The Christians Bulwark, Chapter 5

The Christians Bulwark · Chapter 5

p. 55CHAP. V. The Catholike Faith concerning iustification; and of the terme and forme of Iustification.

NOw to know the true nature of Iustification, it much imports vsus to consider in what sense this word Iustification is to be vsed and taken, in the iustification of a sinner. The Pontificians or Papists would restraine the sense of it to the etymologie of the Latine word Iustificare, as much, say they, as Iustum facere, from whence they would conclude their inherencie of selfe-iustification: wherein they doe as some Lawyers, that by the mistaking or misapplying of a word, can ouerthrow the whole right of a mans cause. Indeede St. Augustine saith, Quid est aliud iustificati, quàm iusti Aug. de spiritu & litera ad Marcellinum tom. 3. This place makes amends for that other, De praed. sanct. l. 1. c. 7.facti? ab illo scilicet, qui iustificat impium, vt ex impio fiat iustus. Aut certè it a dictum est, iustificabuntur, ac si diceretur, Iusti habebuntur, iusti deputabuntur: What else is it to be iustified, but to be made iust? namely of him who iustifieth the vngodly, that of impious he may be made righteous. Or surely it is so said, They shall be iustified, as if it were said, They shall bee accounted iust, they shall be reputed iust. So he. Thus we see, though St. Augustine, following the etymologie of the word, take iustificare, to iustifie or make iust: yet hee meaneth nothing else, but the accounting or reputing iust, and not the infusingBern. de annunciat. Maria. Ser. 1. of grace, whereby to be made iust. And Bernard also saith, Adde huc, vt credas, quod per ipsum tibi peccata donantur. p. 56Hoc est testimonium, quod perhibet in corde nostro Spiritus sanctus, dicens, Dimissa sunt tibi peccata. Sic enim arbitratur Apostolus, Gratis iustificari hominem per fidem: Adde to this, that thou beleeue, that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee. This is the testimonie, which the holy Ghost beareth in our heart, saying, Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee. For so the Apostle concludeth, That a man is iustified freely by faith. But let vsus heare from the holy Ghosts own mouth in the Scriptures, he will leade vsus into all truth. To iustifie, in Scripture, is vsually taken in a iudiciall sense, as beeing properly a iudiciall word, iustification beeing opposed to condemnation. The Hebrewes hauehave one word, which signifies to iustifie, foreign. and it is still applyed to such a iustification, as a man stands vponupon in a iudiciall tryall: As Genesis 44. 16. Mah nits tadhac? how shall wee iustifie our selues? said Iudah to his brother Ioseph, in regard of the cup found in Beniamins sacke: which seemed now to be brought to aiudiciall Tryall. So 2. Sam. 15. 4. Absolon wisheth hee were Iudge of the Land, that hee might doe eueryevery man iustice or iustifie him. Reade also for this purpose, Deut. 25. 1. Psal. 51. 4. 1 Kings 8. 32. Pro. 17. 15. Esay 5. 23. & 43. 26. Matth. 12. 37. 1. Cor. 4. 4. and many other places in Scripture to this purpose, doe plainely shew how this word Iustifie is properly taken; namely to acquit or cleere, to pronounce or declare one iust, by the sentence of the Iudge. This sense of iustification the Church of Rome cannot endure, they smother, or at least smooth it ouer by slight of hand, as a matter of no moment. Whereas indeede there is nothing that will more directly leade vsus to the true vnderstanding of the nature of iustification, than the consideration of this word, taken in a iudiciall sense, wherein the holy Ghost doth vse it, namely to acquit and absolue a man, and pronounce him iust by sentence of iudgement. This sheweth that the point of iustification of a sinner, is not so light a matter, as Papists and profane persons would make it. No: it is a Case to be tried at the barre of Gods iudgement-seate: in whose sight shall no man liuing bee iustified. Holy Iob, while hee p. 57pleaded with his opposite friends, hee wanted not matter for his iustification: but when once the Lord God summons him out of the whirle-winde before his throne, and bids him girde vp his loynes like a man; Iob stands not now vponupon his vprightnesse, but confesseth, I am vile, what shall I answerIob. 38. & 40.Job 38 thee? I will lay my hand vponupon my mouth, &c. Iob 40. 4. and 42. 5. I hauehave heard of thee by the hearing of the eare, but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhorre my selfe, and repent in dust and ashes. Yea, hee had said before, Chap. 9. 15. Whom, though I were righteous, yet would I not answer, but I would make supplication to my Iudge: for God is a righteous and seuere iudge; and who may stand in his sight, when he is angry, when hee sits to iudge? For the heauens are not cleane in his sight: how much more abominable and filthie is man, which drinketh iniquitie like water, Iob 15. 16. If therefore our iustification be such, as must proceede from Gods iudgement seate, and must be sentenced by Gods owne mouth, it neerely concernes eueryevery Mothers Sonne to bee well aduised vponupon what ground we stand, what euidence wee can bring to cleare ourselues, to satisfie our vnpartiall Consciences, to stop the mouth of the accusing Diuell, and to abide the fierietriall of that Iudge, who is euen a consuming fire, and will condemne euen the least sinne to the pit of hell. But that wee may not mistake the true acception of iustification, we are to consider iustification in a two-fold relation or respect: either as it hath relation to God, or to man, before whom also we are said to be iustified, but in a different, yea, opposite respect: whereof we shall hauehave occasion to speake hereafter. Here wee speake of Iustification in the first relation.

Now this iustification of a sinner, in the sight of God, whereof wee speake, proceedeth from a iudiciall tryall. In this sense it is vsed by the holy Ghost, Rom. 8. 33, 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? It is God that iustifieth, who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that dyed, yea rather that is risen againe, &c. This iustification the Lord Iesus doth oppose to condemnation, Iohn 5. 24. where speaking of iudgement, p. 58vers. 22. he inferreth: Verily, Verily, I say vntounto you, Hee that heareth my word, and beleeueth on him that sent me, hath euerlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death vntounto life. And like as Iesus Christ was condemned by aCondemnation by way of opposition, implyeth iustification. iudiciall proceeding, Pilate giuing sentence, though according to such euidence as was most vntrue in it selfe: so all those, for whom Christ was thus iudicially condemned, shall be iudicially iustified and acquitted. But this wil appear more clearly in setting down the formall cause of our iustification.

To speake to the capacity of the simple, By formall cause, is meant that, which giues a being to iustification; as forma dat esse: the forme of a thing giues being vntounto it. That therefore which makes a man perfectly iust, is called the formall cause of his iustification. Now the Pontificians would hence conclude, That inherent qualities must be the formall cause of iustification; alledging the authority of Philosophers, who say, That the formall cause is the thing or quality which is in the subiect, as the soule of man is in the body. And therefore they exclude the righteousnesse of Christ, whereby he is formally iust, from being the formall cause of our iustification, because (say they) Christs righteousnesse is in himselfe, not in vsus. But no maruaile, if these Pontificians doe wrest the Maximes of Philosophers from their natiue sense, when they dare so familiarly force the Scriptures themselues. The Philosophers speake of a physicall formality; but the holy Scriptures speake of the iustification of a sinner in the sight of God, the forme whereof is relatiue, and not physically inherent in vsus. But be it so, that the formall cause must alwayes be in the subiect, to which it giues a being; the formall cause then of iustification must be inherent. Wherein must it bee inherent? In vsus? No, but in iustification, which is the subiect of this inherent formall cause. For if inherent grace bee the formall cause of iustification, then by way of relation, iustification is the subiect of inherent grace: For wee speake here of the formall cause of iustification, not of the formall cause of man, as if hee were the subiect, wherein iustification is a quality inherent.

p. 59But to answer their mis-applyed philosophicall diuinity: The forme of a thing is not alwayes a quality inherent, as in the subiect where it is; but sometimes it is onelyonly adherent and extrinsicall, by way of relation. As, that I am the sonne of such a man, the formall cause hereof is not inherent in me; but it is originally and relatiuely from my father that begate mee, giuing a being to my sonship, respectiuely to him. So a man set at liberty by the fauour and meanes of another, the very forme of his freedome was the others act in freeing of him, not inhering in him that is freed, but rather adhering vntounto him. Yea the Pontificians themselues confesse, and Vega for one, that the formall cause of mans redemption, is a thing extrinsicall, to wit, the oblation of Christ on the Crosse; and that the free fauour of God, for the merit of Christ, is the formall cause of remission of sinnes. If therefore the forme of our redemption and remission of sinnes, is not within vsus, but without vsus; why not as well the forme of our iustification, the cause whereof is Christs redemption, and the effect of it remission of sinnes? In a word, it is not with a forme, as with an accident: the being of an accident, is the in-being of it. Not so of a forme, where being, or modus essendi, consists not necessarily in the inhering in the subiect,Templer. Metaph. lib. …. cap. … ▪ probl. 9. whose formall cause it is: but it may as well be extrinsicall, by conferring a vertue and power, whereby the Causatum receiueth the formality of its being.

But to leaue Philosophy, and return to Diuinity; it is yet in question; whether the matter of this iustification be within vsus, or rather without vsus. The Romane-Catholicke faith teacheth that it is within vsus; but the Catholicke faith concludeth, that the formall cause of our iustification is without vsus, not within vsus. This is that Catholicke doctrine which the Scriptures teach, when they ascribe our iustification to faith, apprehending that which is without vsus: where, by apprehending, is not meant a bare vnderstanding or knowing, as Soto in the name of his Romane-Catholickes wouldSoto de nat. & grat. lib. 2. cap. 5. in fine. hauehave it; but it is also a laying hold vponupon, and applying of the thing beleeued. We hauehave shewed afore, how the Pontificians p. 60take the word Imputation; namely, for a participation of Christs righteousnesse, so farre forth, as thereby some other righteousnesse being merited, is infused into vsus, and inherent in vsus. But the true Catholickes hold otherwise, that imputation is of a thing without vsus, being apprehended and applied by faith. So that the thing imputed, is that, which is by faith apprehended: As it is said of Abraham, that hee beleeued God, and his faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse, Rom. 4. 3. Now the obiect of Abrahams faith was God; yea God promising: in regard of which obiect, Abrahams faith is imputed to him for righteousnesse. Not the act of Abrahams faith, being but an instrument; but the obiect of it is imputed: As we may say, we are iustified by the act of faith, relatiuely to the obiect, Christ, not for the act of it. Abraham beleeued God, and his faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse. But how? is this sufficient to iustifie a man, to beleeue God, or the promise of God, that it should be said to be imputed to man for righteousnesse? I answer, To beleeue Gods promise, is to hauehave an eye of faith vponupon Christ, who is the substance of all Gods promises, and in whom all the promises of God are Yea and Amen, 2. Cor. 1. 20. So that God in Christ is the obiect of faith, imputed to the beleeuer for righteousnesse.

