to make the pile fare greater of such passages as these: Therefore certainly they are very injurious, not only to the names and reputations of these worthy lights in the Church of God, who deny them fellowship and communion in so glorious a truth, and would force upon them, in the very face of their own solemn declarations of themselves to the contrary, an opinion so inconsistent with the stream of the Scripture, and all sound reason; but to the truth itself also, by seeking to represent it to the eyes and consciences of men, as a Beacon upon a hill, or as a Sparrow upon the house top alone by itself, destitute of Friends and helpers, when as it dwells in the midst of its own people, and hath many of the very choice of those holy and faithful and chosen ones, that are with the Lamb against the Beast, to stand for it. So that those odious aspersions of Popery and Arminianism, are Vipers that will easily shake into the fire, when the time of shaking comes. This for a 4th Demonstration of our Conclusion from the Scriptures. CAP. VI Containing a Fift Argument or proof from Scripture, for clearing the Assertion. FIftly, SECT. 1 I conceive, that a clear opening of that Scripture, Philip. 39 will yield us plenty of further light, for the discovery of that truth we seek after in the obscurity of our present Controversy. The words are: And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God through Faith. In the former verse the Apostle professeth what strange effects the excellency of the knowledge of Christ had wrought in him, it had caused him to count all things loss, which sometimes he had esteemed the greatest gain, and the best treasure: yea to despoil himself, as it were with a spirit of deep indignation, of all those formerly beloved and rich-esteemed ornaments, which were unto him as chains of gold about his neck; and (as he then thought) highly commended him, and made him glorious in the sight of God and men (he means his Pharisaical righteousness and legal observations; his Jewish prerogatives, etc. he was now so fare transformed by the renewing of his mind, by the light of the knowledge of Christ shining in unto him, that he looked upon all his, former glory, as upon dung, and smelled a favour of death in those things, which had been his only confidence and hope before of life and peace. Now the reason why he favoured himself all that might be in these under-thoughts, and avileing apprehensions of his former things, and laid on load in this kind all he could, he declares to be this, that he might win Christ, or make gain and advantage of him. How this his desire or intent of gaining Christ might be accomplished, he expresseth thus, And may be found in him. Observe: he doth not say, that he may be found in his righteousness, much less in his righteousness imputed to him, but simply in himself, That he might be found in him: which is an usual expression in Scripture, of the spiritual estate and condition of a believer, viz. to be in Christ. Rom. 8.1. There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ jesus. So cap. 16.7. Who also were in Christ before me, i. were believers, etc. What it is to be found in Christ, or how it must be with him, if he be found in him, (viz. when his time is come, for he speaks here of the future, of the time of his breaking up (as it were) by death) he expresseth, 1. negatively thus: not having mine own righteousness: yet not simply and altogether no righteousness, that may in no sense be called his own, but precisely and determinately, no such righteousness of his own, which stands in works of the Law. Such a righteousness of his own he must be sure not to have, i. not to trust to, or to shroud and shelter himself under from the stroke of God's justice. 2º, affirmatively thus: but that (i that righteousness) which is through the Faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by Faith. Here is not the least jot or tittle of any mention, not the least whispering, breathing or intimation of any righteousness he should have by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, no nor of any righteousness, by or through the righteousness of Christ: but only such a righteousness as is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, through Faith of Christ, or by believing in him. Now because such a righteousness as this wherein is nothing more required of men, SECT. 2 but only Faith in Christ, might seem a slender and tickle righteousness to adventure so great a weight as the precious soul upon, and comes far short of that righteousness of a man's own, which he might make out by the works of the Law: the Apostle adds by way of commendation of this righteousness, to uphold the credit and esteem of it in the hearts and consciences of men, that it is the righteousness of God. i. a righteousness which God himself hath found out, and which he will own and countenance and account for righteousness unto men, and no other but this: Even the righteousness of God (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is in Faith, i. which comes and accrues, and is derived upon a man by Faith. The mentioning of this righteousness the second time, as being or standing in Faith, is doubtless emphatical. One reason Joseph gave (Gen. 41.32.) why pharoh's dream was doubled by God unto him, was to show that the thing was established by God: so the reason why Paul mentions the second time (so immediately upon the former (the consistence or standing of this righteousness, in and by Faith, in all likely hood was this, to show that this righteousness certainly will carry it, notwithstanding all the unlikelyhood, and seeming imperfections of it, and that the thing is fully concluded and established with God accordingly: Or as it is often in speech between man, and man, when a man hath spoken that which seems improbable to him to whom it is spoken, and may be conceived that the Speaker was mistaken in his words, and would correct himself, if he considered what he said, it is usual in such a case, if he that spoke, spoke advisedly and be able to make good what he said, and means to stand to it, to speak the same thing over again, and so to confirm and ratify that which was spoken against both the unlikelyhood of the thing, and the unbelief of the hearer. It is a passage (I conceive) carried by some such rule as this, which the Apostle hath in the following Chapter, ver. 4. Rejoice in the Lord always: Now because these Philipians were under great trials and afflictions, and so might think it was no time for them to rejoice in, and that Paul had forgotten himself, and the condition they were in, to speak to them of rejoicing, therefore to show that he knew well enough what he said, and that he had weighed his words sufficiently, before he put them down, and that there was no other cause but why they should rejoice in the Lord, notwithstanding the fiery trial that was upon them, he redoubles the words of his exhortation. Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say rejoice. So Paul here, having once affirmed, that the righteousness wherein he desired to be found, was the righteousness which is by the Faith of Christ, lest he should seem to have spoken that which he would not stand to, or that which he would upon second thoughts retract, he speaks the same words (in effect) the second time, and avouceth that very righteousness which is by Faith, to be that righteousness that he would stand to, and desired to be found with. If Paul had had any mind or inclination at all, to have placed the righteousness by which he was to be justified, in the righteousness, of Christ imputed, here was even a tempting occasion and opportunity to have drawn him into expressions of himself that way. But we see here is loud speaking, again and again, of the righteousness of Faith, but altum silentium, profound silence of any righteousness from the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This for a fift proof from Scripture. CAP. VII. Wherein the imputation of Faith for righteousness is further cleared from the Scriptures. Sixthly, SECT. 1 that that which God imputes for righteousness in justification, is not the righteousness of Christ himself (in the sense refused in the first Chapter of this discourse) but Faith in Christ, I conceive may be clearly wrought out, and evicted out of all those Scriptures, where justification is ascribed unto Faith. Not to heap up places in this kind (which are confessedly many:) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith, &c. Romans 3, 28. So again, Romans 5.1. Therefore we being justified by FAITH, etc. All confess, that MEN are justified by Faith: and indeed the conclusion thus far, is greater than can be gainsaid. The pregnant letter of the Scripture is too hard for any man's contradiction. Now when men say and profess (according to the Scriptures) that Faith justifieth, I demand, what is it they mean by Faith? do they not mean their believing, or the Act of Faith (usually so called and expressed) which by the assistance of of the Holy Ghost is raised within them, and put forth by them? If by Faith in this case, they mean any thing besides either the habit or act of believing, I confess my soul hath not yet entered into their secret. The Scriptures in the matter of justification, seem rather to speak of that which we call the act of believing, then of the habit: and so learned Divines (as far as I have observed) generally conceive. Now for men to say and to profess themselves that Faith justifieth, and yet to condemn it for an error in another, that shall say and hold, that it is an act of Faith that justifieth, (hath in my apprehension) as much inconsistency of reason in it, as if a man should grant, that Jerusalem once was the joy of the whole Earth, and yet should censure him that should say, that the City Jerusalem was ever so: or that should grant, that Paul laboured in the Gospel more than all the Apostles, but would not endure him, that should say, that Paul the Apostle did so. As Jerusalem, and the City Jerusalem are the same, and Paul, and Paul the Apostle the same: so are Faith, and the act of Faith but the same: and if one justifieth, certainly the other justifieth also. It may be it will be here said, SECT. 2 that they which confess that Faith justifieth, do not mean or conceive of it, as divided or severed from its object, CHRIST. No more did ever any man that had but the first fruits of reason given him for his allowance. For a man to say, that he seethe, and yet to affirm, that when he seethe, he seethe nothing, is to profess open enmity against common sense and reason. Neither is it any other in him (whosoever he be) that shall conceive of any act of Faith, that is not exercised or acted upon its object, either Christ in person, or Christ in promise, or the like. It is impossible that any man should believe, but that he must believe something, or in some person: and so when any man speaks of Faith or believing, he must of necessity imply the object with, or in the Act, though he names only the Act, and not the object, as the usual manner of the Scripture expression is, where Faith or believing is 40 times mentioned, without addition of the object Christ, or the promise of God in Christ, or any thing equivalent to either. Secondly, it may be it will be said, that when men profess and say, that Faith justifieth, their meaning only is, that Faith justifieth, instrumentally, and not otherwise. To this I answer, neither hath any thing more been said hitherto by me, neither is any thing intended to be said in the sequel, but according to the rule of this position: Faith justifieth. instrumentally. But thirdly, it may be it will be yet further objected and said, SECT. 3 that when men confess that Faith justifieth, their meaning is, that it justifieth, as it takes hold of Christ's righteousness. I Answer, if this also should be granted (but the Scripture, as hath been said, never mentioneth or describeth justifying Faith under any such consideration) yet it is the act of Faith that justifieth. As when a man putteth forth his arm, and reacheth a pot or cup with drink in it, wherewith he quencheth his thirst, he may be said to quench his thirst instrumentally, by reaching out his arm; because this was a means to procure it. So let men put what meaning or interpretation they please upon their words, when they profess and acknowledge, that it is Faith that justifieth, if they mean at all as they say they must mean that it is the Act of Faith that justifieth, because both that Faith by which a man believes in Christ, is an act of Faith, and again, that Faith by which a man is instrumentally justified, is an act of Faith: and that Faith that layeth hold upon the righteousness of Christ, is an act of Faith too. Therefore let men turn themselves any way, and which way they please, and make their words to fall either to the North, or towards the South, if they mean as they say, that faith indeed justifieth, they must mean, that it is the act of faith that justifieth. And when themselves will say that faith justifieth, and yet will condemn it for an error in another, that the act of faith should justify: they cannot escape the hands of this dilemma, but one of the horns will gore them; either it must follow, that they do not mean, as they say: or that they condemn their own opinion and meaning in another: most true it is, that it is far from truth to say, that faith iustifyeth as it is an act: and as far from truth it is, to say, that it is not the act of faith that justifieth. If it be yet further replied and said, SECT. 4 that when men say, we are justified by Faith, their meaning is, that we are justified by that which faith apprehendeth: and this is fare from saying, that Faith is imputed for righteousness. To this I Answer: 1. if their meaning be simply and without limitation so, that we are justified by that which Faith apprehendeth, when they say, we are justified by Faith, than they speak more truth, than they are ware of, and (as it seems) more than they intent to speak. For that Faith justifieth is most true: but that whatsoever Faith apprehendeth should justify, hath no fellowship with truth, (no not so much as in appearance) For By Faith we understand (or apprehend) the worlds were made, Heb. 11.3. yet no man will say, that the creation of the world justifies men. Secondly, if men ascribe justification in every respect and consideration to that which Faith apprehendeth, they utterly overthrow that which generally they profess, viz. the instrumental justification of faith. For if any thing that faith apprehendeth, justifieth every way, both materially, and formally, and meritoriously, and principally, and instrumentally, etc. Faith shall justify no ways: and so when men say, they are justified by Faith, their meaning must be, they are not at all justified by Faith, but by some other thing. Therefore of necessity it is, that Faith must justify some way: if it justifieth any way, it must of neceility be, by imputation or account from God for righteousness, because it is all that God requires of men to their justification, instead of the righteousness of the Law. The fore if God shall not impute or account it unto them for this righteousness, it would stand them in no stead at all to their iustificaetion: because there is nothing useful or available to any holy, or saving purpose whatsoever, but only to that where●● to God hath assigned it. If God in the new Covenant of the Gospel, requires faith in Christ for our justification, instead of the righteousness of the Law in the old, and this Faith will not pass in account with him for such righteousness, both his Commandment and Covenant for believing, and the obedience itself of believing, will both become void and of none effect; the entire benefit of them being suspended upon the gracious pleasure and purpose of God in the designation of them to their end. CAP. VIII. Containing the last proof from Scripture, for the Non-imputation of Christ's righteousness in the sense controverted. THere is yet one Scripture remaining (happily amongst many more that have not yet manifested themselves in this Controversy) that seems (yea I verily believe, SECT. 1 doth more than seem) quite to overthrow and take away that which must be the groundwork and foundation to set this imputation of the righteousness of Christ upon (if ever it stands) viz. the imputability, or transferiblenesse of it from one to another. If the Scriptures do not only no where establish, but in any place absolutely deny a possibility of the translation or removing of the righteousness of Christ from one person to another; this will strike the fatal stroke in deciding this Question. This I conceive will be evicted with a pregnancy irrefragable from that Scripture Gal. 3.12. And the Law is not of Faith: but the man that doth them, shall live in them. This Scripture doth not barely and simply deny a deceivablenesle or possibility of translation of the righteousness of the Law, from one person to another, but denies it emphatically, and with the utmost advantage of a denial. For it denies a possibility of it to be done, even by that hand expressly, and by name, (I mean the hand of faith) which was the ikelyest hand under Heaven to have done it, if the nature of the thing to be done had not resisted the doing of it. The Apostle denyeth unto faith itself the office and power of being a Mediatrix in this case, to derive or carry over the righteousness of the Law, from one person to another, By which it appeareth also, that he had an intent particularly to make the righteousness of the Law as performed by Christ himself, uncapable of this translation or imputation: because faith never pretended, nor ever could have ground or colour to pretend a deriving or translating of any other legal righteousness from one person to another for Justification, but only that which was performed by Christ. If there were any thing in all the world that could have done the thing that is pleaded for, Faith indeed hath the pre-eminence of likely hood to do it: because it doth derive a righteousness from one to another, such a righteousness as is deriveable, an imputative righteousness you may call it, because it is such by account or interpretation (I mean, remission of sins:) this Faith derives from Christ upon him that believeth: but for a righteousness of the Law, it cannot derive, because such a righteousness is not deriveable. Let the words and scope of the Scripture mentionedbe narrowly examined, SECT. 2 and all this that hath been said will be found in the bowels of it. And the Law is not of Faith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. the man that doth them, shall live in them: or (if you would translate the emphasis also which is in the original) thus: the very doer of them, the man shall live. The former clause, after Paul's succinct and press manner of expressing himself, is very brief, and therefore somewhat obscure in itself: but the latter clause easeth the burden of the difficulty, and casteth a sufficient light upon it. Whereunto if we add but the dependence and reference that this verse hath upon the former, Paul's meaning will be found as clear as the noon day. Therefore when he saith, the Law is not of faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith the original) by, or out of faith, his meaning can be no other but this, that the righteousness of the Law doth not arise or come upon any man out of his Faith or by his believing, or that no man is made partaker of a legal righteousness by believing: 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 express tenor of the Law, or legal righteousness, as standing in full opposition to any derivation of it from one to another, even by Faith itself. As if he should say, no legal righteousness can come upon any man by believing, because it is only the man himself that doth the things of the Law, that shall be justified and live by them: the righteousness of the Law never goeth further (in the propriety or formality of it) to the justification of any man, then to the person of him that fulfils the Law. That by the word Law, in this place, is meant the righteousness 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 appear 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 righteousness of, or obedience unto the Law viz. that it should be obtained, and enjoyed by any such righteousness: as is evident by the opposition in the following clause, but through the righteousness 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 righteousness. The word is again used in the same signification in the very next verse. For if they that be of the Law, be heirs. i. that are for the righteousness of the LAW. 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 apparently 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 righteousness or works of the Law, for this reason, because the Scripture saith, that the just shall live by faith. Now because this consequence might seem somewhat doubtful and insufficient, lying open to some such exception against it as this: what though the just do, 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 righteousness of the Law be made over unto them, by faith, and so compound righteousness be made for them, of both together? No (saith Paul) the Law is not of faith: there can be no legal righteousness derived or drawn upon men by faith: and that for this reason, because such a righteousness is by the express letter and tenor of the Law, consigned and appropriated to the person of him that fulfils it: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the man himself that doth them, shall live by them. q. d. there is a repugnancy and contradiction in it ex naturarei, in the very nature and essence of the thing, that the righteousness of the Law should ●ver be removed or carried over from one man's person to another, though it were attempted by the hand of Faith itself. 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 legal righteousness, ●●●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 mountains: but for removing any legal righteousness (in the sense we speak of) it must let that alone for ever. There is a greater contrariety and indisposition in the several natures of faith and the Law, in respect of mixing or working together to make up a justification, than was between the lion and Clay in Nebuchadnezars 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 repugnancy between the Law and faith, in the matter of justification: 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 heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect. Where you see as full and as irreconcilable an opposition, between the righteousness of the Law, and the righteousness of faith, in respect of justification, as is between East and West: it is impossible they should be brought together. There is a greater gulf fixed between them, than was between Abraham and Dives: faith cannot go over to the righteousness of the Law, to join with that in justification: neither can the righteousness of the Law, be brought over unto faith. What reason there may be conceived for this Non-imputabilitie of the righteousness of the Law, See Cap. 21 we shall have a fair opportunity to declare, in the prosecution of our grounds and reasons, for the point we favour 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 faithfulness as frailty would permit, how the Scriptures stand affected and incline in the controversy depending, we are lead (in the next place) by the hand of a plain and familiar method, to propound such Arguments and considerations for the confirmation of the premises, as reason and sobriety of thoughts about the stated Question, have suggested. My first ground and argument to prove, that the righteousness of Christ (in the sense now under dispute, viz. in the letter and propriety of it) cannot be imputed unto any for their justification. I propound after this manner. That righteousness which will not fit, and furnish all believers with all points or parts of that righteousness, which the Law requires of them, cannot be imputed unto them unto justification. But the obedience that Christ performed to the mor all Law, is such a righteousness as will not fit and furnish all believers with all points of righteousness, which the Law requires of them. Therefore it cannot be imputed to believers for their justification. The reason of the former Proposition is, because a perfect and complete legal righteousness (and such certainly, I mean perfect and complete, that that justifieth, must of necessity be) requires a precise, punctual and through obedience unto all things in the Law, which any way concerns a man to do. If there be but a letter, jot, or title wanting in any man righteousness of all that was his duty to do, that righteousness is not (at any hand) for his justification. The curse of the Law and eternal vengeance will break in upon a man, body and soul, aswell through the smallest and least-imaginable defects of a legal righteousness, as through wider breaches, and greater transgressions, in case a man hath not wherewith to secure himself otherwise. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law, to do them Gal. 3.10. Therefore there is no escaping the curse of the La●● by the law, except a man's obedience be absolutely absolute, aswell for constancy as univ●●se, in ad things that are written viz. with reference to him, and 〈◊〉 calling. For otherwise, there may be a struck and complete I 〈◊〉 righteousness, with 〈◊〉 the doing 〈…〉 Law, in ca●e they have no 〈…〉 As for instance: Adam might have performed, and accordingly have hin still Justified by a complete Legal righteousness, and yet never have performed many duties, which the Law required of Eve, for the continuance of her justification. So Christ ful●filled all righteousness (as himself faith, it became him to do) and consequently held an exact conformity with the Law, so that neither Man, nor God himself, could rebuke him of sin: and yet the Law requires many things of many others both Men and Women, which Christ never performed, as will appear in the demonstration of the latter Proposition (which is at hand.) For the truth therefore of this Proposition that the righteousness performed by Christ unto the Moral Law, SECT. 2 will not sit and furnish all believers with all parts of such a righteousness as the Law requires of them, it is so full of its own light, that further proof will but run over. How many duties are Servants indebted unto their Masters after the flesh, by the obligation of the Law, which Christ never discharged or performed, as namely that they should be obedient unto them with fear and trembling. Eph. 6.5. Again, Wives charged by the Law with many points of obedience towards their Husbands, yea and Husbands with some towards their Wives, which certainly Christ never performed for them, yea he expressly declined and refused the doing of some things, as lying without the verge of his Calling, which the Law requires as matters of special duty from others. When he was desired (Luk. 12 13.14.) to do Justice, or take up a controversy between a man and his Brother, his answer was, Man, who made me a Judge, or divider over you? Implying, that he would meddle with no acts of righteousness, that lay without the precincts of his Calling. And indeed if he had (though it was impossible that ever his foot should have been taken in that snare) it had overthrown the infinite benefit that now redounds unto the world, from those acts of righteousness, which were performed by him in his Calling. So when the people would have taken him and made him King, Joh. 6. he absolutely refused: and refusing the office of a King, doubtless he would not take upon him the execution. Therefore what righteousness should Kings and Magistrates have imputed unto them from Christ to make them just and righteous in their Callings, when Christ himself refused to perform those acts of righteousness which are proper thereunto. That which never was done or acted by Christ, cannot be imputed: that which never had a being, is not capable of an act of imputation to pass upon it. It may be some will object, SECT. 3 that Love is the fulfilling of the Law: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law. Rom. 13.8. and this fulfilling of the Law by Love, is such a righteousness as will fit all persons of all Callings and relations in the world whatsoever. Therefore the perfect Love of Christ, may be imputed for righteousness unto all, though particular and proper acts of obedience otherwise be wanting. But to this I Answer. First, howsoever Love may be termed an Evangelicall keeping or fulfilling of the Law, because God accepteth of it graciously, wheressoever he findeth it in truth, and rewar death it accordingly, yet is it not a strict, literal, and legal fulfilling of the Law, it is not such a fulfilling of it, as will hold out weight and measure for any man's justification in a Covenant of works. For first, the Law requires many duties from men, and seizeth upon them with the Curse immediately upon the first nonconti● 〈…〉 ●al t●in●s. N●w Love is but one duty 〈…〉 and therefore cannot be many, much 〈…〉 Love were such a fu filling of 〈…〉 ●●q●ired in a legal justification 〈…〉 believers be justified, not by an 〈…〉 by a per nal▪ righteousness: because no 〈◊〉 is a true believer but he that ●oves his Brother truly, and whose Faith worketh by such love. Thirdly, and lastly, if the Love of Christ were capable of that imputation for righteousness, that is pretended, then will it follow (at least according to the principl ● of that Opinion against which we dispute) that the whole active obedience of Christ, I mean all that righteousness of his which stood in holy actions conformable to the Law, was in vain: be cause there is no other possible necessity granted of this righteousness of Christ by these men, but only for imputation. Therefore Secondly to the objection I answer yet again, that where the Scripture calleth Love the fulfilling of the Law, it speaketh only of that part of the Law, which we call the second Table: as is no whit less than evident in the place last named. Rom. 13.8.9. But that fulfilling of the Law, which claims the honour of a justification, whether by imputation or personal performance, must comprehend as well a fulfilling of the first as of the second Table. Thirdly and lastly, that proposition, Love is the fulfilling of the Law, is not propositio sormalis, but causalis & consecutiva (as Logiciaxes speak) that is, such a proposition, wherein one thing is said to be another, not because it is precisely the same in nature and being with it, but because it is the cause of it, and so hath the being of the other virtually in it. This kind of proposition is frequent in Scripture. I am the resurrection (saith Christ, joh. 11.25.) The meaning is not, that he was properly and formally the resurrection, but that he was the cause, means, or Author, of the resurrection. So Paul saying that Christ is our hope, meaneth only, that CHRIST is the ground or Author of our hope. 1 Tim. 1.1. In like manner, when he saith, Love is the fulfilling of the Law, his meaning only is, that a spiritual and unfeigned affection of love, is an inward principle of that nature and importance which inclineth and disposeth a man to the performance and practice of all manner of duties required in the Law. Therefore to say that the Love of Christ is imputed to men for their fu filling of the Law, or for their righteousness, is ridiculous. More might be added by way of answer: but the strength of the Objection is small. Another thing that (happily) some will object against the argument propounded, is this: SECT. 4 It is not necessary that men should have all particular acts of righteousness qualified with all circumstances answerable to their Callings, imputed unto them for their justification. It is sufficient, if they have a righteousness imputed to them, which is equivalent to such a righteousness. To this I Answer two things: First, they which speak such things, do not consider the severity of the letter, the strict and peremptory nature of the Law. The Law will not know any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, any thing by way of proportion or equivalency: one thing as good as another will not serve the turn. The Law must have jot for jot, title for title, point for point, letter for letter, every thing to answer in the most exact conformity to it: otherwise it hath a curse in a readiness wherewith to take vengeance on men, no life or reward. Secondly, to impute acts of righteousness to a man which are proper to another Calling, and wholly disagreeing from that Calling wherein God hath placed him, is rather to impute sin unto him, than righteousness. Because though such acts were righteousness to him that wrought them, yet if I, being in a different Calling, should be accounted by God to have done them (which is the Law of imputation) I must be judged by him as one that had transgressed the bounds of my Calling, & consequently had sinned. Neither is that reason of any value, which some allege, SECT. 5 to countenance an equivalency of righteousness in this kind, instead of a propriety viz. that God was not punctual and every ways circumstantial in inflicting the Curse of the Law, upon the transgression of it: because they suppose, that by those words (wherein the Curse of the Law is expressed) Thou shalt die the death. God's meaning was, that he should die an eternal death (literally) and not by way of equivalency. Therefore God having notwithstanding inflicted this Curse by way of equivalency, and not in the letter of it, why may he not impute a legal righteousness unto men, that hath only an equivalency with that righteousness which they should have performed, though not an exactness with it according to the letter. For to this I answer: First, that the very foundation that is laid to build this objection upon, is sandy, and hath nothing either in Scripture, or sound reason to bottom it. From the Scriptures, nothing that I have read, is so much as pretended that way, viz that God in those words, Thou shalt die the death, must of necessity, precisely and determinately mean, eternal death, according to the letter. And by what fire, such a spirit as this is, will be extracted or drawn out of that body of those words, I do not yet understand. If we judge of his intent and meaning in those words by the event of things, or manner of execution, they were meant determinately, neither of eternal death according to the letter, nor yet of an eternal death by way of equivalency, but indifferently of either, because it was an eternal death only by way of equivalency that was inflicted upon Christ for one part of Adam or his posterity: but upon the other part which perish, it is inflicted according to the letter. Secondly upon deeper consideration, it will (happily) be found to be nearer the truth, to hold, that in those words, Thou shalt die the death, God his meaning was not (at lest determinately) to threaten eternal death either in one kind or other, either according to the letter, or by way of equivalency: but to have the word Death, taken and understood by Adam, in the extent of the signification, as it indifferently signifieth that evil of the punishment which was represented and known unto him, by the name of Death, without limiting his thoughts to the consideration either of the shorter continuance, or of the everlastingness of the duration of it. For as Scotus well determines in this case) Aeternitas non est de ratione poenae peccatis debitae, sed peccatores concomitans, qui non possunt ut Christus, vel cum Christo cluctari. 1. Eternity is not of the nature or essence of the punishment due unto sins, but it follows and falls upon sinners, who cannot wrestle out as Christ did, or with him. So then, eternity not being essential to that punishment or death which God threatened, it is no ways necessary that it should be included (especially in such a precise and determinate manner as the objection pretendeth) in the signification of that word, wherein the punishment is expressed. But thirdly and lastly, suppose the foundation be gold, yet will it be found hay and stubble that is built upon it. For what if God should take liberty to from the letter of the Curse, in the execution of it, should threaten eternal death literally, and inflict it equivalently: this no ways proveth, that the creature who was bound to obey the precepts of the Law, might take the like liberty to perform one thing instead of another, or that God should accept any such payment from them (whether made by themselves, or by another for them,) in the nature of a legal payment. Indeed having received a full satisfaction for all the transgressions of the Law, he may by a second or new Covenant accept of what he pleaseth to estate men in the benefit or blessing of that satisfaction, and so that which is thus accepted, becomes in this respect to him that performs it and from whose hand it is accepted, equivalent to a perfect and complete legal righteousness: because it justifieth him (in respect of all benefits and privileges of a justification) as well as such a righteousness would have done. But that he should accept on any man's behalf, as a perfect legal righteousness, the performance of such things, which are not required of him, neither by the first Covenant of works, nor by the second of Grace, hath neither correspondence or agreement with the one Covenant, or with the other. A man (me thinks) must have a rare faculty to convert any thing into the similitude of a truth at pleasure, that can believe or conceive, that Christ's preaching on the Mount, ordaining Disciples, reproving the Scribes and Pharises, working miracles and the like (which were parts of his obedience to the Law) should be imputed to a woman (●or example) instead of her obedience and love and faithfulness to her Husband: and that she should be reputed before God, to have performed all these duties according to the strict form and exigency of ●he Law, because Christ performed the forenamed duties, and these by imputation are made hers. CAP. X. A second ground against the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (in the sense formerly rejected) drawn from the transcendency of the nature of it. A Second Reason, SECT. 1 why the active obedience or righteousness of Christ, cannot (in the parts and propriety of it) be imputed unto any man whatsoever for righteousness, may be contrived and cast into this frame. That righteousness which is exactly and precisely fitted to the person and office of him, that is mediator between God and man, or Redeemer of the world, cannot be imputed unto any other man for his righteousness. But such is the righteousness of Christ, a righteousness precisely fitted to the person and Calling of a mediator. etc. Therefore it cannot be imputed unto any other man whatsoever for righteousness unto him. The minor proposition (I conceive) will be yielded without much striving. If any man will undertake to find any such flaw in the righteousness of Christ, that doth amount to the least degree of an incongruity, or inconsistency with his office of mediator, attempts no less than the undermining the foundations of the peace of the world, and laying the hope of the salvation of men in the dust. Such an High Priest (saith the Apostle, Heb. 7.26.) it became us to have (i. that it was necessary we should have, if we looked for salvation by him) that is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, etc. And woe unto the world, if the least either spot or blemish, could be found in this High Priest, or his righteousness. Therefore I presume that the dear interest which every man layeth claim to in the truth of this proposition, will secure it from all violence of contradiction from any man. So that if there be any thing weak and unconcluding in the Argument, it must be sought for in the major Proposition. Therefore let us cause that to pass through the fire, and see whether any flame will kindle upon it. The tenor of this was: that that righteousness which is exactly fitted to the person and office of a Mediator, cannot be imputed for righteousness unto any other man. How a conceit of any such imputability should lodge quietly in any man's thoughts, I confess I cannot comprehend. The whole generation of Disputers for that imputation, SECT. 2 which we oppose, generally interpret the phrase of having the righteousness of Christ imputed, by, being clothed with this righteousness of Christ, or, with the robes of his righteousness. Now than he that assumeth this righteousness of Christ unto himself, and apparelleth and arrayeth himself with it, represents himself before God, not in the habit of a just or righteous Man, but in the glorious attire of him, that makes men just and righteous, the great Mediator of the world, whose righteousness hath heights and depths in it, a length and breadth, which infinitely exceed the dimensions and proportions of all men whatsoever. And as John speaking (as is probable) of his transfiguration in the Mount (or whether it be of any other manifestation of his glory, it is not much material) useth these words, Joh. 1.14. We beheld his glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the Father: meaning, that the glory wherein Christ then appeared, was so supertranscendently glorious and excellent, that it exceeded the rank and quality of the creature, whether Angel or Man, and was meet only for him to wear, that was the only begotten of the Father: i. the natural Son of God, the greatness of the person could not but have been acknowledged by that vestment of glory, which he then had on: so may (and must) it be acknowledged and said of the righteousness of his life, that it was peculiarly appropriated to him that was the only begotten of the Father, the great Saviour and Redeemer of the world. Neither did that glory of his which john saw, further transcend the condition of the creature, than the glory of this righteousness doth. Now then for a silly worm, (a sinful and contemptible creature) to take this robe of unmeasurable Majesty upon it, and to conceit itself as great in holiness and righteousness as jesus Christ himself (for that is the spirit that rules in that opinion, to teach men to assume all that Christ did unto themselves, and that in no other way, nor upon any lower terms, then as if themselves had personally done it) whether this be a behaviour and deportment of soul of that grace and acceptance on High, which many have suffered themselves to be persuaded of; whether it will relish well in the eye of jealousy or no, I earnestly desire that men would make it a matter of Conscience seriously to consider and re-examine. All the parts of his righteousness, all the acts of obedience that he performed, he performed them as one that had received the spirit without measure, i.e. there was a weightiness and worth in them which did fully answer the fullness of that grace that was given unto him above all his fellows (a title of honour wherewith the Holy Ghost is pleased to honour the Saints) yea those acts of obedience, though he wrought them in the humane nature, or as he was Man; yet by reason of the near neighbourhood and straight combination of the God head in the unity of the same person, they could not but receive excellent impressions from that also: The righteousness was in all the parts and circumstances of it, such as became God himself in personal union with his creature, the humane nature. Now whether that be not to be accounted robbery (and that of a high nature) for the creature to assume an equality of righteousness, (whether by imputation or however) with God himself, I leave to the sober and unpartial thoughts of men to consider. But especially there are some streyns in this righteousness of Christ, that cannot be appropriated or applied unto any other whatsoever without notorious and manifest impiety. All that Christ taught and preached on earth, was part of his righteousness and obedience. For I have not spoken of myself (saith he, joh. 12.49.) but the Father that sent me gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. Therefore when he speaketh these and many such like words, I am the light of the world: Come unto me all that are weary and heavy laden, and I will refresh you, etc. is it meet for any other to conceive them as spoken by himself in his own person, but only for him that spoke them. Those which were words full of grace and truth in that mouth that spoke them and for which they were fitted, would be words of presumption and blasphemy in any other, if they were conceived to be spoken either in the Name, or concerning the person of the speaker. So that you see clearly, SECT. 3 that one main reason why we deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness in the propriety or formality of it in justification, is, not because we deny the righteousness itself, nor because we deny the necessity of it, nor yet because we less honour and magnify it, than others, but on the contrary, because we desire to establish it upon better foundations, and show a plainer and greater necessity of it, and give more honour and glory to it, than the adverse opinion can do. If men will needs understand that Esay 42.21. of Christ's fulfilling the Law: The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness sake: he will magnify the Law and make it honourable, there is no such way to raise the interpretation of the words on high, as to make the righteousness of Christ (in respect of the letter and formality of it) incommunicable. He that should have taken the Reed out of Christ's hand, that was put into it instead of a Sceptre, and have broken it in pieces, and given him a sceptre's of gold instead of it, should have honoured Christ more, than they that gave him the Reed: So he that shall overthrow a pretended use and feigned necessity of Christ's righteousness, and demonstrate a true and real necessity of it indeed, he no ways derogates either from the righteousness itself, or from the necessity of it, but addeth weight and authority unto both. It is a special circumstance or qualification much insisted upon and required in the honour we ascribe or give unto God, that it be precisely, that honour which is due unto him, or due unto his Name. Psal. 29.2. and Psal. 96.8. because indeed, upon a true account, that would be found no honour at all unto him, which is not due unto him. He that shall deny that ever any man lay in that womb of the Virgin, wherein Christ was conceived and fashioned by the Holy Ghost, besides himself, shall neither disparage the womb that bore him, nor him that was conceived in it, but should rather honour both. And so he that shall say, there was never man buried in the Tomb wherein Christ's body lay, disparageth neither. No more is it any dispargement or prejudice cast upon the righteousness of Christ, to say that there was never any man formally justified with it, but himself alone, that it is a righteousness sit for no man to wear or assume to himself, but only for the person of him that wrought it. Nay, he that here speaketh these things, exalteth the righteousness of Christ on high: and maintaineth the honour that belongeth to it. Therefore (by the way) to charge the crime of Arrianisme upon this opinion (which some have much ado to forbear) is to frame an accusation against it, upon the like terms, that Potiphars wife proceeded upon in her indictment against her Servant Joseph: the foul crime of incontinency was laid to his charge, whereas his virtuous offence was nothing else but a high strain of a chaste behaviour. Gen. 39 Or it were, as if a man should be accused of want of love to the Brethren, who were now ready to lay down his life for their sakes: greater love than which (as our Saviour saith) no man hath. There is no opinion that can more dear sympathise with the Divinity of Christ, then that that denieth the imputation of his righteousness (in the sense so frequently disallowed) But some (perhaps) will think sufficiently to salve the congruity or fitness of this righteousness of Christ for imputation to believers, SECT. 4 from the consideration of the union that is between Christ as the head, and believers as the body or members; and reason after this manner. Though the righteousness of Christ be too glorious and excellent to be appropriated unto men, or to be accounted unto them for their personal actions, as they are men, or as they are sinful: yet as they are members of Christ, and he their head, they see no inconvenience in it, they may be ascribed unto them. May not that which is done by the head, be ascribed or communicated to the whole body? To this I Answer two things: First, that Christ and believers are a mystical body, that is, a body only by way of a secret resemblance or similitude with a natural body. Therefore an universal consent or agreement in all things between them, cannot be thought on: because then a similitude would be no longer a similitude, but an identity: and a mystical body would be no longer a mystical body, but a natural. Now one difference between them is this: what any one member of the body natural doth, as head, eyes, ears, etc. the whole may be said to do: when the head studieth, the man may be said to study: So when the eye seethe, or ear heareth, etc. yea it is more proper to ascribe these and such like acts which are exercised by the particular members of the natural body severally, and the whole person, then to the members themselves by which they are acted: it is more proper to say, the man seethe by the eye, then to say the eye seethe: But in the mystical body, it is otherwise: When Christ (the Head of this body) wrought miracles, the body could not be said to have wrought them. So when Paul (a special member of this body) reproved Peter, the whole body cannot be said to have reproved him: because some of the members joined with Peter in his sin against Paul in his reproof. The Reason of which difference is this, because in the natural body; the members make but one Suppositum (as the Schoolmen speak) or one personal being, and so have but one and the same numerical principle of all their actions and motions, viz. the reasonable soul, but a mystical body, being made up of many persons or personal beings, which have every one entire natural & substantial beings in themselves (besides their relation of members one to another) and so have every one principles of their actions really distinct each from other. One man's will is not really and numerically the same with another's: nor one man's grace really the same with another's. And hence it cometh to pass, that what one of these members do, is not necessarily to be ascribed to the whole body, but to that member only which doth it, inasmuch as it hath a principle within itself, which is not numerically the same with the rest. But secondly, I answer more briefly and plainly to the objection. Though the benefit of what the head doth, be communicated to the whole body, and every member (for every member in the natural body fareth the better for the Head, and the operations of it) yet that which the head doth or worketh, is no ways to be imputed or ascribed either unto the hand or foot, or any other member, as if it were done by them: so doth the whole mystical body of Christ, and every member thereof (even the whole Society and fellowship of believers) reap and enjoy abundantly the fruit, benefit, and blessing of all that Christ (the Head) either did, or suffered in the world: forgiveness of sins, peace of conscience, acceptation into favour with God, adoption, sanctification, hope of glory, glory or salvation itself (when it cometh) etc. all these and the like are Grapes gathered from that Vine; the active and passive obedience or righteousness of Christ, furnisheth his whole body with all these precious and pleasant riches: and yet there is no necessity that either his do or sufferings should be ascribed or imputed unto them, no more than the labour and skill of the Bee, is to be ascribed unto him that eats the honey. SECT. 5 Again, some urge the consideration of the marriage between Christ and his Church, (and consequently, every believer) to salve the congruity or fitness of his righteousness for imputation to believers: and reason after this manner. The wife by marriage, hath a right to all that is her Husbands: she is endowed with all his goods: they are aswell hers, as his. Therefore a believer being married to Christ, hath a right and title to all that Christ hath, all that Christ hath is his: and therefore his righteousness is his. etc. To this I Answer two things. First, it is true, the wife by marriage comes to be endowed with all that is her Husbands: but this endowing of her with all, is no ingredient into the marriage itself (much less is it the formal cause of the marriage) but is a fruit or consequent of it. So the right and title which a believer hath to the righteousness of Christ, accrues unto him by, and upon the spiritual marriage. The marriage must be first made up between Christ and him (which is done by Faith, or believing) before he comes to have this right spoken of in the righteousness of Christ. Therefore it cannot be impured unto him in the very act of believing (which is the golden apple the adverse opinion strives for) and yet much less before the act of believing (which yet is affirmed by some great and learned abettors of that side) Because in both these cases, the title we speak of to the righteousness of Christ, should not grow to a believer, by, or from, or upon his marriage, but either in, or before it. But secondly, I answer yet further (and close more nearly with the spirit of the objection) Howsoever by marriage there ariseth a title unto the wife of all that is her Husbands, so that it may be said, that all that is the Husbands, is made or becomes the wife's: yet this is so to be qualified and understood, that no Law either of natural decency and sobriety, or of a rational expediency or behoof to either party, receive prejudice or violation. All that is the Husbands, is not every ways the wives by means of her marriage, nor for every use or purpose, but only in a way of expediency or beneficialness to her. As for instance: the or garments of the Husband, are the wifes by marriage: but how? not hers to put on, and wear upon her own person, for so they would be hers to her own shame and reproach. We know it was prohibited in the Law. Deut. 22.5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto the man, for all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord thy God. But hers they are, (and may be called hers) in this sense, as it is a comfort and credit unto her that her Husband be clothed like himself, and that his habit be according to his rank and quality. So is it indeed an unspeakable comfort, and a ground of a glorious rejoicing unto a believing Soul, that her Lord and Husband jesus Christ, is clothed with that rich and glorious robe of righteousness, that he is so holy, so harmless, so far separate from sinners, as he is: but she must take heed of assuming these things unto herself, otherwise then in the benefit and comfort of them: she must not think herself as holy, as harmless, as far separate from sinners, as Christ himself is. The Common or inferior Priest that should put on and serve in the High Priests garments, was by the Jews adjudged guilty of death, by the hand of Heaven. As Mr. Ainsworth citeth out of Maimony upon Exod. 28.43. So again, the wisdom and understanding of the Husband, may be said to be the wife's, by marriage. But how? not for her to be wise withal, for in this respect it is her Husbands only, notwithstanding marriage: the woman is not therefore as wise as her Husband, because the Husband's wisdom is hers by marriage: but it is hers in the benefit and comfort of it, thus: having a Husband that is wise, she shall live the better, and more comfortable life with him, she shall be the better provided for, and the like. So the righteousness of Christ becomes ours by right of our spiritual marriage with him: but not to be righteous withal (formally) for this is still his personal propriety, notwithstanding the giving of himself in marriage to us: but to have the benefit and blessing of communicated unto us, and derived upon us, both in our justification, adoption, and salvation. CAP. XI. A third ground against the pretended imputation, viz. the Non-necessitie of it. A third Reason, SECT. 1 warring strongly against this imputation of Christ's righteousness, is: There is no necessity or occasion of any such imputation. The truth of the old rule doth not wax old, neither will ever vanish: Deus et natura nihil faciunt frustrà. Neither God the Master, nor Nature the servant, ever make any thing in vain. If God hath sufficiently provided otherwise for the justification of his people, most certain it is that he doth not impute this righteousness of Christ unto them, for that end: which yet is the only end, for which the necessity thereof, either is o● (indeed) can be pretended. That a believer is sufficiently justified before God, without any imputation of the righteousness of Christ (I still mean in the letter and formality of it) I thus demonstrate. He that is completely justified by having his sins forgiven, is justified without the imputation of this active obedience or righteousness of Christ. This proposition is generally granted: for no man contends for this imputation (in the sense we speak of) in regard of forgiveness of sins (neither is there any colour for it) but for another purpose, as we shall see hereafter. Therefore I assume: But a believer is suthciently justified before God by the forgiveness of his sins: therefore I conclude: There is no need of this imputation of Christ's righteousness for justification. The latter proposition, that men are fully justified before God by having their sins pardoned, hath been already proved at large (cap. 5.) by express testimonies of the Scripture: whereunto we found the judgement of Calvin (with other learned Divines of the reformed Religion) fully conformable. Here we observed, that to justify in Scripture dialect, constantly signifies, absolution from guilt and punishment, but never any qualifying or investing, with a positive or legal righteousness, either by imputation, or otherwise. To those Scriptures, which were there produced and insisted upon (being many) yet many more might be added of like importance, there being no stream of truth running fuller or clearer along the Scriptures than this. But because we shall have assistance enough from those very places alleged, to vindicate the interpretation given against all that is, or can be objected against it, we will spare that time and labour. But against the Exposition given of these Scriptures, wherein it was affirmed, SECT. 2 that the Scriptures know no other justification of a sinner, but that which stands in remission of sins, or discharge from the punishment or condemnation due unto them, it is objected: that forgiveness of sins is indeed a part of justification but not the whole: imputation of righteousness must be likewise added. To this I answer: First, that Calvin is as expressly of another judgement as words can make him: a professed enemy to this biformed or double justification. On Rom. 4. ver. 6, 7. etc. he hath these words. Quibus etiam verbis docemur, justitiam Paulo nihil aliud esse, quam remissionem peccatorum. i. in which words we are taught, that righteousness (with Paul) is nothing else but remission of sins. He doth not say, that Paul placeth righteousness or justification, partly in remission of sins, partly in somewhat else: but plainly affirms, that that righteousness by which we are justified or made righteous before God, is NOTHING ELSE but this forgiveness. Again, in his Institutions. lib. 3. cap. 11. sect. 21. justitia fidei est reconciliatio cum Deo, quae SOLA REMISSIONE PECCATORUM constat. The righteousness of Faith is our reconciliation with God, which consists of remission of sins ONLY. Again in the same Section: Constat, quos Deus amplectitur, NON ALITER fieri justos, nisi quòd abstersis peccatorum remissione maculis purificentur, ut talis justitia VNO VBRBO appellari queat REMISSIO PECCATORUM i. It is evident, that those whom God embraceth, are NO OTHERWAYS made righteous, but because they are purified, having their spots washed off by the forgiveness of sins: so that this righteousness may IN ONE WORD, be called, REMISSION OF SINS. Again in the following Section. Sic remissionem peccatorum cum justitiá connectit Apostolus, Act. 13.38. ut IDEM PRORSUS esse ostendat. i. The Apostle, Act. 13.38. doth so couple or conjoin forgiveness of sins with righteousness, that he plainly shows them to be ABSOLUTELY, OR ALTOGETHER THE SAME. Again, in the third Section of the same Chapter. Cum (Scriptura) dicit Deum justificare impium quiest ex side Christi, quis sensus esse potest, nisi fideibeneficio a damnatione liberare, quam ipsorum impietas merebatur? Et paulo pòst: justificare ergo NIHIL ALIUD EST, quam eum quireus agebatur, tanquam approbatâ innocentiâ, à reatu absolvere. i. When the Scripture saith, that God justifieth the wicked, that is of the Faith of Jesus, what else can be meant, than the freeing or absolving him from that condemnation by the benefit of his Faith, which his sin deserved. And a little after (in the same Section) To justify therefore is nothing else, then to absolve a man from guilt, as one of approved innocence, who was accused as one guilty. Yet once more: in the same Chapter. Sect. 15. Hic est fidei sensus, etc. quòd intercedente Christi justitiâ, impetratâ remissione peccatorum, justificatus sit. 1. This is the meaning of a man's Faith, etc. that by the mediation or intercession of Christ's righteousness, he is justified by remission of sins obtained. Laftly in the fourth Sect. of the same Chapter. Quarto autem capite ad Romanos, etc. i. In the fourth Chapter to the Romans, he first calls (justification) the imputation of righteousness, and doubteth not to place it in REMISSION OF SINS. And presently citing the testimony of David, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, etc. commenteth thus upon the words. Illie sane●nonde justificationis parte, etc. i. Questionless he doth not here dispute of a part of justification, but of the whole. The definition whereof he further affirmeth to be set down by David, when he pronounceth those blessed, to whom a free forgiveness of sins was given. From whence it appeareth, that that righteousness whereof we speak, is simply opposed to guilt of sin, etc. You see we have not sought far for all this abundance of this Author's mind and judgement touching the point in Question: all these testimonies (the first excepted) are found within the compass of one only Chapter, and that none of the first magnitude neither. He that in the presence of all these witnesses speaking so distinctly and fully from the Authors own pen, will yet say, that Calvin ●●●d not remission of sins to be our entire and complete justification; had need be able to prove to the world, that calvin's H●ad and hand were at odds, when these things were written: or that his pen was suborned and bribed by some adversary to conspire against his meaning, end to betray his judgement in the point. Notwithstanding a great Master of the opposite way in this controversy, SECT. 3 being loath to lose a man of such authority as Calvin is, from his party, attempts yet by force to bring him through all this fire and water over to him: and therefore pretends to find more ingenuity in Papists and in Bellarmine himself towards this Author, then in men of his own profession (Protestant's I mean) that are of an opposite judgement to him in this point. Bellarmine (saith he) doth confess and acknowledge, that though Calvin doth again and again place justification in remission of sins only, yet he holds imputation of Christ's righteousness too. To this I answer: First, that which is here called ingenuity in Bellarmine, I fully conceive to be nothing else, but a piece of Jesuitical cunning, to make his adversaries opinion the more irrational, that so he might have the more advantage against him in disputation: which will further appear by and by. Secondly, I conceive, that as Paul in Christian wisdom pleaded his Pharisaisme, when time was, to help himself at a pinch, though otherwise he little regarded it: or as Samson took up the jawbone of an Ass, to revenge himself of the Philistines, and threw it away when he had done: so this man findesingenuity in Bellarmine's to quit himself in a strcight, least Calvin should be taken from him, and to avenge himself of his adversaries in this Question: but otherwise cares little for it. But thirdly (and last) if either Bellarmine's, or his interpreters (who finds this miracle of ingenuity in him) meaning be, that Calvin holds the imputation of Christ's righteousness neceslary to justification, by way of merit only, we are no further adversaries in this point: But if their meaning be (and other it cannot be without apparent prevarication) that over and besides remission of sins, Calvin holds a necessity of the imputation of Christ's righteousness in justification, as a second part or member of it (really distinct from remission of sins) to make it complete and perfect, this is to burden Calvin with such an imputation, as is not lightly incident to a considering and learned man, as he was. He himself in his Antidote against the Counsel of Trent, in their sixth Session, takes those Father's tardy with that Logical Solecism in their Divinity, of making the formal cause of justification double, acsi partìm remissione peccatorum, partim spirituali regeneratione justi essemus. i. as if we were righteous partly by remission of sins, partly by spiritual regeneration. Now if he should place justification partly in remission of sins, partly in the imputation of Christ's righteousness: who seethe not that himself is in the same condemnation with his adversaries, and builds up by example, what he pulls down by reproof? But he washeth his hands in perfect innocence this way: Ego autem (saith he) unicam et simplicem esse assero. i. but I hold and affirm, (meaning the formal cause of justification) to be but one and simple. Bellarmine indeed doth not admit of this purgation of himself: but will needs find him foul in the business notwithstanding, and recriminates upon him the same imputation, wherewith he had burdened the counsel. Quip qui saith he of Calvin, De Justificatione. lib. 2. Cal. Inst. l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 2. cap. 2.) disertis verbis, justificationem in peccatorum remissione, et justitiae Christi imputatione, sitam, esse scribat. i. Carvin in express words, delivers it, that justification consists in remission of sins, and in the imputation of Christ's righteousness. And here is the interpretation of that ingenuity, whereof we heard the innocent Jesuit lately accused: we see how kindly and lovingly he dealt by his adversary, when he would needs give him in the imputation of Christ's righteousness (by way of sub-intelligence) to remission of sins, wherein alone he had placed justification. The old adage was: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; The gifts of enemies are but guile. Bellarmine was willing to enlarge calvin's opinion, and to add more then enough to it, that so he might make it the fairer mark to shoot at. But Paraeus fairly delivers this Soldier of Christ out of the hands of that Romish Champion, SECT. 4 only by an ingenuous and fair interpretation of that passage, whereat his adversary took this advantage against him. Paraeus contr● Bellarmun. lib. 2, cap 2. Lect. 247. See the same Author in his T●ract De justi●ia Christi Act. & Pass. p. 179 etc. where he interprets the said passage of Calvin, much after the same man. Hinc videre potuit adversarius (saith Paraeus) etc. i. Hence his adversary (meaning Bellarmine) might see and perceive, that saying in his Institutions, that Justification consisted in remission of sins, and imputation of Christ's righteousness, his meaning was not, that there should be a double [formal] cause of justification, as if we were righteous partly by remissió of sins, partly by imputation, and neither of them a complete and full justification (for so he should fight both against himself, and against the Scriptures) but his intent was, by two Scripture-termes equipollent, the one to the other, to express one and the same formal cause, or to join these two expressions together exegetically (i. So that one might help to explain the other) quia remissio peccatorum sit imputatione justitiae, et vicissim imputatio justitia fit remissione peccatorum, teste Apostolo. Rom. 4. ver. 6.7, etc. i. because remission of sins is made, by or in the imputation of righteousness: and again, impu tation of righteousness made in remission of sins, witness the Apostle: Rom. 4.6.7. &c, If this Author be further consulted with in the sequel, he will tell you more at large, how Calvin placeth integram justificationem modò sola remissione peccatorum etc. i. entire and complete JUSTIFICATION sometimes in remission of sins only, sometimes in remission of sins and imputation of Christ's righteousness without any contradiction. Neither is it hard to conceive, how the one may be the sole and entire formal cause, and the other the meritorious. Which to have been the very express meaning and mind of Calvin, is so apparent by comparing and laying together passage with passaage from him, that except a man's conceit were much relieved and strengthened by his will, he would find it a matter of much difficulty to think otherwise. SECT. 5 Bellarmine himself, when the pang of ingenuity is but a little of him, can find out his adversaries opinion clearly enough. For explaining those words of the Trent Council, wherein it is said, that righteousness doth not consist in Remission of sins only, Reijcitur (saith he) sententia Calvini de justificatione, more forensi, etc. i. calvin's opinion concerning Justification after a juridical manner, is here rejected. And so generally when he undertakes the confutation of that error (as he calls it) which placeth Justification in Remission of sins only; he still chargeth Calvin with it, and seldom any other: as on the contrary, when he disputes against that opinion, which placeth justification in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, he still lays on upon CHEMNI TIUS. Compare the 6 and 7 Chapters together, in his Second BOOK of JUSTIFICATION. Let me add but onething more here out of the Council of Trent itself, SECT. 5 which seems directly to point at Calvin, as the author or maintainer of that very opinion, where with we have laboured hitherto to honour him, as with an Lonour which belongs unto him. Or if Calvin be not conceived to be the man, yet the opinion we shall evince from hence, to have been famous in the Reformed Churches, when the Conncell thus thundered out against it. 〈…〉 11. Si quis dixerit, hominem justificari, velsola imputatione justitiae Christ's, vel sola peccatorum remissione, etc. Anathema sit, i. If any man shall say, that a man is justified, either by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ alone, or by remission of sins alone, etc. let him be accursed. From whence observe, first, that to place justification in remission of sins alone, was an opinion by itself, distinct from the other, that held justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness alone. For it is evident, by the disjunctive particles in this Canon, that the Council, being (as it seems) good Husbands of their thunderbolts, had an intent to strike down two opinions at once. And so Bellarmine (as we heard) explains the Council. Secondly, observe (that which follows close upon the former observation) that either there was such an opinion then ruling in the Reformed Churches, or at least taught and maintained by some eminent man (one, or more) amongst them, that held justification to consist in Remission of sins only: otherwise those deep-advised sages of the Council, should have but put a dead sly into their box of ointment, by boltring into the air: and indeed, rather have forged a weapon for their adversaries, then taken any from them. If it were any particular and eminent man, they struck at, as an abettor of that opinion, there can none be pitched upon with greater probability than Calvin, who still carried matters of Religion against them at that time with a higher hand than any other. And Bellarmine (as we heard) ingenuously confessed, Calvin by name to be the man. Thirdly (and last) from this passage observe, how some men's either learning or memory misuseth them, by suggesting to them, that the opinion pleaded and contended for in this Treatise, viz. the imputation of Faith for righteousness, or (which is the same) that justification stands in Remission of sins only, is an opinion confederate with Popish errors. Certainly those great Agents and Factors for the Roman party, would never have been so farre overseen in their solemn and sacred assembly, to have poured out the vials of their wrath upon the head of an opinion, that was their own. The importune striving and contendings of some men to make Galvin for them, in an opinion, whereof (doubtless) his learning was never guilty, have compelled us to make somewhat the longer labour and discourse of it, for his rescue, and to set him clear upon his own principles and foundations. If any man remains yet unsatisfied touching this Author's judgement in the point now under examination, and desires rather an heap, then enough: it were an easy matter to make the pile of testimonies from his own pen yet fare greater, even to the wearying and punishing of such a man with his own desire. Somewhat more than hath been here delivered, may be found in the first Chapter: where also you may see this worthy Champion of the truth, accompanied and seconded in this service, with many of his fellows not much inferior to him. And this bv way of Answer in the first place to the objection, that Remission of sins, SECT. 6 was not the whole, but only a part of our justification. Secondly, I Answer, that from the Scriptures themselves that were alleged, it may be evidenced, as by express demonstration, that there is no more, no other part or member of justification, but only forgiveness of sins: that the nature and substance of it is fully comprehended in this. What can be more pregnant than that Rom. 4 6, 7. etc. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works: saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: Blessed is the man, to whom the Lord will not impute sin. If there were any thing more belonging to this righteousness which is by imputation, then only the forgiveness of iniquity, or the covering of sin, would the Holy Ghost wholly have omitted it and left it out, when he intended a description, or declaration if it? Especially would he have omitted, that which is the main and principal and formal part of it, as the righteousness of Christ imputed is pretended to be? If a man should prefix such a Title as this before a Book, or over the head of a Map, A description of the world, etc. and never so much in all his Book or Map, as once mention Europe or Asia, the chief parts of the world, but only some obscure and lesser Countries, would it not argue, that either he wanted wit himself, or else hoped that his Readers would want it altogether? Or if a Limner should be set on work to draw a man's picture or portraiture, and should only draw the trunk of his body, without a face or head upon it, were this the portraiture or description of a man? No more would Paul (or rather the Holy Ghost) have called the forgiveness of sins, a description or declaration of the righteousness which is imputed by Faith, if it had been only a part, and that the lesser and less material part of it. It is true, SECT. 7 sometimes in Scripture, by a Synecdoche, a part is put for the whole: as the persons of men and women, consisting of bodies and souls, are called souls, Act. 7.14. and elsewhere: But 1. this is never done in descriptions or declarations of things: as when the Holyghost describes the creation of man, express mention is made, both of the material part, the dust of the earth, and likewise of the formal, Gods breathing in his face the breath of life. Neither in reason is that to be called the description of a thing, which conceals and silenceth that which is best and the most beautiful part of it, and only mentioneth somewhat of inferior consideration in it. Secondly, when such a figure is used, a part put for the whole, it is seldom or never, that the worse and more ignoble part is mentioned, but still the formal and better part, as bodies are not where put for the persons of men, but only Souls: Except (happily) in two cases: 1. when the whole comes under consideration and is spoken of, by reason of the inferior part, as sometimes the body of Christ, or flesh of Christ, is put for Christ himself as man, and for the whole humane nature of Christ, namely when that which is spoken of him, hath its relation to him, in respect of his body or flesh. Or else 2. when the Holy Ghost would represent the weakness and contemptibleness of the condition of the whole, then (sometimes) he calls the whole by the name of that which is the weakest part of it, and the ground or cause of the vanity and weakness of the whole. As when it is said, that All flesh is grass, etc. by flesh, meaning Men, in respect of their weak and vanishing condition in this world. Neither of which cases can be pretended in that description of justification. Thirdly (and last) when this Figure Synecdoche is used in any of these or the like cases, a part being put for the whole, it is when things are plain and evident, so that by the part which is named and expressed, that may readily be understood which is employed, as easy to be made out, either by other places of Scripture, or by common sense, as in the instances given. All flesh is grass: by flesh here, no man can understand any thing else, but men clothed with flesh. So Acts 7. where jacob is said to come down into Egypt with threescore and fifteen souls: no man can think that these souls came with him without their bodies. But now it is fare otherwise in this description of justification commended unto us by Paul. That by forgiveness of sins, should be meant, both forgiveness of a man's own sins, and imputation of Christ's righteousness, if it should be true, yet is it no ways necessary: neither is it any ways apparent, that these are parts of the same whole, of one and the same justification: neither is there any thing expressly delivered in any part of the Scripture to establish it. Therefore it is no ways probable (even in these respects, that when Paul placeth a man's righteousness before God in the forgiveness of his sins, that he should do it by the figure Synecdoche, only mentioning one part, and implying another. Again, SECT. 8 2. if forgiveness of sins be but a part, and the worse half of our justification, then when the Scripture saith, We are justified by his blood (as Rom 5.9.) the interpretation must be: we are justified by half through his blood, but the better of our justification must come another way. For by his blood or death, we cannot have his active righteousness imputed to us. So where it is said again (vers. 16.) that the gift (viz. of righteousness by Christ) is of many offences unto justification: if the gift of many offences, i● the forgiveness of a man's sins, will not amount to a justification, without the imputation of a legal righteousness joined with it, we must give a check to Paul's pen, as the High Priests did unto Pilate, Joh. 16.21. Writ not, the King of the jews: but that he said, I am the King of the Jews: So must we say unto Paul, do not write, that the gift is of many offences unto justification: but, the gift is of many offences, and of many acts of righteousness too imputed, to justification. Paul's pen had made more haste then good speed (as we say) to come at justification before its time. And thus we must draw blood instead of milk out of many other Scriptures besides these, to nourish that opinion of the imputation of a formal righteousness for justification, if you mean to keep it alive: for the sincere milk of the word will not nourish it. Thirdly, that forgiveness of sins is a man's entire and complete justification, and that there is no such further piece or part of it, as is pretended concerning the imputation of Christ's righteousness, will appear from hence, because that end, for which this imputed righteousness of Christ is thus brought into the business of justification, viz. to be the right or title of the justified to their heavenly inheritance, is otherwise supplied by the wisdom and counsel of God, and that in a way more Evangelicall, and of more sweetness and dearness to the children of God, viz. by the grace of adoption, or Sonship (as we shall further show (God willing) in the reason following. Fourthly, SECT. 9 if men will have the active righteousness of Christ imputed unto them for one part of their justification by itself, and the passive obedience or death of Christ, for another part, by itself, and so separate and divide the benefit of his active obedience from that which we have by his passive, in justification: this is a method or course to destroy and lose both the benefit of the one and of the other. For if men subtract the righteousness of his life, upon a conceit, that that will do them service alone (which it will not do, as we shall see afterwards) then must they want it in his death, or in his blood, and so that will be ineffectual too If it had been possible, under the Law, for a man to have separated those qualifications which God required in the Beast for sacrifice, as viz. the Sex, the soundness, spotlessenesse, etc. from the Beast itself, neither would these qualifications, separated from the sacrifice, have been of any use to the man; neither would the Beast without these, have made a sacrifice of acceptation. So neither will the active obedience of Christ profit men, if they separate it from the passive Joh. 12.24. neither will the passive itself be found itself, In the cleansing of the Le●e the blood of the flame Syarrow was to ●e joined and mixed with pure water in an ●● then vessel and the person cleansed, to be sprinkled with ●●th. Leu. 14.4.5.6. that is, an atonement or expiation for sin according to the will and purpose of God, except we bring in the active to it. For as it is most true which the Apostle affirms, Heb. 9 22. Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins: so is it as true, that without shedding of righteous blood there is no remission neither. And howsoever the personal union of the humane nature with the Godhead in the person of Christ, was the great qualification requisite in his person to make the sacrifice of himself completely satisfactory for the sin of the world: yet was it (as God willing, we shall hereafter demonstrate more at large) but a remote qualification in this respect, there being a necessity (not only in respect of the decree and purpose of God, but of other ends and conveniences also) that this qualification we now speak of, the fullfilling of the Law, should intervene and come between that union and his sacrifice. In the mean time, whilst I would not have the active obedience of Christ separated from the passive, nor again the passive from the active, in respect of this common and joint effect of forgiveness of sins or justification, ariseing from a concurrence of them both, yet would I not have Christ in his mystery tumbled up together on a heap: for this would be to deface the beauty and excellency of that wisdom which shines forth gloriously in the face thereof. I would have every thing that Christ was, and every thing that Christ did, and every thing that Christ suffered to be distinguished, not only in themselves, but also in their proper and immediate effects, respectively ariseing and flowing from them severally. A plurality of causes may meet together in one and the same effect, and yet the diversity and difference of their several operations and influences contributing towards the raiseing and producing of such an effect, may easily be distinguished and apprehended. The goodness of the soil, the labour of the Ox, the Plough, the seed that is sown; the Husbandman's pains in ploughing, in sowing, his skill in both; the rain given from heaven to water that which is sown: all these and such like, meet together in one joint and common effect at the time of Harvest, viz. the Husbandman's benefit or increase. Yet is there scarce any man so much a stranger to the method and principles of Husbandry, but can assign to every one of these causes, their proper and special effect, though all meeting together in that great and common effect we speak of: the soil is for one purpose, the Ox for another, the Plough for a third, etc. So is it true, that all that Christ was, and all that he did, and all that he suffered, meet together in that great and common effect, the salvation of them that believe: yea, many of them meet by the way, in the justification of such, before they come to their journey's end: yet to justify the wonderful and deep wisdom of God, as we ought to do, in bringing about this great work of the salvation of the world, we must inquire 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 fulfil the Law, why preach the Gospel before his death, why at last he should suffer death; why die upon the Cross; why he should be buried; why he should rise again, etc. with many more particulars of like nature that might be mentioned: all which have their special and peculiar working towards the great work of salvation (as in a benign constellation every Staire gives out his peculiar influence by himself.) 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, spoke, and suffered, though they are things much differing in themselves, and in their immediate and proper effects, yet they all meet and centre in that common and glorious effect, the salvation of those that believe. 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 Gospel, and (as it were) of a defenced City, to make a ruinous heap. From the guilt of which confusion-making in the Gospel, how impossible it is fairly to acquit such an imputation of Christ's righteousness as hitherto we have opposed, will further appear in the reasons ensuing. Fiftly (and last) if remission of sins be but a part of justification, SECT. 10 and the imputation of Christ's righteousness must be added as another part of it, to make it perfect and complete: then must the formal cause of one and the same effect, be double (the absurdity which Calvin, as we heard, truly charged upon the Trent Councillors, and Bellarmine as falsely recharged upon him) yea (that which makes the absurdity swell yet higher) one and the same formality, or formal 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 divers, yea and of an opposite importance and consideration, (as the sequel of the business rightly interpreted, will make manifest.) For where there is a perfect and complete righteousness imputed (as the righteousness of Christ is, and must be apprehended) there is no place for remission of sins. CAP. XII. A fourth reason against the pretended Imputation; it frustrates the grace of Adoption. MY fourth ground against the supposed imputation of Christ's righteousness, I dispose in this Syllogism. That which dissolves and takes away the necessity and use of that sweet and Euangellicall grace of Adoption, SECT. 1 cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hold a straight course with the truth of the Gospel. But this imputation of Christ's righteousness (in the sense controverted) dissolves and takes away the necessity, etc. of Adoption. Ergo. The proposition (I conceive) will be yielded sine sanguine et sudore, otherwise the sword of the Spirit, the word of God, would soon command it. The Scriptures speak much of the grace of Adoption, or Sonship, of believers being made the Children and Sons of God. That we might receive the Adoption of Sons. Gal. 4.5. And because ye are Sons, ver. 6. Wherefore thou art no more a Servant, but a Son etc. ver. 7. To pass by other places without number: Joh. 1.12. But as many as received him, to them he gave power, or prerogative (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to be made [or to become] the Sons of God. Doubtless this grace, or prerogative of Adoption and Sonship, is not given unto men by God in vain, 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 capacity, or qualification to those that believe, to make them capable of their everlasting inheritance: their Sonship is the proper and next ground of that investiture unto them. The Scriptures are in nothing more express than this. If we be Children, than also heirs, even heirs of God, and heirs annexed with Christ. Rom. 8.17. So again: Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Son & if a Son, than an heir of God through Christ. Gal. 4, 7. As if he should say, we are therefore made Sons, or adopted to be Sons, that so by right of this Sonship we might be heirs of God, and by the right of this Heyrship come to inherit that immortal, undefiled inheritance, which fadeth not away, with jesus Christ himself. The reason or strength of that inference, or consequence, If Sons then Heirs, seems to stand in this: because though amongst men all that are Sons, are not Heirs, if we speak of Sons by nature, but only he that is the first borne: yet Sonship by Adoption (I conceive) hath always respect to an inheritance, a man never adopteth a child, but with an intent or purpose to make him his heir. So that though in the case of Sonship by nature, it will not follow, If Sons then heirs, yet in the case of Adoption, it will. And this (we know) is the case and condition of Believers: they are Sons of God, not by nature, but by Adoption. Unless (perhaps) we will rather conceive the reason of the inference to lie in this: that the Apostle argueth and concludeth upon the supposition of this truth, that the Kingdom of Heaven, or that inheritance which God hath provided for his Saints, is of another nature, and hath a pre-eminence and perfection above any earthly inheritance, as in a thousand other respects, so particularly in this, that it may be enjoyed, possessed and inherited by all the Children of God, though in number never so many, upon such terms, that every one may enjoy, and possess the whole, and no man's portion or possession here suffers any loss 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 ca●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 Earth, divisim & conjunctim (as we 〈◊〉) upon such terms, that no man's comfort or benefit by it is at all impaired or diminished, because there are so many thousand thousands in the world, that are partakers of the same benefit and comfort with them. But every man's enjoyment and possession hereof is as full and entire to him, as if the Sun shined to him alone, and there were no other to divide the comfort with him. Doubtless if this property were to be found in any man's Earthly estate or inheritance, that it would go as far, and hold out as good measure amongst many, as among few, or as given but to one: though a man had never so many Children, yet this consequence would hold good, if Sons, than heirs, he would bestow his whole estate aswell upon his last-borne, as his first. But because there is a defect or imperfection this way in earthly inheritances, therefore it follows not with men, if Sons than heirs: but with God it doth, because such imperfection hath no place, in his heavenly inheritance. But howsoever, whether the strength of the Apostles inference in these places, rests either in this, or in the former consideration, or in any other: evident it is that the grace or gift of Adoption is given by God unto believers for an Evangelicall capacity, right, or title to the Kingdom of Heaven. And therefore whatsoever opinion or notion riseth up, to magnify itself against it, by dissolving and frustrateing the use, end, and intention of it, is certainly Anti-evangellicall, and not to be received, though an Angel from Heaven, should bring it. This for the major Proposition in the syllogism, rather by way of explication, than confirmation: for being rightly understood, it cannot lightly be denied. The Assumption followeth: But such an imputation of the righteousness of Christ as is contended for, SECT. 2 dissolves the end, and use of Adoption. This is evident from the express declaration or interpretation which themselves make of their imputation, who are the abettors and maintainers of it. For wherefore is this imputation of Christ's righteousness introduced into the business of justification? The introducers generally make but one mouth amongst them, and say, that the righteousness of Christ must be imputed unto us, that so we may have a right and title to life, or to Heaven, according to the tenor of the Covenant: Hoc fac, et vive: do this and live. For by remission of sins (say they, and truly) a man is only delivered from death and condemnation, due unto sin: but there accrues or grows no right or title to the Kingdom of Heaven from remission of sins unto any man. And so apprehending nothing else within reach in or about a believer, meet or fit to make a plea or title of thereunto, they have compelled the righteousness of Christ to take this honour and office upon it, in a way of imputation. Neither indeed is it easy to conjecture or conceive, what other service this righteousness of Christ imputed should do in justification, or for what other end or purpose it should be introduced upon such terms, and in such a way, then to qualify men with a capacity for Heaven. Now than this being the direct and proper end, use, office, purpose and intent of Adoption, to invest a believer with a capapacity for Heaven (as hath been demonstrated from the Scriptures) it evidently follows, that whosoever shall offer or attempt to set any thing else upon this Throne, seeks to dissolve and make frustrate the counsel and purpose of God concerning the grace of Adoption, in t●●s behalf. To bring in any other right or title to salvation besides that Adoption of Sons which we have in Christ, is to depress or put down the wisdom of God, and to exalt another instead of it. If it be here objected and said, that both may stand together, imputation of a perfect righteousness from Christ, and Adoption both: why may they not together make a twofold cord, a stronger and more effectual title, then either alone? To this I answer, No: they will not twist, or wind or work together: not so much because of the diversity and contrariety of their natures, as the clay and iron would not work and mix together in Nebuchadnezars image (though this might be a sufficient consideration, I conceive, to build a negative answer upon, Legalls and Euangellicalls will not join or combine to make a title to Heaven) but chief because either of them, aswell the one as the other, is a complete and entire title within itself. Perfect righteousness, is a perfect and complete title alone: so is Adoption or Sonship, as perfect and complete a title alone, as it: As to be the first borne, or heir to an earthly inheritance, gives as direct and full a right or title to the enjoyment of it, as the lawfullest purchase can do. Now it is certain, that God never ordeynes a plurality of means for one and the same end or purpose, when one means is entire and every ways sufficient for it, neither in the world natural, nor in the world Spiritual (as the Gospel may be called.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Nature makes one for one, was the old axiom in Metaphysics. But especially in the Gospel, you shall find it generally so, that God allows and seals still but one means, for one purpose (I mean but one adequate means in one kind, or in the same relation to the effect) and accordingly upon the bringing in or position of a second means for the same end or purpose, complains presently of the abrogateing or making void the other. You shall observe many such passages and reasonings in the Gospel, as these. If they which are of the Law be heirs, Faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Rom. 4.14. So again, If the inheritance be of the Law, it is no more by promise. Gal. 3.18. & ver. 21. If there had been a Law, that could have given life, surely righteousness should have been by the Law. Surely, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: verily, certainly God would not have gone further than this Law, in procureing life unto any, if there had been but a possibility in the Law to have done it. But I desire to insist a little upon that place, SECT. 4 Gal. 2.21 and upon occasion of the passage, to reason the point a little further. I do not (saith Paul) abrogate the grace of God: for if righteousness be by the Law, surely Christ hath died in vain: A man with his first thoughts, may think the inference somewhat strange, and that Paul should be too weak and contemptible in his premises, to be so sore and strong in his Conclusion. For thus a man might counterargue with him. How doth it necessarily follow, that if righteousness or justification were by the Law, that Christ's death must presently be in vain? What if there were more means of justification, than one, more doers open into life, than one, one by Christ, another by the Law? were there any harm in this? it may be some would enter in at one door, and some at another, as we do into our Churches: and so neither would be in vain. But to this I answer, true, if it were with God and his counsels and ways, as it is with men, such a conclusion would follow such premises but weakly and faintly: but it being with God and in his ways as it is, it follows roundly, and falters not at all. It is with the poor and weak creature called man, in comparison of the Great and Glorious God in this point, as it is with many poor people in the City, that live upon the labour of their hands, and work to great shops, and rich Shopkeepers, in respect of their great Masters, to whom they work. It is a common complaint, that they work for little, and are content to do it, fearing least otherwise they might starve: they do much work for a little profit: but their rich Masters will gain to some purpose, or else they will not, or care not to trade. So in the case we now speak of, men being a feeble and impotent generation, and not able to do, what, and as they would, count it their wisdom to do the best they may: and therefore are content (many times) to raise great sums of means for bringing of smaller things to pass, it may be in a double or triple proportion above the level of their ends, because they are still jealous and doubtful about the success of the means they use: there are many disticulties and miscarriages incident to the managing of their designs which they cannot foresee, and therefore when their ends are matters of any great moment and consequence, or much desired, they heap on means upon means, and are scarce ever secure, or think they have done enough. Neither is it any disparagement unto them in the world amongst men like themselves, though half of their means be lost in the issue, or be found unprofitable and redundant because men use to bear one with another in such cases, it being one man's case aswell as another's from time to time. Yea the Scripture itself seems to encourage men in the use of variety of means, in regard of the uncertainty of the succesle. In the merning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thy hand: for thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that. Ecclesiast. 11.6. Suppose a single door through God's Providence might be enough and enough to keep off the thief from the rich man's bags, yet he makes a double door, and door upon door for that purpose: in this case it is no pregnant consequence to reason thus: if the single door were sufficient to secure the treasure from thief's, the double door, and all the rest of the doors were in vain. Because though there be no use of these in keeping out the thief (who perhaps never thought of making any attempt upon the treasure) yet are they of use to qualify the fears of the rich owner, and to make him possess his treasure in more peace. But now with God, we know it is otherwise: he never raiseth double means for the same end, but alwaits makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as was said) one means for one end: both because he knows, how to attain his end as infalliably by single means as by double: and besides, because he will have none of his means or ordinances laughed to scorn, or disparaged in the least measure, or to be despised or neglected by men. He will not have any two ordinances of his of the same occupation, because he will have no contention or emulation between them. Consider that passage, Gal. 3.21 Is the Law then against the promises (saith Paul?) God forbidden. No: but how doth he prove it is not? By this argument, because the Law cannot give life. For (saith he) had there been a Law, that could have given life, righteousness should have been by the Law: clearly implying, that if the Law could have given life, which is the proper office and calling (as it were) of the promise to do, than indeed it had been against it, and an enemy to it, and would have taken its work (which is its glory) out of its hand. But now since it serves quite for another purpose, the Law and the Promise agree well enough together, and do not intermeddle one with another's work. So you see the ground and bottom of the Apostles reasoning in the forenamed place: If righteousness be by the Law, than Christ hath died in vain. He supposeth, and calls that an abrogateing and making void any the counsels or ordinances of God, when another thing is set up with them, to bring the same end to pass, or to serve in the same place and office, whereunto they are appointed. And doubtless by authority and warrant of the same ground, we may set this parallel proposition at the right hand of that of Paul: If our right and title to Heaven be by imputati on of Christ's righteousness, then doth God give the grace of ADOPTION in vain. And this for our fourth argument against that Imputation. CAP. XIII. Containing the fist and sixth grounds against the said imputation, viz. the taking away the necessity, 1º, of Repentance: and 2º, of Christ's death. GOD (saith Paul. 1 Cor. 14.33.) is not the Author of confusion, but of peace. SECT. 1 There is no plant of his planting, that hurts or injur's any other plant which himself also hath planted: much less that plucks it up by the roots. Now first, it is certain that Repentance is an Evangelicall plant of his planting, and of absolute necessity unto salvation. Except ye repent (saith our Saviour Luk 13.3.) ye shall all likewise perish, etc. Secondly, it wants little (if any thing) of the like certainty, because of the evidence of truth in it, that such an imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as is pretended and pleaded for by some, wholly dissolves and cuts off the necessity of Repentance. For he that hath a perfect and complete righteousness of the Law imputed unto him, upon such terms, that it shall be as much his, being imputed, as if he had personally wrought and fulfilled it himself, what colour or pretence can there be, why or how, he should stand in need of any repentance? The righteous (saith Christ) need no repentance. If Adam had kept the Law, he had needed no repentance more than Christ himself needed: and those that were in Christ and kept the Law in him, as exactly and perfectly as he did, what need of Repentance have they, or can they have, more than he? For if the exact and perfect obedience of Christ be the true ground and reason why Christ himself needed no Repentance: and this obedience of his, in all the exactness and perfection of it, be as truly theirs by imputation, as it was his, or as it could have been theirs by personal performance: impossible it is, but if it were a sufficient ground of a non-necessitie of Repentance in the one, it must be the same in the other also. He that is as righteous as Christ is (which those must needs be that are righteous with his rightsousnesse) needs no more repentance than Christ himself needeth. I see not what in a way of sober reason, can be opposed against this argument That was a desperate Answer, which a zealous defender of that Faith made to save the life of his opinion being assaulted by this argument (but it was rightdown dealing howsoever, and faithfulness to his principles, in their great distress) that Believers being perfectly righteous in Christ, have indeed no need of Repentance. If it be objected, and said, that notwithstanding the imputation of a perfect righteousness from Christ, SECT. 2 yet believers have their personal sins and faileings, which Christ had not: and in respect of these, they need not daily and continual Repentance. To this I answer: True, Believers indeed stand in need of daily Repentance, in respect of their personal sins and failings, which are daily: but they that have an entire, and perfect-Law-righteousnesse imputed to them, have no such need in any respect. Therefore Believers are not the men, that have any such righteousness imputed to them. Certainly they that have the perfect fulfilling and observation of the Law imputed unto them by God, cannot stand guilty before God of any sin or breach of this Law: because in the imputation of a perfect righteousness, there is an universal non-imputation of sin apparently included. Besides, if God doth impute a perfect law-righteousness to men, it must be supposed that the rights and privileges belonging to such righteousness do accompany it, in the imputation: so that the person to whom such imputation is made, stands really invested and possessed of them. Otherwise God should impute the shells without the kernel, and give empty titles without the substance of honour: Now one main privilege of a perfect law-righteousness is, to invest with a full and entire right unto life, out of its own intrinsical and inherent dignity and worth: which is a privilege wholly inconsistent with the least touch or tincture of sin in the person that stands possessed of it. Therefore where such a privilege or right is, there can be no occasion or necessity of Repentance, because Repentance presupposeth sin. If it be yet said further, SECT. 3 that the imputation of Faith for righteousness, will be as much shaken by this Objection, as the imputation of Christ's righteousness for righteousness, because if Faith be imputed for, or instead of the righteousness of the Law, it must bring likewise and derive all the privileges of such a righteousness upon the person, to whom such imputation is made. Therefore that privilege also, which excludes the necessity of Repentance. To this I answer, by denying the consequence of that which is brought to justify the Exception. When the Scriptures say that Faith is imputed, for, or instead of the righteousness of the Law, the intent and meaning is not, as if God either imputed, or accepted or accounted Faith, for the self same thing which the righteousness of the Law is intrinse cally and formally, or as if God in this imputation either gave or accounted unto Faith: any power or privilege to justify, out of any inherent or internal dignity or worth in it, (which is the intrinsical and formal property of a law-righteousness) but the meaning only is, that God upon a man's Faith, will as fully justify him, that is, acquit him from death and condemnation, as if he had perfectly fulfilled the Law. He that believeth may be as fully and perfectly justified, as he that fulfilleth the Law, and yet not be justified in the same manner, or upon the same terms. He that fulfilleth the Law, and thereby is justified, is justified out of the inherent & internal dignity of that which justifyeth him: but he that is justified by Faith, is not justified by the inherent dignity, or merit of that which justifyeth him, but by the free and gracious acceptation of it by God, for that which is justifying in it own nature, & by virtue of its inherent worth & dignity. So that although Faith be imputed to a man, for, or instead of the righteousness of the Law, and he by such imputation of his Faith, be justified: yet it doth not follow, that therefore he is justified upon the same terms every way, as he should have been, had he been justified by the imputation of the righteousness itself of the Law. Wherefore the imputation of Faith for righteousness, may well stand with personal sins in him, to whom this imputation is made, in respect of which sins he remains continually obliged to Repentance: but the imputation of a perfect legal righteousness, for righteousness, makes a man perfectly and legally righteous, in the letter and formality of it. And this is that kind of righteousness, which absolutely excludes all consistency of sin in the same person with it: and consequently leaves no place for Repentance. This for the fift ground or reason against the imputation of the righteousness of Christ in justification (sensuliterali. SECT. 4) A sixth ground against the same imputation of the active obedience of Christ, is: it takes away the necessity of his death. If men be as righteous as Christ himself was in his life, there were no more necessity of his death for them, than there was either of his own death, or of the death of any other, for himself. If we were perfectly just or righteous in him, or with him, in his life, than the just should not have died for the unjust (as the Scriptures speak) for whose salvation there was a necessity he should die: but he should have died for the just, for whom there was no necessity why he should die. This Reason the Apostle expressly delivers. Gal. 2.21. If righteousness be by the Law, than Christ died in vain. I desire the unpartial Reader to observe narrowly the force of this inference made by the Holy Ghost: If righteousness (or, justification) be by the Law, than Christ died in vain. Men cannot here betake themselves to their wont Sanctuary and Refuge, to say that by the Law, is to be understood the works of the Law, as performed by a man's self in person: Nay their own interpretation here will betray their opinion into the hand of this Reason, that fights against it. For by the word Law, in this place, understand the works of the Law, as performed by Christ, the consequence will rise up rather with the greater strength and power against them. If righteousness were by the works of the Law, as performed by Christ, that is, if the imputation of them were our complete & absolute righteousness, the death of Christ for us had been apparently in vain, because the righteousness of his life imputed, had bina sufficient, & every ways a complete righteousness for us. Neither can it be here said, SECT. 5 that there was a necessity that Christ should die, that so the righteousness of his life might be imputed to us. For certainly this righteousness of his life was as capable of such an imputation, before and with out his death, as after, or with it. For what defect or impediment can be conceived, that should hinder it? Adam's sin (according to the principles of that opinion against which we argue) was capable of imputation, as soon as ●t was committed: and why should the righteousness of Christ require any further qualification or recommendation to put it off upon the like terms, but only the working and performance of it? If it be yet said: but the persons of men had not been capable of this imputation, without the death of Christ: therefore there was a necessity of this death of his, in this respect. To this I Answer: True indeed, the persons of men, are not capable of this imputation, without the death of Christ: but neither are they made the more capable by it. But if this righteousness of Christ we speak of, were in itself imputable (in the sense contended for) why should not the persons of men, be capable of the imputation thereof in the midst of their sins, aswell as Christ was capable of the imputation of their sins, in the midst of his righteousness? Especially considering, that (as it appears from Rom. 5.14.) the grace and gift of God which is by jesus Christ, saveth by a stronger and higher hand, than sin condemneth. CAP. XIV. Opening a Seventh ground against the pre-refused Imputation, viz. the taking away of forgiveness of Sins. THat opinion which makes and constitutes men perfectly and completely righteous (with allegall righteousness) as righteous as Christ himself (though it be but quoad veritatem, SECT. 1 non quoad modum (as some of that way think to distinguish themselves safe, yet it comes to the same in this respect) leaves no place for forgiveness, or remission of sins, in persons so made righteous: it evacuates that high and sovereign power of God (at least in the use and exercise of it towards those that believe) whereby he forgiveth sins. God (we know) forgave Christ no sin: why? because he was perfectly righteous, and in him was no sin (as john speaketh, 1 john 5.3.) Therefore if men be righteous with the same righteousness, wherewith Christ was righteous, as completely righteous as he, they have no more sin to be pardoned, than he had. If it be said that God first gives remission of sins unto men, and then imputes this perfect righteousness unto them. To this exception, answer hath been made already, Cap. 5. Sect. 2. To that which is there delivered, I add: that Christ hath taught us to pray for forgiveness of sins, even after this imputation of righteousness (if any such thing were) except we will say, that he framed that pattern of Prayer (usually called the Lords Prayer) only for the use of infidels and unbelievers. Now to ask forgiveness of sins of God, and yet to conceit ourselves as righteous as Christ was, is rather to mock then to worship him, whom we pray unto. If it be here objected (as the like objection was made against the fift ground, SECT. 2 in the former Chapter) that this inconvenience sits as close, to the Imputation of Faith for righteousness, as to the Imputation of the righteousness of Christ for that purpose. For if faith be imputed for, or instead of the righteousness of the Law, must it not derive a righteousness upon the person to whom such imputation is made, as perfect and complete, as the righteousness of the Law itself, and consequently, as the righteousness of Christ himself? How then doth that opinion leave any other place for remission of sins in those that believe, then that which standeth for the Imputation of the righteousness of Christ? Are they not both under the same condemnation this way? Not to repeat what was so lately delivered in full for satisfaction and Answer to this Objection: I yet further add (ex abundanti) that when Faith is said to be imputed for righteousness in justification, instead of the righteousness of the Law, it is evidently employed, that it is not the righteousness of the Law itself that is imputed for righteousness, but another thing, Faith by name, instead of it. Now any other righteousness, or any other thing imputed for righteousness, besides the righteousness of the Law, will apparently bear a consistency of sin with it, and so leave a place for forgiveness of sins: but the righteousness of the Law excluding the former, cannot give entertainment to the latter. When a perfect sanctification is imputed to a Man for his justification, that Man can be no more reputed or thought to have sin in him, then to be obnoxious to death and condemnation, which is most opposite to justification. But when that which either is no sanctification, or at most but an imperfect sanctification, is imputed for righteousness in a man's justification, there may be as full a justification, as perfect a deliverance from death and condemnation, as in the former case, and yet place left in the person so justified, for an inherency of sin: and consequently, for the forgiveness of it. CAP. XV. Enforcing an Eight Reason against the Imputation questioned, viz. a manifest compliance with that dangerous error, That God seethe no sin in his people. WHat communion hath light with darkness (saith the Apostle) and what concord hath Christ with Belial? 2 Cor. 6.14, 15. SECT. 1 If this Imputation of Christ's righteousness, which we oppose, were from Christ, doubtless it would have no intelligence, or compliance with any opinion so opposite to him and his truth, as this, That God seethe no sin in his people. The opinion itself, is an error so gross and like the darkness of Egypt, that it is even palpable and may be felt. Therefore we will not spend time in arraigning it as guilty, which is already so generally condemned. But that the opinion, against which the face of this discourse is set, is of the same confederacy with this, and gives the right hand of fellowship to it, nay, leads and caries men directly into it, will clearly appear by this Demonstration. Whosoever is perfectly righteous, or as righteous as Christ is, in him God can see no sin. But every believer (saith this opinion which we impugn) is as perfectly and completely righteous, as Christ himself is: Therefore in such God can see no sin. You see in this Syllogism, how the imputation of Christ's righteousness, in the sense contended for by many, brings in that error with a high hand: and therefore is to be cut off from the Sanctuary of God. And those that will hold and maintain such an imputation, and yet cry out upon, and condemn the opinion of Gods not seeing sin in his Children, are (in a spiritual or moral sense) like those Idolaters of old, that caused their own Children to pass through the fire. Ishmael was not the more natural and genuine fruit of Hagars' womb that bore him, than this conclusion o● tenet, that God seethe no sin in his Children, is of that opinion, which maintaineth men to be completely righteous, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, in the letter and formality of it. But as sometimes it comes to pass, that a man falling into love with a woman that hath a great charge of Children hanging upon her, having married the mother, would willingly wrangle or beat the Children out of doors, and turn them off to beg: so it is often seen, that when men have unadvisedly embraced an opinion, seeming in their eye a beautiful 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 turn and wind themselves about every way, to quit themselves of that dishonourable charge, wherewith they find themselves by reason of their opinion, encumbered withal. But how men that will own an imputation of a perfect righteousness, can with any tolerable appearance of reason, shift off from themselves the opinion of Gods not seeing sin, in those that are clothed with it, is (I confess) beyond the line of my apprehension. If God could see no sin in Christ, because he was perfectly and completely righteous, how he should see it in any that are as completely and perfectly righteous as he, and that with the same righteousness wherewith he was righteous, is a riddle that cannot be made out, but by him that plougheth with a better heifer than 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 afraid, 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 than one, with man: and that the Gospel is nothing else but a gracious aid or relief from God, to help 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 fulfil: and by imputation, as by a deed of gift, makes over that his perfect obedience and fulfilling of the Law, to those that believe; 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, Do 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 mountain with mount Zion 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 contained in the first, than the meaning of the first Covenant, conceived in those words, Do this and live, must be thus: Do this, either by thyself, 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 God's meaning in the first Covenant, that keeping the Law, either by a man himself in person, or by another, should equally serve the turn, 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 Innocence. 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 readiness for him, in case he should fall. 3, if keeping the Law either by a man's self, or by another, were (in God's meaning in that Covenant) a sufficient means of life, than 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 mere man with abilities to have kept the Law, as fully as Adam or any of his posterity was bound to do. 4 (and last) if the fulfilling of the Law by any surety whatsoever, were a sufficient means of life unto Adam and his, than was the death of Christ no ways necessary: because Christ had perfectly kept and fulfilled the Law before his death. Again 2, SECT. 2 If the first and second Covenant were in substance the same, then must the conditions or te●ms of agreement in both be the same. For the conditions or terms of agreement in a Covenant, are as formal and essential 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 bargain and another Covenant. Now if the conditions or terms of agreement be the same in both those Covenants, then to DO THIS, and TO BELIEVE, Faith and works, are really the same: whereas the Scripture from place to place, makes the most irreconcilable opposition between them. But it may be there are some, that are more of this consequence: that stick not to hold the imputation of Christ's righteousness (in the sense opposed) and yet demuire upon an identity of the two Covenants: they do not conceive this to be the fruit of that womb. Wherefore to prove, that the mother hath no wrong at all, in having this dead child laid by her side, for her own, 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 ways the same. But if the righteousness 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 ways 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 righteousness of the Law imputed from another, and personally wrought by a man's self, are two deffering conditions: therefore it doth not follow, that the Covenants should be the same. To this I Answer, that the substance of the agreement, will still be found the same notwithstanding: the works, or righteousness of the Law are the same, by whomsoever wrought: If Adam had fulfilled the Law, as Christ did, he had been justified by the same righteousness, wherewith Christ himself was righteous. If it be yet said: that Imputation in the second Covenant, which was not in the first, makes a real difference in the condition. To this I answer two things in two words: 1. Imputation of works or of righteousness, is not the condition of the new Covenant, but believing. If imputation were the condition, than the whole Covenant should lie upon God, and nothing should be required on the creatures part: for imputation is an act of God, not of men. 2. I answer, that if it were granted, that the righteousness or the works of the Law imputed from Christ, were that whereby we are justified, yet they must justify, not as imputed, but as righteousness or works of the Law. Therefore imputation makes no difference in this respect. Imputation can be no part of that righteousness by which we are justified, 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.) Therefore it can be no part of that righteousness by which he is to be justified. So that the condition of both Covenants will be found every ways the same, (and consequently both Covenants every ways the same) if justification be maintained by the righteousness of Christ imputed. CAP. XVII. Wherein 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 special confederacy with the glory of God, or of an entire sympathy with the honour of Christ. Knowing that enemy against which we conflict and wrestle 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 arm and employ the more reasons and arguments in this warfare and service. Therefore in the Tenth place, against the Imputation so much contended for. I oppose this Demonstration. That for which righteousness is imputed to those that believe, that cannot be imputed unto them for righteousness: But the righteousness of Christ is that for which righteousness is imputed to those that believe: Therefore itself cannot be imputed for righteousness. The Assumption (I presume) no man will deny, except those that deny the righteousness of Christ, to be the meritorious cause of that righteousness or justification, which is conferred upon men: an opinion to which no man (I know) ever said, live, but only Socinus and his peers. The Major Proposition I demonstrate thus: If it be impossible, that the thing merited, should be the same thing with that which is the meritorious cause of it, than it is not only untrue, but impossible, that the righteousness of Christ should be the righteousness of a believer. 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 righteousness of Christ, and the righteousness or justification of a Believer, stand in that relation we speak of, the one to the other, as the cause to the effect: the righteousness of Christ being the (meritorious) cause, and the righteousness of a believer 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 itself: a conclusion so broad, that there is no apprehension so weak, but hath strength enough to disclaim. Neither can it be here said, SECT. 2 that though the righteousness of Christ cannot be meritorious of itself simply, yet being a righteousness wrought by Christ, it may be the meritorious cause of its own imputation, and this imputation may be the formal cause of the justification of a believer. For to this, an answer is ready: that suppose it should merit it's own imputation, (though this be very unproper, and requires an interpretation more than abounding with charity, to make truth of it any ways) yet is not this imputation that, which men say is imputed for righteousness unto any man, but the righteousness it sel●e of Christ. Therefore if the righteousness of Christ be the meritorious cause of that righteousness which is imputed to a believer, and this righteousness which is imputed be the righteousness of Christ, than it is evident that the righteousness of Christ, must be (directly and plainly) the meritorious cause of itself. Again (in the Eleventh place) to second the former argument with another like unto it. SECT. 3 If the righteousness of Christ be imputed to a believer for righteousness in his instification, than the meritorious cause of his justification is imputed unto him for righteousness: But the meritorious cause of a man's justification cannot be thus imputed unto him: Therefore the righteousness of Christ cannot be thus imputed neither. The truth of the Major Proposition the former Argument will maintain 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 form of that, whereof it is efficient. Wherefore if the righteousness of Christ be the meritorious-efficient cause of our justification, impossible 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 form of this justification. For this is famously known to be an indispensable and inviolable Law amongst the four kinds of causes, material, formal, final and efficient: that the two former only do ingredi compositum or effectum, and are parts reiconstitutae, i. are intrinsical and essential parts of the effect, or thing produced: and that the two latter, viz. the final and efficient, are all ways extrinsecall, and stand without. As for example: when a Plasterer or Painter whites a wall, the effect of his work is the whiteness of the wall, or the wall as made white. Now into this effect, this whiteness of the wall, there is none of the efficient causes producing It, either any part of it, or any ingredient into it; neither the plasterer himself, who is the principal efficient cause of it, nor his brush or pencil, which is the instrumental 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 intrinsical or constituting part of the effect, neither as the matter, nor as the form thereof. The whiteness applied or put upon the matter or subject, viz. the wall, by all the three efficients (according to their several operations about it) is the form, or formal part of it: and the wall itself, whereunto this form is joined, coupled, or applied, by the said efficients, is the matter or material part of it. So in the justification of a sinner, neither is God himself, who is the principal efficient of this effect of justification; neither is Faith, which is the iustrumentall efficient of it (for God is said in Scripture to justify men, by or through it, Rom. 3.30. which for the most part are symptomatical particles of the instrumentall-efficient cause) neither is the righteousness of Christ, which is the meritorious efficient cause of it, none of these are either matter or form, or any constituting cause of justification: but only remission of sins, or absolution from punishment, as the form applied unto, or put upon the matter: and the matter or subject itself, whereunto this form is applied by all the 3 efficients spoken of, according to their several and distinct manner of working, viz. the person of the believer. This Argument, to him that understands, and will seriously consider, that unchangeable Law, mentioned of the 4. kinds rally acknowledged by the contrary-minded themselves in this Controversy. But that Christ should be reputed before God to have sinned in me, seems unto me an assertion so uncouth and un-Christian, that a Christian had need to borrow the ears of a Pagan to hear it with patience. However, the untruth of it is thus made manifest: If Christ be reputed before God to have sinned in me, he must be reputed to have had a being in me: for as operatio consequitur esse, i. the operation of a thing follows and depends upon the being of it; so he that supposeth, or reputeth a person to have done any thing, either good or evil in another, must necessarily suppose or repute him to have had a being there. But what being Christ should be reputed by God to have had in me being yet an unbeliever, is a speculation too high for me to attain unto. Again, Argum. 14 SECT. 2 against this supposed imputation, I oppose this consideration. If the active obedience of Christ be imputed unto me in my justification, then is the passive imputed also. For there can be no sufficient reason given, why the one should be taken, and the other left. Neither are the adversaries themselves partial (in this point) to the one above the other: they (generally) allow place for both in their imputation. But that the death or sufferings of Christ, are not in the letter and formality of them, imputed unto me, I thus demonstrate. If the death and sufferings of Christ be imputed unto me then may I be accounted or reputed to have died and suffered in Christ. But I can at no hand be reputed to have died or suffered in Christ: Therefore the death and sufferings of Christ are not imputed unto me (I mean still in the letter and formality of them, as I would be understood in the ma●or proposition also) The reason of the sequel in that proposition, is evident from the former argument. To have any thing imputed to a man in the letter and formality of it, and to be reputed and taken as the doer or sufferer of what is so imputed, are termini aequipollentes, et sese mutuò explicantes, are expressions that differ not in sense, but relieve one the other in their significations. The Reason of the minor, that no man is to be conceived or said to have suffered in Christ, is this, because in Christ we are justified and absolved from punishment: and therefore cannot be said to have been punished in him. He hath made us freely accepted in his beloved Ephes. 16. Therefore he poured not out his wrath upon us in his beloved. And by his stripes we are healed, (which is contrary to being wounded or punished. 1 Pet. 224. And to say that we suffered, or were punished in Christ, is (in effect) to unsay, or gainsay, what the Gospel every where speaketh touching our Redemption and deliverance from punishment by Christ. In what sense the sufferings of Christ may be said to be imputed tobeleevers, is 〈◊〉 plained in the Second part cap. 3. Sect. 7. He that knoweth how to reconcile these two, may undertake to make light and darkness friends, and needs not fear miscarrying in his design: that God should freely forgive us our sins, and yet punish us for them, and that to the full, (which must be said by those, that will say, we were punished in Christ. If Christ were punished for us, or in our stead (which is the Scripture language 2 Cor. 5.21, who made him sin for us,) doubtless we ourselves can in no sense (wherein words and truth will agree) be said to be punished, or to have suffered in him. One Reason more, and no more of this Chapter. If the righteousness of Christ (in the sense so oft-expressed) be imputed to us, Argum. 15 SECT. 3 then are we justified (at least in part) by the Ceremonial Law. This consequence is too good to be denied: because part of that righteousness which Christ wrought, stood in obedience to the Ceremonial Law: he was circumcised, kept the Passeover, etc. Therefore, if the righteousness of Christ be imputed unto us in the letter and formality of it, that part of his righteousness, which stood in obedience ceremonial, must be imputed also. But that we are not justified, either in whole or in part by the Ceremonial Law, is a truth so near situate to every man's apprehension, that it needs not be brought nearer by force of argumentation. If it be replied, that there is no necessity that any part of his righteousness Ceremonial should be imputed, because his moral righteousness is sufficient for imputation. To this I answer: First, there is no warrant or rule in Scripture thus to rend and tear in pieces the one half from the other, that which was one entire and complete righteousness in Christ: and to take which part we please to ourselves, and leave the other as a cast piece. Secondly, if that part only of the righteousness of Christ, which stood in his obedience to the Moral Law, be imputed unto us for righteousness in our justification, then will there not be found the same way or means of justification for the whole body of Christ: but the believing Jews before Christ's death, must be made righteous or justified with one kind of righteousness, and the Gentiles with another. For the Jews before the death of Christ, had a necessity of both parts of this righteousness to be imputed to them in their justification (supposing their justification had stood in such an imputation, as some stand up to maintain) aswell ceremonial as moral. But that the Jews should be justified with one kind of righteousness and the Gentiles with another, as there is no colour of reason (that I know) to maintain, so there is substance and strength of Scripture to oppose, Rom. 3.22.30. Thirdly (and last) that righteousness of Christ, which is called Moral, if separated and divided from the other part which is Ceremonial, was not a complete and perfect righteousness in him: because it became him to fulfil all righteousness) aswell ceremonial as Moral) Mat 3.15. So then, if men should be justified, only by the Moral righteousness of Christ imputed, it would follow, that we should be justified before God with an incomplete and half-righteousnesse. Therefore if the Ceremonial righteousness of Christ, be not (in the letter of it) imputed unto us for righteousness, in our Justification; neither can his Moral righteousness make matter of any such imputation. CAP. XIX. Propounding Five further demonstrations of the Conclusion undertaken for. THe Conclusion undertaken in this discourse, SECT. 1 hath many Friends (as you see) and those made of reason and Logic, and not of Rhetoric and affection, to speak for it. There is (I conceive) the better ground of hope, that it will be found a truth, after all contradiction. If your persuasion this way be not yet as fully grown as mine, I desire you go along with me to that which remaineth: sometimes the rear may do better service than the front. Argum. 16 If the righteousness of Christ, in the letter and formality of it, be imputed for righteousness unto us in our just ●fication, then are our sins imputed to Christ after the same manner, viz. in the letter and formality of them, in his death or condemnation. This consequence is blameless: because there is the same reason of the imputation of our sins to Christ, that is of the imputation of his righteousness to us: at least, such is the confession general of those that are pleased with opposite thoughts in this question, (as was formerly signified.) But that our sins are not imputed to Christ in any such manner, viz. in the letter and formality of them, I thus demonstrate. If the sins of men be imputed to Christ, in the letter and formality of them, than God looks upon him and reputes him in his sufferings as one that truly and really had provoked him and sinned against him. Even as our adversaries are wont frequently to express themselves concerning believers, by reason of that righteousness, which they say is imputed tot hem, viz. that God looks upon them and considers them, as having really and truly fulfilled the Law. But God doth not look upon Christ in his sufferings or repute him as one that had truly and really sinned against him. Therefore our sins are not imputed unto him after any such manner in his sufferings. The truth of the Assumption I thus make manifest: If God looks upon Christ in his death, as one that had truly sinned against him, than he looks upon him as one having deserved the death he suffers. The reason of the consequence is apparent: because as to sin, and to deserve death, are termini convertibles, expressions of the same importance: so to look upon a man as a sinner, and as one that hath deserved death, are but the same look. But that God doth not look upon Christ in his sufferings, as one that had deserved that things he suffers, is evident: First, because as Christ offered himself without spot unto God, so God looked upon him in that his offering. Otherwise, if he had overlooked that spotlessenesse of his, and imputed sin unto him in stead thereof. What had this been, but to have put darkness for light, and call good, evil? which to affirm, or once to conceive of God, may be called the first●orne of a blaspemous ignorance. Secondly, if God looked upon Christ, as having deserved death, SECT. 2 his death could not have been accepted as satisfactory for others. For as he that hath deserved death, cannot by his death deserve the sparing of others from death, who have deserved it, aswell as he, because such a man's death only answers his own personal demerit or sin, as he that oweth a certain sum of money, cannot by the payment thereof discharge any man's debt, but his own: So neither can the reputing of any man to have deserved death, be made consistent with a reputeing of such a man's death, to be expiatory, or satisfactory for the taking of the guilt of death from others, except we suppose him that reputeth in this case, to be, either unable to discern or apprehend, or else fully able to reconcile and compose the broadest contradictions. Thirdly (and last) if God looked upon him in his death, as deserving to die, than did Christ suffer death, not for our sins, as they are ours, but as they were his (by imputation.) Whereas the Scriptures every where testify of his suffering death for our sins, but never for any sin of his own, no more by imputation then by inhesion. And the truth is, look in what sense our sins may be said to have been imputed to him in the same sense they may be said to have been inherent in him: yea the inherency of them in their punishment upon him (wherein they stuck close to him indeed) is all the imputation the Scriptures know, or speak of. He laid upon him the iniquity of us all Esa. 53.6, viz. in the punishment due to it and deserved by it. So again: Who himself bore our sins in his own body, etc. 1 Pet. 2.24. that is, the punishment of our sins (as we shall have occasion to show further, God willing in the second part of this discourse.) Let this reason also be laid into the balance, Argum. 17 SECT. 3 and taken into consideration with the former. If the righteousness of Christ, be, in the letter and formality of it imputed unto us in our justification, then doth God look upon us as worthy of that justification, which we receive from him. But this is an unclean saying: therefore the former, out of which it is brought, is unclean also. The consequence in the major Proposition, is like Mount Zion, and cannot be moved. For if God reputes me to have kept the Law, as perfectly as Christ did, he must conceive of me, as worthy of my justification. For as the fulfilling of the Law, and deserving justification, are but the same, Rom. 4.4. So the reputeing of a man to have done the one, is the reputeing of him to have deserved the other. The reason of the minor Proposition (if it be not reason enough itself) viz. that God doth not look upon us as worthy that justification which we receive, is this: because than God should show us no grace or favour at all in our Justification (Rom 4.4. with Rom. 11.6.) but if any favour be showed, it is only in this, that he reputeth us worthy to be justified, or puts a worthiness upon us for justification. Whereas the Scripture expressly affirmeth, that God justifieth, not the worthy, but the ungodly, that is, the unworthy, Rom. 4.5. Against the foresaid imputation, Argum. 18 SECT. 4 I yet oppose this brief Demonstration. If men be formally just by God's act imputing Christ's righteousness unto them, then do men become formally sinful by the like act of God imputeing Adam's sin unto them (for no reason can be given of any difference.) But men are not made formally sinful by God's act of imputeing Adam's sin unto them (because then an act of God should be, as it were the life and soul of that sin, which is in men) Therefore men are not made formally just or righteous by any act of God imputeing righteousness unto them. The Argument (I conceive) is of no easy solution to those who maintain the imputation itself of this righteousness, and not the righteousness imputed, to be the form of justification. Which yet I conceive to be an apprehension every whit as rational, as that which on the other hand, maintaineth the righteousness itself of Christ imputed, to be this form. For whether we conceive of justification, either under the notion of a relation, being a new condition come upon the person justified (which seems to be the best and truest notion of it) or whether we conceive it as a passion (besides which two I know no predicament a I nature that can be put upon it) certainly no righteousness whatsov● (properly so called) much less the righteousness of another then of the person justified, can be the form of it. It is impossible that one predicament, or predicamental being, should inform another: and that righteousness, whether we speak of that which is habitual, or that which is actual, belongeth neither to the predicament of relation, nor to that of passion, is better known to Logicians, then to be made matter of disputation. The oil in the cruse doth not yet fail. SECT. 5 There are some drops still of further reason, to exaucthorize the opinion of this imputation. If justification consists partly in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, partly in remission of sins, then must there be a double formal cause of justification, and that made up and compounded of two several natures, really differing the one from the other. But this is impossible. Ergo. With the rod of this Argument Calvin scourged those Fathers of Trent for joining regeneration or infusion of grace with remission of sins, in justification (as we heard before) which supposing him a man but tolerably sound or sober in his intellectuals, is a demonstration in abundance, that his meaning never was, to place justification in any imputation of righteousness, really distinct from remission of sins: but that his apprehensions in this point, were praecise et formaliter the same, with this Countryman's of latter times, who calls Remission of sins, that righteousness which is imputed: (a) Remissio peccatorum, est justitia imputata. Chamier. Panstrat. t. 3. l. 21. cap. 19 see. 10. Idem sunt justificatio, et Remissio peccatorum. Vismus Cat. part. 2. Qu. 60. sect. 3. Whose meaning (by the way) is not (as some of the opposite party in this cause, have catched and quarrelled with like expressions from others) as if God in justification, did imputeremission of sins unto men, and in this sense, remission of sins should be called the righteousness which is imputed: but that God really remitting and forgiving men's sins, such remission and forgiveness, may well be called an imputed righteousness, partly because it is no absolute, legal, or text- righteousness, but a righteousness by interpretation, or construction of favour: partly because such a righteousness as it is, it is notwithstanding given, in the strength and mediation of the righteousness, merit, and satisfaction of another, which is Christ. Let us yet hear (and not be weary) what both reason and Religion can further speak against this imputation so much spoken for. SECT. 6 If such imputation be necessary in justification, Argum. 20 this necessity must be found, either in respect of the justice of God, because otherwise he could not be just in pronouncing men righteous, or in respect of his mercy, or for the salving or advancing of some other Attribute, etc. But there is no necessity of bringing in such an imputation into justification in respect of any of these. Therefore it is brought in without any necessity at all: and consequently must (of necessity) be cast out again. The Protectors of it themselves assign no other necessity of it, but only in respect of God's justice. God (they say) cannot saluâ justiciâ, with the safety of his justice, pronounce a man righteous, that is not righteous (their meaning is) according to the strict and literal righteousness of the Law. But to this I answer: First, that there is nothing at all necessary to be done either by God himself or by man, about the justification of a sinner, by way of satisfaction to the Justice of God, since that one offering of Christ of himself upon the cross. Otherwise there must be found somewhat defective or wanting in that satisfaction. If the justice of God be fully and every ways satisfied, and provided for by the death of Christ, as concerning the justification of sinners: doubtless there remains nothing further as necessary to be done, either by God, or by man, or by any other creature, for the satisfaction of the same Justice. Therefore if God should impute the righteousness of Christ unto men in this case, some other end or pretext for it must be sought out, not any provision for, or satisfaction to his justice. The infinite valour of Christ's passives, must not be abated or drawn down, to make way for an imaginatie exaltation of his actives. The necessity of Faith to justification (which is a necessity confessed and acknowledged by all) ●●y●th not in reference to God's Justice, as if any man satisfied that, either in who●e or in part, by believing: but the necessity of it respecteth either his wisdom, or the counsel of his will (as the Apostles expression is, Eph. 1.11) He judged it not meet (not counted it unjust) to save men in any other way by the satisfaction of Christ, then by the way of Faith. This is the WILL of him that sent me (saith our Saviour joh 6.40.) not the righteousness or justice, of him that sent me, that every man which seethe the Son, and believeth in him, should have everlasting life. If there were nothing else to h●nder, but want of satisfaction to divine justice, doubtless the whole world should be saved, Vehemens in De● est ad homini benefaciendum affectus: quem eousque puratus est extendere qu●●●l JUSTICIA ulle modo permittit. Corvin, Cersur. Anatom. p. 79. without any more ado. And therefore (by the way) that saying of Arnoldus, in his Censure of Molineus p. 79. is deeply taxable (except he can best ●●e himself, to make an atonement for the hardness of his text, with a soft interpretation) There is (saith he) a strong affection in God, to do good to man: and this affection he is still ready to act or exercise, as far as ever his justice will give him leave. Secondly, whereas it was said, that God cannot, SECT. 7 with the safety of his justice or truth, pronounce a man righteous, that is not so indeed with a legal righteousness, literally and properly so called, I answer that doubtless he may aswell and as truly pronounce and call that man righteous, that wants a literal or legal righteousness upon him (especially supposing he hath another righteousness, holding any analogy or proportion thereunto) as he may account any man's uncircumcission, circumcission. Rom 2.26. Or call the un-circumcised Gentiles the circumcision. Philip. 3.3. O● pronounce and call john Baptist, Elias. Mat. 11.14. Or call the two witnesses, two O live Trees, and two Candlesticks, Revel. 11.4. besides other instances in Scripture of like interpretation, without number) Now as Christ spoke as truly, when he called John Elias, as he should have done, if he had called him, only john: and the Holy Ghost spoke as truly when he called those that believe, though uncircumcised in the flesh, the circumcision, as if he called them, the uncircumcision, or as if they had been literally circumcised: So may God with as much righteousness and truth, pronounce and call or account a man righteous, that is not strictly, properly, or literally such, if he hath any qualification upon him, that any way answereth or holds proportion in any point with such a righteousness, as he should do, in case this man had this legal righteousness, as he should do, in case this man had this legal righteousness upon him in the absolutest perfection of the letter. For as in those and such like Scripture instances, the ground of the communication of the Name, is only some particular agreement between either the persons or things, not an universal consent or identity in all things: So when God pronounceth or accounteth a man righteous, it is not necessary that he should be literally, properly, morally and every way RIGHTEOUS: it is sufficient to bear out the justice and truth of God in giving either the Name or esteem of a righteous man unto him, if his person be under any such relation or condition, Idemsunt, habere temissionem peccarorum, et esse justum. Vrsinus Cat. part. 2 Qu. 56. Sect. 1. Idem sunt justificatio et remssio peccatorum, ibid. Q. 60. Sect. 3. as belongeth to a legal righteoussesse or which a legal RIGHTEOUSNESS would cast upon him. Now one especial privilege or benefit (we know) belonging to a perfect legal righteousness, is to free the person in whom it is found, from death and condemnation: Do this and thou shalt live: and he that hath his sins forgiven him, is partaker with him in the fullness of this privilege is as free from condemnation, as he: and may with truth and propriety of speech enough, in this respect, be either called or accounted a righteous man. Thirdly (and last) answer might be made (in few words) that forgiveness of sins, is a true, yea & a complete righteousness, in the kind, though it be not a through conformity with the moral Law. Remission of sins, is a passive righteousness, as absolute & perfect in the kind of it, as any active righteousness, which consists in an entire observation of some Law. And for him that hath once sinned, or ever failed in the observation of the Law, there is no other righteousness appliable unto him, or whereof he is capable, but only this passive righteousness of forgiveness of sins. Which for all other ends, purposes, advantages, privileges whatsoever, is as effectual to him that is invested with it, as the active righteousness itself could be, except only for selfe-boasting, and glorying in the flesh: which is a privilege (if it must needs be so called) altogether inconsistent with, and numeet for the lapsed, weak, and sinful condition of man. So that God when he hath forgiven any man his sins, may with abundance both of justice and truth, pronounce and call him a righteous man, though he be as far from that legal righteousness, as the East is from the West. CAP. XX. Containing the 21, 22, 23, and 24 Reasons to prove the imputation of Faith, and the non-imputation of the righteousness of CHRIST. TRuth may have many Reasons for her, SECT. 1 though many times she hath but few friends. But Reasons, give them time, will make friends, and the usurpation of error will cease from the judgements and understandings of men, when her nakedness and filthiness shall be discovered. But they shall proceed no further (saith Paul of men that resist the truth. 2 Tim. 3.8.9.) and gives this sign or reason of their period approaching: for their folly shall be manifest unto all them, etc. Men that either are, or would be esteemed wise, will own nothing that is foolish, when the folly thereof is made manifest unto them. Now as some things are more visible and easier to be seen or discerned then other, for the manifestation whereof a lesser light is sufficient, whereas things less perceptible, require an advantage of light more condensed and fortified, to make a clear and distinct representation of themselves to the sight: so are some truths in Religion better prepared and fitted for the understandings and judgements of men in themselves, and consequently the errors opposite to them, have a more pregnant inconsistency with reason: and for the discovery of such, both errors and truths, a weaker and fainter light of argumentation, is (for the most part) sufficient: but again there are other truths, whose situation lieth at a greater distance from those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, common principles of reason, or that have a more subtle and less perceptible connexion with them, and for the manifestation of these (together with their opposite errors) to the judgements and consciences of men, many times the most strongest and clearest, and-most multiplied light of discourse and argumentation, is found less then enough. Therefore let us yet contend with some further demonstrations, to bring the conclusion laboured for, into a clear and perfect light, that it may be no charge or trouble at all, to the minds and thoughts of men to receive it. That which having been done in our own persons, Argum. 21 SECT. 2 could not have been our justification, nor any part of the righteousness by which we could have been justified, cannot be made our justification, nor any part of it by imputation from another. But the righteousness of the Law, pretended to be imputed from Christ, in justification, had it been wrought by ourselves, in our own persons, could not have been our justification, nor any part of that righteousness by which we were to be justified. Therefore this righteousness of Christ cannot be made our justification, nor any part of it, by imputation from him. The major (I conceive) hath more reason in it, then to be denied. If a personal fulfilling of the Law, could have been no justification nor part of justification to us, certainly an imputative fulfilling of it could not have been either. The imputation of a thing from another cannot add any strength or virtue to it, above a personal acting or working, yea the nature and intent of imputation (in the sense we now speak of it) is only to supply the defect of personal performance, therefore it cannot exceed it. For the minor; that the righteousness of the Law, which was performed by Christ, could not have been our justification either in whole, or in part, in case it had been performed by ourselves, 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 again by ten thousand observations of this Law. The Law was able to have given life, had it always been fulfilled, and never broken: but unto him that had once failed in the observation of it, though he had been 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 sin wherein he had once sinned, could never have been purged by any law-righteousness: noactive obedience whatsoever, would ever have been an atonement for him. Without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. Heb. 9.22. Let me join 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 do in their own 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 justification. 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 controversy, must be found out and ordained by God to supply personal defects and inabilities. But where there is no Law or command given unto men to obey, there can be no personal defect: It is no sin 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 supply 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 Moral Law imposed upon him for his justification before God, but the Law of Faith only. The moral Law, as it hath received a new authority and establishment from Christ, obligeth and bindeth the conscience under the Gospel to the observation thereof by way of duty and thankfulness unto God: but neither now nor at any time since the fall, did it ever bind any man to the practice of it, for his justification. And therefore where it is said Rom. 2.13. that the hearers of the Law are not just before God, but the doers of the Law shallbe justified: the meaning is not, as if God exacted the strict observing of the Law for their justification, or that none should be justified without such an observance, but either 1º, the words may be conceived spoken in a kind of irony, 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 terms 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 seems so to promise. To this interpretation Beza much inclineth in his marginal note upon that clause. Or else 2º, the meaning of those words, the doers of the Law shall be justified, may be only this: that God will accept, justify, and save only such, who out of a sincere and sound Faith towards him by his Christ, shall address themselves to serve and please him in a way of obedience to his Laws. In this sense (which I rather conceive to be the express intent of the Apostle in the words) the doing of the Law is mentioned, not as the means or meritorious cause of the justification adjoining, but either as a condition, sine quinon, without which justification is not to be expected: or rather as an outward sign and manifestation of the persons, that shall be justified, but in another way, viz. by Faith. Thirdly (and last) by the Law in this place, the doers whereof (as is said) shall be justified, is not meant the Moral Law only (which restrained signification was simply necessary, to have given the clause any colour of opposition or contradiction to the proposition mentioned) but the whole Mosaical dispensation, consisting (according to the common distribution) of ceremonials, morals, and judicials. The observation of all which, no man (I think) ever affirmed to have been imposed by God upon men for their justification. But I fear we stand too long about oiling a wheel, which would run merrily enough without it. Let us rather hear the voice of a new argument speaking. If God requires only Faith of men to their justification, than he imputes this Faith unto them thereunto. Argum. 