The Life of Justification Opened, Chapter 8

The Life of Justification Opened · Chapter 8

p. 66CHAP. VIII.

Some passages of the New Test. confirming the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, Vindicated from the exceptions of JOHN GOODWINE.

HAving seen, what countenance the Old Test. giveth unto the Truth, we are asserting; & vindicat some of these passages from the Exceptions of Iohn Goodwine. We come next to search for confirmation of this truth, out of the New Test. and I shall here beginne with such, as the said Author taketh notice of, in order to excepting against them, in his Treatise of justification.

First Rom. 3: 21, 22. But now the Righteousness of God without the Law, is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the Righteousness of God, which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all and upon all them that beleeve. But if men would disput against this truth, they should except against whole Chapters, in that Epistle; and disput against the very scope & designe, yea and all the Arguments of the Apostle, who, in the first part of that Epistle, p. 67is about to clear and confirme that, which he setteth down Chap. 1: 17. as the summe of the whole Gospel, and clear demonstration of its being the power of God unto Salvation &c. to wit, that in it the Righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; a Righteousness revealed, laid open, and offered to all, that hear the Gospel, that they may lay hold on it by faith: a Righteousness, revealed from the true and faithful God, unto our faith (as Ambrose, P. Martyr and others understand it) or revealed from faith to faith, that is only to faith, (as Pareus) or (as Calvin, Beza, Musculus and others) from a weak faith, to a stronger faith: or rather, to faith first and last, through the whole of a Saints life here, as the following words clear it, as it is written, the just shall live by faith. Yet let us see, what he excepteth pag. 136.

He 1. Supposeth, that he hath proved before, that this passage speaketh plainly for the imputation of faith for Righteousness; but no way for the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, for any such purpose. And. We may have occasion hereafter to examine his grounds, both from this and other passages, for the Imputation of faith, in opposition to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. I shall only say at present, that this Righteousness cannot be faith it self, because it is revealed to faith; & it is called the Righteousness of God, which is by faith of Iesus Christ; & so not faith it self. One thing cannot be both the Act, & the Object of that Act. And what sense would that make, to say, faith is upon all them that beleeve.

2. He said. By the Righteousness of God some under stand here His truth and faithfulness, in keeping promise. Ans. But though God's Righteousness may elsewhere import & signifie His faithfulness in keeping promise; yet that is not the Righteousness here understood; for this suiteth a guilty sinner; such as the Apostle hath been proving, in his foregoing discourse, both jewes & Gentiles to be; & is such a Righteousness as is requisite to such, as would be justified in God's sight vers 20. & cannot be had by mans doing the deeds of the Law, by which is the knowledg of sin, & which therefore rendereth their case more desperat; & such a Righteousness, as is had by faith, & which is unto all & upon all them that beleeve vers 20, 22. and such a Righteousness, as is manifested without the Law vers 21. All which, and much more, which might be mentioned, show, that some other thing is here understood by the Righteousness of God, than His Faithfulness & Truth; even the Righteousness of God, which is imputed unto, & bestowed upon all that beleeve.

3. He saith. Hereby is mea…t that way, method & meanes, which God himself hath found out to justisis, or make men Righteous: or else that very Righteousness, by which we stand justified, or Righteous, in the sight of God. But not the Righteousness of Christ: nor is there the least appearance in the context of any necessity to take is so. Ans. It is true, the … is here showing the whole way, method & meanes of our justification; & particularly, what that Righteousness is, by which poor sinners can stand justified & Righteous in the sight of God; even a Righteousness, that is not had by the works of p. 68the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ: and this sufficiently evinceth, that the Righteousness of God, here spoken of, is the Righteousness of Christ, which saith seeketh in, and goeth to Christ for, that it may be imputed; for faith hath no other end or errand to Christ, in reference to a freedom from the wrath & Curse of God, but to lay hold on a Righteousness, in which the poor self condemned sinner may appear before God. Beside that the following words vers 24, 25, 26. where the Redemption & propitiation of Christ, which was His Surety-righteousness, is mentioned, may Satisfie us, as to what is meaned by this Righteousness of God. Sure, there is not the least appearance of Paul's understanding that Mean & Method, which this Excepter supposeth to be the onelyonly Method, to wit. That our faith, considered, as our Act, is that: as if that were the Righteousness of God, & could constitute us Righteous, in the sight of God, and were a Righteousness had without works & without the Law, & received by all that beleeve.

Secondly, Rom. 3. last Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid; yea we establish the Law. Where the Apostle, preoceupying an objection, asserteth; That through justification by faith, he did not make void the law, but rather did establish it; the ground whereof is this, That by the Gospel-way of justification, the law getteth full Satisfaction, in all points, because Christ not only Satisfied for the penalty thereof, which we were guilty of, and did lye under; but did also yeeld a perfect obedience thereunto; that so He might make up a full & compleat Surety-righteousness, by the Imputation of which unto His own, or the Lord's reckoning it upon their score, when they receive it by faith, they may be justified. And thus, though sinners, who have broken the Law, & so have forfeited the reward, promised to such as observe it in all points, & are come under the Curse, threatned to Transgressours, be not only freed from the Curse, but receive the rich Recompence of reward; yet the law is not made null & void, but is rather established & confirmed in its full force, both as to its Commands & Sanction.

Iohn Goodwine excepteth 1. There is no necessity, that by the Law, in thisplace, should be meaned precisely the moral law; others understand it as well of the Ceremonial Law. Ans. But sure, Paul's doctrine was not for establishing of the Ceremonial Law, in whole, or in part. The Law, whereof the Apostle is speaking, is that Law, by which both Gentiles & jewes were convinced of sin, & had their mouthes stopped, & were become guilty before God vers 19. & that Law, which maketh a discovery of sin vers 20. comp. with Rom. 7: 7. & by the deeds of which no flesh shall be justified, in the sight of God vers 20, 28. It is that Law, by the works whereof even Abraham could not be justified, nor David Rom. 4: 1, 2, 6, 7, 8.

2. He said, It is much more probable, that Paul should here assert the establishing of the Ceremonial Law, than of the Moral 1. Because the jewes were more tender and jealous over the Ceremonial Law, placing the far greatest part, if not the whole of their hop of justification and Salvation, in the observation thereof. 2. Because the Doctrine of faith did not carry any such colour of opposition to the Moral, p. 69as to the Ceremonial part of their Law. Ans. To imagine, that no Law is here to be understood, but the Ceremonial Law, is to make the Apostle establish here, what he destroyeth else where, particularly in his Epistles to the Galatians & Colossians, & in his whole doctrine: yea this would make the Apostle, to cross the whole intent and designe of the Gospel, which who dar once have the least thought of? The Law here doth plainely signifie that, which was the Rule of Righteousness and of Obedience, & was publickly given unto the jewes for that end; & by obedience to & observation of which Law, they were expecting justification & life; as by the young man is manifest, who came to Christ to enquire what he should do to be saved; & said, he had observed all these &c. As to his reasons, they have no force: for. 1. The jewes had a zeal for the whole Law, but not according to knowledg, & went about to establish their own Righteousness, which was not in meer Ceremonials but in obedience & full conformity (as they supposed) unto the Righteousness, which they sought after, yea followed and hunted after Rom. 9: 31. & 10. 3. (2.) The doctrine of faith carrieth the same colour of opposition to the Moral Law, that it doth to the Ceremonial, in the point of justification. And it is not the doctrine of faith that carrieth any colour of opposition to the Ceremonial Law; though the doctrine of the Gospel-administration doth; else we must …ay, there was nothing of the doctrine of faith, under the Law, or that old dispensation.

3. He saith. Though the moral Law were precisely here understood; yet there is no necessity to say, that it is established by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness: for, Some affirme, that the Law is therefore said to be established by faith, because faith compasseth & attaineth that righteousness, which the Law sought after, & could not attaine. 2. The Moral Law may in this sense be said to be established; because faith purgeth the hearts of beleevers, & so promotes the observation of it. Ans. As for the first, I do not understand, what the meaning of it is. What is that Righteousness, which faith compasseth, and the Law sought after, and could not attaine? It would seem to be nothing else but Holiness and Sanctification: and if so, the two make but one: and therefore I answere to this also, by saying to the Second. That albeit Subordinates can well consist together, & this sense needeth not thrust out our sense; yet I judge, this is not the maine Objection, that Paul obviateth here: he reserveth a peculiar place for that hereafter, where he speaketh fully to it Chap. 6. & 7. But he speaketh of the establishing of the Law, both in its commanding power and Sanction; for having spoken so much of justification by faith in opposition to justification by the Law; and having said in the foregoing vers that the circumcision shall be justified by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith: and neither the one, nor the other by or through the Law; some might have thought, that by his thus crying up of faith, and speaking so much of it, and only of it, as to justification, he was quite casheering and rendering the Law null & void: And therefore he answereth, That he is so far from making the Law void through faith, that he rather doth establish the same, as was shown above.

p. 704. He saith. The Law may be said to be established by saith, in as much as the threatnings of the Law are by the doctrine of faith declared not to be in vaine, Christ's sufferings being a full confirmation of the force, efficacy and authority of the Curse of the Law. Ans. This is so fargood: But why shall not also His obedience be a full confirmation of the force, efficacy & authority of the commanding power of the Law? This being principally intended in the Law, belongeth as much, at least, to the establishment thereof, as the Sanction. We assert not the one with an exclusion of the other; but assert the establishment of both by faith: and thus the Law is by faith fully established, in all its parts & demands.