But here an obiection crosseth my way, cast in by the aduersaryObiect. of the truth, Vega; who saith: Dixi, &c. I said that Vega de iustif. quaest. 1.this faith of the Mediator is that, to which for the most part, and chiefely the Scriptures, doe attribute our iustification: yet we beleeue also (saith he) that faith taken generally, as it relieth vponupon diuine truth, may also iustifie a man. Nor are wee in that errour, wherein some are, to thinke, that the onelyonly faith of iustification promised, or of saluation in Christ, doth iustifie vsus, or is imputed vntounto vsus for righteousnesse: For (saith he) Noahs faith of the future deluge, as Paul witnesseth, was imputed to him for righteousnesse: and he was appointed the heire of righteousnesse, which is by faith, in that he beleeued Heb. 11.Heb 11God fore-telling the floud, and, a hundred yeares before it came, began to build the Arke for the safety of his house. And to Abraham also, as the history of Gen…sis plainely teacheth, it was p. 61imputed for righteousnesse, because hee beleeued that his posterity should bee multiplied as the starres of heauen. So that hence hee concludes, that not onelyonly to faith in Gods promises in Christ, is righteousnesse imputed; but to faith in generall beleeuing Gods truth, such as is not in the compasse of Gods promises in Christ: but either speculatiue precepts, or morall doctrines, or other Propheticall predictions, or historicall relations. So that by the Pontifician doctrine, other faith besides that in Gods promises in Christ, may be imputed to a man for righteousnesse: As Noahs faith in building the Arke against the floud, and Abrahams faith in beleeuing Gods promise concerning the multiplication of his seed.

I answer; that no faith is, or can bee imputed to a man for righteousnesse, but that which hath respect vntounto Christ, and the promises of God in him. But Noahs faith in preparing the Arke, to saue himselfe and his family from the floud, was imputed to him for righteousnesse. True, this confirmeth the Catholicke doctrine of the imputation of faith, as it lookes vponupon Christ: for what was the Arke but a Sacramentall type of Christ? as Augustine saith; Christus figuratus est in Noe, & Aug. expos. in Iob. 11. tract. 9.Job 11in illa Arca orbis terrarum: Quare enim in Arca inclusa sunt omnia animaliae, nisi vt significarentur omnes gentes? Christ is figured in Noe, and in that Arke of the whole world: for why in that Arke were included all creatures, but that all Nations should be signified by them? And there hee applies that promise to Abraham, Gen. 22. 18. In thy seed, shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed. And for Abrahams faith in Gods promise, what seed of Abraham was this, in whom all the Nations of the earth should be blessed? Was it not Christ? Yes Christ; so saith Augustine in the forenamed place: Christus in ea prophetia occultus erat, in quo benedicuntur omnes gentes: Christ (saith he) was hid in that prophesie, in whom all the Nations are blessed. But the Apostle, or rather the holy Ghost by the Apostle, is the best interpreter of that prophecie, Gal. 3. 16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. Hee saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one: And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this was that promise p. 62of God, which Abraham beleeuing, his faith was counted to him for righteousnesse: as it is there in the sixt verse, euen as Abraham beleeued God, and it was accounted to him for righteousnesse. Therefore Vega's diuinitie hath very much failed him in propounding these two examples of Noah, and Abraham, to proue the iustification of his generall Faith: whereas we plainely see, both these Patriarches faith had speciall and principall reference and respect to Christ Iesus: And therefore their faith was reckoned to them for righteousnesse. For the other examples, which Vega there addeth in generall out of the eleuenth to the Hebrewes, they are all of the same nature, and all confirme this infallible and vndeniable truth, That the promises of God in Christ, and Christ alone, with all his righteousnesse, is the obiect of that Faith, which is reckoned to Abraham, to Noah, and to eueryevery beleeuer for righteousnesse.

Here then comes in the true formall cause of our iustification, namely Christ himselfe, with all his righteousnesse; which being apprehended by faith, it is imputed vntounto vsus for righteousnesse. This is it that giues a true being to iustification. Iustification therefore consists in the imputation of Christ and his righteousnesse, comprehending also all the promises of God in him, apprehended by faith. Now concerning this Catholicke doctrine of imputation of Christs righteousnesse by faith, the Scriptures are very pregnant in the proofe of it. This Gospell hath testimonie before the Law, in the Law, and in the Prophets, and is confirmed by Christ and his Apostles. Before the Law, to omit other examples, wee hauehave two famous ones; that of Noah, and Abraham, of whom wee spake euen now, who are layd downe for exemplary patterns, yea, and liuely types to all beleeuers: Noah before the floud, and Abraham after the floud, and before the Law: which St. Paul doth especially note, to put a difference betweene faith and the workes of the Law in the point of iustification. In the Law also we hauehave two principall types, liuely shadowing this doctrine of imputation. The first we finde in Leuiticus 1. 4. And hee shall put his hand vponupon p. 63the head of his burnt-offering, and it shall bee accepted for him to make attonement for him. The burnt offering was a figure of Christ, sacrificed for vsus vponupon the crosse: the man that brings this burnt-offering is a type of eueryevery true beleeuer, and the hand which hee putteth on the head of the sacrifice, is faith, laying hold on Christ, and as it were owning him for our proper sacrifice, which God accepteth to bee an attonement for vsus, a sacrifice of a sweet sauour vntounto the Lord. The Apostle applies this sacrifice, with the fruits of it, to Christ, Rom. 5. 11. Wee reioyce in God through our Lord Iesus Christ, by whom we hauehave receiued the attonement. Also Ephes. 5. 2. Walke in louelove, as Christ also hath loued vsus, and giuen himselfe for vsus, an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweete smelling sauour. Christ is then this burnt-offering, our attonement with God, and an offering of a sweete sauour vntounto the Lord. Now the instrument or hand, whereby Christ is apprehended, and applyed to eueryevery true Beleeuer, is Faith. It was the hand of Faith, which the diseased woman in the Gospell, touched Christ her Sauiour with,Luke 8. 46.Luke 8:46 and fetched vertue out of him; To whom the Lord said, Daughter, be of good comfort, thy faith hath made thee whole, goe in peace. This the Apostle doth also liuely set out, Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth (to wit Iesus Christ) to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousnesse for the Remission of sinnes that are past, through the forbearance of God, to declare at this time his righteousnesse, that hee might be iust, and a iustifier of him that beleeueth in Iesus. How fully doth the Apostle parallel and compare this truth with that type!

A second type of our righteousnesse or iustification, by imputation of Christ vntounto the beleeuer in the time of the Law, is set downe, Num. 21. 8. 9. The Lord said vntounto Moses, make thee a fiery serpent, and set it vponupon a pole, and it shall come to passe, that eueryevery one that is bitten, when he looketh vponupon it, shall liue: and Moses did so, and the serpent-bitten-man looked, and liued. The brazen Serpent was a type of Christ; the serpent-bitten-man is eueryevery sinner, whom that old serpent hath already stung with sinne, as he did our first Parents. The looking on the brazen serpent, so lifted vp vponupon a pole, is p. 64the faith of the beleeuer, beholding Christ lifted vp vponupon his Crosse. This Christ Iesus himselfe applyeth, Ioh. 3. 14. 15. As Moses lifted vp the Serpent in the wildernesse, euen so must the sonne of man be lifted vp; that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but hauehave eternall life. A most sweet collation of the truth with the type: shewing, that as faith is the hand of the soule, laying hold vponupon the bloudy sacrifice of Christ, for our atonement with God; so faith is also the eye of the soule, so to looke vponupon Christ crucified, as to bee thereby cured of all the deadly wounds of sin, and so to liue eternally.

The Prophets also are full of testimonies to confirme this doctrine of iustification, by imputation, Esa 53. 4. Surely hee hath borne our griefes, and carried our sorrowes: yet we did esteeme him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted (as if hee had beene a malefactor:) But he was wounded for our transgressions, hee was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was vponupon him, and with his stripes are wee healed. All wee like sheepe hauehave gone astray, we hauehave turned eueryevery one to his owne way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of vsus all. And vers. 8. he was cut off out of the land of the liuing, for the transgression of my people was he stricken. Though he had done no violence, neither was any deceipt in his mouth: yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to griefe: when thou shalt make his soule an offering for sinnes, he shall see his seede, &c. Here wee see most liuely set downe a mutuall imputation of our iniquities vntounto Christ, and of his merits vntounto vsus. And then the Prophet, vers. 11. sheweth by what meane, or instrument this righteousnesse of Christs obedience, is imputed to vsus: By his knowledge shall my righteous seruant iustifie many; for hee shall beare their iniquities. **Cognitione …ui.By his knowledge, or by the knowledge of himselfe, that is, by faith in him, knowing and acknowledging, seeing and beholding him with the eye of faith, to bee that Lambe of God before the shearer, taking away our sinnes; for hee hath borne our iniquities. The Prophet Ieremy also doth set this downe most sweetly, by a reciprocall or mutuall relation betweene Christ and his Church, calling Christ and his Church by one and the same name; and such a name, as implyeth the imputation p. 65of his righteousnesse vntounto vsus: For Ier. 23. 6. Christ the righteous branch, and the iust King, by whom Iudah shall bee saued, and Israel shall dwell safely (to wit, the whole Israel of God, as Rom. 11. 26. elect Iewes and Gentiles) this is his name, whereby hee shall be called, The Lord our righteousnesse. And, …er. 33. 16. speaking of the saluation of the same Iudah and Ierusalem, he saith: And this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our righteousnesse. O what a glorious name is this for vsus to be called, The LORD Our Righteousnesse! What tongues of men or Angels, can with greater eloquence expresse that sweete communion, that is betweene Christ and his Church, wherein the Church and eueryevery beleeuer is so inuested in the righteousnesse of Christ, as to be called the Lord our righteousnesse? Indeede the vulgar latine hath much dimmed and diminished the life of those places in Ieremy, translating in stead of Dominus iustitia nostra; Dominus iustus noster: as much to say, as our righteous Lord: yet the interlineary Glosse vponupon it, saith; Qui factus est nobis sapientia à Deo, & iustitia: who is made vntounto vsus of God, wisedome and righteousnesse: the same in effect, that Christ is the Lord our righteousnesse. Thus are wee, Iudah, saued by the Lord our righteousnesse; and by grace are wee saued through faith, Ephes. 2. 30.