23 SECT. 4 But God requires only Faith to justification. Ergo. The consequence in the Mayor Proposition, is blameless, for this reason: because to impute unto iustsfication, and to accept unto justification, are somewhat differing in sound, but nothing at all in sense and signification. Now if God should require faith of men, and only Faith to their justification, and not accept it thereunto, he should make a bargain or Covenant with men, and refuse to stand to it when he had done: his overtures would be fair and gracious, but his intentions would be to seek, and no where in Scriptures to be found. If it be here replied and said: that though God requires only faith of men to their justification, yet he requires somewhat more and besides, at the hand of another thereunto: therefore 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 righteousness 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 righteousness unto them in their justification, then may this righteousness of Christ be imputed for this end and purpose, before, yea and without the faith of any man. For it is certain, that the Faith of men adds no virtue or vaive to the righteousness of Christ: therefore if this be that which God imputeth for righteousness in justification, it may be imputed aswell without faith, as with it: and so men might be justified without believing. Neither will it help in this case, to say, SECT. 5 that imputation followeth the will and pleasure of God: and therefore the righteousness of Christ is not imputed unto any, but to him that believeth, 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 I answer: if the will and pleasure of God be to make no imputation of the righteousness of Christ, but upon the condition of Faith intervening: then is it evident, that this righteousness is not imputed unto justification to any man, because the condition of faith must necessarily intervene, and come between. So that if this righteousness of Christ were (as our Adversaries would have it) imputed unto men, yet it must be only towards justification, not unto it: for by their own affirmation, it is faith that hath the next and most immediate connexion therewith. Secondly, if God suspends the imputation of Christ's righteousness upon the performance of the condition of faith, and then makes this imputation: then faith doth not take hold of the righteousness of Christ imputed, but first takes bold of it, and then the imputation followeth after. Which 1. is contrary to the express judgement of some of the learnedest of their own party: Who affirm this imputation of Christ's righteousness by God, to precede the condition of faith, or act of believing in men. a Deus primum imputat satisfactionem Christi: deinde in nobis efficit sidem, quam illamimputatam applicemus. Vrsinus Cat. part. 2 Qu. 60. sect. 5. Fides ex parte nostra hanc justitiam. Sic sia Deo imputatam, apprehendit solummodoet applicat. Dr. Prid. Lect. 5. de Instificat. Sect. 11. Secondle, if faith should first take hold of the righteousness of Christ, before it be imputed, and then the act of God's imputation should supervene upon it, and the believer not be justified, till this act of God's imputation had passed upon him: then must it be conceived, that a man may have the righteousness of Christ upon him by faith, and yet not be justified by it. For if the will of God be, not to impute the righteousness of Christ unto justification, but upon the condition of faith performed, and this condition is performed by laying hold on the righteousness of Christ (not yet imputed) by faith: it evidently followeth, that a man may lay hold on the righteousness of Christ by faith, and yet want that which is essentiality requisite to his justification (according to this opinion) viz. Gods imputation of this righteousness unto him, which (as the opinion teacheth) followeth the apprehension thereof by faith, and is not precedaneous to it. Again, SECT. 6 yet once more for the imputation of Faith in the sense insisted upon, I plead the Apostles plea and Argument, Rom. 4. That which was imputed to Abraham for righteousness in his justification, Argum. 24 is imputed to other believers also. But the Faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righteousness, etc. Ergo. Whether both these Propositions, in the direct sense here employed, and with relation to the conclusion issuing from between them (as they are here laid down) be not the genuine and unwrested Doctrine of the Apostle Paul, and that over and over, in that 4th chapter to the Romans, and whether the choicest learning, aswell ancient, as modern, hath not sealed and subscribed hereunto, I refer the Reader to a diligent perusal of the second Chapter of this discourse, for his satisfaction: where likewise he may see the ashes of the contrary interpretation consumed and burnt up with the fire of the trial. So that (I conceive) here needeth no addition of any thing to strengthen either the one Proposition or the other, above what hath been there delivered. CAP. XXI. Wherein the last reason against the Imputation of Christ's righteousness, viz. the non-imputability of the Law, is propounded and maintained. IF the righteousness of the Law be not imputable, Argum. 25 SECT. 1 or deriveable (in the letter and formality of it) from one man's person to another, then cannot the righteousness of Christ be imputed to any man in justification, after any such manner. The consequence cannot lightly be denied by him that will but grant light not to be darkness. Therefore I assume: But the righteousness of the Law is not imputable from one man's person to another. Therefore the righteousness of Christ is not imputable (much less imputed) to any man in his justification. This Argument was mentioned in our Scripture proofs, cap. 8. where you shall find it built upon that Foundation of truth, Gal. 3.12. The reason or ground of which non-imputability, or untransferiblenesse of the law-righteousness, we found express in the very tenor and plain words of the Law itself: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i. the very man that hath done them, shall live by them [and no other.] From which inference or addition, no man's understanding can (with reason) abstain. But it is like we must here again prepare to battle, and shall be assaulted with this Objection. SECT. 2 If the transgression of the Law be imputable from one man's person to another, Object. then may the righteousness of the Law be imputed also, after the same manner. For what should cause a difference between the one and the other in this respect? But that the transgression of the Law is imputable from one man's person to another, is evident from hence, because the sin of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit, is imputed to his posterity. Ab actu ad potentiam validissima est consequentia. Ergo. Give me leave to deliver my last Argument, out of the hand of this Objection: and so we shall draw towards a Conclusion of this first part. In my answer, I shall address myself to both the Propositions: but chief insist upon the instance that is brought to prove the Minor, to demonstrate the insufficiency and impertinency of that for that purpose. For the former Proposition (not to let pass incerta procert●, that which is weak, with the credit and reputation of strength) I answer therefore to it, that the consequence in it is not so tied and pregnant, (as happily is conceived) or as the confidence of the demand annexed by way of confirmation, seems to import. The imputablenesse of the transgression of the Law, were it granted, is no concluding demonstration of the like imputablenesse of the righteousness, or obedience performed unto it: and then this Proposition will not be found any such Oracle of truth. First, in the tenor of the Law, there is no such emphatical restraint of the guilt or punishment due unto the transgression of it, to the person of the transgressor, as there is of the reward promised to the observation of it, to the person of the observer; as we heard in the clause cited from Gal. 3.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. i. the very man that hath done them, shall live by them: It is not where found on the other hand: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. the very man that transgresseth them, shall die for his transgression. As if God in giving the Law, had left unto himself a liberty and scope to derive and carry the guilt and punishment due to the transgression of the Law, as far as he pleased: but had no intent to extend the reward promised to the fulfilling of it, beyond the person of the fulfiller. Some indeed conceive, that Adam's standing in obedience to the Law, had been the standing and perpetual confirmation in grace, of all his posterity. If this opinion could be made to appear any thing more than conjectural Divinity, I grant that then, in respect of the intent and purpose of God, the righteousness of the Law had been as imputable, as the transgression of it, but this will not prove it such in the nature of it, but only by way of Covenant: and so the consequence in the proposition will still languish and be infirm. But though I can be confident with Paul, to call Christ, the last Adam. 1 Cor. 15.45. Yet I am somewhat tender to call Adam, the first Christ. To say that Adam by his righteousness should have merited the justification of himself and all his posterity, is (I take it) to make him somewhat more than a figure of him that was to come. But to say, that by his transgression, he merited the condemnation both of himself and posterity, is no such hard saying (I conceive) in the cares of any man. Therefore however, the righteousness of the Law is not as imputable, as the transgression of it. Secondly, whereas demand was made, SECT. 3 by way of absolute confirmation of that former proposition, what should make any such difference, between the obedience of the Law, and the transgression of the Law, that the former should not be as imputable as the latter, the obedience, as the transgression? I answer, there may be this conceived as a ground of difference between them, in that respect. Sin or disobedience to a Law is ever greater in ratione demeriti, in way of demerit or desert of punishment: then obedience or subjection to a Law, is in ratione meriti, in deserving a reward. One that takes a purse, or murders a man by the high way side, deserveth to receive more in punishment, than a thousand deserve in reward, that suffer men to travail peaceably by them. Though he that dishonestly refuseth to pay a debt where it is due, may deservedly be cast into prison: yet it doth not follow, that he that keeps touch and payeth at his day, deserves to be exalted to a Throne. So might Adam by his transgression of the Law, merit death and condemnation to himself and posterity: and yet not have merited life and salvation to both, by his obedience. The reason of which difference is evident: because if he had obeyed and kept the Law, he had only done that which was his duty to do: and this (by our Saviour's rule, Luk 17.10) makes but an unprofitable servant. i. (I conceive) is no ground to demand or challenge any great matters at his master's hand, except it be by Covenant or promise from him. Adam's obedience to the Law, was a debt due unto God from him, several ways, and in sundry respects or considerations. First, God was his sovereign Lord, and had absolute power over him, to command him what service or obedience he pleased. Secondly, he was his maker and Creator, and had given him his being: and in this respect had full right and title to employ him as he pleased. Thirdly, God had been liberal and exceeding bountiful unto him, many ways: he created him in his own image and likeness: furnished him with principles of righteousness: made him Lord over the works of his hand: placed him in a Paradise of all delight and contentment. In all these respects, Adam was a debtor, yea and more than a debtor unto God, of that obedience unto his Law, which he required of him. Now the greater debtor Adam was unto God, the more and greater bands and engagements were upon him, to make good that obedience which God required of him, to his Law: the less meritorious had this obedience been, in case Adam had stood and performed it: and the more demeritorious also was his transgression and disobedience. Therefore that consequence in the major proposition of the objection, If the transgression of the Law be imputable, then is the obedience imputable also, is so fare from being legitimate, and solid, that the imputablenesse of the transgression of it, rather overthroweth the imputablenesse of the obedience of it, than any ways proveth or establisheth it. For the more imputable, that is, punishable, the transgression of it is, the less imputable, that is, rewardable, is the obedience of it. So that you see, now we have touched the hollow of the right thigh of the Objection, how it halts right down upon it. And you see withal, how we might fairly and honestly discharge ourselves from having any thing more to do with the Minor Proposition, or with the instance of the imputation of Adam's sin, which was insisted upon for the proof of it: because if either Proposition be disabled, the glory of the whole Argument is laid in the dust. Notwithstanding, because the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity (as it is ordinarily phrased) is conceived to be a master vein in this Controversy, and is frequently produced to prove the imputation of Christ's righteousness (by way of analogy or proportion.) I shall be willing to lay down with as much brevity and plainness as I can, how, and in what sense only, either the Scriptures themselves, or sound reason, will countenance the notion of that imputation. The issue will be, that neither the one nor the other will be found, either to own or favour any other imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, than we have hitherto granted of Christ's righteousness to those that believe: The righteousness of Christ, is imputed, i. is made over or given to those that believe, not in the letter or formality of it (as hath been often said) but in blessings, privileges and benefits, purchased of God by the merit or mediation of it. So the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity, not in the letter and formality of it (which is the imputation commonly urged) but in the demerit of it, i. in the curse or punishment due to it (which is the imputation commonly urged) but in the demerit of it, i. in the curse or punishment due to it, or deserved by it. Therefore as concerning this imputation of Adam's sin, I answer. First, the Scripture no where affirms, either the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, or of the righteousness of Christ to those that believe: neither is the phrase or manner of such speaking, any ways agreeable to the Dialect or language of the Holy Ghost. For still in the Scriptures, whersoever the word or term of IMPUTING is used, it is only applied unto, or spoken of something of the same persons, to whom the imputation is said to be made, and never (to my remembrance) to, or of any thing of another's, Rom. 4.3. Abraham believed God, and it was IMPUTED to him for righteousness, i. his own believing was imputed to him, not another man's. So verse 5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth, His Faith is IMPUTED to him for righteousness. So Psal. 106.30, 31. Phineas stood up and executed judgement, etc. and that (viz. act of his) was IMPUTED to him for righteousness. i. received a testimony from God of being a righteous and holy act. So again, 2 Cor. 5.19. not IMPUTING their trespasses (i. their own trespasses) unto them. Secondly, SECT. 5 when a thing is said simply to be imputed, as viz. sin, folly, and so righteousness, or the like, etc. the meaning of the phrase is not to be taken concerning the bare acts of the things, as if (for example) to impute sin to a man, signified this, to repute the man (to whom sin is imputed) to have committed a sinful act: or, as if to impute folly, were simply to charge a man to have done foolishly: but the phrase of imputing, when it is applied to things that are evil, and attributed to persons that have a power of judicature over those, to whom the imputation is made (in which posture only, to my remembrance the word is found in Scripture) signifieth, the charging of the guilt or demerit of what is said to be imputed, upon the head of the person to whom the imputation is made, with an intent of inflicting some condign punishment upon him. So that to impute sin (in Scripture phrase) is to charge the guilt of sin upon a man with a purpose to punish him for it. Thus Rom. 5.13. Sin is said not to be IMPUTED, whilst there is no Law. The meaning cannot be, that that act which a man doth, whether there be a Law or no Law, should not be imputed to him. The Law doth not make any act to be imputed, or ascribed to a man, which might not aswell have been imputed without it. But the meaning is, that there is no guilt of any act charged by God upon men, nor any punishment inflicted upon men for any thing done by them, but only by virtue of the Law prohibiting or restraining it. In which respect the Law is said to be the strength of sin, viz. because it giveth a condemning power against the doer, to that, which otherwise would have had none, 1 Cor. 15.56. So again, Job 24.12. when it is said, that God doth not lay folly to the charge of them (i impute folly to them) that make the souls of the slain to cry out, etc. the meaning is not, that God doth not repute them to have committed the acts of oppression, murder, etc. For supposeing they did such things, it is impossible but that God should repute them to have done them: but the meaning is, that God doth not visibly charge the guilt of these sins upon them, or inflict punishment for them. So 2 Sam. 19.19. When Shimei prayeth David not to IMPUTE wickedness unto him, his meaning is not, to desire David not to think he had done wickedly in railing upon him (for himself confesseth this in the very next words) but that David would not inflict that punishment upon him, which that wickedness deserved. This was that non-imputation of wickedness which Shimei desired of David So when David himself pronounceth the man blessed, to whom the Lord IMPUTETH not sin, his meaning is not, as if there were any man, whom the Lord would not repute to have committed those acts of sin, which indeed they have committed: but that such are blessed, upon whom God will not charge the demerit of their sins in the punishment due to them. So yet again (to forbear further citations in this point) 2 Cor. 5.19. when God is said, not to IMPUTE their sins unto men, the meaning is not, that God should not repute men to have committed such and such sins against him: but this, that he freely discharged them from the punishment due unto them By all which testimonies and instances from the Scriputres, concerning the constant and solemn use and signification of the term imputing, or imputation, it is evident, that the M●nor Proposition in the Objection, viz. that the transgression of the Law is imputable from one man's person to another's, hath no such clear or certain soundation in the Scriptures. SECT. 6 And therefore thirdly (and last) to come home to the instance of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, which is brought for the confirmation of it, I answer also, First, that either to say that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to his posterity (of believers) or the sin of Adam to his, are both expressions (at least) unknown to the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures. There is neither line, nor word, nor syllable, nor letter, nor tittle of any such thing to be found there. But that the faith of him that believeth, is imputed for righteousness, are words which the Holy Ghost counteth neither error, nor heresy to use. But secondly, because I would make no exception against words, further than necessity (I mean a necessity of making provision for the truth) enforceth (I do not like that any man's words that will take salt, and be made savoury by interpretation, should be cast out upon the dunghill: though I know a man that hath received this measure, pressed down, heaped up, and running over, from many) gran, that there are expressions in Scripture concerning both, both the communication of Adam's sin with his posterity, and of the righteousness of Christ with those that believe, that will fairly enough bear the term of imputation, if it be rightly understood, and according to the use and importance of it in Scripture upon other occasions (as we lately cited many instances) but as it is commonly taken and understood by many, it is no currant language, but occasions much error and mistake. Concerning Adam's sin or disobedience, SECT. 7 many are said to be made sinners by it. Rom. 5.19. And so by the obedience of Christ, it is said (in the same place) that many shall be made righteous. But now if men will needs exchange language with the Holy Ghost, they must see to it that they make him no loser. If when they say, that Adam's sin is imputed to all unto condemnation, their meaning be the same with the Holy Ghosts, when he saith, that by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners, there is no harm done: to exchange upon such terms, is not to rob. But it is much to be suspected, nay it is too evident by what many of themselves by way of interpretation speak, that the Holy Ghost and they are not of one mind, touching the imputation or communication of Adam's sin with his posterity, but that they differ as much in meaning, as in words. If when they say, that Adam's sin is imputed to all unto condemnation, their meaning be, plain and right down this, that the demerit or guilt of Adam's sin is charged upon his whole posterity, or that the punishment of Adam's sin, redounded and ran over (as it were) from his person to his whole posterity, a main part of which punishment, lieth in that original defilement wherein they are all conceived and borne, and whereby they are made truly and formally sinners before God: if this (I say) be the meaning of the term, Imputation, when it is applied to Adam's sin, Transeat, let it pass. But if the meaning be, Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity, i. that sinful act wherein Adam transgressed when heat the forbidden fruit, is in the letter and formality of it, and as it was Adam's own personal sin, imputed to his posterity, so that by this imputation all his posterity are made formally sinners, before any part of the punishment of that si●ne comes upon them: this is an imputation, which (I am certain) the Scripture will never justify, neither in the letter of it, nor in the spirit of it: yea and reason itself riseth up against it with a high hand. The equity (on God's part) for the involving of Adam's posterity, SECT. 8 in the punishment due to his first sin (for I do not conceive it to be an act either of district and essential justice in God, or yet of absolute or pure prerogative) but a certain mixed act between both seemeth to be founded upon 3 things: Sine dubio potuit Deus, si sic ei visum fuisset, Adae peccatum, aut ipsi condonare, aut in ipso tantum ulcisci, posterisque omnibus gratiam salutarem, co neutiquam obstante, liberare gratificari. Dr. Twist. and yet none of them the act of Adam's sin, nor yet the imputation of it. But 1º, the demerit or sinfulness of the sin: which is a thing much differing from the act of it: the act of it being principally from God him elf, and that by way of efficiency properly so called (as all Divines unanimously agree) but the sinfulness of it wholly from the creature. Secondly, the straightness, or narrowness, or scantness of Adam's person: Thirdly (and last) that special and near relation that his posterity had to his person. From the posture (I conceive) or standing up of these (or the like) circumstances before God, may be demonstrated the equity of his proceed, in involving or binding over, aswell Adam's posterity, as his person, in and to the same condemnation and punishment with him for his first sin. First for the fullness and weight of the demerit or sinfulness of it: it is almost unconceivable of what aggravations it is capable of, if all those circumstances and considerations were but made to speak home, which are able to charge it in this kind. Some we touched towards the beginning of this Chapter: and many others there are, which I do not purpose now to insist upon, because the sinfulness of this sin, is generally confessed and acknowledged by all, though it be true also, there are some circumstances on the other hand, which do much case and lighten the provocation and offensi●●nesse of it, as we shall have occasion to show hereafter in the second part. Only I desire to mention one thing, SECT. 9 (which to my best remembrance) I have not often met with under observation in this kind: though it be a consideration obvious and near at hand. The sin of Adam hath this peculiar strain or burden of sinfulness in it, wherein it justifieth the sin even of the reprobate Angels themselves, being (in that respect) a sin more intolerable than theirs, These wicked Angels were entrusted but with their own portions, respectively, and therefore what they sinned, they sinned to themselves, they sinned away & ruined only their personal estates in blessedness. But Adam had a dearer and deeper engagement upon him, to keep him upright: he had the estates of all his posterity put into his hand: and knew, that if he sinned and fell, he should draw thousands thousands of souls after him into the same perdition with him: and those such, the things of whose peace, safety and welfare, the Law, of nature itself obliged him to provide for, with more care and tenderness, then of all other creatures whatsoever, being those that were to be his own natural children, even flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone: the engagement of which relation the Apostle averreth (in this respect) 2 Cor. 12.14. where he saith, that Children ought not to lay up for the Parents, but Parents for the Children. If it be esteemed a sore brand (as well it may) upon the wickedness of jeroboam, that he made Israel to sin: and yet this was no other making to sin, than what possibly might (and aught) to have been resisted and withstood, by those that were drawn to sin by it: then must it needs be a far soarer charge upon the sin of Adam, who made not Israel only, but the whole world to sin: and that in such a way, and by such a making, against which there was not the least strength or power in the world to make the least resistance or opposition. So then the exceeding sinfulness or demerit of this sin of Adam being granted, it cannot be judged any ways unequal in God or repugnant to the rules of justice, to inflict an unanswerable measure or weight of punishment upon it. Punishment is a kind of payment or recompense for an injury or loss sustained. I paid (or restored) saith David, Psal. 69.4.) the things that I never took. i. I went under censure, and was punished in my good Name and otherwise, for offences whereof I was never guilty. The like phrase of restitution by way of punishment, you shall find job 20.18. So that now to require or take in punishment, valuably to the loss or injury a man hath sustained, hath thus far no appearance of unrighteousness in it. Therefore 2º, SECT. 10 consider we further the narrowness or scantness of Adam's person, of how small receipt or capacity his vessel was, to contain that abundance of wrath, or that fullness of punishment, which God might lawfully require, for the great injury or dishonour done unto him in that mighty sin: and this will bring you to confess and acknowledge this further, that either God must sit down by the loss (as we use to say) and want means of coming again into his own, or else he must look out beyond Adam's person, for more to be joined in the punishment with him, to supply (as it were) that was wanting in him, in that respect. In civil and politic States, it is not more usual than equal and reasonable, that when the offence is of a very high nature, as in the case of Treason and the like etc. the punishment should not be confined to the person of the offender (which how great soever, is ever less than an offence of that nature) but be further extended, until the quality of the offence be somewaies answered. Upon this ground of equity (I conceive) it was, that God would not be satisfied with the personal destruction (though in a way of extraordinary judgement) of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, their sin of rebellion against Moses and Aaron, rising to a greater height than so: but involved their Families their wives, their Sons, their little ones, yea their Tents and all their goods, in the punishment with them. Numb. 16.27, 32, 33. with Deut. 11.6. Indeed for Korahs' Children (at least for some of them, it seems from Num. 26.11. that they had withdrawn themselves from their Father's Tent and company, before the judgement came, and so escaped. But for the Families, wives, Children, little ones, yea tents and all the goods of the other, yea and all those persons that remained and were found with Korah whether Children or others; when the stroke of Divine recompense came; together with all his goods, were cast in together into the scale of the punishment to make weight for the height and hey nousnesse of the sin. The like is to be conceived in the case of Achan's sin. jos. 7.24.25. If the personal punishments of these men would have held out just and full consideration with their offences, it is no ways probable, but that the punishing hand of God wou●d have stayed there, and not have been stretched out further. In like manner, if the person of Adam had been as great and large, as his offence, so that he had ●in able himself to have borne the fullness of the punishment, which his sin deserved: I conceive it most likely that God would have deserved and satisfied himself in point of justice, out of his person alone, and not have arrested all his posterity for the debt. Because the most district justice that is in God, can but require and exact from the creature offending, that degree or measure of punishment for sin, quae est internimiùm et parum, which holds a just and even proportion with it. And if the person of the creature offending, be able to pay the whole reckoning and sum itself, the like justice seemeth to require, that it be not demanded elsewhere, nor any others without their consent be charged with contributing to it. So that if we shall suppose the person of Adam to have been punishable according to the height and full extent of his sin, and yet will say, that God had power to charge this sin upon his posterity, this must be understood of such a power, as indeed God hath by way of absolute prerogative and sovereignty of dominion over the creature, not of any power he stands possessed of in a way of regular and ordinary justice. If it be here objected: SECT. 11 that notwithstanding God hath thus seized upon Adam himself and all his posterity with him, and hath involved them together, and made them all contributers in the punishment due to the first sin, yet doth not all this punishment in the utmost extent of it, answer (in strict consideration) the demerit of that sin: so that that which God hath done in this kind, is no sufficient means to heal the wound of that dishonour which he received from the hand of the creature. To this I answer: First, if this be a truth (as for the present I have nothing in a strict way of arguing to oppose against it directly) that notwithstanding God hath fallen thus heavily upon Adam & all his, yet hath not hereby made himself any full satisfaction for the offence committed against him: this rather tends to ease and justify these proceed of God in punishing aswell Adam's posterity as his person, for his offence, that is, for the demerit of his offence, than any ways infringeth or impleadeth any thing therein. So that we shall not need, for the clearing of God's justice in troubling all Adam's posterity for Adam's sin, to have recourse to a supposed imputation of the act of this sin unto them, the sinfulness or demerit of it (which as hath been said, is a thing far differing from, and indeed contra-distinguished against the act of it) is abundantly sufficient thereunto. Yet secondly I answer withal: that though the punishment of the sin poured out upon Adam's posterity as well as his person, will not hold out full weight and measure with the sinfulness or demerit of it, in which respect God may seem still to be behind hand with the creature, and not to have repaired his breach sufficiently: yet who seethe not but that he hath made a far more abundant provision for the vindicating of his glorious greatresse, by causeing this dreadful tempest of his displeasure to rain upon all flesh, then if Adam's person alone had been reigned upon in this kind, and the expressions of his indignation had reached no further. We have a common saying: That where it is not to be had, the King must lose his right. Certainly if the great and terrible God ever paid any sin home in wrath and vengeance, he is not behind hand with this sin of Adam. Thirdly and lastly, SECT. 12 I answer yet once more: that in this respect God may be said to have made, or given himself full satisfaction, in pouring out this fullness of wrath upon Adam's sin, not upon his person only, but whole posterity also: because he requireth nothing more by way of any further satisfaction for that sin, but only the abiding or suffering of that wrath and punishment which he hath inflicted upon it, by Adam and his posterity. This showeth that he is perfectly eased of that his great adversary. At least wise, where he complaineth not, nor maketh any further demand, we cannot say that he is unsatisfyed. That sacrifice which he required of his Son Jesus Christ for the taking away or purging the sin of the world, was not required by way of addition to that punishment, which he had inflicted upon Adam and all his; as if Christ with his sufferings, and men with theirs, should together make up one and the same entire satisfaction unto God for Adam's sin. No, the Scripture calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is a vice-ransom, or counter-ransom, i. a satisfaction instead of a satisfaction. 1 Tim. 2.6. which implieth, that that wrath which God had already poured out upon the world for sin, was in the nature of it and would have been, had his mercy been pleased to have suffered his justice to go on with the full execution of it, and to have received at large. This for answer to the objection: and for the second particular; upon which the equity of God's proceed in involving aswell the whole posterity of Adam as his person in the punishment due to his first sin, may well be built (as hath been suid) viz the narrowness of Adam's person. SECT. 13 The third and last (but of principal consideration in the business) is, the peculiar and near relation of the posterity of Adam to his person. His posterity was so nearly and entirely his, when the sin was committed, and the judgement first poured out upon it, that they were in his person, and as it were a part, or somewhat of it. The time was, when all men were but one Adam: as Augustine expresseth it: Adam erat nos omnes. i. Adam was us all. Augustin. De Peccat. Merit. et Remiss. And again, Omnes eramus ille unus Adam. i. We were all that one Adam. And the whole generation of mankind, is but Adam, or Adam's person interpreted, or expounded at large: and may with as good propriety of speech be called Adam, as the nation of the jews is often in the Scripture called jacob. So than it being granted, 1ᵒ that the sin of Adam was exceedingly sinful and demeritorious. 2º, that his person (properly taken) by reason of the scantness or narrowness of it, was not capable of the fullness of that wrath, which that sin deserved, and which it stood best with the glory of God, should be executed or poured out upon it: it cannot be thought any ways unrighteous or unequal, that his posterity should be arrested also, and taken into Communion with his person in the punishment inflicted, to supply that which was wanting in it. That God should not be stinted or straightened in making provision for his own glory in the punishment of sin, but that he should punish till he maketh himself whole, at least till he cometh as near into his own, as conveniently he may, there is no man can judge unequal or unjust. Now than Adam, who was the sinner, having of his own, whereof or wherewith to make satisfaction, I mean a posterity, which was so fully, so entirely, and (as I may say) so identically his own, that it was as yet rather himself then his; it cannot but be thought equal and meet, that God should father seize upon these, to do himself right, then upon the Angels or any other kind of creature that had not that near and special relation to the transgressor. As in the case of the sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, (and so of Achan) before mentioned, the personal punishment of the offenders not holding out proportion with the nature and quality of their offences: there is no man but must needs conceive it more agreeable to justice, that their own families respectively, and those that had the nearest relation to them, should be taken to make up the exemplariness of the punishment, till it was increased and raised to the line and level of the offence, than any other family or person, that stood at a further distance from them. God, in a fair and reasonable construction, involving Adam and his posterity in the punishment for his sin, did but involve Adam himself, or his person only, because his person and posterity, when this punishment was executed, were but one and the same Adam. This is the third and last particular, upon which the equity of God, in punishing aswell Adam's posterity, as his person, for his sin, seems to be grounded, viz. the peculiar nearness and relation between his person and posterity. Me thinks there is a joint intimation of all the three, SECT. 14 in that Scripture, Rom. 5.12. Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in that (or rather, according to the best translations and expositions, in whom) all men have sinned. Here is first the demerit of this sin implied, in that death is said to enter into the world by it. There is nothing in sin to draw death and condemnation after it, but only the demerit or sinfulness of it: as for the act itself, whereunto this sinfulness cleaveth (for malum semper habitat in alieno fundo, as one saith, evil is always found with somewhat that is not evil) this is directly and efficiently from God himself (as hath been said) and therefore death is no wages due to this: neither would it, in case it were imputed to any man, bring any guilt or condemnation upon him. Secondly, it being further said, that death being entered into the world, passed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon all men, or over all men, it showeth, that Adam's single person, was not sufficient or able to bear the fullness of that punishment, which the sinfullnesse-of his sin had deserved: otherwise death (doubtless) would have stopped there, and have gone, or passed on no further. Thirdly and lastly, where it is added in the close, as the reason why death, being gotten into the world, should pass directly towards men, and should prevail (in special manner) over them, and that over them all (without exception) viz. because that in him, i. Adam, all men had sinned: this implieth, that had not men been in the loins of Adam, who was the sinner, or otherwise had no special or near relation to him, this death had had no more right or advantage against them, then against other creatures. So that now, these things duly considered, SECT. 15 evident it is, that the imputation of Adam's sin, or rather of the act of Adam's sin: (for otherwise it is nothing to the purpose (so much spoken of and urged in this case) to his posterity, is not the ground or cause of the punishment that is fallen upon his posterity for it (neither is there the least little in the Scriptures founding that way) but chief that special communion they had with him in his nature (having then their several beings respectively in his loins) and consequently in his sin. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, See more of this in the Second Part. cap. 2. Sect. 11, 12, 13. in whom all have sinned (saith Paul.) Therefore now the ground of that punishment or condemnation which is come upon all men, is not the imputation of Adam's sin, much less of the act of Adam's sin (as before we distinguished, but if any imputation be in this case, it is of every man's own sin in Adam, for it was not Adam alone that sinned, but all sinned in him it is every man's own sin that is imputed to him, and for which he is punished. As Levi himself is said to have paid tithes in the loins of Abraham his Father, not that Abraham's paying of tithes was imputed to Levi, Heb. 7.9.10. so neither is it to be said, that Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity, but rather that this posterity themselves sinned in Adam; and it is but every man's own sin, not adam's, that is imputed to him. To make a bare and district imputation of the act of another's sin, the adequate and sole ground and foundation of that heavy judgement and punishment that is laid upon all men in this kind, is not so much to represent God to the minds and consciences of men, as a district, just and severe Judge (which with their interpretations may be affirmed of him) as to make him so fare to take pleasure, or to delight in blood, and in the ruin of his creature, that he will take occasion, even where none is, to slay and to destroy with death And of the two (doubtless) it were less dishonourable unto God, to conceive or say of him in this case, that he fell thus heavy in wrath and judgement upon the whole posterity of Adam, because he would do it, or because it was his absolute will and pleasure so to do: then to pretend or conceive the bare imputation of the act of Adam's sin, the cause or reason of it. For in the former, the absolute power or Sovereignty of God over the creature, is plainly asserted (though perhaps in terms somewhat harder than many ears will well bear) but in the latter, there is only a cold and hungry pretence alleged, to bear out one of the greatest and most weighty acts of judgement that ever God exercised. Of the two it is less dishonourable to a Prince or Monarch, to profess a power above Law, then to exercise it under a pretence of justice. And what is there more in the imputation of Adam's sin, to make the punishment of it upon all his posterity, an act of justice in God, or to ease the conceit of absolute Sovereignty, then if there were no such imputation at all? Or suppose God should repute me to have sinned in Adam, and because he so reputeth me, shall execute judgement upon me; in case I did not so sin, as God reputeth me to have done, it had been altogether as much justice in God to have punished me without any such reputing me to have sinned, as with it. But in case I did sin (as the Scripture testifieth to my face I did) now there is no necessity or occason why God should impute Adam's sin unto me, to make me capable of punishment: the imputation of this my own sin is abundantly sufficient. Besides, suppose I could not be truly said to have sinned myself, being yet in the loins of Adam, and so my own sin not to be imputed unto me: yet my communion with Adam in his nature, or my near relation to him, being one of his children and posterity, upon the former supposition, that Adam's sin was not punishable to the height in the punishment of his person only, is a full and sufficient ground to bear out the justice of God, in laying all that punishment upon me he hath done. But of all conceits or apprehensions in this point, that hath the least consistency with soberness and truth, which makes the impuputation of the act of Adam's sin, which act was more from God, then from Adam, as hath been said, though the sinfulness of this act, was wholly from Adam, and not at all from God) to his posterity, to be the reason and ground of that fore punishment wherein they are all included & involved: as if Gods reputing a world of men to have done that, which indeed was from himself (and therefore could at no hand be sinful) were a sufficient ground in justice & equity, to bring the guilt of everlasting death and wrath upon them. The sum of all that ●ath been reasoned at large in this Chapter, SECT. 16 amounteth to this: 1. that the imputablenes of the transgression of the Law (were it granted) from one person to another, doth not necessarily evince the like imputability of the obedience of the Law. 2. that in Scripture, there is nothing said to be imputed unto any man but that which was his, before the imputation. 3. that to impute, doth never signify the bare ascribing or setting over any act good or bad, unto any man: but a suitable dealing by the person, to whom the imputation is made, according either to the merit or demerit, of such an act. 4. that therefore, neither the act of any man's obedience nor disobedience to the Law, can either in Scripture language, or propriety of speech, be said to be imputed to any other, then to the persons themselves, obeying and disobeying. 5. That the Scriptures are altogether silent concerning the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. 6. That reason itself fully demonstrates, any such imputation, to be no sufficient or tolerable ground or reason, why God in a way of justice and equity, might involve Adam's posterity with his person, in the punishment due to his sin. 7. (and last) that there are other grounds hereof both more agreeable to reason, & to the rules & principles of common justice & equity: so that there is not so much as the least degree of any necessity, to bring the Imputation of Adam's sin (in the sense pressed by our adversaries for their turns) upon this theatre The Conclusion resulting from the constellation of these particulars, is easily discerned to be this, that the Imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, is no better Argument to prove the imputation of Christ's righteousness (in the sense questioned) to believers then the imputation of Christ's righteousness, is to prove, the imputation of Adam's sin: and that neither the one nor the other (in the sense urged and opposed) have any firm footing either in reason or Religion. The end of the first part. THE SECOND PART, CAP. I. Wherein is contained a brief proposal of the Particulars in this Second Part. HAving brought forth our strength, both of Scripture and Reason (seconded in both with sufficient authorities of men of best esteem) as well to overthrow the conclusion set up by the Adversary in the Question debated, as to establish that which we have undertaken for and oppose against it: it remains, that for the making good the ground which we have gotten, we should disarm our enemies, and take away those weapons from them wherein they trust, by answering those Scriptures and Reasons which are usually chosen for the service of this warfare, and whereby some endeavour as well to build up, what we have laboured hitherto to throw down, as to cast down what we have to built up. The truth is, that no cause or truth reigneth in fullness of glory and peace, till all the enemies thereof be, either reconciled or put under his feet. In consideration whereof. I shall no ways smother or dissemble any objection of the adverse party, as fare as I know, they have yet pleaded, or can conceive, they may possibly plead yet further for themselves in the point depending, nor seek to gain the least advantage to myself by cutting the hair, or diminishing the strength of any argument, I shall propound against myself to answer: but rather on the other side, shall show all fairness and faithfulness in relieving my adversaries, in their oversights and as fare as my ability extendeth endeavour to supply that which is wanting on their part, in maintenance of the cause they have undertaken. I shall therefore in this Second Part of my Work: first lay down and prove (with all convenient briefness that may be) some conclusions, which have special relation to the Question depending, and will give a further light of insight therein, and which will be as foundations or grounds to frame answers upon, to several objections that are, or may be made, against the decision maintained in this Discourse. 2. I shall lay down and open some distinctions, which will make a clear and lightsome way for the truth through the darkness of many difficulties, which seem to oppose it on every side, as well from the Scriptures, as reasoning otherwise. 3. I shall lay down the nature and purport of justification, in the several causes and carriages thereof according to the Scriptures, as fare as I am able to conceive. 4. I shall briefly propound and answer the Scriptures that are conceived to make against the opinion contended for in this Treatise, according to the tenor and importance of the former grounds and distinctions. 5. And lastly, I shall with like brevity close the whole business, by propounding and answering the reasons and Arguments, that seem chiefly to lie against, the Doctrine hitherto maintained. CAP. II. Some Conclusions laid down, and proved for the further clearing of the Point in Question, and for answering sundry of the Objections following. HE for whose sins a plenary satisfaction hath been made (either by himself, or another for him, Conclusion 1 SECT. 1 and hath been accepted by him against whom the transgression was committed, is as just and righteous, as he that never sinned, but had done all things that were requisite and meet for him to do: This is evident: because there is as much justice and righteousness in repairing the wrongs and injuries done to any, as there is in abstaining from doing wrong. He that by his , or otherwise, hath made spoil in his neighbour's corn, and hath given him full satisfaction for the spoil done to his contentment, is as good a neighbour, and deals as justly and honestly with him, as he that never trespassed in that kind upon him. The essence and nature of Justice or righteousness (in the sense we now speak of) is this (as the known definition gives it) Suum cutque tribuere; to give to every one his own, i. that which in a way of equity and right is due from us unto them. Now when we have injured or damnified any man in any of his rights, or things belonging to him, there is nothing more due to him from us, then that which is his own, i. that which is fully valuable to the injury we have done unto him. Therefore he that tenders a valuable consideration, or satisfaction, for an injury done to another, is just according to the height and utmost exigency of justice, and consequently as just as he that never was injurious, or did wrong. There is no medium, or middle condition or standing, beteewne a perfect absolution and freedom from all sin, and a perfect and complete righteousness; Conclu. 2 SECT. 2 but he that is fully discharged and freed from sin, ipso facto, is made perfectly and completely righteous. See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 34. And Mr. Bradshaw justisi. p. 78. etc. The reason of this is evident: nothing can any way diminish or prejudice the perfection of righteousness, but only sin: as nothing can hinder perfection of light, but darkness in one degree or other, or perfection of sight, but blindness in some degree or other. So that as the air when it is free from all degrees of darkness must of necessity be perfectly and fully light, and a man that is in no measure or degree blind, must needs be perfectly sighted: so he that is perfectly freed from all sin whatsoever must of necessity be completely and perfectly righteous withal. It is impossible to conceive a man defective in any part or point of righteousness, and yet withal to conceive him free from all sin, sin and righteousness being in subjecto capaci contraria immediata, as Logicians speak. The Scriptures themselves still make an immediate opposition between the two Natures or Conditions we speak of, Sin, and righteousness, never acknowledging, or so much mentioning any third between them. As by one mansdisobedience (saith Paul) many were made sinners; so by the obedience, of one shall many be made righteous. To findout a third estate between sina and righteousness, we must find out a third Adam, from whom it should be derived. An estate of neutrality here, is such an estate or condition, as the man in the Moon enjoyeth. Adam, Conclusion 3 SECT. 3 See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 28. whilst his innocence stood with him, and till his fall by sin, was completely righteous, and an estate of justification before God; yea, for the truth and substance of righteousness, as righteous, as he could or should have been, if he had lived to this day in the most entire and absolute obedience to the Law. His righteousness by this means had been of a longer continuance, but not of any greater perfection or truth. Even as the second Adam, the Lord Christ himself, was as completely and perfectly righteous from the womb and so from his first entrance upon his public ministry as he was at last when he suffered death. And had there been any defect or want of righteousness in Christ at any time from his conception to his death it must needs have been sinful (all absence of righteousness necessarily including a presence of sin as the absence of light a presence of darkness answerable thereunto) and consequently the great work of the salvation of the world had miscarried in his hand. To say that Adam was not perfectly righteous, and consequently in a justified estate or condition before God, until his fall by sin, is to place him in an estate of condemnation before his sin, there being no middle or third estate between these two. Justification and Condemnation, as the Scriptures evidently imply in many passages as Rom. 5.18. Deut. 25.1. Rom. 33.34. etc. in all which places (with some others) you shall find an immediate opposition between them. But especially this appeareth from Rom. 8.1.2. compared with verse 3. and 4. where you will find Justification described by non-condemnation, or freedom from the Law of sin and death: if there were a third estate or condition, between justification and condemnation, non-condemnation would not so much as necessarily imply justification, much less be used as a clause or term equivolant thereunto. Therefore to grant, that forgiveness of sin puts a man into the same estate and condition wherein Adam stood before his fall (which is generally granted by men of opposite judgement in this controversy, and nothing granted, neither in this, but the unqeustionable truth) is to grant the Point in question, and to acknowledge the truth laboured for throughout this whole Discourse. Perfect remission or forgiveness of sins includes the imputation or acknowledgement of the observation of the whole Law, Conclu. 4 SECT. 4 See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 27.28. Omnia mandata factadeputantur, quando quicquid non fit, ignoscitur. Aug. Retra. l. 1. c. 19 even as the imputation of the Law fulfilled, necessarily includes the non-imputation of sin, or the forgiveness of all sin, in case any hath been committed For how can he be said to have all his sins fully forgiven who is yet looked upon or intended to be dealt withal, as one that hath transgressed, either by way of omission, or commission, any part of the Law, and he that is looked upon, as one that never transgressed any part of the Law, neither by omission, nor commission must needs be conceived or looked upon as one that hath fulfilled and kept the whole Law which is nothing else but to have a perfect righteousness, or (which is the same) a perfect fulfilling of the Law imputed to him. So that besides that perfect remission of sins, which hath been purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ for those that believe, there is no need of (indeed no place for) the imputation of any righteousness performed by Christ unto the Law, because in that very act of remission of sins, there is included an imputation of a perfect righteousness: or to speak more properly, and with Scripture exactness, that act of God whereby he remitteth and pardoneth sin, is interpretatively, nothing else but an impuattion of a perfect righteousness or of a fulfilling of the Law. Compare Rom. 4. ver. 6. with ver. 7. and 11. Even as that act of the Physician by which he recovereth his patient from his sickness, may with full propriety of speech be called that act, whereby he restoreth him to his health: this expression were but a plain interpretation of the other, and no more nor any thing else in substance, but it. And so that Act, by which the Sun dispels the darkness, may indifferently be called that act, by which he fills the Air with light. And as the Physician doth not heal the disease by one act, and recover or restore health by another act, really differing from it, but doth both by one and the same act, healing the disease, and restoring, of health, being but two differing names or considerations of one and the same thing; In like manner, God doth not heal sin, that is, forgive sin by one act, and restore the life of righteousness, that is, impute righteousness by another act at all differing from it, but in and by one and the same punctual and precise act, he doth the one and the other; forgiveness of sins, and imputation of righteousness; being but two different names, expressions, or considerations of one and the same thing. And as it is but one and the same person that is sometimes called jesus, and sometimes Christ, and the person jesus, is sometimes called by the name of Christ, to import and signify, that he is an anointed one; and again, the person Christ, is sometimes called by the name jesus, to signify that he is a Saviour: even so one and the same act of God is sometimes called forgiveness of sins, and sometimes an imputing of righteousness, and the forgiveness of sins is sometimes called an imputing of righteousness, to show and signify that a man needs nothing to a complete righteousness, or justification, but the forgiveness of his sins: and again, the imputing of righteousness, is sometimes called the forgiveness of sins, to show that God hath no other righteousness to confer upon a sinner, but that which stands in forgiveness of sins. So that these two terms or expressions; imputing righteousness, and forgiving sin, do but aid and assist one the other towards a full explication of the nature and importance of that act of God, which sometimes goeth under the one name, and sometimes under the other. If it be here demanded: SECT. 5 but how can God be said to impute a righteousness to a man, which never was, nor ever had a being, no righteousness (at least of that kind, whereof we now speak) having ever been, but that perfect obedience which Christ performed to the Law? I answer, 1. That there is as express and complete a righteousness in the Law, as ever Christ himself performed: yea, a righteousness more proper, and appropriable to all sorts and conditions of men, than that personal righteousness which Christ himself performed (as was showed at large in the former part of this Treatise) And what if it be said, that God, in remission of sins through Christ from and out of the Law imputeth to every man that believeth, such a righteousness as is proper to him? This I am certain, is a thousand times more agreeable both to reason and to the Scriptures, then to hold an imputation of such a righteousness, that is, of such a system and frame of actions, which were indeed a righteousness to him that wrought them, the Law requiring them of him, but can be a righteousness to none other person whatsoever, the Law requiring the same acts for no man is therefore just or righteous, because he doth the things which the Law simply requireth, but because he doth those things which the Law requireth of him, in reverence to his personal condition, calling, and relations in every kind. A man may be as wicked and sinful by doing that which the Law requireth of another man, as by doing that which the Law prohibiteth unto all men. But of this enough already. But 2. To the Objection propounded, I answer, further, that to say God cannot impute a righteousness which never had a being, i. which never was really and actwally performed by any man, is to deny that he hath power to forgive sins. Because for givenesse of sin is an imputation of righteousness (as hath been proved) yea, and of such a righteousness which as the Scripture teacheth us, is without works, (Rom. 4 6. Rom. 3.28 etc.) i. a righteousness, not consisting or made up of any works performed to the Law by any man: and what is this, but such a righteousness, as never had a being? Conclusi. 5 He that is fully acquitted and discharged from his sins, SECT. 6 needeth no other righteousness, to give him a right or title unto life. See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 27.34. etc. The Reason of this is evident also. Death is the wages of sin, and of sin only, being due to no creature in any other respect nor upon any other term whatsoever: and therefore cannot in a way of ordinary justice be inflicted by God upon any creature, but for sin. Now he that is free from death, and no ways obnoxious thereunto, See Mr. Bradshaw justific. p. 79. cannot but be conceived to have a right unto life, there being neither any middle condition between death and life, wherein it is possible for a reasonable creature to subsist, nor again any capacity of life, but by some right and title thereunto. Adam whilst his innocency and he stood together, and whilst he was free from sin, had a right and title unto life, yea, and had the possession and fruition of it given unto him; (for how could he be threatened with death, Gen. 2.17. who was not actually possessed of life) though he had not yet performed the Law; either by himself or any other for him, in any such sense as is contended for by some, as of absolute necessity to give a right and title unto life: and if he had not a right unto life by his freedom from sin, but was to purchase this right by an actual fulfilling of the Law, it would be known, what quantities of obedience to the Law he must have paid, before he had made this purchase, and how long he must have obeyed and kept the Law, before this right and title unto life would have accrued unto him. For had he lived a 1000 years in his integrity and uprightness without the least touch of any transgression, he had still been a debtor of obedience to the Law, upon the same terms that he was at the beginning, and the least interruption or breach in the course of his obedience, had even now been the forfeiture of that life he enjoyed. So then this position also is unquestionably true, that there needs no other righteousness, but only the forgiveness of, or freedom from sin, to give a man a clear and lawful title unto life. Notwithstanding the Scriptures of the new Testament, seem to place the immediate right or capacity which believers have to the Kingdom of heaven, and eternal glory, rather in the grace of Adoption or Sunship vouchsafed by God unto them through Jesus Christ, then in any righteousness whatsoever (even remission of sins itself not excepted, (as was proved more at large in the 12th. Chapter of the former part of this Treatise. The reason whereof may (haply) be this: because the life and blessedness which come by Jesus Christ to the world through Faith, are of a fare higher nature, excellency, and worth, than that life which was covenanted by God with Adam, by way of wages for his work, or obedience to the Law; and therefore require a higher, and fuller, and richer capacity or title in the creature, to interest him therein, than that did. Work or labour faithfully performed, is sufficient to entitle a man to his wages, or hire: the labourer (saith Christ) is worthy of his hire: but the gift of an inheritance, requireth a special grace and favour, no less than of an Adoption to make a man regularly, and according to the usual course of humane transactions capable thereof. That satisfaction which Christ made to the justice of God for sin, Conclusion 6 SECT. 7 and whereby he procured remission of sins (or, perfect righteousness) and reconciliation with God for those that believe, See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus. p. 4.15.25. And Paraus de justit. Christi. Act. & pass. p. 168. & 180. consists only in that obedience of his, which he performed to that peculiar and special Law of mediation which God imposed upon him (which we commonly, though perhaps not altogether so properly call his passive obedience) and not at all in that obedience or subjection which he exhibited to that common Law of nature, which we call moral. This is evident; because nothing can be satisfactory to divine justice for sin, but that which is penal, without shedding of blood (saith the Apostle, Heb. 9.22) there is no remission, and consequently no satisfaction: for doubtless where there is satisfaction; there is, and may be remission. Now that that obedience or subjection which Christ exhibited to the moral Law, was no ways penal to him, is evident from hence: Penal to him in respect of his Godhead it could not be, the divine Nature being no ways passive in itself, nor capable of punishment. Again, in respect of his humane nature, this obedience could not be penal, because it was required of man in his innocency, and imposed by God upon Adam before his fall: yea, and still lieth, and shall he to the days of eternity, upon men and Angels, yea and upon Jesus Christ himself in their glorified conditions. Love (which the Apostle affirmeth to be the fulfilling or keeping of the Law) never falleth away. Therefore to make obedience to the moral Law, penal, is to affirm, that man was punished; and that by order and appointment from God before his fall, or before he sinned, and that the glorified Saints and Angels, yea and jesus Christ himself are now punished in heaven. Besides, the Scriptures themselves no where ascribe this satisfaction we speak of, or the work of Redemption, nor any part or degree of it to the holiness, innocency, or active obedience of Christ, but still to his passive. See Rom. 3.25. Rom. 5.6, 8. 2 Cor. 5.21, Eph. 1.7. Ephe. 2.16. Col. 1.14. Heb. 2.14. Heb. 9.12.14.26. Heb. 10.10. 1 Pet. 2.24. 1 Pet. 3.18, 1 john 1.7. Revel. 1.5. etc. Besides many other places of like importance, Conclusion 7 But this is a point which I have had occasion to prosecute more at large elsewhere, SECT. 8 where I have fully answered that common answer and exception to these and such like Scriptures, See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus, p. 8.19.20. etc. Qui verò obedientiae activae, aut sanctitati nativae, meritum justitia ascribun●, mortem Christi fine dubio inanem reddunt. Par. de justice. Christi Activa & Pas●va. p. 181.182. that they are all figurative, and by a Synecdoche, express the whole by mentioning only a part. Therefore I shall not further insist upon this here. If Christ had fulfilled and kept the Law for us, i in our steed till the utmost period of his life, there had been no occasion or necessity of his dying for us. There is no light clearer than this. For if we stand before God by virtue of the perfect obedience of Christ's life imputed to us as our own righteousness and obedience to the Law, perfectly righteous, we are no more obnoxious to the curse of the Law, and consequently have no need of any satisfaction to divine justice, nor of any remission of sins by blood. Duo ista pronustciata, Christu● sanguinis effusione redemit nes ab execratione legis, & Christus obedientiam pr●stitit pro●●●bis, implicant contradictionem. Piscator. There needs nothing more to a perfect justification, than a perfect righteousness, or a perfect fulfilling of the Law. This the Apostle clearly layeth down, Gal. 2.21. If righteousness be by the Law (whether performed by ourselves, or by another for us, for there is the same reason of both in respect of justification) than Christ is dead in vain. This proposition is so clear, and full of the light of its own truth, that both Piscator, and Pareus heretofore, and Mr. Gataker of late, have not simply affirmed, but with more than an ordinary confidence avouched, that to hold an imputation of the active obedience of Christ amounts to no less than an abrogation of his death. But this consequence also (I remember) I have argued more at large in the 13. Chap. of the former Part of this Treatise, and therefore for the present leave it. Conclusi. 8 That Union and Communion which true believers have with Christ, SECT. 9 doth no ways require or suppose any such imputation of his righteousness unto them, as is conceived. That Union and Communion which the wife hath with the husband, doth not require, that whatsoever the husband hath should be imputed to the wife, or that the wife should be reputed to have whatsoever the husband hath. The wife is not reputed wise, because the husband is wise, she may be weak and simple notwithstanding, and justly so reputed to be: neither is the honesty or faithfulness of the husband in marriage so imputed to the wife, and therefore she must be reputed faithful and honest in the same kind. The wife may be lose and false, and deservedly so esteemed by all men, notwithstanding her union and communion with an husband, of upright affections, neither doth the union and communion which the rest of the members of the body have with the head, necessarily require, that whatsoever the Head hath or doth, should be imputed to all the members respectively. The eyes which are in the head, are not imputed to the hands or feet, nor the ears which grow upon the head, imputed to the heels, nor the actions or natural functions of seeing and hearing, the one performed by the eyes, the other by the ears, imputed to the arms or legs, so that these should be said either to see or to hear as they do. In like manner there is not the least show or colour of pretence, to build a necessity of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers, upon that union and communion which they have with him, or to conclude and infer, that because believers have union and communion with Christ, therefore his righteousness must be theirs in such a sense, that they may have the denomination of righteous therefrom, or be constituted and made righteous therewith. May it not be said with as much reason, that because believers have union and communion with Christ, therefore his soul and his body must needs be imputed to them, yea and his wisdom, and his power, and his glory imputed to them also, so that they are esteemed by God, as wise, as powerful, as glorious by virtue of such imputation, as Christ himself is. That union and communion which believers have with Christ, SECT. 10 are sufficiently, yea abundantly salved and made good in these and such like particulars. 1. By virtue of this union and communion with him, they are actual members of that mystical and blessed body or society, whereof he is the head. 2. They are partakers of the same spirit with him who dwelleth in them, as he dwelleth in Christ himself. 3. They have communion & fellowship in the same fruits and effects of the Spirit with him. 4. By virtue of this union and communion with him they have part and fellowship in that Redemption, which he hath purchased with his blood. 5. They have special interest in that infinite wisdom and power of his, as in all other perfections, and excellent endowments of his person, whereby he is both every ways able, and always ready and willing to do marvellously for them, and to advance the things of their peace. 6. they have a complete right and title to that immortal and undefiled inheritance, which is reserved in the heavens. 7. They have communion and fellowship with God himself, and special interest in his love. 8. And lastly, they have communion and fellowship one with another, and are dear and deeply interessed in the mutual affections one of another, besides many other rich privileges of like nature, and of very precious concernment. So that to deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness is no more to deny or any ways to obscure their union & communion with Christ, than to deny that the miracles which Christ wrought are imputed to us, or than to deny that a man seethe with his hands, or healeth with his heels, is a denying that the members of the body have any connexion, union or communion, with the head. The sin in of Adam is not where in Scripture said to be imputed to his posterity: Conclusi. 9 SECT. 11 neither can any other imputation thereof be proved, either by Scripture or sound reason, than that which stands, either in a communion of all his posterity with him therein (the second Adam only excepted, who for divers reasons was an exempt person) or else in a propagation of his nature defiled therewith, or lastly, in that punishment or condemnation that is come upon the world by it. But as for any such imputation of it, by virtue whereof, precisely considered, and simply as an act of God's justice, all his posterity should be constituted and made formally sinners, neither do the Scriptures acknowledge, nor sound reason admit. The former clause of this Conclusion is unquestionable. The Scriptures wheresoever they speak of Adam's sin, and the relation of it to his posterity, wholly abstain from the term of imputation, neither do they use any other word or phrase in this Argument of like signification and importance with it, at least in that notion and sense, wherein it is so frequently used by many in this controversy. But first, they acknowledge a communion between Adam and his posterity (except the before excepted) in this sin, in respect whereof, the sin may as well be attributed to any, and to all of his posterity, as to Adam himself, as Abraham's act of paying tithes to Melchizedeth, is ascribed to Levy being in his loins, as well as to Abraham himself. And to say as the thing is (saith the Holy Ghost, Heb. 7.9.) Levy also which receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. The truth and propriety of which saying, he makes good by this demonstration in the next words. For he was yet in the loins of his Father [Abraham] when Melchizedech met him. It is not here said, that Abraham's paying tithes, was imputed to Levy, but that Levy himself paid tithes (in that act of Abraham's) as well as Abraham. So that this act of paying tithes, was as well Levies act, as abraham's, and is imputed to him not as Abraham's act, but as his own. In like manner the Scripture plainly affirmeth, that all Adam's posterity sinned in Adam (in that first sin of his especially) Rom. 5.12. but it no where affirmeth, that Adam's sin is imputed to them. Their own sin in Adam, may with good propriety of speech, and safety of truth, be said to be imputed to them: but that Adam's sin, otherwise than as it is or was theirs, as well as his, by reason of that subsistence and being they had in him or in his loins, should be imputed to them, hath neither ground in Scripture, nor consistence either with reason or truth. That old rule in Metaphysics, SECT. 12 Operatio rei consequitur esse rei, i. the Acts or operations of things still follow the being of things, and are proportionable and suitable thereunto, is sound and rational, and of perfect agreement with that Scripture Reason, cited from Heb. 7.10. There are several kinds of beings and subsistences of things. A thing may have its being, either in causis, or extra causas, i. either in the causes of it only, or out of the causes viz. when it is actually produced and in a complete being. Again, those things that have their beings only in their causes, may have their being either in their supernatural causes only, as the counsel, purpose, and power of God; or in the natural causes also, that is, when such things have an actual and complete being, which according to the common course of nature and providence, are able and apt to produce them. Thus in Winter, the Rose may be said to have a being in the root of that shrub that is apt to bear it in Summer, the natural season for such births Thus Levy (as we heard) is said to have been, i. to have had a being, in the loins of Abraham. And this all mankind, even Adam's whole posterity, had a being and subsistence in Adam. Now there are none of these kinds of beings and subsistences of things, but have their acts and operations proportionable and proper to them; the perfecter being, the perfecter and less dependent operation. Things that have an actual and complete being out of their causes, act, and work of themselves, their causes that produced them, as such, having no communion or fellowship with them in their actions: Things that have their beings only in their causes, act and operate in, and by, and with these only, as having their whole dependence on them, and subsistence in them, yet are these acts and operations of things in their causes only, as truly theirs, though not as perfectly and completely theirs as they are the causes themselves, in and by whom they were performed. Thus Levie did as truly pay tithes in Abraham, as Abraham himself did, in whom he paid them, otherwise we make the Scripture less true, in affirming the one, than the other. So that act of eating the forbidden fruit by Adam, was as truly the act of all his posterity, as his own, though not so completely and perfectly theirs, as his, he having no dependence on them, or subsistence in any of them therein, but they all depending on him, as one in and by whom God had given them all their beings, and having their subsistence in him, as the natural productive root of all their actual & complete beings. a The Fathers generally have taught this inexistence or being of all men in Adam. Fuit Adam, & in illo perierunt omnes. Amb. in Luc. lib. 7. Adam erat nos omnes: omnes eramus ille unus Adam. Certum manifestumque est, alia esse propria cuique peccata, in quibus hi tantum peccant, quorum peccata sunt, aliud hoc unum, in quo omnes peccaverunt, quando omnes ille unus homo suerunt. Aug. de Peccat. Merit. & Remis. l. 1. c. 10. In Adamo omnes peccavimus ib. c. 13. Si parvuli, quod vera fides habet, nasiuntur peccatore●, profecto eo modo quo sunt: peccatores, etiam pravaticatores legis illius, quae in Paradise lata est, agnoscuntur, Aug. de Civi. l. 16. c. 27. Qui non fuerit regeneratus, interibit, anima illa de genere ejus, quia testamentum meum dissipavit, quando in Adam cum omnibus etiam ipse peccavit, ib. There being then a certain and unquestionable truth, in this, that Adam's sin, was the sin of his posterity, as well as of his person, this the Scripture affirmeth and holdeth forth unto us, as one main ground and consideration, why and how the world comes to be involved in the guilt and punishment of Adam's transgression. 2. Adam's sin comes to relate or to have reference to his posterity, in matter of pollution and defilement, and consequently of guilt and punishment by natural descent and propagation from him. Adam's person, the fountain and springhead of all his posterity, being corrupted and poisoned with him, except God should have wrought miraculously and above the course of nature, either by a through purging of the fountain, before any stream issued from it, or by dissevering and untwisting (as it were) the poison from the waters, in the very point and moment of their issue and source (neither of which he was any ways bound to do) could not but send forth streams of like corruption and defilement with the fountain itself. This the Scripture plainly teacheth in many places. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one, job 14.4. God himself by his ordinary power cannot do it. So our Saviour, joh. 3.6. That which is borne of the flesh [corrupted and weakened by sin] is [by the course of nature, whereunto God himself hath righteously consented] flesh, i. a creature or thing of the same sinful and weak nature and condition with it. And (to forbear other texts of like importance this way) the Apostle, Rom. 5.19. expressly affirmeth, that by the disobedience of one (meaning Adam) many were made sinners: not by the imputation of the Act of his sin to them (this is neither Sun, nor Moon, neither Scripture, nor good Reason) but by corrupting and defiling his own person, by reason whereof, all that are borne of him in a way of natural dissent and propagation, must needs be borne sinners. 3. (And last) death and condemnation are justly come upon the world, no so much (to speak properly, and with the Scriptures) for Adam's transgression, as by Adam's transgression, partly as this transgression of his was the sin and transgression of the world (as hath been already said and proved) partly as by means of this sin, the world, I mean all the sons and daughters of men that are borne into it, are become personally (and so completely sinful. In this sense, it is said, that by the offence of one death reigned (viz. over all) by one) Rom. 5.17. and so that death passed over all, in that all had sinned, ver. 12. And again, that judgement came by one unto condemnation, ver. 16. And that all men by nature are children of wrath, etc. Ephes. 23. If men can find any propriety in the word Imputation, to signify any of these three Considerations, let the sin of Adam be said to be imputed to his posterity, I shall no ways contradict it: but for any such imputation, as is pretended and pressed by many, by which men should be constituted and made formally sinners before God, and the sin no ways looked upon as theirs, but only by means of such imputation. I neither find the Scriptures affirming, nor am otherwise able to comprehend. Though justification and salvation came unto the world by Christ the second Adam, Concusi. 10 sect. 14 as condemnation and death came by the first Adam, yet are there many different considerations and circumstances, between the coming and bringing in of salvation by the one, and of condemnation by the other. The Apostle himself gives instance in two particulars wherein they differ greatly, Rom. 5.15.16. And besides these, there are many others. As first, the sin of Adam, by which he brought condemnation upon the world, was as well the act of all his posterity as his own, in which respect they may as truly be said to have brought condemnation upon themselves, as Adam, but that obedience, by which Christ brought salvation into the world, can with no propriety of speech, nor with any consistence of truth, be said to have been theirs, or performed by them, who are saved by it, so that these cannot now be said with any more truth to have saved themselves, then if they had not been saved at all. It is said indeed, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, 2 Cor. 5.19. But it is not where said, that the world was in Christ reconciling itself unto God. 2. Adam by his sin brought condemnation upon those who were in his loins, and had a natural being in him: but Christ by his obedience brought salvation unto them, that had no such relation to him, nor any being or subsistence in him, either natural or spiritual (which is by faith) but were wholly aliens and strangers from him, yea and enemies to him. 3. All those that are condemned by Adam had their being in him altogether, at one and the same time. Cain was not in Adam, before judas, nor judas after Cain, but amongst those that are saved by Christ; there is an order and difference of time in respect of their engraffing into him: some are sooner, and some later in him. Andronicus, and junia Paul's Cousins, were in Christ before him, Rom. 16.7. 4. That disobedience of Adam by which he brought condemnation upon the world, was active: but that obedience by which Christ brings salvation to the world, is passive, as hath been already proved, and may further appear by comparing, Rom. 5.19. with Phil. 2.8. etc. 5. And lastly, the whole weight of the Redemption and salvation of the world by Christ, depended upon the merit and satisfactoriness of that obedience of his by which it was procured, and not at all upon any relation of those to him or seminal involution or comprehension in him, for whom it was procured but the burden of the condemnation coming by the transgression of Adam, depended not only (or not so much) upon the demerit, or offensiveness of the transgression but upon the relation of those to him who were condemned by him, as having a true natural and seminal being in him or in his loins, when he transgressed. So that though the sin of Adam had been of an inferior nature and of less demerit & provocation in the sight of God than it was, yet might Adam's posterity justly have been involved in the same condemnation by it, wherein now it is, but if the obedience or sufferings of Christ had been of less value, merit, acceptation or satisfaction than they were, the redemption and salvation of the world, could not have been carried out, or obtained by them. Hence the different manner of the Scriptures speaking of the one and of the other, SECT. 15 is very considerable, when it speaks of the Redemption or justification by Christ, it sometimes useth an expression, importing the worth, merit, or acceptation of Christ in his sufferings, as where God is said for Christ's sake to have forgiven us our sins, as Eph. 4.32. But when it speaketh of the condemnation of the world by Adam, it no where saith, that God for Adam's sake, subjected the world to death and condemnation but only thus, By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, Rom. 5.12. And again, through the offence of one many are dead, ver. 15. Again, By one man's offence death reigned by one, ver. 17. with many the like, still using terms and expressions, which do not necessarily import the sin of Adam to have been the meritorious or demeritorious cause, (though this be not denied) but rather the instrumental and mediating cause simply of this condemnation. It is true, the virtue and efficacy of the passive obedience of Christ itself, whereby the salvation of the world is purchased, is many times expressed by the fame propositions or particles of speech, By, and Through, as Rom 5.11. By him we have received the atonement, etc. but there is nothing more frequent in the Scriptures then to speak that sparingly, and in general terms only in one place, which it speaketh fully, and with exactness, in another. But when it useth expressions constantly of one and the same line and importance, and never riseth higher, there can be no ground from the Scriptures, of conceiving any thing above or beyond such expressions, in any subject; as on the other hand, when we have expressions that are richer and fuller, and more distinct in any place, we are not to measure or confine our apprehensions and understandings of things to those that are lower and more general. As in the case in hand, the more frequent expressions are, that, by Christ, or through Christ, and so by his blood, or through his blood, etc. we have Redemption, or Remission of sins: yet must we not from hence conclude, that therefore Christ, or his blood are barely an instrumental cause or means of Redemption, and have nothing of merit in them, because these particles, by and through, usually signify an instrumental efficiency, and no more: the reason is, because the Scripture elsewhere supplieth that which is wanting in such expressions as these, and represents to us that special and peculiar kind of efficiency, which we call meritorious in Christ and his sufferings. And had it been simply the demerit or offensiveness of Adam's sin that had brought the judgement or condemnation upon his posterity, there can hardly any reason be given, why the sin of the Angels that fell, should not have brought the like judgement and condemnation upon their whole creation: because doubtless the sin of these Angels, was every whit as demeritorious, and full of provocation, as the sin of Adam was. And therefore (by the way) they that use our English Translation only, had need be admonished, SECT. 16 that they take the word, OFFENCE (as the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is five or six times translated in that one Chapter, Rom. 5.) not, as commonly it is taken, in an active signification, or sense, as if it were either simply or principally the offensiveness of Adam's sin to God, or the height of the demerit thereof, that inclined or moved him to bring death and condemnation upon the world for it, but rather in a passive (which is the sense that the Original directly leadeth unto) i. for a sinful stumbling (as it were) or miscarriage, not out of envy, malice, or other sinister end or intention, which are the main aggravations of a sin, and raising the offensiveness of it to the greatest height, but out of an inconsiderateness or incogitancy, which though it be no cloak for sin, yet is it a root of the least bitterness or provocation, from whence it is lightly possible for sin to spring. And doubtless (to speed this Conclusion as fast as we can) the consideration of that difference between the first and second Adam, which we have in hand, I mean in respect of the great disproportion between the demerit of the one, and merit of the other, is the ground and bottom of that notable and comfortable difference between them, wherein the Apostle so triumpheth, Rom. 5.15. reasoning and raising up himself and others after this manner: but not as the offence, so also is the free gift, viz. in respect of an equal efficacy and power in the one to condemn, and in the other to justify and save: there is a great difference between them in this regard; For if through the offence of one, many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. q.d. If the sin of Adam being but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an inconsiderate stumbling, or a sin proceeding from incogitancy, and Adam himself but one, hath yet been able to involve many. i. his whole posterity, all that shall be borne of him, in death and condemnation; much more must it needs be conceived, that the grace, i. the gracious intent & purpose of God towards men, and the gift by that grace, viz. of righteousness & justification, by such a man as jesus Christ is, who is both God and man, should abound unto many, i. justify and save with fare greater efficacy power, and authority, (and as it were) with an higher hand, all those that by spiritual regeneration and a true faith shall descend from him. The strenngth of of the Apostles reasoning and inference in this passage Scripture, lieth in this. The salvation of the world (faith he) must needs proceed with fare higher hand by Christ, than the condemnation of it did, or doth by Adam; Because 1. The foundation and ground work of the one, was the free and gracious intent and purpose of God, which is a stronger, and more active and lively principle or spring to set all the wheels and work on going that depend upon it then a permissive decree only, which (as seemeth here intimated and employed) is the main foundation the other (viz. the condemnation of the world by Adam) had, in respect of God. This permissive decree, though it be as clear as the other, in respect of the event and coming to pass of such things as are comprehended in it, yet is the motion of it but slow and heavy in comparison of the other. God's permissive decrees are chiefly executed by second means, or by occasion, of his withdrawing himself and leaving the creature to itself: but his gracious decrees have his heart and soul and strength, and might in their execution. And secondly, (that which is the more proper and immediate cause of the difference here laid down by the Apostle) the condemnation of the world, as touching matter of provocation and offence given unto God, proceeds only in the demerit and strength 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of one inconsiderate act of sin, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from one only mere man, whereas the salvation of the world, advanceth in the strength of such a righteousness, atonement, or justification, as was procured indeed by one man, but this one man was Jesus Christ, who is valuable with thousand thousands of men, and ten thousand times ten thousand thousands. So that what he hath purposely, and with all his might done for the justification and salvation of the world, must needs be of an incomparable fare greater efficacy to carry these before it, than the stumbling, or unadvised sin of one poor, mere, and mean man (in comparison) can be to procure the condemnation of it. Only I desire that it should be here considered and remembered, that there is nothing said in all this Conclusion, any ways to extenuate, either the demerit or guilt of Adam's sin, beneath their just proportions and degrees, but only to show, that there is a great excess of merit in the obedience of Christ, above the rate and proportion of demerit in the disobedience of Adam. There being these and other differences between Adam, in his condemning the world, and Christ in his Act or Work in saving it: it is evident that all such arguments or reasonings which are drawn from specialites and particularities of agreement between them, are invalid and insufficient, except they have some other foundation to bear them. That which makes a true and lively Faith instrumental in Justification, Conclusi. 11 SECT. 17 is nothing that is essential or natural to it, whether descent, property or act, but somewhat that is extrinsecall, and purely adventitious, viz. the force and efficacy of that will, good pleasure, ordination, covenant, and appointment of God in that behalf. As it was neither the stature nor comeliness of Aaron's person, nor his descent from Levy, nor his grace, nor his wisdom, nor his knowledge, nor any service formerly done by him, either unto God, or his Church, nor any thing that in any propriety of speech could be called his, that made him an high Priest, but Gods calling him unto, and investing him with that honour and function; he might have been all that he was otherwise, and might have done all that he did otherwise, and yet without this anointing and appointment from God, another might have been high Priest, and not he: So might Faith have been Faith, both in the Original and descent of it from the Spirit of God, as likewise in all that native beauty and excellency that belongs to it, yea and put forth all those acts, which otherwise it puts forth, as to bring men to Christ, to lay hold of Christ, etc. and yet never have attained the honour that is now put upon it, never have been instrumental in Justification. And as the same anointing or calling from God, which were conferred upon Aaron, would have made any other man Priest, though of another Tribe, though less graceful of person, of meaner gifts and abilities every-wayes than Aaron was, had they been conferred upon him; so had any other grace, as love, patience, temperance, or the like, the force and power of the same covenant or ordination from God to assist them, it cannot be conceived, but that any of these would justify as effectually, as faith itself now doth. Therefore it is unquestionably evident, that Faith doth not justify, as it relates to Christ or as it apprehends him, or redemption by him, or the like, because all these, and such like properties or acts as these are essential and natural unto Faith (I mean to such a Faith as we speak of) and that Faith which hath not, or doth not all this, is no true, lively, or effectual Faith, or instrumental in justification: Wherefore, if Faith should justify in regard, or by virtue of any of these, it should justify by itself, or by some dignity, quality, or act that is proper to it, or inherent in it. Hence it is that Scripture still suspends the justifying power or property of Faith, upon the will, free grace, and good pleasure of God, but never upon any act or quality proper to itself. This is the will of him that sent me (saith our Saviour, joh. 6.40.) that every man that seethe the Son, and believeth in him should have everlasting life, etc. clearly implying. 1. That it is not any seeing of Christ, either corporally or spiritually, nor any believing in him that could carry eternal life, had it not the efficacy of the will of God to strengthen it thereunto. And 2 that had this Will of God fallen in conjunction with any other grace, or act of grace besides Faith they would have carried eternal life; after the same manner, and with as high an hand, as believing now doth. Naaman's leprosy was curable only by the waters of jordan, why? because the will and decree of God concerning this effect were upon these waters, and upon these only; Abana and Pharpar, or any other River whatsoever would have done as much, had the same decree of God concurred with them. When causes have an intrinsical and natural power and efficacy to produce their effects, it is very improper (if not ridiculous) to ascribe such effects to the will and good pleasure of God. As to say it is the will of God, that the grace of patience should make a man patiented, or the grace of humility, should make a man humble, or that such an element as we call fire, should burn, or the like, though there be a truth in them; yet there is so little savour or weight of truth in them, that such say are not worthy the holy Ghost, and neither these nor any of their fellows of like importance to be found in the whole Book of God. So to say, that it is the Will of God, that believing in Christ should justify, and so save men, if believing in Christ simply as it is believing in Christ did it, were an eccentrical expression, and no where to be paralleled in the Scriptures, I might add many other Scriptures, as joh. 1.12. where it is said, that to those that received Christ, i. that believed in him, God gave the power or prerogative to be his Sons, i. decreed that such should be Sons unto him, and by virtue of such a decree, really made them such upon their believing; which clearly shows, that believing in Christ, as such, doth not make a Son of God, but receives this power or prerogative by especial gift from God: which gift might have been given to any other grace, as well as believing. So Eph. 2.8. By grace ye are saved, through Faith, viz. in Christ: therefore Faith doth not save simply, as, or because Christ is the object of it, but by the efficacy and force of that gracious and good pleasure of God whereby he hath covenanted with his creature that such a Faith shall save it; which good pleasure or Covenant of God with men concerning Faith, is called, Rom. 3.27. the Law of Faith which Law is that which gives it that strength and power which it now hath, to justify and save. It were easy to make this pile of Scriptures large: but those that have been touched, are sufficient to show which way they generally incline in this particular. Neither is that common plea, SECT. 18 which is so frequently insisted upon, to prove the contrary, viz. that Faith justifieth in relation to its object, or as it receiveth and apprehendeth Christ, or Christ's righteousness, or the like, of any value, if it be duly considered. The strength of the argument is usually bound up in this similitude. As the hand is said to enrich a man, because it receives the money or treasure, whereby he is enriched; so Faith must needs be said to justify, because it receives Christ, who is our righteousness, and by whom we are justified. To this I answer, that it is not simply the taking silver or gold with the hand, that enricheth a man, no nor the silver or gold so taken, that simply enricheth him. A man may be never the richer for receiving great sums of money of silver and gold; nay, a man may be much the poorer and more miserable for receiving or taking money, if he receives or takes it contrary to the Laws: As when a thief breaks into an house, and takes away much treasure with him, or puts forth his hand to take a man's purse by the highways side; his hand in these cases cannot be said to make him rich because it receives treasure: neither doth the treasure so received make him rich, but poor and miserable, because now he is obnoxious to the sentence of the Law, and owns his life and all he is worth besides, unto it. Therefore if a man's hand enricheth him by receiving that which doth enrich him, it doth it not simply as it receiveth it (for then it should do it always, and in all cases whatsoever) but it doth it by virtue of that Law, or agreement of the state where he lives, which secureth a man in the quiet possession and enjoyment, of such money or treasure, as he lawfully receives to his own use. So, though Christ be a treasure of righteousness and justification in himself it doth not presently follow, that whosoever takes hold on him, or believes in him, should presently be made righteous, or justified by him: but here must intervene some Law, Covenant, or Decree from God, to establish and authorise such a believing or laying hold on him to be a man's righteousness or justification. We do not suppose they can, but for argument sake we will suppose, that if the Devils should believe on Christ, hoping, or expecting to be justified by him as men do, who believing are justified, yet they should be never the nearer any justification by him, though he be a treasure of righteousness. Why? because God hath made no Law, Promise, Covenant, or agreement with them, that they should be justified by Faith: therefore if it were possible for them to believe as men do, yet Christ would be no more any righteousness unto them than now he is. Much more might be said (and may be said elsewhere) for the evidencing of this Conclusion: but here I would hasten. In the mean time I desire to explain myself a little further; touching this Conclusion, only in two words. When I deny that Faith justifieth in its relation to its object, or as it layeth hold on Christ; I am fare from saying, or conceiving that any Faith should justify, but that only which layeth hold on Christ; yea, I grant, and verily believe, that whereas there are many other acts of Faith besides believing or laying hold on Christ, as viz. to comfort and strengthen and purify the hearts of those that believe, and the like, yet that decree or good pleasure of God, which (I conceive makes Faith justifying, concurres with it towards this great effect, only in that act of laying hold on Christ, and not in any of the other. So, that in this sense, I grant & hold that Faith may be said to justify, as it layeth hold of Christ comparatively, viz. as this act of Faith is distinguished, from those other acts, which it likewise produceth; it doth not justify, either as it comforts, or as it purifies the heart, etc. but only as it relateth to Christ, and layeth hold on him. This only is that which I deny, that this act of Faith, whereby it receiveth or layeth hold on Christ, hath that in the nature, or inherently in it, or any otherwise, or by any other means, then from the will and good pleasure of God, which makes it available unto justification. It hath no foundation, Conclus. 12 either in the Scriptures or Reasons to say, SECT. 19 that Christ by any imputation of sin, was made formally a sinner: nor that sin in any other sense should be said to be imputed to him, then as the punishment due unto it was inflicted on him. I shall not need to insist upon the justification of this Conclusion partly because it hath been sufficiently argued and cleared in the former part of this Treatise: a Cap. 19 Sect. 1.2. but chiefly, because it is given in with both hands by the chief masters of that way of Imputation which we oppose. Christ (saith Bishop Downham b Tract of justifica. p. 40. ) was made sin, or a sinner, by our sins, not formally (God forbidden) but by imputation, etc. And Bishop Davenant c De justit. Habit. ●●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 sin to him. And a little before, he makes the impu●ation of sin to Christ, to stand in the translation of the punishment of sin, and curse of the Law upon him. And in another place, Christ was willing so fare to take our sins upon him, not as to be made a sinner hereby, but [only] a sacrifice for sin. So that if the men with whom we have to do in this business of imputation, would but stand their own ground, and walk peaceably with their own principles, we should soon compromise. For their great maxim is, that in that manner wherein our sins are imputed unto Christ, in the same Christ's righteousness is imputed unto us. If so, then are not we made formally righteous by any righteousness of Christ imputed to us because Christ is not made formally a sinner by any sin of ours imputed to him. Conclusi. 13 SECT. 20 Faith doth not only (if at all declare a man to be righteous, or in a justified estate, but is the very means by which Justification or righteousness is obtained, so that no man is to be reputed (nor indeed is) a person justified in the sight of God (specially if we speak of years of discretion) until he obtains this grace of justification, by believing. This is the constant Doctrine of the Scriptures: and there is not one of many of our Reformed Divines that do oppose it. He that believeth not (saith our Saviour himself, 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 believed, because they might die in that interim of time, which is supposed to lie between a man's justification, and his believing. The like argument might be framed from that passage also, joh. 8.24. Except you believe that I am he, you shall die in your sins. But there are other texts of Scripture so pregnant for this truth, that there is no rising up with reason against them. Therefore we conclude (saith the Apostle) that a man is justified by Faith, without the works of the Law, Rom. 3.28. That which he had laboured hitherto, and laboureth on in some Chapters following, to prove, was not how, or by what means a man might know, or be declared, either to himself or others that he is a justified person, but how and by what means he might come to be justified. These two are of a very fare differing consideration and importance. It is of a thousand times more concernment to a man to be justified, than to know that he is justified. Besides, if the Apostles scope and intent here had been to argue the declaration, or to propound the means of a discovery or manifestation of a person justified, and not simply to prove and show, how and by what means justification itself is to be attained, there can no reason be given, either why he should have excluded the works of the Law, or insisted upon Faith, rather than many other graces, as love, patience, etc. especially why he should have insisted on Faith only; without the association of other graces. For it is certain, that obedience to the Law, and so love, patience, temperance, humility, etc. are as effectual, nay, have a pre-eminence above Faith itself, for the discovery of a man in the estate of Justification. Show me thy faith by thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works, jam. 2.18. Therefore works are more easy to be seen, and more apt for discovery or manifestation, than Faith: for that which discovereth or maketh things manifest, is light (Ephes. 5.13.) whereas that which needs manifestation, is darkness in (comparison) and therefore the more unfit and uncapable of being a means for the discovery and manifestation of other things. So elsewhere, love is represented as a grace of special use and service this way, I mean 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 itself. We know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brethren, 1 john 3.14.) The Scripture doth not any where ascribe the like discovery of justification, unto Faith: but justification itself it ascribeth unto Faith again and again. Therefore being justified by Faith, etc. Rom. 5.1. So ver. 2. so Gal. 3.8. The Scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, etc. It would make a sense very unsavoury and weak, 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 sense any ways accommodate that which followeth. But I hasten, SECT. 21 passing over many places; wherein Justification itself, 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 jesus Christ, Even we have believed in jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, etc. not because we were righteous or justified, or that we might know ourselves to be justified, but that we might be justified by the faith of jesus. If the Apostle should here speak of a declarative justification, there is no relation why he should have excluded the works of the Law, these being every whit of as declarative an importance this way, as believing itself, nay, above it (as we proved before) and the Scripture itself plainly intimates: Little children (saith john) let no man deceive you, He that doth righteousness is righteous, etc. i. is thereby, viz. by his doing righteousness, declared to be righteous or a person justified: it is not where said in such a sense, that he that believeth, is righteous. Therefore it is evident, that the opposition which this Apostle still makes between the works of the Law, and believing, 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 believed in Christ, that they might know that they had been justified by believing in him, is to make him speak 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 believe with this intent, or for this end, that he may know he is justified by believing? The doing of a thing for a certain end, is no means to certify, or assure any man, that the end is, or shall be, much less that it hath already been 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 fair and ready answer. I have heard only of two Arguments that are made against it. The first is this, If a man must believe, before he be justified, than God doth not justify the ungodly, because he that believeth 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 profaneness, in the very nick 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 means whereby to juftifie sinners and ungodly men, viz. Faith in Jesus Christ, which neither the Law knoweth, nor could ever the wisdom of men or Angels have imagined. The justification of the ungodly is ascribed unto God, as an high and excellent clogium of his wisdom and goodness; as when Christ is said to save sinners, the meaning is not, that men are actually wicked and sinful, when salvation is actually conferred upon them, but that he affords means to those that are sinners, as viz. the grace of Faith, Repentance, etc. whereby they may be (and many are) saved. Or else secondly Answer might be, that God may be said to justify, not only when he absolves and perfecteth the act or work of justification i. when he passeth a sentence of absolution upon the believer, but even when he beginneth it, i. when he first toucheth, moveth, or incline the heart to believe, upon which justification properly so called, dependeth and followeth immediately. Now before and until this supernatural touch or motion of the heart from God, a man in strictness and propriety of speech may be called, ungodly. It is a common rule among Divines for the interpretation of many Scriptures: In Scriptures, saepe fieri dicitur, quod fieri incipit. In Scripture that is often said to be done, which is only begun to be done, and whereof the cause only is yet in being. Thus Prov. 11.2. Shame is said to come, when pride cometh, 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 means of salvation; besides many like instances that might be added. In like manner justification may be said to come, when Faith cometh; and God may be said to justify, when he giveth men Faith, whereby they shall be justified, etc. In this sense therefore God may be said to justify the ungodly, because he giveth Faith unto men being yet sinful, whereby they are justified. Thirdly, (and last) Further answer might be, that there being no priority of time at all but only of nature between a man's believing and his being justified; so that in the very first instant and touch of time wherein he can be conceived truly to believe, he is to be conceived justified also; God may as properly be said to justify the ungodly, though he justifieth only those that believe, as to give Faith, or the grace of believing unto the ungodly. The reason is plain, because in respect of time, a man is as immediately ungodly before his justification, as he is before his believing, though he be not justified, SECT. 23 till he believeth. The later Objections against the Conclusion in hand, is, if a man hath the Spirit of God given him, before he believeth, he must needs be justified before he believeth: 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 he believeth, it is evident, because otherwise he could not believe. To this I answer, first, by concession, that a man is not able of himself, and without the special presence and assistance of the Spirit of grace, to raise an act of a true believing in his soul. But secondly, by way of exception, I answer two things, first, that though a man cannot believe, 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, between a man's receiving the Spirit, and his believing, wherein he should remain liable to condemnation, because the first touch of the Spirit upon the soul, & the act of believing, may be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and stick as fast and close together in respect of time, as the scales of Leviathan do in respect of place, which (by the description and testimony of God himself, who best knows their composure and frame) are so near one to another, that no air can come between, joh. 41.16. The Sun 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 between, wherein any thing could be done, or the least motion performed. So may the coming of the Spirit of Grace unto the soul, and the act of the souls believing, touch in one and the same point of time (an infinite power being able to work 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 he were justified before he believeth. 2. SECT. 24 Be it supposed that the spirit of grace should be at work in the soul for any space of time before the soul hath put forth an act of true believing, yet till there be a saving work of Faith wrought by him in the soul, it is no ways inconvenient nor contrary to truth, to judge the person in an estate of condemnation, though he may be coming on in a way towards justification. As men that never come to be justified, but perish in their sins everlastingly, are said to be partakers of the holy Ghost, (Heb 6.4.) that is, may have many great and excellent workings of the holy Ghost within them, and upon them; so may men to whom the grace of justification (and salvation upon it) is intended by God, have the like workings of the Spirit upon them for a time, and yet have no work at all upon them truly saving. i. which hath an essential and necessary connexion with salvation. And till some such work as this is wrought, though the Spirit of God be in them, yet are they under condemnation, and dying in their present condition, without somefurther work of grace should certainly perish. Now though there may be many workings of the Spirit of God in men before they believe, which may be called Saving in regard of their issue and event; yet is there none formally saving, that is, that hath salvation promised unto it, till Faith itself be wrought. The first touch of any work upon the soul, that is, either truly sanctifying, or necessarily saving is that whereby the soul is enabled to touch upon Christ for its justification; neither is the habit of Faith first planted in the soul by the holy Ghost, and afterwards, the soul enabled by it, exercise and put forth an act of believing whereby it, is justified: but as the common and more probable opinion is, that fruitbearing trees, were at first created with ripe fruits upon them, so doth God at first create both the habit and act of faith in the soul in the same moment of time, and not the one before the other. So that the first act of believing whereby the creature is primarily justified, is not raised out of any pre-existent habit or grace of Faith, as all after acts of believing are, but is as immediately the product or effect of the power of God as the habit of Faith itself is; even as the fruits which (according to the opinion mentioned were created with and upon their trees, did not grow out of these trees, nor were produced in a natural way by them, as all after fruits growing upon them were, but were as proper and immediate effects of the creative power of God, as the trees themselves. So we see at last, that the conclusion laid down, is no ways prejudiced nor shaken by either of these objections. Conclu. 14 SECT. 25 The sentence or curse of the Law, was not properly executed upon Christ in his death, but this death of Christ was a ground or consideration unto God, whereupon to dispense with his Law, and to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty or curse therein threatened. This is evident, because the threatening and curse of the Law, was not at all bent or intended against the innocent or righteous, but against transgressors only. Therefore God in inflicting death upon Christ, being innocent & righteous, did not follow the purport or intent of the Law. If he had inflicted death upon all the transgressors of the Law, this had been a direct execution of the Law, because this was that which the Law threatened and intended. But God in spareing and forbearing the transgressors, (who according to the tenor of the Law, should have been punished) manifestly dispenceth with the Law, and doth not execute it. As when Zaleucus (the Locrian Lawgiver) caused one of his own eyes to be put out, that one of his Sons eyes might be spared, who according both to the Letter and intent of the Law, should have lost both, he did not precisely execute the Law, but gave a sufficient account or consideration, why it should for that time be dispensed with, and not put into execution. In this sense indeed Christ may be said to have undergone or suffered the penalty or curse of the Law: 1º, it was the curse or penalty of the Law, as now hanging over the head of the world, and ready to be executed upon all men for sin, that occasioned his suffering of those things which he endured. Had not the curse of the Law either been at all, or not incurred by man, doubtless Christ had not suffered at all. Again 2º; (and somewhat more properly) Christ may be said to have suffered the curse of the Law, because the things which he suffered, were of the same nature and kind (at least in part) with those things, which God intended by the curse of the Law, against transgressors, namely death. But if by the curse of the Law we understand either that entire system and historical body (as it were) of penalties and evils, which the Law itself intends in the term, or else include and take in the intent of the Law as touching the quality of the persons, upon whom it was to be executed; in neither of these senses did Christ suffer the curse of the Law, neither ever hath it, nor ever shall be suffered, by any transgressor of the Law that shall believe in him. So that God required the death and sufferings of Christ, not that the Law properly, either in the letter or intention of it, might be executed, but on the contrary, that it might not be executed, I mean upon those, who being otherwise obnoxious unto it should believe. Neither did God require the death and sufferings of Christ as a valuable consideration whereon to dispense with his Law towards those that believe, SECT. 26 more (if so much) in a way of satisfaction to his justice, then to his wisdom. For (doubtless) God might with as much justice, as wisdom (if not much more) have passed by the transgression of his Law without consideration or satisfaction. For him that hath a lawful authority and power, either to impose a Law, or not, in case he shall impose it, it rather concerns in point of wisdom and discretion, not to see his Law despised and trampled upon without satissaction, then in point of justice. No man will say, that in case a man hath been injured and wronged, that therefore he is absolutely bound in Justice, to seek satisfaction, though he be never so eminent in the grace and practise of Justice: but in many cases of injuries sustained, a man may be bound in point of wisdom and discretion, to seek satisfaction in one kind or other. Austin of old, and D. Twist of late, besides many other Orthodox & learned Divines a See Mr. Gataker Defence of Mr. Wotton. p. 59.60. , hold, that God, if it had pleased him, might have pardoned Adam's transgression, without the atonement made by the death of Christ. Therefore according to the opinion of these men, it had been no ways contrary to the Justice of God, nor derogatory to the glory of it, if he had freely pardoned it, without any consideration or atonement. Only it is true, his requiring that full satisfaction which hath now been made by Christ, is very suitable and agreeable to that nature in him which we call JUSTICE, or severity against sin: and if he had pardoned sin 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 wisdom of God, (and therefore whether it had been simply possible or no) I am yet somewhat unsatisfied. For a man to overslip an opportunity, that might lawfully be taken hold of, and managed by him to some special advantage to himself, either in point of Reputation, Estate, etc. or the like, is repugnant to the principles of sound wisdom 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 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. i. For it became him, etc.) 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 carriage and method of the business to the wisdom of God, then to his Justice. But because confidence requires better grounds, then present conceptions and apprehensions, I forbear further contending about the point in hand, for the present. Only I desire this may be considered and remembered, as fully evident from the tenor 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 ways the same (though in consideration, value, and importance, the same fully) with those, the suffering whereof the Law threatened against all transgressors. CAP. III. Certain distinctions propounded and explained, necessary for the further understanding of the business in question, and the clearing of many difficulties incident to it. THe word justification is taken in a double sense: Distincti 1 SECT. 1 either actively, or passively: In the active signification (as fare as concerns the question in hand, and as the Scripture use of it extendeth in the great business of the Justification of a sinner before God) it most usually signifieth that act of God, whereby he justifieth, i. absolveth a believing sinner from the gift of, and punishment due to, his sins. It may, in this active signification, signify also, any act of any other efficient cause of justification whatsoever (of which kind there are many, as we shall show 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 form itself, or formal cause of justification which also in a way proper to it, may be said to justify. In the passive sense, justification may signify the effect itself of any or of all the former actions, but most properly and frequently it signifieth, that comcompleate and entire effect wherein all their several influences and contributions meet and centre 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 sin, and liable to condemnation, now he is a free man, acquitted and discharged from both. In the former sense, justification is attributed to God 1 Rom. 8.30. Whom he hath called, them also he hath justified, etc. 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, etc. and ver. 18. Even so by the righteousness (or justification) of one, the free gift came upon many to the justification of life. i. to the full discharge and acquitting them from all sin, upon which life and salvation always 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 answer is to be made accordingly: In like manner remission of sins, signifieth either God's act, whereby he remitteth a manssinnes: or else the effect of this act in and upon him, whose sins 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, etc. It is true, there are several other acceptions and significations of the word justification, besides absolution from sin, when it is, or as it may be used in other cases, or upon other occasions: as Christ himself is said to have been justified 1 Tim. 16. who yet had no sins forgiven him: and Abraham is said to have been justified by works. Jam. 2.21. who yet had not his sins 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 justification of a sinner before God, the word justification still signifies and imports, absolution from, or remission of sins, together with the punishment due to them: Neither can there any instance be produced from the Scriptures, of any other signification. justice, or righteousness, Distincti. 2 SECT. 2 hath several acceptions in the Scriptures when it is attributed unto God, it signifies sometimes, that universal and absolute holiness and integrity of his nature, which maketh him infinitely averse from doing any thing, little or much, contrary to the true rules of justice and Equity, and inclines him only to do things agreeable hereunto. Thus it seems to be taken. Psal. 11.7. For the righteous Lord loveth righteousness, etc. So Dan. 9.14. Rove. 16.5. besides many other places. Sometimes again (and that very frequently) it signifieth, that nature in God which we commonly call truth, or faithfulness, in keeping promise. Thus it is taken, Psal. 36.6. Thy righteousness is like the great Mountains. 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 unfaithful in his promise, etc. So again, 1 joh. 1.9. God is faith full and Just to forgive us our sins, i constant in his promise this way. Thirdly, by the righteousness 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 do them good, as either to relieve and support them in trouble, or to deliver them out of trouble, or the like. And this (doubtless) is the most frequent signification of the word of all other. Thus Psal. 145.7. They shall abundantly utter the memory of thy great goodness, and shall sing of thy righteousness, that is, of thy clemency and grace towards thy people. So Psal 51.14. Mica. 6.5. besides other places without number. Fourthly, that gracious purpose and intent of God towards his elect, for giving them saving Faith in due time, is sometimes called the righteousness of God. Thus, 2 Pet. 1.1. those believers to whom Peter writes, are said to have obtained like precious Faith with him, through the righteousness of God, etc. Fiftly, (that which is of most concernment to the question in hand) by the righteousness of God, is sometimes meant, that justification, or that way, method, or means of justification, whereby God justifieth, and makes men righteous. Thus Rom. 3.21. The righteousness of God which is without the Law, i. that way and course which God hath found out for the Justification or making men righteous, which consists not in the observation or works of the Law, is said to be manifested, being witnessed by the Law. (i. the writings of Moses) and the Prophets. So the verse following: the righteousness of God, which is by the Faith of jesus Christ. In the like sense the word is also used Rom, 1.17. Rom. 10.3. In all which places (with their fellows) by the righteousness of God, is meant that justification, or way of making men righteous, which God himself out of his special wisdom and grace, hath found out and recommended unto the world, as being fare differing from that way of justification, which the wisdom of the flesh and the thoughts of men run so much upon, viz. by works and observation of the Law. In the same kind of expression, men's own righteousness, signifies (Rom. 10.3.) that way or means by which they intent or seek to be justified. Some Divines of great worth and fame, affirm, justitiae ve●abulum, in Scriptures, se mper notas Dei bonitatem, Miseri●ordians, salutem & redemptionem: nunquam vere adhibetur ad id significandum, quod vulgo iustitiam dicimus, nempe affectum illum quo Deus ad scelera et peccata. vindicanda propendet: irae & iudicij vocabula ad hoc significandum potius adhibentur. Cameron: Myroth: in ve. 21. cap. 3. ad Rom. p. 178. that the word justitia, Justice or righteousness, in Scripture, never signifieth, that which is commonly called Justice in God, that is, that nature or affection in God, which inclineth him to punish, or take vengeance on sin; (this they say is usually expressed by those terms, wrath and judgement) but either the goodness, mercy, and salvation of God, or the like. But whether this observation will stand or no, I make some question. For in the sixth place, I conceive that sometimes, that very affection in God mentioned, viz. his severity against sin and sinners, is expressed by this word, righteousness. In this sense the word (I conceive) may well be taken. Rom. 3.25.26. etc. that he (i God) might be Just, and a justifier of him which is of the Faith of jesus. that is, that God might appear and be declared to be a severe Judge and punisher of sin, and yet justify and acquit all those from sin, who believe in jesus Christ. Seventhly, Christ himself sometimes seems to be called the righteousness of God, as Esa 42.21. The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness sake. So Esa. 51.5. etc. Now Christ may be called the righteousness of God, because he is the great Author or Mediator of that righteousness or justification which God vouchsafeth unto the world. Lastly, the society and company of those that are made righteous or justified by God through Christ, are called the righteousness of God: 2 Cor. 5.21. of which phrase we shall speak further in this Distinction. Again 2º, this word justice or righteousness, SECT. 3 when applied to men, sometimes signifieth, that general frame of the heart or soul, consisting of all those holy dispositions and affections, which are found in some degree, in every trueborn child of God. In this sense God himself attributeth righteousness unto Noah Gen. 7.1. Thee have I seen righteous, etc. In this sense righteousness is opposed to the corrupt and sinful frame of the heart in the estate of unregeneratenesse, and a righteous man to an unregenerate man. This sense is obvious in Scripture. Secondly, the fruits, works, or actions, arising from such a frame of heart, are sometimes called, righteousness. Thus it is used. Act. 10.35. 1 joh. 3.7. and elsewhere. Thirdly, that particular and special disposition, which inclineth a man to deal uprightly and according to the rules of equity, with all men, and is opposed to fraud, violence, oppression, etc. together with the work and fruit of such a disposition, sometimes goeth under the Name of justice or righteousness. See Gen. 30.33. Deut. 1.16. Esa 33, 15. besides many other places. Fourthly, (and with more concernment to the point in hand) justification itself (in the passive sense declared in the former distinction) is sometimes (by a metonymy of the cause for the effect) expressed by the word, righteousness. Thus Gal. 2.21. If righteousness (i. Justification) come by the Law, i. by the works of the Law, than Christ is dead in vain. So Rom. 10, 4. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness (i. for Justification) to them that believe. So ver. 5. Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law, etc. i. showeth wherein that Justification consisteth, which is to be attained by the Law, if men will seek to be justified by it: So again. Ro. 5, 17, The gift of righteousness, i. of Justification: and ver. 18, by the righteousness of one, etc. i. by the justifying of one (as the former translation reads it, and that I conceive more agreeably to the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) or rather by one justifying, i. by one procurement of justification, the gift came upon all men (viz. that believe) unto justification of life: meaning, that Christ by one and the same means used for the justifying of men, purchased and procured the Justification of all those that should believe, be they never so many, and that such a justification, which shall be accompanied with salvation: See more instances of this signification of the word. Rom. 8.4. Rom. 9.30. Rom. 10.10. 1 Cor. 1.30. etc. with divers others. Thus also, in the same propriety of speech, to make righteous and to justify, are but the same: as to make wicked and to condemn. Compare Rom. 5. ver. 19 with ver. 18. Fiftly, sometimes Christ himself is (by an ellipsis of the efficient or procuring cause very usually in Scripture) called the righteousness of men. i. the Author or procurer of their Justification or righteousness: as jer. 23.6. 33.16. etc. In the same figure of speech, he is elsewhere called our hope, our life, our sanctification, our redemption, etc. i. the Author, and procurer of all these respectively. Sixtly, by a metonymy of the cause for the effect, or of the antecedent for the consequent (a common dialect also in Scriptures) aswell the benefits, and rewards of a man's righteousness, in the first and third acception of the word, as the blessings and privileges which accompany that righteousness which we have by the merits of Christ in our justification, are sometimes expressed by the term, righteousness. Thus job 33.26. God will render unto man his righteousness. i. will recompense and reward every man's uprightness and integrity, with suitable blessings, and expressions of his love So Psal. 112.9. His righteousness remaineth for ever. i. the praise, and other rewards of his righteousness, shall be durable and lasting. So Gal. 5.5. We through the Spirit wait for the hope of the righteousness of Faith. i. for the great and royal privileges promised by God (and accordingly hoped for by us) to that justification which is by Faith in jesus Christ, See the first Chapter of the former part of this discourse. Sect. 4. p. 12. etc. Seventhly, the word righteousness, in some construction of words with it, hath no precise or proper signification, distinct and apart from the word with which it is joined, but together with that word makes a sense or signification of one and the same thing. Thus in the phrase of imputing righteousness (Rom. 4.6.11. etc.) the word imputing, See impedit ira. etc. p. 43. doth not signify one thing, and righteousness another, but together they signify one and the same act of God, which we call, free justifying: So that to impute righteousness, is nothing else but freely to justify: and righteousness imputed, free justification (passive) It is th●● in many idiom's and proprieties of languages. In that Hebrew phrase of covering the feet, judg. 3.24. 1 Sam. 24.3. Neither of the words are to be taken in any proper or peculiar signification, but together they signify one and the same thing, and that differing from the proper signification of either of the words. Many other instances might be given in several phrases or forms of speech the true sense and meaning whereof is not to be gathered from the proper signification which the words have severally in other constructions, but from the concurrence and joint aspect of them in that phrase. Thus the Scripture phrase of going in to a woman is not to be interpreted, according to the significations of the words, in other sentences or constructions of speech; but according to the importance which they still jointly have when they are found together. Eightly (and last) the word, righteousness according to the propriety of the Hebrew stongue, which often useth abstracts for concretes, signifieth sometimes a Society or company of righteous or iustifiedones, sometimes of just or upright ones. In the former sense you have it, 2 Cor. 5.21. That we should be made the righteousness of God in him, i. a company of righteous or justified persons, made such by God, through jesus Christ. In the latter sense you have it Esa 60.17. where God promiseth to his Church and people to make their exactors righteousness i. a generation or company of men that should deal righteously and fairly with them. In this dialect of speech, poverty (for so it is in the original) is put for a company of poor men. 2 Kings 24.14. So Captivity for a company of Captives. 2 Chr. 28.5. Deut. 21.10. and in sundry other places. So again, circumcision for circumcised: Phil. 3.3. election for elected, Rom. 11.7. with the like. So that aswell in studying as arguing the Question in hand, great care must be had, that we be not entangled and lose ourselves in this multiplicity of significations of this word, righteousness, which is a word almost of continual use and occurrence in the business of justification, and yet of such an ambiguous and different signification and importance, Distincti. 3 See sect. 4. See Pareus De justi. Christi Active et Passive: p. 180. D. Prideaux Lect. 5. de justifi. p. 162. Mr. Eradshaw justifica: p. 68, 69. etc. Mr. Forbez. justificate. 25. p. 111, 112, &c that without much heedfulness, it may occasion much stumbling and miscarriage in our understanding. The righteousness or obedience of Christ is twofold, o● of two kinds: the one Divines call justitia personae, the righteousness of his person: the other justitia meriti, the righteousness of his merit. The terms of Active and Passive, wherein this Distinction is commonly conceived, are not altogether so proper, because even in that obedience which we call Passive, Christ was in some sort active, as willingly and freely submitting himself unto it. Notwithstanding the Distinction might pass well enough in these terms, Obedientia Christi duplex ●st: altera, quam vi legus communu, qua creatura rationalus, verus homo cum esset; altera, quam vi legude mediatione peculiarus, sive pacti de redemptionis negotio initi, quam neris humani Mediator et Redemptor, Dro Patri, debu●t et exhibuit, Gataker against Gomarus, p. 4. See further p. 15. 〈◊〉 p. 25. ibid. The righteousness of his person is that, whereby he iustifyeth himself only, or is himself righteous: the righteousness of his merit, is that whereby he iustifyeth others. The former consisteth partly of that integrity of nature which was in him, partly of that obedience which he performed to the moral Law, or that Law which is generally imposed upon all men. The latter, of that obedience or subjection which he performed to that peculiar Law of Mediator-ship, which was imposed upon him alone, and never upon any man besides. For it is evident that Christ both did and suffered many things, not simply as he was man, but as he was Mediator: especially his voluntary submission of himself unto death for the ransom and atonement of the world, was the fulfilling of the great commandment in the peculiar Law of Mediator-ship, being no ways bound by any precept in the Moral Law thereunto. If Christ had been bound as man, or by the Moral Law, to die for the sins of men, his death had been ineffectual for others. For certain it is, that no man dischargeth another man's debt, Qui obedientiae activae aut sanctitati nativae, meritum justitla ascribunt, morrem Christi sine dubie innnem reddunt. Pareus De justic: Christi Activ. and Pass. p. 181.182. etc. by paying his own: and our Saviour himself, enjoineth his Disciples, when they should do only that which was commanded them, though they should do this to the uttermost, yet to say that they were unprofitable Servants, they had done but that which was their duty to do. Luk 17.10. Besides, he that maintaineth, that Christ was bound by the moral Law to die for the sins of men, saith (in effect) that if he had not died, he had been a sinner, and deserved to have been punished himself: and so extenuateth and abaseth to the dust the infiniteness of that grace, which the Lord jesus Christ manifested unto the world, by his dying for it. If it be objected and said, SECT. 5 that other men are bound to lay down their lives for the truth when they are called thereunto, and so for one another. 1 John 3.16. and this must needs be by the Moral Law: therefore Christ stood bound by the same Law to do the like. To this I answer, 1º, that men considered simply as men, and not as sinners, or as men that have sinned, were not bound by any Law whatsoever to lay down their lives at all, nor upon any occasion whatsoever: because God by promise had settled the inheritance and possession of life upon innocence and integrity, for ever. Therefore as the Apostle reasons in another case. Gal. 3, 21. Is the Law then against the promises of God? God forbidden. So is it to be conceived in this case, that the promise of God being, Dee this and thou shalt live, there was no Law that should contradict it, that is, that should enjoin a man being innocent, and doing all things required in the Law, to die or part with his life, upon any terms whatsoever. Therefore secondly, that obligation or commandment which now lieth upon men to part with their lives, either for witnessing the truth, or upon any other occasion, was not originally any branch of the Moral Law; but partly by reason of the interveening of sin, but especially by reason of the great benefit of the redemption of the world from sin by jesus Christ, it is now a superadded duty (amongst many others) somewaies reducible to the Moral Law, but not properly or directly contained in it. And thus the Scripture itself plainly determineth. For speaking of this duty, of laying down a man's life, in case the spiritual (yea or perhaps the temporal rall necessity of some men do require it (and doubtless there is the same reason of all other cases in this kind) it grounds the equity and obligement of it, upon the grace and benefit of Redemption by the death of jesus Christ. Hereby have we perceived love, that he laid down his life for us: THEREFORE we ought also to lay down our lives for our Brethren. 1 Joh. 3.16. So that (in the third place) jesus Christ being universally free from sin in and from the first instant of his conception to his death, and having none (nor any need of any) to die for his redemption, could have no tie or obligation upon him from the Moral Law, to lay down his life upon any occasion whatsoever, in as much as this Law in the first institution and imposure of it, requireth death of no man upon no occasion but for sin (neither did it then require this by any way or duty, but of threatening) neither doth it now require it of any man, but upon the supposal of sin, and that great deliverance from sin, brought into the world by another, jesus Christ. Fourthly (and last) I answer yet further; that no man hath ever any calling from God by virtue of the Moral Law, as now it stands with all the additions and improvements of it, to lay down his life, either for witnessing the truth, or for the benefit of the Brethren, or for any other possible end or purpose, when that end (whatsoever it be) for which this laying down a man's life seems to be required, may be aswell, that is, as Lawfully, and as sufficiently provided for in another way. For certainly neither doth the Moral Law, nor God himself by virtue of any commandment in this Law, require of men at any time, to die like fools: and what is it but to die like a fool, when a man shall give his life for that, which might aswell, and as effectually be procured by him in another way? If therefore it be conceived, that Christ might be called God by virtue of the Moral Law, to lay down his life for witnessing or sealing the truth, I answer, that Christ could have as sufficiently provided for the honour and advancement of Truth another way, as by his death, viz. by the inward illumination and conviction of the judgementsand consciences of me● by his spirit. Therefore he had no call by the Moral Law, to die for this end. If it be yet objected: but the salvation of men his Brethren, could not be provided for by him in any other way, but by his death only: Therefore in this regard and for this end, he might be bound by the Moral Law, to die: To this I answer (as before in part) that the Moral Law considered as simply moral, i. as requiring only those duties of a man, which were required of him in his estate of innocence, threateneth all sinners (without exception) with death, without giving the least intimation or hope of any to die for them; so fare is it from imposing it by way of duty upon any man whatsoever, to die for them. Therefore whatsoever may now be conceived to be imposed upon any man by way of duty in this kind, doth not arise from the original and native morality of the Law, but from that alteration and change which the grace of redemption by jesus Christ, hath made in the estate and condition of men, by reason whereof many general principles and impressions of the preceptive or directive part of the Law, are improved, and extended to many duties, which were not at first comprehended or intended in them. From all which duties it is evident, that the Lord Christ, considered simply as a man, or as an innocent and sinless man, or as having his condition no ways altered or made better by any Redemption by any another, SECT. 6 was absolutely and universally exempt and free. Thus at last we have (I conceive) sufficiently cleared and established both the truth and necessity of the distinction last propounded, viz. of the righteousness of Christ, into that which is commonly called Active, wherein his personal integrity and holiness is absolved, and made perfect; and that which is called Passive, which is the righteousness of another Law differing from that which is called Moral, and was performed by him, merely in relation to the justification, or righteous-making of others. The truth and necessity of the distinction, might be further evicted from the Scriptures, as from these and such like. Esa. 53.11. 2 Cor. 5.21. Heb. 7.26. Heb. 9.14. 1 Pet. 3.18. etc. By all which passages it is evident, that Christ doth not justify others by the moral righteousness of his person whereby himself was made righteous, but by that other righteousness, which we may call mediatory, satisfactory, passive, or meritorious; and yet with all that this righteousness itself could have done nothing this way, but upon presupposal of, and inconsistence with the other, (as will hereafter further appear) But because this hath been sufficiently performed by others (a) Pareus de justic. Christi Act. et Pass. P. 181. , and the distinction itself is granted and acknowledged by the learnedest (b) Bish: Davenant De justic: Habit. c. 28. p. 364. Argum. 3. Mr. Bradshaw justific. p. 67.72. etc. Bish. Downham Iustific● c. 1. c. 2 Section 9 of those that are (or at least, sometimes seem to be) of opposite judgement in the main of the controversy depending, I thus leave it. Only I desire to remember you of the Item Pareus gives (c) De justice: Christi Act: et Pass. p. 180. out of his observation touching this Dictinction; that the neglect hereof causeth much confusion, and encumbreth the Doctrine of justification with many difficulties and inconveniences, and renders it hardly defensible against the Papists and other adversaries to the truth of it. Therefore in managing the present Question about imputation, special care must be had, that we neither use ourselves, nor admit from others, these words, the righteousness of Christ, but with an eye to this Distinction. A thing may be said to be imputed to a man in several respects and considerations. First, Distinct. 4 SECT. 7 a mans own acts whether good or●evill, may be said to be imputed to him, when he himself and none other, is simply, and without reference either to reward or punishment either reputed or pronounced the doer of them. This sense of imputation is not unproper, yet do I not remember the word any where in the Scriptures so used. But in this sense, aswell the Active as Passive obedience of Christ, are by God imputed to Christ himself, and to no other: and the sins of believers themselves, to themselves that have committed them respectively, and to none other. Secondly, a man's do whether good or evil, may be said to be imputed to him, when he is either actually rewarded, or punished because of them, or else is looked upon by the Judge, as one that shall in due time either be rewarded or punished for such do, except some reasonable and just occasion, shall in the mean time intervene, to alter either of these purposes concerning him. In this sense Shimei maketh request to David, that he would not impute folly to him, that is, that he would not punish him for that foolish act of his reviling him. So the sins of unbelievers may be said to be imputed to them, when either they are punished by God in this world, or else cast into Hell for them. In this sense also, the sins of the elect themselves before they believe, may be said to be imputed to them, because they are looked upon by God, as persons yet liable to condemnation for their sins, and that should in time actually be condemned, except by the precious benefit and advantage of God's patience and long sufferance towards them, they should come truly to believe in jesus Christ before death. Thirdly, Another man's trespass or offence may be said to be imputed unto us, when either we are challenged or looked upon as advisors, counsellors, or furtherers of him thereunto, or otherwise are hardly dealt with or punished, as if we had been accessary in some such way: And so another man's virtue, learning, valour, and well-deserving in any kind may be said to be imputed unto him, who is conceived or looked upon, as the chief Author, teacher, or incourager of the other, in any of these. In this sense the fair and hopeful carriage of King joash towards the beginning of his Reign, may be imputed to jehojada the Priest. 2 King. 12.2. with 2 Ch. 24.2. Thus the knowledge and courage which were found in Peter and john are (in effect) imputed to Christ himself by the Priests and Rulers. Act. 4.13. In this sense also the victory won by the valour and courage of the Soldiers, is oft imputed to the General or chief Commander. Fourthly, one man's sin (and so his virtuous act) may be said to be imputed to another, when this other, through ignorance or mistake, is looked upon as the man that had performed either the one or the other, and is either censured or punished, or else honoured, or rewarded accordingly. In this sense King Porsenna's hostile attempt against the Romans, may be said to have been imputed unto his Scribe or Officer by Scaevola, when upon a mistake he slew him, supposing him to have been the King. I do not remember any instance for this sense of the word imputation, in the Scriptures. Therefore Fiftly, one man's wickedness or ill deserts, may be said to be imputed unto others, when they are any ways punished, or worse dealt with in consideration thereof: as on the contrary, a man's worth, virtue or well-deserving in any kind, may be said to be imputed to others, as viz. his children, kinsfolk, friends, etc. when they are considered, and well dealt with in any kind, because of their relation unto such a man. In this sense David may be said to have imputed jonathans' kindness unto Mephibosheth his Son, when he preferred him to honour, in consideration thereof: and so the wicked act of those that accused Daniel and caused him to be cast into the Lion's Den, may be said to have been imputed unto their wives and children, by the King, when he caused them also to be cast into the Lion's Den for it. Dan. 6 24. So the sin of Achan, to his house and Family. Ios. 7. and the sin of Dathan and Abiram to their wives and Children. Num. 16. In this sense likewise, Paul willeth Philemon to impute to him (for so the word signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Phil. ver. 18.) any wrong or injury that his servant Onesimus had done him, meaning that he was willing and ready to make satisfaction for it. In this sense of imputation (and in this only) the sins of men may be said to be imputed unto Christ, viz. because he suffered the things which he did suffer, in consideration of them: and these sufferings of his again may be said to be imputed unto us, because we are rewarded, that is, justified & saved in consideration of them. But that either our sins, should be therefore said to be imputed unto Christ, because he is reputed by God to have committed them, or that his righteousness, whether active, or passive, should be therefore said to be imputed to us, because we are reputed by God to have done or suffered the one or the other, (a) In this sense the imputation aswell of the Passive, as Active obedience of Christ, are elsewhere denied in this Treatise. See Part 1. c. 10 Sect. 4, etc. hath neither footing nor foundation either in Scripture or reason. Sixtly, taking the word imputation in a large sense, SECT. 8 that also may be said to be imputed to a man, which essentially and directly conduceth either to the benefit or punishment, which accrueth unto him, from that which is more properly and immediately imputed to him. In this sense, when the wife or children of a man that hath well deserved of a state or Family, are any ways rewarded or well dealt with in consideration of his desert, not only the deserts themselves, but his ingenuous and liberal education, together with his virtuous dispositions, as essentially requisite to make him a man capable of such deservings, may be said to be imputed to them. i. they have a benefit accrueing to them from such education and dispositions of his, though not immediately, but by the intervening of those worthy acts and services performed by him. In this sense not only achan's sinful and sacrilegious act of taking away the wedge of gold and Babylonish garment, but the bitter root itself that bare this cursed fruit, I mean his covetousness, may be said to have been imputed unto all those of his house, that were punished with him for that sacrilege, In this sense likewise aswell the habitual holiness of Christ's person, as the moral righteousness or active obedience of his life, may be said to be imputed to those that believe in him, because these were essentially and directly requifite, to make his death and sufferings, justification and life and salvation to them, as hath been further opened in the former part of this Treatise. But because this signification of the word is somewhat remote and unusual, and hath no manner of countevance from the Scripture, Piscator, Paraeus, with other learned and Orthodox Divines, have simple denied all imputation of the active righteousness or obedience of Christ, and (doubtless) the Doctrine of justification, as it is laid down in the Scriptures, would not at all suffer, if the expression were laid aside altogether. Seventhly, a thing may be said to be imputed to a man when he is looked upon or dealt with, as if he had some true worth or qualification in him, whereunto there are special privileges belonging, when as yet he hath not, the worth or qualification indeed, but comes to have right to the privileges notwithstanding in some other way. In this sense righteousness is said to be imputed to him that believeth, Rom. 4.6.11. etc. that is, he that truly believeth in Christ, is looked upon by God, and partly hath, and partly shall have and enjoy all the privileges and blessings which do belong, and are annexed by covenant or promise, unto a perfect and complete law-righteousness, though there be no such righteousness found in him, because jesus Christ by his death and sufferings hath purchased a right and title for him to these privileges and blessings: which title is actually derived and settled upon him, upon his believing. So that to say, God imputeth righteousness to a man, is but (in effect) to say, that God looks upon him with the same grace and favour, wherewith he would look upon him, if he were properly and legally righteous indeed, and had never sinned, and intends all the further privileges and blessings of such a righteousness unto him. In such a sense as this, when a man takes liking to, and loves another man's child, and intends to settle his estate upon him, he may be said to impute Sonship unto him, because though he be not his Son, yet he confer's the rights and privileges of a Son upon him, as viz. fatherlike affection, and his inheritance. Eightly, SECT. 9 one thing may be said to be imputed to a man, for, or instead of another, when the rights and privileges which originally and properly belong to the one, are yet exhibited and conferred upon him, upon the performance of the other: or again, when upon the committing of one offence, he is charged with the guilt and inconveniences of another, the guilt and evil consequences whereof are more notorious and manifest. Thus he that provideth not for his own, especially for his household, hath the sin of denying the Faith, i. the Gospel, imputed unto him (1 Tim. 5.8.) because the evil consequences of both sins are much the same, but yet are more readily acknowledged, as likely to arise from the latter. In this sense also the Faith of him that believeth, is said to be imputed to him for righteousness (Rom. 4.3.5. etc.) because the same privileges, which originally and more apparently did belong unto, and were settled by God upon a legal righteousness, or immunity from sin, do now belong unto, and are settled by Covenant and promise from the same God, upon believing. Ninthly and lastly, any matter of profit, benefit or advantage, which any ways accrueth, or is coming towards a man, whether by way of due debt, or of free donation and grace, or the like, may be said to be imputed unto him accordingly. Thus (Rom. 4.4.) the reward, viz. of justification and life, is said to be reckoned, or imputed to him that worketh, (i. that shall deserve it by a perfect observation of the Law) of debt, and not of grace. The meaning is, that if any man should be rewarded by God with life and happiness, upon his perfect obedience to the Law, such a reward would be generally taken and looked upon by men, as no matter of grace or favour from God, but as a matter of right and due debt to such a man. There is no word or term (to my remembrance) belonging to the dispute in hand, or to the Doctrine of justification in general, more encumbered with variety of significations than this of Imputation, and consequently more obnoxious to mistake and misunderstanding. There is scarce any proposition can be framed, wherein this word is used indefinitely and without special limitation or explication, but may both be granted and denied, according to a different sense and acception thereof. As for example, such propositions as these. The active obedience of Christ is imputed. The active obedience of Christ is not imputed. The passive obedience of Christ is imputed, The passive obedience of Christ is not imputed, etc. are either true or false, according as the word imputed, is understood and taken in them. Therefore special care must be had how and upon what terms this word passeth, or be admitted in the present Controversy. Obedience to the Moral Law may be said to be required of men two ways, or in two respects: Distinct. 