The Doctrine of Justification Cleared, Treatise · Examination 1 – Examination 2

The Doctrine of Justification Cleared · Treatise · Examination 1 – Examination 2

p. 1An Examination of all the remaining parts of Maſter John Goodwins Treatiſe of Juſtification.

CHAP. III. Containing other proofes from Scripture.

ROM ſuch paſſages of Scripture where the workes of the Law are abſolutely excluded from Juſtification, Rom. 3. 28. &c. Gal. 2. 16. and Rom. 3. 20. &c. If man be juſtified by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed, he ſhall be juſtified by the workes of the Law.

Anſw. 1. When as we hold Chriſts Righteouſneſſe imputed, its not of the active obedience alone (which is pretended) but paſſive alſo; both; by both theſe imputed, we are made juſt before God, juſtified. Let notice be taken of this once for all.

2. Workes of the Law cannot be abſolutely excluded. When as there is an abſolute neceſſity of their concurrence and influence contributing to the ſacrifice of Chriſt and his Prieſtboo…, raiſing them both to that heighth of acceptation for others: excluding p. 2thoſe workes. You exclude the paſſive obedience alſo, which is not (without the other) ſufficient, ex conceſſis, which it ſeemeth you intend not in objecting onelyonly againſt that which is active.

3. If workes of the Law be abſolutely neceſſary (as is granted) to the ſacrifice and Prieſthood, whither thoſe, namely the perfect integrity and purity of his nature and obedience, confeſſedly concurring and inflowing to Juſtification, are not ſo to him as Mediator?

4. The acts of Chriſts humiliation, all of thoſe ſervileObedientiae meritum hoc reſpectu conſideratae nobis imputarilibens conceſſerim, ut quae Juſtificationis rationem ex parte conſtituit. Haec autem omnia quarenus humiliationis rationem obtinent, eatenus et ſatisfactionis naturam induunt, atque ea ratione nobis ad juſtificationem imputantur. M. Gat. adver. par. 1. p. 1. n. I, 2. Satisfactio autem Chriſti actibus perpeſſionibuſ que illis comprehenſa, eſt juſtitiae, propter quam nos juſtificamur, materia. ad Gom. p. 5. acts performed by him are confeſſedly concurring to Juſtification; mediatory. I ſhall willingly grant the merit of obedience in this reſpect conſidered, to be imputed to us as that which in part doth conſtitute the nature of Juſtification; all theſe inſomuch as they are humiliation, ſo farre they alſo put on the nature of ſatisfaction, and in that conſideration are imputed unto us. And elſewhere, The ſatisfaction of Chriſt comprehended in thoſe acts and ſufferings is the matter of the righteouſneſſe, for which we are juſtified.

Theſe (it is true) are diſtinguiſhed from thoſe acts conformed to the Law, flowing from internall holineſſe: by that reverend Authour. If truly, then thoſe acts of humiliation did not flow from internall holines, &c. they did not proceed from Chriſts love to God and man, from humility, from righteouſnes and piety in his ſoule. And if they did, the whole was performed to the mediatory Law▪ and for us, not himſelfe, that he ſhould live who was comprehenſor from the firſt moment, lived certainely.

Maſter Bradſhaw, though hee acknowledge Chriſt bound as man to the Law (notwithſtanding perſonall union) yet hee maketh it a part of Chriſts humiliation, p. 62. And ſome part, a part of his mediation, ibid. (truely what was a part of his humiliation, was a part of his Mediation) Every part thereof being of that nature that without the ſame no other ſatisfaction could have beene availeable or effectuall, and all proceeding from ſuch an eſtate and condition, as he needed not to have undergone, nor bad not if p. 3he had not taken upon him to ſatisfy for ſinners. Some part of the ſatisfaction which be made, muſt needes conſiſt therein, and therefore it must in ſome degree or other be imputed unto them, to their juſtification, id. p. 63. It muſt needes be alſo in ſome meaſure or other a part of the righteouſneſſe in and by the imputation whereof a ſinner is juſtified, p. 64. Therefore the very aſſuming of our nature, and all the obedience he yeelded thereupon, and by reaſon thereof, &c. ſeeme to be ſome part of the actuall execution of his Prieſtly Office, by meanes whereof, in part he pacified God, and conſequently in part ſatisfied for ſin, p. 65.

He was borne of a woman, not for his owne ſake but for others, whoſe Saviour and Redeemer he is, ſo being borne he was made under the Law alſo, not for his owne cauſe, but for ours. Yea therefore he was borne of a woman, that for our ſakes he might be under the Law. Alſo as be became a ſervant for our ſake; ſo in that very regard he became under the Law of a ſervant, p. 66.

So much of his conformity to the Law, as concerneth his humiliation, must either be unneceſſary, or part of his Satisfaction, ib. p. 66. &c.

By all which it is apparent that workes of the Law are not abſolutely excluded from Juſtification.

5. The very paſſive obedience of Chriſt, will not abſolutely exclude the Law from Juſtification. ccChriſtus in vita paſſivam habuit actionem, in morte paſſionē activam, dum ſalutem operatetur in medio terrae Bern. Serm. 4. hebd. panoſae, Col I 24. In paſſione ſummus amor Dei & ardentiſſima erga genus humanum dilectio, patientia. obedientia, humilitas, fiducia, invocatio, ſpes. Et damnati patiendo ſatisfaciunt legi, ſi Chriſtus patiendo, Gerrard de Iuſtif. ſect. 6.Col 1:24Chriſt in his life had a paſſive action, in his death an active paſſion, whileſt be wrought ſalvation in the middeſt of the earth. In his paſſion there was the higheſt love of God, and moſt ardent to mankind, patience, obedience, humility, truſt, invocation, hope. And the damned by ſuffering ſatisfie the Law, if Chriſt did ſo by ſuffering.

ddChriſtus ca pro nobis praeſtitit quibus legi illi pro culpis a nobis admiſſis ſatisfactum eſt Imo operum etiam legem in Juſtificatione peccatoris interveniente ſatisfactione, ſtabiſiti, ceriſſimum eſt.The Law was ſatisfyed by the ſufferings of Chriſt. Chriſt performed thoſe things for us, by which ſatisfaction is made to the Law for our ſinnes. And 'tis moſt certaine that the Law of workes is eſtabliſhed in juſtification by ſatisfaction intervening.

p. 4If there be an equivalent price of obedience and righteouſneſſe Si obedien…iae ſive juſtitiae illi quam nos legi, vel Deo potius vilegis debebamus, quod aequipolleat, pretium aliquod ſit a Chriſto pro nobis depenſum, & a Deo ipſ…o eo nomine acceptum, legi certe divinae nihil quicquam derogatur▪ S…abilitur dum impletur in Gat adverſ. par. 1. Sect. 10. n. 8, 9. p. 42. Etiam paena eſt impletio legis, Pareus de act. & paſſ p. 83. Obligamur ad paenam velad obedientiam, ib.paid by Chriſt, and accepted in that name by God, which we did owe to that Law, or rather to God by reaſon of that Law, then nothing certainely is derogated from the Divine Law.—It is eſtabliſhed whilſt it is fulfilled.

Puniſhment is the fulfilling of the Law. We are bound either to puniſhment or obedience: There is juſtice and righteouſneſſe in repairing injuries and wrongs. Thus much will ariſe from paſſages in your 1 Concl. tr. 2. p. 3. ſo that there is not an abſolute excluſion of the Law when as ſufferings are aſſerted.

6. Againe, It ſeemeth much to me that you ſhould hold an abſolute excluſion of the works of the Law when as you eſtabliſh Faith in a proper ſenſe, and as a worke of obedience, as righteouſneſſe, if it be required in the Law (which conſidered againſt your deniall, the learned hold) the Law is not to be abſolutely excluded. And though it be not in the Law originally; yet you know, It may be ſuperadded, and in the Law as now it ſtandes with additions and improvements: Which is your owne diſtinction, Treat. 2. p. 47. and 48. I may apply it to my purpoſe.

7. Once more, if there be no medium betweene a perfect freedome from ſin, and perfect and compleat righteouſneſſe. And that in freedome from ſin, the man is ipſo facto made perfectly righteous, Righteouſneſſe being perfect conformity to Gods Law. Suppoſing that freedome to appertaine to Juſtification, to be the forme thereof as you. I wonder how this conformity to the Law can be abſolutely excluded from Juſtification. If there be a truth in your 2. Concluſion, your abſolute excluſion will not ſtand.

8. Then if Remiſſion of ſin (the forme of Juſtification as you) includes the imputation or acknowledgement of the obſervation of the whole Law, as the imputation of the Law fulfilled includes not imputation of ſin, that ſuch an one is looked upon is one that hath fullfilled the Law. If in the act of remiſſion of ſins, there be included the imputation of a perfect righteouſneſſe, which is all one with a perfect fulfilling of the p. 5Law, as you Concluſ. 4. p. 5. 2 Treat. Whether this abſolute excluſion of the workes of the Law from juſtification be conſiſtent with it, both true?

9. I will but name it. Others (you know) are againſt you and teach a neceſſity of obedience to the Law to juſtification, as our debt, and that eternall way of God to live.

And that theſe places intend not obedience to the Law ſimply, but performed by our owne perſons, though this is not perſonall performance, and that ſuch obedience is impoſſible, it followeth not of the Law, performed for us by our Mediator. So our Church, &c. See before, and ſome of the reaſons now named are confeſſedly, inforce; as, where the death of Chriſt, is ſatisfaction to the Law.

But you cannot indure this anſwer; and therefore againſt it, ſay, 1. Not to be juſtified by the workes of the Law, is as much as not to be juſtified by any workes of the Law whatſoever.

I anſwer, True, performed by a mans ſelfe, not by another, and whether what hath beene premiſed, be not ſufficient againſt an abſolute excluſion of the Law, which is in your argument, and that ex conceſſis, I leave to your ſecond thoughts.

2. Neither is there blame in the Apoſtle, or unfaithfullneſſe: Seeing, where he layeth downe that we are made righteous by the obedience of Chriſt, he layeth downe the workes of obedience of Chriſt to the Law. Not to uſe repetitions elſe premiſed, that neceſſary influence and concurrence of it with the paſſive obedience.

3. Neither is it therefore a ſnare upon men, ſeeing there is intimation ſufficient, and incluſion of his obedience to the Law, ſo manifeſt as hath beene ſhewed.

4. Neither had Saint Paul need your teaching him to preach, he Preached Chriſt our Mediatour and Surety, humbled to death for us, Obedient to death for us. And juſtification by Faith in him. All which notwithſtanding, they were ignorant of that which is called Gods righteouſneſſe, and hence they eſtabliſhed their owne Righteouſneſſe, p. 6and ſubmitted not themſelves to the righteouſneſſe of God, which is Chriſt, the end of the Law for righteouſneſſe to beleevers. When as there is ſuch an evident, abſolute, neceſſary concurrence and incluſions and interpretations as have beene ſpoken of, you may ſee the vanity of this illuſion.

Here you urge objected againſt your ſelfe, that Paul gave ſufficient intimation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, when as he firſt excludeth what is done by our ſelves, and mentioneth Chriſts doing the workes of the Law. The firſt from Tit. 3. 5. and the ſecond from Gal. 4. 4.

To which you anſwer, and firſt to that of Titus.1

That the active obedience of Chriſt ſhould be wholly excluded, G. P. 62.and be made a ſtand-by, ſo as to have nothing at all to doe in the great buſineſſe of Juſtification, this diſcourſe no way affirmeth. It hath beene expreſſely acknowledged from the beginning to have a gracious and bleſſed influence thereinto, as it iſſueth and falleth into his paſſive obedience. Which together may be called a Righteouſneſſe for which, but at no hand a Righteouſneſſe with which we are juſtifyed, &c.

Very well, this is what I obſerve, the deſtruction ofAnſwer. your argument from an abſolute excluſion (this to be the matter of forme, is not an abſolute excluſion, which yet is your concluſion in this argument where you call it an eſſentiall requiſite.) In the meane while, You know there are many, all that I know, there are many, all that I know, but two or three of you, that make it the matter of our Juſtification, and forme alſo as it's applyed, and eſtabliſh the merit, what ever you ſay, and but ſay, to the contrary.

Therefore ex conceſſis the rejection (in thoſe words)2 of workes which we have done;

Firſt, may ſuppoſe, the workes of righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, as part of the ſatisfaction neceſſarily inflowing: which is anſwer to what you ſay.

Secondly, This muſt be ſuppoſed and eſtabliſhed, as you, p. 16. in this buſineſſe though not named.

When as it is ſaid not by works of Righteouſnes which we have done, it's all-one as to ſay our owne ſelves have p. 7done, for we and our ſelves are all one.

May? nay muſt, ſeeing they are a cauſe and abſolutely neceſſary, as your ſelfe teach. As Chriſts death is ſuppoſed, ſo this inflowing neceſſarily, being an eſſentiall requiſite.

Neither will it be put out of queſtion, becauſe the Apoſtie nameth 3Gods mercy. For as Gods mercy and Chriſts death ſtand together and have place in Juſtification, ſo Chriſts workes concurring with Chriſts death, the mercy of God and Chriſts merits agree ſweetly.

Neither by that that mercy is explained in the new birth, 4and waſhing with the Holy Ghoſt. For mercy in the effect regeneration will conſiſt alſo with Juſtification: waſhing is a generall Juſtification and ſanctification ſpecies or particulars thereof, at the ſame time performed by the ſame Spirit, as 1 Cor. 6. 11. they are inſeparable.

Yea ſaving implyeth as freedome from guilt and puniſhment, ſo righteouſneſſe by which, though it be not here expreſſed. Finally, paſſing that non-ſenſe, given as a reaſon, why this place is impertinent, in theſe words: Becauſe it is evident that the Apoſtle here rejects the workes of Righteouſneſſe, which he names from being any cauſes antecedamouſly moving God to ſave us, and not from being the forme of Juſtification. For it maketh the Apoſtle not to exclude workes of Righteouſneſſe from being the forme of Juſtification, and ſo to be a Patron of Popery, whoſe tenet that is. To what followeth.

That, If it be granted the workes of Chriſt muſt of neceſſity G.be here implyed: All that will follow is, that not our works but Chriſts moved God to ſave us, by the waſhing of the new birth.

To which I anſwer, not Chriſts workes, but Gods mercy in Chriſt, and by his active and paſſive obedience. Mercy moved God to chuſe us in Chriſt, to appoint us to ſalvation by the meanes of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and accordingly to execute the ſame in whole ſalvation, in Juſtification; though it moveth as being the meritorious cauſe, it is alſo the matter, as after, and forme as applyed in waſhing us by the Holy Ghoſt, the Spirit applying or ſprinkling p. 8us with the blood of that holy Lambe, waſheth, ſanctifieth, and juſtifieth.

The ſame blood of that holy Lambe, or active and paſſive obedience of Chriſt that juſtifieth, is not onelyonly a meritorious cauſe, and ſo ſit matter (which could not be, if it had not worth) but alſo that which applyed ſupplyeth the place of a forme juſtifying, which were it never ſo worthy, without application it could never doe. When you lay downe Reaſons you ſhall heare more.

To that place, Gal. 4. 4. that you may illude it, you ſay,P. 66. Firſt, Chriſts being made under the Law, doth not ſignifie Chriſts ſubjection to the Morall Law, but rather the Ceremoniall Law; that was it we were under, from that he redeemed us, and it is not reaſonable he made under any other Law.

I anſwer, We were under the Morall Law, its curſe and condemnation, under its ſtrict and perſonall performance, as well as it, conſidered as a rule of life. And though it continueth as a rule of life, we are by Chriſt redeemed from the curſe and condemnation thereof, and ſtrict perſonall performance of it. And this was the effect and end of Chriſts making under the Law. And there is more reaſon that this ſhould be infolded, for as much as this was the greateſt bondage of the twaine.

Secondly, Youſay, Taking it for the Morall Law, it was G.not to the preceptive part, but the curſe. Which ſtanding, the caſe is plaine, here is no place for the workes of Chriſt. No Authour, affirming either the death of Chriſt, or the imputation of his death, ſhould be the formall or materiall cauſe of Juſtification.

1. It was to the preceptive part as well as the curſe. Both are our debt, our Surety was accurſed for us, and fullfilled all Righteouſneſſe for us; paid our whole debt.

