The Doctrine of Justification Cleared, Treatise · Examination 2 · Chapter 4

The Doctrine of Justification Cleared · Treatise · Examination 2 · Chapter 4

p. 118CHAPT. IIII. Containing EXAMINATION of a Delineation of Juctification in the Cauſes of it: According to the Concluſions and Diſtinctions laid downe.

I Shall be very briefe in Examination. Your ſcope is to diſcover the weakeneſſe of arguments, brought againſt your Concluſion that is, that faith in a proper ſenſe is imputed for righteouſneſſe and not the obedience of Chriſt. If I paſle what hath not this ſcope, I ſuppoſe I do enough to our purpoſe: You promiſe rules.

Rule. 1. There are 4. cauſes to which every being is to b… reduced.

This I grant, though there are who referre all to 2. & ſome 3. and ſome 5..

2. And your ſecond, I grant.

3. Ile de…urre on the the third, till I come to application; your ſelfe ſay in an improper ſenſe ther's ſome exception; and I know not that cauſes are not improper as well as proper.

P. 69. P. 5. Cauſes …e either remote or neere. The perſonall holyneſſe and active obedience of Chriſt to the Law, is a… efficient remote cauſe, qualifying him for ſuch ſufferings, wherby Juſtification was pro…ed, but had no immediate influence …her…u…te.

Sir, I thinke it as neere as the ſufferings of Chriſt, ſeeing its eſſentially requiſite, to make his death and ſuffering p. 119to effect Juſtification, as your ſelfe: which will appeare if we prove it part of the matter, and that it's applyed in the forme thereof.

Pag. 73. You make our ſubject the matter of an accident, and that it hath …o other but the ſubject or object, and wiſh it noted as concerning a ſpecial veine of the queſtion.

In your application you ſay: Pag. 77. God is the efficient of Juſtification and no other kind. But whether is hee not the finall cauſe? Doth hee it not for himſelfe? The glory of his wiſedome, mercy, Juſtice? if ſo hee is efficient and finall.

When you ſpeake here of God, out of authority, and power, and mercy juſtifying; you name not Juſtice, yet the Apoſtle joyneth that with grace, 3. Rom. 15 &c.

So Chriſt is the impulſive morall externall cauſe, his death, 4 Ephe…. 3. Rom. 24. Neither can the death of Chriſt with any ſhew of reaſon, or with any colourable conſtruction of congruity of ſpeaking, be referred to any other cauſe, but the impulſive onelyonly.—And it's yet more repugnant to reaſon, it is to make. Chriſt himſelfe, or any righteouſneſſe of his whatſoever, the matter or materiall cauſe of Iuſtification: as the Socinian diſcoverer; Pa. 139. or the forme. But it's a ſtreine of unreaſonableneſſe above all the reſt, to make them the materiall and formall cauſe too.

Now to theſe in Order.

Againe, I grant Chriſt a Morall, externall, impulſive cauſe; a meritorious cauſe of his death; yet his Active obedience may not be excluded. To this kind of cauſe, ſay you, Pa. 81. muſt be reduced the active or perſonall righteouſneſſe of Chriſt: And whenas you adde, though it be not ſatisfactory ſimply and directly in it ſelfe, nor contributing any thing immediately by way of merit to Iuſtification. How can it be truth ſeeing of that Active obedience. You ſaid but now, that: that theſe were directly and eſſentially requiſite to make his death and ſuffirings Iuſtification and life? Sufferings cannot exclude his Active obedience, being directly and eſſentially requiſite, to that end. And alſo ſeeing it qual… f…eth in part our ſacrifice of Chriſt, for that fullneſſe and height p. 120of acceptation with God, of which offer what's eſſentiall will not be put a far off from ſufferings when they produce this effect.

You ſay Chriſt dying righteous, and being God, his death holds out weight and worth, merit and ſatisfaction for the whole World, Pag. 203. and call it the qualification in part, for that meritoriouſneſſe of his death: which may ſtand the whole World inſtead for their Iuſtification, Pag. 204.

When as his blood is mentioned, his obedience is not excluded by which we are righteous 5. Rom. 19.

And when as you urge thoſe words for his ſake, Eph. 4. though there be truth in them as applyed yet the words are foreign as God hath been gracious unto you in Chriſt.

Obj: But cannot be referred to any kind of cauſe elſe, but the impulſive only.

1. Chriſt is not onelyonly the impulſive efficient, but principall, …araeus calleth him, **Canſa adjuvans quia impetrat, efficiens principal…s quia una cum patic juſtificat.an adjuvant cauſe, becauſe he obtaineth, and efficient principall becauſe together with the Father he juſtifieth.

The Sonne of Man hath power to forgive ſinnes, he is exalted, a Prince and Saviour to give remiſſion of ſinnes; wee are juſtified in the name of Chriſt, by the ſpirit of our God.

Obje. It's a great fault that Mr. Walker maketh Christ or any righteouſneſſe of his, the matter or materiall cauſe of our Iuſtification.

Mr. Walker was not the firſt by many that ſpeake and write ſo.**Paraus on Viſi…us Catec. p, 355. he ſaith, ſatisfactio Chriſti eſt cauſa materialis juſtitiae noſtrae And the learned ſhew this in the margent. Whenas he had ſaid obſervandum ergo, non eodem ſenſu dic… nos gratia Dei et merito Chriſti—juſtifica ri; prima intelligitur de cauſa …. pulfiva in Dco ſe und… de cauſa materiali; When we are ſaid to be juſtified by themevit of Chriſt, it's meant of the materiall cauſe, and then merito Chriſti iuſtificamur partim ut causa materiali juſtificationis quatenus obedientia Chriſti nobis applicata placemus Deo, et câ quaſi veſte induti projuſti reputamur partim ut cauſa impulſiva procata…ct…ca et meritoria, quatenus p…opter cam n…s ab abſolvit; he ſaith nihilpraeter meritum Chriſti eſt juſtitia noſ…ra …oram deo. Juſtificamur…d abus rebus ſed dv…erſimod… fide ut inſtrumenta apprchendente juſtitiam; merit… Chriſti ut cauſa materiali noſtrae juſtitiae pag. 359. Ego docendi cauſa materiam appellabo, de juſtit act. et paſſ. 173 his materia juſtificationis eſt quad … plexi illa Chriſti juſtitia, alij, 3. poſteriores juſtitias Chriſti, materiam, &c. ſtatuunt. Tertij du… tantum juſtirias Chriſti poſteriores materiam faciunt; pag. 174, you ſee himſelfe and all agree in th…, by his judgement. Mr. Perkins. ſee Mr. W…t. defence. p. 210. See Coſſac. Theſ 11. drafit p. 62 Calvin. l. 3. inſtit. c. 14. p. 17. and in Rom, 2. 21. and c. 3. 24 ſo Trelcatius p 80. Bucanus ad c. 1. p. 310 Chamier de juſtif. c. 1. l. 21, p. 5. Iunius Theſ. in augurat. our Doctor Do…nham. l, 1. c. 5. p. 2. Doctor Pridea… dejuſtif. p. 156. Mr. Forbs, mothing ſaith hee, in heaven or in man. or without man … the matter of mans righteouſneſſe before God, except on …ly Chriſt. c. 22. p. 85. &c. You ſee it is the matter nay beth againſt your third rule in part.