5 SECT. 10 First, by way of justification, that a man thereby may be esteemed perfectly righteous by God, and accordingly have all the privileges of a complete righteousness conferred upon him. Secondly, by way of sanctification, that he may testify and express his subjection unto God, and his unfeigned desire of pleasing him in all things. In both respects this obedience was required of man, in his estate of innocence, and is still required of the Holy Angels, yea and was required also of the Lord jesus Christ himself. Compare Mat. 3.16. with john 15.10. etc. But since the fall of man, it is not nequited of him, by way of justification (in the sense expressed) but only in a way of sanctification. This is evident by these a consideratios. First, because a man being once touched with sin, and failing in the least point of obedience (as all men were, and did in the fall) is not capable of any such obedience to the La●, whereby it is impossible for him to be justified, no, though he should keep the Law with all possible exactness ever after to the world's end, without the least failing in the least point of obedience thereunto: the condition of a legal justification being, that a man must continue (à carcere ad metas, from the very first entrance upon his being, to the last end thereof) in all things that are written in the Law to do them, so that the least trip or stumbling throughout all his course, wholly dissolves and overthrows such a justification. Secondly, because God hath opened another way for the justification of sinners, viz. Faith in Jesus Christ, and certain it is, that he never sets up one way against another, or one ordinance against another, so that what he intends should be effected by one, he should intent to be effected by another also, as hath been argued and proved more at large, in the former part of this Treatise. (a) cap. 12. Sect. 2. etc. Therefore to affirm, that the fulfilling of the Law is required of any man either by himself or by another in his stead, for his justification is to affirm, either that a man that hath sinned, hath not sinned, or that which God hath said, he hath unsaid. Christ may be said to have kept the Law, Distincti. 6 SECT. 11 in reference to our justification, two ways, or in a double sense: either 1º, for us: or 2º, in our stead. In the former sense, it may be admitted, that Christ kept the Law for our justification, but not in the latter. The former sense only imports, that this obedience of his had an influence into our justification, and did contribute that which was of absolute necessity thereunto; which hath been explained, and granted, and (in part) proved formerly. The latter sense imports, that the keeping of the Law, was primarily required of every man for his justification, since the fall, and that God, in respect of the personal disabilities of men for such performance in reference to such an end, sent his Son jesus Christ to perform it in their rooms and places. Which supposition stands convict of a manifest untruth in the former Distinction, and elsewhere in this Treatise. (a) Part 1. cap. Sect. Distincti. 7. SECT. 12 The justification of a sinner (I mean Passive) though it be but one and the same entire effect, yet may it be ascribed to many (and those very different) causes respectively, according to their several influences, and differing manner of concurrence thereunto. God may be said to justify, Christ may be said to justify, yea the Holy Ghost in a true and proper sense may be said to justify, Faith may be said to justify, the Minister may be said to justify, (as well as to save, 1 Tim. 4.16.) remission of sins may be said to justify, etc. Whatsoever contributeth any thing, more or less, either in a superior or inferior way, towards the raising and producing any effect, the effect itself may not only according to truth, but in ordinary propriety of speaking be ascribed unto it. It is as true to say (and not unproper) that the sling in David's hand, or the smooth stone which he slang, or his act of slinging, killed Goliath, as to say, that David himself killed him, though it's true, David was the principal efficient in this action, and the other were but inferior and instrumental. So that to reason thus, Christ justifies, therefore Faith doth not justify: or thus, Christ is our righteousness, therefore Faith is not our righteousness, or remission of sins is not our righteousness, etc. is as if a man should argue after this manner. It is God that maketh rich, therefore money maketh not rich, or a diligent hand maketh not rich, which yet is a truth, and is affirmed by the Holy Ghost, aswell as the other. Or thus, It is God that purifieth the heart: therefore man purifieth it not, neither doth Faith purify it, nor do afflictions purify, etc. Or thus, The Physician recovered the sick: therefore his Physic did not recover him. It is a weak reasoning, à positione causae principalis, ad remotionem accessory. Christ may Justify, and Faith may justify, and remission of sins may justify: yea Christ doth not justify without Faith, nor without remission of sins, more than either o● these justify without Christ, though it be true, Christ justifieth after a manner peculiar to himself, and Faith and Remission of sins, each of them after a manner proper to itself, and the manner, of justification which is proper to Christ, is more excellent and of superior consideration, to the manner wherein either Faith or Remission of sins justify. Therefore the argument doth not follow, from the affirmation of justification by Christ, to the negation of the same justification by Faith, or any other thing: but it well f●llowes, from the affirmation of the peculiar manner of justification which is proper to Christ, to the negation of the same manner, as belonging either to Faith, or to Remission of sins, or any thing besides. This arguing is substantial. Christ Justifieth by way of merit, or satisfaction, or atonement for sin: therefore neither Faith, nor remission of sins, nor any thing else justifieth, either by way of merit, satisfaction, or atonement. Therefore care must be had to distinguish the simple act, from the peculiar manner, of justification. CAP. FOUR Containing a brief Delineation or survey of the entire body of Justification, in the several causes of it, according to the tenor of the Conclusions and Distinctions laid down in the two former Chapters. AS well to give a full and free account of mine own judgement, SECT. 1 and of what I conceive and hold touching the great business of justification, and the whole carriage of it in the Scriptures and counsel of God, as also to furnish my Reader with some further and clearer light, whereby to comprehend the darkness, and to discover the insufficiency and weakness of those arguments, that either are brought from the Scriptures, or otherwise framed, against the main Conclusion defended in this Treatise: I thought it not amiss to enlarge the Discourse by one Chapter the more, wherein to delineate and represent (according to the model of my weak insight into so great a mystery) that fair piece or frame wherein the grace, justice, and wisdom of God have sweetly conspired for the justification of a poor sinner. And because the perfect knowledge hereof (I mean of the gracious design of God in and about the justification of a sinner) depends upon the knowledge and right apprehension of the several causes concurring and contributing thereunto (as indeed the true knowledge of all th●ngs whatsoever, ariseth from the knowledge of the causes thereof) I desire leave to premise some few general rules touching the number, nature, and property of causes in general, but only such, which are generally acknowledged and subscribed unto by sober men that have had their wits exercised in discerning things agreeable to reason, and who can be no ways suspected as partial, or any ways engaged, either on the right hand or on the left, in the Disputes agitated in this Discourse. The first rule I lay down concerns the number of causes in general, Rule 1 and is this: There are four (and but four) general heads, fountains, or kind of causes, whereunto and under which, all, and all manner of causes, be they never so many or various, which any ways conduce or contribute towards the raising of any effect or new being, may be reduced and comprehended. These are usually known and called by these names: 1º, the efficient, 2º, the final, 3º, the material, 4º, the formal. The sufficiency of which division of causes in general, might easily be argued and made good by demonstration, but that it hath been done by many before me, and besides hath now for many ages bygone, been admitted by men of reason and learning, into the same honour of unquestionable truth, with their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. their first and most undoubted principles of Reason. Rule 2 My second rule respects the different habitude or relation in general, SECT. 2 between the two former, and the two latter causes (as they were named) towards their effects, and is this. The efficient and final causes do never ingredi compositum, i. are never any part, any thing of the substance, of the effect produced but are always extrinsecall thereunto, and have their beings distinct from it. As on the other hand, the material and formal causes, are always intrinsecall to the effect, and together make up (as it were) the entire substance and essence of it. As for example: The Carpenter who is the efficient cause of the House that is built, and so his Axe, Saw, Hammer, etc. are no parts of the house: neither is the conveniency or accommodation of the dweller or owner, which is the final cause of the House, any part of it; which appears thus, because the house may stand, and be the same house that it is, though the Carpenter that made it be dead, and though it had neither dweller nor owner belonging to it. But the timber, Brick, stone, etc. which are the material cause of it, and the order, or method wherein they are contrived and wrought together in the building by the workman: which is the formal cause, are the essential and constituting parts of the house: so that if either of these should be altered or taken away, the house itself must be altered, and taken away with them. My third Rule toucheth the absolute incapacity in every one of these causes, Rule 3 of any more relations than one, in respect of one and the same effect, and proceeds after this manner: No one thing or cause whatsoever, can put on more habitudes or relations of causality than one, in respect of one and the same effect. As for example, that which is the efficient cause of a thing, can never be the formal, nor the material, nor final cause of it. So again, that which is the material cause of a thing, cannot be the formal cause of that whereof it is the material, nor yet the efficient or final: and there is the same consideration of them all. Neither the Carpenter, nor his skill, nor his Axe, nor his Hammer (which are all efficients) can be the matter of the house he builds with them: neither can the timber or stones, which are the material cause of it, be the efficient cause also. etc. It is true, in some cases, and in an unproper and metaphorical sense, the same person that in one consideration is the efficient cause of a thing, may in another consideration be the final cause of it. As when a Carpenter builds an house for himself to dwell in, in a sense he may be called both the efficient and final cause of this house. But this is an unproper expression, and according to Grammatical and express importance of the words, not consonant to truth. For if we speak properly, the Carpenter cannot in this case be said to be the final cause of his house, because the nature and propriety of the final cause is, to receive its being, by and from that, whereof it is the cause, and not to have a subsistence and being before it, as the Carpenter hath before the building of his house. Therefore the final cause of the house under instance, is the Carpenter's conveniency of dwelling, which is a thing of another nature, and fare differing from his person. The like interpretation must rule to make exactness of truth of that common saying in Divinity, that God is the efficient and final cause or end of all things, (a) See sect. 6▪ of this c. which the Scripture expresseth by calling him Alpha and Omega, Revel. 1. But for the rule itself last laid down, if rightly understood, it is universally and unquestionably true, that one and the same thing cannot possibly stand in more relations of causality than one, to one and the same effect, no more than one and the same point of Heaven can be both East and West, or North and South, in respect of the same Country or place. The 4th and last Rule I desire to lay down, Rule 4 SECT. 3 concerns the multiplicity of divisions, whereof the 4 general heads of Causes mentioned, are capable. The rule I deliver in these words. Though there be but four kinds, or heads of causes in the general, yet under every one of these heads there are several species of causes comprehended, and though all these under kinds or particular species of causes, agree together in that common nature of causality, which is expressed in that general head, under which they are respectively and severally comprehended, yet have they special and particular differences, and those very considerable one from another, between themselves. To prosecute all the distinctions or divisions of causes, that are found in Authors, or otherwise might be thought upon, would be to cast oil upon the flames, and make the Reader double wearier of the length of his discourse, than he is already. I shall therefore instance (and that as briefly as may be) in some few, which I conceive have special relation to the business in hand, and without the knowledge whereof, the Doctrine of justification, can hardly be thoroughly and clearly understood. The first general head of causes, which we called the Efficient, admits of more divisions and subdivisions, and contains more species of causes under it (which are yet all efficients) then any of the other, yea then all the other three together. The truth is, that there is such an endless variety of the kinds of efficient causes, ●hat it is very difficult to find them all out, or to give fitting names to many that may more easily be found. It shall suffice for our present occasion to mention some few divisions of them. First, of efficient causes, some are principal, SECT. 4 others less principal. The principal efficient cause, is that which worketh independently and from itself (I speak now in respect of created causes only: because otherwise, all causes whatsoever have a dependence upon God in their working towards the effect, having other efficients under it, which work likewise towards the same effect, but depend upon it (the principal cause) in their working: and these are causes less principal, or instrumental. The Carpenter is the principal efficient cause of the house, his Axe, Saw, and Hammer, etc. are but instrumental efficients: because though these conduce and contribute somewhat towards the building of it, yet they are assumed and ordered in their working by the Carpenter, and would do nothing if they were not acted and moved by him, whereas himself worketh independantly, being acted and guided in his work by a principle within himself. It is true, in a sense the Carpenter may be said to depend upon his instruments in working, viz. as being unable to work or build without them: but in point of causality, that only is counted a dependence, when a thing is either assumed, supported, or directed by another in its efficiency: none of which can be verified of the Carpenter in respect of his instruments wherewith he worketh. Again, of causes efficient, whether created or increated, principal or less principal, some are natural, some artificial, and some moral. By the efficient natural, I mean that cause which hath its efficiency, or contributes towards the effect, by the exercising or putting forth● of some power that is natural and essential to it. Thus the Sun is the natural efficient cause of the light in the air, and of all other sublunary effects which it produceth, because it produceth them all only by the exercise and putting forth of such principles, as of light, motion, influence, etc. as are natural to it. In this sense, that kind of efficient which otherwise is called voluntary, i. that works freely and with the knowledge of its own working, and is contradistinguished to that which is purely and simply natural, may sometimes, and in respect of some effects, be termed natural also, as viz. when it acteth towards any effect by any faculty, principle, or power that is natural to it. In this sense David may be called the natural efficient cause of the motion of the stone, wherewith Goliath was slain: Yea the increated efficient cause himself (God I mean, who in other respects, is termed the supernatural efficient) may in this sense be called the natural 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 natural or essential to him. Secondly, the efficient cause artificial, is that which produceth its effect by the exercise of some acquired or superadded principle or habit of art. But of this kind of cause we shall have no use in the business of justification, therefore we pass by it. Thirdly (and last) the moral efficient cause, is that which contributes towards an effect, by inclining or moving the will or desire of the natural 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 work in consideration of such wages (with the like) may all be called moral efficient causes of that work or effect, whatsoever it be, that is performed by him. So the love and kindness which jonathan in his life-time showed to David, were the moral efficient causes of that favour which David shown to Mephibosheth his Son. With this kind of causality, the greatness of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, together with the severity which is in the nature of God▪ against such sins and sinners, was the cause of that horrible destruction that came in fire and brimstone upon it, and the sin of Achan the cause both of his own ruin, and of his whole Family, with infinite more of like consideration. For that likewise is to be known and remembered, for our better understanding of the business of justification when we come to it, that this impulsive or moral efficient cause is of two sorts or kinds: First, that which moves the natural efficient from within himself, to do 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 knowledge or sight of another man's misery in any kind, is persuaded to administer comfort or relief to him, the misery of the man being known to him is the latter kind of cause of that comfort or relief which he administers; and the inward tenderness or compassionatnesse of his nature towards those that are in misery, is the former. Of both these kinds of efficients, there may be many, in respect of one and the same effect, some more principal, i more effectually moving, and some less; as will clearly appear in the ease of justification. Thirdly, SECT. 5 of the efficient causes, some are more remote, and mediate; others again more near and immediate. The remote cause of a thing, is that which contributeth towards the effecting of it, but yet doth not reach the effect itself, but by the interposal and mediation of another. The next and immediate cause, is that which produceth the effect, without the interveening of any other cause between. Thus a man's eating and drinking, are the remote causes of his health and strength, by means of a good digestion, distribution, and incorporation of what is so digested, into the several parts of the body coming between, which latter are the nearer and more immediate causes thereof. So the capacity 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 obtaineth and carrieth away, by running, wrestling, etc. And generally whatsoever prepares or qualifies the natural efficient for the producing or accomplishing of any effect, may properly be called a remote cause of the same. And in this respect, the personal holiness, and the active obedience of Christ to the Law, may be called the efficient causes of justification, 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. Only that is briefly to be remembered 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 conceit otherwise (a) Keckerman System. Logic. l. 1. c. 15. p. 146. but these must still be of several kinds. The principal and instrumental causes are alike immediate, in respect of the effect jointly produced by them, etc. And the first, or increated cause, God, is ●like immediate in every effect, with the created cause that is most immediate to it. There are many other Divisions and kinds of this first head of causes, which we call efficient, as 1º, there is the efficient solitary, and the efficient in consort or association with other causes. 2º, the efficient which hath a proper, natural, and direct tendency towards the effect, which they call efficiens pierce: and the efficient which falls in on the by, and concurr's towards the effect, but accidentally, and besides any natural inclination it hath towards the raising of the effect, which they call causa per accidens. 3º, there is a kind of efficient which they call subordinata, i. of an inferior order, in respect of another cause that is of a superior; and coordinata, i. such a cause, as is of the same rank and order with another, etc. besides divers others; which I insist no further upon, because I conceive the Doctrine of justification may be sufficiently delivered and understood without the particular knowledge of them. The second general head of causes mentioned, SECT. 6 was the final cause, or the end, so called (as it seems) because both the action and intention of the principal efficient are terminated, ended, and satisfied in the assecution or atteynment thereof. There are several divisions and kinds of this cause also: but because there is little, or no dispute or question touching the final cause of justification, amongst those that are much dissenting in judgement about other causes thereof, I shall pass over this cause with the more brevity. The final cause or end of an effect or thing caused, or of a thing to be effected or caused, is either that which is called Finis pierce, that is, such an end as the effect is naturally and of itself apt to produce, and raise: or else that which is called Finis per accidens, that is, such a thing and end, which follows upon, and may be in some sort said to be produced or occasioned by the effect, but yet is a thing of that nature and importance, which doth not answer the nature and propriety of the effect by which it was occasioned or produced. Thus the hardening of reprobate and wicked men, and so the increasing of their condemnation etc. are accidental ends of preaching the Gospel, or of the Gospel preached, because they are oft occasioned and somewaies caused and produced thereby, but do not answer or suit with the nature and propriety of the Gospel or preaching thereof, which are sweet and gracious. As on the contrary, the softening and melting of the hearts of men, and so the furtherance of them in the ways of salvation, etc. are ends pers●, or proper ends of the preaching the Gospel, because they are not only produced by it, but likewise are things that sympathise in nature and property therewith, and sweetly answer the tenor and importance of such an action. Again secondly, of final causes or ends per se, some are primarily such, etc. more properly so called: others again are secondarily such, and less properly so called. The final cause or end primarily and properly so called, is that which the principal efficient intends to accomplish and to attain, by means of such or such an effect produced by him. And this again is double, or of two kinds. First, that which is more principally so intended by him; Secondly that which is less principally intended. The end less principally intended, is that which is intended with reference and subordination to some further end, as viz. to that which is more and most principally intended: as on the contrary, the end more principally intended, is that which hath inferior ends subservient to it, and destinated to the effecting of it. Thus the house itself which the work man builds for himself to dwell in, is the less principal end of his labour in building and his own conveniency of dwelling or otherwise, is the more principal, because the house was intended chief in relation unto this. So the sorrow which Paul wrought in the Corinthians by his Epistle (1 Cor. 7.9.) was the less principal end of his writing, and their repentance the more principal, because that was intended by him, as a means conducing unto this. And that end which is intended simply for itself, and without any subordination or reference to another end beyond it, is the supreme, Sovereign, and most principal end of all, as the glory of God is to himself in all his works, and should be to the creatures also in all theirs. But secondly, the final cause or end less properly socalled, is that, to which or to whom, or for whose good, the end properly so called, is intended. Thus the patiented or sick person, is the end of that recovery or health, which the Physician seeks to procure: and the elect, the end of the great dispensation of God in Christ: and in this sense God himself is said to be end both of this, and all other his dispensations whatsoever. The third general head or fountain of causes, SECT. 7 was the Material. Now the matter, or material cause of a thing, is either that which is properly, or unproperly so called. The matter or material cause properly so called, is that which in union with the form, makes up a substantial compounded body. So that this kind of matter (matter properly so called) is proper to, and only found in that kind of nature or being, which we call a substance, as the Heavens, the 4 Elements and all things that are compounded and made of them, and is itself always a substance. The matter of a thing unproperly so called, is that which hath some kind of analogy or proportion only to that which is matter properly. In this sense, that other nature or kind of being, which we call accidental, as actions, passions, qualities, figures, relations, etc. may be said to have matter, as viz. either their subjects wherein they have their existences and beings, or their objects, upon, and about which they act, work, or are exercised: or thirdly (and last) the parts whereof some of them do consist, and are made up. In the first sense, the wall may be called the matter of the whiteness that is put upon it, and the fire, the matter of the heat that is in it, and a man the matter of the learning or knowledge that is in him, etc. In the second sense, the wall is the matter of that act of the Painter or Plasterer, whereby he made the wall white; and so the servant or slave of old, was the matter of that act of manumission, whereby his Mr. set him at liberty, and made him free; and the elect of God both men and women are the matter of the act of God, whereby he saves them. In the third and last sense, the several parts of whiteness that are in the wall, as the whiteness that is above, and the whiteness that is beneath, that which is on the right hand, and that which is on the left, with that which is in the midst, are the matter of that area or whole extent of whiteness which is in the wall. In this sense, the three lines whereof a triangle is made, is said to be the matter of the triangle, and letters and syllables to be the matter of a word, and words the matter of a sentence etc. But there is no accident whatsoever, that hath any matter properly so called: nor any action any other matter properly or unproperly, or however called, but only the subject, matter or object, on which it is acted, and wherein it is terminated and received. What hath been said concerning this material cause, is diligently to be remembered, and carried along with us to the business of Justification; because it much concerns one vein of the Question or controversy depending. The fourth and last head of causes, SECT. 8 was that which is called the Form, or formal cause of a thing. This cause is divided or distinguished into that which is properly, and that which is improperly so called. The form properly so called, is that cause, which together with the matter properly so called, constitutes and makes up a substantial compounded body. This kind of form is always itself a substance, and not an accident: and still the more noble or principal part, of that body which it informeth. The particular species of it are not known, but only by the properties and operations which flow from them respectively. The form, or formal cause of a thing unproperly so called, (which is that kind of form wherewith only we have to do in the business of justification) is always a thing of that inferior nature or being, which we call accidental or adjunctive, Because it is still sustained in ir's being, in some other nature which is substantial, and hath no subsistence in, or by itself, yet hath not this form the denomination of a form always in regard of the subject, wherein it hath its being, and to which it gives a kind of being also, as learning gives a man his being learned, etc. but in regard of that action or motion whereby it is introduced into the subject, and is therefore called the form of an action, motion, or alteration, not because it gives any other kind of being to any of these (for it rather receives its being from them) but only a being known and distinguished from all other actions, or motions whatsoever. For actions, or motions; as calefaction, frigefaction, and so Redemption, justification, salvation, etc. are severally known and distinguished one from another (and so from every other action or motion whatsoever besides,) by that proper form, impression, or alteration which they introduce and make in their subjects or objects about which they are exercised and acted respectively: as the heat or warmth which is caused in my hand by the fire, maketh that action of the fire by which it is caused, not simply to be, but to be known to be that action which we call calefaction or warming, and none other, i● being impossible that such a form or impression as heat is, should be introduced into any subject, but by such an action, as calefaction or warming is. In this case the heat which is caused in my hand, may be called the form of calefaction, not because it gives a being unto it (which is the proper notion and consideration of a form) but rather because it receives its being from it, and so gives it a manifestation or distinction from other actions, which is one property of a form properly so called, according to the known maxim in Logic, which teacheth us, that the form includes or presupposeth 3 things, 1º, the being of a thing. 2º, the distinction of it. 3º, the operation of it. (a) Posita forma, tria ponuntur: 1, esse res 2, distinctio rei. 3, operatio rei. And doubtless the term or notion of a form, can in no other respect (or at least, in none so proper) be ascribed unto actions or motions, as in this: viz. because those qualities, impressions, alterations, relations, etc. which they cause and produce in their subjects, have this analogy or proportion with forms properly so called, that they give distinction unto them, as these do to those things or natures which they inform; though in another respect they be opposite to them (as hath been said) forms properly called still giving a being to the things whereof they are forms, whereas these forms appropriated to actions, always receive their beings from them. So then to ask or inquire concerning the form of any action, as justification, Redemption, or the like, what it is, is but to ask, what is the name, nature, property, or condition, of that effect, impression, or alteration, which is immediately and precisely caused and produced by it, in that subject matter, whether person or thing, whereon it is acted. Thus to ask, what is the form of that action which we call frigefaction or cold-making, is but to ask, what the name and nature of that impression or alteration is, which is caused thereby in that subject, whereon it worketh. And that (happily) may be one main reason of the difficulty which is apprehended, and of the intricateness and confusion that are found amongst many writers touching the form of justification, because the forms of Actions are seldom made matter of Question or inquiry, either in Philosophy, or Divinity, or in any other Art or Science, as fare as my weak learning and memory have taken notice: neither do I remember (for the present) any Question on foot at this day, touching either the matter, or especially the form of any action, but only this of justification: Nor have I met with any, which do so much as plainly, perspicuously, and distinctly, declare and explicate, what they mean by this form of justification: whereby it may (I conceive) easily come to pass, that Authors may be at a loss one of another, and scarce one of many clearly understand the mind and meaning either of his fellow or his opposite, in this point. Having with what convenient brevity we could, SECT. 9 discoursed and laid down the number, nature, and kinds of causes, so fare as I conceived the knowledge and consideration of them necessary to a distinct explication and understanding of the Doctrine of Iustification as it lies in the veins of the Scriptures: Come we now roundly and cheerfully on, to draw up the Doctrine itself, according to the direction and importance of what hath been delivered herein. I begin with the efficient causes of justification, which are many, and those of very different consideration. Haply it will not be necessary, if possible, to insist upon all, that stand in this relation of causality unto it, The Principal natural efficient cause (according 〈◊〉 the description of this cause given) of justification, is God himself, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, considered is one and the same simple and entire essence: though this act of justification (as that of creation, and some others besides) is in special manner appropriated to the first person of the three, the Father, as other acts are to the other two persons, Redemption to the Son, Sanctification to the Holy Ghost, etc. in both which notwithstanding, all the three persons, being but one and the same int●re and undivided essence, must needs be interes●ed. Thus Rom. 8.33. where it is said, that it is God that justifieth, it is meant by way of appropriation of God the Father, because there is mention made of Christ the second person, immediately, it is Christ that is dead, etc. Now that God is that kind of cause of justification, which hath been attributed to him, and no other, is evident from the description of this cause formerly laid down Sect. 4. of this Chapter. For 1º, that he is a cause of justification is the consent of all men without exception: besides the Scripture lately cited Rom. 8. is full and pregnant this way, It is God that justifieth. 2º, that he is neither the matter, nor the form of justification, is sufficiently evident of itself, neither did ever any man affirm either the one, or the other of him: and besides, we shall clear this further, when we come to inquire after these causes. 3º, that he is not the end or final cause of justification, appears from that property or condition of this cause, mentioned Sect. 3. viz, that it is to be attained or receive its being, by means of that thing whereof it is the end: which cannot be verified of God or his being, in respect of justification, inasmuch as these no way depend upon it. This likewise will further appear, when we come to lay down the final cause. Therefore 4ᵒ (and last) he must of necessity be the efficient cause of justification, there being no fift kind of cause whereunto he should be reduced. Secondly, SECT. 10 that he is the principal efficient cause, and not instrumental, is evident also: because he is not assumed acted, or made use of by any other, in or about the justification of a sinner; but himself projecteth the whole frame and carriage of all things, yea and manageth and maketh use of all things instrumentally concurring or belonging thereunto. It is God that justifieth the Gentiles by or through Faith. Gal. 3.8. so Rom. 3.30, etc. God maketh use of Faith, and so of his word, and of the Ministers of his word, to produce Faith in the hearts of men, and consequently to justify them: but none of these can be said to act or make use of God, in or about this great effect. Thirdly that he is the Natural efficient cause of justification (according to the notion and description of this cause given Sect. 5.) is evident because in the exercising or putting forth this act of justification, he acteth and worketh out of that authority and power which are essential and connatural to him, and not out of any superadded or acquired principle of art or otherwise, whereof he is wholly uncapable. It is true, he is moved to the exercise of this act of ●ustifying men, by somewhat that is extrinsecall and not essential to him, viz. the intercession of the death and sufferings of Christ: yet the act itself in the exercise of it, proceeds by virtue of that authority and power, which are estentiall to him (as hath been said) No creature can be said to justify or forgive any man his sins no not by Christ, but God alone. Who can forgive sins but God only? Mar. 2.7. Fourthly, SECT. 11 the Moral or internal impulsive cause of justification, as it is an act of God, is that infinite love, goodness, mercy, sweetness, and graciousness in God himself towards his poor creature, Man, looked upon as miserable, and lying under condemnation for sin. This was the moving and procuring cause of the gift of Christ, and his death and sufferings, from him, and consequently of that justification, which is procured and purchased by Christ and his sufferings. So God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life, [viz by justification through him] joh. 3.16. Fiftly, the external Moral or impulsive efficient cause of this act of God, is the Lord jesus Christ himself, in, or through his death and sufferings: or (which is the same) the death and sufferings of jesus Christ, God looking upon Christ as such, and so great a sufferer for the sins of men, is thereby strengthened and provoked, to deliver those that believe in him from their sins and that condemnation which is due unto them, i. to justify them. The Scripture is clear in laying down this cause. Even as God, for Christ's sake, freely forgave you viz. your sins, i. justified you. Ephe. 4.32. Those words for Christ's sake, are a plain and perfect character, of that kind of cause we now speak of. This with the former i. both internal and external, impussive or moving causes, are joined together. Rom. 3.24. And are justified freely by his grace (here is the inward impulsive cause of Justification) through the Redemption that is in Christ jesus, viz. by means of his death and sufferings: here is the outward moving cause we speak of. Neither can the Death and sufferings of Christ, with any show of reason, or with any tolerable construction or congruity of speaking, be referred to any other cause in the business of justification, but the impulsive only. He that would make Christ the instrumental cause of justification, (a) Mr. Walker Socinian. discovered, etc. p. 138. discovers himself to be no great Gamaliel in this learning, and had need thrust his Faith out of doors (as he doth in many places) and not suffer it to have any thing at all to do about his justification, lest his Christ and his Faith should be corrivals, and contend for pre-eminence therein. And yet more repugnant to reason is it, to make either Christ himself, or any righteousness of his whatsoever, either the matter, or material cause of Justification (which yet the Socinian Discoverer doth (b) Ibid. p. 139 ) or the form, or formal cause thereof, which is done by some others. But that is a strain of unreasonableness above all the rest, to make either Christ or his righteousness, both the formal and material cause too, of this great act of God we speak of, the Justification of a sinner, these causes being of so opposite a nature, and different consideration (as hath been described) and yet even this conceit also hath found entertainment with some. To this kind of cause we now speak of must be reduced also the active or personal righteousness of Christ, as fare as it hath any influence into, or any ways operates towards the justification of a sinner. For though it be not satisfactory simply and directly in itself, nor contributing any thing immediately by way of merit, towards the justification of a sinner (the reasons whereof have been formerly given) So that God is not thereby provoked or moved to justify any man: yet falling in conjunction with that other righteousness of Christ which we call passive, and making his blood to be the blood of a Lamb undefiled, and without spot (1 Pet. 1.19.) it cannot be denied, but that here and in this consideration it hath some kind of an impulsive and moving efficiency towards justification, qualifying (in part) the sacrifice of Christ for that fullness and height of acceptation with God. The great misery of the poor creature, man, lying under condemnation for sin, cannot properly be conceived or called any cause of his justification: yet is it somewaies reducible to this external impulsive cause in hand, inasmuch as that goodness and graciousness of God we spoke of, was hereby occasioned and moved to take some course for its justification and salvation. Concerning Faith, SECT. 12 the general and uniform Doctrine of Reformed Authors gives it for an instrumental efficient cause of justification (which is the sixth and last kind of efficient we shall insist upon) and so it hath been more than once represented in this Treatise: yet we meet with many expressions concerning Faith even in the best and most approved writers, which do not so much sympathise with the instrumental, as the impulsive efficient. Thus Musculus speaking of Abraham, (a) Ob eam ●dem (s●. qua promittenti Deo sirmiter credidit) justus est a Deo reputatus, Musc. in Gen. 15. ver. 6. saith, that he was reputed righteous by God, FOR that Faith, whereby he firmly believed God promising. Aretius thus, (b) Imputavit ei justitiam, quod est fidem gratam habuit, adeo ut justum eum haberet justitia imputativa. Aret. ad Rom. 4. God imputed righteousness to Abraham, that is, accepted his Faith: and again: a Faith so firm and pious, was imputed to Abraham for righteousness: In all which expressions, with many others both in these and other Authors, of like importance, there seems rather an impulsive or persuasive, than an instrumental efficiency, ascribed unto Faith. The Scriptures themselves also, in respect of other favours blessings, and deliverances, vouchsafed by God unto Believers, seem (at least in many places) to ascribe rather an impulsive, then instrumental efficiency unto Faith, in the procuring of them. So Daniel was brought out of the Den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, BECAUSE he believed in God. Dan. 6.23. In like manner the Prophet Hanani to King Asa: The Ethiopians and the Lubims, were they not a great host with Charets and horsemen exceeding many? yet BECAUSE than didst rest upon the Lord, he delivered them into thine hand. 2 Chr. 16.8. See Jer. 39.18.2 Chr 31.18. etc. 14 11. with many others. Notwithstanding elsewhere, this Faith of Believers, the Holy Ghost makes rather instrumental, then impulsive, and that in respect of such favours also. M●ny instances whereof are found in that one Chapter, Heb. 11. By Faith they passed through the Red Sea. ver. 29. By Faith the walls of jericho fell down, 39 Again, ver. 33. it is said concerning, Gideon, Barak, Samson, etc. that through Faith they subdued Kingdoms, wrought righteousness, stopped the mouths of Lions, quenched the violence of fire, etc. For reconciling this seeming difference in the Scriptures, it may be said, that the instrumental and impulsive efficients are not so opposite, but that sometimes, and in some cases, the instrumental cause may put on the consideration of an impulsive also, and aswell move a man to do a thing as assist him, or be made use of by him, in the doing it. Thus a competent strength of men, may aswell move a King to give battle to an enemy, as assist him in the battle, and obtaining the victory. So a Carpenter or other artificer, having tools or instruments thereafter, may be persuaded or moved by them (in part) to undertake some piece of work, which otherwise they would not. And thus Faith (I conceive) may in different respects, be looked upon, either as an instrumental, or as an impulsive cause in justification. As it is a ground or reason, why God justifieth one man, when he justifieth not another (for the believer is always justified, and that because he is a believer, and the unbeliever not) so it hath the nature of an impulsive cause: again, as it is subservient to the counsel or decree of God concerning justification, and is accordingly made use of by him in the act of justification (for he is said to justify men by and through Faith, Rom. 3, 30, etc.) it puts on the nature and consideration of an instrumental cause properly so called. True it is, Faith is not an impulsive or moving cause in justification of the same kind, nor after the same manner that Christ and his sufferings are: these are impulsive and moving in a superior way, by way of merit, and consequently of justification simply, and therefore are at no hand to be reckoned amongst the instrumental causes thereof, whereas Faith moveth only in an inferior and under way, and by such a motion, wherewith causes properly instrumental sometimes move (as hath been said) and therefore moveth, not properly to justification, or to justification simply, but comparatively, that is, to the justification of such and such men, viz that do believe. Other causes there are instrumentally inservient unto justification, as viz. the word of God that is preached, the preaching itself of this word, the Minister by whom this word is preached, the sight apprehending or understanding of this word, the operation or work of the Holy Ghost by which this word is made effectual in the heart and soul of a believer: and generally whatsoever tendeth or contributeth towards the work of Faith in the soul, may be called instrumental, in or about justification, according to the importance of the old maxim, Quod est causa causae, est etiam causa causat●. But how the Sacraments should become instrumental causes or means of justification, must be known by enquiring at the Oracle at Rome: for neither the Scriptures, nor the Reformed Religion have any of this learning in them. This briefly for the efficient c●uses of justification, which is the first general head of causes, among the four. Secondly, SECT. 13 concerning the final causes of Justification, all parties, as fare as I know, are (upon the matter) agreed also: For though one may discover, and put upon account, more intermediate or subordinate ends or final causes hereof, than another: yet no man denieth (at least can with reason deny) but that the Glory of God, which is the general, great, and sovereign end of all things whatsoever, hath the pre-eminence also amongst and above all the ends of justification, that can be named, or enter into the heart of man to conceive. The great subordinate end, and which lies fairest and fullest in view to the sight of all men, is the advancement of the creature, or persons justified, to that exceeding height of glory, and endless happiness, in the entire and satisfying enjoyment of God, which himself was graciously pleased to ordain them unto from the beginning, and to prepare and make them meet for, in time. Besides these two, there might be divers other more appropriate and particular ends, both in respect of God, the justifier, and the elect of God, the justified, assigned, as in respect of God, the manifestation of his abundant pardoning grace or mercy tempered with justice, etc. in respect of the creature justified, deliverance from wrath or punishment due to sin, a way making unto Adoption, and fatherlike grace and acceptation with God, with all the sweet privileges and blessings depending hereon, etc. but because there is no question or controversy stirring about these, and the Doctrine of Justification may be competently known and understood without a particular enumeration of them, I forbear to make it matter of further labour to the Reader, to insist upon them. The chief contention and dispute amongst Reformed Divines in the business of justification, SECT. 14 is about the two causes that are yet behind, viz. the material, and the formal, but especially about the latter. Therefore Thirdly, Mr. Walker Socinianism discovered, etc. p. 139. concerning the matter or material cause of Justification; the Socinian Diseoverer, with some others, conceive they cast a spirit of honour upon the righteousness and satisfaction of Christ, by settling this relation of causality in respect of justification, upon them: but doubtless much upon the like terms of mistake, with those mentioned by our Saviour joh. 16.2. who should think that they did God service, when they killed his best servants. For First, by making these the matter, See Part 1. c. 17. Sect. 1.2. etc. or material cause of justification, they divest and spoil them of the honour of that causality, which is proper and peculiar to them, and 7 times more honourable, then that which is this way attributed to them, viz. of that causality, which we call, meritorious. This is evident by the tenor of the third Rule formerly laid down in the second section of this Chapter, whereby it appears, that no one cause whatsoever can put on more habitudes or relations of causality than one, in respect of one and the same effect. So that if the righteousness of Christ be the meritorious and impulsive cause of justification (which is granted on all hands without exception; even by the men against whom we reason) it can at no hand be deemed the material cause also. Because the meritorious and impulsive cause, is a kind of efficient, as both hath been lately proved, and besides, is generally so notioned and acknowledged by all: neither can it be reduced to any of the other 4 heads of causes, with any tolerable congruity or colour of reason. It was never heard of to this day, that any efficient cause was the matter of the effect produced by it. Secondly, the righteousness of Christ, whether Active or Passive, or both, cannot be the matter of justification, because the matter of a thing is always En● incompletum, an incompleate and imperfect entity or being, until the introduction and union of the form with it, which still gives perfection of being and existence to it. But the righteousness of Christ, take it in what otion, or under what consideration you please, hath an entire, perfect, and complete being; neither can it fall under imagination, what form it should be capable of, that by union with it should add beauty and perfection to it. Thirdly (and last) if the righteousness of Christ be the matter of justification, it must be either matter properly, or unproperly so called. Matter properly so called, which they call materia ex quâ, it cannot be, because this kind of matter, 1ᵒ is proper to substantial natures or beings only. 2º, is itself always a substance. 3º, is always a part of that nature or thing whereof it is the matter. 4º, (and last) is still the inferior, weaker, and viler part thereof. Whereas justification (in the first place) being an act, hath only an accidental, not a substantial being: and consequently is not capable of matter properly so called, as no act or action whatsoever besides is. Secondly, the righteousness of Christ, was never conceived to be in praedicamento substantiae, to be a substantial nature, but an accidental form or quality: and therefore cannot be matter (properly so called) of any thing. Thirdly, the righteousness of Christ cannot be a part of justification, because justification (as hath been said) is an action, and the righteousness of Christ a form or quality: and most certain it is that one predicamental nature or being, cannot be a part of another. Therefore the righteousness of Christ cannot be this matter of justification we now speak of Fourthly (and last) it is furthest of all from all colour or appearance of truth, that the righteousness of Christ, in what composition or union soever it shall be found, should be the weaker and less worthy part thereof, being of that infinite perfection and worth, which we all acknowledge, and ascribe unto it: Therefore certainly it is no matter of justification properly so called. Secondly, SECT. 15 that neither is it any matter hereof unproperly so called, may be thus demonstrated. Matter unproperly so called, is either that which Logicians call, materia in qua, or materia circa quam. Matter in the former notion, imports only the subject of a thing, that is, a substantial nature, as supporting some accidental form or being in it. In this sense fire is said to be the matter of the heat that is in it, and a man to be the matter of the learning or knowledge which he hath, etc. But this is most unproper and least used sense or signification, of the word MATTER, of all other. In the latter notion, the matter of a thing, is the object, or that thing, upon which any thing acteth, or about which it is conversant or exercised. In this sense, wood or timber may be said to be the matter of the Carpenter's art or employment, and his Scholars the matter of the Master's instruction, etc. This kind of matter is most commonly and properly attributed to acts that are transient, and with motion and alteration: though it may be ascribed to that other kind of act also, which is without alteration, and is called immanent, in which sense, books or the knowledge of things contained in them, may be said to be the matter of the Scholar's industry or study, and the persons predestinated to be the matter of that immanent act of God, which we call Predestination, etc. Now that the righteousness of Christ, cannot in either of these notions or significations of the word matter, be the matter of justification, it is evident. First, not in the former, because justification, is not the subject wherein this righteousness inhereth, or whereby it is supported in being: the righteousness of Christ hath no dependence at all, in respect of the being of it, upon justification. Not in the latter, because that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner, is not acted or exercised, upon or about the righteousness of Christ, nor terminated in this, neither is there any change or alteration made in the righteousness of Christ by that act of God, whereby he justifieth a sinner; which yet must be, if it were that matter we now speak of, that is, the object of Justification. Because justification being a transient act in God, it must of necessity make some change or alteration in that upon which it falleth or is acted, whatsoever it be: the truth is, that the righteousness of Christ, being (as hath been proved) the efficient impulsive cause of justification, rather acteth and worketh upon God, than he upon it, when he justifieth any man. Therefore doubtless the righteousness of Christ can in no sense, agreeable to truth and ordinary construction of speech, be called the matter of justification. Wherefore (in the last place) concerning the matter of, or material cause of justification, SECT. 16 it can be none other, but either the subject, or the object of ●ustification, that is either God himself, or the person that is to be justified. For as for that kind of matter, which we called ex qua, matter properly so called, justification, being an act, or action, is altogether uncapable of it, as hath been already said. Neither hath any action whatsoever any material cause at all, in this sense. It remaineth therefore, that the matter of Justification, must be of that kind of matter, which is less properly so called, whereof there are but these two species, or sorts, (as hath been said) the matter in qua, and the matter circa quam, i. the the subject, and the object. If we take the subject of justification, or him on whom the act itself of justification, in respect of the production and being of it dependeth, and will call that the matter of it, than God himself must be the matter we inquire after: because the act of justification, in respect of the raising and bringing forth of it, dependeth only upon him. But this (I confess) is a very uncouth and proper expression, to call God the matter of justification; neither hath the tongue or pen of any man (I conceive) ever taken any pleasure in it. Or if by the subject of justification, we understand the subjectum recipie●s, that is, the subject receiving, and wherein the act of justification is terminated (which is as proper a signification of the word, as the other the old tried rule being, that actio est in patient tanquam in subjecto) then the subject and the object will prove but one and the same, viz the person that is to be justified, that is, the believing sinner. Thus it is in all other actions likewise; the subject receiving the action or impression of the Agent, and the object upon which the Agent acteth or worketh, are still the same. And for any other matter of justification, besides that which hath been now assigned, viz. the sinner who believeth, I verily believe there is none to be found: who though he be, both the object and subject (in the sense given) of justification, yet may he more properly be called the matter of justification, as he is the object, then as the subject thereof, because the notion of matter, better agreeth (of the two) to that which is called circà quam, or the object, then to the other, which is the subject. And this for the matter or material cause of justification, the person to be justified, or believing sinner. Fourthly (and last) to make forward towards the consideration and inquiry of the formal cause of justification, SECT. 17 about which the tongues and pens of men are turned into the sharpest swords. First, for the Popish opinion, which (as Bellarmine describes it from the Counsel of Trent, subscribing himself also with both hands unto it) (a) concilium causam formalem justificatio●●, in ipsi us justity infusione constituit, etc. Bellarm. De justific. lib. 2. c. 2. versus sinem. placeth the formal cause of justification, in the infusion of inherent righteousness, I shall not make it matter of long confutation. The opinion is built upon another opinion, as rotten as it, viz. perfection of inherent righteousness: for if this be found to be imperfect (and it will never be found other, till this mortal hath put on immortality) the credit of that other opinion is lost, and that by consent of their own principles: who teach that in justification men are made perfectly and completely righteous. So that any one sin, little or great, venial or mortal, proceeding from any one of their justified one's, utterly overthrows the opinion of their Church touching the formal cause of justification. It stands them in hand, if they desire to build up this determination of their Council with authority and honour, to raise the level of another enterprise of theirs, and to prove, not only a possibility, but a necessity also of a perfect observation of the Law of God, by those that are justified and regenerate. When they have quitted themselves like men in this, and have laid the foundations of such a necessity firm and strong, we shall (haply) then consider further of their Doctrine touching the formal cause of justification: in the mean time we shall be at liberty to make inquiry after a better. Yet Secondly, SECT. 18 I conceive the Doctrine of the late Socinian Discoverer touching the same business, to be no whit better, but rather at a fare deeper defiance both with reason and truth. The formal cause of Justification (saith he) (a) Mr. George Walker Socinian. Discovered. p. 139. is that communion between Christ and us, and that reciprocal imputation of our sins to Christ, and of his righteousness and full satisfaction to us, which communion ariseth and floweth from the spirit which God sheds on us through Christ, which spirit dwelling in us (in some measure, so as he dwelleth in the man Christ, from whom he is derived to us) doth make us one spiritual body with Christ; and works in us Faith, and all holy graces and affections, by which we adhere and cleave to Christ, and apply and enjoy his righteousness, etc. Doubtless here is a great deal too much matter to make a good form. The essential character of a form or formal cause is to be a single simple and uncompounded being: whereas that which is here presented to us, for the form of Justification, is rudis indigestaque moles, an indigested heap of compositions. Surely this form is so deformed, that the Author need nor fear any corrival or competitor with him for it. Quin sine rivali, seque et sua solus amabit. For 1º, if the justification we speak of, or the form of it, stands in that communion which is between Christ and us, than Christ himself is justified with the same justification, wherewith sinners are justified and consequently hath sins forgiven him, aswell as they. Because that communion which is between Christ and us, who believe, is but one and the same Communion, and wherein Christ partakes aswell as we. Therefore if the same form of justification be found in him, which is in us, the same justification must be found in him, or on him likewise. 2º, That communion which is between Christ and those that believe, cannot be the formal cause of justification, because it is no righteousness, nor conformity with any Law, either directly or indirectly, either properly and precisely, or by way of equivalency, and interpretatively: himself likewise affirming (p. 138) that in the act of justification God makes men righteous by the perfect righteousness and full satisfaction of Christ) expressing hereby (if be expresseth any thing) the formal cause (at least. according to his own apprehension) of justification. So then the communion which is between Christ and us, being a fare differing thing from the righteousness and full satisfaction of Christ, it follows, as well agreeably to his own pen, as to the truth itself, that the Communion he speaks of is not the formal cause of justification. 3º, The formal cause of justification, SECT. 19 must needs be (as we shall hereafter further demonstrate) the proper impression or effect of the act of justification, and consequently the effect of God who justifieth or exerciseth that act, that is, of God the Father (as himself rightly supposeth p. 137.) whereas that Communion between Christ and us (which he speaks of) ariseth and floweth (as himself also acknowledgeth in the passage cited) from the Holy Ghost. Therefore impossible it is that this Communion should be theformall cause of justification. 4º, This Communion between Christ and us, is a consequent of our justification, and taketh not place, hath no being, till after we be fully and completely justified. This himself likewise (upon the matter) acknowledgeth in the words cited, affirming, that it ariseth and floweth from the Spirit which God sheds on us through Christ, etc. Now that the Spirit is not shed upon us till after, or upon our believing (and consequently till after we be justified, for justification followeth Faith as close as imagination itself can imagine) is evident from those and many the like Scriptures. This spoke he of the Spirit which they that believed in him, should receive, etc. John 7.39. And God which knoweth the heart gave them witness (viz. that they truly believed, as appears from the former verse) in giving unto them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us. Act. 15.8. Then Peter said unto them, Amend your lives and be Baptised every one of you, in the Name of jesus Christ for the Remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Act. 2.38.) They were to believe before they were Baptised: but the receiving of the Holy Ghost is promised after. See further to this purpose, Act. 6.5. Act. 8.15.16. Act. 11.17. with the 15. Act. 19.2. etc. So then, the Communion that is between Christ and us, flowing from the Spirit which God sheds on us through Christ, and this act of shedding being still performed by God after or upon our believing, and consequently after or upon our complete Iustification, it undeniably follows, that this Communion cannot be the formal cause of our JUSTIFICATION because this is accomplished (and accomplished it cannot be without the formal part or cause of it in being) before the other receives its being. 5º, SECT. 20 If the communion that is between Christ and us, were the formal cause of justification, Christ himself might be truly said to be justified, by the same act of justification with us. This is evident, because the Communion spoken of relates aswell to him as to us, and is inherent in him, as much as in us: and whatsoever partakes of the same form, or formal cause with another, is (doubtless) in respect of this form capable of the same denomination with it. If the form of that justification be as well, or as much in Christ, as it is in us, Christ may as well be said to be justified thereby as we. But to say that Christ should be justified by that communion which is between him and us, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a hard; saying to the tender cares of Christians. Therefore certainly, though that Communion which is between Christ and us, be a sweet and precious thing, yet is it not the formal cause of justification, no more than Samuel was therefore Isaak abraham's Son, because he was a good Son like him. And 6ᵒ. If the Communion between Christ and us, be the formal cause of justificatton, then is not the reciprocal imputation of our sins to Christ, and of his righteousness and full satisfaction to us, this cause also; which is yet affirmed by the same Author and with the same breath. This consequence is pregnant and conquering: because this reciprocal imputation, is an act of God the Father (and so supposed by the Author himself, and if rightly understood, not with any variation from the truth) whereas the Communion mentioned, floweth from the Holy Ghost, (as hath been already observed, and is here likewise expressly affirmed.) Now impossible it is that two acts really differing the one from the other, should ever so combine or incorporate, as to make the form, or formal cause of any thing, (which as hath been said) is always a single and simple being, and void of composition. This reason stands in force, though we take his reciprocal imputation, which he joins with his communion, to make up the form of justification, in a passive sense, viz. for the effect of that act of God, whereby he maketh that reciprocal imputation. For neither can two effects really differing, ever so comply or consent together to simplisie one the other, as to raise a third thing or being between them of simplicity enough, to make the formal being of any thing. 7º, Neither can this reciprocal imputation, taken by itself, be the formal cause of justification, because 1º, it comprehends and includes two several and distinct acts of God, or two distinct and several effects of two such acts of his, The imputation of our sins to Christ, is an act or effect, really differing from the imputation of his righteousness and satisfaction unto us. This is evident: because as the rendering Christ obnoxious unto death, is a thing really differing, and of opposite consideration, from the making of us righteous, and capable of life; so the acts by which these are effected, must needs be really differing also the one from the other. Now (as hath been already argued) it is impossible that any form, or formal cause, should be made of any plurality of ingredients, or be a composition made of several things really differing the one from the other. 2ᵒ It is impossible that this reciprocal imputation should be the form we inquire after, because, only the believing sinner (as hath been fully proved Sect. 16. is the matter of justification. Now the form of a thing (at least the accidental form, which is the kind of form under inquiry) is always found in conjunction and union with the matter proper to it, and never in any other. Christ therefore being no believing sinner, and consequently, no fitting or possible matter for the form of that justification (whereof we speak) to be coupled with, it cannot be that the imputation of our sins to him, should either be this form itself, or any part of it. 3º, No imputation whatsoever, nor of whatsoever, can be the form of justification; 1º, because it is no righteousness, either in one kind or other, neither a righteousness literally or properly so called, nor yet a righteousness by way of interpretation: whereas the form of justification (whatsoever it be) must of necessity be a righteousness, either of the one kind or of the other. It is true, a righteousness imputed, (supposing such imputation) is a righteousness: but the imputation of this righteousness, can be no righteousness. Therefore no imputation whatsoever can be the form of justification. 2º, Every form, or formal cause gives according to the nature of it, a suitable denomination to the subject, whereunto it is united; as heat gives the denomination of hot, to the fire, and learning, the denomination of learned, to the man endued with it, etc. But no imputation gives any suitable denomination to the persons to whom it is made, or in whom it inheres; men are not said to be imputed this or that, for any imputation made. Therefore imputation is no form at all; and consequently not the form or formal cause of justification. 8º, The Author himself within a very few lines after the words lately cited from him, falls off from his reciprocal imputation, and affirms, the righteousness of Christ itself, to be this formal cause of Justification calling it, our formal righteousness. But this is but one drop of that powreing shower of contradictions, which hath fallen from his pen upon that discourse, and stands in swamps and plashes all over it. 9º, SECT. 21 (and last) in all this voluminous and multiformed description of the formal cause of justification, there is not the least mention to be found of forgiveness of sins, as neither within the whole compass of that draught of the Doctrine of justification, which in several pages together of the discourse mentioned, he presents unto the world; as if justification and remission of sins, were like Samaritan and jew, which have no deal one with another. (a) joh. 4.9. Whereas Reform Divines generally, (and I think) I may say, without exception, never handle the Doctrine of justification, especially never profess to assign or explicate the formal cause thereof, without mention making of remission or forgiveness of sins, conceiving them to be things of the most arct and nearest affinity that may be, as indeed they are. The opinion and description last cited, touching the formal cause of justification, contains matter of more particular grievances, then have yet been touched or complained of. But because I conceive the unreasonableness of it, a sufficient caution and security against the infection and propagation of it, and that no man will ever be so hard put to it for a formal cause of justification, as to take up that, I shall therefore for the present, with that chastisement and correction which it hath already received, let it go. But thirdly, Neither can that opinion stand, which maketh the imputation or application of the righteousness of Christ, SECT. 22 the formal cause of Justification. (a) We teach, that Christ's righteousness, both habitual and actual, by which he was formally just, is the matter; and the imputation thereof ●s the fo●me of justification. Bish. Downham. Tre. of justifi. lib. 1: c. 5. Sect. 2. See more to this purpose immediately following, where he citeth also the Magdeburgenses & Scharpius, as being of the same judgement with him. Against this opinion we argued in the latter part of our refutation of the former: where we evictingly proved, that no imputation whatsoever, or of whatsoever, could possibly be the form of justification. The plea is at hand, in the last Section, save one; therefore I repeat nothing thereof. Only I add as of further consideration, against this opinion, 10, that if the righteousness of Christ be the matter of justification (which the opinion maintaineth) and the imputation hereof the form, than one righteousness must be the form of another righteousness: because the form of Justification (as hath been often said) must needs be a righteousness (and so is acknowledged, and termed by the Author himself) (b) Fo● the righteousness whereby a man is formally just, is inherent in himself, etc. Bish. Downham, Vbi supra. So that if the matter hereof be a righteousness, and the form a righteousness also, one righteousness must inform another, which is (I conceive) a greater burden of absurdity, than the reason of any considering man can bear. Secondly, if imputation be the form, and the righteousness of Christ the matter of justification, then that which is less perfect and of an inferior being, shall be the compliment and perfection of that which is more perfect, and of a superior being: it being a general and known maxim, that the form still actuateth the matter, and adds a further degree of being and perfection unto it. Now this imputation we speak of, being (and that by the full consent and acknowledgement of the Authors of the opinion) somewhat inherent in the person justified, and intrinsecall to him, (a) For the righteousness whereby a man is formally just, is inherent in himself: for what is more intrinsical than the form? Bishop Downham, justi. lib. 1. c. 5. Sect. ●. must needs be of inferior worth and value to the righteousness of Christ. Neither indeed can it well be conceived, how any thing at all should be for maul, or of a perfecting or actuating nature, in respect of the righteousness of Christ. Thirdly, neither do the Scriptures any way favour this opinion, or comply with it in any expression found in them: nor do I find the Authors themselves so much as pretending any Scripture approbation of their judgement in this kind. Fourthly (and last) if the judgement of the late Bishop of Sarisburie (a learned man, doubtless, though a Bishop) be of any authority, he is absolutely declared against the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and pleads for the righteousness itself imputed as the formal cause of justification. The most perefect obedience (saith he) (b) Christi Mediatoris in nobis habitantu, atque per spiritum sese nobu unientis persectissima obedientia, est formalu causae justificationu nostrae. Bishop Davenant, De justice. Habit. c. 22. p. 313. of Christ the Mediator, dwelling in us, and uniting himself by his Spirit to us, is the formal cause of our justification, etc. And if his testimony be of any value, Reformed Authors generally are of a concurrent judgement with him herein. (c) Haec communis est nostrorum omnium sententia, Christi obedientiam & justitiam nobis imputatam, esse formalem causam justificatiopis. Idem ubi supra. p. 312. Notwithstanding. Fourthly, that neither is this opinion, which maketh the righteousness of Christ imputed the formal cause of justification, of any such entire consistency with the truth (besides the counterpoise of the authorities and judgements of the Authors standing up for the former opinion) may be evidenced upon these grounds. First: that which is an efficient cause of Justification, cannot be the formal cause also. This is clear by the tenor of that general rule, laid down Sect. SECT. 23 of this Chapter, concerning the incapacity that is found in every one of the 4 causes respectively, of putting on more relations of causality than one in respect of one and the same effect. But that the righteousness of Christ, is an efficient cause of justification, hath been already proved; and besides, is (upon the matter) so acknowledged by the Authors themselves of this opinion, who generally grant it to be the meritorious or impulsive cause thereof. Secondly, they who maintain the righteousness of Christ imputed to be the formal cause of Justification, must of necessity hold, the believing sinner, or the person to be justified, to be the material cause thereof, upon which supposition, I thus reason: No one and the same individual form, or formal cause, can possibly inform two several subjects, really distinguished the one from the other. But Christ himself, and the believing sinner, are two several subjects, really distinguished the one from the other. Therefore the same individual form of righteousness cannot inform them both. Neither can it be here said: that Christ and the believer are in this case considered as one and the same body or subject, and so one and the same form of righteousness may inform them both. For to this I answer 1º, that that though Christ and the believer be one and the same mystical body, yet are they not one and the same natural body, and therefore are not capable of one and the same natural form. As though man and wife be one flesh (as the Scripture speaks) and so one body, viz. in a civil sense or consideration; it doth not therefore follow, that this one body is capable in both the parts or members of it, of one and the same individual natural quality or form: because though they be one civilly, yet they are two distinct persons or subjects naturally. The wife is not not wise by the wisdom, or strong by the strength of her Husband, she may be both simple and weak, notwithstanding the contrary perfections in her Husband. Yea in the natural body itself, though all the members, be but one body (as the Apostle speaketh) yet the properties or qualities that are found in one member: as for instance, the organical faculty of seeing in the eye, are not found in others, as in the hand, foot, or the like. And 2º, SECT. 24 if one and the same form of righteousness did inform both Christ and the believer, because they are one body, than one and the same sinfulness or corruption of nature might inform them also, upon the same ground: & so Christ should be sinful & corrupt with the same sinfulness & corruption of nature which are found in the believer. Therefore the objection laid in, is of no value. Thirdly, if the righteousness of Christ be the formal cause of Justification, then the meritorious cause of a thing, may be the formal cause of it also. For the righteousness of Christ (as hath been often said, & once sufficiently proved, & generally is confessed) is the meritorious cause of justification. But that that meritorious cause of a thing, can never be the formal cause also of the same, is fully evident from hence; because the formal cause is always intrinsecall (what is more intrinsical than the form? saith Bishop Downeham, as we heard before) and contrarily the meritorious cause, always extrinsecall. Now as it is impossible, See Sect. 2. of this Chap. that he that is always without the doors, should at any time be within: so is it impossible also, that that cause, whose essential character and property it is, to be always extrinsecall, should be intrinsecall at any time, or in any case whatsoever. Fourthly, if the righteousness of Christ be the formal cause of justification, then is a Believer to be reputed righteous with the righteousness of Christ. This Proposition is evident, it being proper to every form, to give a suitable denomination to the subject. But that a Believer is at no hand to be reputed righteous with the righteousness of Christ, or with the same righteousness wherewith Christ is righteous, I thus demonstrate and prove: He that may lawfully be reputed righteous, with the same righteousness wherewith Christ was righteous, may lawfully be reputed never to have sinned. The reason of this Proposition is, because that righteousness which either supposeth or admitteth sin in the same subject with it, can be none of the righteousness of Christ; the essential property whereof was to be his righteousness who never sinned. But that it should be lawful to repute any justified person under Heaven never to have sinned, is so notorions an untruth, that men need no further light (I conceive) to comprehend the darkness of it. Therefore the righteousness of Christ imputed, is not the formal cause of justification. Fiftly, SECT. 25 if men be formally righteous with that righteousness where with Christ himself was righteous, then are they righteous with a meritorious righteousness. For themselves grant the righteousness of Christ to be meritorious. But that men are not formally righteous with a meritorious righteousness, I thus demonstrate. He that is formally righteous with a meritorious righteousness, may lawfully have the merit of such righteousness ascribed unto him, and be himself reputed the meritor of whatsoever is due upon just account to such a righteousness. But the merit of the righteousness of Christ cannot lawfully be ascribed unto any man, nor any justified person lawfully reputed the meritor of all that is due to that righteousness. Therefore no man is formally righteous with the righteousness of Christ. The assumption in this argument is unquestionable, and hath our Adversaries themselves friends to it: certainly no man is to be esteemed or reputed one that hath merited or contributed any thing by way of merit towards the salvation of the world, which is that which is due to the righteousness of Christ (at least in the judgement of those who oppose in the present controversy) The reason of the former proposition, is that old approved maxim in Logic. Dansformam, dat consequentia formam. i. he that gives the form of a thing, gives all such things with it, which do accompany and follow this form. Now the Redemption and salvation of the world, is that which accompanieth and followeth, and which still belongeth to the righteousness of Christ. Therefore he that gives this form to any man in the formality of it, gives the redemption and salvation of the world to him with it. If it be here objected and said: its true, the Redemption and salvation of the world, follow the righteousness of Christ, as it was performed by him, and personally inherent in him, not as it is imputed to men that believe. I answer, 1º, that in this objection, the Question is begged, and that supposed, which is the main hinge of the controversy, viz. the imputation of the righteousness of Christ in the formality of it: a Position that stands convicted (in the former part of this Treatise) of manifest untruth, by the testimonies of many witnesses, both Divine and humane. 