2. When as you ſay his death was the price, by which he deſerved our Juſtification. You will have us, and wee you, to remember, It was not ſo without influence of the active obedience of Chriſt. You will not have the active obedience p. 9ſeparated from the paſſive, nor againe the paſſive from the active, in reſpect of this common and joynt effect of forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, or juſtification ariſing from a concurrence of them both, P. 132. &c.

And Sir, it is the common tenet of Proteſtants, that the obedience of Chriſt is the matter of juſtification, and imputation, the forme, that is ſuch by analogy, and inſtead thereof. And Saint Paul ſaith, that By the obedience of one, many ſhall be made righteous, conſtituted. Nothing but righteouſneſſe can make righteous, that applyed maketh us ſo, or juſtifieth us, and you muſt acknowledge that your owne phraſe, often uſed.

CHAP. IV. A Demonſtration from Scripture of the non-imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſſe for Juſtification.

FRom Rom 3. 21. But now the righteouſneſſe of God is made manifeſt without the righteouſneſſe of the Law, having witneſſe of the Law and the Prophets; even the righteouſneſſe of God which is by the faith of Jeſus Chriſt, unto all, and upon all that doe beleeve.

If the righteouſneſſe of faith conſiſts in the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, then is it not, nor can it be made manifeſt without the Law, the workes of the Law; but the righteouſneſſe of faith is ſufficiently manifeſted without the Law, therefore it doth not conſiſt in the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, P. 70.

The righteouſneſſe of faith is that which faith receiveth, which God giveth or imputeth, are righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, and it is revealed without the Law; (ſaith Pareus)aaNon in Lege, non eſt ergo legalis. Not in the Law, therfore it is not Legall. By that is the knowledge of ſinne, not of the righteouſneſſe by which we are are juſtified.bbLex ex profeſſo eam non tradit, ſed urget juſtitiam operum; qui fecerit ea vivet in eis Pareus in locii. The Law, profeſſedly delivereth not that, but urgeth righteouſneſſe of workes; The man that p. 10doth …hom ſhall live in them. ccDixerat ſupra, c 1. 17 retegitur per Evangelium: quod hic repetendum. Sic innuit praeter Legem aliad doctrinae genus in Eccleſia a Lege diſtinctū, argumento & uſu. Lex in praeceptis ſita eſt, arguit peccata, & damnationem adfert: Evangelium in pro miſſione gratiae conſiſtit, offerens juſtitiam & ſalutem gratuitam credentibus in Chriſtum—innuit etiam duplicem eſſe juſtitiam; unam hominum vitio: alteram reus in locum.He had ſaid before, c. 1. 17. it is revealed by the Goſpel which is here to be repeated. So be intimateth another kind of Doctrine beſides that of the Law, diſtinct from the Law, in the Church, hoth in argument and uſe. The Law is in precepts, it argueth ſinne, and bringeth damnation; the Goſpel doth conſiſt in the promiſe of grace, offering to beleevers in Chriſt righteouſneſſe and free ſalvation—he doth intimate alſo that there is a double righteouſneſſe, one of the Law, or legall, or of workes, ineffectuall and impoſſible by mans fault: another of the Goſpel, or Evangelieall, or of faith, effectuall and ſalutary. What that of faith is we know, that which faith apprehendeth, ſo Pareus in a Metonymick ſenſe, laying hold of the object. ddAdfore hac ſides juſtitiam, non effective, quaſi habitualiren juſtos juſtos efficiat—nec materialites, quaſi ipſa fit illudiquo juſti conſumu… ſed objective quatenus in Chriſtum qui eſt juſtitia noſtra dirigitur, & organice, quatenus donum juſtitiae Chriſti merito credentibus gratis imputatae apprehendir, Par inv. 22.This faith bringeth righteouſneſſe, not by working it, as making us habitually juſt—nor materially as if faith were that by which we are counted juſt: but objectively, as it is directed to Chriſt who is our righteouſneſſe, and inſtrumentally, as it apprehendeth the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, a gift by Chriſt, me…ts freely imputed to beleevers. Where is added, ee…mel obſervetur, Phraſinm… qui poll…ntiam (amongſt others) Juſtia non noſtr…, aſiena; or non propria, or prop… See p. 191. 190. & 187. And that it is juſti…ia per o…dienti… Chriſti, & juſtitia impurata… D…o, p. 190.Let the equivalence of the phraſes be at once obſerved. righteouſneſſe not outs, anothers, not our owne, or our owne, that it is righteouſneſſe ty the obedience of Chriſt, and righteouſneſſe imoputed by God.

1. So that I anſwer, that righteouſneſſe is not in the text of my booke.

2. Thoſe that are juſtified by Chriſt, &c. are ſo by a righteouſneſſe not revealed in the Law. But the righteouſneſſe of faith is the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed, which is expreſſely manifeſted by the Goſpel without the Law.

To the Argument I deny the conſequence of the major: that which the Law revealeth is our owne, …e that doth them Qui. ….ſhall live in them, as before.

p. 11It is not anothers, not Chriſts, not imputed righteouſneſſe, not Goſpel righteouſneſſe, the righteouſneſſe of God, as the Apoſtle calleth it, or the righteouſneſſe of faith.

When as you ſay the body and ſubſtance of the righteouſnes it ſelfe, is nothing elſe but a pure Law or the works of it. Your adverſaries ſay it conſiſteth in both active and paſſive righteouſneſſe; and being that it is a righteouſneſſe not performed by us, but another, our Surety: (that of the Law being, Qui▪ fecerit ea, vivet) you may perceive that it is not legall, and that it is manifeſted without the Law.

To this you ſeeme to object. 1. That this Sanctuary hath beene already polluted, and the ho…es of the Altar broken downe. I anſwer, Let the Reader and your ſelfe g… againe and ſee.

2. The righteouſneſſe of faith cannot be fully taught without any conſideration of the Law, ex conceſſis, ſeeing Chriſts righteouſneſſe active hath a neceſſary concurrence and influence to make his paſſion a fit atonement.

3. Though the works performed by Chriſt be the workes of the Law, and we juſtified by them (together with the paſſive) which alſo is obedience to the Law, yet they are not legall righteouſneſſe: Qui fecerit ea, is the voice of the Law; were they our proper perſonall workes, it were to purpoſe; being the righteouſneſſe of another, the Law revealeth it not, neither are they properly legall.

4. To this righteouſneſſe active and paſſive, the Law, and Prophets give teſtimony as unto the Surety himſelfe, ſo to his righteouſnes; and this is that which we teach to be applied by faith, which you confeſſe hath teſtimony. The Law, &c. open the ſeed of the woman, the bleſſed ſeed, the Lord our righteouſneſſe, making an end of ſinne, bringing in everlaſting righteouſneſſe. And when as that is ſo Abſolutely neceſſary as is ſhewed to conſtitute our Prieſt and his Sacrifice, and the efficiencie of both then and new: It is a wonder to me that the ſame mouth ſhould argue to an utter excluſion of it.

Finally▪ this is to all and upon all by faith, we confeſſe p. 12oppoſition betweene faith and the workes of the Law, perſonall performances, neither is there perfect agreement betweene the workes of Chriſt and the Law, there is as much difference in juſtification as betweene our owne and anothers, a ſureties, what is given and imputed by God, received by faith, and what a man doth in his own perſon: Hearken to Calvine on the place.

In a few words he ſheweth what Paucis verbis oſtendit qualis ſit haec juſtificatio, nempe quod in Chriſto reſideat, per …idem ve…o apprehenditur.manner of juſtification this is, forſooth that it reſideth in Chriſt, but is apprehended by faith.

After that he gathereth. Firſt, the Primum juſtificationis noſtrae canſam non ad hominum judicium re…erri, ſed ad Dei tribunal. Ubi nulla juſtitia cenſetur niſi perfecta abſolutaque Legis obedientia. Quod ſi nemo hominum reperitur qui ad eam exactam ſanctitatem conſcenderit: ſequitur omnes juſtitiam in ſe ipſis deſtitutos. Tum occurrat Chriſtus oportet, qui ut ſolus juſtus eſt, ita ſuam juſtitiam in nos transferendo juſtos nos reddit. Nunc vides ut juſtitia fidei juſtitia Chriſti ſit.cauſe of our juſtification not to be referred to mens judgement, but to Gods tribunall. Where no righteouſneſſe is judged ſuch but the perfect and abſolute obedience of the Law. If ſo be that no man be found who hath attained that exact holineſſe, it followeth that all are without righteouſneſſe in themſelves. Then Chriſt muſt come to helpe; who as he alone is juſt, ſo be maketh us juſt, transferring his righteouſneſſe on us. Now ☞you ſee that the righteouſneſſe of faith is the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. Where he calleth Chriſt the matter, and the word, and faith the inſtrument, and addeth:

Wherefore faith is ſaid to juſtifie, Quare fides juſtifica…e dicitur quia inſtrumentum eſt recipiendi Chriſti, in quo nobis communicatur juſtitia.becauſe it is the inſtrument of receiving Chriſt, in whom righteouſneſſe is communicated unto us.

And then, After we be made pertakers Poſtquam factiſumus Chriſti participes, non ipſi ſolum juſti ſumus, ſed opera noſtra juſta reputantur coram Deo.of Chriſt, not onelyonly we are juſt, but alſo our workes are reputed juſt before God.

Where you have our compleat Doctrine.—And conſider with what vaine confidence you call him to your part.

p. 13CHAP. V. From Rom. 5. 16, 17. Compared; where

THe gift of righteouſneſſe, as v. 17. which is by Chriſt in the Goſpel, is ſaid, v. 16. to be a free gift of many offences to juſtification. Whence thus, that righteouſneſſe which is the gift of many offences, that is, the forgiveneſſe of many offences or ſinnes to juſtification; cannot be a perfect legall righteouſneſſe imputed to us, or made ours by imputation. But the righteouſneſſe which is by Chriſt in the Goſpel by which we are juſtified, is the gift of many offences unto justification; therefore it cannot be a perfect legall righteouſneſſe, made ours by imputation.

I deny the gift of righteouſnes, and the free gift or forgivnes of many offences are the ſame, they differ as cauſe & effect, as ſin and condemnation are cauſe and effect, ſo righteouſneſſe and remiſſion of ſinnes. Righteouſneſſe imputed hath its immediate effect, juſtification. It is a righteous making, of which remiſſion of ſinnes, is (to ſpeake properly) a concomitant or conſequent effect. Thoſe that receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteouſneſſe, are thereby juſtified, and ſo receive forgiveneſſe of ſinnes. So verſ. 18. By the righteouſneſſe of one, the free gift came upon all to juſtification of life. Where there is the effect or end, and the cauſe by which Sions converts ſhall be redeemed with righteouſneſſe, Iſa. 1. 27.

Life raigneth out of abundance of Vita regnat ex redundantia gratiae, hoc eſt redundante gratia & dono juſtitiae, quod à Deo redundanter nobis imputatione donatur, … nobis autem fide accipitur, Pareus p. 367.grace, that is, by grace abounding, and by the gift of righteouſneſſe, which is abundantly give… us of God by imputation, but is received of us by faith.

If we deſire to be freed from Si ex illo liberari (Regno) & in hoc transferri deſideramus, do num juſtitiae in Chriſto fide accipiamus neceſſe eſt, Par. p. 368.that Kingdome, and tranſlated unto this, it is neceſſary we receive the gift of righteouſneſſe in Chriſt by faith. That received, juſtifieth, on which remiſſion or freedome followeth.

p. 14Life ever accompanieth righteouſneſſe, Vi'a perpemo comitatur juſtitiam, ut mors peccatum; ſicut ubi peccatum ibi mors eſt ex ordine juſti…iae, & veritate comminationis divinae, ſie ubi juſtitia—five gratis impurata ut in fidelibus electis ibi vita R egnat partim ex eodem juſtitiae divinae ordine, partim & maxime ex promiſſione gratiae, Qui credit …n filium habet vitam aeternam.as death doth ſin: as where ſin is, there is death out of Gods juſtice, and the truth of divine threatning: ſo where righteouſneſſe—or freely imputed as in the elect beleeving, there life ra… neth partly out of the ſame order of Divine juſtice, and ſpecially by the promiſe of grace; He that beleeveth in the Son bath eternall life.

1. We ſay not that the righteouſneſſe by which we are juſtified, is a perfect legall righteouſneſſe, that is, righteouſneſſe performed by our owne perſons.

2. Yet we affirme that righteouſneſſe by which imputed we are juſtified, includeth our Sureties full ſatisfaction to Gods Law, and doth not abſolutely exclude the the ſame as you teach.

Take that part, Chriſts death for us this the ApoſtleJute vocat foreign, juſtam ſatisfaction em, quoniam ſuit Legis impletio per paenam, p. 370. in v. 18. rightly calleth a juſt ſatisfaction (ſaith Pa…e…s) becauſe it was the fulfilling of the Law by puniſhment. Here we ſhall have you bound, ſo that the fulfilling of the Law ſimply cannot be excluded: and then you know the confeſſed concurrence and influence of Chriſts active obedience and neceſſity thereof is afferted by your ſelfe; and that the Devil and damned ſuffering doe not ſatisfie the Law to life, as Gerhardus.

We deny not, but affirme the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt in the Goſpel by which we are juſtified, extendeth unto a mans juſtification and forgiveneſſe of ſinnes: but may well deny that juſtification is by the forgiveneſſe of ſinnes. It is by righteouſneſſe imputed, on which remiſſion followeth, and if it ſhould be by it, and that as the forme (as you) it ſhould be in order of nature before juſtification.

It is by imputation of both active and paſſ… obedience, both which have a precedency in order, both to juſtification, as that by which, and ſo to pardon of ſinne by the ſame reaſon.

When you ſay, if a ma…s, ſinnes be once forgiven him he hath no need if imputetion of any farther righteouſneſſe; p. p. 1575. for his juſtification; I ſubſcribe: yet that they may be forgiven there is need of the imputation of Chriſts perfect obedience, active and paſſive, that which juſtifieth, on which there is no imputation of ſinnes.

That remiſſion of ſinnes is whole juſtification or juſtification properly; I deny: it is an effect of righteouſneſſe imputed by your texts, verſ. 16. 18. following juſt making or juſtification, which we aſſert againſt you, muſt be by righteouſneſſe; and that applied to them, for they are ſaid to be holy, and unreprovable, and unblamable, wholly faire, white as Snow, whiter then the Snow, perfected for ever, for which there muſt be ſomewhat applied effecting the ſame. We profeſſe no ſuch righteouſneſſe elſewhere, but onelyonly the active and paſſive righteouſneſſe of our Surety given us by God, and applied by faith.

When as you tell us that the righteouſneſſe we have by Chriſt, wherewith we are ſaid to be juſtified before God by beleeving, is onelyonly a negative righteouſneſſe, not a poſitive, it is nothing but ☜not-imputation of ſinne, which you call a righteouſneſſe by interpretation, as having the priviledges, but not the nature of a perfect legall righteouſneſſe.

1. We ſay not that the poſitive righteouſneſſe by which, is legall, that is, of our owne performance, but another; and ſo muſt be called Evangelicall.

2. We put a righteouſneſſe, Chriſts intire obedience from conception even to death, as Rom. 5. 19.

3. We deny it to conſiſt in nothing but a non-imputation of ſinne, that is no righteouſneſſe, it is righteouſneſſe in your interpretation, not the Lords.

The priviledges of one legally juſt your ſelfe give to faith elſewhere, as here to forgiveneſſe, and faith in that reſpect may be our whole juſtification, if that be enough to have the priviledges, ſo I may ſay of repentance.

Let us ſee how you make this good.

1. You ſhew it out of Rom. 4. 6. compared with the 7. and G.8. where it is called a righteouſneſſe without workes, which muſt needs be negative; the imputation of righteouſneſſe is interpreted nothing elſe but a not-imputing of ſin…, and ſo it conſiſts in pardon of ſinne.

p. 161. I anſwer, theſe places your ſelfe urge for imputation of faith in a proper ſenſe, and ſo confound faith and juſtification or imputation of righteouſneſſe.

2. Righteouſnes poſitive is ſaid to be imputed, v. 6. v. 11.

3. That is taken for the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, which I have proved is righteouſneſſe without workes, that is, not perſonally performed by us, though it be by another, that is, Chriſt.

4. That non-imputation of ſinne is not the ſame with imputation of righteouſneſſe, but the latter is the cauſe, the former the effect, as is ſhewed by me.