The new Testament makes vp the testimony of the Law and Prophets fully, 1. Cor. 1. 30. Of him are yee in Christ Iesus, who of God is made vntounto vsus wisedome, and righteousnesse, and sanctification, and redemption. Thus Christ is wholly ours by imputation. This the same Apostle doth excellently demonstrate and conclude, 2. Cor. 5. 21. where hauing spoken of our2. Cor. 5. 21.2 Cor 5:21 reconciliation with God by Iesus Christ, which reconciliation standeth in the not imputing of our sinnes vntounto vsus, vers. 19. he addes the reason, vers. 21. For he hath made him to be sin for vsus, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him. Now how are we made the righteousnesse of God in Christ? by any inherent righteousnesse in vsus, although deriued from the merit of Christs righteousnesse imputed, in the Popish sense? Surely wee are no otherwise p. 66made the righteousnesse of God in Christ, than as Christ was made sinne for vsus. How is that? Was Christ made sinne for vsus, by hauing our sinnes inherent in him, or infused into him? God forbid: for hee knew no sinne. But if sinne had been inherent in him, or infused into him, hee had knowne sinne; yet hee was made sinne for vsus: that is, by the imputation of our sinne. Note here also, Christ is not said here simply to be sinne for vsus, but to bee Made sinne for vsus; and that wee simply are not, but are made the righteousnesse of God in him: implying a passiuenesse in both, both of Christ made sinne, and of vsus made righteousnesse; made, that is, not of or in our selues, but extrinsically, from without, from another. As therefore our sinne being imputed to Christ, made him become sinne for vsus; euen so are we made the righteousnesse of God in him: that is, by the imputation of his righteousnesse; which righteousnesse of Christ imputed to vsus, is no more inherent in vsus to our iustification, than our sinne imputed to Christ was inherent in him to his condemnation. Whereupon St. Augustine saith, Ipse peccatum, vt nos iustitia: Aug. Enchirid. cap. 41.nec nostra, sed Dei sumus: nec in nobis, sed in ipso: sicut ipse peccatum, non suum sed nostrum: nec in se, sed in nobis constitutum: He was made sin, that we might be made righteousnesse▪ not our owne righteousnesse, but the righteousnesse of God: nor in vsus, but in him: euen as he wa made sin, not his owne, but ours; not in himselfe, but in vsus. And Bernard excellently to thisBern. epist. 190. ad Innocent. purpose: Homo qui debuit, homo qui soluit. Nam si vnus pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt, vt videlicet satisfactio vnius omnibus imputetur, sicut omnium peccata vnus ille portauit: It was man that owed the debt, and man that paid it: For if one dyed for all, therefore are all dead, that the satisfaction of one might be imputed to all, as hee alone bore the sine of all. We are then made the righteousness of God in Christ, as Christ was made sinne for vsus. But Christ was made sinne for vsus, by the imputation of our sinnes vntounto him, not by infusion of them into him. Therefore we are iustified, or made the righteousnesse of God in Christ, by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse vntounto vsus; not by inherency, or infusion p. 67of righteousnesse into vsus. This is such an vnmoueable Rocke of truth, as the gates of Hell can neuer preuaile against it. Here all Popish arguments are put to silence: no Romish sophistrie, or schoole-subtilty can inuent any probability, or seeming-reason, to oppose this cleer and inuincible truth. But perhaps they wil find some glosse vponupon this scripture, that shal make another sense of it. Indeed they want not their glosses. But mala glossa, quae corrumpit Textum: It is an ill glosse that corrupts the Text. Indeede the ordinary glosse vponupon these words, Hee was made sinne for vsus, vnderstands by sinne eyther the sacrifice of sinne, according to the Hebrew phrase in the old Testament, as Hos. 4. 8. or else the similitude of sinnefull flesh, as Rom. 8. 3. So the glosse is vncertaine, it pitcheth vponupon no one sense. But the Scripture hath one prime and proper sense. Now that the Apostle should not simply meane by sin, the sacrifice of sinne, as being an obscure Hebrew phrase; is more than probable, because he writes this Epistle not to the Hebrewes, to whom writing, his Epistle is full of Legall types, and termes, a language which they well vnderstood; but to the Romanes, who were not acquainted with the Law-terms. But the maine reason why the Apostle cannot meane here by sinne barely the sacrifice of sinne, is in regard of the Antithesis or relatiue opposition here betweene sinne and righteousnesse. For sinne and righteousnesse stand here as termes opposite one to the other: looke therefore how righteousnesse is here vnderstood, namely properly, as opposite to sinne: So sinne is to bee vnderstood properly, as opposite to righteousnesse. Christ then was so made sinne for vsus, as we are made the righteousnesse of God in him: and wee are so made the righteousnesse of God in him, as hee was made sinne for vsus. Againe, Christ who knew no sinne, was made sinne for vsus: So are we made the righteousnesse of God in him, euen wee, who knew no righteousnesse, that is, who had no righteousnesse of our owne; but, as the Apostle elegantly saith, were,Rom 6. 20Rom 6:20 while in the state of sinne, free from righteousnesse. Christ therfore was so made sinne for vsus, as that he was reputed, yea and iudged as a sinner: as Esay saith, He was numbred with the p. 68Esay 53▪Isa 53transgressours, and hee bare the sinne of many. Now that Christ is said to bee made sin in the abstract, and we to be made righteousnesse in the abstract, not righteous in the concrete, as LogiciansLyra vponupon this place. speake: Lyra saith, Ideo in abstracto dicitur iustitia Dei, vt efficeremur perfectè iusti: we are said to be made the righteousenesse of God in him in the abstract, that is perfectly iust. And that is, wee are made iust, but relatiuely in respect to Christ; as he was made sinne, but relatiuely in respect of vsus, we are made the righteousnesse of God in him: as hee was made sinne for vsus, and in vsus, to wit in ourperson, as wee hauehave said. So he is called, The Lord our righteousnesse.

Yet true it is, that Christ might be said to be made sinne, to wit, the sacrifice for sinne, though not so properly in this place. But if Papists will wrangle and wring out this sense from this place, because the Glosse saith so, let them remember, that as Lyra's Glosse saith, As we are made perfectly iust by Christ: so was he made a perfect sacrifice for vsus, to free vsus both à culpa & poena, from the fault and the penaltie: and not a lame sacrifice, or imperfect, to free vsus onelyonly à culpa, but not à poena, as Papists say, reseruing the punishment for their purgatorie. But of this hereafter. Howsoeuer, if they will needes take sinne there, for the sacrifice for sinne: yet Christ was so the sacrifice for sinne, as must necessarily imply the imputation of our sinnes vponupon his person. But enough of this place: which one place is enough to proue the formall cause of our iustification to be the righteousnesse of Christ imputed vntounto vsus.