5. He saith. The best Interpretation is, that by the Law here is meant that part of the Old Test. which comprehendeth the writting of Moses, with those other books, whi…h together with the writtings of the Prophets, make up the entire body thereof, as it was used vers 21. and in this sense, the Law may most properly be said to be established by Paul teaching the Doctrine of faith, because it is fully consonant & agreable to those things, that are written there. Ans. But this sense is not the same with the sense of the word Law v. 21. for the Law there is mentioned, as distinct from the Prophets. And if that part of the Old. Test. be meaned, which is different from the book of the Prophets, what ground was there to think, that the doctrine of faith did more seem to cross what was con ained in the one, than what was contained in the other? especially seing he had said v. 21. that the Righteousness, he spoke of, was witnessed both by the Law and the Prophets. And if both should be here understood, seing the Apostle did fully enough declare his mind as to that v.21. what ground is there to think, that he was called to remove that objection here againe? And what imaginable colour can be from any thing that the Apostle spoke, in the foregoing words, for such an objection, as this? This manifestly is nothing but a groundless invention of men, that know not else what to say.

Thirdly Rom. 4: 6. where mention is made of a Righteousness imputed without works, & that as the ground of a mans blessedness & justification: for it is of the blessedness of justification that the Apostle is there speaking, and he showeth, that this is attained, not by the works of the Law, but by an imputed Righteousness, which can be none else, that the Righteousness of God, spoken of in the preceeding Chapter; or of Christ, who wrought the Redemption, and was set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.

Against this He excepteth pag. 140. saying 1. If we…will needs here understand a positive legal Righteousness, it is much more probable, He should meane a Righteousness consisting of such, or of such an obedience to the Law, as hath an absolute & perfect agreableness to every mans condition & calling respectively, than the Righteousness of Christ, which hath no such property in it. Ans. The Apostle speaketh of a Righteousness, and of a Righteousness imputed, and all Righteousness must consist in obedience to the Law, and in full conformity thereto: and seing it is said to be imputed, and not by our works, it must of necessity follow, that the Apostle is to be understood, as speaking of the Surety-righteousness of Christ. And if the Righteousness of Christ, who p. 71gave perfect obedience to the Law, and was constituted Mediator and Surety by the Father, and as such did give full Satisfaction both in obeying the Law, and in paying the penalty, be not such an obedience to the Law, as will serve every Beleevers turne, where else will the beleever finde a more adequat Righteousness? Shall we think, that his act of saith, which is but one act of obedience to the Law, or an act of obedience to one command of the Law, hath a more perfect & absolute agreablness to every mans condition respectively, than the perfect obedience & Righteousness of Christ! Let such beleeve this, as can.

2. He saith. The Righteousness, which God is said here to impute, is placed in Remission of Sins. Ans. That Imputation of Righteousness and pardon of sinnes do inseparably go together, is true; and that the one proveth the other, is also clear from these words. But it is not proved, nor can it be proved, that Imputed Righteousness and Remission of Sins are the same; seing it is obvious enough, that Righteousness is one thing, and pardon of sinnes is another distinct thing. No man will say, that a pardoned thiefe, is a Righteous man; for that were as much, as to say, He was never a thiefe. It is true, by pardon He is no more obnoxious to the penalty; the obligation to underlye that being now taken away: yet that will not evince, that He is a Righteous man: and there is still a difference betwixt him, and one that never was chargable with that guilt: this man, as to this, is indeed a Righteous man, but not the other.

3. He saith. The phrase of imputing Righteousness is best understood by the contrary expression of imputing sin; & this signifieth either to look upon a person, as justly liable to punishment; or to inflict punishment upon him, in consideration of sin. Therefore doubtless to impute Righteousness importeth nothing else, but either to look upon a man as righteous, or to conferre upon him the privileges, belonging to persons truely righteous. Ans. This is true, if we speak of a person, who is truely Righteous, antecedently unto this Imputation; as the sinner is supposed to be truely a sinner antecedently unto this Imputation. But when sin is imputed to a Righteous person, or to one, who, before the imputation, was not guilty, nor looked upon as a Sinner, as Sin was imputed to Christ, the Holy and Righteous one, who knew no sin; and as Sin through injustice, was imputed to Naboth, who was not guilty of what was laid to his charge; Imputation, in this case, must import some thing else, than either of these two mentioned, and that antecedently to an holding of that person liable to punishment, or to a punishing of him, with consideration to that sin: thus before Christ could be looked upon, as a person liable to punishment, or could be punished for sin, by the Righteous God, sin must first have been imputed to Him, and reckoned upon His Score; and that Righteously, because of His undertaking and willingly submitting to the debt, as Surety: as when Iezabel would have Noboth killed as a Malefactor, she first by injustice and indirect meanes, made him guilty of sin, & then held him liable to punishment, and dealt with him accordingly. So, upon the other hand, when Righteousness is imputed to a sinner (as we all are sinners) before He can be looked upon as a Righteous p. 72person, or be dealt with, as a Righteous person, He must first have a Righteousness imputed to him, and bestowed upon him: for how can God, whose judgement is according to truth, look upon a person as Righteous, and conferre privileges upon him, due only to such as are Righteous, who is not Righteous indeed? Must He not first bestow a Righteousness upon him, & reckon a Righteousness upon his Score, to the end He may be just and Righteous, when He is the justifier of him that beleeveth?

Lastly He said. Here is neither peer nor peep of the least ground or reason to perceive, that by Righteousness, in this Scripture, should be meant the Righteousness of Christ. Ans. It is enough that the Text saith, Righteousness is imputed: for the man here spoken of, hath not a Righteousness of his own, as the Apostle hath proved in the preceeding Chapters, & doth here, take for granted: And therefore this Imputed Righteousness must be the Righteousness of another; and it must be such a Righteousness of another as can found free Remission of Sins. And whose Righteousness else can this be, if it be not Christ's? Is there any third competitour here imaginable? must it not be the Righteousness of Him, whom faith goeth out unto & laith hold on, in order to justification? Must it not be His Righteousness, who was the Mediator, who laid down the price of Redemption, & was a propitiation, as He told us in the preceeding Chapter? Some men, in alleiging a difference, betwixt a Righteousness imputed to us Sinners, and the Righteousness of Christ, as if there could be any other Righteousness imputable to us, except the Surety-righteousness of Christ; as they expresly in this joine with Socinians (See Volkel de vera Relig. lib. 5. cap. 21. p. 565.) & with Papists & Arminians; so they declare themselves utter strangers to the Gospel; yea greater strangers; than those were, against whom the Apostle wrote, who took it for granted, that if any Righteousness from without, or that was not by any thing, which we do, were imputed, it behoved to be the Righteousness of the Mediator: And this, we may conceive, is the reason, why the Apostle doth not say, in so many express words, that it was the Righteousness of Christ; for who could have thought of another?

Fourthly Rom. 5: 19. a place, with its whole contexture pregnant for our purpose: for the Apostle is not onelyonly here confirming, but also illustrating this whole matter, from the Imputation of Adam's Sin unto his posterity; & after many various and emphatick expressions, used there-anent from vers 12. and forward, he saith here vers 19▪ for as by one mans disobedience, many were made Sinners; so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Socinus de Servat. lib. 4. cap. 6. is so bold as to tell us, That he supposeth, there is nothing written in the Scriptures, that hath given us a greater occasion of erring, than that comparison betwixt Adam & Christ, which Paul made & did prosecute at length here. And he would cleare to us the comparison thus, That as by Adam's Sin & disobedience, it came to passe, that all men were condemned and died; so by Christ's righteousness and obedience it came to passe, that they wero absolvod, and did live: for Christ by His own Righteousness and Obedience, by vertue of the decree of God, did penetrate the p. 73heavens, there to reigne for ever, and there he begote eternal life and everlasting blessedness both to Himself, and to His. How aliene this is from the whole of the Apostle's discourse, needs not be declared, seing there is not one word giving the least hint of the Apostle's designe to be, to declare how & what way Christ obtained power and authority to save: Yet He goeth on to tell us, That as Adam's fault made him guilty of death, whence it came to passe, that all mankind, that are procreat of him after that guilt, is obnoxious to death: so Christ by His Righteousness purchased to Himself eternal life; whence it cometh te passe, that who ever are procreat of him, partake of this life. But He never once taketh notice, that Paul giveth for the ground of all mankind's becoming guilty of death, their sinning in him vers 12. even such, as had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression vers 14. yea, in every verse this cause is noted, or pointed at: & it being Notour of it self, that ifall mankind did sin in Adan, Adam's sin must be imputed unto them; so Christ's Righteousness must be imputed unto all His, inreference to their justification, & that with a much more.