And as for Calvine, he excludeth not the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, and calleth this the effect thereof, which alſo is ſhewed before.

You adde, 2 Cor. 5. 19. & 21. that which he cals v. 19. in God the not imputation of ſins unto us, he cals verſ. 21. a being made the righteouſneſſe of God in him.

I deny it, and there they differ as cauſe and effect, that in the 21. verſ. For, &c. is the cauſe of that in the 19. verſ. and Calvine on the place faith,

Righteouſneſſe here is taken not for Juſtitia hic non pro qualtitate aur habitu, ſed pro imputatione accipitur, co quod accepta nobis fertur Chriſti juſtitia.a quality or habit, but for imputation, becauſe Chriſts righteouſneſſe is accounted to us. To that Queſtion.

How are we juſt before God? forſooth Quomodo juſti ſumus cotam Deo? qualiter Chriſtus ſuit peccator, perſonam enim noſtram quodāmodo ſuſcepit ut reus noſtro nomine here & tanqu…m peccator judicaretur, non propriis ſed alienis delictis; quum pu…us foret ipſe & immunis ab omni culpa, paenamque ſubiret nobis non ſibi debitam. Ira ſc. nunc juſti ſumus in ipſo, non quia operibus propriis ſatisfaciamus judicio Dei, ſed quoniam cenſemur Chriſti juſtitia, quam ſide induimus ut noſtra hat, Calv.as Chriſt was a ſinner, for in a ſort he tooke our perſon that he might be made guilty and judged as a ſinner, not by his owne, but others ſinnes, ſeeing he was pure and free from all fault, and was to undergoe puniſhment due, not to us, but himſelfe. So now we are juſt in him, not becauſe we may ſatisfie the judgement of God by our owne workes, but becauſe we are accounted in his righteouſnes, which by faith we put on that it may be made ours.

But Acts 13. 38, 39. openeth it clearely, where the Be it knowne unto you that through this man is preached unto you forgiveneſſe p. 17of ſinnes, and by him all that beeleeve are juſtified from all things from which you could not be juſtified by the Law of Moſes. Juſtification hence is laid downe by the way of negative G.or privative righteouſneſſe, not a poſitive; ſo that the juſtification is not with righteouſneſſe, (properly ſo called) but a juſtification from ſinne, &c. p 77.

1. This place proveth that through Chriſt is preachedA. pardon and juſtification, &c. It followeth not that there is no poſitive righteouſneſſe. Nay through this man infoldeth the ſame, that is throught his intire ſatisfaction preached alſo.

2. Forgiveneſſe and juſtification from, &c. implieth that party righteous, elſe ſhould God juſtifie a wicked man which is abominable.

3. Recount your great axiome of things immediate contraria. And ſee whether from the poſition of pardon you doe not inferre and put perfect righteouſneſſe, and ſuppoſe it to the paſſive obedience, its energie or being propitious.

4. Finally, the diſpulſion of darkneſſe, &c. any contrary is by the introduction of its contrary; light, &c.

It is righteouſnes imputed that hath attending pardon.

You ſay this is the proper ſignification and moſt uſuall, not G.to ſignifie giving or beſtowing a compleate poſitive righteouſneſſe, but diſcharging, citing, Prov. 17. 15.

This is ſhewed otherwiſe by that text: when God juſtifieth a wicked man, he maketh him juſt firſt, thence the rights and priviledges of juſt men, theſe priviledges of a juſt man goe together, elſe ſhall the priviledges of a juſt man be common to him with the wicked, abomination.

And one would beleeve juſt making ſhould be proper and moſt uſuall who ſhall obſerve it your owne ordinary☜ expreſſion, See p. 35. p. 38. out of Haymo. Treat. 2. p. 112. 116. 117. 118. 144. twice 145. 150. 163. 136. it is nothing elſe, p. 211. and I finde remiſſion of ſinnes confeſſed the priviledge of a man juſt. p. 5. 1. Treat.

That text Rom. 8. 33, 34. Who ſhall lay, &c. it is God that juſtifieth, ſheweth the effect by the cauſe, becauſe God juſtifieth p. 18there is no condemnation, ſo Rom. 5. 9. juſtification is by the death of Gods Sonne, and this we confeſſe done by faith, as Gal. 3. 11. as an inſtrument, not by our doing this; yet muſt you not exclude the obedience of Chriſt untill death, that which qualifieth: yea, its included in death that it be a pleaſing ſacrifice, the ſynecdoche will ſalute that, of which more after, it anſwereth that Jeſ. 53. 11. where he is ſaid to beare our iniquities.

For Calvine and the reſt cited by you, they have the ſame anſwer, and that truly in the judgement of many witneſſes; amongſt whom there is Cbamieere one of your Authors, I and Pareus, who ſheweth that the judgement of all, Calvine and all the reſt; and let the Reader judge who is injurious, of which you complaine.

CHAP. VI. Argument 5. P. 84.

THis is taken from the opening of Phil. 3. 9. And be found in him not having mine owne righteouſneſſe which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Chriſt, the righteouſneſſe which is of God through faith. Hence you obſerve.

1. He ſaith not that he may be found in his righteouſneſſe, much leſſe in his righteouſneſſe imputed unto him, but ſimply in himſelfe.

To be found in him not having his owne righteouſneſſe, is to be found having union and communion with him and his righteouſneſſe. Chriſt righteouſneſſe muſt be ſupplied in oppoſition to his owne, to be found in him, is to be found in the Lord his righteouſneſſe, in him there is redemption, remiſſion of ſinnes in his bloud. You grant his paſſive righteouſneſſe, yet here you oppoſe him, Chriſt and righteouſneſſe; and as for your exception againſt imputation, herein you are a Wottoniſt, an Arminian, and Socinian, and will not underſtand that imputation, is but the application and donation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt by p. 19God apprehended by faith, which are neceſſarily ſuppoſed to mine having him and his righteouſneſſe.

Beza will teach you better, To Inveniri in Chriſto, tacitam habet relationem ad Dei judicium. Is enim in amando contemplatur unum ſuum Chriſtum in quo acquieſcat. Itaque quos comperit in Chriſto eſſe (id eſt, Chriſto per ſidem inſitos) in iis nullam invenit condemnationem: Quia juſtitia qualem ipſe requirit in nobis, id eſt, perfecta, accumulata exornatos eos invenit. Nimirum Chriſtum juſtitia per ſidem nobis imputara.be found in Chriſt hath a tacite relation to Gods judgement: for be in loving doth contemplate his owne Chriſt in whom he may be well pleaſed. Therefore thoſe whom be findeth to be in Chriſt, that is, in-ſet into Chriſt by faith) in theſe he findeth no condemnation, becauſe he findeth them arraied in righteouſneſſe, ſuch as he requireth in us, that is, perfect and heaped downe, even Chriſts righteouſneſſe imputed to us by faith.

In him, that is, Chriſt my Lord, who In ipſo, ſc. Chriſto Domino meo, qui eſt juſtitia, &c. Fidei autem eſt quia per fidem illam apprehendimus, cum ſit im putativa & Chriſti merito no bis applicetur, Aretius i… loe.is righteanſneſſe, &c. It is of faith be-cauſe by ſaith we apprehend it, becauſe it is imputative, and is applied to us by Chriſts merit, as Aretius.

So generally he oppoſeth mans merit Ita generaliter meritum hominis opponit Chriſti gratiae: nam cum Lex afferat opera, fides offert nudum hominem Deo, ut Chriſti juſtitia induatur, &c. Calv.to the grace of Chriſt: for when as the Law bringeth workes, faith man naked to God, that he may be clothed with Chriſts righteouſneſſe, Calvine.

Chriſt himſelfe muſt be put upon us, that we may be found in him, &c. with his clothing our ſoules muſt be clothed, that they may be beautified and gloriouſly adorned—Phil. 3. 9. where he excludeth all kinde of workes, be muſt needs underſtand the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

I have read that our faith hath beene excluded by thisWhitaker againſt Camp. which Dureus Engliſhed, P. 231. text, never that the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt ſhould be ſo, by a Proteſtant, it is Chriſts righteouſneſſe alone which will indure the pure ſight of God here and hereafter.

2. You obſerve from thoſe words, But that which is of God by faith, here is not the leaſt jot or tittle of any mention, &c. of any righteouſneſſe he ſhould have by imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. No, nor any righteouſneſſe by or through the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, but onelyonly ſuch a righteouſneſſe as is foreign, through faith of Chriſt, or beleeving in him; and p. 20this is that righteonſneſſe ſay you, and that righteouſneſſe of God. 2. A righteouſneſſe which God himſelfe hath found out, and which he will owne and countenance and account for righteouſnes, and no other but this.—The mentioning of this righteouſnes the ſecond time, as being or ſtanding in faith, is doubtles emphaticall.—It is to ſhew that this righteouſnes will carry it, notwithſtanding the unlikelihood and ſeeming imperfections of it, and that the thing is fully concluded and eſtabliſhed with God.—If Paul had had any minde or inclination at all to have placed the righteouſneſſe by which we are juſtified in the righteouſnes of Chriſt imputed, here was a tempting occaſion.—But here is loud ſpeaking againe and againe of the righteouſneſſe of faith, but altum ſilentium of any righteouſneſſe from the imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, p. 87. & 88.

That which Paul would be found having, is not his own, Nimirum Chriſti juſtitia applicata.but that which is through the faith of Chriſt, the righteouſneſſe which is of God by faith.

This we interpret the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt given by God applied by faith. So Beza, you faith in Chriſt it ſelfe.

But firſt it cannot be faith it ſelfe, ſeeing the text is, that righteouſnes which is through faith, & of God by faith, where faith is but an inſtrument, by which I have that righteouſneſſe, it is not ſaid, beleeving, but by beleeving: that faith is the righteouſneſſe he would be found in, but that of God by faith. Bertius that Prince of the Arminian band urgeth this text againſt Sibrandus, Epiſt. p. 57. and hath this anſwer.

As for that ſaying, Phil. 3. It profeſſedly deſtroyeth the concluſion Quod ad dictū ad Phil. 3. c attinet: Serveti, Socini, …uam que ſententiam ex profeſſo deſtruit, diſerte enim inter fidem & inter juſtitiam diſtinguit. Verſu enim 9. dicit, interprete Beza. Sed ut habeam eam juſtitiam, quae per fidem eſt Chriſti, equidem ſi haec juſtitia eſt Chriſti per fidem ut Beza interpretatur: vel ſi eſt per fidem Chriſti, ut verus interpres habet, …um juſtitia haec non eſt ipſa fides.—Deinde Apoſtolus Serveti, Socini tuamque ſententiam prorſus rejicit, diſerte enim ſcribit, ſcribit, verſ. 9. ut inveniar in eo non habens meam juſtitiam. Mea igitur juſtitia non eſt qua juſtificor: & hoc recte, diſerne enim Spititus ſanctus doce, Rom. 5. 19. nos obedientia Chriſti conſtitui juſti, hoc eſt, nos juſtitia Chriſti juſtificati. Sed fides quam ego habeo (ſi ſecundum Scripturas loqui velis) eſt tua fides, Hab. 2. 4. Juſtus fide ſua viver, Jac. 2. 18. Oſtende mihi fidem tuam ex operibu—& ego oſtendam—fidem meam. Si…gitur fides mea eſt juſtitia mea, & ego hac fide mea juſtificor, tum utique juſtificor mea juſtitia: & debeo inveniti in eo habens meam juſtitiam Proinde aut imprudenter facit Apoſtolus cum ſcribit, ut inveniat in eo non habens meam juſtitiam: aut vos imprudenter ſacitis, dum per veſtram juſtitiam juſtificari vultis: vel quod idem eſt, dum vultis inveniri habentes veſtram juſtitiam. Quid quod Apoſtolus docet juſtitiam quam cupit habere, verſ. 9. eſſe Chriſti: Sed habens eam juſtitiam quae per fidem eſt Chriſti, verum mea fides, quocunque tandem modo accipiatur non eſt Chriſti juſtitia, neque eſt illa juſtitia quae eſt per fidem Chriſti. Sed obedientia quam Chriſtus Patri pro me praeſtiti…, eſt Chriſti juſtitia. Atque hac ego juſtificor, Rom. 5. 19. Nihil igitur imprudentius à te fieri potuit, quam iſtum locum ad hunc errorem ſtabiliendum allegare.Phil 3Rom 5:19Hab 2:4Jas 2:18cluſion of Servetus, Socinus, and your owne, for it doth plainely diſtinguiſh betweene faith and righteouſneſſe; for in the 9. verſ. be ſaith, Beza interpreting it, But that I may have that righteouſneſſe which is of Chriſt by faith, ſurely if this righteouſneſſe be of Chriſt by faith, as Beza interpreteth it; or if it be by the faith of Chriſt, as the old Tranſlation, then this righteouſneſſe p. 21is not faith it ſelfe.—Then the Apoſtle doth wholly reject the opinion of Servetus, Socinus, and you: for be plainely writeth, verſ. 9. that I may be found in him not having mine owne righteouſneſſe. But it is not my righteouſneſſe by which I am juſtified; and this rightly, for the holy Ghoſt plainely teacheth, Rom. 5. 19. us to be conſtituted juſt, that is, that we are juſtified with the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. But faith which I have, (if you will ſpeake according to the Scriptures) is thy faith, Hab. 2. 4. The juſt ſhall live by his faith; and Jam. 2. 18. Shew me thy faith by thy workes, and I will ſhew my faith. If therefore my faith be my righteouſneſſe, and I am juſtified by this my faith, then I am juſtified by mine owne righteouſneſſe, and I ought to be found in him having mine owne righteouſneſſe: ſo that either the Apoſtle doth unwiſely, when he writeth, that I▪ may be found in him having mine owne righteouſneſſe; or you doe unwiſely whilſt you will be juſtified by your owne righteouſneſſe, or which is the ſame, whilſt you will be found having your owne righteouſneſſe. The Apoſtle teacheth the righteouſneſſe which be deſireth to have, v. 9. to be of Chriſt, but having that righteouſneſſe which is by faith of Chriſt; but my faith in what ever manner it be taken, is not Chriſts righteouſneſſe, neither is it that righteouſneſſe which is by the faith of Chriſt, but the obedience which Chriſt performed to his Father, for me, is Chriſts righteouſneſſe, and with this I am juſtified, Rom. 5. 19. Nothing therefore could be done more unwiſely by thee, then to alleadge that place for the eſtabliſhment of thine error.

Beſides, it is much worſe in you then him, Becauſe you take faith in Chriſt, not in relation to its object, p. 22Chriſts righteouſnes, taking in that, but in a proper ſenſe,Fides iſta meritum Chriſti r…ſp…cit, atque hoc modo ve…ū eſt quod dicitur fides juſtificat non per ſe ſed correlative, qua tenus nimiram apprehendit Chriſtum ejuſque juſtitiam. Ipſe vider it. and direct oppoſition to Chriſts righteouſneſſe. Whereas in one place of Bertius I finde, That faith reſpecteth the merit of Chriſt, and thus it is true which is ſaid, faith juſtifieth not by it ſelfe, but correlatively, as it apprehendeth Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe. How he agreeth with himſelfe, let him looke to that, as your Mr. Wotton once ſaid.

When faith is that, and as a worke, (as elſewhere from John 6.) How am I not juſtified by a worke, and that of the Law too, if faith be required there, as ſome conceive, and I ſpeake to elſewhere? See Sybr. p. 56. & 57.

And when as it is not righteouſneſſe, or but inherent; Am I not juſtified by inherent righteouſneſſe? an opinion worſe then that of Papiſts, who joyne hope and charity, &c. with faith, as Mr. Forbs.

And when as it is an imperfect grace, how can God, whoſe judgement is according to truth, account this perfect righteouſneſſe? it hath need of ſomewhat elſe to cover and to juſtifie it. You acknowledge it imperfect, the Papiſt preſſing it plead its perfection in this life.

And what will become of the Paſſive obedience of Chriſt, if this be that righteouſneſſe in oppoſition to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt? What need is there of him or his righteouſneſſe? Leſſe it be to merit that faith be accepted, as Osterodus.