It followeth therefore that the formall cause of our iustification, that which makes vsus truely iust in the sight of God, yea before Gods iudgement seate, is the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to vsus; and that no otherwise, than our sinnes were imputed to him, whereby hee was made a malefactor, not by hauing our sinnes in him, but vponupon him: He bore our sinnes vponupon him, saith Peter. So Esay; Hee bare the sinnes of1 Pet. 2. 24.1 Pet 2:24 many, and was numbred with the transgressors. Hee is theEsay 53. 12.Isa 53:12 truth of the type of those two goates, Leuit. 16. the one slaine, the other let goe: figuring the humanity the slaine p. 69Goate, and the diuinity of Christ, the scape Goate: or the slaine Goate, the death of Christ; and the scape Goate his resurrection: For he dyed for our sinnes, and rose againe for our iustification; which his rising againe from the dead, is liuely shadowed in the scape Goat, on w^ch Aaron put both his hands, & confessed ouer him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, putting them vponupon the head of the Goate, & sending him away by the hand of a fit man into the wildernesse, where those sinnes should neuer be seene more, vers. 21. Hee was that Ioshua, the high Priest, our Iesus, or Iehoshua and highZach. 3. 3.Zech 3:3 Priest; who offering himselfe vponupon the Crosse, was clothed in filthy garments, euen with the menstruous cloth of our sinnes imputed vntounto him, or imposed vponupon him: As ChrysostomeChrys. ex varii… in Mat. locis. hom. 6. Esa. 61. 10. Glos. ordin.Isa 61:10 applies that place to Christ; that we might be clad in the glorious robes of his righteousnesse put vponupon vsus: As the ordinary Glosse vponupon this place saith excellently: Iesus est indutus sordidis vestibus; quia qui peccatum non fecit, pro nobis peccatum factus est. Sed haec sordida vestis est ei ab…ata, cum nostrae deleuit peccata: vt quia ille sordidis indutus est vestibus, nos resurgentes in eo, semper candida habeamus vestimenta; Iesus hath filthie rayment put vponupon him, because he that did no sinne was made sinne for vsus. But this filthy rayment was taken from him, when he had cancelled our sinnes: that because he was attired in filthy rayment, we rising againe in him, may alwayes hauehave white garments vponupon vsus. That we, as Iacob, being cladde in the sweete smelling robes of our elder brother Christ, might bee accounted as a field, which the Lord hath blessed; and so receiue the blessing of the birth-right in our elder brothers name. As the type is very pregnant to this purpose: whereupon Ambrose saith thus; Iacob primogeniturae Ambros. lib. 2. de Iacob & vita beata.benedictionem obtinuit, veste fratris maioris natu indutus: fic vestis Christi optimum odorem spirat, &c. Iacob clothed in the garment of his elder brother, obtained the blessing of the birth-right: so the garment of Christ doth yeeld a fragrant smell, &c. And againe; Quod Isaac odorem vestium olfecit, fortasse illud est, quia non operibus iustificamur, sed fide; quoniam carnalis infirmitas operibus impedimento est: sed fidei claritas factorum p. 70obumbrat errorem, quae meretur veniam delictorum: That Isaac smelled the odour of the garments, haply it is to signifie, that we are not iustified by workes, but by faith: because carnall infirmity is an impediment to workes; but the glory of faith doth shadow the errour of our workes, and procureth pardon of our sinnes. The conuert Prodigall had the fatte Calfe slaine for him, and the best robe put vponupon him. EueryEvery sinner is this Prodigall; yea, that beleeuing repenting theefe hanging vponupon the Crosse, as Saint Augustine compares them together. Iesus Christ is the fatte Calfe killed for vsus; his righteousnesse is that best robe put vponupon vsus. So St. Augustine applyeth it: Proferat hic pater stolam illam primam, induat filium Aug. de temp. …rb. serm. c. 7.immortalitate, quem secum videt in cruce pendentem: mactet vitulum saginatum, hominem illum susceptum, etiam pro latronibus crucifixum: Let the father bring forth that best robe, let him clothe his sonne with immortality, whom he seeth crucified with Christ: let him kill the fatte Calfe, that man, taken and crucified euen for theeues. And the ordinary Glosse saith: Adducite vitulam, id est, praedicate Christum, & mortem eius insinuate: Bring forth the fat Calfe, that is, preach Christ, and put men in minde of his death. Nor is that an obscure type of Christ clothing vsus with his righteousnesse, which wee finde, Gen. 3. 21. where the Lord God doth make coates of skinnes, and therewith clotheth the man and the woman. No doubt of skinnes of beasts sacrificed; types of Christ. The Scripture it selfe leades vsus to this construction, so often mentioning the putting on of Christ: as Gal. 3. 26. 27. Being by faith in Iesus Christ made the children of God; and such, (saith the Apostle) hauehave put on Christ. Now what is it to put on Christ, but to make him wholly ours? As the king of Babel is said to put on Egypt, as a garment, in token that it was become wholly his, Ier. 43. 12. Christ standing before Pilate to be iudged, as he tooke the purity of our nature in his conception; so now hee put on the impurity of our guilty persons in his condemnation.

And by the way, behold here a great mystery: The sonne of God, not only in our innocent nature by assumption; but p. 71in our guilty persons by imputation, stands before Pilate the Iudge, to bee sentenced by him. Why? what if Christ had beene killed by any of the sundry attempts of the malicious Iewes, made vponupon his person; as by casting him headlong downe the steep Rocke, as once they made sure account ofLuke 4. 29.Luke 4:29 him, when they had him in the midst of them: yea & had laid hands on him, leading him to the brow of the hill? No; it was not possible, in regard of the purpose of Gods wisedomeO admirable concourse of Gods wisedome and iustice. and iustice, destinating his sonne to such a death, as he must dye, as Luke 24. 26. that Christ could be so put to death, by all the power and malice of hell it selfe. For Gods wisedome so disposed, that the death of his son should be such, as might bee most effectuall to satisfie and appease his fathers wrath, and giuegive a beleeuer sure confidence in the day of iudgement, as St. Iohn speakes, 1. Ioh. 2. 28. Otherwise, if it had beene so, that Christ had been killed in any such tumultuous manner, or in hugger mugger, & not by a legall & iudiciall proceeding against him, how had his death secured vsus from the terrour of Gods Tribunall? Christ must dye; but hee must first be sentenced and iudged to dye by a lawfull Iudge: And such was Pilate. For howsoeuer Pilate was a man, and so subiect to be led away with passion and affection, which as a bribe doth blinde the eyes euen of the wise, and peruerteth the wayes of iudgement; yet a lawfull Iudge hee was, deputed and appointed for that Prouince by Caesar: yea, by a greater than Caesar, euen by God himselfe; for eueryevery earthly Iudge sustains the person of God himselfe, who is the Iudge of all the world: Therefore Iehoshaphat, in his charge to the Iudges2. Chron▪ 19. 6.2 Chr 19:6 whom he sent, said; Take heed what you do: for ye iudge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the iudgement. And such is the iudgement and sentence, which proceedeth from the mouth of an earthly Iudge, as that it is to be taken & receiued as the iudgement and sentence of God himself. As the wise man speakes from the mouth of the holy Ghost; Many seeke the Rulers fauour: but eueryevery mans iudgement commeth Prou. 28. 27.Prov 28:27from the Lord. EueryEvery mans iudgement? Yes, eueryevery mans iudgement. Nay more (which is also there implyed) eueryevery iudgement p. 72whatsoeuer it bee, true or false, right or wrong, it proceedeth (shall I say, from the Lord? Yes:) from the Lord. EueryEvery mans iudgment cōmeth from the Lord: And yet many men cōplain that their cause is vniustly censur'd & sentenc'd by the iudge. But God is iust, & shal not he, the Iudge of all the world, do right? doubtlesse he is most iust, and euen that iudgement w^ch seemeth to vsus most vniust, cōming from an earthly iudge: yet the same iudgement comming from God, is most iust. We will vse no other instance, but that iudgement of Pilate, passed vponupon the Lord Iesus Christ. Iesus Christ the innocent Lambe of God, stands arraigned at the barre of Pilates iudgementseate: many accusations are brought against him, but without any proofe at all. And the Iudge must goe secundum allegata & probata, according to the allegations and proofes, or else aequum licet statuerit, haud aequus fuit: though hee giues a iustSen…c. in Medea sentence, yet himselfe is vniust. Well, the Iewes with much vehemencie of mortall malice, accusing Christ before Pilate,Matth. 27. 18.Matt 27:18 but all without proofe: Pilate knowing that of enuie the Iewes had deliuered him to him to bee condemned, acquitsMatth. 27. 24.Matt 27:24 Christ as an innocent person, and that solemnely before them all. But the Iewes at length preuailing with their wicked importunities, Pilate contraprobata, passeth and pronounceth the sentence of condemnation vponupon Christ, that hee should dye. A most vniust and wicked sentence, if we consider the person of the Iudge, Pilate, a man swayed by humane affections (and especially feare of men, the bane of many a good cause) who against his owne conscience, pronounced Christ guilty, and worthy of death, whom he knew for no other, but a most innocent person. But now, take mee this iudgement as proceeding from the tribunall of God, and we shall see it to bee most iust; for in, or with Pilate, God sits vponupon the Tribunall to iudge his owne Sonne. But God and Pilate passe the same sentence with a most different respect vponupon Christ. For Christ here sustaines a two-fold person: his owne, which only Pilate looked vponupon, not knowing any other; and so Pilates sentence of death was most vniust: but Christ bore another person vponupon him, to wit, our sinfull person, which God looking p. 73vponupon, and finding him now in our stead, a guilty person by the imputation of our sinnes, being our suretie; hee passeth the same sentence of death vponupon him, that Pilate did, and yet Gods sentence is most iust. Yea, but God the iudge must goe also, Secundum allegata & probata, according to due allegations & true proofes: for, shall not the Iudge of all the world doe right? But all the allegations and accusations brought against Christ, wanted proofe, yea they were most false. True. But consider Christ now as he stood in our person: so all the allegations & accusations brought against him were most true. In which respect, Christ at the hearing of them was silent, as guiltie persons who hauehave nothing to answer for themselues; as he that wanted his wedding garment, was speechlesse: because Christ knew that hee stood there in our person. Against whom, what accusation of sinne can be produced, but may easily bee proued? Christ was accused of two maine impieties, against God, and against the King, and the People; as a peruerter, and traytor. All this wastrue; for sustaining our person, standing as our surety, and vndertaking to discharge all our debts, what debt was so great, what sinne so grieuous, that hee now stood not charged withall, and was not as culpable of? This made him to be numbred among transgressours, not common offenders, but transgressors, among criminall, yea capitall malefactors; and for this very reason, euen Barabbas, a seditious murtherer is preferred before him. If Christ had not thus stood in our stead, beene iudged and condemned in our persons, he had neuer saued the Thiefe vponupon the Crosse. And therefore as St. Ambrose saith, Nemo est qui possit excludi, Ambros. in Psal▪ 39. tom. 4.Ps 39quando receptus est Latro: There is none that can bee shut out, when the Thiefe is let in. And standing in our stead, if hee had not been formally and legally iudged, and so condemned, wee should neuer hauehave beene able to hauehave stood before Gods iudgement-seate. But now Christ being cast and condemned by a lawfull Iudge, ordained and appointed of God; so that this iudgement was not mans iudgement, but Gods; this giues a supersedeas, and a quietus est, to all true beleeuers, and penitent sinners, that they shall most assuredly stand innocent p. 74and righteous before Gods iudgement-seat, seeing their sins are already absolutely iudged and condemned. For, as Christ was legally condemned in our person: so shall wee be before Gods Tribunall acquitted and absolued, as iust and righteous in his person. For, Who shall now lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen? It is God that iustifieth, who shall condemne? It is Christ that is dead. O singular vnspeakeable comfort to all true beleeuers! The debt is discharged, and we are free. Christ is iudged, and we acquitted; hee is condemned, and wee absolued; his chastisement is our peace; his stripes our healing.Esay 53. 9.Isa 53:9 So that now being iustified by his bloud, wee shall bee saued from wrath through him. Now we may wich comfortRom. 5. 9.Rom 5:9 and confidence, wait for the Sonne of God from heauen, whom God raised from the dead, euen Iesus, which hath deliuered vsus from the 1 Thes. 1. 10.1 Thess 1:10wrath to come, as saith the Apostle. And all this, for that Christ in his owne person innocent, but in ours guilty, was iudged and condemned, euen by Gods owne iudgement, though by the mouth of a mortall man, yea an vniust, though a lawfull iudge. It is not therefore for nothing, that in our Creede we say, He suffered vnderunder Pontius Pilate. O happy suffering vnderunder Pontius Pilate! But why vnderunder Pontius Pilate? How comes Pontius Pilate in our Christian Creed? Surely not for any honour due to his name, or to his person: but in memorie of his office and calling, as he was a Iudge, who passed sentence on the Lord Iesus Christ. This very article, wherein Pontius Pilate is mentioned, is a strong argument to perswade mee, that those who compiled this Creede, called the Apostles Creede, did it by the speciall instinct of the holy Ghost, And in this very Article doth this Creede exceede all other Creedes, sith it, of all the rest, expresseth the manner of Christs condemnation; which being done by Pontius Pilate the Iudge, is the very life and soule of our iustification. I hauehave dwelt the longer vponupon this point, as being a mysterie of rare and singular vse to the Church of God. I confesse I hauehave looked into sundry Catechists and Expositors vponupon the Creede, but I hauehave not had the hap to meete with any to lead me thus to consider of this point of Christs suffering vnderunder p. 75Pontius Pilate as a lawfull Iudge: which seemeth to my poore iudgement, to bee as a secure roade and safe harbour, for all heauenly Merchants to anchor in: Although it be easie at the first sight, to take it rather as a history, than as a mysterie.