p. 111Now let us heare your argument, againſt this.

Pag. 85. 1, By making theſe the materiall cauſe of Juſtification they deveſt and spoile them of the honour of cauſality, which is proper unto them, and ſeven times more honourable then that which is this way attributed to them, vid. of that cauſality we call meritorious.

1. Then they are both meritorious which you ſee me to deny, p 81.

2. Did we deny it meritorious, your argument might be to ſome purpoſe. It's requiſite, that the eſſentiall cauſes of our Juſtification, ſhould have worth in them, and be meritorious.

But this cannot be, ſay you, by our third Rule. That no one cauſe whatſoever, can put on more habitudes, or cauſality then one, in reſpect of the ſame effect: So that if Chriſt be the meritorious and impulſive cauſe, which is granted on all hands, even by the men againſt whom I reaſon, it cannot be deemed the materiall cauſe alſo.

1. Your Rule is falſe as by that inſtance of God, who is the efficient and finall cauſe. Himſelfe doth all for himſelfe, the laſt end, of him, and through him, and to him are all things, to whom be glory for ever, Amen, 11. Rom. ult. Gods ſelfe is the end which moveth himſelfe, the efficicient, to worke.

The Logician calleth this a moſt cleere Axiom, the laſt end and the firſt efficient is altogether the ſame thing: or that God in Praeclarum …x▪ ioma, res omnino eadem eſt ultimus finis, et prima cauſa efficions. ſcil, deum proprie loquend… nihil agere propter finem a ſe diver ſum, K…k…og▪ de fin….proper ſpeech doth nothing for an end diverſe from himſelfe.

2. Your Rule is falſe in the judgment of all thoſe who give Chriſt the meritorious cauſe, and the materiall, as I have proved.

3. Yea I pray you conſider whether Chriſt bee not a finall cauſe alſo, whether he had not reſpect to the glory of himſelfe as mediator? Was it not Gods covenant with him, on his execution of Office? 55. leſ. 5. that he having glorified God on earth, and finiſhed the worke hee gave him to doe, prayeth for 17. Joh. 5. and now O father glorifie thou me with thine owne ſelfe, with the glory which I had with thee, p. 112before the world was, it's not eſſentiall glory▪ but what God covenanted to give him on finiſhing the worke of mans redemption, and the Saints have given it to him, 1 Tim. 6.14, 15, 16, and Iu. 25. and what was that high exaltation of Chriſt to the Philippians,, but the glory of his mediator-ſhip?

Who knoweth not but man believing is an efficient? You alſo call him the matter of Iuſtification,, and you make the great ſubordinate end which lieth faireſt and fulleſt in view to the ſight of all men, the advancement of perſons juſtified to that exceeding height of glory, &c. p. 84. and faith is an inſtrument and impulſive cauſe, true as you. p. 83.

2. You argue, the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt Active or Paſſive or both, cannot bee the matter of Iuſtification, becauſe the matter of a thing is alwaies ens incompletum, untill the introduction and union of the form with it which gives perfection and being and exiſtence to it, but Chriſts righteouſnes hath a perfect being neither can it fall under imagination: whatform it ſhould be capable of that by union with it, ſhould adde beuty and perfection to it.

The righteouſneſſe of Chriſt how perfect ſoever in it ſelfe, yet hath the nature of ens incompletum, where and ſo long as it is matter not applyed by Gods imputation, & the faith of ſuch as do believe as the nature of man, though compounded of Elements, is incompletum, in regard of that effect man, before information.

Application of the righteouſneſſe of Jeſus Chriſt in ſtead of a forme compleateth not the matter, but the Juſtification of a believer.

And yet then hath it & inſomuch (as it were) its deſire, it's appetite to it, and acquieſcence in oying it, as being intended by God and Chriſt to that worke believers Juſtification, and other end, as wee ſay of naturall matter.

3. If it bee the matter either properly or improperly ſo called; Matter properly ſo called it cannot be which they call materia ex qua: becauſe this kind of matter, I. Is proper to ſubſtantiall p. 113natures, onelyonly is it ſelfe alwaies a ſubſtance, is alwaies a part of the nature and the weaker part of it: Whereas Iuſtificasion hath onelyonly an accident all being, not ſubſtantiall, &c. not in the predicament of ſubſtantia: 3. It cannot be a part of juſtification, it being an action, this a forme or quality: and one predicament all being, cannot be of the nature of another: Laſtly being of that infinite perfection and worth it cannot be the weaker and leſſe worthy part.

I Anſwer: Matter, properly ſo called, we cannot affirme it to be, nor yet do; whence the labour you take here is loſt: When you ſay matter is proper to ſubſtantiall natures▪ you ſeeme to ſpeake of all ſubſtantiall natures, and ſo to belong to formes, and they ſhall be materiall.

When as you ſay it cannot be the matter of juſtification, it being an action, that a quality: You cannot but remember that accidents ſimply are reduced to quantity and quality, and juſtification being a juſt making, as there muſt be ſomewhat that hath proportion to matter ex qua, ſo Chriſts righteouſneſſe conſiſteth of actions, and his paſsions were active as before, ſo that ther's good analogy; but I might paſle this.