Let us now see what Iohn Goodwine excepteth pag. 142. &c. It is not here (said He) said, that by the Imputation of Adam's disobedience, men are made formally Sinners, but simply sinners, that is, either obnoxious to death and condemnation, or else sinners by propagation, not Imputation. Ans. This is the same upon the matter, with Bellarmin's answer de justif. lib. 2. cap. 9. & here we have a distinction proposed without any explication, to wit. betwixt simply sinners, and formally sinners▪ And what can he meane by formally sinners? possibly he meaneth that, which otherwise is expressed by inherently sinners: And if so, though Adam's posterity, so soon as they come to have a being, have an universal corruption of Nature convoyed by propagation; yet that is not it, which is properly said to be Imputed: for that which is imputed, is the guilt of Adam's sin, whereby they become sinners, that is guilty legally, and so obnoxious to punishment, death & condemnation: & this is enough for us; for as the posterity of Adam have the sin of Adam so imputed to them, that they become guilty and obnoxious to wrath; so Beleevers have the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them, and they thereupon are accounted legally righteous. (2) Whileas he will not grant, that Adam's posterity are sinners by imputation, he joineth with the Socinians, who turne these words vers 12. … not in whom; but because, or whereas, which the Ethiopick version doth better sense, saying. Because that sin is imputed unto all men, even unto them who know not what is that sin; And the Arabick turne thus, seing all have now sinned: and the Syriack word is Behi, or Bhi, which may as well be interpreted in whom, as because. And in several other places, this praeposition so construed, as here in the Greek, hath this same import; as Mark 2. 4. Luk 5: 25. & 11: 22. Rom. 6: 21. Phil. 4: 10. 1. Thes. 3: 7. But enough of this here, seing that matter is sufficiently cleared by the orthodox, writting against the Socinians; and we have also spoken of it against the Quakers.

Againe saith He, Neither doth the Apostle here oppose unto, or compare the Obedience of Christ, with the disobedience of Adam, as one Act unto or with another; p. 74but as Satisfaction to and with the provocation; or the Remedie to and with the disease. Otherwise he should make sins of Omission to be no disobedience, be cause Omissions are no Acts. Ans. The Apostle so compareth the Obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam, as the Satisfaction with the provocation, or as the Remedie with the disease; as that withall & chiesly, he cleareth up the manner & way thereof to be by Imputation, thus, That as Adam's sin of disobedience (which includeth both Omission & Commission, being a Violation of the Law, & of the Covenant) was imputed to his posterity, & they hence became guilty & obnoxious to death, yea & were punished with original Corruption, (which cometh by propagation) & the consequences thereof; so Christ's obedience, which was full & compleat, is imputed unto Beleevers, whereupon they become Righteous, in order to their recovery out of their Natural state of sin and misery.

Further He saith, By that obedience of Christ, whereby it is here said, that many are, or shall be made Righteous, that is jus…ified, we cannot understand that Righteousness of Christ, which consists only in obedience to the Moral Law; but that Satisfactory Righteousness, or obedience, which He performed to that peculiar Law of Mediation, which was imposed upon him, and which chiesly consisted in his sufferings. Ans. By the obedience of Christ unto the Law of Mediation, strickly so taken, as distinguished from His obedience to the Moral Law, beleevers could not be made Righteous, as the posterity of Adam are made sinners by his disobedience; for that could not be properly imputed, as this is, as hath been shown; & so Paul's similitude should halt. But (2.) Why is Christ's obedience to the Law of Mediation set in opposition to His obedience to the Moral Law, seing this was a part of that, & unto this He obliged Himself, in undertaking the Mediation. Was He not by the Law of Mediation bound as well to give obedience to the Law, as to suffer the penalty? And was He not obliged to both, as Surety, in room & place? And then why may not both be imputed unto them? (3.) Why should obedience here be thus restricked to the Law of Mediation? He addeth two reasons, but neither are valide. The 1. is this, Because otherwise the opposition …etwixt Adam's disobedience, which was but one single Act, and Christ's Obedience, if it were his universal conformity to the Law, would not hold. Ans. This same man told us in his former exception, That Christ's obedience, in respect of Adam's disobedience, was considered & opposed, as the Satisfaction to the provocation, & as the Remedie to the disease: now if this be true, Christ made Satisfaction for no provocation, but for that single act of eating the forbidden fruit: & what He did & suffered should be only a Remedie for that one distemper: & if so, how shall the rest of the Provocations and diseases be taken away? or are there no more Provocations or diseases? (2.) Adam's disobedience was no Single act of disobedience; but a disobedience including the breach of the whole Moral Law: Saith not Iames, that he who offendeth in one, is guilty of all? Iam. 2: 10. & prove it too, in the following vers? The 2. is this, The Effect that is here attributed to this obedience of Christ, to wit, justification, or Righteous making p. 75of many, is constantly appropriated to the death & blood of Christ. Ans. This that is attributed to the blood & death of Christ elsewhere, to wit, our justification, sheweth, that the death of Christ is not understood exclusively; for by His death, exclusivly considered, we cannot-be made Righteous; for the Imputation of another's suffering, though it may exeem from death & suffering; yet it cannot constitute Righteous, in reference to the commanding Law. (2.) The death of Christ must not be looked on, as one act of obedience; but as including all His foregoing acts of obedience, belonging to His State of humiliation, whereof His death was the crowning piece; & so as including as His whole suffering; so His whole obedience to the Law, under which he was made: for He is said to have been obedient unto death, even unto the death of the cross Phil. 2: 8. not that the death of the cross was all His obedience, as it was not the whole state of His humiliation, but the terminating remarkable act thereof; as it was not all His suffering, His whole life being a life of suffering. (3.) If this obedience be understood of this one act of obedience in His dying, & justification be looked upon, as the effect of this only, what shall become of His Soul-sufferings, while He was in an agonie in the garden? But if the act of obedience in His death, include these, why not His whole state of humiliation? And if it include all this, why not also His obedience to the Law, seing His being made under the Law, belongeth to His state of humiliation, as the Apostle tels us Gal. 4: 4.

He excepteth furder, saying, Suppose, that by the obedience of Christ, we should here undorstand, His active obedience to the Moral Law, yet it will not hence follow, that men must be justified, or made Righteous by it, in such a way of imputation. Ans. If by Christ's obedience to the Moral Law, we be made Righteous, as the posterity of Adam were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, that obedience of Christ must necessarily be imputed to us, as Adam's disobedience was imputed to his posterity: for there is no other way imaginable. Let us hear his reason to the contrary.

For certaine it is (said he) that that justification or Righteous-making, whereof the Apostle speaketh vers 19. is the same with that, which He had spoken of v. 16, 17, 18. Now that Righteousness vers 17. is described vers 16. to be the gift (i.e. the forgiveness) of many offences i.e. of all the offences, whereof a man either doth, or shall stand guilty of before God, unto justification: and evident it is, that that Righteousness &c. cannot stand in the Imputation of a fulfilling of the Law. Ans. (1.) Though making Righteous and justification be inseparable; yet they are not formally one & the same; but Righteous-making (to wit by Imputation) is antecedent unto justification, & the ground thereof, as becoming sinners is not formally to be condemned, but is prior to it, & the ground thereof. (2.) That free gift mentioned vers 16. is not free forgiveness, but is that, which is opposite to judgment, or guilt, or reatus, tending to condemnation; & so is the same with that which is called the Grace of God, & the gift by Grace vers 15. and the gift of Righteousness vers 17. which is in order to justification & free pardon. As therefore the foreign, guilt is not the same with foreign condemnation; but tendeth thereunto; so neither p. 76is the foreign the free gift the same with foreign justification, but leadeth thereunto, & is followed therewith. (3.) Nor can the Adversary Himself take these words vers 16. the free gift is of many offences, to be the same with free pardon of many offences, else he must say, that this free pardon goeth before justification & consequently is not justification it self, as he saith else where; for the text saith, that the free gift is of many offences unto justification; as judgment or foreign was antecedent to condemnation. (4.) So then, the true meaning is, that the free gift of Righteousness hath respect unto many sinnes, to the end, that justification & pardon, that followeth thereupon, might be full, whileas the guilt, that was imputed to Adam's posterity, had respect only to his first breach of the Covenant, for which all were made obnoxious to condemnation.

Lastly He saith. It is but loose and unsavoury argueing, to reason from a thing simply done, to a determinat manner of doing of it: so is it to reason from being made Righteous, to a being made Righteous by Imputation. Ans. The particular manner or way how we are made Righteous, is aboundantly signified by our being made & constitute Righteous by the Righteousness of another, who was our Head, Representative & Surety: & that because it can be imagined to be no other way, than by Imputation. And Further, the whole discurse of the Apostle here, & particularly the comparison so much here insisted upon, putteth the matter beyond all debate. As Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity, whereby all were accounted sinners, & dealt with as such, even as guilty, by reason of Adam's act of sin: So Christ's Righteousness becometh ours by Imputation, & we are made Righteous & accounted such & dealt with as such, upon the account thereof. No man can imagine, how one shall be accounted guilty, & punished as guilty of a sinful act, done by another, unless the guilt of that sinful act be imputed to him; so no man can imagine, how one can be accounted Righteous, & dealt with as such, upon the account of the Righteousness of another, if that Righteousness of the other be not imputed to him. And beside, This is called a gift, a free gift, & a free gift of Righteousness, & a free gift of Righteousness received, which fully pointe forth this Imputation, which we contend for.

Fiftly. Rom. 8: 3, 4. For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, & for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us. The Law could not help a sinner from under the Curse, nor unto the recompence of reward, because it was weak through the flesh, through the sin & corruption of man, whereby he could not give right and full obedience thereunto. And therefore God sent His Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who by His obedience & suffering, in His state of humiliation, took away the sting of death, & the strength of sin, by satisfying all the demandes of the Law, the whole foreign, the jus & right of the Law, which consisted in yeelding full & perfect obedience, & in making full Satisfaction for the violation committed: for the Law said, cursed is every one, that continueth not in all things, which are written therein, to do them p. 77Deut. 27: 26. Gal. 3: 13. And the Righteousness, which is of the Law, is, that the man, who doth these things, shall live by them. And this was so ordered, that the Righteousness of the Law, the foreign of the Law, the jus and demand of the Law mentioned, might be fulfilled in us, that is, in our Nature, by the Redeemer & Surety, who did & suffered all this in & for His own. The Ethiopik Version is a clear commentary, and when we were impotent to do the commands of the Law, God sent His own Son for that sin, who took on our body of sin, & condemned sin it self in our body, that he might justifie us, & be propitious unto us, and that so he might fulfill the work of the commands of the Law for them, who walk in the Law of the holy Spirit. Let us now see what John Goodwine excepteth p. 145. &c.

