The Doctrine of Justification Cleared, Treatise · Examination 2 · Chapter 1-2

The Doctrine of Justification Cleared · Treatise · Examination 2 · Chapter 1-2

p. 73Being Chapter 1 & 2. of his ſecond part.

WHich you ſay Give light to the Queſtion, and ſerve as foundations and grounds to give anſwere upon, to Objections made againſt your diſcourſe.

Concl. 1. He for whoſe ſinnes a plenary ſatisfaction hath bin made (either by himſelfe or another for him) and hath been accepted by him, againſt whom▪ &c. is as juſt and righteous as he that rever ſinned, but had done all things meet for him.

1. I anſwere, a plenary ſatisfaction reſpecteth the whole debt: that made and accepted he for whom it's paid is as juſt as you ſpeak.

2. Acceptation is neceſſary to a plenary ſatisfaction for ſinne, to that perfect righteouſneſſe; this acceptation is in and for Chriſts perfect ſati faction; we are accepted, in the beloved, 1 Eph. in him God's well pleaſed; when as we are found in his righteouſneſſe, as Iacob in Eſau's apparell: in Chriſt, not having our own righteouſnes, but that which is by faith, apprehending and puting on, that man is free from ſinne, and likewiſe holy, unblameable and unreprovable in Gods ſight; white as ſnow, and whiter then the ſnow, compleat, perfect, perfected for ever; every way, to this end; and thence remisſion of ſinnes as before.

Thus is evident becauſe ther's as much righteouſneſſe in repayring wrongs, as in abſtaining from wrongs.

p. 74I anſwer it's true, and grounded on my former anſwer ſuppoſing a man in the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

Elſe it's ſhort: for though there be as much righteouſneſſe in repairing wrongs, as in abſtaining from them▪ Neither are ſufficient to make a man compleatly juſt; there muſt be alſo a doing right, a doing good.

He that treſpaſſeth by cattel; and fully ſatisfyeth for that ſpoyle is done to his contentment, is as good a neighbour, and deales as juſtly and honeſtly with him as he that never treſpaſſed.

True, and yet is not ſo good as he ſhould be by the Commandment, it forbiddeth evill, and requireth love and good, and from this poſitive part is he denominated.

No treſpaſſer can by himſelfe ſatisfie God, he muſt doe it by another, putting him not only in a ſtate of abſtinence from evill, but alſo of righteouſneſſe, both which are done by the imputation of Chriſts active and pasſive obedience. Whence pardon.

The eſſerce of Iuſtice, as in the definition of Iuſtice is ſuum cuique tribuere, to give every one that which is due to him: ther's no more due to one injured, then that which is his own; that is fully valuable to the injury we have done unto him.

The former part I grant, ſo that there be all that's due but deny it enough, not to doe evill; good muſt alſo be done; ſo that Commandement. And Repentance requireth, as abſtinence from evill, doing good; as not to bring forth evill ſo to bring forth good fruit. nova vita eſt optima paenitentia, and that by which a man abſtaineth from evill, is poſitive goodneſſe.

This Concluſion maketh nothing for your Faiths imputation, in a proper ſence. It maketh for imputation of active and pasſive obedience, in which ther's full compenſation; giving God what's due.

Concl. 2. Ther's no middle condition between a perfect freedome from finne, and compleat righteouſneſſe. He that is diſcharged from ſinne, is compleatly righteous.

I anſwer, and grant that he that is diſcharged from p. 75ſinne, is ſo on imputation of righteouſneſſe, that, the cauſe is ſuppoſed, and he is compleatly righteous, and ſo ther's no medium.

M^r. Bradſhaw's paſſage is on ſuppoſition of things, thus done and ſuffered joyntly; in with the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt conſiſteth, by which a man is juſtified p. 75. p 22. & ſo p. 23. and ſaid to be imputed, p. 24. and thence your named inference which is for our purpoſe againſt your ſelfe.

Your reaſon, Becauſe nothing can any way diminiſh perfection of righteouſneſſe, but ſinne, as degrees of darkneſſe, perfection of light; as the aire free from darkneſſe muſt needs be perfectly light: So he that is perfectly freed from all finne, muſt needs be perfectly righteous.

I anſwer, though nothing diminiſheth perfection of righteouſneſſe but ſinne, as degrees of darkneſſe doe the perfection of light; and although from the perfect freedome from darkneſſe, perfect light muſt needs be put; and he that is perfectly free from ſinne, muſt needs be perfectly righteous.

Yet both are on ſuppoſitions, of perfect light, and perfect righteouſneſſe; which ſuppoſitions are neceſſary.

It's the approaching light that beginneth the diſpelling of darkneſſe, and perfect light leaveth no darkneſſe at all. In ſanctification fleſh and ſpirit are contraries, then when as there is infuſion of grace, and thereby corruption is mortified and diſpelled; ther's fight andVn…m …ont…triorum, vi…endi co…rum …t al … ▪ …ummu … unius … put de … ▪ victory on graces part. One contrary by overcoming doth corrupt the other; and it's the higheſt degree of one contrary which leaveth nothing of the other. So that though it be darkneſſe that hindereth perfect light, it's perfect light that diſp…lleth all degrees of darkneſſe.

So it's imputation of Chriſts perfect righteouſneſſe, which cauſeth compleat pardon: and though the man that's freed from all ſinnes is perfectly righteous. That perfection of righteouſneſſe is not from pardon: but pardon, yea juſtification from imputation of Chriſts perfect obedience, active and pasſive. By this applyed a … effect therof.

And her's poore relief for you: for remisſion of ſinnes being the form of juſtification; in oppoſition to imputed righteouſneſſe, for which we have the text, By the obedience ef one many are made righteous. None for your Faiths proper ſence.

Concl 3. Adam while he ſtood was compleatly juſt, as juſt as if he had continued, to this day; as Chriſt from the wombe: therfore by r…miſſion to grant a man in ſtatu quo, Adams, before his fall, which is granted, is to grant the point in controverſie.

Adam was not ſo juſt as he had been continuing; nor ſo juſt as the Commandement required, ſeeing it required alſo continuing on which he was to receive life.

Juſtice to life required, doing this, Gods whole Law; whereof abſtaining from the forbidden fruit, was a pledge and experiment; on this life was promiſed, the contrary threatned with death, to which Adam yielded, and in that way looked for life, this as a tryall was the ſumme of all. He was alſo to continue therin to that end, as the Law openeth it, ſeeing he is accurſed that abideth not in all.

Though Adam had perfection of righteouſneſſe, ability, he was not a doer, neither did he continue, and ſo had not right to life.

Though he lived by that righteouſneſſe, in which he was created, yet not that life which was promiſed; that was everlaſting life: death threatned was ſo and therfore life; what good thing ſhall I doe to inherit eternall life▪ was a received Doctrine, not contradicted by Chriſt, but eſtabliſhed, when as he willed him to keep the Commandements, which had he done, he had not ſinned, or dyed at all.

2. Ideny that Adam was as righteous as Chriſt from the womb▪ becauſe Chriſt was as righteous, and having right to: for living comprehenſive from the firſt moment of his conception by the Spirit and hypoſtacieEjuſdem poſſeſſione gaudebat▪ union, he did poſſeſſe it, as Mr. Gat. p. 28. which was not true or … …: therefore there was no need or his doings to life, his owne; but even as our ſuretie, ſatisfying our debt; as elſe where.