2. That it cannot be matter improperly called, may be demouſtrated, for that it is either in qua or cerca quam: the ſubject or object. The righteouſneſſe of Chriſt can be neither of theſe.

There is a third thats neither ſubject nor object. Your ſelfe in your explanation of this cauſe prove a third, the whiteneſſe in the wall. It's enough there be ſome kinde of analogy to matter properly ſo called in accidents. As your ſelfe ſpeake to the whitening of a wall, there muſt be ſome matter; this I call the colour in chalke or lime the ſubject; this is the matter the Plaiſterer uſeth to white the wall, the chalk-ſtone or lime in which the colour is not that that whiteth, but qua whiteneſſe adhereth, her's analogy; So when as the Lord maketh juſt and righteous, he doth it with the righteouſneſſe p. 114of Chriſt; as the wall is made white with that colour, ſo a believer righteous with righteouſneſſe; and in this I ſee the judgement of almoſt all Divines concurring, as before. And thus I paſſe to what you ſay it muſt be.

It muſt be either the ſubject or object of Juſtification, God or man: the former is unquoth; it muſt be then ſubjectum recipiens, or objectum, and then that, I believe ther's no other matter.

But Sir, if man believing be the matter, either quâ man, or believing? not qua man, a ſubſtance cannot be the matter of an accident or action: if quâ believing faith's an inſtrument, and ſo an efficient, and by your third Rule cannot be the matter. And though our ſubject and object are termed matter, yet the Logician telleth you, that it's confuſion of thoſe which matterAbutimur nomine materiae cum illud tribuimus ſubjecto et objecto, ipſe Malancthon ſaith, that Logi…ian Keckerman: de Materia. and abuſe: who therefore handleth them diſtinctly.

Before I paſſe to the forme, Ile conſider what's ſaid to the inſtruments.

P. 12. Here you confeſſe, faith by the uniforme Doctrine of Reformed Authors, is an inſtrumentall efficient.

Of this we have ſpoken; Divines make it an inſtrument, and give the effect to it, becauſe of that of which it is an inſtrument, the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt ſo all. Muſculus and Aretius, as is ſhewed. The impulſive is Chriſts righteouſneſſe which is not of the ſame kinde with faith, and ther's the ſame reaſon of other places, where deliverance is given becauſe they believed, which was but a flying for refuge to God in Chriſt, and laying hold by faith as an inſtrument, that which hath the promiſe.

How Sacraments ſhould become inſtrumentall cauſes or meanes of Inſtification, muſt be knowne by inquiring at the Oracle at Rome for neither the Scriptures nor the Reformed Religion have any of this learning in them.

Sacraments are viſible words, and their office is to ſigne and ſeale to believers, the whole Covenant in the blood of Chriſt. The Apoſtle calleth Circumciſion, the p. 115ſigne and ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of Faith, 4 Rom. 11. by which juſtification and pardon: and when as the Supper of our Lord is the New Teſtament that is a ſigne and ſeale of the New Teſtament in the blood of Chriſt ſhed for remiſſion of ſinnes.

I queſtion not but they are powerfull inſtruments for confirmation of our faith, of Juſtification and pardonSee Dr. Prid. … juſt. p. 156. of ſinnes; and I remember not that I have read the contrary, otherwiſe I hold them not cauſes inſtrumentall.

And now for the formall cauſe:

And here paſsing the Pontifician opinion which maketh it to conſiſt in Faith, Hope and Charity, come we to your conceipt of the opinion of the Socinian diſcoverer, Mr. Walker, which is,P. 139.

Not better but rather at far deeper defiance both with reaſon and truth. Whats the matter?

Doubtleſſe her's too much matter to make a good forme.

But if all be rightly taken, there's what doth it. Juſtification is by the communion and imputation reciprocall of our ſinnes to Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe to us: that which followeth ſheweth how it's effected by the Spirit dwelling in us working faith; this reciprocall imputation and communion is the formall cauſe of our Juſtification.

By this the matter is applyed, we are made perfectly righteous, and freed from our ſinnes. Againſt this you object:

If the forme ſtands in that communion betweene us and Chriſt, then Chriſt is juſtified with the ſame Iuſtification.

Had you put in and reciprocall imputation of our ſinnes to Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe to us, you would have perceived, whats communicated on either ſide.

And you know we all hold we are juſtified formally (that is, as it were by a forme there being a kinde of analogy) by the ſame righteouſneſſe with which Chriſt is juſtified, though not …odem mode, which you muſt deſtory before you get the maſtery.

p. 1162. That communion is not righteouſneſſe directly or indirectly, conforming to the Laws equivalently or interpretatively, and therefore:

The righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is the matter communion and imputation thereof with him, is ever the forme, not communion but communication, imputation, application of righteouſneſſe, you miſtake him.

3. The formall cauſe muſt needs be the impreſſion of the effect of the act of Inſtification, the effect of God, as himſelf, p. 137. Where as communion ariſeth from the Holy Ghoſt, and therfore its impoſſible that this communion ſhould be the cauſe formall of …uſtification.

The effect of Gods act juſtifying is juſtification, how that ſhail be the formall cauſe of it ſelfe, I cannot yet conceive.

Let it be granted an act of God, yet its by the communion of the Spirit in that place, as if we were not juſtified by the Spirit of our God, or the Spirit were not God, as if God did not juſtifie us by calling us to fellowſhip with his Sonne; ſo we partake of his righteouſneſſe and juſtification, and God calleth and cauſeth that union and communion by the Spirit, and mutuall imputation.

4. This communion betweene us and Chriſt, is a conſequent of our juſtification, and taketh not place, nor hath being till after we be fully and compleatly inſtiſied; this he teacheth when be writeth it ariſeth from communion with the Spirit, which is (hedon believing, and conſequently after our Inſtification, for Inſtification followeth faith cloſly, as imagination it ſelfe can imagine, its evident from 7 Ju. 39. & 15. Acts 8. 2 Acts 28. & 6 Acts 5. Acts 8. 15. 16. Acts 11. 17. with 15 Acts 19. ſo that union followeth, and can not be the formall cauſe.