Much lesse may we wonder at Popish writers, who in their deuoutest meditations set forth vponupon the passion of Christ (as Guiuara's mysteries of mount Caluary, and such like) doe expresse more womanish passions and affections in condoling Christs sufferings (like those daughters of Ierusalem, whose naturall teares Christ reproued in weeping for him, and would hauehave them turned into spirituall teares, in weeping for themselues) than any masculine discretion in discerning the true cause & end of Christs sufferings, as that he was thus iudicially condemned in our persons, that so wee might stand guiltlesse before Gods iudgement seate. A mysterie altogether vnknowne to Pontifician spirits: as the Gospell is hid to them that are lost; in whom the god of this world hath blinded the eyes of them that beleeue not, lest the light of the glorious Gospell of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine vntounto them, 2. Cor. 4. 4. Of this sort also is that viperous brood of the Socinians, who oppugning the doctrine of Christs satisfaction in our persons, are easily confuted and confounded by this very article of the Creed: whose madnesse is sufficiently discouered by Lubbertus, Ludouicus Lucius, and others; so that they neede none other confutation: their arguments being but meere argutiae, no lesse futile, than seemingly subtile; which as the hissings of the serpent, are to be hissed and whipped out of Christs schoole.

Now the imputation of Christs obedience vntounto vsus to ourImputation negatiue and affirmatiue. iustification, is partly negatiue, and partly affirmatiue. Negatiue in the not imputing of sinne vntounto vsus; whereof the Psalmist, and from him the Apostle, speaketh: Blessed are they Psal. 32. 1. 2. Rom. 4. 7. 8.Ps 32:1Ps 32:2Rom 4:7Rom 4:8whose iniquities are forgiuen, and whose sinnes are couered: blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne. The reason of this not imputing our sins to vsus, is because they were imputed to Christ, he being iudged and condemned for them: As p. 76Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed vsus from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for vsus. In this respect the Apostle makes a challenge in the behalfe of all Gods chosen: Who shall condemne them? who shall lay any thing to their charge? For if our sinnes be imputed to Christ, and he bore them vponupon him, and discharged our debt; then it cannot possibly bee, that they should be imputed to vsus also, who beleeue in him. Also this' not imputing our sinnes, includes in it an affirmatiue imputation, to wit, of the passiue obedience of Christ vntounto vsus: hee suffering for vsus, whatsoeuer wee should hauehave suffered; yea, euen eternall death it selfe, for as much as the Eternall suffered the nature of that death, though hee onelyonly tasted of it, as the Apostle saith, Heb. 2. 9. yet he so tasted it, as that at once, as it were at one morsell, he wholly deuoured it, and swallowed it vp in victory: as 1. Cor. 17. 54.

Secondly, Imputation affirmatiue, is the imputing of Christs actiue obedience and righteousnesse vntounto vsus; wherein, as in most rich robes, we stand most gloriously arrayed in the presence of God. For as the Prophet saith; To vsus a childe is borne, Esa. 9. 6. Christs both actiue and passiue obedience imputed to vsus. Esa. 26. 12. Phil. 2. 7.Isa 9:6Isa 26:12Phil 2:7to vsus a sonne is giuen, &c. so that Christ is ours, as well in his birth and life, as in his death. And Esay saith againe, O Lord, thou wilt ordaine peace for vsus: for thou also hast wrought all our workes for vsus, or in vsus. This the Apostle also declareth; Christ made himselfe of no reputation, and tooke vponupon him the forme of a seruant, and was made in the likenesse of men: hee humbled himselfe, and became obedient vntounto the death. Note, the Apostle speakes there of the whole and intire humiliation and obedience of Christ, continued throughout his whole life, euen vntounto the death, the death of the Crosse. Yea Christs obedience to the death was an actiue obedience; for, Passus est, quia voluit: the Apostle applies that of the 40. Psalm, Heb. 10 9. for Christ suffered willingly; to show, that in his very suffering, his obedience was actiue. Now for whom did Christ become a seruant, become obedient, but for vsus, men, who by disobedience had made our selues seruants, who were by creation Lords of the world? So the Lord himselfe saith: For euen the Sonne of man came not to be ministred vntounto, but p. 77Mar. 10. 45.Mark 10:45to minister, and to giuegive his life a ransome for many. And againe, I am among you as one that serueth. Now for whom was Christ,Luke 17. 19.Luke 17:19 in the condition of his life, a seruant? For himselfe? Not for himselfe, but for vsus; as himselfe saith: For their sakes I sanctifie Ioh. 17. 19.John 17:19my selfe, that they also might be sanctified through the truth, Ioh. 17. 19. So that the actiue obedience of Christ in his life, his holinesse, as of a seruant, is also imputed to vsus: For howIoh. 17. 19.John 17:19 was hee a seruant in our person, but that hee might free vsus from the condition of seruants? That as the passiue obedience of Christ in his death remoued away from vsus the ragges of our sins, the badge and band of our seruitude: So Christs actiue obedience in his life hath put vponupon vsus the most glorious libertie of our infranchisement and freedome; his death hath cleansed vsus, & his life hath clothed vsus. These two therefore are in no sort to be diuided; vnlesse we would bee content to hauehave our deliuerance from hel, separated from our inheritance in heauen, and still to bee subiect to the punishment of losse, though free from the punishment of sense; like those infants, who dying vnbaptized, the Pontificians hauehave deuised to put them in a certain Limbus, or Hell, wherein they must suffer, though not the punishment of sense, yet the punishment of losse, as they say. But as this is a meere fiction and fable; so is that other: it being as impossible for a man, …uer to come to possesse the Kingdome of Heauen, without the imputation of Christs actiue obedience and righteousnesse, as without his passion imputed, euer to escape hell fire So that Christ cannot be diuided; wee must hauehave him whole, or none. For it was necessary, that the actiue righteousnesse of Christ, should both goe before, and accompany his passiue obedience; seeing, without the actiue, the passiue should hauehave been altogether vnprofitable: therefore they are ioyned together, Phil. 2. 7 8. that so his passiue, might seale vntounto vsus his actiue, and his actiue, sanctifie vntounto vsus his passiue▪ Nay, was not his passiue obedience also actiue, by a voluntary offering vp of himselfe? Was hee not obedient vntounto the death? Saith not Christ himselfe, Ioh. 10. 15. I lay downe my life for my sheepe, and vers. 17. Therefore doth my father p. 78louelove me, because I lay downe my life, that I might take it againe: and vers. 18. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it downe of my selfe. I hauehave power to lay it downe, and I hauehave power to take it againe. Christs passiue obedience therefore being it selfe also actiue, how can these two possibly bee separated and diuorced one from the other? That as the passiue obedience of Christ hath freed vsus from sinne, hell, death, and condemnation; so the actiue obedience of his life, might restore vsus vntounto, & possesse vsus in the perfect state of righteousnesse, life, saluation, and the Kingdome of heauen. Yea, these two are so vnseparable, as that the confluence of all the sweet streames of Christs actiue obedience in his life, hauehave a most sweete and comfortable influence, into the bitter sea of his passiue obedience in his death; making it to bee a most perfect and intire sacrifice, the holinesse of Christs life sanctifying his death, and shewing him to bee that Lambe of God, without spot or blemish. So that we cannot be partakers of Christs passiue obedience, without his actiue; lest hee proue vntounto vsus a lame and imperfect sacrifice. And therefore, the Apostle doth infold the affirmatiue imputation in the negatiue: saying, Euen as Dauid also described the blessednesse of the Rom▪ 4. 6.Rom 4:6man, vntounto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without workes: saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen, and whose sinnes are couered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne. Here is imputation of righteousnesse without workes, concurring with the not imputing of sinnes. For euen the passiue obedience of Christ, whereby our sinnes come not to bee imputed, had in it the holinesse and vertue of his actiueThe righteousnesse of his life, was as a perfume to to make his passion a sweet-smelling sacrifice. Stella in Luc. cap. 4. ini….Luke 4 obedience throughout his whole life, hauing beene obedient vntounto his death, that so the righteousnesse of his life also might be imputed vntounto vsus. Stella, vponupon Luke, saith; Omnes passiones Christi potius actionis nomine appellandae sunt, quam passiones. Christi martyrium, & crucis eius tormentum, nihil redemptioni nostrae prodessent, nisi actionem habuissent, quod est, velle flage…ari, & velle crucifigi: All the passions or sufferings of Christ, are rather to bee called actions than passions. The martyrdome of Christ, and the torment of his Crosse, had auailed nothing p. 79to our redemption, if they had not had action; which is, to be willing to be scourged, and willing to be crucified.