3. For that grant that by remisſion of ſinnes, man is in ſtatu quo, of Adam before his fall.

1. I anſwer. He is in a farre better and more excellent one.

2. This is a truth, ſuppoſing imputation of righteouſneſſe, by which that remisſion of ſinnes.

3. It's falſe otherwiſe. Adam was juſt by perfect righteouſneſſe, quum perfecta juſtitia imbutus, Mr. Gat. p. 28. that being inherent he was formally ſo. It's not thus with your juſtifyed one, by remisſion of ſinnes. What is that righteouſneſſe? Faith? or that and other Graces? no we are not perfectly righteous that way as Adam; and ſo not in ſtatu quo Adamus, in the ſtate in which Adam was▪ If God ſhould account ſuch an one ſo, it were not according to truth. It were juſtification by the Law, which Papiſts teach. So they and that theſe are perfect; but you know it's otherwiſe.

Suppoſe now imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt; then that effect pardon will follow and a perſon is perfectly juſt; here's righteouſneſſe farre more excellent then Adams juſtifying, and cauſing pardon; and ſuch a man may be ſaid to be in ſtatu quo, with advantage.

Concl. 4. Perfect remiſſion of ſinnes includes the imputation or acknowledgement of the obſervation of the whole Law, even as the imputation of the Law fullfilled neceſſarily includes▪ non imputation of ſinne, or forgiveneſſe.

2. He that is looked upon as never offending, muſt needs be looked upon as one that hath kept the whole Law, which is to have a perfect righteouſneſſe, or which is the ſame, a perfect fulfilling of the Law imputed to him: So that beſides pardon, ther's no needer place for imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe.

1. I anſwer, the firſt part is true, as we have explained before, remisſion, ſuppoſing the cauſe imputation of righteouſneſſe; imputation of righteouſneſſe being attended p. 78with non imputation of ſinne.

2. So we have man as never ſinning.

3. And ſo the necesſity of imputation is apparent: and that it hath a neceſſary place: elſe where's that obſervation of the Law included? how elſe can Gods holy eyes look on a man as perfectly righteous? the beleever is not ſo by faith, or any other grace unleſſe that be accepted for perfect righteouſneſſe, which yet is imperfect, which yet is no righteouſneſſe indeed; as your ſelfe elſe where. Interpretative muſt be your own ſpeech, very improper, farre from exactneſſe as after.

When as you will us to compare Rom. 4. 6, 7. & 11.

We anſwere, we have done it and find imputation of the righteouſnes of Chriſt (as interpreters before) and ſo pardon or non imputation; by the obedience of one we are conſtituted righteous. Theſe we find not your interpretation. To impute righteouſneſſe and not impute ſinne, are indeed different in name and nature, as cauſe and effect; when either is named, the other is unfolded; and by them both, is our bleſſed eſtate ſet forth.

Your ſimile of a Phyſitian by one act recovering from ſicknes, reſtoring his patient to health, holdeth with Gods imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe to juſtification: hereby we are delivered and recovered we are ſo really. Its for us. Ther's queſtion of recovery ſtill where Chriſts righteouſneſſe is denyed a place, and yet man aſſerted perfectly righteous and an obſerver of the Laws.

For that other ſimilitude. That act by which the ſunne diſpells darkneſſe, may be called the act by which he fills the aire with light.

I anſwere. Thoſe acts are not the ſame, but differ as cauſe and effect: the filling of our aire with light is the cauſe, diſpelling darkneſſe the effect; the latter ever ſuppoſeth the former, and ſo doth pardon, non imputation of ſinne; the imputation of the righteouſneſſe active and pasſive of Chriſt to juſtification, whence abſolution or pardon. You ſay,

Forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, and imputation of righteouſneſſe, being p. 79but two different names, expreſſions, or conſiderations of one and the ſame thing, and ſo one and the ſame act of God, is ſometimes called forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, and ſome times an imputing of righteouſneſſe; and the forgiveneſſe of ſinnes is ſomtimes called an imputing of righteouſneſſe, to ſhew and ſignifie that a man needs nothing to a compleat righteouſneſſe or juſtification: but the forgiveneſſe of his ſinne: and againe, the imputing of righteouſneſſe is ſomtimes called forgiveneſſe, to ſhew that God hath no other righteouſnes to conſerre upon a ſinner: but that which ſtandeth in pardon, thoſe two termes doe but aide and aſſiſt each other.

1. Note here, that if imputation of righteouſnes, and forgiveneſſe, be one and the ſame; then imputation of righteouſneſſe, cannot be denyed, when as pardon is mentioned: and why are you ſo vehement elſewhere againſt imputation of righteouſneſſe? of Chriſts? no other is imputed: it's ſhewed before.

2. Juſtification and righteouſneſſe are not to be confounded, it's an ordinary practiſe of yours, the one is the cauſe, the other the effect.

3. Neither are imputation of righteouſneſſe, and pardon the ſame, but differ alſo, as cauſe and effect: as before.

4. I deny pardon righteouſneſſe, that which formally juſtifyeth and have proved the ſame. I name another righteouſneſſe, Chriſts, for by it are we conſtituted righteous 5. Ro. 19. that's righteouſneſſe indeed. You objeſt to your ſelfe:

How can God impute a righteouſneſſe that never was or had being, nor righteouſnes, or not of the kind of that we ſpeake of, there being no other perfect righteouſneſſe, but that of Chriſt? and Anſwere. 1. Ther's as expreſſe and compleat arighteouſneſſe to the Law, as ever Chriſt performed: 2. arighteouſnes more proper and appropriable to all ſorts of men, then Chriſts perſonall righteouſnes, which Chriſt himſelfe performed; and what if it be ſaid, that in remisſion through Chriſt, from and out of the Law, God imputeth to every beleever ſuch a righteouſnes, as is proper to him. And ſay its more agreeable to Scripture and p. 80reaſon, then to held an imputation of ſuch righteouſneſſe, a ſiſteme and frame of ſuch actions, which were a righteouſneſſe indeed to him that wrote them, the Law requiring them of him: but cannot be to another, the Law requiring the ſame acts of none beſides; for none are rightcous for doing what the Law requireth ſimply, but for doing what it requi…eth of him in reference to his perſonall condition, calling relations, &c.

I reply, 1. denying forgiveneſſe of ſinnes righteouſnes, as before, it hath no conformity to the Law, which yet Chriſts righteouſneſſe had, and all grant Chriſts righteouſneſſe to be meere pardon.

2. It's not only his, but Gods act (if righteouſneſſe) neither performed by us, nor Chriſt our ſurety for us.

3. It's an effect of righteouſneſſe imputed (as before) or a conſequent act on it imputed.

4. The Law neither requireth it, nor revealeth it, nor accepteth it, and therfore it's not expreſſe to the Law, no proper righteouſneſſe; it's a righteouſneſſe, and not a contradiction.

5. As for Chriſts righteouſneſſe, he obeyed not for himſelfe, but us, as a ſurety for the debter, and ſo the Law requireth them of him, being once a ſurety; his doings and ſufferings our debt.

He fullfilling all righteouſneſſe, reſpected and yeeldeth to every member his juſt proportion: of which before you have a full anſwer.

And when you anſwer further, That to ſay God cannot impute a righteouſneſſe which never had a being, which was never really performed by any man, is to deny that God hath power to forgive ſinnes, becauſe it's an imputation of righteouſneſſe, ſuch as the Scripture teacheth, is without workes, 4. Ro. 6. & Rom. 3 28. i. a righteouſneſſe not conſiſting of any works performed to the Law by any man; and what is this but ſuch a righ…eouſneſſe as never had a being?

1. I anſwer. A righteouſneſſe there is never performed by any man, (as the eſſentiall righteouſneſſe of God, & that of Angels) truth falls not under our conſideration, and it's a righteouſneſſe indeed.

p. 812. A righteouſneſſe that never had a being, implyeth a contradiction; a quality, or actions not being: and God cannot account that properly to be ſo that never had a being.