1. When you ſpeake of a full and compleate Juſtification,An individ…all act and Whole together. you intimate an incompleate one and degrees, juſtification hath none but is [actus individius & ſimul torus.] as Divines ſpeake, and thereby difference it from ſanctification.

p. 1172. Its a moſt unſound poſition and unworthy a Divine, which maketh communion a conſequent, and after juſtification, for by fellowſhip with Chriſt we have fellowſhip with his death and reſurrection, and ſo ſanctification and juſtification; In whom we redemptiou, remiſſion of ſinnes, Col: 1 Eph: (all is to the fellowſhip of Gods Sonne, in Whom we partake of righteouſneſſe and redemption.

When Mr. Walker ſaith, it ariſeth from fellowſhip or communion by the Spirit, he ſaith, that communion by the Spirit is before it, its riſe is from thence.

Grant the Spirit ſhed abroade in believings (which yet in order of nature is firſt cauſing believings, God by the Spirit calleth to faith whereby we receive Chriſt, and have union and communion with him, by both theſe we are one with Chriſt and have communion) it followeth not that its after juſtification, but before to union and communion and ſo juſtification, and though juſtification followeth faith cloſely, yet its faith in Chriſt uniting and cauſing communion with him, from whence alſo ſanctification arriſeth, which in order of nature is before juſtification, qualifying Faith, and conditioning the perſon to the ſame.

That believers ſhall and do receive the Spirit, maketh not for you, for the Spirit received juſtifieth, but you are waſhed, but you are ſanctified, but you are juſtified, in the name of the Lord Jeſus, and by the Spirit of our God: 1 Cor. 6. 11. God doth it by his Spirit, Acts 15. 8, 9. God giving the Holy Ghoſt to the Gentiles as well as the lewes, put no difference betweene us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. God by the Holy Ghoſt purified their hearts by faith, in regard of ſanctification and juſtification.

Acts 2. 39. they muſt believe and repent and be Raptized for remiſſion of ſinnes, when its ſaid, and you ſhall receive the gift of the Holy Ghoſt: the meaning is, that extraordinary gift which they heard and ſaw at that time in others, which all believers have not; and I intreate you to tell p. 118me whether believing and repentance are not the giftsSee Act. 8. 15, 16. & 19. 2. & 11. 15.Acts 8:15Acts 8:16Acts 19:2Acts 11:15 of the Holy Ghoſt given ſuch by the Lord: Act. 6. 5. both are coupled, Faith and the Holy Ghoſt, and hee giveth the Holy Ghoſt to believers, Acts 11. 15. but wha…s that to prove the giving of the Holy Ghoſt after juſtification?

Your 5^th. is the ſame with your firſt argument, and hath anſwer there, and if you would have underſtood his words, you might perceive he underſtood a reciprocall imputation, in which as we are aſſerted to be made partakers of his righteouſneſſe, he was of our ſinnes.

And juſtification of Chriſt as well as us might follow, if righteouſneſſe were communicated or imputed to him in Mr. Walkers ſpeech by the Holy Ghoſt, or from us, but theſe are dreames and miſtakes you ſay,

If communion be reciprecall, imputation is not, which yet, is affirmed by the ſame breath, becauſe this is an act of the Father, where as communion floweth from the Holy Ghoſt, theſe are acts really diffiring, impoſſible to combine as one forme. &c.

The conſequence is denyed, and the reaſon that they are two differing acts; both denote but the application of the matter, which is by analogy the forme, or introduction of it, and when you prove it becauſe one is done by God the Father, the other by the Spirit, you ſeem to forget that both perſons are one God, and that God, Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt juſtifie: the Spirit is the Spirit of our God and we are juſtified by the ſpirit of our God.

7. Reciprocall imputation by it ſelfe cannot be the forme, becauſe it comprehends two diſtinct acts of God, imputation of our ſinnes to Chriſt and of his righteouſneſſe to us, which really differ, now its impoſſible that any forme ſhould be made of plurality oſ ingredients.

They are the ſame acts of God; God on mans believing conferreth the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt on him, and acquitteth him of his finnes, they being by the ſame act put upon the ſcore of Chriſt. This I ſuppoſe was his meaning.

p. 119And if our queſtion were of a forme properly ſo called, we might nearken to your axiome, and yet put you to worke to tell us what is for ma miſti, whether it hath not many ingredients, whether the formes of the ſeverall elements are annihilated, or made matter, or are ingredients to the forme, and if not, how there can be a reſolution of them, and how there are ſtill their proper qualities; but this were to be wanton.

For accidents its manifeſt, learning as a forme maketh learned, and when we judge one ſo indeed, its from all or many ſorts of learning, theres not onelyonly a plurality but multiplicity of Learning.

2. Its impoſſible, becauſe onelyonly the believing ſinner is (as hath been fully proved) is the matter of juſtification; now the forme is ever in conjunction with the matter proper to it, and never with any other: Chriſt being no believing ſinner, is no fitting matter for the forme of that Inſtification to be coupled with it, it cannot be that imputation of ſinnes to him ſhould be the forme is ſelfe.

That which is the foundation is ſandy, that a believing ſinner is the matter of juſtification, its ſhewed to be ſo before; theres no juſtification of Chriſt aſlerted, and ſo no need that he ſhould be a believing finner.

When God juſtifieth us he acquiteth us of our ſinnes by the ſame act he removeth them from us, he tranſlateth them to Chriſts account.

3. No imputation whatſoever, or of whatſoever can be the forme of Inſtification. 1. Becauſe its no righteouſneſſe, where as a formes of Iuſtification muſt of neceſſity be a righteouſneſſe; righteouſneſſe imputed is a righteouſneſse, but the imputation of righteouſneſse cannot be righteouſneſse.

Righteouſneſſe, its true, muſt be to make one righteous, but thats the matter, imputation of it or it imputed is the forme, the introduction of this which is imputation hath the place of a forme.

2. And this introduction giveth denomination, it's a conſtitution of a man righteous.

p. 1209. The Author falls off from this, and affermes the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt it ſelfe to be this forme.

He is like himſelfe, and never meant other thing by it, as it ſeene hereby.

10. In this voluminous multiformed deſcription of the formall cauſe, thers no mention of forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, as if they had no dealing together, Reformed Divines thinke them of neere affinity.

And ſo do we, for the one is the cauſe, the other the effect or conſequent, as is often ſaid.

3. Neither can that opinion ſtand which maketh the imputation or application of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, the forme of Iuſtification.