2●, I answer yet further, that the meritoriousness of the righteousness of Christ (supposing such a property in it) must needs be essential to it and inseparable from it. It is not an adventitious or contingent property, but connatural to it, seated and rooted in the very intrinsical and constituting principles of it. So that whatsoever be done with it, whatsoever becomes of it, to whomsoever it be imputed, this meritoriousness of it goeth along with it, and may be ascribed to whomsoever the righteousness itself may be ascribed. Yea, supposing this property we speak of, this meritoriousness, in the righteousness of Christ, we must consequently suppose it to be so essential and intrinsical to it, that the righteousness itself must needs be destroyed and turned into another righteousness of an inferior kind and importance, if that be separated from it. As suppose a piece of gold to be of such a value, as (for example) worth ten shillings (or the like,) to whomsoever this piece shall be given, there must of necessity the value or worth also of ten shillings, be given therewith unto him, the just value and worth of a thing being inseparable from the thing itself, at least the thing itself inseparable from it. 3o, It would be known by what warrant either of Scripture or good reason, men should make this a point of their Faith, that God, when he imputes the righteousness of Christ unto men, should strip it naked of the meritoriousness of it; and so make it a righteousness more worthless and vile, than any positive righteousness whatsoever, consisting of works, can be. For it is essential to every such righteousness, whether performed by men or Angels, or by whomsoever to be meritorious, at least of the justification of the person in whom it is found. This lieth full and fair in that of the Apostle, Rom. 4.4. To him that worketh i. that perfectly observeth the Law, the wages is not counted by faver, but of debt. Therefore i● the righteousness of Christ, when it is imputed to believers, be devested of that which is the glory of it, above all other righteousness, I mean the meritoriousness of it, it suffers loss and disadvantage, and is not at all exalted or magnified, by imputation. This for the objection. Sixtly, SECT. 26 if the righteousness of Christ be the formal cause of justification, this must be verified either of the moral righteousness of Christ alone, or of his Ceremonial righteousness alone or of his Mediatory righteousness alone or of all, or some two of these together. But neither the moral righteousness of Christ alone, nor his ceremonial righteousness alone, nor his mediatory righteousness alone, nor all, nor any two of these righteousnesses together, can be the formal cause of Justification: therefore no righteousness of Christ whatsoever is to be looked upon in any such relation of causality, in respect of justification. The proposition in this syllogism (I conceive) carrieth the light of it's own truth with it, The enumeration of the several species or kinds of righteousness in Christ, is sufficient. As for his original, and habitual righteousness, I comprehend them both under his moral. Therefore if the conclusion stick's, the assumption is to be blamed for it. But that this also is blameless, I thus demonstrate, by the several parts of it. First, that his Ceremonial righteousness alone should be formal in justification, never as yet (I conceive) entered into any man's head or heart, to conceive. Therefore (I presume) we may spare the arguing of this member, without any prejudice at all to our cause. Secondly that his mediatory righteousness alone (which consists in his passives) should be the cause inquired after, is not (to my knowledge) affirmed by any of that judgement we oppose in the depending controversy. But howsoever, the truth of it thus appears: because the formal cause always gives a suitable denomination to the subject. But no justified person can be called mediatorily righteous: therefore a mediatory righteousness is not the formal cause of justification. Thirdly, by the same argument, it is as manifest as heart can wish, that neither can both these righteousnesses together, be that formal cause we speak of: nor hath any man every et adventured either his credit or his conscience upon this opinion. Therefore here also we will borrow confidence: and make restitution, when an adversary shall reasonably demand it. Fourthly, See cap. 18. Sect. 3. of the first part. that his moral righteousness alone as distinguished and separated from his Ceremonial, cannot be this formal cause, is evident: because then the believing jews, who lived before Christ's coming in the flesh, and the believing Gentiles since, should not be justified with one and the same righteousness from Christ. For the jews, who lived before the dissolution of the Mosaical economy by the sufferings of Christ, were aswell bound to the observation of the Law Ceremonial, as Moral: and therefore could not be justified by the imputation of a moral righteousness only. Again on the other hand, those that have lived since the promulgation of the said dissolution made by Christ, were not only free and not bound to the Law Ceremonial, but were strictly bound from it, and from the observation of the rites and usages therein commanded. Therefore for these to have the observation of Mosaical rites and Ceremonies imputed to them, is to have rather sin, than righteousness, imputed to them. Fiftly, by this last consideration also it appeareth, that the two last named righteousnesses of Christ, Ceremonial and Moral, cannot be so cast or run into one, or so conspire together, as to make the formal cause of justification we seek after. The believing Gentiles since the promulgation of that Gospel, must have no Ceremonial threads woven into the piece of righteousness, whereby they must stand justified in the fight of God. Lastly, that neither can his moral and mediatory righteousness so comport or comply together, as to raise a third kind of righteousness between them, that should make the formal cause of justification so much questioned and contended about, may be sufficiently apprehended by what hath been already delivered. For that righteousness which shall be supposed to be compounded of these two, must necessarily be conceived to be a mediatory righteousness at the least. For there must be nothing lost of the vigour, strength, or perfection of either, in the composition. But that no mediatory righteousness can possibly be formal in justification, was fully evinced and concluded in the fift argument. Seventhly (and last, SECT. 27 for this opinion) it is the confession or profession, which you will, of some of the learnedest abettors themselves of that way of imputation which hath been opposed in this Treatise, that the general current of Reformed Divines runs with an opposite stream to this opinion, and with one mouth deny the righteousness of Christ imputed to be the formal cause of justification. Who ever of our writers (saith Doctor Prideaux a Quis unquam è nostru, nos per justitiam Christi imputatam, formaliter justificari asservit? Dr. Prideaux, Lect. 5. p. 163. ) affirmed, that we are formally justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed? And Bishop Downham a great hyperaspistes also of imputation, chargeth it upon his adversaries as a depravation of their Doctrine (a) lib. 1. of justifi. p. 39 Sect. 1.2. (he means his own, and other Protestant Divines) that they will needs, with the Papists, make them hold, that we are formally righteous by that righteousness, which is not in us, but out of us in Christ, which is absurd. And a little after, marveiles at them, how they could be so absurd, as to conceive so absurdly of them (himself and other Reformed Divines he had spoken of) as if they held, that the righteousness of Christ itself should be the formal cause of justification. Now that both these testimonies are so fare true, as they avouch the more general opinion of Protestant Divines, to stand against formal justification by the righteousness of Christ imputed, will further appear by the explication of the fift and last opinion touching the cause under dispute, which now followeth: Therefore Fiftly (and last) there remains yet another opinion to be considered of, SECT. 28 which looketh upon remission or forgiveness of sins, The Author's judgment touching the formal cause of justification. as the formal cause of justification. And that this opinion hath both the fairest and largest quarter in the judgements and writings of Protestant Divines, as also most agreeablenesse with the truth, we shall (I trust) make evident, without much wearisomeness of Discourse. For the former of these, the more general consent of Reformed Authors, (besides what hath been already delivered for the justification hereof from many of the Authors themselves, in the first and fift Chapters of the former part of this Treatise) I shall satisfy myself (and I hope my Reader also will take part with me in this satisfaction) with the testimonies only of two of eminent note amongst them, both (I conceive) without exception, and of sufficient learning and integrity to be believed in a matter of as great importance as this; the one of them a foreigner, the other an English Divine, the one being of the same judgement himself, the other (in part) dissenting; the one dead, the other yet living. The former of the two is David Paraeus, sometimes chief Professor of Divinty in the University of Heidelburgh: who in his tract concerning the Active and Passive righteousness of Christ, having laid down his judgement (in the controversy depending) thus (p. 176) a Superest Quarta sententia etc. quod justificatio tota sit, remissio peccatorum propter hanc satisfactionem nobis imputatam. Hanc sententiam, ut veriorem, simpliciorem, a● tutiorem amplects me profiteor etc. Parens De justit. Christi Act. et Pass. p. 176. 177. Possem huc affer re Authoritates Patrum etc. Possem quoque afferre consensum Lutheri, Melancthonis etc. p. 178. that remission of sins for the satisfaction of Christ imputed to us, is our whole and entire Justification, and argued accordingly (p. 177) in the following page, addeth as followeth. I might here produce the Authorities of the Fathers, who likewise place our righteousness (meaning, in Justification) in the alone forgiveness of sins for the death of Christ: and accordingly citys several testimonies out of Austin, Occumenius, and Ambrose. And immediately after these testimonies, thus: I might also allege the consent of Luther, Melancthon, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Bullinger, Calvin, Martyr, Musculus, Hyperius, Vrsine, Olevian, etc. from whose Doctrine in the point of justificatiou, I do not a nail's breadth. So that the light of this man's reading and judgement together, could discover no other opinion touching the formal cause of Justification, either in the Fathers, or any the chief Protestant writers in his time, but that it should stand only in Remission of sins. The latter of the two mentioned, is Mr. Thomas Gataker, a man of approved learning and integrity amongst us: who in Mr. A. Wotton's Defence against Mr. Walkers Charge, lately published in Print by him, acknowledgeth (p. 58) that howsoever for his part he deemeth it erroneous (and so do I too, taking the word justification, in that large sense which it seemeth he doth, where he argueth against the opinion, as viz. in his Animadversions upon the disputes between Piscator and Lucius, p. 9 besides sundry other places in his writings) to hold that justification consisteth in remission of sins, yet that Calvin, Beza, Olevian, Vrsine, Zanchie, Piscator, Pareus, Musculus, Bullinger, Fox, and divers others of great note and name, yea whole Synods of ours are found so to say: adding further, and yet were these men never yet, that I ever heard or read, for so saying, condemned as Heretics, much less as blasphemous. Heretics, but had in high esteem, as their worth, parts and works well deserved, by those that therein dissented from them. To this I might (if need were) add Mr. Authony Wotton, a man of much labour, diligence, and dexterity in searching out the judgements and opinions of Protestant writers touching the great Point of justification (as appears by that learned piece of his, entitled, de Reconciliatione peccatoris, etc.) who in the 3, 4, 5, and 6 Chapters of the second book of the first part of this work, hath mustered together a greater troop of Reformed Authors then either of the other, and from their own pens respectively, hath made them all speak distinctly and plainly, the same things touching the formal cause of justification, which the two former Authors (as we heard) ascribed unto some of them. Now for the declaration and proofe-making of this opinion, SECT. 29 because for the present (I conceive it most agreeable to the truth) some things would briefly be premized. As 1º, That justification, being an action, hath no form, or formal cause at all properly so called, that is, hath no substantial form, nor yet any form that is properly a part of it, because this is proper only to substantial natures and beings. See Sect. 8. of this Chapter. 2º, That there can in no other respect or consideration be ascribed any form or formal cause unto justification, but only as it makes 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 justification, that is, that which the immediate, proper, and precise effect, of that act of God whereby he justifieth, in or about the person justified, is, and nothing else but this is, or can with any colour of reason and congruity of speaking, be called, the form or formal cause of justification. Of this also you have some further account in the 8 Section of this Chapter. 4º, That is especially to be remembered, that we do not in this inquiry, seek after the form, or formal cause of justification simply, or of Justification largely taken, but of that particular and special kind of justification, whereby a believing sinner is justified by God through the redemption which is in Christ jesus. For if we take justification in a large sense, it is evident, that remission of sins cannot be the formal cause of it. Because in such a sense of the word justification, a man may be said to be justified that is, acquitted and cleared, who hath no sins, or sin at all forgiven him, viz. in case he hath been 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 mean with any such kind of justification, as we now speak of, viz. that is built upon a just and plenary satisfaction for the offence given. But otherwise, any remission of an offence upon what terms 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 last) whereas there may be a double or or twofold justification ascribed unto God, the one we may call Declarative or Pronunciative, the other, Constitutive, it is the formal cause of the latter, rather than of the former, which we inquire after. The difference between these two justifications, may be thus conceived: that which I call Constitutive, hath a precedency in the order of nature (and for the most part, of time also) before the other, and is some kind of cause thereof. When God is said to justify the sinner or ungodly, (as Rom. 4.5.) it is meant of his Constitutive justification, not of his Declarative: For God never declareth or pronounceth a sinner righteous, till he hath made him righteous, which is the proper act of that which I call, Constitutive justification. Again, when Christ saith, by thy words thou shalt be justified. Mat. 12.13. and james concerning Abraham, that he was justified through works; these and such like passages speak of a declarative justification. The formal cause of God's declarative justification, cannot be conceived to stand in remission of sins, because remission of sins is always precedaneous to it, and therefore cannot be the effect of it, and so not the formal cause thereof, according to the 2 and 3 grounds premised. The formal cause of this kind of justification, is rather the knowledge in those to whom such declaration is made (whether it be the person himself that is justified, or some other) of remission of sins granted unto him, concerning whom such declaration is made. Only (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 known by God in his Gospel. But by declarative justification, I mean only such an act or expression of God, whereby he declares the actual Justification of those or any of those that have their sins forgiven them. These things remembered, SECT. 30 I proceed to demonstrate the truth of the opinion mentioned, and undertaken for, which was, that Remission of sins is the form, or formal cause of justification. First, if Remission of sins 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 sins the proper formal cause of justification. This consequence is built clear and strong upon the third particular premised. Therefore I assume: But remission of sins is the first, immediate and precise effect of that act of God, whereby he justifieth a sinner, in or about the sinner so justified. Ergo etc. The reason of this latter proposition is, because there is no other imaginable effect, that should interveene, between such an act, and the effect specified. The Scriptures themselves make an immediate connection between God's act of Justification, and the sinner's exemption, or absolution from his sins, that is, from the guilt and punishment due unto his sins, when they call justification, a justification from sin. Be it known unto you, men and Brethren (saith Paul. Act. 13.38.) that through this man is preached unto you remission of sins; and by him, all that believe, are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses. Where we see that justification is immediately and directly, from sin, i. from the guilt or condemnatory power of sin. The like expression you have Rom. 6, 7. He that is dead, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is justified from sin. So that this is the first privilege or blessing, that comes upon a sinner by means of his justification, or of that act of God whereby he justifieth him, the remission of his sins: and consequently must needs be the form of his justification. Secondly, that which gives the denomination of justified, to those that are justified, must needs be the form, or formal cause of justification. The reason of this proposition, is apparent: it is still proper to every form, to give a suitable denomination to the subject. Suitable I mean, not only to the form itself, but to the action or motion also, whereby this form was introduced into the subject. As for example: whiteness in a wall that was made white out of some other colour, gives the denomination of whited, unto the wall: which doth not answer the form itself only, which is whiteness, but that action also of the Plasterer or Painter, which we call, whitening. Therefore it is evident, that the form or formal cause of this act of whitening, is the whiteness, or whitednesse of the wall. Thus fare then the ground is firm under us. Let us therefore go forward, and assume: But remission of sins gives the denomination of justified, to those that are justified. Therefore remission of sins is the form, or formal cause of justification. The assumption I thus further demonstrate. If a sinner be therefore and thereby justified, because he hath his sins remitted unto him, than remission of sins gives the denomination of justified, unto him. This consequence is pregnant, because that always gives the denomination, by the means or reason whereof, the subject is so, or so denominated. I assume: But a sinner is therefore and thereby justified, because, or in that he hath his sins forgiven him. Ergo. The reason of the latter proposition is, because that justification we speak of, being still opposed to condemnation (as hath been formerly observed from the Scriptures) must needs stand in a vindication or exemption from punishment, which being interpreted, is nothing else, but the having of a man's sins forgiven. For there is no exemption from punishment at the hand of an infinite Judge for him that is guilty, but by having his sins forgiven: as on the other hand, the forgiveness of sins, is a full exemption in this kind. Thirdly, SECT. 31 that alteration or change in the condition of the person justified which is caused therein by that act whereby God justifieth him, must of necessity be the form, or formal cause of his justification. The third particular premised, is a sufficient light whereby to see the truth of this proposition, Therefore I assume: But remission of sins, or absolution and acquitting from punishment (which are interpretatively the same) is that alteration or change which is made in the condition of a person justified by that act of God whereby he justifieth him. Ergo this alteration or change is the formal cause of justification. The reason of the latter proposition is this. justification being (as I suppose is confessed on alhands) a civil or politic act, as all actions of judicature are, must needs produce a civil or politic effect answerable to it. All acts & actions beget only in their own similitude & likeness. A natural action cannot produce a moral effect: nor a moral action, a natural effect. Neither can a civil or politic action, produce either a natural or moral, but only a civil or politic effect. When a Judge acquits (and so when he condemns) a man from a crime or accusation brought in against him, this makes neither any natural nor moral change in the person of him that is so acquitted, except it be occasionally & by accident, as when by such a sentence of absolution a man is recovered out of those fears, which were prejudicial to his health whilst he lay under danger of the sentence of the Law, or the like: but properly and directly such an act produceth a civil or politic change in his condition. For whereas he was before in danger of the Law, and obnoxious unto punishment, he is now at liberty and free therefrom. So when a believing sinner is justified by God, the effect of this act of God, is not any natural or moral change made upon him, but a change in his estate and condition. Now there is no other change that can be imagined should be made in the spiritual estate or condition of a man, by the act of God's justification falling on him, but only his acquitting from the guilt of sin, and punishment due unto the same. Before this act of God passed upon him, he was under the guilt of sin, and obnoxious to the wrath of God: but by the coming of this upon him, he is absolutely free and exempt from danger that way. Fourthly, SECT. 32 that which makes a justified person, formally and completely just or righteous before God, is (questionless) the formal cause of justification. This proposition is greater than exception, nor will (I conceive) be denied by our keenest adversaries in the main. I assume therefore: But remission of sins is that which makes a justified person formally and completely righteous before God. Therefore this is the formal cause of justification. The reason and ground of the assumption is this: because he that stands as clear, and as free from sin, or the guilt of sin, in the sight of God, as he that having lived a 1000 years, should always have observed the Law, and never transgressed in the least point, is (doubtless) formally & completely righteous in the sight of God. Now that remission of sins gives this privilege to him that hath received it, in as full & amplea manner, as the exemplified observation of the Law, or any other of the longest continuance that is imaginable can do, hath been more than once demonstrated in this Treatise, especially in the fift Conclusion laid down in the second Chap. of this second Part. Sect. 6. p. 8. Fiftly, If remission of sins be a perfect and complete righteousness, then is it the formal cause of justification. This proposition is much of the same spinning with the Major in the former argument, and so partaker of like evidence of truth with it. Neve●-the-lesse (once to light up a candle whereby to see the Sun) the reason of it, is briefly this: be-because no perfect or complete righteousness can be found in any man that hath sinned, but that which is given and conferred by God upon him in his Justification: and that which is in this way conferred upon him, is (without contradiction) the formal cause thereof. Therefore let us make forward: But remission of sins is a perfect and complete righteousness: therefore (doubtless) the formal cause also of justification. The minor proposition hath oft already been exalted upon the Throne of evidence and unquestionableness of truth: yet if you desire a little of what is more then enough, take this for a further demonstration of it. That righteousness which needeth not fear the presence o● most district Judgement of God, is (doubtless) a complete and perfect righteousness. But remission of sins is a righteousness that needeth not to fear the presence or districtest judgement of God. Therefore it is a perfect and complete righteousness. The Sun at noon day shineth no clearer light, then both these propositions do truth. For the former, I make no question but contradiction itself will be ashamed to oppose it. Peccata sola separant inter hominem et Deum, quae solvuntur Christi gratia, per quem mediatorem reconciliamur, cum justificat impium. Aug De Pecc. Merit. et Rem: l. 1. c, 20. That righteousness which will hold out weight and measure, by the standard of Heaven, no man (I presume) will call defective or imperfect. And for the latter, who can with any reason lift up a thought of heart against it? For what cause hath any man to fear any displeasure or hard sentence from God, who hath all his sins fully pardoned? There is nothing can separate between God and his, creature, but only sin: and when this is taken away, what shall hinder, but that there should immediately ensue a perfect union of love and peace between them? Sixtly, SECT. 33 If forgiveness of sins be the righteousness which God imputes in the Justification of a sinner, then is it the formal cause of justification. But forgiveness of sins is the righteousness imputed by God in the justification of a sinner. Ergo. The ground of the sequel in the first proposition is this, because the righteousness which God imputes in justification, must needs be the formal cause thereof, otherwise it must be said, either a man is formally just by some righteousness of his own, or which he hath not received from God: or else that he is not made righteous in or by his justification, but afterwards. The minor, is the assertion of the Holy Ghost (almost) in terminis, Rom. 4. For that which ver. 6. is called, Gods imputing righteousness, ver. 7. is interpreted to be, his forgiving iniquities, and covering sin. Seventhly, If remission of sins reacheth home unto and be given unto men by God for their justification, then is it the formal cause thereof. This is evident: because by the formal cause of justification, we mean nothing else (as hath been often said) but justification passive, or that gift which by God is given unto men (and by them received accordingly) in and by that act of his whereby he justifieth them. So that if remission of sins be that which is given unto sinners by God, for, or unto their justification, it must of necessity be conceived to be the formal cause thereof. Therefore I assume: but remission of sins is given by God unto men for their justification, and reacheth home unto it: Therefore it must needs be the formal cause thereof. This latter proposition again, is (in effect, and well nigh in terms) nothing but what the Holy Ghost himself affirmeth, Rom. 5.16. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgement was by one unto condemnation: but the free gift is of many offences unto Justification. that is, God by the free gift, that is, by the free forgiveness of men's sins, doth fully justify them. The free gift of offences, or the forgiveness of sins, could not be said to be unto justification, except a man were fully and entirely justified thereby. Lastly, if remission of sins, and the non-imputing of sin to those that have sinned, be expressions of one and the same importance, and signify the same privilege, estate, or condition, of a person justified, then is remission of sins the formal cause of justification. The strength of this consequence lieth in this, that the Holy Ghost describeth or interpreteth the righteousness which God imputeth in justification, by the non-imputation of sin. This is evident by comparing Rom. 4.6. with ver. 8. And it was proo●ed before (in the sixth argument) that the righteousness imputed by God in justification, must of necessity be the formal cause thereof. Therefore it undeniably follows, that if remission of sins, and the non-imputing of sin, be expressions of one and the same condition, that remission of sins is the formal cause of justification. Now that the importance of these two expressions is but one and the same, is apparent enough without proof. For what doth God more, or otherwise, in remitting sin, than he doth in not imputing it? or what doth he more or otherwise in the not-imputing of sin, than he doth in remitting it? Not to impute sin to him that hath sinned, can imply nothing else, but not to charge the demerit or guilt thereof upon him: and what doth remission of sins import either more or less? And hence (doubtless) it is, that David sets the same Crown of the same blessedness upon the head of the one and the other. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered Blessed is the man, to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, etc. Psal. 32.1.2. Rom. 4.7.8. Much might be further argued both from the Scriptures and otherwise, SECT. 34 for the clearing and countenancing of this opinion, which placeth formal justification in Remission of sins: but inasmuch as this task hath been learnedly and throughly performed by another (a) Mr. Wotton, De Reconciltat. Part 1, lib. 2. c. 3.4.5.6.7.8. (though in another languag) and to ease the present discourse of length and tediousness what we may without any sensible de r●ment to the cause undertaken, I forbear. And the rather, because whatsoever I am able to conceive may possibly with any colour or pretext of reason be objected against the opinion, hath (for the most part) been already answered or cleared, or else will be found answered in the two following Chapters. As First, Object. 1 That Remission of sins, is no true or complete righteousness: ou shall find satisfaction touching this, in the second Chap. of this latter part, in the 4 Conclusion. Sect. 4. Secondly, Object. 2 That the righteousness of Christ is to be joined with remission of sins, to make the complete form of justification. See this cleared at large Cap. 11. of the first part. Thirdly, Object. 3 That Remission of sins is the consequent or effect of justification, and therefore not the formal cause. See whereof to make a sufficient answer to this, Sect. 8. and Sect. 29. of this Chapter, where it is fully proved, that the formal cause of justification, must needs be the consequent of justification, that is, of that act of God whereby he justifieth. Fourthly, that the righteousness of Christ imputed, is this formal cause, Object. 4 you shall find this counter-argued, Sect. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. of this Chapter. Fiftly, Object. 5 that the imputation of this righteousness is the formal cause. The inconsistency of this with the truth, is evicted, Sect. 22. of this Chapter. Sixtly, Object. 6 That the communion that is between Christ and believers, is this formal cause. How little communion this hath with the truth, hath been showed at large, Section 18, 19, 20, 21. of this Chapter. Seventhly, That justification may be, Object. 7 where there is no remission of sins, and remission of sins, where there is no justification. See the opinion set clear of this objection, in the latter end of Sect. 1. of the 3 Chap. of this second part, as also Sect. 29. of this present Chapter. What further may be objected, I do not (for the present) apprehend: but ready and willing I am to take any thing into a serious and unpartial consideration that shall be tendered unto me as matter of further question, or difficulty in the business: In the mean time, out of all that which hath been reasoned at large in this Chapter concerning justification and the several causes thereof, some such description of it as this may be framed, wherein the attentive Reader may observe, either all or the greatest part of the causes insisted upon, briefly comprehended. Justification is an act of God, whereby having out of his own unspeakable free grace and goodness towards poor miserable sinners, given his only begotten Son Jesus Christ to make atonement, or satisfaction for them by his death, in consideration of this atonement, freely pardoneth and remitteth the sins of all those that believe in him through Jesus Christ preached, or otherwise revealed by the Holy Ghost unto them. CAP. V. Where in the Scriptures alleged for the imputation of Christ's righteousness or active obedience in Justification, are cleared and answered, and the true sense and interpretation of them respectively established, according to the judgement of the best Expositors of the Protestant party. ALL error and mistake in matters of Christian Religion, SECT. 1 is occasioned either in the conception, or continuance, or both, by somewhat which God in the Scriptures hath well said, but is by men not well understood. And as Gregory long since well observed it in matter of practice, (a) Cum vitium virtus putatur, culpa fine me●n cumulatur. Greg Do Paster. Cur. l 3. c. 1. that when men conceive of sin under the notion of a duty, there it is committed with an high hand, and without measure; the reason whereof is, because conscience and concupiscence are then in conjunction, which (for the most part) are in opposition about the committing of sin, whereby the course of it is somewhat broken and impaired: so it is likewise in point of judgement, when men conceive of their by-thoughts and misapprehensions, as countenanced from Heaven in the Scriptures, their confidence lifts up itself very high; and the mildest contradiction, is little less than an abomination unto them. The reason whereof I conceive to be this: the opinion in this case being their own, must needs have a strong and perfect sympathy with all the powers of nature yet unsanctified, and so must needs engage these: and then again, being looked upon as a truth of a divine parentage, and issuing from God, by means of this apprehension, it engageth all the powers of Grace, and of the new man also to contend for it. And thus, what by the nature and substance of it on the one hand, being erroneous and sinful; and what by the appearance and show of it on the other hand, being as if it were indeed spiritual and divine, it is apt to transport a man with an ecstasy of zeal even above himself for the maintenance of it, and to inspire him with resolutions of sacrificeing credit, Name, estate, friends, himself upon the honour and service of it, in case it be opposed. Now amongst many signs that might be given of an opinion of that very frame and constitution we speak of, darkness for substance, and light in appearance, this is one of frequent observation; when the maintainers of it are ambitious to heap up citations of Scripture proofs, without end, and to overwhelm their adversaries with Divine testimonies. For as the saying is, Nusquam est, qui ubique est, he that is every where, is not where: so it is much to be suspected, that such an opinion is no where in the Scriptures, which is pretended to be every where. When men shark about for Scriptures, and cannot find those that willingly and freely offer themselves in the service of an opinion, but labour and toil (as it were) in the fire, to redeem the defect of full and pregnant proofs, with multitudes and numbers of such as they can find, it is a ground of much suspicion, that the opinion is not of God, but of men. The Scriptures are many, which are mustered up by the Masters of that way of Imputation which we oppose, for the service of their opinion: but amongst them all there is not one that comes roundly on, or that speaketh plainly or directly to the business in hand: which is a plain sign that it is not indeed they that speak at all, but the spirit of the men that speaketh in them, whatsoever they seem to speak in this kind. I make no question but I shall be able to give a thorough and perfect account of what I now affirm, by a particular examination of the Scriptures themselves alleged in that behalf. The greatest part of them (I conceive) have been occasionally touched already, and in part cleared, in this discourse. But because a true and solid understanding of them, carries the main stroke in the Question and controversy depending, I thought good to assign an entire Chapter for the interpretation and solution of them: so that the Reader may more readily know where to find, and whither to repair for explication of them all together. I begin with those usually alleged from the old Testament, which are not many. The first place is Psal. SECT. 2 32.1. Blessed is the man whose transgression is forgiven, Psal. 32.1, 2. Answered. whose sin is covered: Blessed is the man, unto whom the Lord imputeth not transgression, etc. The covering of sin, mentioned in the middle clause, is by some conceived to be the righteousness or active obedience of Christ, which God imputing to believers, covereth all their sins therewith: To this I Answer: 1. That some of our best Expositors conceive all the three expressions here mentioned to be but synonymous, i. of one and the same signification and importance; and yet with all conceive this variety to be emphatical, and to note that abundance of Grace in God, whereby our sins are forgiven. Doctor Ames in his sixth Document upon this Psalm, carries the tenor of these passages thus (a) Mag●a est Dei gratia qua peccata nostra remittuntur, Hoc eo ipso innuitur, quod tam emphatica repetitione et quasi congerie verborum declara●ar: quia rei tantae nulla sufflcis Orationis forma. Amesius in Psal. 32. Document. 6. Et ●ex Gratia Dei abundans est ad ●mnia [peccata] tollenda, levat, tegit, et non imputat. . And Luther in his summary of the Psalm is not fare from it. (b) justitia nostra propriè est remissio peccatorum, seu (ut loquitur Psalmus) peccata non imputare, peccata regere. Luther. in Summ. Ps. 32. Peccatorum remissionem tribus loquendi generibus exprimit, quae tamen omnia in idem cadunt. S●ph. Fabrit. in Psal. 32. Parcus likewise, on Rom. 47. is of the same judgement, and citys Ambrose with him. 2. For those two expressions, not-imputing of sin, and covering of sin, Calvin holds them to be the same in sense and signification, and that they are of the same importance with those other Scripture phrases, where God is said not to remember sin, to blot it out, to cast it behind his back, or into the depths of the Sea, and the like: and moreover citys Augustine, as his Predecessor in this Interpretation. (c) Peccatorum non recordari, est ea non postulare ad poenam. Id ipsum alibi dicitur, proij ere post tergum, delere in star nubu, demergere in profundum maris, non imputare, tectumque habere. Certè si punit Deus peccata imputat: Si vindicat, recordatur; si ad judicium vocat, tecta non habet, etc. Atque in hune modu● interpretatur Augustin. claru verbis, etc. Calvin. Inst. lib. 3, c, 4. So that none of all these (with twen●y more that might be put to them) never dreamt of the righteousness of Christ, lying so close under this covering of sin. 3. Neither can sin be said to be covered with the righteousness, i. the active obedience of Christ, since, according to the grounds and principles of that very opinion against which we argue, sin is wholly dissolved and taken away by the imputation of his death, or passive obedience; and this before the imputation of the active obedience be made unto us. See for this cap. 5. Sect. 2. of the first part of this Discourse. Now that which is wholly dissolved and taken away, needs no further covering in respect of God, nor indeed is capable of any. 4. The righteousness or active obedience of Christ, is so fare from being a covering of sin, that it is rather a means of the discovery of it, and by the light and absolute purity and perfection thereof, sets off sin with the greater sinfulness, even as the Law itself doth. Therefore 5. (and last) if it be conceived necessary to place any emphatical difference in this expression of covering of sins, from the other two, of forgiveness of sin, and not imputing sin, I conceive it most agreeable to Scripture notion, to assign this peculiarity of importance to it: that by covering of sin, is meant Gods gracious expressing himself to a man that hath sinned, especially in a way of outward prosperity and peace. It is most probable, that by covering of sin, somewhat should be meant, which is contrary to that which the Scripture expresseth by a discovery of sin. Now it is evident from these (and many like places more) Ezek. 16.57. Ezek. 23.10.29. Job. 20.27. Esa. 57.12, etc. that by discovering of sin, is meant the executing of judgements, or inflicting of punishments upon sinners answerable to their sins; which may well be called a discovering of sin and wickedness, because neither the sinners themselves, nor yet others, are ordinarily capable of any knowledge or apprehension to purpose of the demerit and vileness of sin, but by means of the severity of God expressing itself in visible judgements upon those that have sinned. Therefore by covering of sin, both here and elsewhere, is meant nothing else (doubtless) but Gods expressing of himself to persons that have sinned, upon their Repentance, in ways of Grace, favour and love, as if they had not sinned, nor provoked him. To this purpose when he shows any outward favour or countenance to men, as by protecting them from dangers, or delivering them out of trouble, or the like, he is said to justify them: justifying the righteous, to give him (or, by giving him) according to his righteousness, 1 King. 8.32. compare herewith 2 Chron. 6.23. So that here is no shelter or covering for the Doctrine of Imputation in this Scripture. Again, SECT. 3 those parallel Scriptures, jer. 23.6. and 33.16. are alleged. And this is his Name whereby he shall be called, the Lord our righteousness. I answer that neither is there any colour in these words for the pretended imputation. jer. 23.6. and c. 33.16. cleared. For First, it is not here said, that the righteousness of the Lord, shall be our righteousness, nor that the righteousness of the Lord shall be imputed to us for righteousness, no; here is altum silentium, profound silence as concerning any imputation. Secondly, it is wholly repugnant both to the Grammatical and Rhetorical importance of the expression and words, as likewise disagreeing from the Scripture phrase, and manner of speaking in the like cases, to put such a sense or interpretation upon them as this. Christ is our righteousness, by imputation, Christ can in no tolerable construction of speech be said to be imputed to us (the imputation of a person was never heard of) therefore cannot be said to be imputed to us for our righteousness. But Thirdly (and last) the plain and direct meaning of the place, is this. This is his Name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our righteousness, that is, He shall be generally acknowledged and celebrated by his people the Jews (for the Prophet speaks particularly of these, as is evident in the context) as the Great Author and procurer of that righteousness or justification in the sight of God (for righteousness is very usually put for justification, as was noted. cap. 3. Sect. 3. of this second part.) upon which abundance of outward glory, peace, and prosperity should be cast upon them. This interpretation is agreeable to the Scripture phrase, and manner of speaking in the like cases. For First, the attributing or imposition of a Name upon either thing or person, often notes the quality or property in either, or some benefit redounding from either, answerable thereunto (a) Schema est propheticum, quo, nominu quasi peoprij impositione, rei aut personae, de qua agitur, qualitas aut fatum indicetur. Med. ●. Apocalyps. p. 84. Solet Scriptura dicererem quampiam vel personam, hoc vel illo nomine vocatum iri, non quod habitura sit illud nomen, aut tali nomine vulgo appellanda sit, sed quod vere ac plane habitura sit rem tal● nomine significatam. Perer. in Gen. p. 848. Sect. 30. (His name shall be called, wonderful, Counsellor, etc. (Esa 9.6.) that is, he shall be acknowledged and looked upon by men, as an actor and doer of things very strange and excellent, as one that is able and ready to give the best advice and counsel to those that shall repair unto him in difficult cases, etc. See of like importance and expression Ezek. 48.35. Mat. 1.21.23. Apoc. 8.10. with many others. Secondly, There is no phrase or expression more familiar in Scriptures, quàm effectum praedicare de cansa in resto, that is, then to attribute an effect to its cause or Author, by a verb substantive only, or to affirm the effect of the cause directly. Thus Christ is said to be our hope. 1 Tim. 1.1. To be our life. Col. 3.4. To be the resurrection. Joh. 11.25. To be our peace. Ephes. 2.14. To be the glory of his people. Luk 2.32. with many the like: meaning that he is Author, purchaser, or Procurer of all these. So when he is said to be our righteousness, there can no other construction be made of it but this, that he is the Author or procurer of our righteousness. Calvin is express for this interpretation of this passage. All these expressions (saith he) (b) Omnes ist●● locutiones peraeque valent, justificari nos Dei gratia, Christum esse justitiam nostram, justitiam morte ac resurrectione Christi nobu acquisitam. Calvin, in Gal. 3.6. carry the same sense and meaning, that we are justified by the grace of God, that Christ is our righteousness, that righteousness is procured for us by the death and resurrection of Christ, etc. See more of this interpretation before, Cap. 3. Sect. 2. Thirdly (and last) that by righteousness in this place, is meant that justification which stands in remission of sins, and that by Christ's being called, the Lord their righteousness, is only meant, that through him God would be reconciled to them and pacified with them as concerning all their provocations, appears from the like tenor of other Scripture passages. For usually, when God promiseth deliverance, and outward prosperity to this people, after long and sore afflictions (a● he doth in the former part of this verse, and in the two verses following) he maketh mention of his grace and favour towards them in the free pardon of their sins, and of his being pacified towards them, these notwithstanding. Which grace and favour of his in being reconciled unto them, expressing itself in abundance of outward peace and glory, is oft called his righteousness, because he confers it upon them: and sometimes their righteousness, because they receive it from him. Compare Esa 45.8.24.25. Esa 46.13. Esa 48.18. Esa 51.5.6.8. Esa 54.17. jer. 50.20.19. Jer. 51.10. etc. with many others. Some have digged for the treasure of imputation in the field of that Scripture, Esay 45.24. SECT. 4 Surely shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength. But First (to omit the several readings, Esa. 45.24. answered. and interpretations accordingly of this Scripture, which show that it is no pregnant foundation to build so disputable a point of Faith upon) I answer, that neither is here the least air or breathing of that imputation so much wondered after: nor do I find any intimation given of any such business here by any Expositors I can meet with. Secondly, the plain and direct meaning of the place is (doubtless) this, to show that when God should communicate the knowledge of himself in his Son jesus Christ unto the world (whereof he spoke in the words immediately precedent) they should generally have this resentment of the means of their salvation and peace, viz. that they receive them of the free grace and donation of God by jesus Christ, and not of themselves, or by the merit of their own righteousness: which was a vein of leven, where with the greatest part of the Jewish lump was (for the present) levened. So that for a man to say, In the Lord I have righteousness, imports only a profession made by him of his free justification and salvation by God, in, and through Christ: As it followeth ver. 25. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified; And this also is (upon the matter,) Calvin's Exposition upon the place, who writeth thus: Because righteousness and strength are the two main points of our salvation, the faithful acknowledge God to be the Author of both in them, etc. The last Scripture that I know produced from the old Testament, SECT. 5 with any face or colour of reason at all for the imputation contended for, and against, is that Esa 61.10. I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God: for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, Esa 61.10. opened and ceared. etc. These garments of salvation, and robe of righteousness, are conceived to be the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers, and as a robe or garment put upon them, wherein and whereby they stand justified in the sight of God. But I answer; First, that this clothing with the garments of salvation, and covering with the robe of righteousness, are expressions concerning chief (if not solely) the Church of the Jews in their restauration and deliverance from the captivity of Babylon (if not from that greater captivity under which they lie at this day) as the whole carriage of the Chapter from the beginning to the end, Suscipit inse vates personam Ecclesiae Sionu Babylone liberata, etc. Muscu. in Esa 61.10. maketh it fully manifest. And so Musculus with other learned Expositors, carry the interpretation of this verse with the particulars contained in it. The Prophet (saith he) taketh upon him the person of the Church of Zion delivered from Babylon, etc. And a little after, coming to expound those metaphorical clauses mentioned, he hath (or, as he rendereth it, when he shall have) clothed me with the garments of salvation, and covered we with the robe of righteousness, he writeth as followeth: The meaning is, Sensus est; cum servaverit et, redemos it me, justitiamque suam, id est, singularem probitatem et bonitatem erga me declaraverit, etc. ibid. when he shall save and redeem, and declare his righteousness, that is, his faithfulness and goodness towards me, etc. So that by cleathing with garments of salvation, and covering with a robe of righteousness, is not meant any inward or spiritual blessing or privilege, wherewith God should gratify or enrich his Church, as justification by Christ is, but an external and temporal. Neither by the robe of righteousness, are we to understand, the whole and entire obedience of Christ to the moral Law (there being neither word, syllable, letter, or tittle any ways leading or inducing to such an interpretation) but the effect of the righteousness, that is, of the truth and faithfulness, or else of the goodness and graciousness of God (both which are usually expressed in the Scriptures, by the word righteousness as was before observed. cap. 3. Sect. 2.) viz. their deliverance from their captivity, together with their peace and safety, and many other sweet and comfortable privileges thereupon. Secondly, if we carry these metaphors of garments and robe, in a spiritual way, and understand them of justification by Christ, the promise that is supposed to be contained in them (and a promise doubtless there is, though conceived in the common prophetical strain of the time past, to show the certainty of it to be equal to things that are already done) and to be made unto the Church, will not be suitable or proper thereunto. Because the Church of Christ, is already, and at all times clothed with the robe of the righteousness of Christ (in such a sense) that is, is in a justified condition by him. Yea, her justification by Christ, is that which gives her, her very being, as she is his Church. Therefore for God to promise unto those, that are already justified by Christ, a robe of righteousness by which they should be justified, is as if he should promise Heaven to his elect Angels, who are already fully possessed thereof and confirmed in their possession, or promise reasonable souls to men, who cannot be men without them. So that (doubtless) it is no spiritual privilege (at least not justification by Christ of all other) that is here promised to the Church of God. But Thirdly (and last) if we understand the passage now under consideration of an external deliverance (as we heard Musculus and other Interpreters do) the metaphor will be found sweet and lively, SECT. 6 and very emphatical, yea and consonant to the speech and language of the Scripture elsewhere. We know it was a custom among the Jews (and there are few Nations, I conceive, but have somewhat of it, more or less) to attire, habit, and themselves suitably to their present conditions. They had sackcloth to wear in times of mourning, and they had garments too, proper for times of joy and gladness. I forbear to cite Scriptures for the confirmation of this, because they are obvious. Now then when God promiseth to his Church being yet in bondage and misery, with the garments of salvation, he implieth that for the present, they were clothed like exiles and prisoners and captives, that is, that they were in these conditions, and so subject to all the inconveniences and miseries incident to them. But he will change their garments, that is, altar their estates and conditions; of servants, he will make them free; of banished, he will make them possessors of their own land: of poor, he will make them rich, of vile and contemptible, he will make them honourable, etc. The full and entire happiness of which new condition, the Prophet by the figure synecdoche, expresseth by the change of their garments according to the usual manner of the Scripture, which often signifieth the estate or condition, by the garments proper to it. As Junius hath well observed in his annotations upon Esay 22.17. (a) Dignitas, ut ab insignibus vestimentis cognoscitur, ita Synecdochic●egrave; in Scriptures designatur vestirnentorum appellatione. junius. Annot. in Esa. 22.17. As ominencie of place or office (saith he) is known by garments suitable and proper to it, so is it in the Scriptures, by a synecdoche, often signified and expressed thereby. As when GOD threatened Shebna with the loss of his great Place, and with Captivity, and that he would put his servant Eliakim into it, he expresseth this investiture of Eliakim into this new condition or office, thus: And I will him with thy Robe, and strengthen him with thy Girdle. Esa 22.21. To pass by all other Scriptures, wherein the observation of junius mentioned, might be exemplified; the Book of the Revelation represents unto us, both the dignity of Christ himself, and likewise of his Saints, after the same manner, by robes and garments, and that more than once or twice. And in the midst of the 7 Candlesticks, one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down unto the feet. Revel. 1.13. This represents the great dignity of Christ. In like manner the honour of his Saints and faithful ones is thus expressed, cap. 3, 4, 5. And they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. He that overcommeth, shall be clothed in white array, etc. So the dignity of the 24 Elders is represented by their clothing in white raiment. cap. 4.4. Again, the whole multitude of Saints out of all Nations are said to stand before the Lamb clothed with long white robes (robes I conceive of the same importance with these robes of salvation in Esa) and Palms in their hands, cap. 7.9. ●o also cap. 19 14. where it is said, that it was granted to the Lamb's wife (the Church) that she should be arrayed with pure white linen and shineing, which is said to be the righteousness of the Saints, cap. Revel. 19.7, 8. cleared and answered by the way. 19.7.8. it is evident that nothing is spoken or meant concerning justification by Christ, or his righteousness, but only that great honour and reward is hereby signified, which Christ was now pleased to confer upon his Church and Saints, who were justified by him long before. The pure, fine, and shining linen, is said to be the righteousness of the Saints, to show that the great glory, honour, and dignity which Christ now conferreth upon his Church, is the gracious and bountiful reward of her Husband, by him given unto her, in consideration and remembrance of her righteousness, that is, her holiness, faithfulness, zeal, constancy, etc. under the persecution of the Beast, and great Apostasy of the Christian world. It is an usual manner of speech in Scripture, to express the reward of a thing, by the Name of the thing itself, whereof it is a reward. Thus Numb. 22.7. the Elders of Midian and Moab, are said to have departed, having Divinations (for so it is in the original) in their hand, that is, the money or reward of Divinations. So 2 Sam. 4.10. Good tidings, is put for the reward of good tidings. Again, Revel. 13.10. Here is the patience and Faith of the Saints, that is, the reward and recompense of the patience and faithful cleaving of the Saints unto Christ, when they shall see vengeance executed upon their enemies, and themselves made Actors in it. Many other instances in this kind have (I remember) been else where in this Treatise (a) Part 1. c. 1. Sect. 4. drawn together. So the pure and shining linen (that is, the bright glory wherewith the Church is now invested) is said to be the righteousness of the Saints, because it is the reward of it. This to be the plain and direct meaning of the place, might be further argued from that ratiocinative particle, FOR: For the linen is the righteousness, etc. In which words it is evident that there is a reason given of the grant made to the Church mentioned in the former part of the verse, viz. that she should be so arrayed or clothed, that is, dignified: this reason is said to be, the righteousness of the Saints. It is as if it had been said; that the Lamb's wife should be thus gloriously recompensed, is nothing but that which well agreeth with the righteousness and bounty of God, who thus liberally and bountifully rewardeth and returneth his righteousness into his bosom, as he had promised. This place (doubtless) parallel's with that, cap. 3.4. These shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. The worthiness of the one, and the righteousness of the other, are but the same, and both are assigned as the reason of the honour done unto them. The riches jollity, and prosperous condition (whilst it lasted) of Babylon or Rome, is likewise expressed by the metaphor of garments. And that great City that was clothed in fine linen, and purple and scarlet, etc. Revel. 18.16. By all which Scriptures diligently compared (with many more of like expression that might be added) it is more than manifest, that by those metaphors of garments and robes in Esa, there is nothing meant touching the inward and spiritual condition of the Church, much less his justification by the active righteousness of Christ imputed. And indeed it may seem very strange to build a dogmatic point of Faith upon figurative and metaphorical expressions, there being no plain or to pregnant Scripture confirm or warrant it As for those expressions in Paul, of putting on Christ, Endure Christum, hic significat, virtute spiritus ejus undique nos muniri qua idonei ad omnes sanctitatis partes reddamur. Calvin. in Rom. 13.14. Quemadmodum quotquot circumciduntur, Mosen induunt, hoc est, Mosis se profitentur esse discipulos, ut secundum illius institutionem ambulent: ita qui baptizantur, Christum induunt, profitentes se illius discipulos, etc. Musculus in Gal. 3.27. Rom. 13.14. Gal. 3.27. etc. there is neither of them speaks of Justification; but the former of sanctification, and the latter of profession: both which, if they were not apparent enough unto any man, that shall but a little consider the context in either place, might further have been proved without much labour. Let Calvin, Musculus, and other Protestant Interpreters be consulted with about them. We have found nothing in those Scriptures of the old Testament, which are looked upon with an eye of the greatest confidence, for the building up of that imputation, which we endeavour to cast down. Let us pass from Prophets to Apostles, and consider, whether they also be not made to speak the minds of other men, and not their own, when they are made to speak for this imputation. The fare greatest part of testimonies brought against us out of the new Testament, are lodged within the compass of that one Epistle to the Romans: the rest are but few. The first place alleged by some is that, Rom. 3.21.22. But now is the righteousness of God made manifest without the Law, having witness of the Law and of the Prophets, Even the righteousness of God, which is by the Faith of jesus Christ. etc. By the righteousness of God (say they) is here meant, the righteousness or active obedience of Christ, who is God, imputed to all that believe, etc. I answer, Rom. 3.21. cleared. First, this Scripture hath been already fully opened, in the first part of this Treatise, cap. 4. throughout, where upon due examination, it was found to speak plainly for the imputation of Faith for righteousness, but no ways for the imputation of the righteousness of Christ for any such purpose. Secondly, Some by the righteousness of God in this place, understand the truth and faithfulness of God in keeping promise. This was the exposition of Ambrose long since. And that this faithfulness of God is frequently in Scripture called his righteousness, hath been already observed, 3. cap. Sect. 2. p. 93. Thirdly, (and last) by the righteousness of God in these Scriptures, is meant (doubtless) either that way, method, or means which God himself hath found out to justify or make men righteous, (See cap. 3. Sect. 2. p. 40. of this second part) or else (which comes to the same) that very righteousness by which we stand justified or righteous in the sight of God. This is the general interpretation of the best Protestant Expositots, as Calvin, (a) justitiam Dei accipi pre ea, qu● Deo pr●batur, notum esse debuerat elementariis. Calvin Instit. l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 9 Dubium est, qua ratione Dei justiciam appellet, quam per sidem obtinemus: ideone, quia sola coram Deo consistit, an quod eam nobis Dominus sua miscericordia largiatur? Calv. in Rom. 3.21. Musculus, (b) Exponi patestde ea justicia, qua nos coram Deo justificamur, etc. Musculu in Rom. 3.21 Beza, (c) Posita est omnis justificatio inremissione peccaterum: et idea justicia haec in imputatione posita justitia Dei vocatur. Beza. De Coena Dom. justicia Dei, id est, salus vel redemptio, quam Deus praestat. Cam Myroth. p. 178. justicia imputata rectè dicitur justicia Christi, quia Christus eam sua obedientia nobis acquisivit. Sicut etiam dicitur justicia Dei, Juia Deus propter Christi meritum, eam nobis imputat. Pareus de justi. l. 2. c. 2. p. 388. Sect. 8. Ro. 3.31. cleared. etc. Neither have I met with any that understands it of the righteousness of Christ: nor is there the least appearance in the context of any necessity so to take it. Again, the last verse in the same Chapter is laid hold on by some as a favourer of their Imputation. Do we then make the Law of none effect through Faith? God forbidden: yea, we establish the Law. They conceive, that the Law cannot be said to be established by Faith, or by the Doctrine of Faith, but only by imputation of Christ's fulfilling it, unto Believers. I answer, I that there is no necessity, that by Law in this place, should be meant precisely the Moral Law. Calvin understands it aswell of the Ceremonial Law, as of the Moral; and explains, how aswell the one, as the other, may be said to be established by Faith (d) Quare hanc Pauli excusationem, vequae de ceremoniis seorsim neque de mandatis (ut vocant) moralibus, sed in universum de tota lege accipio. Calvin. In Rom. 3.31. . Therefore he is fare from conceiving, that the Imputation of Christ's righteousness should be established by Paul's affirming the Law to be established by faith. Ambrose likewise long before him, conceived the same things of this Scripture. 2. It is much more probable that (of the two) Paul should here assert the establishing rather of the Ceremonial Law, then of the Moral. 1. because the Jews, to whom he addresseth himself in this excusation, seeking to ease and qualify their spirits touching the Doctrine of Faith, were more tender and jealous over the Ceremonial part of their Law, then over the Moral, placing the far greatest part of their hope (if not the whole) of their justification and salvation in the observation hereof, as appears from Act. 15.1. Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, yecannot be saved, etc. So from Gal. 5. v. 2. compared with the 4. as also from divers other places, both of the Old and New Testament. Now it is no ways like, that the Apostle should seek to prevent the lesser and lighter offence in this people, and wholly neglect them under the greater. 2. because the Doctrine of faith, and justification by Christ taught by the Apostle, did not carry any such colour or appearance of opposition to the moral part of their Law, as it did to the Ceremonial. The Gospel buildeth up moralities, and that with an high hand: but it abrogateth and casteth down ceremonials altogether; that is, it calls men off from the further use and practise of them, though it confirms (indeed) their precedent use, benefit and authority, and so establisheth them. Now it is but a weak conceit to think, that Paul should go about to vindicate or purge either himself or his Doctrine, from a lighter and weaker suspicion, and leave both obnoxious to a greater. But 3. Suppose that the Apostle here speaks precisely and determinately of the Moral Law, yet is there no necessity gained from hence, that this should be said to be established by the Imputation of Christ's righteousness. For 1. both Austin and chrysostom affirm, that the Law is therefore said to be established by faith, because faith compasseth and attains that righteousness, which the Law sought after and could not attain. Chrysostom's expression is, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. in Ro. Homil. 7. that faith establisheth the will of the Law, by bringing that to perfection, which the Law would have done. 2. The Moral Law may in this sense also be said to be established by faith, because faith purgeth the hearts of those that believe, and works out those corruptions and sinful inclinations, which disable men from doing the things therein required, and so promotes the observation and keeping of it. This (upon the matter) is the interpretation of Musculus (*) Fides verò, quoniam justificat credentes, & corda credentium purgat, quod neque Lex apud judaos, neque Philosophia apud Gentes, neque doctrina bonorum operum apud Christianes praestare potest, ram non adversatur bonorum operum Doctrinae, ut illam magis stabiliat. Musculus ad Rom. 3. ult. upon the place. Pareus likewise admits of it, and citys Austin for it also. But 4. The Law may be said to be established by the Doctrine of faith, inasmuch as the comminations and threaten of the Law, as, In the day thou ●atest thereof, thou shalt die the death: and again, Cursed be he that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to do them, etc. are by the Doctrine of justification by faith, declared not to be in vain. The sufferings of Christ whereby we are justified through faith, are a full confirmation of the force, efficacy, and authority of the curse of the Law, being the price of the Redemption of those that believe from it. Yet 5. (and last) I conceive the better Interpretation of the place to be, that by Law the Apostle should mean, that part of the Old Testament, which comprehendeth the writings of Moses, with those other Books, which together with the writings of the Prophets, make up the entire body thereof. For in this sense he had used the word, v. 21. where he affirmed, the righteousness of God to have testimony of the Law and the Prophets. The word is elsewhere, (and that somewhat frequently) taken in this signification. Now the Law in this sense may (most properly) be said to be established by Paul, ●eaching the Doctrine of faith, because this Doctrine is fully consonant and agreeable to those things that are written therein, as he showeth at large in the following Chapter, arguing and insisting upon two pregnant testimonies to this purpose, the one from Moses, the other from David. Origen of old made use of this Interpretation: (b) Fides confirmas legem, quia Christus inquit, Moses de me scripsit. Qui ergo credit Christo, confirmat Legem, quiae credit in Christum. Origen. and Hierome was not far from it. (c) Fide lex stabilitur, quia fide probamus verum esse quod lex dicit, Testamentum testamento legem legi, circumcisionem circumcisions successuram. Hierony. Piscator of later times likewise adhereth to it, in his Disputes with Ludovicus Lucius. (d) See Mr. Gatakers Animadversions upon these Disputes. p. 42. The next Scripture sometimes managed for the imputation we oppose, is Rom. 4.6. Even as David declareth the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works. That righteousness which God is here said to impute to a man, can be no other (as is pretended) but the righteousness of Christ. To this I answer, First, SECT. 9 that this Scripture and expression of Gods imputing righteousness, Rom. 4.6. opened. is fully opened and cleared in my Answer to Mr. Walker p. 41. whither the reader is desired to repair for satisfaction, if he desires it. Secondly, that of the two (if we will needs here understand a positive legal righteousness) it is much more probable the Apostle should mean a righteousness consisting of such works, or of such an obedience to the Law, as hath an absolute and perfect agreeableness to every man's condition and calling respectively, than the righteousness of Christ, which hath no such property in it, hath been already represented in this Discourse. (a) Cap. 2. Sect. 5. p. 7. Thirdly, that righteousness which God is said here to impute, is by the best Expositors placed in Remission of sins. Righteousness imputed (saith Paraeus) (b) justitia imputata consistis in gratuita remissione, tectione, non imputatione peccatorum. Pareus ad Rom, 4.7. p. 371. Hoc sensu justitia imputata dicitur justicia Christi, meritory seu effective, quia Christi merito nobisest parta, non subjective, quia & Christo inhaereat. Idem, ibidem. consists in a free remission, covering, or non-imputation of sin. And a little after, showing in what sense the righteousness which is imputed by God unto believers, may be called the righteousness of Christ, he expresseth himself thus. In this sense imputed righteousness is called the righteousness of Christ, viz. by way of merit or effect, because it is procured for us by the merit of Christ, not because it is subjectively or inherently in Christ: many testimonies have been formerly cited from divers other good Authors of concurrent judgement with him herein. We are taught (saith Calvin upon the place) (c) Postremo [do●emur] hanc quoque remissionem gratuitam esse, quia sine operibus imputatur; quod et remissionis nomen indicat Calvin. in Rom. 4.6. Quarto autem capite ad Romanos primum appellat justitia imputationem: nec eam dubitat in remissione peccatorum c●llocare, idem. Instit. l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 4. that Remission of sins is free, because it is imputed without works. But Fourthly, the phrase of imputing righteousness, may (I conceive) be best interpreted and understood by the contrary expression, of imputing sin. Opposita juxtase posita magis elucescunt. To impute sin signifieth only, either to look upon a person as justly liable to punishment, or to inflict punishment upon a person peccati nomine, for, or in consideration of sin. This latter signification I find more frequent of the two, in Authors of best esteem. God imputes sin (saith Paraeus (a) Imputat Deus peccatium, cum punit: non imputat, cum non punit, sed condonat et tegit, quasi non esset. Pareus ad Rom. 4.7. ) when he punisheth: and he doth not impute it, when he doth not punish, but pardoneth, etc. So Calvin, (b) Ergo et peccatorum non recordari, est ea non postulare all poenam. Idipsum alibidicitur proijcere post tergum, delere instar nubis, etc. non imputare, tectumque habere, etc. Calvin. Instit. l. 3. c. 4. Sect. 29. vi. etiam in Rom. 5.13. maketh the non-imputation of sin, and the not-punishing of sin, of one and the same signification and importance. If therefore to impute sin, signifieth only, either to hold a man liable to punishment for sin, or to execute and inflict punishment upon him for sin, doubtless to imputerighteousnesse, importeth nothing else, but either to look upon a man as a righteous person, or to confer upon him and actually invest him with the precious privileges that belong to persons truly righteous. But however, Fiftly (and last) here is neither peer nor peep of the least ground or reason to conceive, that by righteousness in this Scripture, should be meant the righteousness of Christ. SECT. 10 The next Scripture misused for the imputation aforesaid, is that Rom. 5.19. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, Rom. 5.19. cleared. so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Hence it is argued, that as by the imputation of Adam's disobedience, men are made formally sinners; in like manner by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, men are made formally righteous. To this I answer, First, that somewhat hath been already delivered in this Discourse, touching the sense and meaning of this Scripture, as likewise touching the includencie and insufficiency, of this argument. See Part 1. c. 21. Sect. 2.3. etc. Secondly, it is not here said, that by the imputation of Adam's disobedience, men are made formally sinners, but simply sinners; that is, either obnoxious to death and condemnation (as Bishop Davenant (c) Certum est, illam ipsamactualem inobedientiam nobis imputari, ita ut per eam stemus damnati, etc. Bish. Daven. de justi. Act. etc. p. 363. with some others interpret) and as the word sinner is often used in Scriptures d 1 Kin. 1.21. Pro. 6.29. Psal. 109.7. etc. , or else, sinners by propagation (not imputation) as Augustine e Proinde Apostolus, cum illud peccatum ac mortem commemoraret, quae ab uno in omnes propagatione transissent, eum Principemposuit, à quo propagatio generis humani sumpsit exordium. August. de Peccat. Mer. & Rem. l. 1. c. 9 vi: etiam c. 13. etc. c. 15. Apostolus opponit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adami, non ut actionem actioni, sed ut satisfactionem culpae, ut remedium morbo. Pareus de justic. Christi Act ●et Pass. p. 173. of old, and Peter Martyr and Musculus of late, with divers others, as may be seen at large in their Commentaries upon this Scripture. So that according to either of these interpretations of the word, sinners, here is neither little nor much for the imputation of Christ's righteousness so much urged and contended for. Thirdly, neither doth the Apostle here oppose unto, or compare the obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam as one act, unto, or with another, but as satisfaction to and with the provocation, or the remedy to and with the disease. Otherwise he should make sins of omission, to be no disobedience, because omissions, are no acts. And Adam's transgression did not only stand in the commission of evil, but in the omission of that which was good also. Therefore Fourthly, by that obedience of Christ, whereby it is here said that many are (or, shall be) made righteous, that is, justified, we cannot understand, that righteousness of Christ which consists only in his obedience to the moral Law, but that satisfactory righteousness or obedience which he performed to that peculiar Law of Mediation, which was imposed upon him, and which chief consisted in his sufferings. See for this what hath been already laid down cap. 3. of this latter part. Sect. 4. p. 45. And for this Exposition of the word obedience, in this place, there is as great a vote and voice of Interpreters, both ancient and modern, as for any one Scripture I know, which hath the least degree of difficulty in it. And (for the most part) they compare this place, with that Philip. 2.8. where it is said of Christ, that he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, etc. making both Scriptures to speak but of one and the same obedience. Theophylact, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theop. in Rom. 5.19. Peter Martyr, (b) Docat quodnam fuerat illud bonum, quod per unum Christum jesum salutem hominibus recuperavit. Illud autem ait fuisse Christo obedientiam, de qua scribens ad Philippenses etc. P. Mart. ad Rom. 5.19. And a little after: Quae verba docet, id quod Apostolus ait, per obedientiam Christi, qua nostracausa mortem subiit, etc. Calvin, (c) Quum pronunciat no: Christi obedientia constitui justos, hinc colligimus Christum, eo quod Patri satisfecerit, justitiam nobis comparasse. Calv. ad Rom. 5.19. Musculus, (d) His verbis aperit de qua justitia Christi loquatur. videlicet de illius obedientia, de qua legis Philip. 