He saith. (1.) Some understand this rather of Sanctification, than of justification; & by the fulfilling of the Righteousness of the Law, that Evangelical obedience to the precepts thereof, which all those, that truely beleeve in Christ, do in part performe, and desire and strive to performe more perfectly. Ans. Gospel justification & Gospel-Sanctification agree well together, and Christ is the true foundation & cause of both. But that this is to be understood rather of justification, appeareth hence. (1.) That this is a further explication & confirmation of what was said vers 1. There is therefore now no Condemnation to them, which are in Christ Iesus (2.) all that measure of Sanctification, which the Saints through Grace attaine unto here, cannot be called a fulfilling of the Righteousness of the Law, the Lawes demands are not thereby satisfied; for it calleth for perfect obedience, which none of the Sanctified can give. (3.) If this were understood of Sanctification, why are these words added, who walk not after the flesh, bue after the Spirit?

2. He said. By the Righteousness of the Law, which is here said to be fulfilled in beleevers, cannot be meant the Righteousness or active obedience of Christ imputed, because it must of necessity be such a Righteousness and such a fulfilling, as may be apprehended as a proper and sutable effect of Christ's condemning sin in the flesh, as the particle foreign declareth. But it is unpessible that the active obedience of Christ, or the imputation of it, should be any proper effect of condemning sin in the flesh, that is of the abolishing or taking away the guilt, or the accusing and condemning power of sin; for when the guilt of sin is purged away, there needeth no other Righteousness, nor Imputation of Righteousness for justification. Ans. (1.) Christ's obedience & Suffering need not be distinguished, both being done in His state of humiliation, and belonging-thereto, & both being necessary to answere the demand of the Law, which we did lye under: Christ performed both, to the end the whole foreign, or jus & right of the Law might be ful…illed in us, and for us, by this Surety. And before guilt be purged away, we must have both imputed to us; for justification by saith must not make the Law void, but rather establish it. (2.) Neither is this vers 4. to be looked on, as holding forth the end of that, which did immediatly preceed in the end of vers 3. or of Christ's condemning sin in the flesh; but rather as a further end of God's sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh; or as a comprehensive end of all that was mentioned before.

p. 783. He saith. That clause in them still notes either a subjective inhesion of some things in persons, or else some kind of Efficiency. But the Righteousness of Christ is Subjectively and inherently in Himself only; nor are we the workers of this righteousness. Ans. Though the Righteousness of Christ be subjected in Him only, & wrought by Him alone: yet the same being imputed unto Beleevers, the Righteousness of the Law may be said to be fulfilled in them because by faith they are in Christ, & Christ is in them: and in them, is as much, as for them, or upon them, or on their account (as this same person hereafter granteth, in a like case) & so it is accepted of God for all ends, as if it were performed by them; & so it is fulfilled in our nature, for for this end, He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

3. He saith. If by Righteousness of the Law we understand that entire obedience, which every beleever, according to the great variety of their several conditions, callings, & relations stand bound to performe, it cannot be said to be fulfilled in them, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness: for every beleever is bound to many moe particular acts, than can be found in all that golden Catalogue of works of Righteousness performed by Christ. Ans. If the works of Righteousness, performed by Christ, shall not be a compleat Righteousness, that can Satisfie the demandes of the Law, where shall beleevers get a compleet Righteousness? Shall their poor imperfect obedience, wherewith themselves are not satisfied, but complaine much of, and mourne for, be a more perfect & compleat fulfilling of the Righteousness of the Law, than was the perfect obedience of Christ, with which the Father was well pleased? Or shall the single & weak act of their Faith (as this Author saith) be a more entire fulfilling of the foreign of the Law, than the Catalogue of the works of Righteousness, performed by Christ? What probable ground is there for this imagination? (2.) Christ's obedience was perfect, & the Law-giver was satisfied there with, & accepted of it, in the behalfe of all the chosen ones, & all their defects & sinnes, in their various conditions, callings & Relations, were done away by the Satisfaction made by Christ: so that the foreign of the Law was perfectly fulfilled, in their behalf; & this being imputed unto them & received by faith, no more is requisite unto a stateing of them into a state of pardon & right to glory.

5. He saith. The word foreign signifieth not obedience to or conformity with the Law, but rather that justification, which was the end and intent of the Law, or rather that jus, or right, or Law (as it were) of the Law. Ans. But all this will not weaken our Argument: for that right, jus, or demand of the Law was, as to us now sinners, both Satisfaction for transgressions committed, and full and compleat obedience; & till both were done & performed, there could be no justification of sinners: and so this rather establisheth than hurteth the doctrine of Imputation, whatever he may imagine.

6. He saith By the word Law, cannot necessarily be understood the Moral Law for 1. The weakness of the Law extends also to the judicial and Ceremonial. 2. The jewes, to whom he specially addresseth himself, in all this disputati…n, built as p. 79much on the observation of the Ceremonial Law. 3. The Moral Law, though perfectly observed, could not have justified all men, at least, not the jewes, who were obliged to the observation of other Lawes. 4. The Imputation of the observation of the Moral Law would not have served for the justification of the jewes, who were under the transgression of, other Lawes. Ans. It wi… satisfie us, if by the Law here be understood, that universal Rule of Righteousness, which God prescribed unto men, & that certainely is the Moral Law, whereof, as to the jewes, the Ceremonial & judicial were a part, or were reduced unto: & particularly the Ceremonial Law, being God's instituted worship, they were obliged to observe it by vertue of the Second command. And thus both the Exception, & all the Reasons confirming it, evanish: for (1.) we take not the Law here so narrowly, as to exclude the other lawes, which God gave to the jewes, seing they are all reduced there unto, & comprehended thereunder. (2.) Paul is here mainly writting for Information of the Gentiles, the Church of Rome; & though there might be some jewes among them, & what he saith may be also for their use: yet this will not prove that by the Law, he understandeth any other, than that perfect rule of Righteousness, which God gave unto them, comprehending these other Lawes, as appendices thereof. (3.) The Moral Law, thus taken, if observed, could have justified even jewes, if we suppose they had not been born sinners. (4.) Christ having fulfilled all Righteousness, His Righteousness was an observation of this Universal Law: & therefore the Imputation thereof can serve for the justification both of jewes & Gentiles.

Lastly He saith. The clear meaning of the place seemeth to be this, That that justification, or way of making men Righteous, which the writings of Moses prophefied of long since, to wit, by faith in the Messiah, might be accomplished, made good, and fully manifested in us, or upon us, viz in our justification, who by an eminency of holiness in our lives, above the straine and pitch of men under the Law, give testimony unto the world, that the Messiah, the great justifier, is indeed come into the world, and having suffered for sin and overcome death, hath poured out the Spirit of Grace aboundantly upon those that beleeve. Ans. (1.) To take the Law here for the meer writtings of Moses, & then to Interpret the fulfilling thereof, as is here done, is to exclude the witnessing of the Prophets, which Paul expresly mentioneth Rom. 3: 21. (2.) What could this contribute to prove, that there was now no condemnation to such, as were in Christ Jesus, among the Gentiles? (3.) How can this be a proof of what was said vers 3. foregoing? (4.) How can this be the end of Christ's condemning sin in the flesh, as himself said it was, Except 2? (5.) He told us before, that foreign did properly Signifie jus, right, or Law of the Law, now I pray, what is this foreign, this jus, right, of Moses's writtings? And how is that foreign o… Righteousness fulfilled? (6.) What then can be meant by the weakness of Moses's writtings? or how could they be said to be weak through the flesh? (7.) And how could God be said, by this Interpretation, to send His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, because Moses's writtings were weak through the flesh? (8.) I see then, in us may import the same that upon us importeth, though it was excepted against formerly, p. 80as we heard (9.) It seemeth by this Interpretation, that there was no Eminency of holiness or walking after the Spirit, among those, who were under the Law; which is utterly false▪ (10.) Christ, by His coming, did not only fulfill Moses's writtings, but also all the predictions & prophecies, many of which are else where to be found, than in Moses's writtings. Yet to fortifie this Audacious & groundless Interpretation.

He tels us 1. That this Interpretation (as far at least, as …oncerneth the clause in question, that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us) is confirmed by the sweet proportion between, such a fulfilling &c. as the effect, & that sending of Christ &c. as the cause or meanes thereof. Ans. But before this proportion appear to be so sweet, it must be shown to us, what proportion there is hereby kept with the manifest scope of the Apostle, which is to cleare & explaine, how there is now no condemnation to them, which are in Christ Jesus, notwithstanding of the weakness of the Law, through the flesh. As also it must be shown to us, what interest these words, for what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, have, or can have, in this Interpretation: for a proportion, that suiteth not all the parts of the Text, is but a disproportion, being a plaine perversion of the true meaning of the words.