This is the ſame, and how you have proved it we have ſeene, you need not repeate it, and yet you further argue againſt it.

If the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt be the matter and imputation thereof the forme, then one righteouſneſſe muſt be the forme of another righteouſneſſe, becauſe the forme muſt needs be a righteouſneſſe; if the matter and forme be a righteouſneſſe, one muſt informe the other; a greater abſurdity then the reaſon of any conſidering man can beare

I deny the conſequence. I deny the proofe, that the forme muſt needs be a righteouſneſſe: the opinion is, the application of that righteouſneſſe is the forme, ſo the Author, you make, and you muſt beare the abſurdity.

2. Then what is leſſe perfect ſhall be the perfection of that which is more perfect, now this imputation being by the acknowledgement of the Authors of it ſomewhat inherent, muſt be of inferior worth, neither can it be conceived any thing ſhould be of a perfecting nature of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

1. That rule you apply here to accidents, before appropriated to ſubſtances; to matter and forme properly ſo called: you muſt conſider whether it will hold in both. The Author you ſpeake of holds not that we are juſtified by, to be inherent in us: Its out of us in Chriſt, ours onelyonly by imputation, inherent they deny it to be, or p. 121our ſelves ſo juſtified, they diſtinguiſh betweene the denomination of one juſt and juſtified: the former is from what's inherent the latter from what's extrinſecall.

And you may conceive, how Chriſts righteouſneſſe being matter untill it be in conjunction with the formeDav. p. 360 and ſo p. 361. that is imputed or applyed, hath not its end to which it is ordained, is but in potentia, and ſo by application actually attaineth it, our juſtification, and glory of Chriſt, and Gods grace. Then is it in its perfection, When as it produceth the effect & not before conſidered as matter.

4. The Scriptures favour it not, neither do the Authors ſo much as pretend Scripture for it.

Why do you anſwer the Scriptures this way if it be a truth? that's tried, and ſhall be in examination of your anſwers.

Ult. Biſh. Davenant is abſolutely againſt the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, and pleadeth for the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed.

The imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, or Chriſts righteouſneſſe imputed to be the forme, is all one with them; either denote the application of Chriſts righteouſnes; the expreſsions are therefore indifferently uſed by them and now as if it were different you diſpute againſt that, Chriſts righteouſneſſe imputed to be the forme.

1. Becauſe it is the efficient it cannot be the forme, it cannot have more habitudes.

The vanity of that rule and argument is opened before.

2. Theſe muſt needs hold the perſon juſtified, to bee the materiall cauſe thereof, on which ſuppoſition, I reaſon thus.

No individuall forme can informe two ſeverall ſubjects, really differing Chriſt and the ſinner.

1…. Their's no neceſsiy, the contrary hath been ſhewed, and ſo your ſuppoſition is begged, and what is built on it frivolous.

The righteouſnes of Chriſt, which we teach the matter of Juſtification, applyed to thouſands, the whole body of Chriſt, how different ſoever from themſelves and p. 122Chriſt denominateth all; Chriſt juſt as inherent in him us juſtified, as applyed to us.

Chriſt and we are one myſticall body, all called Chriſt by vertue of which union and communion, that which is the heads, is communicated to the body; the huſbands to the ſpouſe, the Church.

3. And when as you object wee are not one naturall body, not therefore capable of the ſame naturall forme.

You fight with your ſhadow: No man affirming either. When as you reaſon,

2. Then the ſame ſinfulneſſe of nature may informe them alſo, and Chriſt ſhould be ſinnefull and corrupt with the ſame, that is in the belieuer.

It's true, both wee are righteous by his righteouſneſſe, and he a ſinner by our ſinfullnes neither inherently, both by imputation.

3. Then the meritorious cauſe may be the forme.

True as applyed or imputed and if ſo bee there were not worth in it applyed, it could not juſtifie.

But the one is extrinſecall, the other alwaies intrinſecall, he that is alwaies without cannot be ever within.

Its true of naturall formes, not of all that are accidentall when man is ſaid to be juſtified it's by a Paſsive denomination: It is not abſolutely neceſſary that this denomination Et non eſt abſolute neceſſarium ut haee denominatio petatur a formainhaerente aut ſupponat formam inhaerentem. Vt cum hommem dkimus amatum, honoratum abſolutum; haee omnia de ill… vere dicuntur in quo non reperitur forma in haerens. He ſheweth is out of Gulielm, Pariſ, and Vaſques rejecteth it. Dave. …. 27. p. 360be taken from an inherent form or ſhould ſuppoſe it, as when we ſay a man is beloved, honoured, freed, all theſe are truely ſaid of him in whom there is not found an inherent forme.

4. Then is a believer reputed righteous with the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt: but that not to bee ſo I demonſtrate, for bee that may be reputed righteous with the righteouſnes of Chriſt may be lawfully reputed never to have ſinned: becauſe that righteouſneſſe which admitteth ſin in the ſame ſubject with it, can be none of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt the eſſentiall property whereof was to bee his who never ſinned, but that a juſtified perſon ſhould be reputed not to have ſinned, is notorious.

I deny that he that is reputed righteous, with the righteouſnes of Chriſt may be reputed never to have ſinned: p. 123I deny, that becauſe his righteouſneſſe admitteth no ſin in the ſubject who hath ſin, it cannot by imputation be a believers: Its true it cannot be ſubjectively in us that are ſinners.

It may be by imputation, ſo we that in our ſelves, are ſinners are in him righteous, as he who was in himſelfe righteous was yet a ſinner, by the imputation of our ſins though not by inherencie.

5. Then are they righteous with that which is meritorious and may have the merit of ſuch righteouſneſſe hee aſcribed to them: and they reputed meritors of whatſoever is due to ſuch a righteouſneſſe, which giveth them the redemption of the World.

This reaſon is a popiſh one, urged before, and fully ſatisfied by our Authors anſwering them, of which I have given a ſufficent account before, and will not foreign. You object it was, meritorious as in him not as imputed to us, which you call a begging of the queſtion, and is a poſition manifeſtly convicted of untruth. Let the reader Judge. 2 You adde.

2. The meritoriouſneſſe of it muſt needs be eſſentiall to it, and inſeparable, it goeth with it.

I grant it for the perſon to whom its imputed, the believer receiveth it and its given him not for others to ſave them with, or communicate to them, but for themſelves. And Authors cleare this in the place I named before.