What need of remiſſion of ſinnes? your interpretative righteouſneſſe by which I have the priviledges of a righteous man? I have it by faith in your doctrine and then, away with that as well as the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. And here let all men take notice of your minde, when as you call it faith in Chriſt, and that it is an inſtrument to bring us to fellowſhip with Chriſt and his benefits; when yet, here, and in the whole controverſie you deny a relative or figurative ſenſe taking in Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe, and put it in oppoſition. If you will bePrideaux. found in, that doe; my prayer is with that Doctor, that I may be found not having faith, mine owne righteouſneſſe, if righteouſneſſe, and ſuch as it is or ever ſhall be; but that p. 23which God giveth or imputeth, Chriſts, by faith. I beleeve, helpe mine unbeliefe. See after, the laſt Scripture, out of Zanchy, ſee Doctor Ayrie in locum. Olevian.

CHAP. VII.

SIxthly, that that God imputes for righteouſneſſe in juſtification, is not the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt himſelfe, but faith it ſelfe, by Rom. 3. 28. Rom. 5. 1. and all confeſſe that men are juſtified by faith, as act or habit, and why doe they condemne it in me?

I anſwer, faith with us is an inſtrument laying hold of the object Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe as an hand doth riches, by which righteouſneſſe applied, I am righteous, as rich by the object received riches.

You ſay you divide not faith and the object, you imply the G.object with it, as the uſuall manner of the Scripture is, and 2. that it juſtifieth inſtrumentally, p. 90. 3. and grant as it taketh hold on Chriſts righteouſneſſe, (though the Scripture never mentioneth it under this conſideration) yet ſtill it is an act of faith.

1. You ſay it juſtifieth not as an act, ib. and yet take it in a proper ſenſe, oppoſing it in juſtification to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, faith and not the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

2. When you give all be granted to faith, that it hath Chriſt the object, and laieth hold on Chriſts righteouſneſſe: Yet you teach us that Chriſts righteouſneſſe (in the variety uſed in Scripture of the objects of faith) is not to be found in the leaſt mention, p. 38. Neither is the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt the object of faith as juſtifying, p. 43. onelyonly is propounded to be beleeved as the creation of the world, or that Caine was Adams ſonne, p. 43. neither is it imputed for righteouſneſſe in reſpect of the object, or becauſe it laieth hold upon Chriſt, or Chriſts righteouſnes, p. 14.

Whereas the orthodox whom you oppoſe, not onelyonly teach faith in Chriſt, and that an inſtrument laying hold of Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe applying it, but juſtifying p. 24as applying that righteouſneſſe, by which applied we are made juſt.

Faith is as the pencill, it is an inſtrument, the matter, whiting; the pencill maketh not white but inſtrumentally, it is the whiting applied by the pencill.

The hand receiving riches is an inſtrument making rich. I, but inſtrumentally, riches received properly make rich, faith is but an inſtrument laying hold of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, by it as an inſtrument we are juſtified, but that which properly doth is the righteouſnes of Chriſt himſelfe; and here we ſay not that whatſoever faith laieth hold on juſtifieth, but ſignanter, we name the righteouſnes of Chriſt.

So, figuratively taking in the object, Chriſts righteouſneſſe, it juſtifieth, as an inſtrument to this effect, ſo it juſtifieth; ſo faith is imputed for righteouſnes: here is ſomewhat equivalent and exceeding the righteouſnes of the Law, which is falſe of faith not applying Chriſts righteouſnes, and then is it the condition of the Covenant whenas it taketh in the object, as is elſewhere ſhewed.

CHAP. VIII. The laſt proofe from Scripture.

THe Scriptures doe abſolutely deny a transferribleneſſe, tranſlation or transferring, or moving the righteouſneſſe of one perſon to another, from Gal. 3. 12. and the Law is not of faith, but the man that doth them ſhall live in them, it denieth it to be done with faith, which was the likelieſt hand under Heaven—by which he intendeth to make the righteouſnes of the Law as performed by Chriſt uncapable of this tranſlation or imputation—faith derives remiſſion from Chriſt, but not the righteouſnes of the Law, the ſcope ſheweth it is the very doer that ſhall live, &c.

1. Removing righteouſnes from one perſon to another, are not our words, we ſay not that Chriſts righteouſnes imputed is removed, or that it is taken from Chriſt, p. 25we teach it to be ſubjective in him ſelfe.

We aſſert his righteouſneſſe transferrible, that is, that it may be, and is imputed or given to us.

He was our Surety, he ſatisfied for us, if there be an abſolute impoſſibility of transferring what is done for another, you deſtroy ſuretiſhip, Chriſts being our Surety.

3. His death is imputable, or ſufferings of death, you muſt hold that imputation of them, or elſe confeſſe your ſelfe a Socinian, Mr. Gat. exempteth himſelfe thereby, dealing with Lucius.

If his ſufferings, all of them, from his incarnation or conception to his death, his being man, doings and ſufferings, forme of a ſervant, ſervices in that forme, all his poverty, unto, till death, as well as death it ſelfe; in which there are many ſervile acts to the Law. Mr. Gataker excludeth not them or their imputation, nor Pareus; your ſelfe teach a concurrence and influence of works abſolutely neceſſary to make atonement.

And if Chriſt did not obey for himſelfe (which was vaine, ſeeing he lived from the firſt moment) it was for us; his being man holy and juſt, &c. was his humiliation, poverty, he became poore, that we through his poverty might be made rich.

His ſufferings were fulfillings of the Law, even puniſhment Etiam paena eſt impletio Legis Par. de Juſt. Act. &c. p. 183.is the fulfilling of the Law.

If ſufferings are imputable, the fulfilling of the Law is in all theſe reſpects, and are imputed, or elſe we have no good by them. It is nothing that there is ſuch vertue in Jeſus Chriſt if there be no application, and application receiving on our part neceſſarily putteth giving and imputation from the Lord.

Now to your argument, we deny the Law to be that by which we are juſtified, or that the righteouſneſſe by which is Legall. It is evident (ſay we) becauſe that runneth, The man that doth this ſhall live; if we were ſo legally, we muſt be ſo in & by our ſelves perſonally, doe this neither needed we a Mediator; we cannot doe this, this and faith are aſyſtata, put this, faith is vaine in this matter, when p. 26we diſclaime perſonall doe this, there muſt be grace, and that in Chriſt. He muſt be a Surety, conceived, borne, obedient, even to death, dead to make ſatisfaction; Gods giving him to us, our receiving of him, beleeving in him, by which we have union and communion with him, and his obedience, Paſſive, and what neceſſarily concurreth and in-floweth thereunto. In Chriſt we have pardon, and adoption, and eternall life; imputation of righteouſneſſe is neceſſary to pardon; by imputation of righteouſnes we are made juſt, and ſo juſtified from ſinnes; by adoption we are heires of the righteouſnes of faith, that is, the righteouſnes which faith apprehendeth; we inherit the promiſes, that of righteouſnes by which we are white as Snow, whiter.

And this righteouſnes is neceſſary to life, the Spirit is life becauſe of righteouſneſſe, imputed, Chamieer, Rom. 8. 10. they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteouſneſſe, ſhall reigne in life even by one Jeſus Chriſt, Rom. 5. 16. Grace reignes through righteouſneſſe to eternall life, verſ. ult.

This is Gods righteouſnes; what he giveth, and we by faith receive; there is a ſubordination betweene Gods grace, the promiſe, Chriſt, his obedience, pardon, life, faith, righteouſnes is not perſonall but of the Surety. And this is notably ſet forth as by forraine Divines, ſo by our owne, and the Doctrine of our Church, to which we have ſubſcribed. I will ſend you thither, and proceed.

CHAP. IX. Argument 1. That righteouſneſſe of Chriſt cannot be imputed. Thus,

THat righteouſneſſe which will not fit and furniſh all beleevers with all points or parts of that righteouſneſſe which the Law requires of them, cannot be imputed to them for juſtification.

p. 27But the obedience Chriſt performed to the Morall Law, will not fit and furniſh all beleevers with all points of righteouſneſſe, which the Law requires of them: therefore it cannot be imputed to beleevers for their juſtification.

I will grant the major, and if Chriſts righteouſneſſe imputedAnſw. be not compleat, ſerving all, it is nothing worth; onelyonly conſider how your imperfect faith ſhall be imputed, and whether it be or can be imputable, and as doe this was prove the minor.

Servants are indebted to Maſters, Epheſ. 6. 5. obedience with feare and trembling, wives, husbands: He declined doing juſtice, refuſed the office of a King, &c.

That our Lord Chriſt did what pleaſed his Father inAnſw. our behalfe is unqueſtioned, the voyce from Heaven was,1. In whom I am well pleaſed, Matth. 3. that we are accepted in the well-beloved, Eph. 1. It is ſaid he came to fulfill the Law, Matth. 5. and Matth. 3. That as it became him he fulfilled all righteouſneſſe. In fulfilling the Law, there is no place for want. In all righteouſneſſe, there is that which was due by all ſorts without exception, the debt of all, was but all righteouſneſſe; all this not for himſelfe, but us, becauſe he lived from the firſt moment and needed it not, becauſe he was our Surety, bound to pay our whole debt. It was of him our great Mediator, as p. 108. I ſuppoſe that in Chriſt there is neither bond or free, male or female, King nor Begger, all are one in Chriſt, Gal. 3. 28. which is inferred from this, that as many as are baptized into Chriſt, have put on Chriſt, and we are all the ſonnes of God by faith in Jeſus Chriſt.

Chriſt is be who knitteth JewesChriſtus is eſt qui Judaeos & Gentes in unum corpus ſeminis Abrahae connectir; itaque foreign, tollit perſonarum diſcrimen, de quo mox, verſ. 28. quicunque verſ. 27. ut tollatur gentium ſtatus & ſexus diſcrimen, …it ut apparet ex ſequenti verſu Metaphora ſumpta à veſtibus ut dix… 'Luc. 24. 49. & alibi ſaepe, ſed quae myſterium noſtrae cum Chriſto conjunctionis, quaſi oculis ſub…iciat. Oporret enim Eccleſiam Chriſto tanquam. veſte quadam operiri & ſub co deliteſcere ut ſancta ſit prorſus & inculpabilis, Eph. 5. 27. Ideoque Apoſtolus ſemen Abrahami uno Chriſti nomine fignificavit ſupra, v. 16.Luke 24:49Eph 5:27 and Gentiles together in one body of the ſeed of Abraham; therefore all taketh away the difference of perſons, of which by and by, verſ. 28. whoſoever, verſ. 27. is that the difference of the ſtate of the Gentiles and of ſexe. may be taken away, as it appeareth from the next verſ. That putting on of Chriſt p. 28is a metaphor taken from clothes as we ſaid, Luke 24. 49. and elſewhere often, but ſuch as may ſet the myſtery of our union with Chriſt before our eyes; Omnes homines, velint, nolint, ſunt unū, id eſt una res ſpecie renus—unum individuū quaſi ut in Chriſto ſerventur—per cum ipſum Chriſtum.—Sed hoc demum ſciendum, nos per fidem Chriſto ipſt uniri Spiritus ſancti vinculo ut bonorum ipſius fi…mus participes, ut omnes fideles hac ratione ſint unus Chriſtus myſticus, ut loquitur etiam Apoſtolus, 1 Cor. 12. 12. Bez. in loc.1 Cor 12:12for the Church muſt be covered with Chriſt as it were with a garment, and lie hid under him that it may be wholly holy and without blame, Epheſ. 5. 27. and therefore the Apoſtle ſignified the ſeede of Abraham by the one name of Chriſt.Senſus eſt, nihil hic vale…e perſonas, Unus eſtis, quo ſignificatur ſublatum …ſſe diſcrimen, Caiv.

All men whether they will or no, are one, that is, one thing in kinde,—as it were one individuum, that they may Eſt illis omnia meritorie; nam dum fiunt una perſona myſtica cum Chriſto, illis impertit meritum paſſionis, mortis, obedientiae, juſtitiae, & he factus eſt illis adeo ſapientia, juſtitia, ſanctificatio & redemptio, 1 Cor. 1. 30. Daven. in. Col 3. 11.1 Cor 1:30Col 3:11be ſaved by the ſame Chriſt—but this is to be knowne, that we by faith are united to Chriſt himſelfe by the bond of the holy Ghoſt, that we may be partakers of his good things; that all the faithfull in this reſpect are one myſticall Chriſt, as the Apoſtle alſo ſpeaketh, 1 Cor. 12. 12.

The ſenſe is, that here perſons availe nothing, You are one, in which he ſignifieth the difference to be taken away.

He is all things to them meritoriouſly, for whilſt they are made one myſticall perſon with Chriſt, he giveth to them the merit of his paſſion, death, obedience, righteouſneſſe, and ſo is made unto them of God wiſdome, righteouſneſſe, ſanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1. 30.

It pleaſed the Father that in him ſhould all fulneſſe dwell, ſaith the Apoſtle, Col. 1. 19. Hence are they preſented holy, unblamable, and unreprovable in Gods ſight, v. 22. and yee are compleate in him, c. 2. 10.

And let your next Chapter be read, and ſee whether there can be any defect for any man, where there is ſo much and ſo great abundance.

He that is arraied in this, and preſents himſelfe before God, is ſo ſay you. Not in the habit of a juſt or righteous man, but in the glorious attire that makes men juſt and righteous, the p. 29great Mediator of the world, whoſe righteouſneſſe hath heights and depths in it, a length and breadth which infinitely excecded the dimenſions and proportions of all men whatſoever.—The glory of this righteouſneſſe doth tranſcend the condition of the creature.—All the parts of this righteouſneſſe, all the acts of obedience that he performed, he performed them as one that had received the ſpirit without meaſure; there was a righteouſneſſe and worth in them which did fully anſwer the fulneſſe of that grace that was given him above all his fellowes, &c. p. 108. 109. 10.

You object to your ſelfe, love is the fulfilling of the Law, Chriſts perfect love, is perfect fulfilling the Law; and therefore being imputed may ſerve, though ſome acts of obedience wanting. To this purpoſe you object; but Sir, we ſay not that there is any thing wanting.

1. You anſwer, love may be an Evangelicall fulfilling the Law and accepted, yet holds not out weight and meaſure for any mans juſtification in the covenant of workes.

But to no purpoſe, that objection urgeth not our love but Chriſts, and not therefore juſtification by a covenant of workes, but of grace by Chriſt.

And it will not follow that if his love be imputed, other acts of righteouſneſſe were vaine, for what you call other, are no other then love, ſo all are acts of righteouſnes

2. I anſwer to the ſecond, that the love of Chriſt is the fulfilling of the whole Law (both Tables.)

3. I anſwer thirdly, that love (as you grant) being a cauſe of the being of the reſt, and having (what you call) the reſt vertually in it, a ſpirituall unfeigned affection of love is an inward principle of that nature which inclineth and diſpoſeth a man to the performance and practice of all manner of duties required in the Law. Grant Chriſts love this: It will not be ridiculous to ſay his love is imputed for their righteouſneſſe. Propter quod unumquodque eſ…tale illud eſt magis tale.For being a cauſe and vertually including fulfilling, it will ſerve. It is more to be a cauſe then to fulfill the Law, and love conſiſteth not onelyonly in affection but acts themſelves, they are love in words and deeds.

And there is ſomewhat in it when as Paul profeſſeth p. 30his life to be by faith in the Son of God who hath loved me and given himſelfe for me, in which there are both his active and paſſive obedience, 2 Gal. 20. and the objects of his faith.

2. You object, It is ſufficient though there be what is equivalent to ſuch particular acts of righteouſneſſe, and anſwer.

1. The Law muſt have jot for jot, tittle for tittle, point for point, letter for letter, otherwiſe it hath a curſe.

1. I anſwer, not queſtioning but Chriſt yeelded jot for jot, tittle, &c. He infinitely exceeded the dimenſions and proportions of all men whatſoever, as you: where is more, there are jots and tittles.

But Sir, How ſhall your faith not taking in this righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, nay oppoſed, be jot for jot, &c. and how will Gods judgement be according to truth, if that be inſteed of doe this?

2. And ſecondly, I anſwer to the ſecond, that the acts of Chriſt imputed are the acts of him that was our Surety, which infinitely exceeding the dimenſions and proportions of all men whatſoever, ſerve the neceſſities of all men whatſoever; every mans turne is ſerved here, even that which the Lord requireth of him; to omit that thoſe differences are taken away.

3. You object to your ſelfe equivalence in his doings as in his ſufferings, the debt was eternall death, he paid it by what was not eternall, but equivalent, and ſo might by doing. And anſwer.