He tels us. 2. In this Interpretation the word foreign fulfilled hath its proper & genuine force, which is to signify the accomplishment, making good, or full manifestation of a thing, which before was only promised, or foretold. Ans. Not only the verb foreign & foreign is often taken in another sense than is here alleged, as we see Rom. 13: 8. Gal. 5: 14. but the very verb in the same Tense & Mood, that is here viz. foreign is used, to import some other thing, than a fulfilling of what was promised, as we see 2. Cor. 10: 6. when your obedience is fulfilled, that is, perfected, established & confirmed. So Ioh. 15: 11. & that your joy might be full, or fulfilled, that is, might be aboundant and full in all points, and upon all considerations. So Luk. 22: 16. untill it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of heaven, that is, perfected.

He tels us. 3. The Righteousness of the Law here must be the same with that mentioned. Rom. 3: 21, 31. Ans. The Righteousness of the Law here, is the Lawes foreign, jus, right & demand, which was Satisfied by what Christ, the Surety, did & Suffered. But that Righteousness, mentioned Rom. 3: 21. is the Righteousness of God, or of Christ, which he performed, to Satisfie the foreign or Righteousness of the Law; & so they are not the same formally, this being the obligation, & that the payment. It is true, the Law here & Rom. 3: 31. is the same; & that maketh for us, as appeareth by our foregoing Vindication of that place.

He tels us▪ 4. By this Interpretation, this passage is of perfect Sympathy with those Rom. 3: 21, 22, 25. Ans. This also will make for us, as appeareth by our foregoing Vindication, where this gloss was rejected: & I wonder, how he could imagine such a perfect agreement, seing there mention is made of the Prophets, as well as of the Law, giving countenance to Gospel Justification: but here by his Interpretation, only the Law of Moses is understood: where then will he make his harmony appear? And what would p. 81he hence inferre? 1. (saith he) That the righteousness of God, that is, the way that God holds for justification of men, stands in remission of sins Ans. Of this we have hithertill seen neither peer nor peep: pardon of sins hath no affinity with the foreign legis, the righteousness of the law. 2. Saith he That this righteousness or justification of his is witnessed, that is, asserted & vindicated by the law, that is, the writtings of Moses. Ans. Neither is Righteousness & justification one & the same thing, as we said above, nor are the writtings of Moses all the law & the prophets. Neither is witnessed by the law the same, with fulfilling of the law. 3. Saith he, That this way was not manifested, declared, or fulfilled, that is, fully revealed to the bottom & foundation of it, till the coming of Christ, & dying for sin. Ans. What ever truth be in this, there is no foundation for it here, but in his Imagination; as is manifest from what is said. And thus this place is vindicated.

Sixtly. He mentioneth next, that he may except against, Rom. 9: 31, 32. But why is not vers 30. mentioned? Is it because the matter is there too clearly hold forth? The Apostle doth there expresly say, That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, That is, did not pretend to justification by the…r own works; nor once think, by their own works to patch up a righteousness, wherein they might appeare before God, and be absolved) have attained to righteousness. even the righteousness which is of faith (that is, have a righteousness imputed to them, & they made possessours there of by faith, laying hold upon it) But Israel (as it followeth vers 31.) who followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness, (That is. Isra…l, who conceiting their own works, & crying them up, and seeking after Absolution, justification & life, by the law of righteousness, and their conformity thereunto, & that with all earnestness & eager persecution, have not attained to that, they were pursueing after) vers 32. Wherefore? because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law (that is, They would not submit to the Gospel-way of justification, through the righteousness of Christ, laid hold on by faith; but would still be essaying the way of works; though all they did, was rather a shadow of obedience, or of conformity to the law, than a true performance of what was commanded.) The Aethiopick Version, though a corrupt Translation, yet hinteth something of the true sen…e, saying, But Israel, following after their law, could not be justified because they did not performe compleatly the commands of the law. Wherefore? Because the law doth not justifie, but only is by faith, which perfecteth the accomplishment thereof. And we may further notice here, that what the Apostle, when speaking of the Jewes, calleth the law of righteousness, he called, while speaking of the Gentiles, simply Righteousness: and what he there called the righteousness of faith; he here, speaking of the jewes▪ calleth by faith, in opposition to the works of the law. What excepteth Mr. Goodwine?

He saith 1. That by the law of righteousness here cannot be meant the moral law, or any law: for God had prevented them with the gift of all these, so that they needed not have soughs after them. Ans. But Cal…in thinketh there is an Hypallage here, & the law of Righteousness is put for the Righteousness of the law. And if we take the law of Righteousness here for the law of that law (as he himself spoke p. 82above) that is that forme of righteousness and holiness, which the law called for, will not this satisfie? But the matter is plaine, Their fault was, that they sought after a righteousness, by their owne obedience to the law; & neglected that righteousness, which the Gentils attained by faith, viz. the Righteousness of Christ, at whom they stumbled, vers 32. 33. And the Righteousness of God, of which they were wholly ignorant, Rom. 10: 3. This was not a simple endeavour of keeping the law (as he hinteth in the following words, where he would preoccupy this objection; and then tell us, that this study could be no cause of their coming short of righteousness, as Christians are never further off from justification, by keeping the commands of God) but a proposeing of that designe of attaining a Righteousness by their own works, whereby alone they might be justified. And when Christians endeavour after holiness, but not from Gospel-principles, nor upon Gospel-grounds; but to the end they may attaine unto a Righteousness of their owne, by their works of obedience; they prejudge themselves of justification: for thus they do not lay hold on Christ, but reject Him, and stumble at that stumbling stone, that is at Christ, who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that beleeveth, Rom. 10: 4.

2. He faith, neither Calvine, nor any other restaine the law to the Moral law. Ans. Nor do we so restraine it to that law, strikly so taken; but comprehend thereby all that God prescribed for a righteousness; and this is the Moral law, in its full sense; the ceremonial & judicial being parts thereof & appendices thereto.

3. He saith, There is no reason to limite this to the Moral law only, for the jewes sought righteousness by the Ceremonial also. Ans. This is but the same with the former; and we have told him, that the Ceremonial law was then enjoined by the Moral law; & so the Moral law did comprehend it, so long as the Ceremonial law was unrepealed. And whatever law it was, their seeking of righteousness by it, and their refusing of Christ and his Righteousness went together; and they so pursued after it, that they sought Righteousness by their obedience to it; and did not seek by faith after Christs Righteousness, nor would they submit thereunto.

4. He saith, The righteousness of the Moral law alone, suppose they should have attained to it by beleeving, could have stood them in no stead, they being bound also to the observation of the Ceremonial law. Ans. This hath been answered before. Christ fulfilled all righteousness, and satisfied that law of righteousness, which was an Universal Rule of righteousness; & so comprehended the ceremonial lawes, so long as they were in force: so that if they had forsaken their own righteousness, and embraced by faith the righteousness of Christ, they had been certainely saved; & the Imputation of this Righteousness had made them up.

Lastly, he saith, The clear sense is, that the law of righteousness is justification it self, or righteousness simply and, indefinitely taken, which the jewes seeking to attaine to by the works of the law, that is, by themselves, & the merites of their own doings, and not by faith in Iesus Christs, lost Gods favour and perished in their sinnes. Ans. (1) That the jewes sought after justification by the merites of their own works, otherwise than merites are included in all works, p. 83is not manifest, in this place. (2) Otherwayes this may passe for part of the sense, for by faith he understands the act of faith it self, as our righteousness, & not the Righteousness of Christ, which faith laith hold on, or faith as laying hold on & receiving a Surety-righteousness, which is here imported, when the contrary is expressed of the jewes, & of them it is said, that they stumbled at that stumbling stone; & in the next chapter it is said, they would not submit themselves unto the righteousness of God. What he addeth, as a confirmation of this interpretation, is to no purpose, for he speaketh nothing to cleare the maine thing in doubt; but all is to prove, that by the law of righteousness, Righteousness is meaned; which is not denied: & withall he taketh for granted, what is not proved, & hath been denied, viz. That Righteousness and Justification are one & the same thing.

Seventhly, Rom. 10: 3, 4. A passage cleat & pregnant for our purpose, where the Apostle is but prosecuting the same purpose, as to the jewes, and shewing whence their disappointement & missing of that came, which they so earnestly endeavoured after, viz. A righteousnss by which they might be justified before God: for (saith the Apostle) they being ignorant of Gods Righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the Righteousness of God: for Christ is the end of the law for righteousnes to every one that beleeveth. There is a Righteousness here called Gods Righteousness, which is opposite to, & inconsistent with mens owne righteousness, that is, all that is done by them in conformity to the law of God, as a righteousness, whereupon to be justified: yea, so great is this opposition, that who ever laboures most to establish & set on foot his own Righteousness, or to seek after a Righteousness by his own performances, is furthest from the Righteousness of God, as being both ignorant thereof, and in pride refuising to submit thereunto. This Righteousness of God is explained vers 4. to be the end of the law, that is, the full righteousness, which the law, in its primitive institution, called for, & which is the accomplishment of the lawes designe, as proposed to be a Rule of Righteousness, and the condition of life promised, upon the performance thereof. And Christ is said to be this end of the law for righteousness. He, by yeelding perfect obedience, hath brought forth a righteousness, in which the law hath its End, And Christ is this, to every one that beleeveth, the righteousness being made over unto them, who beleeve, and by faith lay hold on him; which, because the Gentiles did, they therefore attained to this righteousness, Rom. 9: 30.