6. If the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt be the formall cauſe, either that which is morall alone, or ceremoniall alone, or mediatory alone, or of all, or ſome two. But neither,

I anſwer the two firſt are the ſame, for the Ceremoniall righteouſneſſe was required in the ſecond Commandement, being the manner of Gods worſhip contain'd in his word, which with his ſufferings (you call mediatory) make up one full righteouſneſſe, the righteouſneſſe of our mediator, that by which imputed we are juſtified. His active and paſsive obedience: againſt this we have nothing, your 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and laſt, are Arrows ſhot at p. 124random, they hurt not your opponents nor profit your ſelfe.

7. and laſtly, Its the confeſſion of the learnedeſt abbettors of the way of imputation which hath been oppoſed in this Treatiſe, deny the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed to be the formall cauſe of Iuſtification.

Whenas Dr. Prideaux denieth that we are formally juſtified by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed: His words immediately following are of an inhering forme.

Dr. Dounbam teacheth it a falſe charge that we hold our An non formam quam libet inhaerentem qua formalli…er juſti denominemur ſemper exploſimus?ſelves formally righteous, by that righteouſneſſe which is not in us, but out of us in Chriſt, that not we but Chriſt was formally juſt by that which is in him.

And that hee doth not deny the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed to us to be the formall cauſe of juſtification, ſee by two paſſages of the ſame Author, the one immediately before, the other after. The title of that fifth Chapter is, and that againſt your Mr. A. W. That the formall cauſe of Iuſtification is the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe.

And having ſaid, But the thing wherein chiefly they erre, is, That which Socinus the Heretique they deny the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, and conſequently do hold, that neither the active nor paſſive obedience of Chriſt, is that which is imputed to us for righteouſneſſe What then? Forſooth the act of faith. He addeth, Of theſe mens error I ſhall not need to ſay much in this place, becauſe beſides that which hath been already delivered, in the 3. Chapter I have plentifully and fully proved in my whole 4 h. Booke, that the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is the matter which is imputed to Iuſtification, and in my whole 5th. Booke that the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe is the forme of Iuſtification. And having ſaid, he wondered they could be ſo abſurd, &c. theſe words follow, But we teach that Chriſts righteouſneſſe both habituall and actuall, by which he was formally juſt, is the matter and the imputation thereof the forme of Iuſtification.

We ſay that the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt it ſelfe is not the formallcauſe p. 125of juſtification, or that by which we are formally juſt, but the imputation of it, &c. The righteouſneſſe whereby a man is formally juſt is inherent in himſelfe, for what is more intrinſecall then the forme. But Chriſts righteouſneſſe is not inherent in us more then our ſinne was inherent in him; And yet as he was made ſinne or a ſinner by our ſinnes, not formally (God forbid) but by imputation, ſo we are made righteous by his righteouſneſſe, not formally (as we are juſtified, or in our ſelves but in him, viz. by imputation.

Not formally or in our ſelves, inherently is the thing he denyeth, not the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, and ſo all.

Thus Dr. Davenant**Atque hoc extrinſecum licet non habeat in nobis exiſtentiam formae Phiſicae, ſupplere tamen vicem ejus, atque illo ſcuſu recte dici formalem cauſam juſtificationis noſtrae ubi deeſt formalis intrinſeca ſeu inhaerens, where he explaineth that terme, c. 27. p. 361.

And thus I follow you paſsing to another opinion, p. 28. Remiſsion of ſinnes which hath the faireſt and largeſt P. 28.quarter in the judgements and writings of Proteſtant Divines, to what is done in the former Treatiſe. 1. and 5. Chap. you adde 2 eminent Divines. That you are to prove, is that remiſſion of ſinnes is the formall cauſe of Juſtification.

Pareus, the light of whoſe reading and judgement together could diſcover no other opinion touching the formall cauſe of Iuſtification, either in the Fathers or any chiefe Proteſtant writers, but that it ſhould ſtand only in remiſſion of ſinnes.

In the words you cite or place, there's not one word that remiſsion of ſinnes is the formall cauſe of Juſtification.It's true, he layeth down that opinion, ſolum… paſſivam chriſti obedientiam eſſe juſtitiam noſtram, et juſtificationem ſola remiſſione peccatorum dfiniri, which he ſaith is proved by an Argument a materia, an other à forma juſtificationis; the proofe from the formall cauſe is, Scriptura totam juſtificationem noſtram definit remiſſione peccatorum propter ſanguinem Chriſti. Ergo ſola ſanguinis effuſio eſt id cujus imputatione juſtificamur, et remiſſio peccatorum eſt tota juſtitia noſtra: here though the effect be remiſsion, the cauſe is the blood of Chriſt impated; as the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is the matter, ſo the imputation thereof is the forme, as it's called; and elſe where, Omnum conſenſu nos morte Chriſti juſtificari cum propter eam habeamus remiſſionem peceatorum, p. 174.

Imputation of righteouſneſſe is the cauſe, remiſſion. p. 126of ſinnes the effect, with PAREVS.Remiſſio pecatorum fit per juſtitiam imputatam perfectam, Caſtit. de juſtif. 389. and elſe where to Bellarmine. Falſum quoque Apoſtolum e… non imputatione peccatorum, colligere imputationem juſtitiae. …mo hunc non ex illa colligit ſed per illam declarat ut cuivis textum adſpicienti manifeſtum eſt praecedit enim imputatio juſtitiae, ver. 6. Sequitur exegeticè remiſſio tectio non imputatio peccatorum. ver. 7. 8.

And when as he calleth it our whole juſtification how c…n it be the formall cauſe of it ſelfe? neither where it is ſo termed if you ſhew the ſame, can it be maintained.

As for Mr. Gataker, though he cite many that hold juſtification to conſiſt in remiſsion of ſinnes, yet his words are, for my part I deeme erroneous, and ſuppoſe I have elſewhere e…idently ſhewed it ſo to be: and its marvaile you would quote him in this cauſe. The thing is evident, neither will your ſeeming large ſenſe given to him,Juſtificatio noſtri coram deo et remiſſio peccatorum ſunt revera prorſus unum et idem, ut patet ex Rom. 4. 6. 7. Juſtificatio et remiſſio peccatòrum plane non ſunt idem.Rom 4:6Rom 4:7 excuſe you.