3. You muſt prove that the deniall of imputation of ſuch a righteouſneſſe, as is none, is a denyall of Gods power to forgive ſinnes.

4. I deny forgiveneſſe of ſinnes to be imputation of righteouſneſſe, it▪s but the effect therof.

5. Righteouſneſſe without works ſimply, is a contradiction, denyeth the definition therof. Juſtification without our perſonall works we confeſſe, not workes ſimply, of the Mediator ſuppoſe; and that's the Apoſtles meaning, as our Church and the learned; and you hold them an eſſentiall requiſite.

Concl. 5. He that is fully acquitted and diſcharged from ſinnes, needeth no other righteouſneſſe to give him a right or title to life: 2. The reaſon therof is, death is the wages of ſinne, and ſinne only. Now he that is free from death, hath a right to life, becauſe ther's no middle.

1. I anſwere: a full diſcharge ſuppoſeth a full ſatiſfaction that's by active and pasſive righteouſneſſe, ours by imputation, whence, forgiveneſſe, and right to life: ſo there is no farther need, nor middle, between one juſt and pardoned, free from ſinne: you put the cauſe the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed.

2. deny that ſuppoſition, I deny pardon, orright to life.

3. Chriſts death without obedience active in flowing, is inſufficient to conſtitute him a Prieſt for us, or his ſacrifice propitiatory, ex conceſſis: and therefore to full pardon.

4. Pardon without righteouſnes, ſuppoſed qualifieth not to life; life is the ſequell, as of that ſo of ſomewhat elſe, whether Chriſts righteouſnes and adoption, or adoption (founded in inherent righteouſnes, that birth of God, and Chriſts perfect obedience, which is principall) the eternall rule is, doe this and live: for which Chriſt p. 81was the end of the Law for righteouſnes to believers, dying and doing, as our ſurety for our debt: thus is the Law eſtabliſhed.

Adam whileſt innocent had right to life, and injoyed it, elſe could he not be threatned with death, 2. Gen. 17. though he had not done the Law to have right to have right to life. If he had not right by freedome from ſinne, what quantity of obedience, and how long muſt he have obeyed to have right to life?

It's true, Adam innocent had a naturall life, and what was connaturall alſo, conſiſting in Gods image, by which he was conformed to the Law, and ſo was free from ſinne and death; and ſo had promiſe of continuance of thoſelives, and alſo of a glorious life: So hath the man to whom GOD giveth the righteouſnes of Chriſt, and ſo pardon: what's this to him that is ſuppoſed without righteouſnes ſimply? ther's no likenes.

To your Queſtion though I cannot, nor doe anſwer, it helpeth not your concluſion.

Yet I ſhould thinke he muſt have all righteouſnes, and what is for ever: this I have, being compleat in Chriſt, I have everlaſting righteouſneſſe, and am in ſtatu quo rather a better, which no man is or can be by pardon (ſuppoſing it posſible to be, which yet cannot be, ſeeing they are contraria immediata, and cauſe and effect.

You ſay, The Scriptures of the new Teſtament, ſeeme to place the immediate right, believers have of heaven and glory, rather in adoption purchaſed, then in any righteouſneſſe.

1. The life then which was promiſed was glory which Adam had not injoyed not, as not doing this, or tell from that, was, and is the promiſed life, in old and new Teſtament.

2. If it be rather founded in adoption, then that diſcharge why doe you give right by that diſcharge? you thwart your ſelfe, or elſe muſt give it to both.

1. When you ſay, it is not by any righteouſneſſe, you ſay it's not by remisſion of ſinnes, or deny that to be (which yet is before aſſerted) righteouſneſſe.

p. 822. And why doe the Scriptures old and new require, doe this to life: The spirit is life ſaith St. Paul, becauſe of righteouſneſſe, 8 Ro. 10 ſee Pountium and Chami…r of imputed righteouſnes.

And what need you to argue our being in ſtatu quo, from a full diſcharge, and to a perfect righteouſneſſe, if it furthers not to life?

If we be in ſtatu quo, and have perfect righteouſneſſe, we are qualified to that life thence: ſo where Chriſts righteouſneſſe is acknowledged imputed; or elſe to what end is it? and if it be not ſo (that is we are not in ſtatu quo) as it is certaine, where this is denyed, your arguments thence muſt be confeſſed ſophiſticall.

But you may evade by your manner of propoſall, it ſeems, it may ſeem in your borrowed light, and not be, qu…dam videntur quae non ſunt.

To which you adde, the reaſon may be happily, this life, &c. which comes by Chriſt through Faith, are of an higher nature then that promiſed Adam, as wages for worke, or obedience to the Law, requiring a fuller and richer title, to intereſt the creature then that. Worke performed intituleth ſufficiently to hire and wages: but the gift of an inheritance requireth grace and ſpeciall favour as adoption, to make a man regularly and according to the courſe of humane tranſaction capable therof.

1. I anſwer. Life by Chriſt is eternall. 2. Eternall life was promiſed to thoſe that doe this: as that queſtion what ſhall I doe to inherit eternall life? and the anſwer of Chriſt ſheweth in the Goſpel. 3. This was of an higher nature then that life which Adam had and injoyed, but not then was promiſed. Had Adam done it was not wages or hire, becauſe it was what he ought, and was juſtly puniſhed for not performance; when we have done all we are unprofitable ſervants, and doe but what we ought. It's a favour and a mercy to make a promiſe of eternall life to a creature.

4. We have by Chriſt a richer title, Chriſt his merits, his active and pasſive obedience, doings, ſufferings imputed; by his poverty we are made rich, by his obedience we p. 84are conſtituted righteous; theſe performed by our ſurety accounted to us intitle us to life; the ſpirit is life becauſe of righteouſneſſe.

Were it by adoption it may be by righteouſneſſe, we are heires of the righteouſneſſe of faith, if life followeth our new birth, in which adoption is founded, which is imperfect, how much more the perfect righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, by which we are compleatly like unto the Lord? ſo that ther's no fight or oppoſition, but ſweet agreement. When as the Apoſtle ſaith, that pretious faith is obtained through the righteouſneſſe of God, and our Saviour Ieſus Chriſt; of Jeſus Chriſt who is our God and Saviour, adoption or Sonne-ſhip the effect of Faith, muſt needs be an effect of righteouſneſſe; the cauſe of the cauſe, is the cauſe of the effect, and by the ſame reaſon adoption is not an higher title then the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, it's founded in it. Our life was the hire and wages of Chriſt, our ſureties obedience. Ther's as well grace and favour in the obedience of Chriſt, and juſtification, as in adoption and life: all are of free grace, juſtice and grace are both in Juſtification 3. Rom. 24. &c.

Concl. 6. That ſatisfaction which Chriſt made to the juſtice of God, and therby procured remiſſion of ſinnes (or perfect righteouſneſſe; and reconciliation with God for thoſe that beleeve, conſiſts only in that obedience of his, which be performed to that peculiar and ſpeciall Law of mediation, which God impoſed upon him, which we commonly, though perhaps not ſo properly call his paſſive obedience, and not at all in that ſubjection which he exhibited to that common law of nature, which we call Morall.

1. Remisſion of ſinnes, and perfect righteouſneſſe are not the ſame, they differ in the cauſe and effect, as Mr. Gat. and we before have ſhewed.