1. Denying thoſe words Thou ſhalt die the death, muſt of neceſſity meane eternall death, according to the letter.

2. Neither that nor by way of equivalencie, was not Gods meaning, but the evill of puniſhment▪ repreſented and knowne to him by the name of death, without conſideration of duration. I anſwer.

1. Sir, to die the death is ſuch a puniſhment, which though it hath not eternity of its nature, yet it hath eternity a concomitant as your ſelfe out of Scotus, and that isIn fe. in it ſelfe (becauſe of concomitancy) for ever, the freedome from it is accidentall. It is eternall in the threat, as is ſeene in execution on Devils and wicked men, it had beene ſo to us if our Surety had not borne it, and beene on p. 31him for ever had he not overcome it.

3. But then you anſwer, 3. that though God did take liberty to vary from the curſe, and to uſe equivalency, it followeth not God ſhould accept ſuch legall payment as is equivalent.

I anſwer (ſtill premiſing that Chriſt yeelded compleat ſatisfaction as before) that if God did vary in the curſe, he received legall payment which is equivalent, death was legall payment, and doing you object is but legall payment; The ſoule that ſinneth ſhall die, is the voice of the Law.

To that you farther adde of God that having received a full ſatisfaction of all the tranſgreſſions of the Law he may by a ſecond covenant accept of what he pleaſeth to inſtate men in this benefit, which is to him evivalent to perfect legall righteouſneſſe.

I anſwer, that which Chriſt paid being the full ſatiſfaction of the Law, anſwereth our debt compleatly, and there is no need of any thing elſe to be accepted, (It is injurious indeed) that is equivalent to compleat legall righteouſneſſe, that ſatisfaction of righteouſneſſe onelyonly graciouſly imputed to us as performed by our Surety for us, is enough. Faith indeed hath the place of an inſtrument or hand receiving what is accounted or given, by which applied I am juſt, and ſo have priviledges; but hath no equivalence to the righteouſneſſe of the Law, as in it ſelfe, in juſtification, excluding the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt as you hold it out; and the ſatisfaction of the Law by Chriſt our Surety, to ſuch a faith is what God doth by the covenant of grace.—

To what you adde more, that may ſuffice which I have already ſpoken, I will haſten to your 10. chap.

CHAP. X. 2. Ground, thus.

THat righteouſneſſe which is exactly and preciſely fitted to the perſon and office of him that is Mediator betweene God p. 32and man or Redeemer of the world cannot be imputed to any other for his righteouſneſſe.

But ſuch is the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt: Therefore the minor opening the riches of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is granted, and uſe made of it in the former argument as deſtructive to its▪ pretended unfitneſſe in our Sureties righteouſneſſe.

To the major I anſwer, by denying it, the preciſe and exact righteouſneſſe of Chriſt our Mediator can be and is imputed to us, we are clothed with the robes of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, his righteouſnes which hath heights and depths,Juxta veritatē aeque juſti ſumus, quia eadem juſtitia, de juſtif. p. 171. &c. ſo that according to the truth (as Doctor Prideaux explaineth our tenet) we are equally juſt becauſe with the ſame righteouſneſſe, in that we are as juſt as if we had perſonally performed it our ſelves.

1. Yet, 1. Rob him not becauſe we are found herein by his conſent and commandement of application, by his giving and his inabling us by faith to apply the ſame.

2. For the equality, he that affirmedAeque juſti ſumus quoad veritatem, quia eadem juſtitia; licet non aequaliter ex eodem modo, cum ille juſtus ſit ſubjective, nos imputative; ille de proprio, nos de illius largitate. we are for truth equally juſt, becauſe with the ſame righteouſneſſe; though not equally and in the ſame manner, ſeeing be is juſt ſubjectively, we imputatively, he of his owne, we of his bounty, openeth our ſenſe for equality. Doctor Ames anſwering Bellarmine, layeth downe our tenet.

Christs righteouſneſſe is ſo far imputed Chriſti juſtitiam catenus nobis imputati, ut ejus virture nos perinde juſti cenſeamur co…am deo acſi noſmer ipſi in nobis haberemus quo juſti coram ipſo cenſeamur.unto us, that we are by vertue therof ſo accounted juſt before God as if we our ſelves had in our ſelves that whereby we are accounted juſt before him. And then,

Chriſts righteouſneſſe is imputed to Juſtitiam Chriſti imputari ſingulis ſecundum eorum particularem neceſſitatem, non ſecundum univerſalem quem habet valorem.every one according to their particular neceſſity, not according to the univerſall value thereof.

Whence you may ſee how we take and take not that robe of unmenſurable majeſty upon us, and how much you are deceived, and deceive when as you imagine that, p. 33and thereby grieve the truth; the generation of diſputers teach you otherwiſe, Doctor Prideaux, Doctor Ames, and ſo Doctor Davenant propoſeth it.

It is to be weighed that Chriſts Perpendendum Chriſti juſtitiam non imputari huic aut illi credenti ſecundum totam latitudinem efficaciae ſuae, ſed prout unuſquiſque ea opus habet.righteouſneſſe is not imputed to this and that beleever according to the whole latitude of its efficacie; but ſo as every one hath need of it.

And that may anſwer what is urged, p. 110. and we avoid preſumption or blaſphemy, and ſheweth what a communicableneſſe we hold meaſured onelyonly by our need; (Let the Reader ſee more in the former part) and ſo conceive what every member receiveth from Chriſt the head, and how that is uſed. The head infloweth according to the need of every member, and the member receiveth ſo much, ſo much as maketh us perfectly juſt, perfectly holy in the ſight of God. The imputation of which your argument teacheth not.

When as you ſay, p. 113. that Chriſt with his members are a body onelyonly by way of reſemblance. If withall you acknowledge our Union true and reall in its kinde it ſhall ſuffice, if otherwiſe, you muſt with Mr. Wotton anſwer the charge Mr. W. laieth on you before.

CHAP. XI. Athird Ground, p. 119.

THere is no neceſſity of this imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, Mr. G.he that is compleatly juſtified by having his ſinnes forgiven, is juſtified without the imputation of this active obedience of Jeſus Chriſt.

You ſay this propoſition is generally granted, but you beggeA. it, for thoſe that contend for imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, active or paſſive, both, make it the cauſe of remiſſion of ſinnes, as before.

But a beleever is ſufficiently juſtified before God by the remiſſion p. 34G.of ſinnes, therefore I conclude there is no need, &c. this you ſay was proved, c. 5.

And there you have anſwer.

Then you object to your ſelfe, that remiſſion is but a part of juſtification, not the whole, and that imputation of righteouſneſſe muſt be added.

To anſwer which, you cite Calvine. Let what you ſay and I anſwer before, be conſidered by the Reader, and he ſhall ſee your head and his opinion at oddes. He maketh remiſſion an effect, See l. 3. c. 14. Sect. 12. hac nos inſtructi, &c. There ſhall you ſee your raſhneſſe in that aſſertion, and the maintenance thereof, and Pareus his teſtimony againſt himſelfe, and your vanity in urging their objection as arguing a diverſe tenet amongſt Proteſtants, by both Pareus and Doctor Davenant, &c.

When you p. 127. excuſe your imputation of faith in a proper ſenſe being the ſame, that juſtification ſtands in remiſſion of ſinnes onelyonly.

I anſwer, it is vaine, for faith in a proper ſenſe without a Trope, juſtifieth with you both, and they ſay that juſtification conſiſteth aaIn regeneratione & remiſſione peccatorum.in regeneration and remiſsion of ſinnes; you make them the ſame, both of you diſpute againſt imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, which yet is the Proteſtant tenet (Piſcator, Pareus, Mr. Gataker not excepted, who teach the imputation of Chriſts paſſive obedience.)

Neither doe the Scriptures expreſſely demonſtrate it, Rom. 4. 6. 7. nay verſ. 6. & 11 there is a manifeſt and expreſſe imputation of righteouſneſſe as well as not imputation of ſinne, and that they are cauſe and effect is ſhewed by Authors in the ſame place; and as for that Synecdoche, it is not ſo needfull there, ſeeing there is ſuch an expreſſure of both imputation of righteouſneſſe, and non-imputation of ſins.

When bloud is mentioned, it is by that figure, and it doth not exclude other parts.

bbSanguinem autē ſolum nominando non vol…it alias redemptionis partes excludere, ſed potius ſub una patte totam ſummam comprehendere; ſic per ſynecdochē tota expiatio nominatur, ad Rom. 3. 24. Calv. So Ecchard p. 398 faſci. controverſ. who citeth Trelcat. p. 148. Bucan. p. 337. & Urſin. p. 452.Rom 3:24In naming bloud onelyonly, he would not exclude other parts of redemption, but rather under one part comprehend the whole, ſo by the figure Synecdoche the whole expiation is meant.

p. 35Who ſaith, when as we come to Ubivero ad Chriſtum ventum eſt, primum in to invenitur exacta Legis juſtitia quae per imputationem etiam noſtra fit, Calv. in Rom. 3. 31.Rom 3:31Chriſt, firſt there is found the exact righteouſneſſe of the Law, which alſo by imputation is made ours.

And thence anſwer may be given, that when we are ſaid to be juſtified by Chriſts bloud, Rom. 5. 9. the active obedience is not to be excluded. You ſee it is Calvines Doctrine, and ſo Bucanus de juſtif. ad Q. 15. nay your ſelfe make this an eſſentiall requiſite, as afterwards.

What is ſaid of ſupply by adoption, as you referre us to the next chapter, we will referre thither our anſwer.

Neither need you argue againſt your adverſaries, as ſeparaters and dividers of the active and paſſive obedience of Chriſt, and ſuch a putting them into parts, it is but your owne conceipt.

If there be abſurdity, it is your owne, who exclude the active obedience, and ſo ſeparate and divide them. We confeſſe, in your words, that the active obedience of Chriſt will not profit men if they ſeparate it from the paſſive, John 12. 14. neither will the paſſive it ſelfe be found it ſelfe, that is an atonement or expiation for ſinne, according to the will and purpoſe of God, except we bring in the active to it, &c. you wound your ſelfe, not us, in that, and what followeth.

Finally, neither will it follow that the formall cauſe is double, but one; Chriſts obedience active and paſſive, not to be divided or ſeparated, is the matter, it imputed ſupplieth the place of a forme and conſtituteth us righteous, as Saint Paul himſelfe, Rome. 5. 19. and ſo muſt you interpret that place, or elſe ſeparate and divide, offend in the very thing you reprove (though cauſeleſſely.)

CHAP. XII. 4. Reaſons, p. 136.

THat which diſſolves and takes away the neceſſity and uſe of that ſweete and Evangelicall grace of adoption, cannot p. 36hold a ſtreight courſe with the truth of the Goſpel. But this imputation in the ſenſe contraverted diſſolves and takes away, &c. the neceſſity of adoption. Therefore.

You ſay the minor is evident, that we introduce▪ this imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, that we may have a title to life or Heaven, according to the tenor of the covenant, Hoc fac & vives.

By remiſsion we ſay accrues no right, and that truly, therefore we compell the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to take this honour; neither is another uſe conceivable of it, then to qualifie men to Heaven, which is proper to adoption, this is to fruſtrate the purpoſe and counſell of God, &c.

1. I anſwer, imputation of righteouſneſſe, righteous making, giveth a title to life or Heaven; if regeneration doth ſo which is but imperfect (wherein yet adoption is founded) perfect righteouſneſſe given and received much more, which is of the twaine, the chiefeſt foundation of adoption: the Spirit is life becauſe of righteouſneſſe, Rom. 8. 10. which learned Chamieer interpreteth of imputed righteouſneſſe, thoſe that receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteouſneſſe, ſhall raigne in life, Rom. 5. 17. By the righteouſneſſe of one the free gift came upon all to juſtification of life, verſ. 18. Grace raignes through righteouſneſſe to eternall life, verſ. ult.

2. Yet we ſay not according to the tenour of that covenant, Doe this and live, that is by perſonall performance, righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed is of another, yet ours, given and received, eſtabliſhing the Law; ſee Calvine on Rom. 3. ult. cited but now, and ad Rom. 10. 5.

He doth excellently diſpell that ſcruple, Hunc ſcrupulum optime diſcutit cum ex ipſa Legis Dooctrina ſtabilit fidei juſtitiam—eſt autem locus ex Lev. 18. 5. ubi dominus vitam aeternam pollicetur iis qui Leg…m ſuam ſervavetint.—Atqueita defectu …uo coacti ad Chriſtum confugere diſcerent, ibid. Calv.Lev 18:5when as out of the very Doctrine of the Law he eſtabliſheth the Doctrine of faith—the place is taken out of Lev. 18. 5. where the Lord promiſeth eternall life to thoſe that ſhall keepe his Law—and ſo compelled by their owne defect, ſhould learne to fly to Chriſt.

3. We ſay not we have no right by pardon, and it is p. 37not true, ſeeing I finde that concurring as the conſequent of righteouſneſſe, Rom. 5. the places you cited; eſpecially if he that is freed from ſinne is ipſo facto made perfectly and compleatly righteous, as you concluſ. part. 2. p. 4. He that is free from death and no waies obnoxious thereunto, cannot but be conceived to have a right to life, there being no middle condition betweene life and death; and concluſ. 5. p. 8. where ſpeaking of adoption and title thereby; you ſay the Scriptures ſeeme to give it to that.

We deny it not to adoption, when as we give it to righteouſneſſe imputed, we exclude not Gods gracious dignifying, no we give a place to every grace, faith, hope, love; which have the promiſes of Salvation. We conceive adoption will not in its claime exclude the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed, which is the maine thing: we be heires of the promiſes, all, of righteouſneſſe lapt up in the promiſe thereof.

Noah was an heire of the righteouſneſſe, which is by faith, Heb. 11. 7. that is, the righteouſneſſe which faith apprehendeth, and that is that which God imputeth or giveth, Chriſts, ſo that adoption doth not exclude it.

Yea, we read that the promiſe was not made to Abraham that he ſhould be the heire of the world, or to his ſeede through the Law, but through the righteouſneſſe of faith, Rom. 4. 13. in which the promiſe of heire-ſhip is made to him by that, as it were antecedent. I will not contend againſt adoptions title, and you muſt beware you contend not againſt the title which is by the righteouſneſſe of faith, and beware of your concluſion of its being proper to adoption or conſequences againſt ſuch pregnant Scriptures. Indeed ſalvation is by faith in Chriſt, hence adoption, participation of righteouſneſſe to juſtification, to ſalvation. You cannot exclude the death of Chriſt from being a cauſe of our ſalvation, nor reaſonably leave out the active obedience of Chriſt, its eſſentiall requiſite; neither is of force to that end, but as given and received, which is imputation to the beleever.

And hereby you may perceive your errour, 1. in making▪ p. 38theſe of divers and contrary natures.

2. In that you make the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, which is anothers, our Sureties, graciouſly performed for us, and given unto us, Evangelicall, to be Legall.

3. Conſider whether you be not too wiſe in arguing the vanity of the one from ſufficiencie of the other, when as God hath joyned them together, when as they are ſubordinate to, that effect: adoption is founded in regeneration that new birth which qualifieth to juſtification, but much more in imputed righteouſneſſe, which alone is perfect righteouſneſſe; which juſtification qualifieth to life, whom be juſtified be glorified.

All the diſtinct graces in which adoption is founded, make up a plurality of meanes qualifying to juſtification, to pardon and life. It is very falſe that nature hath not a concurrence of many cauſes to effects, the ſunne and man, male, female, not to exclude God who is the firſt. It is very falſe that God in the Goſpel ſtill allowes but one meaneAnd ſee P. 143. the text cited, Eccleſ. 11. 6.Eccl 11:6 for one purpoſe, the Word, Sacraments, Prayer, Communion, and Saints, &c. are all ordained to the ſtrengthening of our faith, and to our ſalvation. Neither doth the Lord complaine of plurality of meanes, but of ſuch as are none of his, or contrary, ſuch is legall righteouſneſſe, perſonall obedience: ſo the places, Rom. 4. 14. Gal. 3. 18. & 21. Gal. 2. 21. where yet verſ. 20. he profeſſeth his life of faith in the Sonne of God, loving him, and giving himſelf for him. The Law is oppoſed to grace, Chriſt, the promiſe, faith; Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe, neither to grace nor promiſe, they are ſubordinate, all Evangelicall as in that text. See that you be not one that laugh theſe to ſcorne.