He therefore that separates the actiue obedience of Christ in his life, from his passiue in his death, is like the man in the Gospell, whom when the vncleane spirit had cleane left, returned,Luke 11. 24.Luke 11:24 and finding him as an house swept, with whited wals, but voide of the garnish of grace, he takes seuen other spirits worse than himselfe, makes with them his re-entry, and dwels there: so the last state of that man, is worse than the first. Such is he that seemes to be cleansed from his sinnes, and all his vncleannesse (like a new swept house) by acknowledging the righteousnesse of Christs passiue obedience in his death, imputed to him; but neglecting, yea reiecting the righteousnesse of Christs actiue obedience in his life, as nothing pertaining to him in the point of iustification: but as though hee must hauehave a selfe-garnish, as of a whited wall, inherent in him, whereby to claime the kingdome of heauen, he becometh seuen times more vncleane than he was before, O neuer let Christs life and death be diuided, his actiue obedience & his passiue let euer go together; lest if we let go the one, we lose both. Therefore giuegive me whole Christ, or none: both his death, that I may not dye for euer from him; and his life, that I may liue for euer with him. The learned and godly Cardinall Contarenus, who liued in Luthers time, and writ soundly of iustification, saith well to this purpose: Omnis Christi iustitia attribuitur nobis, quicun que Christum induimus: The whole righteousnesse of Christ is attributed or imputed to vsus, as many as hauehave put on Christ. For (to conclude this in a word) the redemption by Christ procureth two things vntounto vsus; deliuerance from death, and the purchase of life. By his passiue obedience hee wrought the first, by his actiue the second: For properly the death of Christ was to free vsus from death; but the life of Christ to infeoffe vsus in life. The condition of the first Adams life was, Doe this, and liue: the second Adam hath done it, that we might liue eternally; eternally, not as Adam had the promise, here on earth: but in heauen. Hence it is, that as Iesus Christ descended into the state p. 80of death, to redeeme vsus thence by his death: So hee came downe from heauen, that in the humility and obedience of his life on earth, he might exalt vsus thither: whither (else) not euen Adams best obedience could euer hauehave brought him; much lesse ours. Which may answer to a question, that here may be fitly moued.

Quest. Whether the obedience of the whole Law of God, wrought by Christ for vsus, is auaileable as to redeeme vsus from the punishment of sinne, so to purchase vntounto vsus eternall life in heauen? The reason of the question, is, because not the Law, if it had beene for euer perfectly fulfilled by Adam, had any promise of that eternall life, and immediate vision in heauen, but only of this life. Heauen is not within the Couenant of workes.

Answ. True it is, that the fulfilling of the Law in it selfe simply considered, hath no proportion with that endlesse life aboue. For the first Adam was of the earth earthly; and all his happinesse promised vponupon the condition of keeping the Law, for ought is reuealed or can be demonstrated, was terrestriall. But now forasmuch as the Law is fulfilled by Christ, this obedience reacheth to a higher reward (because there is a higher promise made) than that of the first Adam; Because Christ the second Adam is the Lord from heauen, the Eternal, whose Kingdom is not of this world, but of a better, a heauenly, whose house is not made with hands. So that his obedience to the Law in regard of his person, becomes a rich and inestimable purchase of that better Kingdome for vsus. For as is the heauenly, such are they that are heauenly, to wit, the generation of God in and by Iesus Christ, 1 Cor. 15. 48. 49. 50. vide & Iohn 3. 13. No man ascendeth vp to heauen, but he &c.

Thus hauehave we proued out of the holy Scriptures, how the formall cause of iustification, or that which giues a perfect being to our iustification, making vsus perfectly iust in the sight of God, is the imputation of Christs righteousnesse vntounto vsus, and that euen of his whole righteousnesse, actiue in his life, and passiue in his death.

p. 81And that the formall cause of our iustification is not within vsus, but without vsus, not inherent, but by imputation, may easily appeare from the maine difference betweene the first Couenant and the second. The first Couenant was that which was made with Adam in Paradise: Doe this, and liue: the second that made with man after his fal, Beleeue, and liue. So the first Couenant was of workes, the second of faith, the first, of an inherent righteousnesse of our owne: the second, of a righteousnesse without vsus; not our owne simply, but by relation, namely made ours, to wit, Christs righteousnesse, who of God is made vntounto vsus righteousnesse, called in Scriptures1 Cor 1. …0. Rom. 10. 6.1 Cor 1Rom 10:6 the righteousnesse which is of faith. Not to obserue and know this difference well, is the ready way to leade men into all errour of this mysterie of God. The Apostle doth notably set downe this difference between the first and second Couenant, as termes infinitely opposite, and admitting of no reconciliation, Rom. 10. 3. when hee saith, that the Iewes being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse, and going about to establish their owne righteousnesse, hauehave not submitted themselues to the vnrighteousnesse of God. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse, to eueryevery one that beleeueth. For Moses describeth the righteousnesse which is of the Law, that the man which doth those things, shall liue by them. But the righteousnesse which is of Faith, is to confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and to beleeue in thy heart, that God raised him from the dead, and thou shalt be saued. Also Rom. 11. 6. If it be by grace, it is no more of workes; otherwise grace is no more grace: but if it bee of workes, then it is no more grace; otherwise worke is no more worke. Also Rom. 4. the Apostle setting downe this same opposition betweene the Couenant of workes and of faith, saith on this wise, v. 2. &c. If Abraham were iustified by workes, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For, what saith the Scripture? Abraham beleeued God, and it was counted to him for righteousnesse. Now to him that worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt: but to him that worketh not, but beleeueth on him that iustifieth the vngodly, his faith is counted for righteousnesse. Euen as Dauid also describeth the p. 82blessednesse of the man, vntounto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without workes: saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen, and whose sinnes are couered. Blessed is the man, to whom the Lord will not impute sinne. What clearer Testimonies? Yea, this did God himselfe teach vsus not obscurely by his own act, Gen. 3. For when Adam had forfeited the first Couenant, which was of workes, made with him in Paradise before his fall, and after his fall had made with him another Couenant, to wit, of faith in Christ, the promised seede of the woman: What doth God thereupon? Hee shuts man out of Paradise, and from the Tree of life, lest putting forth his hand, hee should take of it, and liue for euer. What is meant hereby? Paradise was not only the place, but also did signifie the happy condition of Adams blessednesse, which he was to enioy in his innocencie: the Tree of life was a sacrament and symbol of life, appointed as a speciall meanes to preserue man from dying, or decaying in his naturall strength, so long as he continued in his obedience. But by disobedience hee forfeited the Couenant, brake the condition, lost his former happinesse, and was depriued of the meanes of that life, wherein hee should hauehave liued for euer vponupon earth. Now God shutting him out from the earthly Paradise, the place of earthly blisse, and from the Tree of life, the sacrament and symbol of immortalitie, and hauing shewed vntounto him another Tree of life in the middest of the Paradise of God, to wit, Iesus Christ, who is very God and eternall life; which whosoeuer by reaching out the hand of Faith, eateth of, shall liue for euer God (I say) doth hereby plainely teach vsus, that in attaining to the heauenly Paradise by the Tree of life Iesus Christ, wee must not hauehave any more to doe with the things pertaining to the first Couenant, now altogether forfeited; and from which Adam and his posteritie is for euer banished, neuer to returne or intermeddle there any more, Gen. 3, 22. 23. 24. Therefore to teach, and beleeue, the doctrine of an inherent righteousnesse, whereby to attaine eternall life, is euen as it were in despite of God, and of his holy Angels the Cherubims, keeping the way of the Tree of life, to reuiue the old Couenant of p. 83workes againe, and with the hand of the body, to wit, good workes, reach out to take of the tree of life. This is a Babylonish confounding of the two Couenants, which stand vponupon such irreconcileable termes of difference. Is there no more difference betweene, Do this, and liue: and, Beleeue, and liue? betweene mans owne righteousnesse, and Gods righteousnesse, the establishing of the one, being the abolishing of the other? Nor is it to purpose, that these Babylonians alledge, that they ascribe their inherent righteousnesse to God, as the author of it, and by whom it is infused into them. Adam in his purest naturals could say no lesse, but that all his inherent righteousnesse was the gift of God: for what had he, that he had not receiued? Therefore the maine point of difference betweene the righteousnesse of the first Couenant, and of the second, is in this, That the one was inherent, and within a man, the other imputed, and without a man. Otherwise, what reall difference can bee imagined to be betweene them? the difference chiefly consisting in a direct opposition. Nor will they difference these two Couenants of righteousnesse in regard of nature and grace, lest they should offend their Thomas Aquinas, who alloweth to the first Adam originall righteousnesse, consisting (as hee saith) in a supernaturall grace, or that which they call Gratia gratum faciens, the chief grace of all. Aqu. 1. q. 95. 1. & q. 100 ibid. Although Aquinas in so saying, plainely sheweth his ignorance in the difference betweene the first and second Adam. For that grace which he saith was giuen to Adam, was neuer giuen, till Iesus Christ was reuealed, who was the onelyonly fountaine of this grace, Iohn 1. 17.