Reconciliation, though it infoldeth remisſion of ſinnes, is of a larger extent then remisſion. It containes ſlaughter of enmity ſimplie, between us and God, and poſitive amity that which is perfect in regard of Chriſts righteouſnes imputed, as well as whats inherent according to its degree.

p. 85I confeſſe Chriſts ſatisfaction doth conſiſt only in that obedience of his which he performed to the Law of mediation, impoſed on him by God, and that was our whole debt, which was not only death, but obedience to the Morall Law. We owe unto God perfect obedience, our ſurety muſt ſatisfie that; death excluding obedience was not ſat is, it's an ingredient abſolutely neceſſary to cauſe death to be propitiatory or ſatisfactory. You call obedience to the Morall Law, the common law of nature: Nature oweth it then, it muſt be paid by our ſurety, or it's not ſatis.

The whole humiliation of Chriſt, beginning at his conception continued to death, conſummated in death, was what was due, what was impoſed, what was performed; our nature, holyneſſe and righteouſneſſe of nature and life; his whole ſubjection to the Law, were all due by that law of Mediation; and that was as large as our debt to the Morall Law, the fullfilling of it: deny this, ther's no fullfilling the Law of a Mediator, no ſatisfaction. As for Chriſts obedience to the Law for his owne life, it's vaine, ſeeing he was perfectly living from the firſt moment of his conception.

Your reaſon, becauſe nothing can be ſatisfactory for ſinne to divine juſtice, but what's penall; without blood-ſhedding ther's no remiſſion nor ſatisfaction.

1. I grant without blood ſhedding ther's no remiſſion nor ſatisfaction:

2. And nothing can be ſatisfactory but what's penall, ſo was Chriſts whole exinanition and obedience penall laid on him, and ſubmitted unto as our ſurety, for us.

3. ſatisfaction for ſinne is but a part, juſtice requireth the whole debt, and that muſt be and is where there is compleat ſatisfaction; your ſelfe hold that active obedience an eſſentiall requiſite to make ſufferings effectuall.

The obedience or ſubjection of Chriſt to the Morall Law was no wayes penall to him, 1. it could not be in reſpect of his Godhead, it not being paſſive, 2. not to his humane nature, becauſe p. 85it was required of him in innocenty, impoſedon Adam before his fall, and ever lyeth on man, and Angels, and Ieſus Chriſt now glorifyed; love the fullfilling of the Law never falleth away. To make obedience to the Morall Law penall, is to affirme man was puniſhed by order from God, before his fall, and that the glorified Saints, Angels, and Chriſt, are now puniſhed in heaven.

1. What was impoſed by God before the fall and ever lyeth on man, lyeth on man, never falleth away: the fullfilling of the Law is his debt then, by an eternall Law, and muſt be anſwered by a mans ſelfe or Mediator. It being impoſſible to man our ſurety muſt make ſatisfaction.

2. Subjection of Chriſt to the Morall Law, he being our ſurety, that our debt, muſt needs be penall to him; ſo was his being man, and making under the Law, Gal. 4. It was neceſſary for our Redemption, who were under the Law, and to our receiving the adoption of ſonnes. It was his humiliation and emptying of himſelfe; his being in forme of a ſervant, his poverty, the perſon was therby abaſed.

Neither was he bound to be Man for himſelfe, or to obey for himſelfe, but us, the children by predeſtination being partakers of fleſh and blood, thoſe that were given to him from eternity to give life unto, ſinning occaſioned his Incarnation, &c. neither was it needfull for himſelfe to obey being Man, that he might live when as he lived from the firſt moment of conception.

So that though it be not penall ſimply, and to all it muſt be confeſſed ſo to Jeſus Chriſt our ſurety.

Beſides Chriſt our ſurety, In vita paſſivam habuit actionem, & in morte paſſionem activam dum ſalutem operareter in medio terrae, as Gerhard out of Bernard. In paſſione ſummus amor Dei & ardentiſſima, erga genus humanum dilectio patientia obedientia, humilitas, fiducia, invocatie, ſpes; & damnati patiendo ſatisfaciunt Legi ſi Chriſtus us patiendo: that is only by ſufferings, excluding his obedience to Gods Laws. His death was obedince, Sponte enim Chriſtus oppetiit pro nobis mortem—quia & voluntati patris etiam obediens eſſe, & ſalutem mun di perficere ſummo deſiderio volut, cui voluntati? p. 86au generali tantum, qua omnis creatura rationalis, tenetur? imo comprimis ſingulari ſibi impoſitae, ut vitam poneret pro …vibus ſuis. Veruſ que voluntatis obſequium morte preſtitit. Generalem legem moriendo pro nobis caritate ſumma implevit. Nulla enim charitas major quam dare vitam pro amiois, ne dum pro inimicis quod fecit Chriſtus. Charitas vera eſt impletio Legis, &c ſee Pareus on Rom. 5. 19. p. 372. Vniverſa Chriſti vita quid fuit, niſi perpetua quaedam paſſio quam morte tandem conſammavit pro nobis. ib. See him after in dub. 7. Deinde in paſſione &c. ſedet foreign totius Legis Moſaicae impletio deprehenditur, charitate—precepta moralia implevit p. 399. amplius quam nudam ſatisfactionem reperiemus in foreign filii Dei tanta cum alacritate perſoluto ib. p. 400.

You goe on. Scriptures aſcribe not this ſatisfaction we ſpeak of nor any part or degree of it to the holineſſe, innocencie, or active obedience of Chriſt: but ſtill to his paſſive.

The Scripture giveth it to Chriſts ſubjection to the Law, Gal. 4. to his obedience, Rom. 5. 19. obedience from the moment of his Incarnation unto his death and theſe are confeſſedly abſolutely neceſſary to the conſtitution of him our Prieſt, and his ſacrifice propitiatory, eſſentiall requiſites.

Places which mention his pasſive obedience, exclude not, but include his righteouſneſſe, by a ſynecdoche, as Calvin and other reformed writers, of which before they may not be ſeperated alſo before.

Concl. 7. If Chriſt had fullfilled and kept the Law for us, in our ſtead, till the u…moſt period of his life, there had been no oceaſion or neceſſity of dying for us; there is no light clearer thou this.

1. Sir you ſay you ſee. 2. Both death and obedience were our debt, and are neceſſary to our ſurety.

Could a believer be ſuppoſed perfectly, perſonally righteous doing this, it were inſufficient, in himſelfe, in his ſurety, the debt being larger, and ſo for death.

You ſay. If we ſtand before God by vertue of the perfect obedience of Chriſts life imputed unto us as righteouſnes, &c. perfectly righteous; we are no more obnoxians to the curſe of the p. 88Law, and ſo have no need of ſatisfaction to divine juſtice, nor of any remiſſion of ſinnes in his blood, there needs no more to a perfect juſtification, then a perfect righteouſneſſe, and a perfect fullfilling of the Law.

1. If there need no more, how ſay you it is unneceſſary? and how can you give us a perfect juſtification without a perfect righteouſneſſe?

Our perfect righteouſneſſe by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed, includeth Chriſts pasſive obedience, they muſt not be nor are ſevered by us; death and obedience are our debt, our ſurety ſatisfyed by both, and was inſufficient.

This the Apoſtle cleerly layeth downe, Gal. 2. 21. I frighteouſneſſe be by the Law whether performed by our ſelves, or another for us, (for ther's the ſame reaſon in juſtification) then Chriſt dyed in vaine.

You muſt prove your interpretation, it's expreſly againſt as what is ſaid, for the Articles of Ireland and our Doctrine of Juſtification, it's true of legall righteouſneſſe perſonall, not by our ſureties; righteouſneſſe is neceſſary to juſtification as your ſelfe ſeemed to ſay but now; if not our own, anothers, our ſuretie's Chriſts, in which St. Paul would be found, not having his owne exclude this you put Juſtification without juſtice; juſtification of the unjuſt ther's no middle.