And ſee whether your faith in a proper ſenſe be not under your owne laſh, oppoſed profeſſedly to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt; from the poſition of one ſubordinate to the negation of another eſtabliſhed by God, is a vaine and frivolous argumentation.

p. 39CHAP. XIII. 5. and 6. Grounds, p. 145.

IT diſſolves the neceſſity of repentance, the righteous hath no need of repentance.

I deny what is aſſumed, a Chriſtian compleate in Chriſt, white as Snow, whiter, yet needeth repentance, hath it to qualify him to the promiſe of righteouſneſſe, juſtification, remiſſion: as it ſuppoſeth faith, which alone juſtifieth, ſo repentance qualifying faith, and conditioning the perſon, that faith that juſtifieth is not alone, thoſe that are ſanctified are perfected for ever, the ſame Spirit ſanctifieth and juſtifieth at the ſame time.

If it ſtood in an univerſall non-imputation of unrighteouſneſſe or pardon, is not ſuch a man perfectly righteous, as your ſelves teach; are they not contraria immediata, as your ſelves urge? yet you teach need of repentance daily, as qualifying the ſubject to the promiſe; there is the ſame reaſon: here pardon ſuppoſeth in deed imputation of righteouſneſſe by which our ſinnes are not imputed, therefore it is that they ſtand not guilty of any ſinne before God.

Yea, we aſſert they have the rights and priviledges accompanying ſuch a righteouſneſſe not in poſſeſſion, but in Chriſt their head, in the promiſe which abideth for ever, by faith and hope, as the man, perfect by non-imputation of unrighteouſneſſe; (he hath right to life, he hath everlaſting life, John 3. 36. and yet that conſiſtent with ſinne, where there is no condemnation, nay, everlaſting life, there is a lawleſſe Law, &c. Yea there is an imperfect faith which is not without ſinne.

When as p. 148. you tell us of the intrinſecal and formal property of a worke of the Law, that it hath power to juſtifie out of internall worth and dignity. You agree not with truth, which teacheth that when a man hath done all, he muſt ſay, he is an unprofitable ſervant, doing but what he p. 40ought, nor with your ſelfe, p. 191. He hath done what was duty to doe: and this by our Saviours rule, Luc. 17. 10. makes but an unprofitable ſervant, i. (I conceive) It is no ground to demand or challenge any great matters at his Maſters band, except it be by covenant or promiſe from him: theſe are your words.

It taketh away the neceſity of his death.

It doth not, but eſtabliſh it, by both theſe imputed a beleever is juſtified, indeed had he Beene ſo before this imputation, or not by it and with it, ſomewhat might be ſaid, now nothing againſt it, the righteouſnes of the Law, Gal. 2. 21. is perſonall, the man that doth it ſhall live, Chriſts imputed, is not legall.

And what you talk of imputableneſſe of Chriſts active obedience, without his deaths is ignorance, that his obedience was to beginne with life, and to end in death; and you forget now your former doctrine of concurrence of active and paſſive obedience, and abſolute neceſſity of both to make atonement, and that both make up but one obedience and ſatisfaction.

When you argue againſt the imputableneſſe of this righteouſneſſe of Chriſt by a queſtion; Why ſhould not men be capable of imputation thereof in the middeſt of their ſins, as well as Chriſt was capable of imputation of their ſinnes, in the middeſt of his righteouſneſſe?

I anſwer, Firſt, it is impertineut to our queſtion. Secondly, the reaſon is, the inconſiſtencie of juſtification and wickedneſſe. Thirdly, abomination to the Lord, and the promiſe of God requireth a lively faith to participation of the ſame, receiving it, and making it ours, the promiſe is made unto a beleever repenting. Iſ. 1. 16.

CHAP. XIV. 7. Ground, p. 151.

IMputation, &c. leaves no place for remiſsion of ſinnes, though it be quoad veritatem, non quoad modum, as ſome of that p. 41way thinke to diſtinguiſh themſelves ſafe.

The major is Doctor Prideaux's, as before, and the aſſumption is falſe from the poſition of a cauſe, to the denyall of the effect, as the learned; as Mr. Gataker alſo, though in ſomewhat not agreeing with them, acknowledgeth forgiveneſſe of ſinnes to be ſo, or a conſequent.

And in truth when as God imputeth Chriſts righteouſneſſe, and pardoneth them, they have no more ſinne then Chriſt to be pardoned; all are pardoned, theſe are contraria immediata, and you know there is no third or middle: though not in the ſame manner Chriſt was, yet quoad veritatem, and thus for this argument.

The exception and anſwer you make of remitting firſt, and then imputing, is a fancie of your owne to be neglected. Both are together for time, the order is imputation of righteouſneſſe, just making, then remiſſion of ſinnes.

You object by way of addition, that Chriſt hath taught us to pray for remiſſion after this imputation, unleſſe it be taught infidels onelyonly, but to aske forgiveneſſe and conceive our ſelves as righteous as Chriſt, is rather to make God, then worſhip him.

I anſwer, that petition for pardon after juſtification is Chriſts ordinance, whether juſtification conſiſteth in imputation of righteouſneſſe or pardon, it mattereth not to that, all muſt doe it.

2. That by juſtification (whether it conſiſt in one or other) it is confeſt that perſon is perfectly righteous.

3. That he that doth ſo doth not mocke God, ſeeing it is obedience to that commandement, ſeeing it is Gods way whereby pardon is ſued out to the quiet of a mans conſcience.

4. That the ſame is as much againſt your ſelfe, who make it to ſtand in remiſſion of ſins, unleſſe you think your ſelfe not thereby perfectly righteous, or being ſo, not bound to uſe that prayer; anſwer your ſelfe, and you ſhall ſave us a labour.

5. Finally, what you object againſt us, holdeth againſt imputation of faith in your ſenſe, for let faith be righteouſneſſe or not; if it be by Gods acceptation, as doe and p. 42live to juſtification, and I am by it intereſted in all the priviledges of a juſt man. Why may not I be ſaid to mock God (when as I conceive my ſelfe as perfectly righteous in Gods account) in asking pardon, as in being ſo indeed? I doe but ſuppoſe: there is as full a juſtification, as perfect a deliverance from death and condemnation, as in the former caſe, as yourſelfe grant.

Beſides, the queſtion is not of being of ſin or of perfefection of ſanctification, this is denied on both ſides, and ſinnes being is graunted, though not imputed, and ſo though righteouſneſſe be imputed, and thence no imputation of ſinne.

Neither is the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed a legall righteouſneſſe as hath beene ſhewed, that is, perſonall doing this, being it another thing is conſiſtent with ſinne ex conceſſis.

CHAP. XV.

IF it were Chriſts it would have no compliance with that errour, that God ſeeth no ſinne in his people.

How doe you prove that it hath compliance?

Whoſoever is perfectly righteous, in him God can ſee no ſin, but every beleever is ſo by the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe: therefore.

Leaving here your looſe Rethoricke, which is truely applicable to your ſelfe.

I anſwer, by a diſtinction, which I will premiſe firſt, and then apply.

God may be ſaid to ſee ſinne either with a ſimple ſight, or elſe to impute or puniſh it: the former was on my knowledge his errour, the latter is a truth, as we ſhall ſee. Out of Zanchy long agone I anſwered him, for the words are: We ſay alſo that God hath ſo Dicimus etiam Deum ita firmam tenere omnium ſcientiam ut omnia ſint ſemper ejus aperta oculis, & in conſpectu ipſius praeſentia ita ut nuſſius ire eum capere poſſit oblivio. Nam quod ſacris Scripturis ſaeſaepe dicitur, Deum obliviſci iniquitatum noſtrarum & peccata noſtrá eſſe illi tecta▪ item ca projeciſſe in profunda maris; haec & alia id genus dicta non ſunt intelligenda de ſimplici cognitione Dei, quaſi Deus ea non amplius norit, ſed de cognitione judiciali ad paenam, quod nolit ſc. ea contra nos in judicium proſerre, ſedcondonare▪ a…que hoc eſt quod Aug. in 3 1. Pſal. Beati quorū tecta ſunt peccata; ſi texit peccata Deus, noluit adver…e…e…ſi noluit advertere, noluit anim advertere ſi noluit animadvertere, noluit punire, noluit agnoſcere, maluit agnoſcere; quid eſt enim Deum videre peccata niſi punire peccata?firme a knowledge of all things, that all things are alwayes open to his eyes, and preſent in his ſight, that he can forget p. 43nothing; for what is often ſaid in the holy Scripture, that God forgetteth our ſinnes, that he hath covered them, and cast them into the bottome of the Sea; Theſe and ſuch like ſayings are not to be underſtood of knowledge ſimply, as if God knew them no more, but of a judiciall knowledge to puniſhment, that he will not bring them againſt us in judgement, but forgive them. And this is that which Auguſtine on the 31. Pſal. Bleſſed are they See Zanch. de natura Dei, l. 3. c. 2. q. 14. p. 216. & Polan. Synt. c. 35. ſimiliter.whoſe ſinnes are covered; if God hath covered them, he would not perceive them, if he would not perceive them, he would not conſider them; if he would not conſider them, he would not puniſh them, he would not acknowledge them, he would rather pardon them; for what is it for God to ſee ſin, but to puniſh ſin?

I anſwer, he that is made juſt by the righteouſneſſe of Jeſus Chriſt, in him God can ſee no ſinne to puniſh, that is all that followeth, and here is no compliance with that errour which was for a ſimple ſight.

Where there is pardon of all ſinnes by imputation of active or paſſive obedience, one, or both; the ſame followeth that God ſeeth no ſinne in that man to puniſh, and I hope that hath no compliance; free your ſelfe, you cleare our tenet by the ſame labour.

It is one thing for ſin to be, another to be imputed or puniſhed, and ſo to be righteous, that ſin may not be, and that it may not be imputed juſtification reſpecteth not the being ſimply, but being in force, binding to puniſhment: juſtification reſpecteth the latter only, though there be a deſtruction of the being of ſinne, and it is further in fieri, and ſhall have an utter abolition by vertue of fellowſhip with Chriſt, yet that falleth not under our queſtion.

There is an ultra (I ſee) to the line of your apprehenſion, and here is no Riddle.

p. 44CHAP. XVI. A ninth demonſtration is an heape indeed of ſlanders.

SUch is the leader, i. That it is true that many that hold the way of imputation are not aſhamed, nor afraid to confound the two Covenants of God, of Workes and Grace. That God never made more Covenants then one; that the Goſpel is nothing elſe but a gracious aide or reliefe from God to helpe man out with the performance of the Covenant of workes: ſo that that life and ſalvation which is ſaid to come by Chriſt, ſhall in no other ſenſe be ſaid to come by him, but onelyonly as he fulfilled the Law of works for man; and ſuch is that of their inheriting life and ſalvation according to the ſtrict and rigid tenour of the Law, Doe this.

Theſe are your demonſtrations foundation, the reſt are ſuperſtructures; to anſwer them were to fight with a ſhadow: this I anſwer without demurring. I profeſſe I never read man that did hold thoſe tenets as laid downe by you.

We give to Gods grace in Chriſt the whole ſalvation of beleevers, beginning, conſummation, adoption, juſtification, pardon, ſanctification, mortification, graces, exerciſe, growth, perfection, the ſaving of the ſoule and glorious reſurrection.

We give all to free grace, we ſay it is founded in another, a Surety, Jeſus Chriſt ſatisfying Gods juſtice in our behalfe. We teach the death of Chriſt, nay, the neceſſity of his incarnation, his taking our nature, doing and ſuffering in the forme of a ſervant, obeying to death; the neceſſity of his reſurrection, aſcenſion, and ſitting at Gods right hand.

We ſay to our juſtification his righteouſneſſe or obedience active and paſſive are neceſſary, they are the materiall cauſe, we teach the imputation of both, ſo the ſtreame, they are but few that exclude the active; none but you, Mr. Wotton, Arminius, &c. deny imputation ſimply; you p. 45admit of ſervile obedience to the Law; Yea, of the active part, neceſſarily concurring to make the paſſive an atonement, we to make the ſatisfaction full. We teach the ſubject a beleever in Jeſus Chriſt: finde theſe in the Covenant of workes, and then I will yeeld I am out.

You object to your ſelfe, the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed, and the Law perſonally wrought by a mans ſelfe are differing conditions; and anſwer, the ſubſtance of the agreement is ſtill the ſame, righteouſneſſe of the Law are that ſame by whomſoever wrought.

1. I anſwer, there is more then obedience to the Law, in doing; there is dying, ſo that there is no ſameneſſe.

2. The Lawes condition was, the man that doth, it is not here ſo, it is not the ſame. It is beleeving, taking in the object, anothers, a Sureties righteouſneſſe.

3. If Adam had fulfilled the Law, he had not beene juſtified with the ſame righteouſneſſe beleevers are, that you ſhould have proved.

To what followeth, we ſay not Gods imputation is the condition of the Covenant, but faith taking in the object Chriſts obedience, and we ſay they juſtifie not as workes ſimply, ſo they have the place of the matter thereof onelyonly, they concurre materially with the ſufferings of Chriſt; and juſtifie not, but as imputed, neither juſtifieth, not imputed or not applied: but enough to this was anſwered in a bare deniall.

CHAP. XVII. P. 158. 3. Arguments more.

THat for which righteouſneſſe is imputed to thoſe that beleeve, A…g. 1▪ … ▪that cannot be imputed unto them for righteouſneſſe. But the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is that for which righteouſneſſe is imputed to thoſe that beleeve: therefore it ſelfe cannot be imputed for righteouſneſſe.

The Major is proved, becauſe it is impoſſible that the thing merited ſhould be the ſame thing with that which is the meritorious cauſe.

p. 46I anſwer, confeſſing that which is imputed the meritorious cauſe.

2. Denying that what is merited is the ſame with the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, that is, juſtification is not the ſame with the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed, they differ as cauſe and effect.

The major by your proofe of it in plaine termes is this. The meritorious cauſe of juſtification (for you twice here confound righteouſneſſe and juſtification) cannot be imputed for righteouſneſſe. But the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is the meritorious cauſe of juſtification. Therefore.

I anſwer, confeſſing the minor, Chriſts righteouſneſſe is the meritorious cauſe of juſtification.

Denying your major, and ſo doe all ours, who teaching the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt the meritorious cauſe, yet hold it that which is imputed. Doctor Davenant.

Indeed in juſtification ſuch a formall Revera in juſtificatione talis cauſa formalis ponenda eſt, quae ſimul & meritoria eſſe poſſit: uiſi enim contineat illam dignitatem in ſe propter quam homo rite juſtificatus reputetur, nunquam erir cauſa formalis per quam juſtificatus exiſtat in conſpectu Dei, De juſtit hab. c. 22. p. 312.cauſe is to be put, which alſo may be a meritorious cauſe: for unleſſe it containe in it ſelfe that worthineſſe for which man is rightly reputed juſtified, it will never be the formall cauſe by which a man is juſtified in the ſight of God.

Your proofe of the major is, that it is impoſsible that the meritorious cauſe ſhould be the ſame thing wi…h what is merited. You ſhould have proved it impoſſible being the meritorious cauſe to be imputed for juſtification; here I will leave you ſticking, till you expedite your ſelfe.

If the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt be imputed to a beleever for Arg. 2.righteouſneſſe in his juſtification, then the meritorious cauſe of his juſtification is imputed unto him for righteouſneſſe. But the meritorious cauſe of a mans juſtification cannot be thus imputed unto him.

This denyed before you prove, becauſe the meritorious cauſe being a kinde of efficient, as the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is, cannot be either the matter or forme of juſtification.

1. It may be the forme, as out of Doctor Davenant; nay if it were not worthy it could not juſtifie, not every p. 47righteouſneſſe, not our owne, being unworthy; but that of Chriſt being onelyonly worthy, is that by which imputed we are juſtified.

2. It may be the matter, and ſo is it commonly termed by Divines. See Pareus on Vrſinus his Catech. Chriſts Satisfactio Chri ſt… eſt cauſa materialis juſtitiae noſtrae, ad q. 6. p. 355.ſatisfaction is the materiall cauſe of our righteouſneſſe. See Calv. whom you bring as oppoſing himſelfe, where this ſhall be ſpoken to more fully.

And hearken to Pareus in the ſame place, whom you elſewhere pretend your friend, and you ſhall finde him in direct oppoſition.