Mr. Goodwine, pag. 137. &c. excepteth several wayes, 1 There is (saith he) no coloure of Reason, that by the law here should be meaned precisely & determinatly the Moral law; because the jewes never dreamed of justification by this law only, but chiefly by the Ceremonial law. Besides, vers 5. he citeth that description, which Moses giveth of the righteousness of the law not out of any passage of the Moral law; but out of the heart, as is were of the ceremonial law, Lev. 18: 5. Ans. The first part of this Exception hath been often answered: we take not the Moral law so precisely & determinatly, as not to include, as parts or appendices, all other lawes given by God. And the last part of this Exception p. 84will say nothing, unless he think, this law is precisely & determinatly to be understood of the Ceremonial law, excluding all others, & especially the Moral law, taken as distinct from judicial and ceremonial. But why doth he say, that this description of the righteousness of the law is taken out of the heart of Ceremonials, seing in the place cited, both before and after the words, morals are mentioned? yea that whole Chapt. is taken up, in rehearsing morals.

Except 2. Neiter is it any wayes agreable to truth, that the Righteousness of Christ imputed to beleevers, should be called; the end of the moral Law, for no Law, considered simply as such, is any cause or meanes of justifing a person, than by the observation of it self; & consequently justification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of the moral Law: for nothing can properly be said to be the intent or end of a thing, but that which in likelyhood may be obtained by it. Now it is impossible that justification by Christ should be procured by the moral Law. It may be said, with a for more favourable aspect to truth, that Christ is the end of the Ceremonial Law; yet not simply considered, as a Law, but as comprehending in it such & such usages & rites typifying Christ. Ans. (1.) This whole Exception looketh with a very ill favoured aspect both to truth & modesty: For its scope & drift is not so much against the truth which we maintaine, as against the Apostle Paul himself, & against the language of the Spirit of Lord; for it faith this in effect; that either the Apostle spoke not truth, or spoke not good sense, when he said, that Christ was the end of the Law: for (to use Mr. Goodwin's reason) as nothing can be properly said to be the Intent or end of a thing but that which in likelihood may be obtained by it; so nothing can be said to be the Intent & end of a Law, but what in likelihood may be obtained by it: But how can any think, that Christ can be, in any likelihood obtained by the Law? (2.) But we say not, that justification by Christ is had by the moral Law: yet, why the righteousness of Christ, consisting in perfect obedience to the Law, & in full answering of the same, in all its demands, may not be called the end or fulfulling of the Law, I see not; especially seing the Apostle saith expresly, that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness. The question being moved about a Righteousness, required by the Law, & this not being to be found in Man's obedience, but in Christ's, who was the end of the Law for righteousness, the Law hath its full accomplissement in him also when He suffered, & satisfied the Sanction of the Law, the Law had satisfaction, or the Lawgiver rather, & the Law its end & accomplishement, Now this Righteousness of Christ being imputed to beleevers, they are thereupon justified, & the Law is satisfied. And though the Law because it was weak throuw the flesh, could not bring about this righteousness, & this end, in us; yet Christ having answered all the demands of the Law, & given full Satisfaction both in point of obedience, & in point of Suffering, the Law hath its full accomplishment in Him, & that End, which is here meaned (3) We do not say, that the Righteousness of Christ, imputed to beleeleevers, is, or is called, the end of the moral Law: but that Christ came, & was made under the Law, that He might answer all the demands p. 85thereof; & both satisfie for its violation, & yeeld perfect obedience unto its commands; & so fulfill it in all points: So that it had its end & accomplishment in & through Him, & what He did & suffered: & that He submitted Himself hereunto, that He might make up a righteousness, wherewith the Law should be satisfied, for the justification of Believers. (4.) Though the Moral Law, nor no Law, considered in it self, can be any cause or meanes of justifying a person, otherwise than by the observation of it self; & though justification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of moral Law: yet in Christ's obedience & Suffering, the Law may be said to have received its Accomplishment and Satisfaction; & thereby a compleat Righteousness may be said to be obtained for all Believers.

Except. 3. The Greek Expositors make Christ in this sense, to be called the end of the law for righteousness, because he performed, or exhibited unto them that, which the law propounded to it self, as its end, & would have performed, but could not, to wit, their justification. Ans. Seing the law ptopounded their justification, as its end, only by the perfect observation of it self, or by a full & perfect conformity unto it, Christ cannot be called the end or accomplishment of the law, unless He had performed all that, which the law required: nor could He be called the end of the law for righteousness, unless He had fully satisfied the law; and thereby made up a Righteousness, in the behalfe, & for the behove of Believers, to whom it being Imputed, they might be accepted, & justified upon the account thereof. And this righteousness, where with the law was satisfied, & wherin it had its full accomplishment, is, I grant, exhibited in the Gospel, to the end, that all, who would be justified, may lay hold on it, receive it, & rest upon it, as the only righteousness, in and through which they desire to be accepted, and to stand before God, the righteous judge.

Except. 4. Some conceive, that Christ is said to be the end of the law, &c. Because the law, by convinceing men of sin, and exacting of them a Righteousness, which it doth not enable them to performe; & againe by threatning & condemning them for the want of it, it doth as good as lead them by hand to Christ by whom they are freely justified. But neither doth this seem to be the meaning of the place. Ans. Seing he himself is not satisfied with this interpretation, he might have forborne to have added it. But as for the interpretation it self, I judge the thing said to be true, and that it hath a subordinat aspect unto what we have said; & holdeth forth part of the truth; though it be not a plaine and full exposition of the place: for there is mention made here of a Righteousness of God, which the jewes neither understood, not would submit unto: but in opposition to this they went about to establish their own righteousness, that is, to seek after a righteousness by their own works, or by their own obedience to the law; & therefore did misse their end: for this righteousness, which they were seeking after▪ & which they could not attaine unto, by all their own acts of obedience; that is, a righteousness, that was a perfect obedience & conformity to the law, & withall a Sufficient compensation & Satisfaction for the breaches of the law, already committed, was only to be p. 86found in Christ, who is the end of the law for righteousness, that is, made full Satisfaction for the breaches committed, and performed compleat and perfect obedience, which the law did principally require (what ever other accidental ends it might have had, or the law-giver in promulgating it, & accompanying it with other things, as to the Nation of the jewes) because for this end was the law, as a law, given by the law-giver, that Subjects might walk according to the same, and that they might become thereby righteous, and have a right to the reward promised, by fulfilling this condition of the Covenant. Now, when these ends (or this end, putting these together as one) were onelyonly attained by what Christ did and suffered, the jewes, who stumbled at this stumbling stone, & rejected this righteousness of God, could never be justified by all their own acts of obedience to the law, how zealously so ever they should have sougt after a rigteousness thereby.

Except. 6. (The 5. we passe, because he laith no weight on it him self) The plaine & direct meaning is, that the law, that is, the whole Mosaical dispensation was for that end given by God to the jewes, that whilst it did continue, it might instruct and teach them, concerning the Messiah, who was yet to come, and by his death to make atonement for their sinnes, that so they might beleeve in Him accordingly and be justified: and further that in time, that Nation might be trained up & prepared for the Messiah himself, and that Oeconomy & perfection of worship & service, which He should bring with him, & establish in the world at his coming. Ans. What was said to the two foregoing Exceptions, may serve for an answere to this: for what ever truth may be in this; yet it is no true sense & exposition of the place; because Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that beleeveth; & so to the Gentiles, as well as to the jewes; whereas this gloss limiteth & restricketh all to the jewes. (2) There is nothing here, keeping correspondence with what is said, vers 3. touching their going about to establish their own righteousness and refuising to submit unto the righteousness of God. 3. The righteousness of the law, described by Moses, & here cited vers 5. hath no interest in the Mosaical Oeconomy, as given for the mentioned end to the jewes. (4) If Christ made an atonement for sins, & was to be bele…ved in accordingly, by such as would be justified, then that atonement was to be made over unto them & reckoned upon their score, to the end they might be justified upon the account thereof. (5) The Text saith, that Christ was the end of the law for righteousness; & so was to bring in everlasting Righteousness, as well as to make atonement for sins, Dan. 9: 24. (6) The perfection of that service & worship, which Christ was to establish at His coming, was a clearer manifestation of the Gospel of the Grace of God, whereby the Righteousness of God, or the Surety-righteousness of Christ, was imputed unto Beleevers, & received by faith, in order to justification, as the whole Gospel declareth.

He laboureth to confirme this gloss with two reasons, 1. Because the jewes sought Righteousness & self justification, as well from the observation of the Ceremonial, as of the Moral law. 2. Because Christ is held forth; as the end of this dispensation, 2 Cor. 3: 13. Gal. 3: 24. Ans. As to the first of the reasons, we have often replied to it already. And the second will not prove, that there is p. 87no other interpretation of this passage, that can have place. And beside, That whole Oeconomy did pointe out and lead them to the Messiah, that in Him they might find that, which they were seeking after by their own works, & all in vaine; even the Righteousness of God, which will sufficiently cloth all beleevers, and both keep them from wrath due for sin, & give them a right to glory. So that even this sense, if rightly understood, doth rather strengthen than hurt imputed Righteousness.

Eightly. 1 Cor. 1: 30. Is excepted against by him pag. 162. &c. To which we may adde vers 29. & 31. Which will help to cleare the matter. That no flesh should glory in His presence: but of Him are ye in Christ Iesus, who of God is made unto us Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification & Redemption. That according at it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. All the work of God in and about His chosen ones, is so contrived, that no flesh should have ground to glory in the presence of God; but that he, who glorieth, should glory in the Lord: and therefore He hath made Christ to be all things to them, that they stand in need of, in order to their everlasting enjoyment of Himself; and particulary, Christ is said to be made of God to us (among other things, which our necessity calleth for) Righteousness, answering His Name the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, Ier. 23: 6. And a Righteousness he cannot be made unto us, any other way, than by clothing us (who are naked and have no righteousness of our own) with a Righteousness; that is, by Imputing to us His Righteousness, that we may thereby become Righteous, & be looked upon, as such, and so be accepted of God, & justified.