Now let vsus see what iudgement the ancient Fathers of the Church are of in this point. Wherein when wee come to Fathers, the Pontificians cast vp their caps in triumph, as if the field were theirs. Hence it is that the Trent Fathers had such a hard conceit of the very word Imputation, that theyHist. Concil. Trid. l. 2. p. 157. Latina editio. desired it should be quite cashiered and cancelled, as a word neuer vsed of the ancient Fathers: although as the Historie there saith, that the termes of communication, participation, p. 84diffusion, deriuation, application, computation, & coniunction, are familiar enough with them. Others were of opinion, that seeing the thing it selfe was euident enough, there needed no quarrell about the word, especially, seeing by this word the same is precisely meant, that is expressed in other words. And though Imputation be not found vsed of all the Fathers, nor so frequently, yet of some it is, namely, of Bernard in his 109. Epistle. Vega also did affirme, That that word, though it be not found in the Scriptures, yet that it is a very proper Latine word; and that the righteousnes of Christ may most truly be said, to be imputed to mankind for merit and satisfaction, and alwaies to be imputed to all that are iustified, satisfying for their own sins: but to be imputed to them, as if it were their owne, hee approued not. Whereunto, when it was obiected what St. Thomas was wont to say, That the passion of Christ for the remission of sinnes, was so communicated to him that is baptized, as if himselfe had vndergone it, or had suffered death: there was sharpe and long contention about his words. The Master of the Eremites was of opinion, that in the Sacrament of Baptisme Christs righteousnesse was imputed, because in all, and eueryevery respect, it is communicated: but not in Penance, wherein our satisfaction also is required. Soto confessed, that the terme of Imputation was very popular and plausible, as which seemeth at the first blush, to ascribe all to Christ; yet in regard of those consequences which the Lutherans draw thence, he alwaies had it in suspition, as we touched before. Of which sort are, That the onelyonly imputation of Christs righteousnesse is sufficient, and no inherent required; that Sacraments conferre no grace; that, together with the sinne, the whole punishment was so abolished, that there was no place left for satisfaction; that all the faithfull were equals in grace, righteousnesse, and glory; whence was collected that execrable blasphemy, that all were equally iust with the blessed Virgin. Which words (saith the History) made that word so edious to the mindes of the hearers, that they were most propense, and bent to damne it for hereticall, notwithstanding strong reasons were alledged to the contrary. p. 85These altercations and bickerings amongst the Diuines, flowed chiefely from the immoderate affection of each to that Sect, to which hee had addicted himselfe. Thus the History.

But come wee to the Fathers: among whom, though wee finde not the word Imputation precisely, yet the thing it imports, we finde expressely; according to the opinion of some in the Councell, mentioned but now, saying: That seeing the thing it selfe was cleare enough, there needed no quarrell about the words; especially seeing by this word, the same is precisely meant, that is expressed in other words. And by the way, Andreas Vega triumpheth greatly, that among all theVega de ver… & fi…ia ius…if lib. 15. cap. 2, Fathers, hee cannot finde the word Imputation; as neither in the Scriptures, that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to vsus vntounto righteousnesse: although he confesse the word Imputation to be there vsed, as, faith imputed for righteousnesse, and sinne not imputed. And (saith hee) the ancient Doctors of the Church, before Bernard, were contented for this purpose to vse the words of communication, of participation, application, copulation, coniunction: but neuer the word Imputation, as that Christs righteousnesse were so imputed to vsus, as if it were made ours. But those Authors, and authorities which he alledgeth, doe speake very significantly to the purpose, to confirme this doctrine of imputation. As first St. Augustine: Communicatio passionum Christi, virtus tua erit; The communication of the sufferings of Christ, is thy vertue. And to passe by others, Thomas Aquinas saith: Omni baptizato communicatur passio Christi in remissionem, ac si ipse passus & mortuus esset: The passion of Christ is communicated to eueryevery one baptized for remission of sins, as if he himself had suffered & dyed. And againe, as the same Vega alledgeth him: Poena passionis Christi communicatur baptizato, in quantum fit membrum Christi, ac si ipse poenam illam sustinuisset: The punishment of the passion of Christ is communicated to him that is baptized, in as much as he is made a member of Christ, as if he himselfe had sustained the same punishment. And yet (saith Vega) neither there, nor elsewhere, to my remembrance, doth hee p. 86say, that the punishments of the passion of Christ are imputed to vsus, as if they were our owne. And perhaps (saith hee) it came to passe by the instinct and prouidence of the holy Ghost, that the Ancients neuer in this case vsed the word Imputation, lest the Heretickes might seeme to hauehave taken from them the hint and occasion of their errours. So Vega. Or rather, do not Pontificians euen wilfully make it an occasion, of confirming themselues in this their heresie, while they will rather beleeue, what they finde men hauehave precisely said, than cleaue to that, which God himselfe in his Word hath so expressely defined; as neither Rome is named in Scripture for the Whore of Babylon, nor the Pope for the man of sinne. But in the meane time, let any indifferent man iudge, what more could hauehave beene expressed by the word Imputation, than they hauehave done by the word Communication (whom Vega hath quoted) to shew how thereby the righteousnesse of Christ is made wholly ours, his sufferings our sufferings, as if we our selues had suffered. But yet let vsus see a little further into the language of the Fathers, concerning this point. OnelyOnly by the way, seeing Vega cannot finde the word Imputation once mentioned among the ancient Fathers, let him looke but St. Augustines Epist. 106. to Bonifacius, or as some copies hauehave it, to Paulinus, and there hee shall finde these words: Cur meritis praeueniri gratia perhibetur, quae gratia non esset, si secundum meritum imputaretur: Why is grace said to be preuented by merits, which should not be grace, if it were imputed according to merit. Yea, how often doth Augustine mention the Apostles words, where he saith; Fides imputaretur ad iustitiam: Faith is imputed vntounto righteousnesse? But let vsus contend not so much for the word; as for the thing it selfe, which wee shall finde the Fathers to abound in. St. Ambrose writing vponupon the 39. Psalme, saith; Totus ex persona Christi iste Psalmus est: Iustitiam meam dicit, Anbrosàn Psal. 39.Ps 39licet non arroganter & homo dicere possit Iustitiam suam, qui Deo credit, & fidem suam sibi reputar… ad iustitiam confitetur: This whole Psalme is of the person of Christ; therefore hee saith, My righteousnesse; though also a man that beleeues in God, p. 87and confesseth that his faith is reputed to him for righteousnesse, may without arrogancy say, his righteousnesse. Now although Ambrose say (speaking of Christ) Iustitiam meam, in stead of Iustitiam tuam (as it is in the originall, and also in the vulgar Latine, he following some other copy) yet hereby wee may see his vnderstanding in the mysterie of Christ; namely, how Christs righteousnesse comes to bee our righteousnesse, our faith being imputed to vsus for righteousnesse, as the Scripture saith. Sauing that Ambrose vseth the word Reputing, for Imputing; differing very little in the sound, but nothing at all in the sense. The sameAmbr. in epist. ad Gal. cap. 3.Gal 3 Ambrose writing vponupon the Epistle to the Galatians, where hee opposeth the righteousnesse of the Law, and that of Christ one against the other, vponupon these words: for if there had beene a Law giuen, which could hauehave giuen life, verily, righteousnesse had beene by the Law: saith, Iustitiam hanc dicit, quae apud Deum imputatur iustitia, id est, fidei; quia & lex habuit iustitiam, sed ad praesens, quia non iustificaret apud Deum: remittere enim peccata non potuit, vt de peccatoribus faceret iustos; he saith, that righteousnesse, which of God is imputed; to wit, the righteousnesse of faith: sith the Law also had a kinde of righteousnesse, but temporary, that could not iustifie with God: for it could not forgiue sinnes, and so of sinners make men to bee iust. So that here is another ancient Father, vsing the very word Imputation. And a little after, vponupon these words; As many as hauehave beene baptized into Iesus Christ, hauehave put on Christ: saith, Hoc dicit, quia credentes, dum immutantur, Christum induunt, quando hoc appellantur, quod credunt: This he saith, because beleeuers, while they are changed, doe put on Christ, when they are called that, which they beleeue. So that by St. Ambrose his doctrine, our iustification is by imputation of grace by faith, in the putting on of Christ. And St. Austine, besides the former alledged place, where he defineth iustification to be a making of one iust, by accounting him so, or by deputing & reckoning him iust: saith, in Psa. 32. Nolo vos interrogare Aug de spir. & liter. ad Marceltom. 3. Aug. in Psal. 32. enar.Ps 32de iustitia vestra; sortassis autem nemo vestrum audeat mihi respondere, iustus sum: sed interrogo vos de fide vestra. Sicut nemo vestrum p. 88audet dicere, Iustus sum; sic nemo non audet dicere, Fidelis sum. Nondum quaero, quid viuas: sed quaero, quid credas? responsuruses, credere te in Christum. Non audisti Apostolum, Iustus ex fide viuit? fides tua, iustitia tua: I will not aske you of your righteousnesse; for haply none of you dare answer me, I am righteous: but I aske you of your faith. As none of you dare say, I am iust; so you dare not but say, I am a beleeuer. I demand not yet, how thou liuest: but how thou beleeuest? thou wilt answer me, thou beleeuest in Christ. Hast thou not heard the Apostle, The iust shall liue by faith? Thy faith is thy righteousnesse. And vponupon the 30. Psalme, the same Father doth further cleare his minde touching imputatiue righteousnesse, vponupon these words of the Psalme; Rid mee, and deliuer mee in thy righteousnesse: Nam si attendas ad iustitiam meam, damnas me. In tua iustitia …rue me: est enim iustitia Dei, quae & nostra fit, cum donatur nobis. Ideo autem Dei iustitia dicitur, ne homo se putet à seipso habere iustitiam: For if thou lookest vponupon my righteousnesse, thou condemnest mee. In thy righteousnesse deliuer me; for it is the righteousnesse of God, which is made also ours, when it is giuen vntounto vsus. And therefore is it called Gods righteousnesse, lest man should thinke that he hath righteousnesse of himselfe. Now what righteousnesse doth this holy man meane here? The righteousnesse of God made ours by infusion of grace into vsus? So, I know, the Pontificians would be ready to interpret this place. But let St. Augustine be his owne interpreter, who addeth in the very next words: Sic enim dicit Apostolus Paulus; Credenti in eum, qui iustificat impium: So saith the Apostle Paul; To him that beleeueth in him, that iustifieth the vngodly. Quid est, Qui iustificat impium? Qui ex impio facit iustum: deputatur sides eius ad iustitiam: What is that, Which iustifieth the vngodly? Who of vngodly and wicked makes iust: his faith is deputed for righteousnesse. Yea, this holy man, is so farre from ascribing the least part of iustification to any inherent righteousnesse in vsus, as that he excludes euen faith it selfe, as it is a worke, from being any meritorious cause of our iustification. For elsewhere speaking of Gods election and vocation, of grace, and not ofAug. ad Simplic▪ lib. 1. qu…. p. 89workes, alledging the examples of lacob and Esau; the one loued, the other hated, euen in the wombe, before either of them had done good or euill, &c. that the election of God might stand, not of workes, &c. Si autem verum est, quod non ex operibus; & inde hoc probat, quia de nondum natis, nondum que aliquid operatis dictum est: vnde nec ex side, quae in nondum natis similiter nondum erat: And if it be true, that it is not of works; and from thence he proues it, because it was said of them before they were borne, and before they had done any thing: whereupon, neither was it in respect of faith, which likewise (as a worke) was not as yet in them, being yet vnborne. And againe; Iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius, ne fides ipsa superba sit. Aug. epist. 106. Bonifacio out Paulino.Nec dicat sibi quis, si ex fide, quomodo gratis? quod enim fides meretur, cur non potius redditur, quàm donatur? Non dicat ista homo fidelis; quia cum dixerit, vt merear iustificationem, habeo fidem: respondetur ei, Quid enim habes, quod non accepisti? Being iustified freely by his grace, lest faith it selfe should be proud. Nor let any man say to himselfe, if it be of faith, how is it freely? for that which faith meriteth, why is it not rather rendred as due, than freely giuen? Let no beleeuer speake thus: for when he shall say, I hauehave faith, that I may merit iustification; it is answered him, For what hast thou, that thou hast not receiued? Thus this holy man disclaimes all merit of workes in vsus; yea euen of faith it selfe, though it bee the instrument to apply the righteousnesse of God in Christ vntounto vsus, whereby we are truely iustified. And it stands with good reason: For faith iustifieth not by vertue of the act of beleeuing, but as the instrument, in applying the obiect, which is Christ. As the hand is said to heale, onelyonly by applying the medicine; or to inrich, by receiuing a treasure; or to feed, by putting meat into the mouth: as we say, a childe is fed with a spoone, when the milke onelyonly feedeth. So faith, by applying Christ, the true balme, healeth: by receiuing Christ, the true treasure, inricheth: by conuaying Christ, the true bread and water of life, feedeth the soule. St. Augustine also in his first Sermon vponupon the 70. Psalme, saith: In eum credo, qui iustificat impium, vt deputetur sides mea ad iustitiam: I beleeue in him that iustifieth p. 90the vngodly, that my faith may be deputed (hee comes very neare Imputed) for righteousnesse.