To your Objection of Piſcator, I oppoſe his opponents Lutherans and Calviniſts and to Mr. Gataker Lucius and Gom. the S…riptures, your ſelves, who make what Chriſt was bound unto lege mediatoria, neceſſary, which was his whole humility from, or obedience begunne in his incarnation continued to his death, as Paraeus. I oppoſe the Doctrine of England and Ireland, and am ready to examine any of your reaſons; and I muſt tell you none of theſe are for faith in a proper ſenſe: nor deny, but teach the imputation of the righteouſne of Chriſt as Paraeus, which you doe not with Mr. Wot. Arminius and Socinus.

Concl 8. The union and communion which true believers p. 89have with Chriſt doth no wiſe require or ſuppoſe ſuch imputation of his righteouſneſſe to them as is conceived.

Union and communion with Chriſt ſimply doth not ſuppoſe that imputation: but union and communion with Chriſts righteouſneſſe to juſtification, there muſt be in order of nature giving and receiving to union and communion, and ſo Juſtification. When you adde.

That union and communion which the Wiſe hath with the Husband, doth not require that whatſoever he husband doth ſhould be imputed to the wiſe; or that the wife ſhould be reputed to have whatſoever the husband hath; ſhe is not reputed wiſe, becauſe the husband is wiſe, nor honeſty, which he may have, and ſhe be looſe and falſe.

I anſwere 1. Ther's no ſimile that runneth on all foure feet omne ſimile eſt diſſimile.

2. It followeth not from diſſimilitude, in husband and wiſe: that it is ſo in our union with Chriſt:

The Scripture ſaith, Chriſt, is made unto believers of God, wiſdome, righteouſneſſe, ſanctification, and redemption and that by union; and by his obedience we are conſtituted righteous: and that the members of Chriſt are conformed to their head: men and women may have fooles to husbands and wives, and diſhoneſt, and be ſo denominated thence; Chriſt hath no ſuch members.

3. Our husband

3. Our husband is our Savior, by way of ſurety, as a ſurety he dyed and obeyed for us, by union wee haveNeque vero …bſurdum vide 1 debet nos juſtitia illa quae Chriſti eſt ſubjectivè, tanquám aliena juſtificari cum ita ſit aliena ut etiam ſit noſtra imputatione, pro nobis praeſtita & a Deo tan noſtra a…c epta, quemadmodum fidei juſſoris pro debitore ſolutionem, perinde recipite editor, ac ſi debitor ipſe eam ſeciſſec, & quod eſt p…oprium capitis Chriſti jure communications reli quo corpopi, id … Eccleſiae, & ſingulis membris tirbuiter, Iunius p. 13. communion with his death, and obedience to our Juſtification,

You demand, Whether Chriſts ſoule and body muſt needs be imputed to them, becauſe believing they have union with them, wiſdome, power and glory alſo: ſo that they are eſteemed of God as wiſe, as powerfull as glorious as himſelf.

And I anſwer, we ſay not whatſoever believers need neither bodies nor ſoules; they are, though in ſtate of p. 90condemnation; we ſpeak of righteouſneſſe to juſtificaon. We read of imputation of righteouſneſſe, and that Chriſts, ſeeing by it, (we reade alſo) we are conſtituted righteous.

Our union is made good by theſe particulars. 1. That by it we are members of that body whereof he is head. 2. That we are partakers of the ſame ſpirit; have fellowſhip in the ſame fruits of the ſpirit with him. 4. That we have part in Redemptionpurchaſed. 5. Speciall intereſt in his wiſdom, power, & other perfections of his perſon. 6. Compleat title to that immortall inheritance, reſerved in the heavens. 7. Communionwith God himſelf & communion one with another. Whence to deny the imputation of Chriſts righteouſnes, is no more to deny or obſcure their union, then to deny the miracles Chriſt wrought, are imputed to us, or that to deny a man ſeeth with his hands, or heareth with his heeles, is a denying the members of the ſame body to have union with the head.

I deny that ther's the ſame reaſon of imputation of Chriſts miracles, and his righteouſneſſe, from our union with him, or of ſeeing with hands, or hearing with heeles, from union of members with the head, and imputation of Chriſts righteouſnes our head in union, &c. This is but a cunning or rather palpable puddling of a cleare ſtreame, for your own evaſion, and it's obſerved to be your manner. I cannot ſee with my hands, in your ſenſe, nor heare with my heeles; neither need I hands to ſee; nor heeles to heare. I can be righteous with the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. It's neceſſary abſolutely, that I may be ſo perfectly.

How richly ſoever you be clothed elſe. I profeſſe my ſelfe naked, and have abſolute necesſity of the robes of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, to cover my nakednes. It's what I owe. My Saviours, my ſureties: payment for my freedome in necesſity. God made him righteouſneſſe to me, and I am conſtituted righteous by his obedience. God never made mine hands eyes to me nor heeles eares, neither by one or other am I conſtituted, ſeeing or hearing. So miracles are not my debt.

And though the one follow not from the other; yet p. 91from what you grant by union and communion I queſtion not but I ſhall deduce by divine or Scripture-Logicke participation of righteouſneſſe to juſtification.

1. From the firſt, that by union I am a member of the body, whereof Chriſt is the head.

2. I am a member of Chriſt mine head. 2. and compleat in him, which cannot be for righteouſneſſe, but by his, no juſtification; without that, no pardon. I may beleeve it ſeeing his righteouſneſſe was for me: and the word is, by it I am conſtituted righteous.

3. You ſay, we are partakers of the ſame ſpirit. Then is our union reall, revera, and not metaphoricall only.

The worke of the ſpirit of my God, and in the name of Chriſt, is waſhing, that's a generall ſanctification; both parts; and justification, the Spirit applyeth Chriſt and his righteouſnes, putteth on me the beſt robe, and inableth me by faith to cooperate, thereunto to apply the ſame.

3. Part in redemption, enfoldeth part in Chriſts ranſome or payment of my debt, my debt being death and perfect obedience, require anſwerable death and obedience; death is inſufficient without this eſſentiall requiſite, I have a neceſſity of this righteouſneſſe then to this freedome.

5. If by union I have ſpeciall intereſt in his wiſdome and power too, and other perfections, why not in his righteouſneſſe? It's a perfection moſt neceſſary.

6. If I have compleat title to that immortall inheritance reſerved in the heavens; have I no title to that by which adoption and pardon? I and Chriſts righteouſneſſe by which I live; by which I am perfectly like God. Is it not the righteouſnes of Faith, that which we are heirs of, as well as of glory?

7. If I have communion with God himſelf, and his Love, have I not it in pardon & juſtification, & righteouſnes, by which? is not giving of Chriſts righteouſnes or imputation therof, his making me wholly faire, white as ſnow, and whiter, which is by the faireneſſe and beauty, or righteouſneſſe of Chriſt? Is not his Covenant everlaſting p. 92righteouſneſſe, Dan. 9. and his gift Chriſts righteouſneſſe the righteouſneſſe of Faith, given by God, received by faith: doth not he by the obedience of one (becomming our God) conſtitute us righteous? theſe ſeeme ſo to me; doe you conſider the matter a ſecond time.

Concl. 9. The ſinne of Adam is no where in Scripture ſaid to be imputed to Adams poſterity; neither can any other imputation berof, be proved either by Scripture or reaſon, then th… which ſtands either in a communion of all his poſterity with him therin (except Chriſt) in a propitiation of his nature defiled therwith, or laſtly, in the puniſhment, that is come upon the world by it, &c.