We are juſtified by the merit of Merito Chriſti juſtificamur, pattim ut cauſa materiali juſtificationis, quatenus obedientia Chriſti nobis applicata placemus Deo, & ea quaſi veſte induti pro juſtis reputamur; partim ut cauſa impulſiva, procata…ctica & meritoria quatenus propter cam nos abſolvit.Chriſt, partly as the materiall cauſe of juſtification in ſo much as we pleaſe God by the obedience of Chriſt applied unto us, and as clothed with it as with a garment are accounted righteous; partly as by an impulſive cauſe outwardly moving and meritorious, as for that he abſolveth us.

It is in both againſt you, and if the matter had not due worth it would never doe the worke. It muſt be a ſufficient price that maketh ſatisfaction paid by a Surety for mans ranſome, or elſe it is worth nothing to that effect: It were not ſuch righteouſneſſe as God would accept. It applied would not effect juſtification, and that which is the effect thereof, remiſſion of ſinnes.

And for your axiome read Pareus. Chriſtus varie ſe haber ad juſtificationem noſtram, 1. ut ſubjectum in quo eſt juſtitia noſtra, 2. ut cauſa adjuvans, quia impetrat, 3. ut efficiens principalis, quia una cum patre juſtificat & dat fidem, qua credimus—ſatisfactio Chriſti eſt cauſa materialis juſtitiae noſtrae, ib.Chriſt hath divers conſiderations to our juſtification, 1. as the ſubject in which our righteouſneſſe is, 2. as an adjuvant cauſe, becauſe he obtaineth it, 3. as the principall efficient, becauſe together with the Father he juſtifieth and giveth faith by which we beleeve—Chriſts ſatisfaction is the materiall cauſe of our righteouſneſſe.

Himſelfe alſo calleth the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe the formall cauſe often times, not in the Papiſts ſenſe, as inhering in us, that it doth in Chriſt, in which p. 48ſenſe he denieth it the formall cauſe, Caſtig. de juſtif. p. 469. and addeth that remiſſion of ſinnes is made by perfect Remiſſio peccatorum fit per juſtitiam imputatam perfectam, Caſtig de juſtiſ p. 389.righteouſneſſe imputed. And as for the finall cauſe, queſtionleſſe there is the glory of Chriſt as Mediator, which is enough to infringe your inviolable Law; and you ſhould remember you are in an action, where matter and forme properly ſo called have no place, but by analogie, or by ſupplying the place and ſtead.

And here take notice that your concluſion, that the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt it ſelfe cannot be imputed unto us, asAntecedens falſum & blaſphemum: in Scripturam, negat enim poſſe …e…i, quod Scriptura affirmat heri, & neceſſario, heri, Caſtig. l. 2. c 7. p. 468. it is Bellarmines, ſo Pareus giveth it this anſwer: the Antecedent is falſe and blaſphemous againſt the Scripture; for it denieth that poſsible to be done which the Scripture affirmeth neceſſarily to be done.

The 12. is of affinity with the former.

If the meritorious cauſe of our juſtification be imputed unto us, or may be conceived imputable, then the effects themſelves of this cauſe may be imputed to us alſo, and ſo we may be ſaid to have merited our owne juſtification and ſalvation, and whereby the whole world is juſtified. Thus we are in the middeſt of Rome inſtead of Hieruſalem.

The conſequence is denied, and largely anſwered by the Learned before, and you ſhall finde it Bellarmines againſt Proteſtants; and ſo your ſelfe in urging it, truly, in the middeſt of Rome. To omit it is againſt imputation ſimply, even of the death of Chriſt alſo, wherein you are deſerted by Pareus and Mr. Gat. left with your friends Arminius and Socinius.

CHAP. XVIII. Three further reaſons. Argu. 13.

I If the active obedience of Chriſt be in the letter and formality G.of it imputed unto me to my juſtification, then am I reputed before God to have wrought that righteouſneſſe in Chriſt.

But I am not reputed by God to have wrought this righteouſneſſe in Chriſt: therefore.

p. 57Paſſing your language, letter formality, and other expreſſions, I anſwer in the words of our Homily, He for them fulfilled the Law in his life, ſo that in him and by him every true Chriſtian man may be called a fulfiller of the Law; for as much as that which their infirmity lacked, Chriſts juſtice hath ſupplied. Homil. p. 15. The performance of the Surety for me is accepted as if my ſelfe had done it.

Againſt this you argue, then is Chriſt in his ſufferings reputed to have ſinned in me, an aſſertion uncouth and un-Chriſtian.

To this I anſwer, my ſinnes were his by imputation, they were laid on him my Surety, and in that ſenſe he was a ſinner, as well as a Sacrifice for ſinne. And queſtionleſſe a being either in other, union and communion are ſuppoſed to his bearing my ſinnes, and my having his righteouſneſſe. In Gods purpoſe there was that order, and ſo when as there is an actuall commutation of ſinne and righteouſneſſe in Gods purpoſe he bore the perſons of all the elect, obeying and ſuffering for them, which is then accounted to me when as I am incorporated to him when alſo my ſinnes are reckoned to him, and I am actually freed from them.

Againſt this ſuppoſed imputation I argue, if the active Arg. 14…be, then the paſsive is imputed alſo; for there can be no ſufficient reaſon given why the one ſhould be taken and the other left. But the death and ſufferings of Chriſt are not in the formality and letter of them imputed.

1. We hold the imputation of both. 2. This argumentA. is denied by your friends, and againſt them, who teach the imputation of the one, and not the other. 3. You are againſt imputation ſimply, and ſo a Socinian, as Mr. G. anſwereth Lucius. But you will prove it.

If the death and ſufferings of Chriſt are imputed to me, then G.may I be accounted to have died in Chriſt, but that can at no hand be in letter and formality.

I anſwer, what my Surety doth for me, is at any barre my act or ſuffering, his paiment is mine, mine or his own, and then he is a ſinner, as he for me fulfilled the Law in his p. 58life; ſo, he for me paid the ranſome in his death, as our Homily.

Of which when as I am ſaid to be juſtified or acquitted, I muſt needs be a partaker, it muſt be mine that I may be acquitted; neither doth the Scripture deny it, when as it ſaith a Chriſtian is dead to ſinne. It is a truth to the power, and guilt, or puniſhment, it is our freedome from either. It excludeth nor, but ſuppoſeth our inſition into his death, As many of us as are baptized in Chriſt, are baptized into his death, and are with him, as buried, and raiſed, dead; he that is dead, is freed from ſinne, Rom. 6. there is a fellowſhip with his ſufferings, Phil. 3. and thence the vertue thereof in juſtification.

You ſay we are freely accepted in the beloved, 1 Eph. 6. yet it coſt bloud; our iniquities were laid on him, and ſo by his ſtripes we were healed, we eſtabliſh our Surety Chriſt.

Gods free forgiveneſſe and puniſhing our ſinnes in our Surety is all we urge, as you out of 2 Cor. 5. 21. we ſuffer not but by him.

Your letter and formality are your po…terne, you deceive us, indeed much more your Clients, and ſo your ſelfe. Poſtico falle clientem, it is a Sophiſters tricke.

To omit that at no hand, and yet according to the letter and formality, is no hand, and a left hand.

Suppoſed imputation with you is as Bellar. putative righteouſneſſe.

But then we are juſtified in part by the ceremoniall law, he Arg. 15.was circumciſed and kept the paſſeover. But, &c.

Sir, thoſe were parts of Gods worſhip, both inſtitutedAnſw. by him; and ſo required in the ſecond Commandement, requiring all worſhip according to Gods word, which bindeth Jewes and Gentiles, thus both are ſatisfied for, and thus in Chriſt there is neither Jew nor Gentile, all are one; and your conſequences vaniſh.

p. 59CHAP. XIX. 5. Further Demonſtrations.

THey muſt paſſe for Demonſtrations, call them what you will, and that reaſon and Logicke are friends to your concluſion, and not Rhetoricke; as if Reaſon and Logicke were two things, and you uſed not your Rhetoricke.

Then are our ſinnes imputed to Chriſt in the ſame manner, in Arg. 16.his death, &c.

But our ſinnes are not imputed in that manner.

For then God looketh on him and reputeth him as one that had truly and really provoked him, and ſinned him. But God lookes not on him ſo, &c.

For then he ſhould looke on him as one truly deſerving death. But that God doth not.

Becauſe Chriſt offered himſelfe without ſpot unto God. He A.had no ſpot of his owne, yet was a ſinner, and deſerved, being1. our Surety, he was made ſinne, our iniquities were his: the Surety is as liable to the Law as the principall, his undertaking maketh it his own debt, and him as deſerving. Had he perſonally ſinned, it is true he could not ſatisfie for us. That denied, now ſatisfying as a Surety, we are free. Our2. perſonals were his by imputation, inherent in us, not in3. him; and when you grant the puniſhment his, the Scripture ſaith the ſinnes are ſo without which he could not have beene puniſhed as elſewhere is ſhewed.

If the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, &c. then doth God looke upon Arg. 17.on us as worthy of that juſtification. But that is an uncleane ſaying.

I anſwer, God looketh on us in the worthineſſe ofA. Chriſt our Surety, and ſo are we worthy, by his merits imputed.

This is a truth, though our fulfilling the Law be not worthineſſe, for we are debtors, it is what we ought, and are but unprofitable ſervants when we have done all.

Neither is our worthineſſe by the merits of Christ imputed, p. 60oppoſed to … grace, (as you object) Rom. 11. 6. grace and Chriſts bloud, and Chriſts obedience are ſubordinate. It holdeth againſt perſonall worthineſſe, not that of our Mediator.

And when as the Scripture ſaith, God juſtifieth the ungodly: I hope he that is juſtified is a beleever, one that hath union and communion with Chriſt. Yea and repentance too, theſe qualifie to the promiſe of pardon of ſinnes, Iſ. 1. 16. &c. and they are not in that moment ungodly: that was the ſtate before faith and repentance, and ſo juſtification, but is not when God juſtifieth; to juſtifie the wicked is abomination, God will by no meanes doe it; you will diſtinguiſh betweene a beleever and an ungodly man: now faith receiving and applying the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed juſtifieth not for our worthineſſe, but the worthineſſe of our Surety, faiths object.

If men become formally juſt by Gods imputation of Chriſts Arg.. 18.righteouſneſſe unto them, then doe men doe men become formally ſinfull by the like act of God imputing Adams ſinne. But men are not made, &c. for then the act of God ſhould be as the life and ſoule of that ſinne in men. Therefore.

I anſwer, Chriſts righteouſneſſe imputed is that which is the forme of juſtification, that which is as a forme giving him that name and eſſe. And that by Adams ſinne imputed I am conſtituted a ſinner, for imputation it ſelfe, and righteouſneſſe imputed wherein your crochet lieth, I ſuppoſe the diſtinction but a vaine ſtrife of words. Wee all conſider the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt as the matter, the imputation of God his act applying it, by it applied we are juſt.

The act of God is not the forme that onelyonly applieth it, by it applied we are juſt, and ſo ſinners not by that judiciary act of God, charging it on us, but it charged.

To omit that by formally, we meane not inherently, righteouſneſſe inhereth in Chriſt ſinne in Adam, and are ours by imputation; by the one imputed we are righteous, and by the other imputed ſinners. This is an advantage from an expreſſure, a meere cavillation.

p. 61If righteonſneſſe conſiſteth partly in the imputation of Chriſts Arg. 19.righteouſneſſe, partly in remiſſion of ſinnes, then muſt there be a double formall cauſe of juſtification, and that made up by two ſeverall natures, really differing one from another.

That which juſtifieth is the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed, remiſſion of ſinnes is properly the effect and inſeparable companion of it.

So the Learned, Calvine and Chamieere, and reaſon; for, juſtification being juſtifaction, conſtituting righteous by Chriſts obedience, fully ſatisfying, freedome followeth.

Calvine never uſed your rod, it were to beate himſelfe, as is demonſtrated (ſpare that confident word your ſpeech demonſtrations) Calvine, Chamieere interpreting him, giveth it an effect of righteouſneſſe imputed by which we are juſtified; beſides there is greater oppoſition betweene righteouſneſſe infuſed, and pardon whence inconſiſtence, then imputation of righteouſneſſe and remiſſion, which who ſo denieth to be Calvines, muſt have a face that cannot bluſh or be unſound in his ſenſes and intellectuals; if remiſſion be an effect of righteouſneſſe imputed, and conſequent to juſtification, they muſt really differ, or cauſe and effect doe not really differ.In genere conformitas cum Deo & Lege divina, juſtitia eſt conſornias creaturarum rationalium cum legibus ad ipſas perrinentibus: deni que juſtitia eſt impletio Legis, & conformitas cū Lege eſt ipſa. Hoc tenendum quia oport. nos juſtificari per impletionem Legis, is Pareus on Vrſin p. 348

And therefore remiſſion of ſinnes cannot be properly called imputed righteouſneſſe in their judgements.

And when as you ſay remiſſion may be called imputed righteouſneſſe, partly becauſe it is no abſolute legall or text righteouſneſſe, but a righteouſneſſe by interpretation and conſtruction of favour, and partly becauſe ſuch righteouſneſſe as it is, it is notwithſtanding given in the ſtrength and mediation of the righteouſneſſe of another, which is Chriſt.

I anſwer, remiſſion cannot be called properly imputed righteouſneſſe. Your reaſon, becauſe it is not abſolute legall righteouſneſſe, may be better anſwered, becauſe it is no righteouſneſſe at all, for righteouſneſſe is in the kind conformity with God, and the divine Law, righteouſneſſe is the conformity of the reaſonable creature with Lawes appertaining to them: to conclude righteouſneſſe is conformity with the Law, and conformity p. 62with the Law is the ſame: this muſt be held becauſe we muſt be juſtified by the fulfilling of the Law.

2. When as you ſay it is not text righteouſneſſe, we are ſure you can have no text for it, and your conſtruction is its corruption, and it is the favour you beare your owne cauſe.

3. When as you ſay it is given by the mediation and ſtrength of the righteouſneſſe of another Chriſt. It muſt be his righteouſneſſe imputed or applied, and but an effect which we ſpake of before, and the confirmation thereof.

If ſuch imputation be neceſſary to juſtification, it is either in Arg. 20.reſpect of the juſtice of God, becauſe he could not be otherwiſe juſt in pronouncing us juſt, or in reſpect of mercy, or for ſalving and advancing ſome other attribute.

But there is no neceſſity in reſpect of theſe.

You anſwer your ſelfe, that it is neceſſary in reſpect of Gods juſtice. And argue againſt that.

1. There is nothing thereabout neceſſary by way of ſatisfaction of juſtice, ſince Chriſts one offering on the Groſſe, &c.G.

Yet there is a neceſſity that there be an application ofA. that righteouſneſſe, elſe can there be no juſtification, and were not that done God ſhould juſtifie a wicked man, which is abomination to the Lord; when as the Lord juſtifying doth to that end apply the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. Gods judgement is according to truth, juſtice in God requireth that a man be juſt, that is, juſtified, God will not hold a guilty perſon innocent.

2. You anſwer, God may as truly pronounce that man righteous that wants a literall or legall righteouſneſſe upon him, G.eſpecially ſuppoſing another righteouſneſſe, holding any analogy or proportion thereunto, as he may account any mans uncircumciſion circumciſion, or call the gentile circumciſion, or John Baptiſt, Elias, &c. in theſe Chriſt ſpake truly.

So may God, a man not legally juſt, having qualification which holdeth proportion with ſuch righteouſneſſe in any point, &c.

I anſwer, we want legall righteouſneſſe, that is, our owne perſonall righteouſneſſe, but in Chriſts righteouſneſſe have what God accepteth us in, our Sureties righteouſneſſe p. 63is our owne, it is the righteouſneſſe of God. Such can you name no other that is ſo indeed, ſo that the Lord may thereupon juſtifie when you mention remiſſion of ſins; beſides, that it is not righteouſneſſe, conformity to Gods Law, we grant it but as an effect of righteouſneſſe imputed, of which before.

And when as you in the third place anſwer that remiſſion is a true and compleate righteouſneſſe in the kinde, though it be not a through conformity with the Law. I may anſwer, nonne te vides pugnantia loqui? that which is not a through conformity to the Law, is not a compleate righteouſneſſe; it hath not its nature, it is an effect of righteouſneſſe imputed Chriſts, we are compleate in him, Gods judgement is according to truth, and ſo is his pronouncing ſuch a man juſt.