When as Piſcator had ſaid, our juſtification before God and remiſſion of ſinnes are truely one and the ſame.

Mr. Gataker, Iuſtification and remiſſion of ſins plainely are not the ſame.

And though he hold them not to differ as the whole and part he addeth, It is rather a neceſſary conſequent of effectuall Iuſtification.Potius eſt juſtificationis efficacis conſequens neceſſarium. p. 11. & p. 21.

And when as Piſcator had ſaid, he had once and againe demonſtrated, remiſſion of ſinnes and imputation of righteouſneſſe, to be plainly one and the ſame.

Mr. Gataker anſwereth, Yea but this is not as yet demonſtratedRemiſſionem peccatorum et juſtitiae imputationem unum prorſus idemque eſſe. by you, neither truely will it ever be demonſtrated.

As for the 3. Mr, A. W. He is the man whence you muſt be denominated, what conſtant oppoſition heeImò hoc nondū a te demonſtratum eſt nec vero unquam demonſtrabitur. p. 45. found, is knowne.

For proofe making you promiſe:

1: Iuſtification being an action hath no forme properly called, nor any forme properly a part of it.

2. The respect it hath is but as it makes an alteration in the perſon, or rather his condition.

3. The preciſe effect of that act is the forme.

p. 1374. Our Queſtion is of a ſinners juſtification by the blood of Chriſt.

5. We inquire of that which is conſtitutive, Gods making a man righteous, whence declaring followeth: And thus I proceed to demonſtrate the truth of that propoſition, that remiſsion is the formall cauſe of Juſtification.

1. I take granted, your fourth; its of ſuch a juſtification.

2. Its granted, it hath no proper forme, and that properly it can not be a part, yet there is a forme, and that's a part, it's conſtitutive as your ſelfe, eſſentiall, a part.

3. That it makes a reall change, for it makes a ſinner juſt, it maketh an unjuſt man righteous.

3. That the effect of the act of God juſtifying is the forme, I deny, its whole juſtification, and all ſuch eſſentiall parts as make it up, and you muſt remember the formes act hath efficacy, for dat eſſe. ſee c. 3. diſt. 1.

4. It's granted, it's conſtitutive of juſtification, as anima rationalis of a man. And now for your Demonſtrations.

1. Becauſe remiſſion of ſinnes is the firſt preciſe effect of that act, therfore its the formal cauſe of Juſtification, there's noother imaginable effect intervening, there's an immediate connexion betweene juſtification and the ſinners abſolution, when its called Iuſtification from ſin, 13 Acts 38 ſo 6 Rom. 7 he that is dead is juſtified from ſinne, this is the firſt priviledge that comes upon a ſinner by meanes of juſtification.

1. I deny the conſequence, the effect is paſsive juſtification as you diſtinguiſh, and that ſignifieth moſt properly and moſt frequently that compleate and entire effect, wherein all their ſeverall influences and contributions meet and center together, p. 38. Whole juſtification, the intire effect, and the forme are not the ſame, the forme is but a part of a thing, and cannot be the entire effect.

2. I deny remiſsion of ſinnes, the firſt preciſe effect, ther's imputation or application of righteouſneſſe, of which juſtification is an effect, as is ſhewed out of Mr. p. 138Wotton, 1 tr. p. 84. of righteouſneſſe communicated, on which pardon followeth.

Neither doth their connection prove it, ſuch is there betweene ſanctification and juſtification; and for that place Acts 13. you urg'd it to this purpoſe once before, and have an anſwere in the fift argument.

2 Becauſe remiſſion of ſinnes giveth denomination of juſtified, it is the forme.

Grant this, (though the illuſtration be not by whiteneſſe and whitning, wherein you make whiteneſſe the forme, which is the effect, the form is whiting, application) you muſt prove the minor, that it denominateth, which you do thus.

If a ſinner be therefore and thereby juſtified becauſe he hath his ſinnes remitted unto him, then remiſſion of ſinnes giveth denomination of the juſtified to him.

This is a meere begging of the queſtion, what's to be proved; and I deny a ſinner therefore juſtified, unleſſe you prove it, juſtification by an effect, or thereby, your Reaſon.

Becauſe Iuſtification it is a vindication or exemption from puniſhment.

It is ſo in effect, that is that followeth, but ſomewhat is ſuppoſed thereunto, juſt making and being juſt, elſe will it be the juſtification of a wicked perſon abomination to the Lord, as both the Scripture, and Divines pleading the ſame.

3. Remiſſion of ſins is the formall cauſe of Iuſtification becauſe it is that alteration and change that's cauſed in the perſon juſtified by that act of God.

1. I deny the conſequence, every change or alteration the perſon, is not the forme.

By that act of God is not the forme, ſo peace ofA. conſcience ſhould be ſo, for its an alteration which ſuppoſeth pardon, which ſuppoſeth imputation of righteouſneſſe, whence juſtification and ſo pardon, &c.

2. So is juſtification it ſelfe in that change that's p. 139made, yet is it not therefore the forme of it ſelfe, nay its an effect of the forme. Your Reaſon.

Its a politique act, and it hath a ſutable effect, not a Morall, the change is not ſo, now, then this there's no other imaginable act, before this he was under guilt, now freed by this.

It's a divine act▪ and though it be granted politique and that the effect, there's a Morall change, ſuch a man as hath his ſinnes forgiven him, was under guilt but now free; true, hee was alſo unjuſt whence that guilt, and now he is righteous, conſtituted righteous, holy and unblamable, white as ſnow, whiter by a beauty put on him, whence remiſsion a conſequent, here's an other change

4. That which makes a juſtified perſon compleatly righteous before God is the formall cauſe of Iuſtification, this cannot be denyed by our keeneſt adverſaries.

I anſwer, making is ambiguous, every cauſe maketh the efficient the finall, the materiall, the formall, a blunt man might make exception. But let it paſſe, let us ſee your aſſumption.

But remiſſion of ſinnes maketh a juſtified perſon formally and G.compleatly righteous, becauſe he is as cleere from ſinne or the guilt as he that kept the Law and never tranſgreſſed.