Do you not ſee how you ſpeak that which fighteth with it ſelfe! If it doth no where, how in ſuch a ſenſe? if in ſuch a ſenſe, how no where?

And why ſhall not all the poſterity be granted, conſtituted ſinners by an act of Juſtice imputing unto them the ſinne of Adam; when as by the ſame juſtice ther's an act puniſhing for that ſinne, ſuch you confeſſe and ſuch is that defilement, whence we are formally ſinners; can juſtice impute the effect and not the cauſe? is it not ſpirituall death for ſinne?

When as all were in his loynes, it was the ſinne of all which act of Adam pasſing, our ſ…lves not exiſting can no other wayes be in the judgement of the learned Proteſtant and Papiſts too ſometimes) but by imputation, that's the manner when as it's communicated by generation.

Adam (ſaith Bell for BP. Dounham citeth him and both give you an inſtance of mine aſſertion) alone did indeed commit that ſinne by actuall will, but to us it is communicated by generation: In that manner which that which is paſſing can be imputed, by imputation, for it is imputed unto all: Eomodo quo communica…i poteſt is vod tranſi…, nim…um per imputationem omni… enim imputatur.for it is imputed to all who are borne of Adam, becauſe we all being then in the loynes of Adam, when we ſinned in him, and by him we ſinned. Yea and further he rightly diſputeth ſaith that Biſhop, that if Adam's ſinne were not ours by imputation, p. 93neither the guilt of u, nor the corruption following upon it had belonged to us, de juſti. li. 4 c. 10. viſe. which I touched even now, and remember it touched twice before. I may not abuſe the Reader by writing over and over the ſame things: See Anſ. to your laſt Reaſon. &c.

Concl. …0. Though juſtification and ſalvation came into the world by Chriſt, the ſecond Adam, as condemnation and death by the firſt, yet there are many different conſiderations and circumſtances between their commings in.

Grant this, yet when as the Apoſtle affirmes the one and the other; and when as he ſheweth agreement in this, that as by the diſobedience of one many are made ſinners, ſo by the obedience of one many are made righteous, which is all we contend for, both which being by acts tranſient, communicated to men, not then, but after exiſtent, the orthodox expreſſure hath been, that the manner is imputation. For the firſt Adams diſobedience, and the ſeconds righteouſneſſe.

The differences you mention out of the 15. & 16. of the 8. of the Romans, concerne not our queſtion. And for the reſt:

1. The act of Adam was the act of the nature of his poſterity not exiſtent, exiſtence was future, and imputation future, yet both to be by Gods decree, in and by propagation; and then it was theirs actually.

The obediences of Chriſt, &c were the acts and ſufferings of us, that were given Chriſt, and might be ſo called not perſonall acts or we exiſtent, but as we were to be in time; they were to be ours by imputation in Gods purpoſe and Chriſts intention by union and communion with Chriſt in effectuall call: as Adam was a root, Chriſt was a ſurety both in Gods purpoſe; either did, for others. Adam for his poſterity, Chriſt for the children given unto him in Gods eternall bargaine: as we are dead and riſen with Chriſt, we may be ſaid to have done and dyed, ſeeing the whole poverty was for us.

2. As Adam brought condemnation to thoſe who were in his loynes, and had a being naturall in him, being p. 94in time to exiſt by propagation from him.

So Chriſts ſalvation to ſuch as were his children in the purpoſe of God, in that relation, as well as others his body, bone of his bone, and fleſh of his fleſh, and ſo in his loynes, to be ſpiritually▪ actually by faith in time, though alſo to be firſt Adams, aliens and enemies.

3. As all the poſterity of Adam had their being at once in Adam: ſo had all in Chriſt in Gods purpoſe as Came exiſted firſt and then …udas ſo might one firſt, and another after be in Chriſt notwithſtanding.

4. As Adams was active, ſo Chriſts, active in his paſſion, and pasſive in his action.

5. As the burthen of condemnation by the ſinne of Adam depended on the merit and relation of thoſe that were condemned by him, videlicet in Gods purpoſe, as future and to be in act by propagation.

So that weight of our redemption, depended on the merit of Chriſt, and relation future by Gods purpoſe; in act by faith, to be in time, by which Chriſt and his merits and benefits are mine, without which actuall application the worth of what was done and ſuffered, were to no effect.

To that ſinne of Adam, eating the forbidden fruit, the Lord threatned death, and it merited the ſame; ſo the ſmalleſt ſinne doth, as the ſatisfaction of Chriſt did life; and that wee might injoy it, there muſt be relation founded in union and communion between us and Chriſt without which how great ſoever the merit, the profit to Peter would have been no more then unto …udas.

We deny not but the Scriptures give our juſtification and ſalvation to the ſake of Chriſt: we aſſent alſo that ſpeaking of our death, by one that is Adams ſinne (though the words for his ſake, are not found) yet (the wages of ſinne being death.) It's equivalent with his ſinnes ſake, denoting its merit; ther's equipollent ſpeech; and judge whether the Apoſtle doth not ſo lay them downe, p. 95Rom. 5. 19. and ther's a neceſſary implication of the merit of the ſinne of Adam; that mediated by way of merit this condemnation, the wages of ſinne is death; and curſed is every one that abideth not in all the Commandements of God: And he that doth theſe things is worthy of death, are the meaſure of thoſe by one, &c. and through the offence of one and were it not a meritorious cauſe, the Lord muſt be charged with injuſtice.

Wheras you leſſening the offenſiveneſſe of this ſinne of Adam, put a note on that word foreign, as if the offenſiveneſſe of that ſinne, and heights of its merit were not intended: and to denote that it was a ſinfull ſtumbling, or miſcarriage, not out of envie, malice, ſiniſter end, &c. maine aggravations, and rayſings of the height of it: but out of inconſiderateneſſe, incogitancie, a root of the leaſt bitterneſſe, or provocation from whence it is lightly poſſible to ſpring.

For my part I never feared ſuch Doctrine: And 1. from that word it will not follow (it the ſpeaking of God in the Word be the rule) I finde that word uſed for ſinnes of all ſorts, the greateſt and moſt heinous, which are forgiven by the Lord. It's uſed 5. Rom. 10. the free gift is of many offences to juſtification: And 2 Cor. 5. 19. God was in Chriſt, &c. not imputing foreign &c. I ſuppoſe in theſe and other places, not meant ſuch ſinnes as you mention alone, but what are of the higheſt nature; the ſtumbling and fall of the Jewes, which had aggravations of the higheſt nature, are ſet forth by that word, 11. Rom. 11. &c.

Whoſoever ſhall conſider the ſtate in which Adam was created, the God and goodneſſe againſt whom he ſinned; the confeſſed effects, ſinnes, ſimply elſe, of nature, of life all mens deprivation of Gods image and through deprivation in nature and life; from the reliques wherof we are not freed till death it ſelfe, with the deaths which attend on the ſame, will be farre from leſſening this ſin its demerit. There are that call it omnium graviſſi…um, and that except none but that againſt the Holy Ghoſt, as our Dr Whitaker. So that had there been more relations p. 96all that can▪ be imagined: there muſt be alſo and was the heynouſneſſe of the crime demeriting.

That which he firſt called offence here, he calleth diſobedience, Quod prius vocave…at, foreign lapſum hic vo at foreign n Obedientiam iPrimi hominis. Sic Gravitatem ejus peccat…xaggerat, tantum fuiſſeimmune▪, ut haud mirum ſi omnes ſuo…eath involverit, foeditate inquinare. In obed▪ entia enim vix aliud nefasgravius datur in Dei conſpectuquaſi peccatum ariolandreſt rebel lio et …uaſi ſce…us idololatriae eſt repugnantia, Inquit Samuel 1. 21 23. Paraeus in 18. 19.ſo he amplifyeth the greatneſſe of that ſin, intimating it ſo great, that it was no wonder that it involved all in its guilt, polluted then with filth: for there is ſcarcely a more grievous ſin, as the ſin of witch craft, ſo is rebellion, as Idolatry, …aith Samuel, 1 Sam. 11. 23.