2, Musculus ad Rom. 5, 19, Eadem fere habent Pareus, Piscator, & Gualterus in locum. Pareus, Piscator, Gualther, and of our own, Mr. Gataker, (e) Vterque locus (Rom, 5, 19, Philip. 3.8,) intelligendus est de obedientia, quam mediationis legi peculiari, Christus exhibuit, etc. Mr, Gatak, in Elench, Gomar, p. 49. are men of this interpretation. Amongst whom, Pareus gives two reasons of this his Exposition. The first is, the antithesis or opposition which the Apostle makes between the disobedience of Adam, and the obedience of Christ: which (saith he) will not constare if by the obedience of Christ, we understand universalem ejus conformitatem cum lege, that is, his universal conformity with the Law, the disobedience of Adam being but singularis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a singular and particular transgression. But his latter and greater reason is, the effect which is here attributed to this obedience of Christ, viz. the justification, or righteous-making of many, which (saith he) the Apostle hitherto hath constantly vindicated or appropriated to the death and blood of Christ, yea and the whole Scripture throughout teacheth our Faith to seek its righteousness in this obedience of his. So that all this while here is nothing at all appears for the countenancing of that imputation of the active obedience of Christ, which takes so deeply with the thoughts of many. 5. Suppose, that by the obedience of Christ, we should here, contrary to the general current, aswell of Interpreters as the Scriptures themselves, understand that active righteousness or obedience which he performed to the Moral Law, yet will it not follow from hence, that therefore men must be justified, or made righteous by it in such a way of imputation as is contended for. For certain it is, that that justification, or righteous-making, which the Apostle speaks of in this 19 verse, is the same with that which he had spoken of, v. 16, 17, 18. Now that righteousness (as he calls it, v. 17.) is described v. 16. to be the gift (i. the forgiveness) of many offences, i. of all the offences whereof a man either doth, or shall stand guilty before God, unto justification: and evident it is, that that righteousness or justification, which stands in the gift (or forgiveness) of offences or sins, cannot stand in the imputation of an observation or fulfilling of the Law. 6. (and last) it is but a lose and very unsavoury kind of arguing, to reason from a thing simply done, to a determinate manner of doing it. If a man should argue thus, Peter was slain with death: therefore he was slain by a Beast, or therefore he was slain with a Dagger, were there the least shadow or appearance of the certainty of the Couclusion, in the premises? So when the Apostle simply and barely affirms, that by the obedience of Christ men are made righteous, to infer and conclude a particular and determinate manner of rigteous-making from hence, as viz. by imputation of this obedience, there being other ways or manners of righteous-making, (as hath been proved) hath no power nor authority at all of an Argument in it. Another text employed in the service aforesaid, SECT. 11 is found Rom. 8.4. That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfiled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. From the former clause it is argued, that the righteousness of the Law, can in no sense be said to be fulfiled in us, but only by the righteousness or obedience of Christ unto the Law, imputed to us. But to this also I Answer. 1. That some both learned and Orthodox, Rom. 4.8. cleared. understand this clause of sanctification, rather than of justification: and by the fullfilling of the righteousness of the Law, that Evangelicall obedience to the Precepts thereof, which all those that truly believe in Christ do in part perform, and desire and strive to perform more perfectly. This was the exposition of Ambrose of old: and seems to be the judgement of Peter Martyr (a) Quomodo autem praecepta legis in nobis impleantur per communionem cum Christo, qui pro nobis mortuus est, ita potest declarari: quod illis qui credunt in eum spiritus conceditur, quo vires corum instaurantur, us obedientiam legis praestare possint, non quidem perfectam et absolutam, etc. P. Marty. ad Rom. 8.4. upon the place. Nor is this exposition rejected by Musculus, though he inclines more to another, in which propension I shall willingly give him the right hand of fellowship. So that however, this place is not so clear or demonstrative for the pretended Imputation. But 2. That by the righteousness of the Law, which is here said to be fulfiled in those that believe, cannot be meant the righteousness or active obedience of Christ imputed, is evident from hence, because it must of necessity be such a righteousness, and such a fulfilling in believers, which may be apprehended as a proper and suitable effect, of Christ's condemning sin in the flesh, immediately preceding in the end of v. 3. The very purport and frame of the context, plainly showeth this relation between them, and that the latter was intended by God as a fruit or end of the former. For what the Law could not do (saith the Apostle) in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful of flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfiled, etc. That ratiocinative particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that, imports the fulfilling of the righteousness of the Law in those that believe, to be a natural and direct effect of, or thing intended by God in Christ's condemning sin in the flesh. Now impossible it is, that the active obedience of Christ, or the imputation of it, should be any proper effect, of his condemning sin in the flesh. For by this expression, of condemning sin in the flesh, Interpreters generally agree (and besides it is a thing evident in itself) that the Apostle means the abolishing or taking away the guilt, or the accusing and condemning power of sin, by the death of Christ: The phrase of condemning sin (to note this by the way) is metonymical, the antecedent put for the consequent, condemning for, disabling to accuse, or being a means of the condemnation of another; which (we know) are the consequents or effects of any man's being condemned, in course of Law. The testimony of a condemned person, against any man, is of no force in Law. But to our purpose; how the abolishing or taking away the guilt and condemning power of sin by the death of Christ, should be a means of the Imputation of the righteousness of his life, I am no ways able to conceive or comprehend; no more than I am, how the present fullness of the stomach should be a means to make a man stand in need of a second dinner immediately. For certain it is, See the first and fourth Conclusions in the second chapter of this latter part. p. 3.5. etc. (as hath been reasoned home elsewhere in this discourse) that he that hath the guilt of his sin purged and taken away by the death of Christ, needs no other righteousness, nor imputation whatsoever, for his justification or acceptation in the sight of God, no more than he that is full, needeth the honeycomb. 3. It is a very uncouth and hard expression, SECT. 12 to call the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers, a fulfilling of the righteousness of the Law in them. For that clause, in them, still notes either a subjective inhesion of some thing in persons, or else some kind of efficiency. Now the Friends themselves of that Imputation which we oppose, unanimously and constantly affirm, the righteousness of Christ to be subjectively and inherently in himself only, and to become ours only by imputation; which they still make a modification contradistinguished against subjective inhesion. So that in this sense the righteousness of Christ cannot be said to be fulfilled in them. Nor can they say, that the righteousness of the Law, or of Christ, is fulfilled in them, in a way of efficiency: for they are not the workers of this righteousness. Therefore an imputed righteousness can in no tolerable construction of speech, be said to be fulfilled in men. 4. If by the righteousness of the Law, we understand that entire and complete obedience, which every believer, according to the great variety of their several conditions, callings, and relations, stands bound to perform, it can with no agreeableness to truth, be said to be fulfilled in them, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness unto them. Because (as hath been largely proved in the former part of the Discourse) there is scarce any believer (if any at all) but stands bound in a way of duty to God and his Law, to the performance of many particular acts, yea of many kinds of acts of obedience, which are not to be found (nor can it without sin be conceived, that they should be found) in all that golden catalogue of works of righteousness performed by Christ. Therefore the righteousness of the Law, in the sense declared (which is the sense stood upon by our adversaries) cannot be said to be fulfilled in those that believe only by the active obedience of Christ imputed to them. 5. Neither doth the original word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is here translated, righteousness, signify, obedience unto, or conformity with the Law, but rather that justification, which was the end, and intent of the Law, but that it was disabled through the weakness, that is, the sinfulness, of the flesh, to ataine it, ver. 3. And so Calvin, Piscator, Musculus, with divers other learned Interpreters, and Tremellius out of the Syriaque, render the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not by the Latin word justitia, justice or righteousness, but justificatio, justification: Beza by himself, (and perhaps more agreeable to the Apostles mind then the rest) translates it, jus, the right or Law (as it were) of the Law; And so both Chrysostom, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. ad Ro. 8. ●. Serm. 13. and Theophylact b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophyl. in Rom. 8.4. of old, expound the word not of any obedience of to the Law, but of the end, scope, or intent of the Law, viz. justification. Paraus following Bezas' translation of the word, conceives that the Apostle by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or jus legis, means that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or damnatory sentence of the Law against sinners, mentioned cap. 5.16. in which signification of the word, that right or power which God hath to condemn sinners unto death, is called cap. 1.32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where our English render it, the judgement of God: the former translation had it, the Law of God. This exposition of the word, though it seems contrary to that given by Calvin and others mentioned, yet will it give out one and the same sense and importance of the place with it, as will presently appear. So that if this place were translated with exactness to the original, the argument that is now drawn from it for the imputation of Christ's righteousness, would wholly disappear. 6. Neither is it by ten degrees as clear as the Sun, that by the word Law in this Scripture, we must of necessity, and with all preciseness, understand, the Moral Law. We know there are many other acceptions of the word in the writings of this Apostle. And that it cannot be here meant precisely of the Moral Law, is evident: 1º, because that impossibility of justifying men thorough the weakness of the flesh, spoken of ver. 3. is not confined to this Law alone, but extends aswell to the other two, Ceremonial and Judicial: except we shall say, that though the Moral Law was weak through the flesh, and could not justify, yet the Ceremonial and Judicial had a sufficiency of strength hereunto; which is manifestly untrue. 2º, because the Jews, to whom especially he addresseth himself in all his disputations concerning the Law, and justification thereby, built as much or more upon the observation of the Ceremonial Law for their justification, then of the Moral, (as was formerly observed Sect. 8. of this Chapter.) Now its certain that the Apostle here takes the word Law, in the same sense and latitude, wherein the Jews meant it, when they contended and argued for justification by it: otherwise he should not argue with them ad idem, nor reach their apprehensions or meaning. 3º, because the Moral Law, suppose it had not been made weak, nor disadvantaged by the flesh, yet could it not by the most exact observation of it, have justified men, at least not all men, and by name not the Jews, who were bound to the observation of the other two, aswell as of it, and had been found sinners, had they failed in any point of either of these, though they had been absolute in the other. Now it is evident, that by the righteousness (or justification) of the Law in this place, the Apostle means the righteousness (or justification) of such a Law, which in itself was able to justify, had it met with a sufficiency of strength in men answerable to it. Therefore he cannot be conceived to speak here determinately of the Moral Law, which had no such ability in respect of the Jews. 4º, and lastly, because the Jews had been never the nearer a justification, by the righteousness of the Moral Law imputed from Christ unto them (supposing such an imputation) being (as hath been said) under the transgression of other Laws. So then this consideration also, that by the word Law in this scripture, cannot be meant the Moral Law, gives an utter defeat to the attempt that is made upon it, for the establishing of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. But 7. SECT. 14 and lastly, the clear meaning of the place seems to be this: God sending his own Son, etc. condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness (or Justification) of the Law might be fulfilled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or upon us etc. that is, that that justification, or way of making men righteous, which the Law, that is, the writings of Moses, held forth and prophesied of unto the world long since, viz. by Faith in the Messia that was then to come, and to make attonemement for sin by his blood, might be fulfilled in us, or upon us, that is, might be accomplished, made good, and fully manifested, in us, or upon us, viz. in our justification, who by our walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, that is, by an eminency of holiness in our lives above the strain and pitch of men under the Law, give testimony unto the world, that the Messia, or Great justifier of men, foretold by Moses, is indeed come into the world, and having suffered for sin and overcome death, hath poured out the Spirit of Grace abundantly upon those that believe in him. This interpretation (especially as fare as concerns the clause in question, that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us) is confirmed aswell by the sweet proportion and suitableness between such a fulfilling of the righteousness of the Law in those that believe and live accordingly as the effect, and that sending of Christ in the similitude of sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh, laid down in the former verse, as the means or cause thereof. Secondly, in this interpretation, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fulfilled, hath its proper and genuine force and signification, which is wholly lost in that exposition, which laboureth to find the imputation of Christ's righteousness in this place. For to be fulfilled, in the Scripture, properly signifieth the accomplishment, making good, or full manifestation of a thing, which before was under promise or prediction only, and as it were in the dark. Thirdly, that righteousness or justification, which is here called, the righteousness (or Justification) of the Law, is (questionless) the same righteousness, which Rom. 3.21. is said to be witnessed by the Law, that is, by the writings of Moses, and by the preaching whereof the Law itself is said to be established, ver, 31. of that Chapter. So that in this respect it may very well be called the righteousness (or Justification) of the Law. Fourthly (and last) according to the tenor of this interpretation, this passage of Scripture is of perfect sympathy and accordance with those, Rom. 3.21.22.25. whereas as the other interpretation leadeth it, it can neither fi●de friend nor fellow in all the Scripture. In the former of these last cited Scriptures, the Apostle expresseth himself thus: But now the righteousness of God without the Law, is manifested, being witnessed, by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God which is by the Faith of Jesus Christ, etc. In the latter, thus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness, for (or, concerning) remission of sins that are past, etc. It plainly appears, from these Scriptures, compared together, First, that the righteousness of God, that is, the way, means, or course which God holds for the Justification of men, stands in remission, or forgiveness, of sins. Secondly, that this righteousness or justification 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 righteousness, or justification, of the Law. Thirdly (and last) that this righteousness of God testified and asserted by the Law (in the sense given) and exercised by him under the Law, in the forgiveness of the sins of those that then believed, was not manifested, or declared, or (as our other Scripture had it) fulfilled, that is, fully revealed and discovered to the root, bottom, and foundations of it, till the coming of Christ into the world, and his dying for sin, which in that other place, is called, his condemning sin in the flesh. This for answer in full to this Scripture. The next place, SECT. 15 which I understand hath been of late taken hold of by some, to supply that which (it seems) 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 righteousness, hath not attained to the Law of righteousness. Wherefore? because they sought it not by Faith, but as it were by the works of the Law, etc. From hence it is thus argued, that had Israel, that is, the Jews, who followed after the Law of righteousness, believed in Christ, they had attained the Law of righteousness, that is, should have had the righteousness of the Law performed by Christ, imputed unto them. But, to this also I Answer, 1. that by the Law of righteousness, Rom. 9.31.32. answered. which the Jews 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 Moral, Ceremonial, or Judicial, for God had prevented them with the gift of all these Laws, so that they need not have sought after them. If it be objected, that their study & endeavour of keeping the Law, which they had, may be called, a seeking or following after the Law: I answer, be it so: yet this study and endeavour of theirs, could be no cause of their coming short of righteousness or justification, which yet is ascribed to that seeking or following after the Law of righteousness here mentioned. As Christians are never the further off from being justified, by living holily and keeping the commandments of God: So neither was the care and endeavour of the Jews to observe the precepts of that Law, which God had given them, any cause of their miscarriage in point of justification. Abraham and those that were justified by Faith in Christ, as he was, were as conscientious and careful observers of all God's Laws, as any of those were, who stumbling at the stumbling stone, were never justified. Therefore by the Law of righteousness in this Scripture, is not meant any Law properly so called, much les definitively, the Moral Law. Secondly, in this expression, the Law of righteousness in the former clause of the verse, Calvin finds an hypallage, the Law of righteousness, put for the righteousness of the Law (a) jam priere loco legem justiciae, per hypallagen posuisse mihi videtur pro justicia legis: in repetitione secundi membri, alio sensu sic vocasse justi●iae formam seu regulam. Calvin. in Rom. 9, 1. Nam illud, sectand● legem justiciae, simpliciter esse dictum de legis justitia, i. ea, quae ex operibus legu est, patebit infra, etc. Mus. in Rom. 9.31. : in the latter clause, he takes it in somewhat a different signification, for a form or rule of righteousness. Musculus dissents little (if any thing at all) from this interpretation, by the Law of righteousness, understanding that righteousness which stands in the works of the Lawb. So that neither of these Authors (nor any other that I have yet met with) restrain the word Law, in these phrases, determinately to the Moral Law. Thirdly, neither is there any reason, nor colour of reason, to limit the Apostles expressions (in this place) of the Law of righteousness, to the Moral Law only, and the righteousness thereof: because it is notoriously known (and hath been more than once observed formerly) that the Jews never hoped for, nor sought after righteousness, SECT. 16 or justification, by the Moral Law only, or the works thereof alone, but by the Ceremonial Law also, and the observances hereof; yea & principally by these, as hath been else where in this Treatise proved from the Scriptures. So that by the Law of righteousness, whereof they miscarried by not seeking it by Faith, cannot be meant determinately the Moral Law, or the righteousness thereof, because they never travailed of this, upon such terms, they never had thought or hope of being justified or made righteous, by the Moral Law or righteousness thereof only. And so Paraeus, by the Law of righteousness in this place, understands aswell the Ceremonial, as the Moral Law. (a) judaeos 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 righteousness of the Moral Law alone, suppose they should have attained it by believing, have stood the Jews in any stead for their justification, being aswell bound to the observation of the ceremonial law, as of it. Therefore it was not this law or the righteousues of it, which should have been imputed to them, in case they had trruly believed: & consequently no imputation of any law righteousness whatsoever from Christ, can be concluded from this place. But 5. (& last,) to give the clear sense and meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture) by the Law of righteousness, which Israel is said to have followed after, but not to have attained, because he sought it not by Faith, etc. can be meant nothing else but justification itself, or righteousness simply and indefinitely taken (in which acception it is oft put for justification, as was observed cap. 3. Sect, and elsewhere) which the Jews, seeking to attain it by the works of the Law, that is, by themselves and the merit of their own do, and not by faith in jesus Christ, were never able to attain, but lost the favour of God, & perished in their sins. That this is the direct and express meaning of the place, may be several ways confirmed. 1. To call righteousness simply (that is, SECT. 17 justification) the Law of righteousness, is agreeable to this Apostles dialect elsewhere. For Rom. 7.23. & 25. by the Law of sin, he means nothing else but sin itself. So Rom. 3.27. By the Law of Faith, faith itself: and again Rom. 8.2. by the Law of sin and death, he means sin and death simply. For none of these have any Law properly so called: only the word, Law, added to them, seems to represent them under a more emphatical, and weighty consideration. 2. When this Apostle speaks of the righteousness of the Law, elsewhere, he never useth this hypallage, to call it the Law of righteousness, but still in plain and direct language, The righteousness of the Law. See Rom. 2.26. Rom. 8.4. 3. This exposition makes the double antithesis or opposition, which the Apostle apparently makes, between the Gentiles, v. 30. and the Jews, v. 31. pregnant, clear, and full, whereas any other interpretation, dissolves the strength, and darkens the light of them. The Gentiles (saith he, v. 30) followed not after righteousness, that is, had no thoughts of, took no care or course for any justification before God. But Israel (v. 31.) sought after the Law of righteousness, that is, propounded unto themselves, as a business of main importance, a righteousness or justification in the sight of God, and ran a course of means, such as it was, to obtain it. Again, The Gentiles (saith he, v. 30.) attained unto righteousness, that is, unto justification in the sight of God: many of them have been justified and saved. But Israel could not attain unto the Law of righteousness (v. 31.) that is, could not compass a justification of themselves in the sight of God, as the Gentiles did. The strict Law of opposition enforceth this or the like interpretation. 4. (And last) that by the Law of righteousness, which Israel could not attain unto, he means righteousness simply, or justification in the sight of God, appears from the latter reason, or latter part of the reason, which he renders v. 3●. of Israel's miscarriage and falling short in this kind. Wherefore (saith he) could not Israel attain unto the Law of righteousness, which he followed after? because they sought it not by Faith, but as it were by the works of the Law. If by the Law of righteousness, which Israel is said to have sought after, we understand, the righteousness or obedience of the Law, the reason which is here assigned by the Holy Ghost (at least in part) why they could not atain it, viz. because they sought it by the works of the Law, will be very incongruous and absurd. For what savour either of reason or truth is there in it, to say, that a man therefore cannot attain the righteousness or obedience of the Law, because he seeks to attain it by the works of the Law? But to say that a man cannot attain unto righteousness or justification before God, if, or because he seeks it by the works of the Law, hath perfect consistence with both, I mean both with reason and truth. Lastly, I might further strengthen this exposition, with the Authority of Theophylact (if need were) who expounds that clause. v. 31. they could not attain unto the Law of righteousness, of a simple and plain non-justification. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophyl. in Rom. 9.31. The next Scripture proof (and last out of this Epistle to the Romans) which is frequently alleged for the supposed Imputation, is Rom. 10.4. The words, these, For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness, to every one that believeth. Therefore (say the Masters of that way of Imputation, which we desire to hedge up with thorns) the righteousness of Christ, or the obedience performed by him to the Moral Law, is imputed to those that believe, for their righteousness. But neither doth this Scripture know any such imputation, more than its fellows. For 1. Rom. 10.4. answered. There is not the least resemblance or colour of reason, that by the Law in this place, should be meant precisely and determinately, the Moral Law, because (as was both lately and formerly observed) the Jews, with whom chief the Apostle grapples in this place, (as is evident from the beginning of the chapter) never so much as dreamt of justification by the Moral Law only, but chief by the Ceremonial. Neither doth Calvin, or any other Interpreter that yet I have met with, understand the place of the Moral Law. Besides, it is evident from that which immediately follows v. 5. that he doth not speak here of the Moral Law: for there, he citeth that description, which Moses giveth of the righteousness of the Law; not out of any part or passage of the Moral Law, but out of the heart and midst (as it were) of the Ceremonial Law. Those words, the man which doth these things shall live by them, wherein he placeth Moses' description of the righteousness which is of the Law, are taken from Levit. 18.5. and are in special manner spoken of the ceremonials and judicials. For thus the words lie: ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and my Judgements, which if a man do, he shall live in them. Therefore (doubtless) the Apostle doth not speak here of the Moral Law. Secondly, SECT. 19 neither is it any ways agreeable to truth, that the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers (suppose such an imputation were simply granted) should be called the end of the Moral Law For (doubtless) no Law whatsoever considered simply as a Law, is any cause or means of justifying a person, in any other way, or by any other means, then by the observation of itself: and consequently, justification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of the Moral Law. For nothing can properly be said to be the intent or end of a thing, but only that, which in reason and likelihood may be procured and obtained by it. Now there is an utter and evident impossibility, that Justification by Christ should be procured or attained by the Moral Law. Neither obedience nor disobedience thereunto, hath any relation of causality to such an effect, a man being never the nearer Justification by Christ, either for the one, or for the other. It may be said with fare a more favourable aspect both upon reason and truth, that Christ is the end of the Ceremonial Law: and yet not of this neither, considered simply, as a Law, but as comprehending in it such and such usages or rites, wherein Christ and justification by his blood were typified and resembled, and which were to expire and to lose the binding power of a Law, which it had before, upon Christ's coming. As for the observation or transgression of this Law, neither the one nor the other contributed any thing more towards any man's justification by Christ, than the observation or transgression of the Moral Law did, or doth. Nay the observation both of the one and the other (though very unperfect and lame) have been a stumbling block in the way of many, and cast them quite off from justification by Christ, as the Apostle implieth, ver. 3. Therefore Thirdly, the Greek Expositors, as Chrysostom, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Chrysost. Hom. 17. in Rom. Theophylact, b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophyl. in Rom. 10.4. [Sect. 20] and Theodoret, make Christ in this sense to be called by the Apostle, the end of the Law for righteousness unto those that believe, viz. because he performed or exhibited unto them, that, which the Law propounded to itself as its end, and would have performed, but could not, viz. their justification. But Fourthly, some Interpreters conceive, that Christ in this sense is said to be the end of the Law for righteousness to him that believeth, because the Law by convincing men of sin, and exacting of them a righteousness which it doth not enable them to perform, and again by threatening and condemning them for the want of it, it doth as good as lead them by the hand unto Christ, by whom they are freely justified. This Exposition calls Musculus Master, (a) Nam finis Legis est Christus. Intelligendum est, quod Lex ad Christum ducit. Dum enim peccatum revelar, arguit ac damnat, justiciamque exigit quamnon praestat, nihil aliud agit quam quod ad Christum ducit, per quem justificemur gratis. Musc. in Rom. 10.4. and Calvin in one touch upon the place, is not fare from it. (b) Id autem fieri nequit, quin omni justicia spoliats, peccati agnitione confusi, ab ipso justiciam gratuitam petamus. Calvin. in Rom. 10.4. But neither doth this seem to be the meaning of the place: however, because it maketh not at all against us in the present controversy, we shall not (at present) insist upon any refutation of it. Fiftly, some think, Christ is therefore called the end of the Law, because by his coming in the flesh, and by his sacrifice of himself, he put an end to the Law and Mosaical dispensation. Both Musculus and Parous mention this exposition, but name not the Author. This exposition is a truth, but (doubtless) not a true exposition. Therefore Sixtly (and last) the plain and direct meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture seems to be this. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth. that is, the Law, meaning the whole Mosaical Oeconomie or dispensation (which is the frequent signification of the word, Law, in the writings of this Apostle, as was formerly observed and exemplified) was therefore, and for that end and purpose given by God unto the Jews his people, that whilst it did continue, it might instruct and teach them concerning the Messiah, who was yet to come, and by his death to make atonement for their sins, that so they might believe in him accordingly, and be justified; and further, that in time, that people and Nation might be trained up, nurtured, and prepared for the Messia himself, and that economy and perfection of the worship and service of God, which he should bring with him, and establisheth in the world at his coming. This interpretation, including the whole Mosaical administration within the meaning of the word, Law, was both Chrysostoms' of old, c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. in Rom. 10.4. and is Mr. Gatakers d Verum ego potius, Christum finem legu ea ratione simpliciter dictum existimo, quia Lex revera Dei populo lata est, quae ad Messiam illu viam pramuniret; quod erat ministerij Mosaici munus pracipuum. Gatak. Elench Gomar. p. 53. yet living amongst us: and Parcus likewise is large in the vindication and explication of it: and Calvin himself a Indicat e●am legis praposterum Interpretem esse, qui per cjus opera justificari quaerit quaniam in hoc lexdata est, quo nos ad a●●ara justitiam manuduceret. Imo quicquid doceat Lex, ●uicquid pracipiat, quiequid promittaet, semper Christum habet pro scepo; ergo ●n ipsum dirigendae sunt omnes Parts, &c Cal. in Ro. 10.4. in his commentary upon the place seems very inclineable to it. This interpretation might be further confirmed. First, from the carriage and tenor of the context itself. For doubtless the Apostles meaning is, that Christ should be the end of that Law for righteousness, by the observation whereof, as being their own righteousness, ver. 3 the Jews, against whom he here reasons, sought to be justified. Now it hath been often said, and once (at least) sufficiently proved, that the Jews sought righteousness and self justification afwell from the observation of the Ceremonial, as of the Moral Law. Secondly from the full consent and entire sympathy of other Scriptures of like propension and phrase. 2 Cor. 3.13. It is said, that the Children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished, that is, of the whole ministry or dispensation of Moses, as is evident from the carriage of the whole Chapter. Now what was the end of this dispensation, but CHRIST and justification by him? So Gal. 3.24. Wherefore the Law was our Schoolmaster unto Christ, that we might be justified by Faith. By the Law in this place, cannot be meant the Moral Law; the whole series of the context from ver. 13, to 25. riseth up against such an interpretation; neither is there any Expositor I know, that so understands it, but by the Law, which is here said to be our Schoolmaster unto Christ, is unquestionably meant, the whole frame or body of the administration of Moses, yet with a more peculiar reference to the Ceremonial part of it. See Mr. Gatakers judgement touching this Scripture, in his little Tract against Gomarus, p. 54.54. and again in his Scripta adversaria (as he calls them) p. 43. of the first part, and p. 96. of the second: together with Mr. Perkins upon the place. Thus at last we have (I suppose) abundantly vindicated the Non-imputation of the Active obedience of Christ in the sense controverted, out of the hand of all those reasonings and plead, that are usually (or that readily I think can be) build upon the Epistle to the Romans: wherein notwithstanding the greatest part of the strength and confidence of our Adversaries lieth: And therefore I shall make bold to accommodate the Reader with more brevity ingiving answer to those other Scriptures, which yet remain. The next of which, SECT. 22 is that, 1 Cor. 1.30. But ye are of him in Christ jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, anarighteousnesse, and sanctification, and Redemption. Because Christ is heresaid to be made righteousness unto us by God, it is argued, that therefore the righteousness of Christ is imputed us. But to this I answer, that here is a little or less colour for the deemed imputation, then in any of the former Scriptures. For First, 1 Cor. 1.30. answered. Christ is here no otherwise, nor after any other manner affirmed to be, or to be made righteousness unto us, than he is to be made wisdom or sanctification unto us. Therefore there is no more ground to conclude from hence the imputation of Christ's righteousness, for our righteousness, then of his wisdom for our wisdom, or his sanctification for our sanctification. And if it be a weak and unsavoury inference from this place, to conclude that we are wise with the same wisdom, wherewith Christ was wise, being imputed unto us; it must needs be a bird of the same feather, to infer, that we are righteous with the same righteousness, wherewith Christ was righteous, being imputed to us. Here is no more mention or intimation of the imputation of the one, then of the other. Suppose Christ were made righteousness unto us, by the imputation of that righteousness of his, which men so much contend for; yet there is nothing more evident, then that this special manner of his being made righteousness, must be made good otherwise, and from other Scriptures, and cannot at all be proved from this place. As because a rich man hath silver and gold and jewels in his possession or keeping, it doth not follow, that therefore he hath silver in one Chest, and gold in another, or jewels in a third, because he may possibly have them all in one & the same. From general expressions, particular modifications of things can never be proved. Therefore Secondly, when Christ is said to be made righteousness unto us, the meaning only is, that he is made or ordained by God to be the Author or sole means, by way of merit, of our justification, purchased and procured for us by his death and sufferings. This Exposition is strengthened, First, the word, righteousness, SECT. 23 is very frequently used by this Apostle for justification, as hath been often observed. See particularly the third Chap. of this second part, Sect. 2. Secondly, that righteousness or justification which believers have in, or by Christ, is still attributed in the Scriptures to the death and sufferings of Christ, (as hath been formerly observed (a) See cap. 2. of this latter part. Sect. 7. p. 9.10. ) and never to his righteousness or active obedience. 3. Neither is it true according to the principles of the men themselves, who profess enmity to us in the point depending, that Christ by his active obedience only should be made righteousness or justification unto us. Therefore they forsake their own guides, when they seek for the imputation of this righteousness unto us out of this place. 4. And lastly, the interpretation given hath the concurrent judgement of many sound and able Expositors for it, who by Christ's being made righteousness unto us, understand nothing else but our justification or righteous-making by him; some placing this justification in the forgiveness of our sins, some ascribeing it to the satisfaction, that is, the sufferings of Christ; none of them either ascribeing the purchase of it to his active obedience, or placing it in the imputation of this unto us. Let chrysostom a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Chrysost Hom. 5. in 1. ad Corin. and Theophylact b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et mox. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophyl. in 1 Cor. 1.30. be consulted with upon the place: and of later times, Pomeranus (c) Quierg● in nobis peccatores sumus, in ipso et per ipsum, justi sumus, non imputate propter ipsum nobis peccate. Pomeran. and Piscator. (d) justicia: id est, cujus satisfactions nobu donata, atque imputata, justi sumus. Piscator in 1 Cor. 1.30. Mr. Gataker likewise p. 47. of his little Tract against Gomarus, rejects that interpretation, as wanting aswell colour as substance of truth, which seeketh to establish the imputation of the active obedience of Christ upon this Scripture. Bernard (as he is cited by a Great Master of the way of Imputation, though against (e) Bishop Downham. Tract, of justific. p. 223. Sect. 4. [SECT 24.] himself) is express and full over and over for that sense of the place which we maintain. Christ (saith he, as Bishop Downham translates him (was made unto us wisdom in preaching; justice (or righteousness, in absolution of sins, etc. Again: enlighten mine eyes, that I may be wise: remember not the sins of my youth and my ignorances', and I am just. Yet again: He was made unto us of God, wisdom, teaching prudence; justice, forgiving sins, etc. They only are wise, who are instructed by his Doctrine; they only just, who of his mercy have obtained parden of sin. In all this variety of expression, it is observable, that he still placeth that righteousness or justification, which Christ is made unto us, in the remission or pardon of our sins. Which with the premises upon this Scripture duly considered, I presume no imputation of the active obedience of Christ will be any more urged or contended for from hence. The next Scripture that is much solicited by some, to speak a good word in the cause of the aforesaid imputation, is 2 Cor. 5.21. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. From hence they infer, that as our sins are imputed unto Christ, so Christ's righteousness, meaning his active obedience (or else they do not hold to the point) is imputed unto us. Of all the Scriptures which men take up for the plea of the imputation opposed, Mr. Gataker hath well observed, this is most pregnant and clear against themselves. (a) Quid ser● clarius contiase producere poterat, quam illud, 2 Cor. 5.21. Gataker in Elench contra Gomar. p. 48, 2 Cor. 5.21. cleared. But for Answer. 1. There is no footing in this Scripture, for the inference drawn from it: here is nothing said touching any imputation of our sins to Christ: and consequently, here can be nothing to build a reciprocal imputation of his righteousness unto us upon. As for that expression, of Christ's being made sin for us, it imports no such imputation, as men suppose, as will appear presently. 2. Some of the most judicious and learned assistants of the way of this Imputation, absolutely reject this equality or reciprocation of Imputation, between the sins of believers unto Christ, and the righteousness of Christ unto them. There is not the same force or power (saith Bishop Davenant) (b) Non est eadem vi● nostra injustietae, ad efficiendum Christum injustum & iniquum, qua est obedientiae ejus et justiciae, ad constituendos fideles, justos et innocentes. Bishop Davenaut. De Iust. Habit. etc. p. 332. Christus ita volute peccata in se suscipcre, ut non inde peccater, sed hostia pro peccato constitueretur. ibidem. p. 333. of our unrighteousness, to make Christ unrighteous, which is of his righteousness, to make those that believe righteous and innocent. See more to this purpose in the second Chapter of this Discourse, Sect. 19 p. 26. So that (according to their own principles) if the righteousness or active obedience of Christ be no otherwise imputed unto us, than our sins are imputed unto him, we are not made formally righteous by such an imputation. 3. Neither is there so much as the face or appearance in this place of any comparison made, between Christ's being made sin for us (whatsoever be meant by it) and our being made the righteousness of God in him, but only the latter is affirmed as the end, consequent, or effect of the former. 4. that the weight and importance of that particle, in him, should be, by the imputation of his active obedience unto us, there is neither instance or parallel expression in Scripture, nor rule in Grammar, nor figure in Rhetoric, to make probable in the lowest or lightest degree. Therefore 5. (and last) the direct and clear meaning of the place, is this: that God for that end made Christ sin, that is, an offering or sacrifice for sin, for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, that is, that we might be justified, or made a society or remnant of righteous ones, after that peculiar manner of justification or righteous-making which GOD hath contrived and established through that sacrifice or offering of his Son. This interpretation is justifiable upon these and the like considerations. 1. SECT. 25 It is a frequent Scripture expression, to call the sin-offering, or the sacrifice for sin, by the name of sin simply. See for this Exod. 29.14. Exod. 30.10. Levit. 5, 6, 16, 18, 19 Levit. 7.1, 2, 7. Levit. 9.7. Ezek. 44.27. Ezek. 45.19.23. Hos. 4.8. besides other places, This is generally acknowledged by Interpreters, yea by the choicest Adversaries themselves which we have in the present controversy. (a) See Bish. Downham Trea. of justifi. p. 226. etc. and Bish. Davenant. de justic. Hab. p. 333. 2. To express a number or company of justified or righteous persons by the abstract term of righteousness, is very agreeable likewise with the Scripture dialect in many other places. It is an expression of like stamp and figure with those, poverty, for poor men, captivity for captives, etc. Of which kind you please to see many instances in the third Chap. of this latter part, Sect. 3. in the latter end, p. 45. 3. That addition, of God, (the righteousness of God) imports, that that righteousness or justification which believers obtain by the sacrifice or death of Christ, is not only a righteousness of God's free donation and gift, but of his special wonderful and profound contrivement for them. 4. By the Grammatical construction and dependence of the latter Clause, our being made the righteousness of God in Christ, upon the former, viz. his being made sin for us, it is evident, that in the latter, such an effect must of necessity be signified and meant, which may answer and suit with that cause, which is mentioned in the former, viz. the death of Christ for us. Now the proper and direct effect of the sacrifice or death of Christ, is deliverance from the guilt and punishment of sin, not the imputation of his active obedience unto men. Christ did not die for men, that they might be justified or made righteous by the righteousness of his life. (a) Quis enim sic argumentaretur, mentis ●ompos: Christus factus est pro nobu peccatum, i. sacrificium peccati expiatorium, quo nos justi constitueremur: ●●r go obedientia Christi in vita praestita, non autem morte sive sacrificio Christi, justi constituimur? Gatak. Elench. Gom p. 48. 5. The Scriptures, when they speak of the death or sufferings of Christ under the consideration of that efficiency or causality which is in them in respect of justification, never ascribe any other effect unto them, but only, either the remission of sins, deliverance from wrath, redemption, or the like. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us. Gal. 3.13. 6. (and last) the Interpretation given, as touching the substance and main importance of it, is the exposition of Interpreters (almost) without number, as of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Occumenius, Calvin, Musculus, Piscator, etc. I forbear the citation of passages from them, partly because the exposition hath been (I conceive) abundantly cleared and confirmed already, partly because it is (upon the matter) acknowledged by the chief opponents we have in the business in hand; partly because the Author's themselves (if any man doubt or be unsatisfied) may readily be consulted withal, and partly likewise to save the Reader an unnecessary labour, as I conceive. I shall only insist upon one Scripture more, SECT. 26 and that with somewhat the more brevity, because the argument or proof that is drawn from it, is more ridiculous and importune, than any of the former. One copy of this Scripture is found, Gal. 3.10. For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them. Out of this Scripture hath of late been hewn (as I hear) this worthy pillar to support the tottering and ruinous building of the premised Imputation. If every one be cursed, that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to do them, then can no man be justified, but remains accursed, who hath not the perfect observation of the Law imputed from Christ unto him: The reason is, because no man is able to obtain any such personal observation thereof. The argument is not of any eminent desert, to have an answer bestowed upon it: yet let us not envy it this honour. If the man of this argument, whoever he be, be in good earnest with it, doubtless, he is confederate with Stapleton the Papist (at least in part) who maintains against Calvin, that the righteousness of the Law, and the righteousness of Faith, are not two, but one and the same righteousness. Therefore First, Gal. 3.10. Answered. if there be no other means to dissolve the Curse denounced against all non-continuers in all things that are written in the Law to do them, but a perfect fulfilling of the Law by Christ imputed unto them, woe and woe a thousand times to the world, yea to the whole world of men and women without exception. For certain it is, 1. that there is no such perfect fulfilling of Law imputed from Christ unto any man, (as hath been proved at large throughout the first part of this discourse) and 2. that were there any such imputation, yet this would not reach the dissolution of that curse: this cleaves faster to the whole generation of Adam's posterity, then to be dissolved or loosed from any of them by any other means, then by the blood of Jesus Christ. It is not said, that without keeping the Law, but, that without shedding of blood, there is no remission. Heb. 9.22. Christ might have kept the Law a 1000 years for us; and yet never have found Justification or redemption from the Curse of the Law for us, had he not been made a curse for us, by his death and sufferings. Gal. 3.13. Secondly, SECT. 27 he that is fully discharged and acquitted from all his non-continuances in the things of the Law, I mean from the guilt of all his sins committed against the Law, is doubtless out of the danger and reach of the curse of the Law. Now it is fully consistent with the principles of that opinion itself which we oppose, to ascribe a perfect forgiveness of all sins 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 Christ's 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, Do this and live. Therefore the argument in hand, is no more a friend to that opinion itself which it seeks to establish, than it is to the truth itself. Falsum, nunc vero, nunc falso est con●●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 do 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 do them, to have continued in them. It is well that this argument is weak: for otherwise it is of a most bloody and unmerciful Spirit, and would bear down all the world before it into Hell. If there be no other way or means for poor sinful men to come off from the curse of the Law, but by continuing in all things that are written therein to do them. Doubtless they must all fall under this curse, and never rise again: Therefore Fourthly (and last) the direct intent and meaning of this passage of Scripture, is this, Cursed be every one that continueth not, etc. 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 do them: the curse of the Law will fall heavy and terrible upon them. That this is the plain and express meaning of the Apostle in this place, and that, that clause of universality, Cursed be every one, etc. is to be limited to the universality of those only, who depend upon the Law for justification, 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 look for justification by Faith in jesus 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 Curse and threatning● of the Law do no ways concern or touch any of these. So Gal. 5.23. speaking of those that were Christ's, that is, that were dead to the Law, as touching all hope and dependence upon it for justification, and had cast themselves upon him for that blessing, affirmeth, that against such there was no Law, meaning no Law to judge or condemn them. And 1 Tim. 1.9. He denieth that the Law is given to a righteous man, but unto the lawless and disobedient, etc. 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 believers in jesus Christ, from whom all holiness and righteousness proceed. But Secondly, the context itself apparently leads us to this limitation and interpretation. For 1º, the words immediately preceding in the beginning of the verse are these. For as many as are of the works of the Law (that is, that seek to be justified by the works of the Law, as Calvin, Musculus, and all Protestant writers generally interpret) are under the Curse. To prove this, he allegeth that testimony of the Law mentioned: For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not, etc. 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 seek to be justified by the Law, and not by Christ. Again, 2º, the interpretation given is confirmed from the words of ver. 9 immediately foregoing: Here he had pronounced those that were of Faith, that is, that sought Justification by Faith in Christ, Blessed with faithful 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 affirms that all these are under the curse, and consequently fare from being blessed. And to prove this, he citys the passage in hand from the Law itself: Cursed be every one that continueth not, etc. 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 removal of the Curse threatened, or for the obtaining of the blessing promised, who seek to be justified by the works of the Law, and not of those that believe with Abraham, and depend upon Christ for justification. 3º, (and last) the tenor of the verse immediately following, is as the light of the Sun, to clear and vindicate this interpretation. For here the Apostle goeth on with the further proof 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 do 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 means of justification by the Law imaginable but only this. Therefore that justification 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 do them, because this is nothing else but justification itself 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 righteousness of the Law together; may not a man be entitled to, or invested with a righteousness of the Law, in and by his Faith? To this the Apostle answers (by a preoccupation) in the words immediately 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 believing, he cannot be said to have a legal righteousness put upon him by his Faith. This he proveth from the express tenor and condition of the Law itself, which requires a personal observation of the things contained therein by every man that shall live, that is, that shall be justified thereby: But the man that doth them, shall live in them: the full importance of which clause▪ you shall find opened in the 8. Chapter of the first part of this Discourse. By all that we have reasoned upon the passage of Scripture in hand, it is more than double evident, that here is no refuge or sanctuary for the pretended imputation, but rather an high hand of Heaven against it to overthrow it. Some further plead that of the same Apostle, Phil. 3 9 That I may be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, etc. but we have elsewhere (a) In the first part of the Dis. course. cap. 6. upon a diligent search and inquiry, found this Scripture looking a quite contrary way. Other Scriptures than these alleged with any face or colour of reason in the cause of that Imputation which I disclaim, I verily know none: If I did I would not favour myself, or the cause I maintain in the least, by dissembling or suppressing any of them. As for those that are confident, that they see that imputation of Christ's righteousness which we oppose, in that and the like Scriptures, Deliver me from blood guiltiness o God, Lob. 41, 27. and my tongue shall sing of thy righteousness Psal. 51.14. and again in that, Do this and live, Luk. 10.28. I leave them and their confidence to the convictions of miracles and signs from heaven. For (doubtless) as for texts and interpretations, they are turned into Stubble with them, and reasons & demonstrations are esteemed by them but as Leviathan esteemeth iron and brass, that is, as straw and rotten wood. job. 41.27. CAP. VI Wherein the Arguments against the imputation of Faith for righteousness: (in the sense stated in the beginning of the Discourse) are propounded and answered. THere have been two opinions, the one affirmative, the other negative, hitherto promiscuously argued, and maintained in this Discourse. The former pleads the Imputation of Faith (in a proper sense) for righteousness, in an unproper; as was declared in the beginning. The latter denyeth the imputation of Christ's active obedience, in the letter and formality of it, in justification: which expressions likewise have long since been interpreted, and cleared from all ambiguity. We shall now towards the close of our work, distinguish them, and answer the arguments or objections against the one and the other apart by themselves. I begin with the reasons or arguments urged against the affirmative. SECT. 1 The first and great argument or objection against the Imputation of Faith for righteousness (in the sense taken) usually presents itself in this or the like shape. That which impeacheth the truth or justice of God, Object. 1 can have no consistence or agreement with the truth. But the imputation of Faith for righteousness (in the sense declared) impeacheth, or trencheth upon the truth and justice of God. Ergo The reason of the assumption (which is only questionable) is rendered thus; because if God should impute Faith for righteousness, he should account that to be a righteousness which is none; and therein should be untrue or unjust. The major proposition in this syllogism, is an anointed truth, and not to be touched: but it is unequally yoked, the minor being of a contrary Spirit, and therefore to be denied. And to the proof or confirmation of it I answer. First, that this was (in effect) the plea and argument of that fanatique Spirit of Suencfeldius, (as it stands upon record in Zanshie (a) Dei tribunal est multo justius, quam jureconsultorum, ubi impii non absolvuntur. Ergo in Theologia verbum justificandi non juridic● pro absolutione est accipiendum, sed pro justum, integrum, gratum Deo reddere. Zanch. in Epist. l. 1. p. 215. ) and likewise of the Counsel of Trent (as Calvin hath observed (b) Iterum enim affirmant, nos verè justos esse, non tantum reputari. Ego contrà &c, Calvi. Antidos. ad sess. 6. p. 324. ) to prove, that the word justification in the Scripture, was not to be taken in a juridical sense, viz. for absolution, but in a physical or moral sense, for the making or constituting of a man properly and completely just or righteous, and is the common argument of the Papists, for their Justification by inherent grace and works (c) Bellarminus dicit, verbo imputandi, non significari nudam existimationem, sed existimationem cui veritas in reipsa respondear. Chamier. t. 3. l. 21. c. 13. p. 886. . This notwithstanding, I conceive it very unjust, to charge those that use it, either with Swenchfeldianisme or Popery. But Secondly, neither doth it follow, that God should account that for righteousness, which is no righteousness, though he should count Faith for righteousness For any obedience, or action conformable to a righteous Law, or rule, may truly (and oft in Scripture, is) be called, righteousness. Then stood up Phineas, and executed judgement, etc. and it was counted unto him for righteousness, etc. Psal. 106, 30. By righteousness in this place, cannot be meant a conformity or obedience to the whole Law: one particular act, (as this was) whatsoever it were, cannot bear the appellation of righteousness in such a sense. Therefore it signifies only a conformity with some particular and special precept or rule. See the word used much in a like sense, Gen. 30.33. 2 Cor. 9.9.10. Hebr. 11.33. etc.) Now then Faith, or believing, being a subjection or obedience to a special commandment of God, (1 john 3.23. 2 Pet. 2.21. Rom. 1.5, etc.) it may both with truth, and in sufficient propriety of speech, be called, righteousness: yea the weakest or most imperfect believing, look what degree of sincerity and truth there is in it, so fare it may truly be called and counted righteousness: yet by righteousness in that clause, where God is said to impute the Faith of him that believeth for righteousness, SECT. 2 Non hoc dicitur● Deum apud se judicare illos, pro qu●um peocatis universis Christus satisfocit, nihil mali unquam commisisse, aut boni debiti omisisse, sed eodem haber● loco, quoad mortu reatum, et jus ad vitam aeternum, acsi nihil vel m●li ad misissent, vel boni deb●ti admisissent, Gat. Elench. p. 35.36. S●e also my answer to Mr. Walker, p. 24. 25. etc. I do not conceive is meant an act of obedience or conformity to any special or particular precept of God. Therefore Thirdly, when with the Scriptures we affirm, that God imputeth or accounteth any man's Faith unto him for righteousness, we do not mean that God only accounteth such a believing for a righteous act unto him: much less do we mean, that he esteemeth it a perfect, literal, and complete observation or fulfilling of the whole Moral Law: but that which we mean, is this, that God looks upon a man who truly believeth, with as much grace and favour, and intends to do as graciously and bountifully by him, as if he were a man of perfect righteousness, and had entirely kept and fulfilled the whole Law. In this sense to account Faith for righteousness, hath not the least colour or appearance either of injustice or repugnancy 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 last) there is scarce any thing affirmed more frequently, or familiarly by the best reformed writers, then that God esteems or accounts those just, or perfectly just, who properly and in exactness and strictness of speech are not such, but only have their sins forgiven. Therefore they apprehended no matter of unjustice or contrariety unto truth in that, which the objection impeacheth of both. From hence we gather (saith Calvin (a) In Rom. 4.3. ) that Paul's 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 Lo●es. Refor, ratione. p. 368. : It follows 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 sins are not imputed to us. Therefore we stand just or righteous before God (saith Mr. Fox (c) De Christo gratu justine. l 3. p. 280. ) because our sins are forgiven us. (We have Remission of sins (saith Melancthon (d) In Exam. Theol. de justific. p. 529. ) for and through Christ: which having obtained, justi sumus coram Deo, we are righteous before God. Paul (saith Calvin) estimates the blessedness 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 fare 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 wea●●e the Reader over (e) Instit. l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 11. Gratu●ta Dei acceptatio subrogatur in locum justiciae. idem. Non magu ve, ritati, screutiae, justeque Dei judicio repugnat, eos, pro quorum peccat●● 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 prassis teriut, cum id ipsi tamè noutiquam fecerint, pro quibus Christus tandem pr●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 Authentic Name with them. But the objection was (at least) as much as answered before: therefore proceed we to do as much for another. A second objection raised by some against the Imputation of Faith (in a proper sense) for righteousness, SECT. 3 Object. 2 is this. If Faith (in such a sense) should be imputed for righteousness, then should justification be by works, or by somewhat in ourselves. But the Scripture every where rejecteth works, and all things in ourselves from having any thing to do in justification. Ergo. I answer to both propositions, and first to the major, by distinguishing the consequent therein. That justification should be by works, or by somewhat in ourselves, may be understood two ways. Either 1ᵒ. by way of merit, so that by works, should signify, 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 righteousness (in the sense oft declared) and yet no man justified by the merit of any work or works in himself. 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 go under the name of a work, or that may be said to be done by us, in respect of a simple performance from having to do in the matter of justification. Nay it expressly requireth of us, and enjoineth that as of absolute necessity to justification, yea and attributeth Justification to it from place to place, which itself calleth a work. This is the work of God (saith our Saviour to the Jews) that ye believe in him whom he hath sent. And when Paul exhorts the Philippians to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, doubtless he doth not exclude their Faith or believing in Christ. Now that believing in Christ is required as of absolute necessity aswell to justification as salvation (at least of those that are adulti, and of years of discretion) is a thing (I conceive) so well known and of that universal confession, that I may forbear the citation of Scriptures without prejudice to the truth of it. Thus our best and soundest writers, without scruple, call that believing by which we are justified, a work, or the doing of something. Faith (saith Calvin (a) Fides praec●puum opus est, quod a nobis Deus exigit. Calvin. in jac. 1.22. ) is the chief work that God requireth of us. And what did Abraham (saith Musculus (b) Quid enim feeit Abraham, quod imputaretur, etc. Musc. in Gal. 3.6. ) that should be imputed for righteousness, but only believe God? The Reader may please to see more to this purpose in my Answer to Mr. Walker, p. 67, etc. So that the treasure of this objection is but coals 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 Gospel. But the Imputation of Faith for righteousness, in the sense now contended for, makes justification not to be of Grace. Ergo. Reverencing the innocence of the major Proposition, I come with a rod unto the minor, Answer. 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 justification. For by Grace ye are saved through Faith. Ephes. 2.8. And are freely justified by his Grace, etc. Rom. 3.24. through Faith in his blood, etc. ver. 25. Nay the truth is, that the work of believing (as our Saviour called it) is so fare from carrying any opposition in it to the freeness of God's grace in Justification, that it is purposely required of men (and it only) by him, that the freeness of his grace in their justification might take place and be established thereby. Rom. 4.16. Therefore it is by Faith, that it might be by Grace. And in reason, how can a gift be conceived to be more freely given, then when nothing more is required of him to whom it is given then that he receives it? Now believing, is nothing else (being interpreted) but a receiving, of that righteousness or justification which God giveth in and with his Son jesus Christ. As many as received him, etc. Joh. 1.12. that is (as it is explained in the end of the verse) as many as believed in his Name. So that in the imputation of Faith for righteousness (in the sense so oft explained) there is not the least appearance of any prejudice at all to the freeness of grace in justification. And thus we are fairly delivered out of the hand of this objection also. A fourth is this. Object. 4 That which ministereth occasion to the flesh of boasting in itself, SECT. 5 is no ways consonant to the tenor and truth of the Gospel. But the Imputation of Faith for righteousness in the sense claimed, ministereth this occasion of boasting unto the flesh. Ergo. This syllogism also, as touching the matter of it, halts right down on the minor proposition. For certain it is, that there is no occasion, nor (indeed) colour of occasion of boasting ministered to the flesh, by that opinion, which maintains the imputation of Faith for righteousness in the sense avouched. For First, suppose the work or act of believing, which is so imputed for righteousness, be a man's own work or act (which is all the colour that can be pretended why the imputation of it for righteousness, should be an occasion of boasting to the flesh) yet it is so by gift, and by the mere grace and donation of another, viz. God. This the Apostle determines in express words. Ephes. 2.8. By grace ye are saved through Faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, that is, that Faith by which ye are saved is the gift of God. See likewise Philip. 1.29. 1 Cor. 2.12. 1 Cor. 3.6. with many other places of like importance. Now then, since a man hath nothing, doth nothing in believing, but what he receiveth from another, all occasion or pretence of boasting, is cut off by this, even according to the Apostles own rule and reasoning. 1 Cor. 4.7. What hast thou, that thou hast not received? and if thou hast received it, why gloriest or boastest thou as though thou hadst not received: evidently implying, that no man hath any just cause or pretence of boasting (I mean in, or of himself) for any thing, but only of that which he hath of his own, and from himself. Let the thing be never so glorious and excellent, if he hath received it, from another, he hath cause only to boast and glory in him from whom he hath received it, but not at all in himself. If God miracluosly should raise up Children unto Abraham of the stones of the Earth, had these stones, being now made men, and men of the greatest worth and excellency, any cause or pretence of glorying in themselves concerning that dignity and honour which is now come upon them? No more hath any flesh the least cause or colour of boasting in itself, how great or excellent soever the act of Faith may be conceived to be, or how great and rich soever the privileges may be which depend upon it, because it is given unto them by another: it is the glory of the giver, and the comfort only or blessedness of the receiver. But Secondly, SECT. 5 suppose the act of believing were from a man's self, or in part from a man's self, yet hath he no cause to boast in himself, that God should be pleased to impute it unto him for righteousness in the sense we embrace. Because that weight of glory, those high and excellent things which attend upon Faith, and are given to it, are not given to it for any worth or dignity that is found in it (as we have heretofore clearly demonstrated) but by the most free, gracious, and good pleasure of God. If a King for taking a pin of a man's sleeve, should raise his House, and make him honourable in the State, and give him thousands to maintain it, were it not a ridiculous thing for such a man to go up and down and brag of the pin of his sleeve? Alas, for all this honour and greatness that he is come unto, he is beholding to the grace and bounty of his Prince, and nothing at all to the pin in his sleeve. He might have had twenty pins in his sleeve; and yet never have been worth twenty pence, had he not met with such a royal and magnificent disposition in him that so rewarded him. This is the case of Faith, in respect of those great things which depend upon it: though a Believer hath the forgiveness of sins, and the love and favour of God given him upon it, and right and title to the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. yet all this is no ground or pretence at all why any man should boast of himself or of his Faith, though it were from himself (which yet we absolutely deny) because if this Faith had not met with a God of infinite, grace, bounty and magnificence, we might have been miserable and accursed for all our Faith and believing whatsoever. Yea by the Apostles own rule, when God is pleased to choose weak and foolish things to confound the mighty, all occasion of boasting is cut off from the flesh. Indeed if men had fulfilled the Law, and been justified that way, there had been some pretence for boasting or glorying in themselves. First, because such a righteousness had held some proportion (at least) with the reward that should have been given to it. Rom. 4.4. To him that worketh (saith Paul) that is, that keepeth the Law, the wages, or reward is counted, not by favour, but of debt: God should have given them no more, than what they had (at least in some sort) deserved. Secondly, because if they had made out their happiness that way, they had done it out of themselves, that is, out of the strength of those abilities which were essential to their natures, and in the strictest and most proper sense that can be spoken of, or applied to, a creature, their own. Both which being apparently wanting in Faith, or in the Act of believing, there can be no colour or pretence of boasting for the flesh, though it be imputed by God for righteousness, as hath been explained. So that this objection also vanisheth into nothing. Fiftly, SECT. 6 I have somewhere met with such a reasoning as this, against the point in hand. Object. If Faith be imputed unto us for righteousness, then are we justified by that which is unperfect, and which itself needs a justification, for no man's Faith is perfect in this life. But there is no justification to be looked for before God by that which is unperfect, but only by that which is perfect, etc. Ergo. To the Major Proposition I answer, Answer by distinguishing that clause in the consequent or latter part of it, then are we justified by that which is unperfect, etc. These words may have a double sense or meaning; as either that we are justified without the concurrence of any thing that is simply perfect, to our justification: or that somewhat that is comparatively weak and unperfect, may somewaies concur and contribute towards our justification. If the former sense be intended, the proposition is absolutely false, and the consequence to be denied: it doth not follow, If Faith be imputed for righteousness in the sense given, then is there nothing that is perfect required as necessary unto justification, this inconsequence is notorious. Yea the truth is, that the imputing of Faith for righteousness in the sense of the discourse, presupposteth somewhat (if not more things than one) that is absolutely perfect, as absolutely necessary unto justification. Had not the Lord Christ, who is perfect himself, even as perfect as perfection itself could make him, made a perfect atonement for sin, there had been no place for the imputation of Faith for righteousness: yea there had been no place so much as for the being either of such a Faith, or of any righteousness or justification at all for men. For it is through the atonement made by Christ for us, that either we believe in him, or in God through him: and it is through the same atonement also, that God justifieth us, upon our believing, that is, imputes our Faith unto us for righteousness, in the sense argued. If the said clause be meant in the latter sense, viz. that somewhat that is weak and unperfect, may sometimes concur or conduce towards justification, so the Proposition is granted; but then the Minor goes to wreck. For Justification before God may be expected and looked for, though that Faith whereby we believe, yea and that Minister of the Gospel by whom we believe, be both weak and unperfect, and yet both these (we know) are somewaies contributory towards justification. Except ye believe that I am he, you shall die in your sins, etc. (Joh. 8.24.) and consequently never be justified. We have believed in Christ jesus, that we might be justified, etc. Gal. 2.16. And that the Minister of the Gospel, hath (or at least may have) his part or hand in our justification, is evident, How shall they believe in him, of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a Preacher? Rom. 10.14. He that hath any influence into our Faith, or the working and raising that in the soul, is somewaies instrumental and helpful towards our justification. But neither doth our justification before God, depend upon the perfection of our Faith, but upon the truth of it: neither doth the truth of our Faith depend upon the perfection of him, by whom we believe, but upon the truth of what he teacheth and delivereth unto us for that end. So that the light of this truth shines on every hand, that men may be justified, ministerially and instrumentally, by things that are weak and unperfect. Therefore this objection also is no better than his fellows. Sixtly, Object. 6 Some have opposed the imputation of Faith which we plead for, with this reason. SECT. 8 If Faith be imputed unto us for righteousness in the sense expressed, than God should rather receive a righteousness from us, than we from him, in our justification. But God doth not receive a righteousness from us, but we from him, in justification. Ergo. I answer, that in this syllogism, Answer. the Major Proposition is guilty of the error and falsehood in the conclusion. For it no ways follows upon that imputation of Faith for righteousness, which we defend, that God should either receive a righteousness from us, or that we should receive none from him, in our justification Because First, Gods imputing Faith for righteousness unto us, in the sense which hitherto we have aided, doth no ways imply or import, that Faith is a righteousness, properly so called, but only that God by the means thereof, and upon the tender of it, looks upon us as righteous, yet not as made either meritoriously, or formally righteous, by it, but as having fulfilled and performed that condition or covenant, upon the fulfilling and performance whereof, he hath covenanted and promised, to make us righteous, meritoriously by the death and sufferings of his own Son: formally, with the pardon and remission of all our sins. Secondly, Suppose such a position or inference as this, lay in the bowels of what we hold, that Faith were a proper righteousness, yet neither would this argue, that therefore God should receive a righteousness from us, in our justification. For we rather receive our Faith from God (as was laid down in Answer to the fourth objection) for our justification, than God from us, in our justification: though I grant, that in a sense a fare off, and with much ado, it may (haply) be made a truth, that God receives our Faith from us in justification. But Thirdly (and last) that that imputation of Faith for righteousness which is protected by us, supposeth a righteousness given unto, and received by men from God in justification (and consequently, is fare from denying it) is evident from hence, because it could not be truly said, that God doth impute Faith for righteousness unto any man, except he should make him righteous upon his believing. Now as it is impossible possible that a man should be made righteous without a righteousness in one kind or other; so is it impossible also, that that righteousness, wherewith a man is made righteous in justification, should be given, or be derived upon him from any other, but from God alone. For this righteousness (as hath been already proved at large) can be none other, but forgiveness of sins: and who can forgive sins but God alone? And by this time the fire of this objection also (I conceive) is turned into smoke. Some other exceptions (I confess) there are against this Imputation we hold forth, SECT. 9 of lighter consideration, but some of these (if not the whole thripp of them) I have Answered at large in my Answer to Mr. Walker, now Printed by some (as it seems) at the unreasonable importunity of my Antagonists Socinianism Discovered, etc. which called for it (and for 7 times more) with open mouth, and with multiplicity of requests made of forged cavillations and ragged raylings. But complaints (I consider) are here but impertinencies. If the Reader please to set in about pag 32 of that Discourse, and read on, he shall find several objections more, such as they are, against the Imputation in hand, attended with their Answers like madmen with sober, for fear of doing harm. And as for those viperous and malignant imputations rather than objections, of Socinianism, Arminianism, etc. against the Doctrine maintained in this Discourse, they are fully and at large taken off in that (a) pag. 6.7, 8, 9, 10. etc. : and the contrary opinion arrested upon strong and vehement suspicion of confederacy indeed with the unclean Spirit of those errors. Yea it hath been more than once in this Treatise affirmed, (and once at least, if not twice (b) Part 1. ●c. 23. Part. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 8. sufficiently proved, aswell by evidence of reason, as by the Authority of able, learned, and understanding men, that such an imputation of the Active obedience of Christ, as Mr. Walker with some others maintain, and which hath been impugned hitherto, doth absolutely cancel and make void the necessity of Christ's satisfaction by his death; which is the Spirit and soul or Socinian Heresy. See the testimonies cited from Paraeus and Piscator, to this purpose, cap. 2. Sect. 8. of this second Part, whereunto I shall here add a passage or two from Mr. Gataker, in his little Tract against Gomarus. Be it granted (saith he pag 7. (c) Detur, h● minem etiam paenu ex lege violata debit●●, non obnoxium tantum, sed constrictum etiam, ad obedientiam nihilominus exhibendam teneri: ut nullus dices, nec quod evincat qui●quā omnine comparet isthic, hominem qui ebedientiam legi a●solutissiman pr●●st●●erit, etiam ad poenas de pendendas nihilom●nus tenert. At qui hac ratione pugaant illi, quos tu impetu non fuisse necesse, ut Christus, cum legem pro nobis ad extremum apicem obseruasset, ad poenas insuper pro iisdem subeundas adigetur: ut ista, salten hac ratione, supervacanes fuerint. Gatak. Elench. Gomor. p. 7.8. Si enim Christi obedientia, quam Legi loco nostro Prastitit, nobis ad justitiam imputatur, imputationis hujus●e beneficio justi plane constituimur: ac proinde sub legu maledectione non su●us amplius constituti, nec propterea Christi. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redimi ab ea, quae nos obnoxies non habet, opus habemus. Idem. p. 19 Si fideles, Christi obedientia activa sibi a Deo imputata, perfect justi constituuntur, nihil illis amplius opus est m●rte Christi, quam pro injustis, non pro justu ille oppetebat. Idem. p. 37. ) that a man that is liable to punishment, yea and that actually lieth under punishment for the transgression of the Law, is notwithstanding still bound to the keeping of the Law; yet surely you will not say, neither is there any thing in what you writ, which any ways proves, that that man, who perfectly fulfils the Law, is yet bound to suffer punishment. And this is the plea of those, whom you oppose, that there was no necessity, that Christ, having kept the Law for us to the utmost jot and title thereof, should further be put upon it to suffer punishment for us also: So that, in this respect at least, that punishment or sufferings of his, must be superfluous and needless. Again, afterwards in the same Tract. p. 19 If the obedience of Christ, which he performed to the Law in our stead, be imputed unto us for righteousness, we must needs be made perfectly righteous, by the benefit of such an imputation, and so we are no more under the curse of the Law: nor was there any need that we should be redeemed from that, by the blood of Christ, which had no power over us. Yet once more in the same Treatise, p. 37. he frames the argument of those, with whom himself joins against Gomarus in the point in hand, after this manner: If Believers are made perfectly righteous with the active obedience of Christ imputed by God unto them, then have they no need at all of the death of Christ for them; which death he suffered, not for the righteous, but for the unrighteous. So that if men were not partial in themselves, but would please so fare to dispense with their prejudice, as to judge righteous judgement between the Doctrine laid down and defended in this Discourse, and that which opposeth it, it would clearly appear, that this were the right Horse to set the Saddle of Socinianism and Arminianism upon, and not the other. And as the equity of this decision touching the imputation, and non-imputation of Christ's active obedience, fully appears by what hath been now and formerly said in this discourse, SECT. 10 so as touching the imputation and non imputation of Faith in a proper sense, it appears as fully also in those passages lately related unto, in that other discourse mentioned. But howsoever we have abundantly vindicated the Doctrine asserted in this Treatise, from all imputations either of Socinianism, Arminianism, Popery, or the like: so that we need make no more bridles to put into the lips of these unclean Spirits, yet give me leave to suggest this for a close of this Chapter; that if every Doctrine, which either Socinians, Arminians, or Papists, hold and maintain, should suffer the reproach and infamy either of heresy, error or untruth, because they are found in their writings, there are very few Doctrines in that Reformed Religion which we profess, but will be found Matters of that calculation. Especially all those fundamental Articles or Doctrines comprehended in that Breviate or Summarie of Christian Religion, called the Apostles Creed which (as fare as I understand) is generally received and subscribed unto by all Reformed Churches without exception, must lie under the ignominy, either of Socinianism, Arminianism, Popery or the like; it being certain that there is none of them but is professed and maintained by one or other, or by all of these stigmatic Factions. So that it is the most ridiculous and trifling argument that can be against an opinion, unworthy either men or learning, to make an outcry against it of Heresy, Blasphemy, Socinianism, Arminianism, Popery, and the like, when in the mean time, men are able to produce nothing from the Scriptures to purpose, nor yet to evince by any solid or substantial reason, that it is so much as an untruth. Such passionate arguments as these may (haply) ravish the simplicity and weakness of women and Children, and carry away a great captivity of these, and indeed they are exactly calculated for the meridian of their tempers: but men of understanding are little affected with them, except it be, as they are arguments of the weakness and insufficiency of those that so use them. CAP. VII. Wherein the chief grounds and Arguments for imputation of Christ's Active obedience (in the sense hitherto opposed) are proposed and Answered. IN the former part of this discourse, many things have been debated and argued (and somewhat also in this latter) against that imputation of Christ's active obedience or righteousness, in justification, which makes it either the formal cause thereof, whether in whole or in part, or the right and title of believers to eternal life. It now only remains, that we hear patiently, and consider unpartially, and Answer distinctly those arguments and reasons, which strengthen the hands of men of opposite judgement to us, to contend and plead for it. Meet and equal it is, that men who plead reason, that is, any thing that is like unto equity or truth, should either obtain the cause they plead and be assented unto, or else receive a valuable consideration to the full in their own coin, I mean in reason, by way of Answer. But inasmuch as some of these arguments have been already answered upon occasion in some former passages of the Discourse, I presume I may so fare entrust my Reader with the concernments of the cause in hand (being in part his own) without danger, as the accepting of Answers elsewhere given, in case they be sufficient, doth amount unto, only with reference without repetition. The first argument for the imputation of Christ's righteousness in the sense refused, SECT. 2 is thus framed. If there be no standing in judgement before God, unless we be endued with perfect righteousness, then must the righteousness of Christ be imputed to us, in our justification. But there is no standing for us in judgement before God, unless we be endued and furnished with a perfect righteousness. Ergo. I Answer by denying the consequence in the former proposition: Answer. there may be no standing in judgement before God without a perfect righteousness, and yet the righteousness of Christ (in the sense controverted) not be imputed. The reason is, because remission of sins, which is the purchase and procurement of the death and sufferings of Christ for us, (as our Adversaries themselves acknowledge) is a perfect righteousness, and every ways able to support and bear us out in judgement before God, as hath been abundantly proved in the five first conclusions, laid down and proved in the second Chapter of this latter part of the Discourse, p. 3, 4, etc. Yea and our best Reformed Divines, find a sufficient strength of confidence for believers in the presence of God, in the death and sufferings of Christ alone. Calvin (a) Instie. l. 2. c. 17. Sect. 9 having mentioned that of the Apostle, Rom. 3.24. &c Being justified freely by his grace, through the Redemption that is in jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood, addeth as followeth: Paul commendeth the grace of God in this, that he hath given the price of our redemption in the death of Christ: and then willeth us to betake ourselves unto his blood, that so obtaining righteousness we may stand secure before the judgement of God. And elsewhere (b) Instit. l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 9 interpreting that clause against Osiander, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21. he first delivereth himself thus, Osiander here triumpheth as if he descried the spectrum, or image of his essential righteousness, when as the words sound quite another way, viz. that we are righteous by the expiation or atonement made by Christ for us. And a little after, somewhat more fully to our purpose, thus: sed hoc loco, etc. that is, but in this place, readers that have but their wits about them, though I should say nothing, cannot but acknowledge that nothing else is meant, quam nos mortis Christi piaculo suffultos apud Dei tribunal stare, that is, then that we stand at God's judgement seat underpropt or borne up with the expiation or atonement of Christ's death. If God will judge thee (said Anselme long before him) say, Lord, Si Deus voluerit te judicare, dic, Domine, mortem Domini nostri jesu Christi obijcio ●nter 〈◊〉 et te, et judicium tuum, al●ter tecum non conte●do. Anselm. I interpose the death of our Lord jesus Christ between me and thee and thy judgement, otherwise I strive not with thee. And Ambrose before him, to the like effect, though not altogether so plainly: Gloriabor, non quia vacuus peccati sum, etc. that is, I will glory, not that I am void of all sin, but that my sins are forgiven. So that evident it is (as hath been formerly signified) that a man needs not take care or thought for any other righteousness in the presence of God, then only the forgiveness of his sins, which he is confidently to expect in and through the death and sufferings of Christ. Again secondly, the Imputation we oppose, SECT. 3 is by some protected with the shield and Buckler of this Argument. He that is justified by the righteousness of another, Argum. 2 and not by his own, must needs be justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed. The reason is, because there is no righteousness to be found in any other fit for the justification of any man, but the righteousness of Christ alone. But every man that is justified, is justified by the righteousness of another, and not by his own. Ergo. I Answer First, Answer. to the major proposition, by denying it, and oppose this contradictory for a truth against it: A man may be justified by the righteousness of another and not his own, and yet no necessity of the righteousness of Christ, that is, of his active obedience (for of this only the question is) to be imputed unto him. The reason hereof is more than manifest out of what hath been already delivered: viz. because the passive obedience of Christ, is the righteousness of another, and men may be and are, fully and throughly justified by the merit hereof communicated unto them in the free pardon of their sins, without any further righteousness derived upon them, either from him or from any other, in a way of imputation, or however. To make this good, there needs nothing be added to what the Reader may please to find in the 4th and fift Conclusions premised in the second Chap. of this latter part. Sect. 4. and 5. p. 567. To the minor proposition, Answer 2 I answer likewise, by distinguishing the predicaeum, or latter clause of it. A man may be said to be justified by the righteousness of another and not by his own, in a double sense, either 1º, by way of merit, or 2º, by way of form. In the first sense the proposition is admitted: whosoever is justified, is justified by the righteousness of another and not by his own, that is, is justified by the merit of the righteousness of another, and not by the merit of his own. But this sense maketh nothing to the point in hand. In the latter sense. it is altogether untrue: for that righteousness, wherewith a man is formally justified or made righteous, is always a man's own, I mean by donation and possession, and not another's, except only in respect either of procurement, and so it is Christ's; or of collation, and so it is Gods. Remission of sins, whereby a believer is formally justified (as hath been often said, and once at least largely proved (a) part 2. c. 4. Sect. 30, 31.32.33. ) is a man's own righteousness in such a sense, as his Repentance or Faith is his own, being all given unto him by God or Christ. Him hath God lift up with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give Repentance unto Israel, and remission of sins. Act. 5.31. Now that which is given unto a man by God, may truly and properly be called his own. There is no merit indeed in remission of sins, but there is propriety in it to him that receiveth it. A third Argument of Sovereign esteem (as I have perceived) with some, SECT. 4 Argum. 3 to establish the imputation hitherto gainsaid, is this. If Believers have a true and real communion with Christ, then is his righteousness theirs by imputation. But certain it is, that Believers have a true and real communion with Christ. Ergo. I Answer. The Major proposition in this syllogism wants two things (at least) which a good proposition should have, Answer. viz. reason, and truth. First, it wants truth, because a true and real communion with Christ may stand, without his active obedience being made theirs by imputation. They that please may see abundance of truth in this, by those lights which we have already set up, partly chap. 10. Sect. 4. and 5 of the former part, partly again, chap. 2. Sect. 9 and 10. of this second part. There is a real union and communion between the head and the feet in the same natural body, yet is not the brain, or the proper functions and operations of the head, made the brain, or functions of the feet by imputation. So there is a real union and communion between the Husband and the wife in marriage, yet is not the holiness, strength, or wisdom of the Husband, made the holiness, strength, or wisdom of the wife, by imputation. Again 2º, as it wants truth, so (that which is a want more worthy of blame) it wants reason also. It hath neither colour nor appearance of truth in it, that that union and communion which believers have with Christ, should of necessity imply or draw after it, the appropriation of his active obedience unto them by way of imputation; at least of such an imputation, as is the golden apple for which our Adversaries in the present question, so eagerly contend, that is, so that this obedience of his must become their formal righteousness, either in whole, or in part, in justification. For what possible ground of difference can there be found or assigned out of that union and communion which interced's between Christ and the believer, why rather the righteousness or active obedience, than the wisdom, or power, or glory of Christ, should be made the Believers, by imputation? A Fourth Foundation or ground upon which I find the imputation of Christ's righteousness (as aforesaid) built by some, SECT. 5 Argum. 4 is this: If there be no other end, reason, or necessity, why Christ should fulfil the Law, but only that his obedience thereunto might be imputed unto us for righteousness in our justification, then is not the imputation thereof to be denied. But no other end, reason or necessity can be given, why Christ should fulfil the Law, but only that his obedience unto it might be imputed for righteousness unto those that believe, in their justification. Ergo. To this latter proposition I answer, Answer. that it is unsound, rush and branch, head and tail; and that there are divers other ends, reasons, and necessities that may be assigned of Christ's obedience to the Law, and that which is there assigned, is but supposititious, and inconsistent with the truth. If the former of these be demonstrated, viz. that there are other ends and reasons, and those very considerable, why Christ should fulfil the Law, the proposition is disabled and broken in judgement; as for the latter, that the imputation of Christ's fulfilling the Law for righteousness unto those that believe, is but an imaginary and meerely-presumed end of his fulfilling it, it hath been (in effect) the grand conclusion argued and established throughout the Discourse. First therefore, one reason or end of Christ's obedience to the Law, might be, to procure the greater authority and deeper reverence to the Doctrine which he taught, whilst he yet conversed with men on Earth. It is said, Mat. 7.28, that the people were astonished at his Doctrine, because he taught, as one having authority, and not as the Scribes. Some make this the ground of the difference, because Christ did to the uttermost what he taught, which the Scribes did not, and therefore were more obnoxious to neglect and contempt in their teaching. But however it is a truth of general acknowledgement, and not necessary now to be argued, that the holiness, uprightness, and unblameableness of the lifes of the teachers, have a powerful influence into the consciences of men, to render them more observant, and and awful in their attention to the things which are taught by them, yea and to make those the more inexcusable, that shall despise their teaching. Let these and the like Scriptures be laid together, and considered of to this purpose, Mat. 21.32. joh. 5.35. joh. 8.46. 1 Tim. 4.12. 2 Tim. 3.14. etc. Secondly, SECT. 6 this righteousness or active obedience of christ unto the law, was serviceable to that same great end, whereunto our righteousness and our obedience (such as they are) are subservient also, viz. the glory of god, and the advancement of his kingdom. being filled with the fruits of righteousness (saith paul) which are by iesus christ unto the glory and praise of god. phillip 1.11. if other men's righteousnesnes come to be well conditioned and so sanctified (as it were) by the means of iesus christ, that they are hereby made fit matter for the praise and glory of god: much more must it needs be conceived, that his own personal righteousness partakes abundantly of the same condition, and makes for the exaltation of god, fare above the line and measure of other men. his own words, ioh. 8.49. fully understood, import no less. iesus answered, I have not a devil, but I honour my father, and ye dishonour me. and again, ioh. 7.18. he that seeketh his glory that sent him (speaking of himself in respect of god his father) the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. wherein, or how, or by what means did christ honour his father, or seek his glory, that is, labour and endeavour to procure glory to him from the world? doubtless by a full and faithful discharge of all things that he required of him, aswell in that general and common Law of his (which we call Moral) whereunto all other men are debtors of obedience, aswell as he; as like wise in that peculiar Law of Mediation, which was imposed upon himself alone. In respect of his absolute, entire, and uncontrollable obedience and condescension (or ascension rather, if you will) to both these Laws, he is (I conceive) styled Heb. 1.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the resplendency or brightness of his Father's glory, that is, a perfect means of discovering and making known unto the world, how excellent and glorious above measure God is in holiness, righteousness, goodness, wisdom, truth, mercy, etc. and that he is so light, or such a light, in whom there is no darkness at all. 1 Joh. 1.5. And in this sense, the light of the knowledge of God is said to be given (by the ministers of the Gospel) in the face of jesus Christ. 2 Cor. 4.6. meaning, that those who truly and effectually preach jesus Christ unto men, and hold him forth in all the glory and excellency of all that he both did and suffered in the world, as they are left upon record by the Holy Ghost in the Gospel, do with one and the same labour certify & inform the world, what manner of essence and being, in respect of holiness, grace, love, sweetness, mercy, goodness, bounty, etc. the true God is, with whom they have to do. All these excellencies being apparently extant and visible, and that in the full transcendency and height of their several perfections, in that obedience which Christ exhibited in the flesh unto God, it cannot with any colour or pretence of reason be imagined, but that that God from whom he came forth, and whose servant he was in all this great administration, and from whom he must of necessity receive and be furnished with all that strength and power of grace, whereby he was enabled to do all these great things, must needs be a God supereminently glorious in all the same and like perfections. So that we see here is another end (and that of main consequence) of the active obedience of Christ, besides imputation. Thirdly, SECT. 7 another end of this righteousness of Christ we speak of, is the exemplariness of it: it is the pattern in the Mount for all Adam's posterity to work by. It is true, the Law itself is as absolute and perfect a rule or pattern of righteousness, as the conformity or obedience of Christ himself to it, is, but it is not so plain and distinct a rule in some cases, as the obedience of Christ to it. And therefore the Holy Ghost sometimes briefly mentioning the letter or rule of the Law, maketh use of the exemplariness of the obedience of Christ as it were, to illustrate and interpret it. And walk in love, even as Christ hath lovedus, and hath given himself for us, etc. Ephes. 5.2. with many the like. Fourthly, the entire obedience and subjection of Christ to the Moral Law, is of excellent importance, and hath a Spirit of provocation in it, to draw all the world after it in imitation of it: it is a tempting righteousneste, or an holy, strong and blessed temptation to the world to work righteousness, the force and power whereof, no man can withstand, but with an high hand of desperate wickedness, and to the deep shame and reproach of his person. This end likewise is oft mentioned or insinuated in the Scriptures. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me (saith our Saviour himself Mat. 11.29.) for I am meek and lowly in heart, etc. implying, that there was in his meekness, not only a pattern or example to follow, but a provocation also to make them willing and desirous to follow. See Ephes. 5.24.25. 1 Pet. 4.1. with many others. Fiftly, the righteousness of Christ now under consideration, was a means of continuing his person in the love and complacency of his Father: which was a thing of absolute necessit●e for the carrying through and accomplishing that great worse of Redemption, which he had undertaken. For if the mediator himself, upon whose favour and interest with God, the favour, peace, and salvation of the whole world depended, should have but once miscarried and displeased him, who should have mediated for him, or made an atonement or reconciliation for him? If salt hath lost the savour, there is nothing to season it again withal, because all things are to be seasoned by it. This end of his obedience and subjection to his Father, himself plainly expresseth, Joh. 15.10. If ye keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love: even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. See also Joh. 8.29. Sixtly, that righteousness of Christ we speak of, SECT. 8 was of absolute necessity to qualify and fit the sacrifice for the Altar, I mean to render him a person meet by his death and sacrifice of himself, to make atonement for the world, and to purge and take away the sin of it. It is true, the infiniteness of the value and considerableness of his death, sprang from the Godhead or Divine nature with which the humanity of Christ had personal union: yet was the absolute holiness and righteousness of the humanity itself, of necessary concurrence also thereunto, and that in two respects. First, there is no capacity in any part or parcel of the humane nature of personal union with the Divine, except it be absolutely free from all touch and tincture and spot of sin: otherwise this proposition might be verified, that God is sinful; a sound which neither the ears nor consciences of men are able to bear. That God should die, though it be a conclusion, which to reason not yet taught or principled from above, may seem of the same hardness and inconsistency with the other, yet we know it is become not only familiar and of easy admittance, but of very precious and sweet importance, in the School of Christianity. But that God should fin, is a saying of a greater offence and abhorring to reason proselyted and made Christian, then to reason yet only itself, and no more. Secondly, suppose (for argument sake) a possibility of that which is impossible, that the Divine nature might be hypostatically or personally united to an humanity tainted with sin, yet could it not give an infiniteness of expiatory value or acceptation thereunto for others, in case it were offered or made a sacrifice by it. The reason is, because such an offering or sacrifice were of absolute necessity for the expiation of its own sin, or at least it should be due, and the justice of God might lawfully require it in such a way. For no relation whatsoever of any creature to the Divine nature itself, or to any person subsisting therein, be it never so near and intimate, is able to dissolve or make void any right or power which is essential to God, as the right of requiring a full satisfaction for sin is, wheresoever, or in what creature soever he finds it. Now than whatsoever God either doth or (in justice) may require of any man, to make satisfaction for his own sin, impossible it is, that with the payment or tender thereof, he should make satisfaction for the sins of others, as it is impossible in a course of Law and Civil Justice, that a man by paying his own debt, should thereby discharge another man's. The High Priest under the Law, did not make atonement for himself, and for the people, with one and the same sacrifice; but (saith the Scripture) he offered sacrifice first for his own sins, and then (needing no further atonement himself) for the people. Heb. 7.27. So then evident it is, that howsoever the infiniteness of the merit and satisfactoriness of the death and sufferings of Christ hath its resultance and rise from the Divine nature; yet could no such merit or satisfactoriness have taken place in respect of others, had not Christ as man, or his humane nature wherein he suffered, been perfectly righteous, and free from all sin, that so he might stand in no need at all himself of that sacrifice which himself offered of himself. Dying righteous and being God, his death holds out weight and worth, merit and satisfaction for the whole world; whereas had he died a sinner in the least degree, though his death by reason of the Godhead personally united to that created nature, wherein in such a case he were supposed to suffer, had been of infinite value and satisfaction (for otherwise it could not have been expiatory for himself, there being every whit as much required for the atoning of one man's sin, as is for the sin of the whole world) yet had the infiniteness of this satisfaction extended only to himself, and to the purging of his own sin, and not so much as to one other. In so much that in this case, had he meant to have propitiated for the world, after he had once died and overcame death for himself, he must have returned again into the infirmity of the flesh, and have suffered death the second time. Upon this consideration doubtless it is, that the Holy Ghost, tendering the satisfaction and peace of the consciences of believers, touching the fullness and unquestionableness of their redemption and salvation by the death of Christ, still inserteth the mention of his perfect righteousness, when he speaketh of his death or sufferings for them. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many: for he shall bear their iniquities, that is, the punishment due to their iniquities. Esa 53.11. manifestly implying, that there is a great weight and moment in the righteousness of Christ's person, to assure or secure the consciences of men concerning their justification by his death. You may please at leisure to peruse and compare these Scriptures further, being all (with many more) of the same consideration. 2 Cor. 5.21. Heb. 9.14. 1 Pet. 1.19. 1 Pet. 2.22. 23.24, etc. Thus then we have at least discovered another great end of the righteousness or active obedience of Christ, viz: the qualification of his person (at least in part) for that meritoriousness of his death which may stand the world in stead for their justification. So that there is no necessity at all of having recourse to the pretended imputation, for salving the necessity or usefulness of it. By what we have reasoned in this last passage, it appears how little substance of truth there is in that which some much insist upon, SECT. 9 as a confirmation of the argument now under debate, viz. that the bare union of the Godhead with the flesh or humane nature of Christ, did sufficiently qualify it for a sacrifice (they mean for a sacrifice of that same expiatory value and virtue, which now it is) so that in this respect (at least) there could be no necessity or use of his fulfilling the Law. Doubtless the men of this affirmation either do not consider the necessity of that personal integrity in Christ, which we lately demonstrated, and which the Scriptures from place to place insinuate: or else they conceive that Christ man, might have been righteous without doing the works of righteousness, that is, without keeping the Law, which is all one, as if they should say, he might have been righteous, though he had transgressed. For not to keep the Law in those to whom the Law is given, is nothing else but to transgress. If they think to relieve themselves with this interpretation of their notion, that if Christ had suffered in the first hour or instant of his incarnation, or immediately after the personal union of the two natures, his sacrifice had been of equal value, merit, and satisfaction, with what now it is, and yet in this case, he had not fulfilled or kept the Law: I answer that this interpretation is every whit as unfound and inconsistent with rea●on, as the text itself. For First, let this supposition be admitted, that Christ might have suffered in the Womb, and that this suffering of his had been as fully satisfactory for the world, as those sufferings are, which he hath now endured; yet had he been as perfectly righteous in this case, and consequently had observed and kept the Law as perfectly, as now he hath done. For the Law requireth of Infants during their Infancy, nothing but integrity and holiness of nature, which doubtless the Lord Christ had from the first moment of his conception: & a child or infant thus qualified I mean with holiness & integrity of nature, keepeth the Law as perfectly & exactly, as a man living to 30 or 40 years of age should do, in case he never transgressed. But Secondly, SECT. 10 this interpretation draws the saying itself quite besides the business in hand, and makes it a mere impertinency to the present question. For when we affirm, the righteousness of Christ's life, or his obedience to the Moral Law, to be of absolute necessity for the qualification of his person for a meet sacrifice, our meaning is not, that there was an absolute necessity that he should have kept the Law upon the same terms every ways which now he hath done, as that he should perform the same individual acts of obedience, or the same number of acts, in case he had been called to the suffering of death any whit sooner, than now he was: but that, until the very hour and instant wherein he should suffer, whether it were sooner or later, he should in all things submit himself unto the good will and pleasure of God concerning him aswell in that general Law which requires obedience of all men besides (which we call Moral) as in that particular and special Law of Mediator, which was given unto and imposed upon himself alone. Such an indefinite righteousness as this we judge, and have (I suppose) unanswerably proved, to have been simply necessary in Christ, for the raising of that sacrifice of himself, to that height of acceptation in the behalf of others, which now it hath found at the hand of God. But however, suppose this necessity or use of the righteousness of Christ could not be sufficiently cleared, yet since there are many others of undeniable evidence, the position so much contended for, viz. that the Godhead of Christ sufficiently qualified him for such a sacrifice as he was, makes nothing at all for the imputation of his righteousness, in the sense pretended. Therefore we shall not trouble either ourselves or our Reader any further with untying an impertinent knot. But Seventhly, SECT. 11 as Christ was a sacrifice, so was he, and yet is, and is to be for ever (Heb. 7.17. & c. ●a Priest, also, or an High Priest: and that righteousness of his we speak of, qualifieth him, that is, contributeth towards his qualification for Priesthood, aswell as it did for sacrifice. If he had not been perfectly righteous, and consequently fulfilled the Moral Law, a● well as any other Law, which concerned him, he had been uncapable of that great place or dignity of Priesthood, which now he executes, to the great benefit and blessing of the world. This is evident from that Scripture, Heb. 7.26, 27. For such an High ●riest it became us to have, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, etc. meaning that no Priest whatsoever without these qualifications, could have stood us in that great stead, had been sit to intercede with God for us, as Christ now doth. Eightly (and last) that holy pleasure, and contentment which Christ himself took in those works of righteousness, wherein he address himself to God his Father by obedience to his Law, may well be looked upon, as one considerable end or use, of this obedience of his. My meat is (saith himself. joh. 4.34) to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work Christ was inwardly and secretly refreshed and satisfied, with every act or work of righteousness which he wrought, as generally men are by acting and working out of such principles as are connatural and pleasing to them. It is joy to the just to do judgement (saith Solomon, Prov. 21.15.) Then the people rejoiced, when they offered willingly, etc. 1 Chr. 29.9. Especially the Lord Christ being full of grace and of the Spirit of holiness, and withal knowing perfectly, and throughly apprehending the full excellency and beauty of all righteousness and subjection unto God, could not but take and taste very high and excellent contentments in all that he did in such a way. So that were there no other end, use, or necessity of that righteousness of Christ, about which we now reason, but only his own personal satisfaction and contentment in the working it, this is abundantly sufficient to salve the the usefulness and necessity of it. How many things are done even by wise men, with no relation to any further end, but only their own pleasure, satisfaction and contentment in doing them? Therefore the Argument last propounded to establish the imputation of Christ's righteousness (in the sense supposed) viz. the uselessness of it otherwise, is weaker than its fellows, though neither have these cause to boast of much strength. A fift argument employed in the same service, SECT. 12 Argum. 5 is this. If we be debtors unto the Law, and that not only in matter of punishment, deserved by our disobedience to it, but in perfection of obedience also, then did Christ not only suffer death for us, that we might be delivered from the punishment or curse due unto our sins, but also fulfilled the Law for us, that so we may be reputed to have fulfilled the Law in him, or by the imputation of his fulfilling the Law unto us; otherwise the Law should yet remain to be fulfilled by us. But we are debtors unto the Law, not only in matter of punishment for our transgression, but in perfection of obedience also: otherwise our sinning against the Law, should exempt and privilege us from subjection to the Law. Ergo. A short Answer (I conceive) may do sufficient execution upon a long argument. Answer. Therefore (I say nothing to the major proposition, but only in what we shall charge upon the minor) to this I answer that it labours of an infirmity very incident to reasonings (especially against the truth) called homonymia, or ambiguity of expression. For when it affirmoth, that we are debtors to the Law in perfection of obedience, aswell as in matter of punishment; as this debt of obedience may be variously interpreted and understood, the proposition may either be true, or false. If this be the meaning, that we that are believers, are debtors unto the Law in perfection of obedience, for our justification, it is utterly false. For we have no need to depend upon it, or any obedience to it, for our justification in the sight of God, but are fully and freely justified by Christ's blood. Ro. 5.9. Neither are such debtors to it so much as in matter of punishment, Christ having cased their shoulder of this burden, by taking it upon his own. It is true, those that believe not in Christ, may in this sense be said to be debtors to the Law, aswell in matter of perfect obedience, as of punishment; that if they mean to be justified, and to escape the punishment, and condemnation under which they lie, otherwise then by Christ, they must keep the whole Law, because no third way of justification from punishment due to the transgression of the Law, was ever heard of, nor is imaginable, but either by Faith in Christ, or by a personal obstervation of the whole Law. And in this sense the Apostle (Gal. 5.3.) testifieth to every man that is circumcised) viz. with reserence to his justification 〈◊〉 God:) this he is bound to keep the whole Law, as well as to be circumcised: I because he that sticketh not wholly and entirely unto Christ for justification, must of necessity keep and observe the whole Law even every jot and tittle of it, and not some part or parts of it only, to obtain justification with God. But Secondly, If the proposition meaneth, that believers are debtors of perfect obedience to the Law, in a way of sanctification and thankfulness unto God for that unspeakable grace of justification and forgiveness of sins by Christ, so it is, and hath been formerly acknowledged for a truth cap. 3. Sect. 10. of this second Part. But in this sense it concerneth not the question in hand. Thirdly, we are not therefore exempted or privileged from fulfilling or keeping the Law, no not in respect of justification itself, because we have transgressed it: but 1º, having once transgressed, we are utterly uncapable of such an observation or keeping it, whether personally or by imputation, which may amount to a justification or exemption from punishment. 2º, that relaxation or release which we have from an observation of, or dependence upon the Law for justification, accrueth unto us by means of our dependence upon Christ for Justification through his death, and suffering the curse of the Law for us, Rom. 7.4. For Fourthly, SECT. 13 God never required of any man, but only of Christ, both exactness of obedience to the Law, and subjection to punishment due to the transgression of the Law, conjunction, but divisim only. He that shall perfectly keep the Law, is not where threatened, or bound to suffer the penalty due to the transgression of the La●● nay, the very express renor of the Law, promiseth exemption or freedom from punishment unto such: Dee this, and thou shall live. The Law doth not make any man a debtor in respect of punishment, simply and absolutely, but conditionally only, and upon supposition of sin. Fi●●ly and lastly, In case a man hath transgressed the Law, and hath undergone and suffered (when there by himself or some other for him) the full punishment or penalty threatened 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 less, for his justification (as hath been said) because the punishment which hath been so suffered (either by him or for him) is of indisser●●t and equal consideration to the Law, with the most absolute conformity that could have been held with the precepts and injunctions of it. So that as no man is or ever was, or can be bound to fulfil the Law twice over, for his justification, or to make him righteous: So neither is it equal or reasonable to conceive, that he, that hath suffered in full the penalty of the Law, which suffering is every ways as satisfactory to the Law, as the exactest obedience to all things contained in it, and of one and the same consideration with it (as hath been said) should be still bound to the observation of the Law (whether by himself, 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 fulfilled it once. This for answer to this Argument. Sixtly, SECT. 14 Argumt. 6 for the imputation of Christ's active obedience (in the sense disparaged) some have made trial of this: If there be no justification without a perfect righteousness, and no such righteousness to be found, but the righteousness of Christ performed to the Law, then of necessity this righteousness must be conceived to be imputed to us, in justification. But neither can there be any justification without a perfect righteousness, nor any such righteousness found, but only the righteousness of Christ performed to the Law. Ergo. Intending to have nothing to do with the innocence of the major, I address myself to the minor, Answer. where we shall find guilt and weakness more then enough, to work upon. To this therefore I answer, First, that however true it be, that justification cannot take place without a perfect righteousness, being nothing else but the making of a man perfectly righteous, yet such a righteousness, as the Sons of this argument intent, a righteousness consisting determ●nitely of such a number or tale of righteous acts as Christ performed unto the Moral Law, is not of any absolute necessity thereunto. For if the Jews under the Law were justified by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, this right usnesse of his is not to be limited or measured by the righteous acts performed by him only to the moral Law; but to the Ceremonial also, See cap. 18. Sect. 3. of the first part, etc. as hath been formerly observed and proved more than once: Secondly, SECT. 15 neither is it so absolutely true, as our adver aries haply conceive it is, that there is no perfect righteousness (take righteousness in their own notion and sense) to be found, but only the righteousness of Christ. We have heretofore showed, that there is a righteousness in the Law, as absolute and complete, as the righteousness of Christ itself: and that it is much more probable of the two, that if God imputes a legal righteousness unto men in justification, that he furnisheth them this way out of the Law itself for Christ's sake then that he should impute the righteousness of Christ unto them. See cap. 2. Sect. 5. and c. 5. sect. 9 of this second Part. But Thirdly (& last) that perfect righteousness wherein justification consists, and wherewith men are made formally righteous when they are justified, is nothing else but remission of sins, as hath been abundantly proved both in the second and fourth Chapters of this latter part of the Discourse. This forgiveness of sins is that righteousness, which the Scripture calls a righteousness without works Rom. 4. ver. 6 & 7. compared together. And which Augustine, (a) ips● nostra justitia quamvi● vera sit propter veri bonifinē ad quam refertur, tamen tanta est in hac vita, ut potius peccatorum remissione constet, quam 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) justitianes stra, proprie est remissio peccatorum, se● (we loquitur Psalmus) peccata non imputare, etc. Luther. in Summa. Ps. 32 , Calvin (e) Sequitur ergo eo nos esse justos, quia nobis peceata non imputantuy. Calv de vera Eccles. Reform. ratione. p. 368. , Musculus (f) jucundum 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 natum, 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, etc. Pal cousin ad Rom. 2.3. p. 363. Fide accepit justitiam, sen remisslonem peccatorum a Deo gratis donatam, etc. ibid. , Chamier (h) Remissio peccatorum; est justitia imputata Cham. Panstrat. t. 3 l. 21. c. 19 Sect. 10. jidem justitie proram et pupp in constituionut in remiss●●●peccato; 'em. 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; etc. every man of necessity is constrained to seek for another righteousness or justification, to be received at Gods own hands, that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in such things as he hath offended. Homil. of salvation, part 1. p. 13. justitia Christi, est absolntio a peccatu per Christum ex side, Pet. Mart. ad ●om. 10.8. Credimus totam nostram justitiam positam esse in peccatorum nostrorum Remissione etc. Harm. Confess. Gallic. art. 13. have still with confidence and without scruple, called by the Name of a righteousness. 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 mind to make Calvin of theirs, in the imputation of Christ's active obedience, will needs have all those passages in him (which are very many) wherein he placeth justification or righteousness in Rem ssion of sins alone, to be meant only in way of opposition to that Popish opinion, which together with remission of sins coupleth infusion of grace to make up the formal cause of justification, as if by the word only, or alone, he meant to shut out this infusion of grace only, and not the active obedience of Christ imputed; I shall by a passage or two from him in the point, clear his intention in such expressions, and fully manifest how importune, and at open defiance with the truth, any such interpretation of his mind and meaning must needs be. In which words (saith Calvin, meaning those of the Apostle Rom. 4.6. in his commentaries upon the place) we are taught, justitiam, Paulo nihil esse quàm remissionem peccatorum, that is, that righteousness with Paul, is nothing else but remission of sins. And not long after upon the 9th. verse of the same Chapter; So iustitia Abrahae est peccatorum remissio (quod securè ipsepro confesso assumit etc.) that is, If Abraham's righteousness be the forgiveness of his sins (which he, meaning Paul without any further care or thought about it, takes for granted, etc. By these passages it is evident, that whatsoever his own mind or judgement was in the point now under question, viz. whether remission of sins simply & alone, without any other addition whatsoever, were the righteousness of a Believer in justification, he attributes the affirmative unto Paul, and makes his opinion and judgement to stand, for Remission of sins simply, excluding not the infusion of grace only, but all other things whatsoever. Except (haply) men (Giantlike) will attempt to set Pelion upon Ossa, heap presumption upon presumption, and say, that Paul likewise expressed himself in the Point, only by way of opposition to the Popish opinion concerning grace infused, and had no intent to be understood simply, that Remission of sins was a Believers righteousness. Otherwise, for Calvin to ascribe one opinion unto Paul in the point of justification, and to be himself of another, is neither better nor worse, then to profess himself wiser than he in the business, yea then the Holy Ghost himself speaking by him. Which horrid blasphemy those men unadvisedly bring upon the head of this holy and faithful servant of God, who labour to make him of a quite differing judgement himself (especially in so weighty a point as justification is) from that which he acknowledgeth to be the judgement of so great and glorious an Apostle, as Paul was. I might add a third passage, (yea and three more to that) of his (ex abundanti) of the same importance (and perhaps somewhat more pregnant) Therefore Paul (saith he (a) Merit Paulus fidei justitiam in peccatorums ormissiene simpliciter includit, doceus earn a Davide describi, cum beatum heminem pronunciat, cui non imputantur peccata Calvin. De vera. Ecales. Res. ratione. p. 368. doth well, simply to include the righteousness of Faith in Remission of sins, teaching us that David so describeth it, when he pronounceth the man happy, whose sins are not imputed unto him. Whether Calvin himself did simply and absolutely, and not with limitation and restraint, place the righteousness of Faith in remission of sins, or no, most unanswerably undeniable it is, that he conceived Paul so to do. Nor is there any reasonable ground or cause (to add a word of this in the close of this Answer) why men should be so averse or as some are, SECT. 16 from looking upon Remission of sins as a righteonsness, yea as a perfect and complete righteousness; since it is equivalent unto, and virtually contains and comprehends in it, the most absolute and entire obedience unto the Law and will of God, as hath been already fully demonstrated, cap. 2. Sect. 4. of this second Part, where also the authority and confent of Augustine in this behalf was produced, who plainly affirmeth, Omnia mandata facta deputantur, quonde quiequid non fit, ignoscitur. Ang. Retract. l. 2. c. 19 that all the commandments (of God) are reputed to be kept or done, when whatsoever is not done, is forgiven. Again ● ᵒ, it may well, and in sufficient propriety of speech, bear the nature of a righteousness, (vea and that perfect and complete) because it hath all those great and high privileges annexed to it and depending upon it, (which a righteousness most literally and strictly so called, could have) as the love, favour, acceptation and approbation of God, yea life and salvation themselves. It hath been elsewhere (as I remember) observed in this discourse, that the names of things are very usually interchanged in Scripture, upon occasion of a similituda or likeness of use or offect between them. John Baptist is called by the name of ●liah. because he was servicenble unto God and his cause after the same manner and with the same spirit that Eliah was. So Peter and john were counted Pillars. Gal. 2.9. because they were conceived to stand the Church of Christ in some such stead, as Pillars do the house that is supported by them. So Christ himself (to omit other instances in this kind without number) is called Bread, a Vine, a Door, a Way, a Root, a Branch, the morning Star, etc. because in something or other he resembles the nature or use, or both, of all these things. In like manner Remission of sins though it had not the nature or essence of a perfect righteousness in it, may yet be called a perfect righteousness, because it is of the same consideration, benefit and use unto the creature, with a perfect righteousness indeed. But enough for this argument. I hope it will be from henceforth contented, and complain no more for want of satisfaction. A seventh argument which is likewise laid hold on by some as a Shield and Buckler to defend the imputation assailed, SECT. 17 Argum. 7 is this: If Do this, and live, be an everlasting rule of God, and which shall never be dissolved, canceled, or grown out of date, then must the active obedience of Christ be imputed unto men in justification, that so they may be said to have done this, that is, to have fulfilled the Law, and so live. But Do this and live, it an everlasting rule of God, which shall never be dissolved, etc. Ergo. I answer, that all the strength of this argument, lieth in the hollowness of those words, (take them out of which proposition you please) is an everlasting rule, etc. In this sense I grant, that do this and live, is an everlasting rule: it is, and hath been, and shall be everlastingly true, that whosoever shall do this, that is, fulfil the Law perfectly, shall live and enjoy the favour of God etc. But this sense makes nothing to the purpose, neither is there so much as the face of a consequence in the major, if it be taken: whosoever continueth in all things that are written in the Law to do them, shall live and be saved, whether Christ's righteousness be imputed unto them, or not, But if the meaning of the clause be, is an everlasting rule, that is, is the only perpetual and standing rule or Law, whereby, and according to which men must be justified and so saved, so that no man can be justified, but he only that may truly be said to have done this, that is, performed an universal obedience to all the precepts, to every jot and tittle of the Law; in this sense (I say) it neither is, nor ever was, nor ever shall be a rule of God, nor a rule of truth. For God hath always had, and for ever will have, Repugnantia legis et fidei est i● causa justificationis: facilius enim aquam igni copulabis, quam haec duo concilis es, homines lego et side esse justos. Calvin. in Gal. 3.12. another Law or rule for the justification of men, besides, Do this and live, even that Law or rule which is still in Scripture opposed to this, Believe this and live. Compare Rom. 3.27. with Rom. 10.5.6. etc. See likewise cap. 4. of the first part of this discourse, throughout, together with the Answer given to the Scripture, Gal. 3.10. in cap. 5. of this second part. These passages perused and considered, will perfectly allay all the heat and burning of this Argument. Another foundation to build the imputation counter-argued upon, is laid by some after this manner. SECT. 18 Argum. 8 That righteousness which God accepteth on our behalf, as the righteousness imputed to us in Justification. But the righteousness of Christ, is that righteousness which God accepteth on our behalf. Ergo I answer briefly, 1º, by denying the Major, 2º, Answer. by distinguishing upon the Minor. The reason of my denial to the Major, is, because God may and doth accept that for us, or on our behalf, which yet he need not (in the sense contended for in this Treatise) impute to us. God accepted Abraham's prayer on the behalf of Ishmael, and yet did not impute this prayer to Ishmael himself, as if he had prayed it. In like manner he accepted the prayer of Elisha for the Shunamites Son, and yet did not look upon the child as if he had made it for himself. It is true in these and many other cases of like consideration which might be added, the persons prayed for by others, received benefit by the prayers that were made for them, but there is no colour of reason to conceive, that God must necessarily look upon such prayers, as if they had been made by the persons themselves, for whom they were made, and who were profited by them: It is like they had the greater acceptation with God, and prevailed more on the behalf of those for whom they were made, because they were made by others for them, (especially by persons of such grace and interest with God as they were, who did make them) then if they had been made by themselves. In like manner, those on whose behalf Christ's sufferings were accepted, receive an unspeakable blessing and benefit by them: but this operates nothing towards such an inference or conclusion as this, that therefore God must look upon these sufferings of Christ, as if they had personally endured them, on whose behalf they are accepted (which is the imputation principally opposed in this Treatise) nay such a supposition or imputation as this, rather tends to destroy or prejudice their acceptation, than any ways to further it. The sufferings of Christ (doubtless) have the height of their acceptation with God on the behalf of those that believe, because they are looked upon by him as the sufferings of himself, I mean of Christ, and of no other. Again 2º, to the minor, I answer likewise by Distinction. If by the righteousness of Christ, the proposition meaneth, precisely that obedience which he exhibited to that general and common Law, whereunto all other men are obliged, considered apart from his obedience to that peculiar Law of Mediator, given to himself alone, so it is altogether false. For God did not accept this righteousness of Christ on our behalf, so, or upon such terms as to justify us, either with it, or for it, as hath been ten times said, and oft enough proved already. If by this righteousness, be meant that obedience of Christ, commonly known by the name of Passive, or both Active and Passive together, so this proposition may be granted: but then the other will be found tar die, as hath been showed, unless we make four terms in the syllogism instead of three, by taking the same words in one sense in the Major, and in another sense in the Minor; and than it is no longer a syllogism, but a Paralogism. So that neither can this argument do any thing. Therefore let us further try the strength of those that are yet behind. Some conceive that the imputation of Christ's righteousness (in the sense taken and left) may be firmly established upon the publiquenesle of his person, SECT. 19 Argumt. 9 and reason after this manner. If Christ were a public person, standing in the place or stead of all those that should believe in him, than all that he did, and all that he suffered, are to be looked upon, and are reputed by God as done and suffered by these, and consequently are imputed to them. But Christ was a public Person, standing in the place and stead of all that should believe in him. Ergo. In this argument, Answer. I charge the former Proposition with weakness and untruth. Because the publicness of Christ's person, or his standing in the place of those that should believe, is no sufficient ground to build this inference upon; therefore all that he did, and all that he suffered, are looked upon by God., as done or suffered by them. This is evident: his conception, incarnation, birth, circumcision, subjection to joseph his supposed Father, his apposing the Doctors in the Temple, his whipping the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, his Redemption of the world, with other particulars more of like consideration without number, were all, either things done, or suffered by him: yet are they not looked upon by God as done, or suffered by all those that believe in him. For to what purpose (for example) should I, being a believing Gentile, and so not only free from the Yoke of jewish Ceremonies, but further, under command not to use them, be looked upon by God as one circumcised? so what can it in reason advantage me, to be looked upon by God, as one who in Christ, was in subjection unto joseph? especially how shall I not fear and tremble, to take the least hold of such a conceit, that God should look upon me, as having redeemed the world, which yet was one of the greatest acts that Christ did? Therefore this proposition is no Oracle. Princes and Magistrates are public persons: yet God forbidden that all that they do, should be looked upon by God, as done by all those that are in subjection under them. Adam was as public a person (yea and more public, in a sense) than Christ himself; yea and is conceived by the most, to have stood as much in the place or stead of his posterity, as Christ did in the stead of his, I mean of those that wereto descend Spiritually from him by Faith: (though for myself, I had rather demur, then join issue in this) And yet how ridiculous is it on the one hand, and of dangerous consequence on the other, to suppose that all that Adam did, and all that very possibly he might have done, either may, or might have been so imputed to all his posterity, as if they had done it? Of what advantage or concernment can it be unto me, that God should look upon me, as one that gave Names to all Cattles, and to the fowls of Heaven, and to every Beast of the Field, which yet Adam did? Gen. 2.20. Or as upon one, that first propagated mankind, and begat Cain, which we know were done by Adam? with twenty things more of like nature. In case he had stood, and continued in his righteousness, the publicness of his person had been no ways touched, nor impaired hereby: and yet is it of very doubtful importance, to conceive, that all that righteousness which Adam in this case had wrought, should have been looked upon as the righteousness of all his posterity, and imputed to them for their Justification; For from hence it would follow, 10, that all his posterity should have been saved, 20, that they should all have been sinless: which are two principal regions of terra incognita: 30, (and last) that they should all have been justified by a double righteousness, one personal and wrought by themselves, another imputative, wrought by another: and so (in this respect at least) should have been better provided for their justification, than those that are now justified by Christ. Secondly, it hath been formerly demonstrated, SECT. 20 how little consistence it hath either with truth, See cap. 2. Sect. 14. of this second Part. or with the manner of Scripture expression, to say, that the sufferings of Christ, are by God looked upon as our sufferings, or to conceive that we should suffer in him. It is not all one to say (saith Doctor Willet) we are punished in Christ, and Christ was punished for us, and in our stead: this is warranted by the Scripture, Esa 53.6. But the other cannot be affirmed, for seeing in Christ's death we have remission of our sins, we cannot be said for the same sins, to be punished in and with Christ, whereof we have remission in his death. Comment. on Dan. 9 Qu. 25. p. 289. Thirdly, the publicness of a person, who negotiates the business and affairs of others, as Christ did of those that shall believe in him, doth no further, or any otherwise interest those whose affairs they manage, in what they do, in, or about such a transaction, but only with reference to the issue and success of what they do for them, in that behalf. If a man undertakes the ordering and issuing of such a business for me, and deals dishonestly or unconscionably with others therein, and at last makes a conclusion with much damage and disadvantage to me, which might be a wise and saire carriage of things on my behalf, have been prevented; I am in this case liable to suffer all the detriment and damage, which the unconscionableness, or weakness of my Agent hath brought upon me: but I am not to be looked upon, as one that have used the same unconscionableness with him, or as if his weakness were mine. Or in case he had dealt wisely or faithfully for me, and had brought my business to a good end or issue; I here receive benefit and good by such a man's wisdom and faithfulness: but these are not ascribed orimputed unto me, as mine own, because he was my Agent that used them. The Client that prevails against his adversary before the Judge, by the skill of his Advocate or Lawyer, is not therefore reputed as skilful in the Law, as his Advocate, nor to have pleaded his own cause as substantially and effectually, as his Lawyer did. In like manner, as fare as Adam had a Commission or power from God to deal for me, or in my affairs, being one of his posterity, I am bound to undergo and suffer my share in that evil or misery which he brought upon the world, through his weakness or unfaithfulness in that transaction: but this weakness or unfaithfulness of his as a Commissioner for me, is not looked upon as my personal weakness or unfaithfulness; only so fare as my person was in his, they are ascribed and imputed unto me as mine own. See for this cap. 2. Sect. 11. of this second part. So again on the other hand, as fare as Christ had a power from God to deal for me, and in mine affairs, being one that believe in him, I have my part and portion in that blessed end and issue whereunto by his holiness, wisdom, faithfulness and patience he brought the affairs of the world entrusted in his had: but God doth never the more look upon me, as if that holiness, wisdom, faithfulness and patience, had been mine, nor is it any ways necessary that he should, to make me capable of that which falls to my share as I am a believer, in that great and blessed transaction of Christ. Fourthly and lastly (to part with this argument also upon such terms, SECT. 21 that we may never need to meet more) neither is it altogether so solid or sound a truth, as haply is supposed, that Christ stood in the place or stead of those that should believe in him, especially in all things performed by him, and which tended to the qualification of his person, for the accomplishing of that great work of Redemption. To stand in the place or stead of another, implies a necessity of his being in the same place, and doing the same things himself wherein he stands, and which he doth, who is supposed to stand in his stead, unless they had been done by this other for him. Now Christ did a thousand things, yea and suffered many, for the doing and suffering whereof, there lay no personal necessity upon many Believers, whether Christ had done or suffered them, or no. As for example, there was no necessity, either in way of duty, or of penalty, lying upon any Believer, one or other, to be conceived or borne of a virgin, to turn water into wine, to command the winds and the Seas, to ordain Apostles, or the like. Again there was no necessity lying upon any believing Gentile to have been circumcised, to have been in subjection unto joseph, to have eaten the Passeover at Jerusalem, etc. Therefore in all these Passages of his life, with many others, it is full evident that he stood not in the place or stead of all Believers, All that the Scripture speaketh in this case is, that he suffered for us, was made a curse for us, etc. which expressions, though they imply indeed (in the general) a necessity of our sufferings, unless Christ had suffered for us, yet do they not imply a necessity of our sufferings in the same kind, or after the same manner, in all particulars. It doth not follow, that except Christ had been circumcised, we must have been circumcised, except he had fasted 40 days we must have fasted 40. except he had been scourged with rods, or crucified on a Cross, we must of necessity have been scourged or crucified: only it follows, that except Christ had suffered either in these or some other particulars, as satisfactory to divine wisdom and justice as these, we must have suffered, and that most grievously. Therefore it is not every ways so square a truth, that Christ, even in his sufferings themselves particularly considered, stood in our stead. But the Scriptures which oft say, that Christ suffered for us, died for as, etc. never say, that either he kept the Moral or Ceremonial Law, nor any part of either for us; though this expression may be admitted, without granting that he did these in our stead. See cap. 3. Sect. 11. of this second part. And thus we see that this argument also is defective on every side. Another, SECT. 22 Argum. 10 reaching after the same conclusion with the former, but scarce with the liek appearance of strength, is this: If we cannot be justified by the righteousness of Christ otherwise then by the imputation of it, then must it needs be imputed unto us, in our justification. But there is no way of being justified by the righteousness of Christ, but only by the imputation of it unto us. Ergo. I answer in few words to the latter proposition, Answer. that if the righteousness, that is, the active obedience of Christ could have no other influence into justification, but in that way of imputation, which hath hitherto been gainsaid, either justification must stand without it, or else fall. For certame it is, that no such imputation can stand, as hath been proved by three demonstrations and by four, and by many more added to them, in the first part of this Discourse. But the weakness of the Proposition is sufficiently evinced from hence, because that righteousness of Christ mentioned in it, concurr's towards justification, by qualifying his person for that sacrifice of himself, by which justification or remission of sins, hath been purchased for all those that believe, as hath been opened at large in an answer to a former argument. The quiver of our Adversaries is well nigh exhaust, and almost empty, by this I scarce know two arguments more really differing from those already produced, that will well hold the Answering. The best of those which yet remain, I conceive is this. If we may truly be said to be dead, and crucified with Christ, SECT. 23 Argum. 11 to be quickened with Christ, to have risen again with Christ, to sit in heavenly places in, or with Christ, etc. then may we be truly said to have fulfilled the Law with Christ also, (for there is no reason why any difference should be made in this case) and consequently the fulfilling of the Law by Christ is imputed to us, and accounted ours. But we may truly be said to be dead, and crucified, and quickened, & raised again and to sit with Christ in Heavenly places, the Scripture affirming all this. Ergo. My Answer to this argument is a Protestation against the consequence of the major Proposition, Answer. as being insufficient. Our being dead, and risen again with Christ, etc. in a Scripture serise, ha●●●●o such conclusion or inference as this in their bowels, therefore we have fulfilled the Moral Law with Christ also●: or if we could be said to have fulfilled this Law with Christ, our own fulfilling it in him, should rather be said to be imputed to us, Cap. 2. Sect. 11. of this second Part. than his fulfilling it for us, (as we formerly reasoned concerning the imputation of Adam's sin) But the reason of the difference, viz. why we may be said (in the Scripture sense) to be dead, and risen again with Christ etc. and yet cannot be said to have fulfilled the Law with Christ (in the sense demanded) is this. When the Scripture saith, we are dead, we are crucified, we are quickened or risen again with Christ, etc. the meaning is not, that God looks upon us, as if we had laid down our natural lives by death, when he laid down his, and as if this la●ing down ourlives, were a fatisfaction to his justice for our sin: for than we might aswell be said to have satisfied for ourselves, or to have redeemed ourselves with Christ, as to have died, or been crucified with him: such expressions as these only import, either a profession of such a death in us, which holds proportion, and hath a spiritual kind of resemblance and likeness with the death of Christ, which is usually called a death or dying unto sin, and to the world, Rom. 6.5. or else, this death itself really effected and wrought in us by that death of Christ, being therefore called, the communion or fellowship of his sufferings, aswell as a conformity to his death. Phil. 3.10. You have the expression used in the former sense, Rom. 6. ●. How shall we, that are dead to sin, (that is, who profess a being dead unto sin with Christ) live yet therein; and so be a reproach to our Profession? In the latter sense, it is found, Gal. 2.20. I am crucified with Christ, that is, the natural death of Christ for for m● an● many moe, hath wrought upon me in a way of assimilation to itself, and hath made me a dead man to the world. So when Believers are said to be quickened or risen again with Christ, the meaning is not, that God looks upon them as quickened from a natural or corporal death, to a natural or glorified life and condition, as Christ quickening and rising again was; which yet must be the meaning, if any thing be made of it, to strengthen the proposition now under assault: but the clear meaning of such expressions is, either to signify the profession that is made by us of that newness of life, which in way of a spiritual analogy and likeness answers that life whereunto Christ was quickened and risen again from the death Rom. 6.5. or else the new life itself, raised and wrought in us, by that quickening and rising again of Christ from the dead. In the former sense, you shall find one of them used Colos. 3.1. If ye be risen with Christ, that is, since you make profession of that new and excellent life, which answers the life which Christ lived upon, and after his resurrection, give this account and evidence of it unto the world, seek the things that are above, etc. In the latter sense, you may find the other Eph. 2.5. Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, meaning that GOD by the quickening and raising of Christ from the dead, had begotten them (as Peter speaks) to such a life, which spiritually answereth that quickening and rising again of Christ. But on the other hand, as there is no such expression in Scripture as this, we have fulfilled the Law with Christ: so neither if there were, would it make any thing at all to salve the truth of the proposition under question, if the sense and meaning of it were carried according to the line of the interpretation of those other expressions mentioned. For what if we should be said either to profess such a fulfilling of the Law, which holds a spiritual analogy or proportion with Christ's fulfilling the Law, or really and personally to fulfil the Law after such a manner: were there any thing in this to infer an imputation of Christ's personal fulfilling the Law, in the letter and formality thereof unto us? Doubtless Christ's quickening and rising again, are not in the letter and formality of them imputed unto the Saints for their quickening and rising again, in the same manner: if they were, Hymeneus and Philetus had been no Heretics, for teaching that the resurrection was passed already. 2 Tim. 2.18. Therefore neither is there any thing in this reason, more than in its fellows, to repair the breaches that have been made upon that imputation, which with them it seeks to fortify. We have but one encounter more, SECT. 24 Argum. 12 and then the battle ceaseth for the present. The last argument I shall propound and Answer, is this. Whosoever is a sinner, and so continueth, whilst he lives, cannet be justified otherwise then by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. But every man (Christ excepted) is a sinner, and so continueth whilst he lives. Therefore no man can be justified but by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. An answer to this, and an end: Answer. though the truth is, that more than an answer hath been given already. I repeat therefore, rather than add (in reference to the former Proposition) that if there be no other way or means for the justifying of a sinner, then by the imputation of Christ's righteousness (in the sense so often sentenced) doubtless the condition of the whole world is miserable and helpless: there is no way or door of life yet opened unto sinners. For imputation of this righteousness upon such terms there is none; as hath been largely proved, and (if I be not mistaken) beyond all reasonable denial, throughout the body of this discourse. But blessed be the Father of mercies, and God of all comfort, who without the key of such an imputation, hath opened an effectual door of justification unto poor sinners, yea even unto those, who are like to be no better than sinners, whilst they live in the world; however this justification coming upon them, makes them the best and happiest of sinners in that kind. Those that truly believe in jesus Christ, being not under the Law, but under grace, are not liable to condemnation, for the things they commit daily against the Law. If any man sin (as we hast do, whilst we live) we have an Advocate with the Father, jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins 1 J●n. 2.1.2. So that for the dissolving and taking away all the gur●t, danger and inconveniences of the ●inu●s of believers in every kind, there needs no imputation of the active obedience of Christ, the propitiation which he is unto them by his blood and interc●ision, hath done this service for them to the uttermost, before this imputation is supposed to come at them. And doubtless it is no more to the justification of a sinner, than the Midwives were to the delivery of those Hebrew women, who were fully and safely delivered before the Midwives came at them. Que apud Dominum propitiatio est, nisi sacrisicicium● et quod est sacri ficium, nisi quod pro no●is oblatum est in morte Christi? Aug. Exod. 1. What propitiation (saith Augustine) is there with the Lord, but sacrifice? and what sacrifice is there, but that which was offered for us in the death of Christ? Nor are we to think that the fullness of the merit of the death of Christ, is so exhausted and spent upon the purchase of the parden and forgiveness of our sins, that it will not hold out to procure our acceptation also with God. Yes, by the redundancy of this merit (saith Mr. Reynolds (a) The life of Christ. p. 402. ) after satisfaction made thereby unto his Father's justice for our debt, there is further a purchase made of grace, and glory, and all good things in our behalf. Yea Adoption itself, and the acceptation of our persons, and admittance into the high favour of God to be made heirs of selvation, spring all from one and the same most precious and fruitful root of the blood of Christ, the perfect holiness of his person, and righteousness of his life presupposed (as hath been said.) So that he that hath communion in the fullness of his death, shall not know what to do with the imputation of the righteousness of his life after it, were it made unto him, or conferred upon him. But enough (if not more then enough) of this heretofore. Thus have we at last overcome and fully answered all those arguments and pie●●● which (to my knowledge) have yet been insisted upon, and cons●●ed in by an●, for the up-bearing of th●●●utation 〈◊〉 Christ's righteousness, in the sense 〈…〉 contradicted in the discourse, viz. in the letter and formality of it, or as the formal cause (whether in whole or in part) of justification. If any man of con●●ary judgement and yet unsatisfied, will vouchsafe in a spirit of meekness and love, either to di●●●● the insufficiency and weakness of any of there Answers (in case he conceives them insufficient and weak) or else further to object, what he conceives to be of greater weight and importance, than the arguments already answered, I shall willingly and unpartially consider of either. And if in either I shall find any thing of pregnant and solid conviction, and above answer, I shall soon turn Proselyte, and be glad to be so delivered of an error. I had much rather be employed in cancelling and desacing mine own errors, than other men's: and desire to make it my daily trade and occupation, to exchange darkness for light, crooked things for straight, errors for truths. The Lord by his Spirit lead us into the way of all ●ruth, and keep us that we turn not aside, either to the right hand or to the jest, that so we may be sound built up in our most holy Faith, and be prepared hereby for his everlasting Kingdom. FINIS.