It would fill a large volume, to set downe the Tracts and sayings of this holy Father, to this purpose, seeing all his workes are eueryevery where perfumed with this most sweet and Catholicke doctrine of iustification, through the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to vsus; not for any grace inherent in vsus, though it be the gift of God, bestowed on vsus for Christs sake. I will onelyonly adde one or two sayings more of this holy man. Per fidem induendo Christum omnes fiunt filij; non natura, Aug. expos. epist. ad Galat. lib.sicut vnicus Filius: sed filij fiunt participatione sapientiae, id praeparante at que praestante Mediatoris fide; quam fidei gratiam nunc indumentum vocat, vt Christum induti sint, qui in eum crediderunt: & ideo filij Dei, fratres que eius Mediatoris effecti sunt: In putting on Christ by faith, all are made sonnes; not sonnes by nature, as is the onelyonly begotten Sonne, but they are made sonnes, by the participation of wisedome, being prepared and performed by the faith of the Mediator; which grace of faith hee now calleth a clothing or putting on; so that they hauehave put on Christ, that hauehave beleeued in him: and therefore they are made the sonnes of God, and brethren of the Mediator. What plainer words could this holy Father hauehave vsed to expresse the nature of iustification, in the imputatiue righteousnesse of Christ, than by calling imputation a participation of Christ, by the meanes of faith? in which respect, hee calleth faith a putting on, because thereby Christ, with all his righteousnesse, is put vponupon vsus, and so wee are made the sonnes of God. Iustin Martyr saith: Quid aliud peccata nostra potuisset Iust. Mart. in epist. ad Diog.tegere, quàm Christi iustitia? O beneficia expectationem omnem exuperantia! vt iniquitas quidem multorum, in vno iusto abscondatur; iustitia autem vnius faciat, vt multi iniusti pro iustis habeantur: What else could hauehave couered our sinnes, but Christs righteousnesse? O blessings exceeding all expectation! that the iniquity of many should bee couered in one righteous person: and that the righteousnesse of one should cause, that many vniust, should be accounted iust. And of later times, deuout…ern. serm. ad …ni…c. temp. c. 11 Bernard: Mor… in Christi morte fugatur, & Christi nobis iustitia p. 91imputatur: Death is vanquished in Christs death, and Christs righteousnesse is imputed to vsus. And againe: Qui nostram Ibid.& induit carnem, & subijt mortem, putas, suam nobis negabit iustitiam? voluntariè incarnatus, voluntariè passus, voluntariè crucifixus, solam à nobis retinebit iustitiam? Christus peccati meritum tulit, suam nobis donando iustitiam: Hee that both tooke vponupon him our flesh, and vndertooke death, will hee, trow you, denie vsus his righteousnesse? voluntarily incarnate, voluntarily suffering, voluntarily crucified, will hee keepe from vsus his onelyonly righteousnesse? And writing to Innocentius, he saith:Bern. epist. 190. ad Innocent. Homo qui debuit, homo qui soluit. Nam si vnus pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt: vt videlicet satisfactio vnius omnibus imputetur, sicut omnium peccata vnus ille portauit: It was man that was indebted, and man that paid it. For if one died for all, then were all dead: to the end, that the satisfaction of one should be imputed to all, euen as he alone bore the sinnes of all. Ambrose also vponupon these words of the Apostle; ChristA nbros. erat. ad Auxent. post epist. 32. Cyrit in Esai. lib. 5. cap. 59. in fine. Corde creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem …it confessio ad salutem. Accepimus itaque à Deo verbum fidei, & confessionem. Quod quidem salutare est, & iustitiam conciliat. Iustificat enim sic impium Christus, quod & palam clamitat: Ecce, deleui vt nubem iniquitates tuas, & vt caliginem peccata tua Hec enim verbum fidei in nobis erit perpetuò, & de ore nostro non cessa…it, sed il'ud ad posteritatem vsque transmittemus: sic enim iustificabuntur & pesteri. Si enim semper Christus …it & Deus & Dominus, nunquam definet fidei eius confessio apud eos, qui illius apparitionem agnouerunt. was made a curse for vsus, as it is written, Cursed is eueryevery one that hangeth on tree; saith: Non ille maledictus, sed in te maledictus: Christ was not accursed, but in thee was hee accursed. lust so are we in him blessed. Saint Cyril also vponupon these words of Esay; The Deliuerer shall come forth of Sion, and shal turn away iniquities from Iacob, &c. concludes thus, from Rom. 10 10. For with the heart, &c. With the heart, saith he, man beleeueth to righteousness, & with the mouth confession is made to saluation. We hauehave therefore receiued of God the word of faith, and confession. Which word bringeth saluation, and procureth righteousnesse: For Christ doth so iustifie the vngodly, that hee proclaimeth; Behold, I hauehave remoued thine iniquities as a cloud, and thy sinnes as a mist. For this word of faith shall be for euer in vsus, and shall neuer cease from our mouth; but wee shall transmit and conuay it, euen vntounto posterity. For thus also shall posterity be iustified: For p. 92if Christ bee for euer both God and Lord, the confession of this his faith, shall neuer faile with those, who hauehave acknowledged his appearing. So Cyril. This therefore was among the ancient Fathers of the Church, and they hauehave sent it downe to vsus their posterity, as the Catholicke faith to bee confessed of all Gods children, vntill the appearing of Iesus Christ, that our iustification stands in the merits of Christ, and the mercies of God, in the remission of our sinnes, and the not imputing them vntounto vsus. But the Trent-Fathers, and the Church of Rome, as being not the legitimate posterity, but the bastard brood, (falsly pretending from those holy Fathers) disclaime this Catholick faith, concerning iustification in the remission of sinnes (which God in the forenamed place of Esay, cals his new Couenant, or Testament) and doth anathematize and curse to the pit of hell, all those, that hauehave, or shall place our iustification in the onelyonly imputation ofConcil. Trid. Ses. 6. cap. 7. & Can. 11. Christs righteousnesse, or in the remission of sinnes, without our inherent righteousnesse; as appeareth in the former Chapter.

What needes more testimony in such a cloud of witnesses? Among all which, not a word of any inherent righteousnesse, not a word of infusion of grace, not a word of hope and charity ioyned with faith, as equally concurring, much lesse precurring and out-stripping faith, in the worke of iustification: not a word of imputation so to bee vnderstood, as if Christ did therefore merit, that we might hauehave grace inherent, or of our owne, whereby to bee iustified in Gods sight. Although true it is, that the same ancient Fathers doe often call our inherent righteousnesse, which is our sanctification, by the name of iustification; but they neuer say, that hereby we are iustified in the sight of God.

In a word, the consideration of the true difference, betweene the first couenant and the second, doth easily conclude the truth of this doctrine. The first couenant made with Adam in Paradise, was the couenant of workes; Doe this and liue: but the second couenant opposite to that, is of grace; Beleeue and liue: as the Apostle doth notably oppose p. 93faith against workes in our iustification. Therefore vnlesse wee would bring man againe into the estate of Adam, in his earthly Paradise, before his fall, and so shut out Christ the second Adam: to pleade iustification by workes is a monstrous drea…e. Therefore it was not for nothing, that our first Parents were banished out of that earthly Paradise; typically to teach them, that now they had no more to do with that first condition of their creation, the happinesse whereof, depended vponupon the couenant of workes: but now they must seek a new Paradise that is, a heauenly, and that by a new and liuing way; to wit, by faith in Christ: which is that couenant of grace, opposite to the couenant of workes. So opposite, that, as the Apostle saith, If it be of grace, then it is no more of workes; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it bee of workes, then is it no more grace; otherwise worke is no more worke, Rom. 11. 6.