Except. 1. Christ is no other way said to be made righteousness, then He is said to be made Wisdom, &c. Therefore we may as well plead for the Imputation of His Wisdom, or His Sanctification: there is no more intimation made of the Imputation of the one then of the other. Ans. This is but the old exception of Socinus part. 4. de Servant, Cap. 5. And of Volkel. De vera Relig. Cap. 21. p. 566. And it standeth upon this onelyonly ground, That Christ is made all these particulars to us here mentioned, after one & the same manner: and what that manner is, should be declared: & of necessity it must be a very general one, otherwise it shall not agree to all these particulars. Therefore Socinus hath devised a very general manner of way, saying in the place cited: That all this signifieth nothing else, than that we have attained to that by Gods providence, through Christ, that we are become wise, holy & redeemed before Gods: & that therefore Christ is said to be righteousness to us, because through the providence of God by Christ, we have attained to be just before God. But this general way maketh us not one white wiser. Volkelius, in the place cited, giveth us no relief, but only tels us, That Christ is said to be made all these to us; because he was the cause of all these; & because God, by his meanes, made us wise & holy, & will at length redeem us. Bellarm. condescendeth to tell us, that He is said to be our Righ…eousness, because He is the efficient cause thereof. But how that is, he doth not explaine: But Bellarm. next answere is to some better purpose; Christ (saith he) is said to be our Righteousness because He satisfied the Father for us; and doth so give and communicat that Satisfaction to us, when he justifieth us, that it may be called p. 88our Satisfaction & Righteousness. (2) Such as oppose us here, do (& must necessarily so do) speak of this matter, as if Righteousness & Sanctification were one & the same thing; & so give us here a most needless Tautologie. And others, who will not yeeld to imputed Righteousness, & yet will grant a difference betwixt Righteousness & Sanctification, must tell us distinctly, how He is the one, & how He is the other, to His chosen ones. (3.) Wisdom & Sanctification are of a different Nature from Righteousness; for Righteousness cannot be here taken for Inherent Grace & Holiness; for then it should be the same with Sanctification, & so there must needs be here a Tautology; & withall no perfect enumeration of the several great things, we stand in need of, & Christ is made to be unto us of God: & seing they are different, there is ground to say, that He is not to us Righteousness, the same way that He is Sanctification; Sanctification is wrought in us by His Spirit; but so is not Righteousness; for if we had a Righteousnes wrought in us, we should be justified by vertue thereof, & upon the account thereof; & if we be justified by a Righteousness within us, we are justified by our own works, & by the law, contrary to all the Apostles disput, & contrary to what preceedeth & followeth the words under consideration; for then he who glorieth might glory in himself, & not in the Lord alone. 4. Al these particulars here mentioned, we must have or finde in Christ, as the Ae…opik version hath it, & each, according to its Nature. And withall we must be made partakers & pos…essors of them all, according as the Nature of the benefite will admit: & therefore, as Christ is forthcoming to His chosen ones, for Wisdom, so as they may really become wise; for Sanctification, that they may become holy; & for Redemption, that they may be redeemed: so is He forthcoming to His own for Righteousness, that they may be justified; for though Righteousness & justified be not one & the same, as our Excepter often alleigeth; yet they have constant respect to other, and are inseparable, in our case. If then we finde a Righteousness in Christ, for justification, that Righteousness must be made ours, & this being a Righteousness, that is not our own, before it be made our own, it must be imputed to us, that we may be there by justified.

He addeth, Suppose, Christ were made Righteousness unto us by Imputation: yet this special manner of his being righteousness to us, must be made out by other Scriptures, than this: as because a rich man hath silver & gold & jewels in possession, it will not follow, that he hath silver in one chest, and gold in another, jewels in a third. Ans. Christs being made Righteousness to us, who have no Righteousness of our own, in order to our justification, saith, that the Righteousness, we have from Him, can be no otherwayes ours than by Imputation, for it cannot be wrought in us, else it should be the same with Holiness & Sanctification. And therefore the similitude of gold, silver & jewels is not worth a straw, in this case; because the dissimilitude is obvious.

Except. 2. The meaning only is this, That Christ is made, ordained of God, to be the author, or sole meanes, by way of merite of our justification. Ans. (1) According to his former exception, it will follow hence, that He worketh p. 89not Holiness & Wisdom in us, by His Word and Spirit; but only is the meanes thereof, by way of merite: for he will have Christ to be all these particulars to us, one & the same way. (2) This differeth little from the answere of Schlightingius cont. Meisnerum, p. 250. who saith, It is enough that Christs righteousness be the cause of our justification: & Christ may be said to be made righteousness to us, because his righteousness redoundeth to our good and justification. (3) It is not said, that Christ is made justification to us; but it is said, He is made Righteousness to us, & though it is true, that He hath merited our justification; yet when He is said to be made of God Righteousness to us, it is apparent, that He bestoweth a Righteousness upon us, in order to justification, or He must be Righteousness to us, ere we be justified: & how shall we partake of His Righteousness, if not by Imputation? (4) Christ can not be the Author, or sole meanes, by way of merite, of our justification, till we have a Righteousness; that is, He must be the sole Author & Meanes of a Righteousness; for we must not say, That He hath merited, that we shall be justified without a Righteousness, it being an abomination to the Lord, that even a terrene judge should justifie one, that hath no Righteousness. If then He hath merited, that we shall be justified by having a Righteousness, that Righteousness must be within us, or without us: if within us, then He hath merited, that we shall be justified by the works of righteousness, which we do, & by the law, & by the works of the law, contrary to the whole Gospel: If without us, then it must either be Christs own Righteousness, or the Righteousness of some other. It cannot be the Righteousness of any other, as will easily be granted: and if it be Christs Righteousness, it must be imputed to us, to the end it may be ours, and we justified thereby: and this is the thing we press.

He addeth, to confirme this sense, That Righteousness is very frequently used for justification. Ans. Thus he gaineth nothing: for. (1) That will not prove, that it is so used here. (2) And though it did Import justification here; yet seing there is no justification before God, without a Righteousness, it would say, That Christ were our Righteousness too, or that He merited a Righteousness for us: and what is that Righteousness, that He hath procured, that we shall have, in order to our justification? Is it the Righteousness of our own works? Then He hath merited, that our works shall merite justification; & why not also glorification? Is not this to overturne th… … Gospel▪

He addeth. 2. Righteousness or justification, which Beleevers have in or by Christ, is still attributed unto His death & Sufferings, & never to His active obedience. Ans. But he hath forgetten what is said, Rom. 4: 25. Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised againe for our justification. Sure, His Resurrection was neither His death, nor His Sufferings. He hath forgotten also what is said, Rom. 5: 19. So by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. And to be Righteous, and to be justified, is all one with him, as we have oft-times heard.

Except. 3. This will not say, That Christs active obedience only is imputed; or that he only, by his active obedience, is made righteousness to us. Ans. I plead p. 90not for the sole Imputation of Christs active obedience, but for the Imputation of Christs whole Surety Righteousness, that is, His compleet obedience & Suffering, or of what He did & suffered in answering all the demands of the law, which we were lying under.

Except. 4. Many sound & able expositors are for this sense; understanding nothing by this, but our justification, or righteous making by Him; some placeing this justification in Remission of sins; some ascribing it to the Sufferings of Christ. Ans. We …ould also cite sound & able expositors for our sense, & bring-in beside the general Verdict of such, as write against Socinians, & Papists, & others also: but this is not our present work. (2.) Justification & Righteous-making are not one & the same. If we be made righteous by Him, it must be by His Righteousness: an… if we made righteous by His Righteousness, it must be imputed to us. (3) That justifi…ation is nothing but Remission of sins, is not yet proved. (4.) We have hea…d Paul say, That by the obedience of one (i e: Christ) (in opposition to the disobedience of Adam, whereby all his posterity were made sinners) many are made righteous, Rom. 5: 19.

Ninthly, 2 Cor. 5: 21. For he hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. This is added, as a confirmation and further explication of what was said, vers 18, 19. Concerning the reconciliation of a sin…ul world unto God, in & through Christ, and of Gods imputing their Trespasses unto them. As if he had said, all our Salvation, & all the way how it is brought about, is of God, who, in and through Christ, reconcileth the sinfull world of His own chosen ones to Himself, and Pardoneth their sinnes, by laying them all on Christ, & making Him bear the guilt and punishment of all; that the chosen ones might be made partakers of that Righteousness, and have it imputed unto them, as their sinnes were imputed unto Christ; and so become the Righteousness of God in Him, or by being in Him, and united to Him. This place is pregnant and full of proof: so that the whole matter cannot be more clearly & emphatically expressed, than it is here hold forth. Yet Mr. Goodwine laboureth to darken it with his Exceptions, pag. 164. &c. let us hear him.