I anſwer, remiſsion maketh not formally righteous, and I deny the reaſon, for though he be without ſinnes guilt, nay ſo righteous, the cauſe is righteouſneſſe imputed, ſuppoſed, by Chriſts obedience we are conſtituted righteous.

5. If remiſſiion of ſinnes be perfect and compleate righteouſneſſe, then is it the formall cauſe of Iuſtification.

The light ſet up to this.

Becauſe no perfect or compleate righteouſneſſe can be found in any man that hath ſinned, but that which is given and conferred by God in his Iuſtification.

But remiſsion of ſinnes is a compleate righteouſneſſe, which propoſition hath been oft alreedy exalted upon the Throne of evidence, and unqueſtionableneſſe of truth.

It is and hath been as often denyed, and with reaſon p. 140too: be it ſo, let the Reader judge; but now we muſt take a further demonſtration.

That righteouſneſſe which needeth not feare the preſence of a moſt diſtrict judgement of God, is a compleate righteouſneſſe. But remiſsion is ſuch, it will hold weight and meaſure.

That which▪ you are to prove is that remiſsion is a compleat righteouſneſſe, this you prove it by, beggeth what's the queſtion that it's righteouſneſſe, every thing that will abide the preſence of God is not by and by righteouſneſſe, in our love there's no feare, yet is it not righteouſneſſe by which we are juſtified, when as you adde.

What ſhall hinder but that immediately on remiſsion of ſinnes enſue a perfect union of love and peace between them.

In theſe you ſeeme to lay down the iſſue of pardon to be a union of love and peace betweene them; It's true theres a love and peace that followeth, but as for an union as if that followed and did not go in nature before, is not to be ſuffered, we have ſhewed the word ſaith, in whom we have redemption, remiſsion of ſinnes in his blood, its what we have in him, and therefore muſt be firſt in and have union, it's what we have by communion, participation of his righteouſneſſe as we have ſhewed, which ſuppoſeth union, remiſsion of ſinnes without union is remiſsion of ſins not by and in, but out of Chriſt.

6. You argue. For giveneſſe is the formall cauſe, becauſe it is the righteouſneſſe which God imputeth in Iuſtification, which you prove to follow, becauſe the righteouſneſſe which God imputes in juſtification, muſt needs be the formall cauſe therof.

The minor is the aſſertion of the Holy Ghoſt, Rom. 4. 6. Gods imputeing righteouſneſſe, ver. 7. is interpreted to be forgiving iniquities and covering of ſinne.

1. It is our tenet, that righteouſneſſe imputed is the formall cauſe of juſtification.

2. But we deny that righteouſneſſe to be forgiveneſſe of ſinnes: It's not righteouſneſſe; It's an effect or conſequent of juſtification by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt p. 141imputed, and of that righteouſneſſe of Chriſt we have ſhewed, the Apoſtle to ſpeake, ver, 6. and ver. 11. and this not our owne but as received by faith of the God of our ſalvation.

7. Remiſſion of ſinnes reacheth home unto, and is given to men by God for their juſtification, therefore it is the formall cauſe thereof, this is evident, becauſe by the formall cauſe we meane nothing elſe but paſſive juſtification.

I anſwer. 1. Many things may be given by God for juſtification ſome waies or other, which yet are not the formall cauſe thereof, the word and faith are given for juſtification.

2. I deny remiſsion given for juſtification; I aſſert juſtification given for pardon, for it is its effect, or conſequent, as hath been often ſhewed; Rom. 5. 16. mention is made of remiſsion, a gift: There's alſo mention of the gift of righteouſneſſe, whence juſtification and pardon alſo, ver. 18. 19.

And if remiſsion of ſinnes be juſtification paſsive, the effect of God juſtifying, it cannot be the formall cauſe thereof, it hath as good an efficient, ſo the formall cauſe active thereunto as your ſelfe, where you name that diſtinction. par. 2. p. 37. It can not be cauſe and effect both, before and after it ſelfe, the whole and a part.

Laſtly, Remiſſion is the formall cauſe, becauſe that & not imputing ſins ſignifie the ſame priviledge, which you prove becauſe the Holy Ghoſt interpreteth the righteouſneſſe which God imputeth by non-imputation of ſinnes, Rom. 4. 6. compared with ver. 8. and the righteouſneſſe that is imputed in the formall cauſe.

1. I grant that righteouſneſſe imputed is the formall cauſe. 2. And that remiſsion and non-imputation are the ſame: Yet deny the conſequence, and that becauſe remiſsion of ſinnes is not righteouſneſſe, neither that which is imputed, the text calleth it faith, which is not forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, and being faith, it muſt be in a figurative ſenſe, takeing in the righteouſneſſe of p. 142Chriſts righteouſneſſe, as we have proved from ver. 6. and ver. 11. otherwiſe there is noe perfect righteouſneſſe to be imputed, noe formall cauſe. I have often ſhewed non imputation the conſequent of imputation of righteouſneſſe. And thus for your reaſons. I ſhall be ready to examine any other reaſons, and you ſhall finde an anſwer to what you ſay in the following Chapters.

1. Your Anſwer to that objection; Remiſſion of ſinnes is no true righteouſneſſe, in the 4…h. concluſion, is there ſatiſfied.

2. That objection, That the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt muſt be joyned with remiſſion of ſinnes to make the compleate forme of juſtification is none of ours, ſee c. 11. 1. par. of your Treatiſe.

3. That objection, that remiſſion of ſinnes is the conſequent or effect of juſtification, therfore not the cauſe, anſwered in this Chapter is there maintained▪ Mr. Gataker telleth Piſcator ſo often.

4. 5. That the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed or imputation of the righteouſneſſe which is the ſame. is the forme, is maintained againſt your exceptions.

6. None object that the communion betweene Chriſt and the believer is this formall cauſe: this alſo is cleared in this Chapter.

7. That objection, that juſtification may be where there is no remiſsion of ſinnes, and remiſsion where there is no Iuſtification, cleared c. 3. of this 2. par. and ſect. 29. of this, is not objected by us, what is there layd downe is there examined.

And thus by what is ſaid in anſwer, the Reader may judge of your deſcription of Juſtification, for brevities ſake I avoyd the running over of the ſame things, and ſo paſſe to your 5. Chapter.