It grieveth us not that there is ſuch an abundance given to Chriſt▪ we glory in it. And yet ſay the Lord ſaw this a ſufficient remedy for that diſeaſe, and thoſe that came by it: and the diſeaſe is not leſſened but intended by the greatneſſe of Chriſts merits.

And though Adams fall was by a permiſsive decree of God yet was the effect infallible. The execution wherof in his fall was ſuppoſed, in the manifeſtation of Gods love in Chriſt, and in the purpoſe of God foreordaining him a Lambe, to take away ſinnes; That ſinne; and the conſequences, thereof: all which ſet forth the hamouſneſſe of this ſinne. Neither is it extenuated by the freeneſſe of Adam.

And I leave to the Readers conſideration, whether though you profeſſe the contrary; you doe not groſſely extenuate the demerit and guilt of Adams ſin. And the invalidity you plead, is not againſt us, but the Apoſtle who telleth us there is an agreement.

Conclu. 11. That which makes a true lively faith inſtrument all in Iuſtification, is nothing that is eſſential or naturall unto it; Whether diſcent pr…perly or act. But ſomwhat that is extrinſecall and purely adventitious. The force and …fficacy of that will, good pleaſure, ordination, covenant, and appointment of God in that behalfe.

Therfore its unqueſtionably evident, that Faith doth not juſtifie as it relates to Chriſt: or as it apprehends him, Or Redemption by him,

In this illation you ſhew yourſelfe in oppoſition to all Proteſtants as before. Who teach that Faith juſtifieth in relation to the Object, and that as an inſtrument apprehending p. 97and applying Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe, and joyne with Papiſts and Arminians, as before.

The reaſon you give Gods ordination, is no reaſon; we grant Gods will and the nature of Faith are not oppoſite but ſubordinate. Gods will is our Juſtification by Faith that which hath of its nature imbracing laying hold of receiving Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe; cauſing union and communion with him; from whence this righteuſneſſe and Juſtification is received and remiſsion, of, ſinnes. The will of God is by this Faith to juſtifie. When God called Aaron to be an high Prieſt, he thereby fitted him with all requiſites. And ſo when God ordained faith, it was ſuch a Faith.

Neither is there feare if faith ſhould juſtifie by receiving or applying the Object, that it ſhould doe it for the dignity thereof.

Faiths receiving flying for refuge to Chriſt, is the greateſt argument denying the dignity thereof and demonſtration of indigency and emtyneſſe at home, and is withall, moſt advancing and extolling the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

In that text Judg. 6. 40. Gods will eſtabliſheth this Faith. And thereby it carrieth Juſtification by receiving and applying it, as the water of …ordan did clenſe the Leproſie of Namaan, by Gods pleaſure, ſo this receiving faith juſtifies before all other. You ſay,

When cauſes have a naturall power to produce their effects its improper if not ridiculous. To aſcribe ſuch effects to the will and pleaſure of God.

But it's ridiculous, to ſay ſo; ſeeing Gods will is the cauſe of nature, and the properties therof. It's the will of God by patience to make men patient, humility to make men humble. By naturall cauſes to produce naturall effects. You confeſſe it a truth, and when as therfore you deny it the ſavour or weight of truth. You deny in your ſelfe a right ſavour of truth, And ſhew your judgement a falſe, ballance againſt conceſsion, denying it weight of truth, The holy Ghoſt leading into all truth: ſavoureth p. 98all truth, and giveth to all its due weight.

Joh. 1. 12, might be added, where God to thoſe that received Chriſt, that is believed in him, gave the power & prerogative to be his Sons: and by vertue of that decree really made them ſuch on believing. Which ſhews believing in Chriſt as ſuch doth, not make a ſon of God, but receives this power by speciall gift.

Faith then by a power it receiveth of Gods gift, doth this; ſo doth patience by a power and humility, by a power received, make patient and humble. So fire burneth by a power given to it. And ſo every naturall agent produceth its effect. Faith putteth on Chriſt, and his condition of a ſonne, it maketh us Chriſts and Abrahams ſeed, we are all the ſonnes of God by Faith in Ieſus Chriſt. God giueth it that power, that ſtrength and power to receive, and ſo to juſtifie.

Gods grace and Chriſt and Faith and Gods juſtice the declaration of it are ſubordinate from the poſition of on you put all, and deny none, not faith receiving or applying the Object. You adde,

Neither is that Plea ſo frequently inſiſted on▪ that Faith juſtifieth in relation to the object, or as it receiveth and apprehendeth Chriſt righteouſneſſe of any value if duly conſidered; the ſtrength of it is uſually bound up in that ſimilitude, as the haud is ſaid to inrich a man becauſe it receives the money or treaſure wherby it is inriched, ſo faith becauſe it receives Chriſt who is our righteouſneſſe; and by whom we are justified.

You confeſſe this frequently inſiſted on it is ſo by Proteſtants againſt Papiſts. I have ſhewed the one and other by all Proteſtants let the world ſee how theſe are of your opinion, for faith in a proper ſenſe; but what ſay you againſt it?

I anſwer its not the taking of the Silver or Gold that inrich…th, a man may not be the richer, but the poorer receiving gold not by law, as a theefe breaking into an houſe taking it away, or purſes it maketh rich by a Law; ſo there muſt be a law that faith receiving ſhould be a mans righteouſnes or juſtification.

All this is not to the purpoſe, for faith receiving Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe to juſtification (not being his p. 99righteouſneſſe or juſtification as you love to ſpeak, not we) is what we have Gods command for, calling us to come unto him, to receive him and Sir receiving riches is that by which as an inſtrumentall action I am enriched, the riches make rich received and ſo our Lord Chriſts righteouſneſſe, your caſe is where ther's no law, ours hath command and promiſe for it. Yet to explaine your ſelfe. You deſire,

When I deny faith juſtifieth in it's relation to it's Object, or as it layeth hold on Chriſt, I am farre from conceiving any faith ſhould juſtifie, but that onelyonly which layeth hold on Chriſt; yea I grant and verily believe that whereas there be very many acts of Faith, elſe yet that decree of good pleaſure of God (which I conceive makes faith juſtifying concurres with it, toward this great effect onelyonly in that act of laying hold on Chriſt. OnelyOnly this I deny that this act of faitth whereby it receiveth or layeth …old on Chriſt hath that in the nature or inherently in it or any other waies then from the will and good pleaſure of God which makes it available to juſtification.

This granteth that it hath it in its nature from the will of God, then by the will of God it doth it; It's nature being▪ to lay hold on the Object: we never oppoſed the will of God, but ſuppoſe it.

And though you grant it, yet, would you ſpeake out we ſhould find you grant not that faith as an inſtrument doth it, laying hold on Chriſts righteouſneſſe, by which applyed I am juſt. You will leave the object and reſt in faith which by gracious acceptation is a righteouſnes which God will owne as before, p. 84. of 1. Treat, Argu. 5. c. 6. ☞ my Anſwer.

Conclu: 12. It hath no foundatian either in ſcripture or reaſon to ſay that Chriſt by any imputation of …in was made formally a ſinner: Nor that ſinne in any other ſenſe ſhould be ſaid to bee imputed then as the puniſhment due was inflicted on him. And ſo wee are not made formally righteous by any righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed. This hath been partly argued.