Except. 1. Here is nothing said, touching any Imputation of our sins to Christ: & consequently here can be nothing to build a reciprocal Imputation of His righteousness unto us upon. Ans. If that Expression of Gods making Christ to be sin who knew no sin, & that for us, will not enforce an imputation of our sinnes to Christ, it must be so only with such, as will hold fast their opinion, let Scripture speak what it will to the contrary: for when it is said, that Christ, who knew no sin, i. e. was guilty of no sin, by committing of it, in thought, word or deed; was yet made sin by God, & that for us, what words can be imagined, that shall more emphatically express this Imputation? And the Greek commentators (whom our adversary doth oft cite, when he findeth it any thing to his advantage) give the meaning to be, That he was made a great sinner, & was handled, as if he had been the worst of sinners, even very wickedness it self. And Esaias tels us, Chap. 53: 6. That the Lord laid all our iniquities on Him, or caused them to meet in one upon Him. And nothing p. 91can be alleiged against this, except it be said, the meaning is, He was made an offering or Sacrifice for sin. But this is so far from weakening the truth, concerning the Imputation of our sinnes to Christ, that it aboundantly confirmeth it: for there was a real imputation of the guilt of the sinner upon the Sacrifie, as is expresly said, Lev. 16: 21, 22. And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all this iniquities of the Children of Israel, & all their trespasses in all their sinnes, putting them upon the head of goat, and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited. And the people were to lay their hands on the head of the Sacrifice, to signifie their rolling of their guilt over upon the expiatory Sacrifie, Levit. 1: 4. & 3: 2, 8, 13. & 4: 4, 15, 24, 29, 33. So that if Christ was made sin, that is, a Sacrifice for sin (though the word foreign is no where in the New Test. so taken) it must needs be granted, that guilt was transferred upon Him, in order to His becoming a Sacrifice for sin: justice could not exact upon Him, if it had not been so, He having been free of all sin and guilt, in His own person.

Except. 2. Some of the most judicious & learned assistants of the way of this Imputation, absolutely reject this equality or reciprocation of Imputation between the sinnes of beleevers unto Christ, and the Righteousness of Christ unto them. There is not the same force and power of our unrighteousness to make Christ unrighteous; which is of His Righteousness to make beleevers righteous. Therefore we are not made formally righteous by such an Imputation. Ans. We willingly grant several differences, beside what is mentioned: yet this agreement & correspondency (which is all we seek) is manifest, That, as Christ, who knew no sin, as to Himself, was made sin, or had the guilt of sin laid upon Him, and was handled by justice as a sinner legally; so we, who have no righteousness of our owne, have Christs Righteousness imputed to us, and bestowed upon us; and upon the account thereof are dealt with as legally righteous. We do not speak of Christs obedience only; but assert the Imputation of His Sufferings too. Nor do we say, that we are hereby made formally Righteous, if the terme formally import inherently; but that by the Imputation thereof to us, we are accounted & looked upon by God as Righteous formally in a legal sense; and as such are accepted of God & justified.

Except. 3. There is not so much, as the face or appearance, in this place of any comparison between Christs being made sin for us, & our being made the Righteousness of God, in Him; but only the latter is affirmed, as the end, consequent, or effect of the former. Ans. Though the latter be a consequent of the former; yet every word holdeth forth a comparison, or correspondence; Christ made sin, & we become Righteous: Christ made sin, or a sinner for us, and we made Righteousness, or Righteous in Him: Christ knew no sin, and yet was made sin; & we, who were sinners land rebels, standing in need of reconciliation (as the preceeding words evidence, & as is undeniable) are made Righteous.

Except. 4. That the weight of that particle, in Him, should be by the Imputation of His active obedience unto us, hath neither Instance or parellel expression p. 92in Scripture, nor rule in Grammar, nor figure in Rhetorick, to make probable in the lowest or lightest degree. Ans. We plead not solely for the Imputation of Christs active obedience, as is said; but for the Imputation of His whole Surety-righteousness. And though these words in Him, that denote Beleevers Union with Him, as the ground of their Interest in His Righteousness, should not be asserted, to Import this Imputation: yet this words, that we might be made the Righteousness of God, will be a rock, whereupon Imputation may stand: for they hold this forth unto us, That as God made Christ sin by Imputation; so He maketh us righteous, yea the Righteousness of God, by Imputation.

Except. 5. The clear meaning is this, that God for that end made Christ sin, that is, an offering or Sacrifice for sin, for us, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in Him, that is, that we might be justified, or made a Society or Remnant of Righteous ones, after that peculiar manner of justification, which God hath established, through that Sacrifice of His Son. Ans. When Christ was made an offering for sin, the guilt of sin was laid upon Him, even the guilt of our sin. And if we be justified, or made a Society of justified ones, we must be made a Society of righteous ones: and if we be made a Society of Righteous ones, we must first have a Righteousness; seing we have not a Righteousness of our own, we must have a Righteousness made over to us: and seing we have this Righteousness made over to us, as being in Christ, it must be the Righteousness of God. So that though this Interpretation be very far fetched, and hath no countenance from the words, and destroyeth the cohesion of these words with the former, as also the reason, that is contained in them, adduced for confirmation of what was said, vers 19. yet it cannot destroy the doctrine of Imputation; but must contribute to its support, though a little more remotely.

He laboureth to give strength to this his Interpretation by alleiging. 1. That it is a frequent Scripture expression, to call the sin-offering, or the Sacrifice for sin, by the name of sin simply,as Exod. 29: 14. and 30: 10. Levit. 5: 6, 16, 18, 19, & 7: 1, 2, 7 & 9: 7. Ezek. 44: 27. & 45: 19. 23. Hos. 4: 8. Ans. Though it be true, that the Hebrew words foreign & foreign do sometimes signify sin, & sometimes, an offering for sin: yet the Greek word foreign doth alwayes signify sin in the New Test. and the 70 do not use this Greek word in the places cited, except Exod. 29: 14. & there, in the version that is in the Biblia Polyglot, Lond. It is in the Genitive case foreign of sin: & the chald-paraph calleth it an Expiation Targ. Ionath. & Hierof. say, it is a sin, & so doth the persik version: & the Samaritan Version turneth it, that is for sin; & the Arabik, an Expiation. But further, though it were granted to be so taken here; yet our cause would hereby suffer no prejudice; but be rather confirmed, as was lately shown. And when the same word used to express a Sacrifice for sin, which signifieth sin it self, we may hence be confirmed in this, that that Sacrifice for sin hath guilt laid upon it, before it can be Sacrifice for sin; & it must be sin, in respect of this, before it be a due Sacrifice, or oblation for sin. And therefore Christ must have been sin, p. 93in law, by Imputation, or have the guilt of sin laid upon Him, before He could be a fit Sacrifice for sin.

He alleigeth. 2. To express a Number of justified or righteous persons by the abstract terme of Righteousness, is very agreable to the Scripture dialect, in other places, as poverty for poor, captivity for captives. Ans. (1) Yet no one instance can be given, where the word Righteousness hath this Import. (2) But how ever, as was said, these justified, or righteous persons, must be righteous, else they cannot make up such a company; as captivity can never signify a company of men, that are not captives; nor poverty a company of persons, that are not poor. So that this company of righteous ones must needs be righteous, and that in order to justification: & seing they have no Righteousness of their own, for in themselves they are ungodly, they must have a Righteousness by Imputation. (3) Why should they be called the Righteousness of God, according to this Interpretation? And how is the opposition here observed, betwixt Christs being made sin, & their being made the Righteousness of God in Him? But this man, by this Interpretation, transgresseth all lines of Correspondence.

He alleigeth 3. That addition of God imports, that that righteousness or justification, which beleevers obtaine by the Sacrifice of Christ, is not only Righteousness of Gods free donation, but of His special procurement and contrivement for them. Ans. (1) Righteousness and justification are not one & the same, how oft so ever he name them as Synonymous. (2) We grant, that the Righteousness & the Iustification, which Beleevers obtaine, are both Gods free gift & His contrivement: But notwithstanding hereof, yea so much the rather, is there a Righteousness imputed to them, & the Righteousness of Christ, who is God, and a Righteousness, which will be accepted of God, whose judgment is according to truth, as a sufficient ground, whereupon to pronounce such, as in themselves are ungodly, to be Righteous, & so to justifie them.

He alleigeth 4. That by the grammatical construction & dependance of the latter clause, our being made the Righteousness of God in Christ, upon the former, it is evident, that in the latter such an Effect must of necessity be signified, which may answere that cause, to wit, the death of Christ for us; & this is deliverance from the guilt & punishment of sin, not the Imputation of His active obedience. Ans. As Christs death could not be separated from His Obedience, which is thereby presupposed. His death being the Sacrifice of one, who is made under the law, and was obedient thereunto unto death, & that in the room & stead of His own; So the Imputation of Righteousness to us should not be separated from the Imputation of His Sufferings, both being necessarily required unto sinners, who had sinned, & yet remained under the obligation of the law, in order to their acceptance with God, and Justification.

He alleigeth 5. The Scriptures, when they speak of the Sufferings of Christ, as a cause, inrespect of justification, never ascribe any other effect unto them, but only, either the Remission of sins, deliverance from wrath, Redemption, or the like. Ans. As the Scriptures making so frequent mention of the Sufferings p. 94of Christ, do not exclude His Obedience; so neither do they exclude the Imputation of His Obedience, in order to our justification, and receiving a Right to glory: yea they make our being constitute Righteous, an Effect of His Obedience; & Righteousness or Righteous-making is accompanied with Justification. So that though the Scriptures speak sometimes more expresly of the Sufferings, & sometimes more expresly of the obedience of Christ, according to the exigence of the cause handled; yet both are inseparable, as a cause; & so is our Righteousness & Justification inseparable, as the full Effect.