CHAP. XX. Containing the 21. 22, 23, & 24. Reaſons.

PAſſing your Apolgy for further demonſtrations, as you call them. Let us heare the demonſtrations themſelves.

That which having beene done in our owne perſons, could not Arg. 2.have beene our juſtification nor any part of the righteouſneſſe by which we could have beene juſtified, cannot be made our juſtification, or any part of it by imputation from another.

But the righteouſneſſe of the Law pretended to be imputed from Chriſt in juſtification, had it beene wrought by our ſelves in our owne perſons, could not have beene our juſtification or any part of that righteouſneſſe, nor any part of our righteouſneſſe by which we were to be juſtified; therefore the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt cannot be made our juſtification, nor any part of it by imputation.

I will not ſtand on the altering the ſtate of the queſtion, which is not whether it be our juſtification or part of it, but whether we be juſtified by it imputed: the difference is p. 64as cauſe and effect, and in the minor propoſition being our juſtification and part of the righteouſneſſe are confounded.

I might diſmiſſe this argument with this note. But I will ſuppoſe all right. I anſwer,

1. We ſpeake not of the active without the paſſive obedience of Chriſt, we teach the imputation of both.

2. Performance ſuppoſed, is either of man ſtanding or fallen. If ſtanding it could have juſtified, had Adam done this he had lived. In the ſenſe the major is falſe, you confeſſe it.

If fallen, the ſuppoſition is impoſſible, Rom. 8. 3. and there muſt be more then action, paſſion alſo, which are impoſſible to a mans ſelfe. Perſonall paſſion could not ſatiſfie, ſo the damned might, there muſt be doing alſo, which is impoſſible.

3. What could not be therefore our righteouſneſſe and juſtifie, being done and ſuffered by another and imputed doth it, that which is impoſſible in a perſon, is found in Chriſt perfect obedience. By his obedience we are conſtituted righteous, Rom. 5. 19.

That which men are not bound by any Law of God to doe in Arg. 22.their owne perſons for their juſtification, cannot be imputed from another to any ſuch end.

But men are not bound to obſerve the morall Law to juſtification, therefore the obſervation of it by another cannot be imputed to that end.

1. I anſwer, Doe this, was Gods Law to life: the morall Law muſt be perfectly performed if it juſtifie, as you, p. 99. & 103.Lex aeterna, & aete…nae obligationis. p. 67.

2. That this is eternally obliging, your ſelfe call it, an eternall Law, and of eternall obligation. And God requireth it ſtill, either by our ſelves or Surety; had it not beene due of our part, our Sureties obedience untill death, poverty, &c. had beene vaine; but it was for us, our debt. When as our L. required to life, keeping the Commandements, he ſhewed it a debt, and that he being inſolent in his perſon muſt looke for a Surety.

p. 65The Law of faith is ſufficient as an inſtrument applying what the Mediator did and ſuffered, to put it on; there muſt be ſomewhat elſe, the object of faith, which applied to us, anſwereth for us that debt, and thus faith eſtabliſheth the Law.

Faith properly taken is not. Reade Ʋ …ſinus againe, andQuia non fides proprie ſedobjectum fidei ſeu meritum Chriſti fide apprehenſum imputatur nobis ad juſtitiam. Haec eriam eſt conformitas Legis, fides enim Legem non inanem reddit ſed ſtabilit. Rom. 3. 31.Rom 3:31 he in termes teacheth you, Becauſe faith properly is not imputed to righteouſneſſe, but the object of faith, or the merit of Chriſt apprehended by faith: ſo he, or Pareus, or both, as 5. object. p. 364. and of anothers righteouſneſſe, not inhering in us but Chriſt.

They ſay, this alſo is conformity of the Law, for faith maketh not the Law of none effect, but eſtabliſheth it. This wheele runneth merrily, I will ſave labour in further oyling of it. It is your owne Rhetoricke, and ſerveth my turne.

If God requires onelyonly faith of men to their juſtification, then he imputeth this faith unto them thereunto, but God requires only faith.Arg. 23.

I anſwer, onelyonly faith is faith conſidered in it ſelfe properly, or in relation as taking in the object Chriſts, righteouſneſſe, applying it; the former (which you hold) is not all, or Gods condition further then it taketh in Chriſts righteouſneſſe, which is in deed the condition, as elſewhere I have ſhewed. So Pareus but now, and all the learned Proteſtants except Armin. Socin. Mr. W. and Mr. Good. the faith which God requires is an appropriation of the perfect obedience of Chriſt, by which we are conſtituted righteous, as the Scripture ſpeaketh, therein alone is the vertue or value; faith is but the inſtrument applying, which to that end yet is neceſſary.

And this is the will of God; neither (to anſwer what followeth) can man receive it but on ſuppoſition of Gods imputation and giving; giving and receiving are relates; this wheele runneth as merrily, and will need no more oyling for this argument.

That which was imputed to Abraham for righteouſneſſe in Arg. 24.his juſtification, is imputed to other beleevers alſo.

p. 66But the faith of Abraham was, &c.

And you referre for proofe to the ſecond chapter, where it is ſealed by the choyceſt learning of ancient and moderne, where alſo he may ſee the aſhes, of the contrary interpretation, conſumed and burnt up with the fire of the triall, &c.

But here you give us Rhetoricke inſtead of Logicke. Turne what is ſaid on both ſides looſe, and excepting Socin. Armin. &c. you have not a man with you.

The faith of Abraham tooke in the promiſes, the ſeed, Chriſt his righteouſneſſe, in whom is all happineſſe, it did juſtifie, laying hold, and applying his righteouſneſſe imputed, verſ. 6. & 11. the effect of what is applied is given to the in…rument as the whiting of a wall to the bruſh or pencill, as making rich to the hand of a begger; by a Trope a Metonymy, or a double Trope Metalepſis, relatively, as all ours, ſee before out of Sybrandus; ſo our Doctor Davenant anſwereth Bellarmine, ſo Pareus, ſo Chemnit.

Faith is imputed to righteouſneſſe, Fides imputatur ad juſtitiam non propter dignitatem virtutis, ſed quia apprehendit in promiſſione Evangelii meritum Chriſti, &c. p. 271. nam neque actione fidei noſtrae juſtificamur: ſed ea re tantum quae per fidem apprehenditur, quae eſt Chriſtus cum ſua obedientia, juſti cenſcmur, & ſic illud intelligo: Credidit Abraham, &c. Gen. 15. 6. quid reputatum? non actio, ſed… id quod credidit ſeura alii loquuntur▪ ipſo▪ fides, non ſui apprehendentis, ſed objecti apprehenſi reſpectu▪ Zanch. in Phil 3. 9.Gen 15:6Phil 3:9not for the dignity of the vertue, but becauſe it apprehendeth the merit of Chriſt in the promiſe of the Goſpel; for neither are we juſtified by the act of our faith, but by that thing onelyonly which by ſaith is apprehended, which is Chriſt with his obedience, wee are accounted juſt: and thus I underſtand that, Abraham beleeved, &c. What was reputed? not the action, but that which he beleeved, or as others ſpeake, faith it ſelfe, not in reſpect of it ſelfe apprehending, but of the object apprehended.

CHAP. XXI. The laſt Reaſon.

IF the righteouſneſſe of the Law be not imputable or derivable (in the letter and formality of it from one mans perſon to p. 67another) then cannot the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt be imputed to any man in juſtification after any ſuch manner.

But the righteouſneſſe of the Law is not imputable from ou… mans perſon to anothers. Therefore the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is not imputable (much leſſe imputed) to any man in his juſtification: this is mentioned with proofes, c. 8. the reaſon is, the man that doth ſhall live and no other.

You needed not to name this twice, nor I to anſwer it more then once; yet I deny the conſequence, for the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is not Legall, but Evangelicall: the Goſpel revealeth it.

And then I deny that that righteouſneſſe which Chriſt performed for us is not imputable, or imputed, he was our Surety, performed obedience to death for us, if it be not imputed it is vaine, we have no benefit by it. But looking backe, I ſhall but deliver the ſame; I will …urne you over.

The Law requireth perſonall performances, the Goſpel admitteth of a Surety, the man that's found in Chriſt having his righteouſneſſe, liveth; By the obedience of one, many ſhall be made righteous: ſuppoſe imputed or given by God and applied by us.

You object to your ſelfe, If the tranſgreſſion of the Law be imputable from one to another, then may the righteouſneſſe of the Law. But the tranſgreſſion of the Law is imputable from one mans perſon to anothers, … Adams ſinne.

By way of anſwer you firſt deny the majors conſequence, and give reaſons.

1. In the tenour of the Law there is no ſuch emphaticall reſtraint of the guilt or puniſhment due to the tranſgreſſion of it to the perſon, as there is of the reward promiſed to the obſerver, as Gal. 3. 12. The man that doth this ſhall live: it is no where found on the other hand, the very man that tranſgreſſſeth them ſhall die for his tranſgreſſion.

Did not God ſay to Allam, In the day thou ſhalt eate thereof thou ſhalt die the death? Gen. 2. 17▪ did you never reade, The ſ…le that ſinneth it ſhall die? Ezek. 18. 4.

2. You anſwer, giving a difference, that ſinne demerit it is greater of puniſhment then obedience in deſerving a reward.

p. 68This exception notwithſtanding there may be a ſpecificall ſameneſſe of reaſon, and the difference but in a degree, greater leſſe; You grant obedience ſhould merit, though not ſo much, which yet is ſimply deſtroyed, when as it is found due, and we having done all are unprofitable ſervants.

But it cannot be denied, but whole nature was in Adam, in his loynes, willing, doing, receiving, as he by covenant, to have beene brought forth in his likeneſſe, pure and holy as himſelfe; had he continued ſo, as he, uncleane, did bring forth ſuch as are uncleane; more, leſſe, merit or not, is not the queſtion, but imputableneſſe: the ſameneſſe thereof, you confeſſe it when you put the difference more and leſſe, p. 192.

You now▪ come to the imputation of Adams ſinne, to his poſterity, aſſenring its imputation onelyonly in the merit of▪ it, it is a curſe or puniſhment, and then propoſe to us certaine concluſions about the ſame.

The firſt is, The Scripture no where affirmes either the imputation of Adams ſinne, or of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to thoſe that beleeve; where ever it is uſed, it is onelyonly applied to ſomething of the ſame perſons to whom the imputation is made, and never to or of any thing of anothers.

Beſides what hath beene ſpoken, to which I referre the Reader.

1. This concluſion is againſt imputation ſimply of what is anothers, and is for Armin. Socin. &c. againſt all Proteſtants, even ſuch as hold the imputation of Chriſts paſſive obedience, which is anothers.

2. It is againſt the word which ſpeaketh of imputation of righteouſneſſe, Rom. 4. verſ. 6. & 11. which I have ſhewed to be Chriſts, and is confuted by the Proteſtant ſtreame, who interpreting faiths imputation, take faith tropically and include the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt given or imputed by God. Pareus his ſpeech is, quem ſenſum (metonymicum) ſi oppugnat adverſarius, certe non Lutheruum impugnat ſed Spiritum ſanctum blaſphemat, &c. and what Sybr. teacheth of the ſame we have heard before.

The priviledges, remiſſion, &c. ſuppoſe Chriſts▪ righteouſneſſe p. 69not onelyonly performed, but given and received, as the effect the cauſe.

So doth our death for Adams ſinne, and that ſinne is ours, the Scripture ſheweth we ſinned in him, and that ſinne went over all by one mans diſobedience; we not onelyonly die, but ſinne, death paſſed over all, being all have ſinned, Rom. 5. 12. and by one mans offence many are made ſinners, verſ. 19.

As Adams poſterity are implied to be in his loynes to puniſhment, ſo to ſinne whence puniſhment, and this your ſelfe often confeſſe, which by imputation becometh ours, when as we are conceived.

To impute ſinne, is onelyonly to charge guilt of ſinne on a man, 2.with a purpoſe to puniſh him for it, as Rom. 5. 13. not ſinne it ſelfe.

I anſwer, the Scripture chargeth us with both Adams ſin and the demerit or guilt thereof, & I would know whether ſinne and guilt demerit are ſeparable? if not, how there can be guilt charged, and demerit, and not ſinne, as the ſinne is, the demerit is, inſeparably, though not the charging of it.

Hath many parts, the firſt is, That imputation of the righteouſneſſe 3.of Chriſt to beleevers, or the ſinne of Adam to his poſterity, are expreſſions at leaſt unknowne to the holy Ghoſt in Scripture.

1. The anſwer is, this was once before named and anſwered, and muſt be now neglected. Hoſius the Papiſt ſaid it of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, you are like him.

2. You ſay, you grant there are expreſſions in Scripture concerning both the communication of Adams ſinne with his poſterity, and the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt with beleevers, that will fairely enough beare the terme of imputation, if it be rightly underſtood.

So the termes are granted, the difficulty is about the right ſenſe; thus you deſtroy what you built before twice in this chapter. Now for the ſenſe.

You ſay, Rom. 5. 19. concerning Adams ſinne, many are ſaid to be ſinners, and righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, many are made righteous▪ and upon that if the meaning of imputation of Adams p. 70ſinne to condemnation be that the demerit or guilt of Adams ſinne is charged on the whole poſterity, a maine part of which puniſhment of Adams ſinne redounded and ranne over as it were from his perſon to his whole poſterity, a maine part of which puniſhment is that originall defilement wherein they are all conceived and borne, and thereby are made truly and formally ſinners before God. Let it paſſe. But if the meaning be that ſinfull act wherein Adam tronſgreſſed in the letter and formality of it; and as it was Adams owne perſonall ſinne is ſo imputed that his poſterity is made formally ſinners before any of the part of the puniſhment come upon them, this imputation you are ſure the Scripture will not juſtifie.

I anſwer, granting the former part, for guilt and puniſhment, that by which we are formally ſinners, that is inherently. But adde that is not all, the act of Adam as well as the demerit, nay therefore becauſe the demerit is imputed, and by it as I am formally a ſinner by pollution of nature, which is an effect, ſo am I truly a ſinner, thence denominated, not formally as it inhering, and yet charged on me, with, and as the internall guilt and demerit. So that I am as truly a ſinner by imputation of that act, as the effect thereof, ſo the texts of which before.

1. You plead firſt the weight of the demerit, or ſinfulneſſe of it demonſtrateth the equity of Gods proceedings in binding over Adams poſterity, as his perſon to the ſame puniſhment.

2. The narrowneſſe and ſcantneſſe of Adams perſon▪ to beare all that wrath himſelfe.

3. The peculiar and neere relation of the poſterity of his perſon, they mere in his perſon, and ſomewhat of his, when the ſin was committed. Adam was all us, we all were that one Adam. The whole generation of mankinde is but Adam, or but Adams perſon interpreted.

All theſe as grounds of Gods equity and juſt dealing in puniſhing Adam and his poſlerity, you largely lay downe, and then by Scripture.

And who oppoſeth you? what is this to the not-imputation of his ſinne? the texts are cleane we are ſinners, p. 71and reaſon that the internal demerit and ſinne are inſeparable, you call it demerit or ſinfulneſſe.

Imputation therefore (ſay you) if there be any, is of every mans owne ſinne in Adam, we being in his loynes as Levi in Abraham, not Adams, &c.

If it be our owne, then not the puniſhment onelyonly but the offence is ours, we are ſinners thence as well as from inward pollution▪ and as it is equall as ſoone as we exiſt that the puniſhment ſhould be laid on us, and the demerit, ſo the ſinne it ſelfe, as that for which, which we all conceive to be by Gods imputation or charging it on us.

God righteouſly puniſheth and righteouſly reputeth me a ſinner. And yet it is Adams ſinne, the ſinne of one in Scripture; he onelyonly exiſting, made ours by Gods juſt judgement in conception and birth, and that by imputation, which we conceive Gods way of communication which you granted but now, for which there is ſuch equity as you ſpeake of; for more to this head I referre you to what is before largely ſpoken unto twice to this head, of Orthodox againſt Pelagians and Papiſts, and on occaſion given in what followeth.

I have done examining the firſt Treatiſe, and now come to conſider what commiſſion and power you have to diſarme and take away the weapons of us whom you call your enemies, your ſecond part: and firſt to examine your concluſions.

p. 73EXAMINATION of M^r. GOODWINS CONCLUSIONS.