And its given in with both hands by the chiefe Maſters of that way which we oppoſe. Doctor Downham. c. 19. p. 1. 2. p. 100and p. 4. Davenant de juſtit. inher. c. 24. p. 33. id. p…. 333.

1. I anſwer, formally properly taken is by ſinne inherent in Chriſt, this you deny; ſo do our Doctors, ſo imputation of our ſins doth not make Chriſt a ſinner.

2. What is added, nor that ſinne in any other ſo…ſe ſhould be ſaid to be imputed, when as the puniſhment due was inflicted; is but begged. Ours ſhew an imputation of ſinne, whence guilt and puniſhment, ſinnes, were inherent in us onelyonly. Laid on Chriſt by imputation as our ſurety, and thence his puniſhment.

3. When as you adde ſo wee are not made formally righteous by any righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. It's granted taking formally for inherently. It's inherent in Chriſt, its imputed and given us, ſo that it conſtituteh us righteous, and ſupplyeth the place of a forme, which externalls doe and may, and ſo denominate; as elſewhere, out of Doctor Davenant is cleerely explayned The righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is the matter, that applyed or imputed ſupplyeth the forme, conſtituteth hee was made ſinne that know no ſin, that …e might be made the righteouſnes of God in him. But …o this ſufficiently before.

When as you cite Biſh. Dow…ham you read this his Tenet, and he repeateth it often times, as is knowne, that Chriſt was not onelyonly hoſtia, but a ſinner by imputation.

And Biſh. Davenant denyeth your conſequence there, and elſe where fully explaineth himſelfe in this buſines, to which I remit you, p. 367. ſecundus locus, &c. and 368.

That theſe were chiefe Maſters of that way of imputation; might teach you they were more learned then to contradict themſelves.

They were prime Doctors in their times, maintainers of the Doctrine of our Church and all Proteſtants in this point of Iuſtification, and you have never I believe, never ſhall find any but Papiſts oppoſing themſelves to them.

In this queſtion, which yet here you doe without making bones of it, and are but an alone man. p. 10113. Con: That no man is indeed a perſon juſtified in the ſight of God, untill he obtaines this grace by believing.

With this Concluſion for my part I have no controverſie, and therefore paſſe further examination of any thing about it.

The purpoſe is eternall, the act is in time, on call to Faith and fellowſhip with Jeſus Chriſt, whence communion with his righteouſneſſe and Juſtification, as I conceive.

14. Conclu: The ſentence or curſe of the Law was not properly executed on Chriſt in his death, but his death was a ground or conſideration unto God, whereupon to diſpenſe with his Lawes, and to let fall the execution or ſuſpend the penalty or curſe therin threatned becauſe the curſe was bent on transgreſſors, not innocents as Chriſt.

If by properly you meane for his perſonall ſinnes, and that in that name he was no transgreſſor, I will grant both. He was a ſinner by the imputation of our ſins, as our ſurety he had them ſaid on him, and was accurſed, what the Law threatned, curſe and death, hee endured he died for us, and was accurſed, ſo the word, and on this …iſſueth our freedome from death; and the curſe; this I am ſure God did, and intended; ſeeing he was ordained …efor the foundation of the World, a Lambe; the price of our Redemption, its called Gods will, Chriſt came to doe it, and he was made under the Law to redeem thoſe that are under the law▪ you confeſſe it the curſe of the Law, i…curred by us which …ur ſurety, ought to ſuffer, and your ſelfe ſay, that hee …uffered was of the ſame nature, and kind with thoſe things which God intended by the curſe of the Law.

For the body of penalties which you deny he ſuffered. I know not but its compriſed in thoſe termes accurſed, and death. I ſuppoſe thoſe compriſe the whole ſyſtem; the word ſaith it was an atonement, that it was a ſweet favour to God, that it declared God juſt in juſtifying.

And untill I comprehend his ſuffering fully who was a man of ſorrow like to whoſe ſorrowes there were never ſorrowes, I will not make them leſſe then Gods law.

p. 102I ſuppoſe the law was executed on him according to Gods eternall purpoſe as our ſurety and that it was executed on him, that it might not bee executed on us: and muſt have been executed on him that it might not be executed on us. You ſay,

Neither dia God require the death and ſufferings of Chriſt as a valuable conſideration, whereon to diſpenſe with his law, towards thoſe that believe, more (if ſo much in a way of ſatisfaction, to his juſtice then in wiſdome; for God might with as much juſtice have paſſed by the transgreſſion of his Law without conſideration or ſatisfaction.

1. Chriſts death was required, it was required as a valuable conſideration on which there was no execution on believers. It was in ſatisfaction of Gods juſtice and wiſdome. It was according to his wiſe will wherby Chriſt was ordained a Lambe, it was to declare his righteouſneſſe, that he might be juſt and a juſtifier, and both infinite. It's too curious to inquire or determine whether it were rather wiſedom then Juſtice. It ſavoureth of one that would willingly deny Chriſts ſatisfaction to juſtice: ſo doth that reaſoning from man, I find the ſame ſpokenIn Deo eſſe juſtitiam eſſentialem punientem peccata neceſſario p. 12, 13. &c. out by, Socinus de Chriſto ſervat. l. I. c. 1. ſee Sybrandus examining this. See Peltius his harmonia, where Soc. and Remonſtrants agree in this, that there is not eſſentiall juſtice in God puniſhing ſin neceſſarily.

I gueſſe it the rather becauſe there's a bringing in of teſtimony that if God had pleaſed he might have pardoned Adams ſinne without atonement by the death of Chriſt, which is but a ſuppoſition and that of a will in God then undetermined, indifferent againſt what is evidently otherwiſe revealed, and that to be ſo determined from eternity, nay of an indifferent will even after Adams fall: Iam confirmedNec neceſſe fuit, ut Chriſtus morte ſua juſtitiae de… pro noſt is peccatis ſatisfaceret, ſed Deus abſque ſatisfactione Chriſti peccata nobis potuit condonare, ſee S…ci. from the inference, therefore it had bin no way contrary to the luſtice of God nor dergatory to the glory of it: if bee had freely pardoned it without any conſideration of attonement in any concept. Neither was it neceſſary that Chriſt by his death ſhould ſatisfie the Iuſtice of God for our ſinnes, but God without the ſatisfaction of Chriſt could forgive us our p. 103ſinnes. It could not be becauſe Gods decree was Juſtification by the blood of Chriſt and to declare his righteouſneſſe, 3 Rom. 25, 26.

And that the ſatisfaction of Chriſt is agreeable to that nature in God which wee call Juſtice, agreeable to and what we call ſee Socinus, &c. doe deny it, and that it had beene but a loſſe of opportunity of declaring it to the World, yet had done nothing repugnant to it, and ſo you ſubſcribe; no marveile you wave the curſe of the Lawes execution on Chriſt properly in the beginning.

Its well in wiſedome God could not; as if Gods wiſedome and juſtice were at odds, and that in the Apoſtles Judgment, who eſtabliſhed Gods declaration of Juſtice in Juſtification by the blood of Chriſt, as if infinite wiſddome was not ſeene in that ſweet agreement, betweene the mercy and Juſtice of God in our Juſtification by Jeſus Chriſt.

I am of opinion that God in the law required of Chriſt (voluntarily undertaking our ſuretiſhip) the ſuffering of what he ſuffered, and thoſe things, he ſuffered were the ſame the Law threatned, and wee ſhould have ſuffered our ſelves in value, and importance and the kind compriſed under the words death and curſe. And thus for your Concluſions.