The Doctrine of Justification Cleared, Treatise · Examination 2 · Chapter 5

The Doctrine of Justification Cleared · Treatise · Examination 2 · Chapter 5

p. 143CHAP. V. Wherein SCRIPTURES are cleered, brought for the imputation of Chriſts Active obedience with their true ſenſe according to the Judgement of the beſt Expoſitors of the Proteſtant Party.

YOur firſt Section containeth a Preface, and its Application: the Preface.

When Men conceive thereby thoughts countenanced from heaven in the Scriptures, their confidence lifts up it ſelfe very high. The reaſon you give is: The opinion in this caſe being their owne, muſt needs have a ſtrong and perfect ſympathy with all the powers of nature yet unſanctified and ſo muſt needs ingage theſe, and being looked on as a divine truth—It ingageth all the powers of grace to contend for it. Hence an extafie of zeale for main enance—reſolutions of ſacrificing credit, name, eſtate; friends, himſelfe upon the honour and ſervice of it in caſe it bee oppoſed.

One ſigne thereof is the maintaniers are ambitious to heape us citations of Scripture proofes, without end to overwhelm their adverſaries, when as it is to be ſuſpected that what is every wher is no where, when men ſharke about for Scriptures, and ſind not thoſe that freely offer themſelves.

The Application.

The Scriptures are many which are muſtred, by the maſters of Imputation which wee oppoſe, amongſt all theirs not one that ſpeaketh plainly or directly to the buſines, they ſpeake not, but the ſpirit of men in them, and now come to give a perfect account, by examination—the greateſt part have bin touched and cl…ered p. 144and you begin with thoſe of the Old Teſtament.

I Anſwer, Your reface is common, I grant all: The Maſters of Imputation whom you oppoſe (as you call them, may retort all on your ſelt▪ mutato nomine ac te fabula narratu; and may ſay the Man hath a face that cannot bluſh, who pretends this opinion of yours, and interpretation to be according to the beſt Expoſitors of the Proteſtant Party.

It's knowne thoſe were the adverſaries of Socinus, of Arminius, Mr. Wotton Papiſts and your ſelfe, who deny imputation of the righteouſnes of Chriſt and are againſt the figurative ſenſe of thoſe words, Ro. 4. I have ſhewed it, and appeale to the World.

The Maſters you elſewhere inſtance in Doctor Davenant, and Doctor Downham, trace the ſame ſteps, and are above your envie. I hope I the leaſt of thouſands not worthy a name amongſt them ſhall bee able to ſhew it. Away with vaine words, let us goe to downe right blowes. Ile follow you foot by foot and though I cannot find who alleadgeth them, and conſequently informe my ſelfe of their following the ſame (you mentioning not the Objectors or Authors whence you take them) you laying them downe alſo as weakely as can be. I am ſure without the force I find in our Authors.

Yet I will examine all as I am able.

The covering of ſin, is by ſome conceived to bee by the Active righteouſnes or obedience of Chriſt, which God imputing covereth all their ſins therewith.

Anſw. We confeſſe covering of ſinnes, non-imputation and forgiveneſſe all one, and that theſe are done by Juſtification as conſequents thereof: Yet is there wherwith and this I aſlert the obedience of Chriſt conſtituting us righteous, 5. Rom. 19. I ſay not the active obedience all one, but the Paſsive alſo That Mr. Gat. and Piſcator, and Pareus, hold imputed to this effect you muſt if you be not on Sec…us part, and if you hold that, the active being an eſſentiall requiſite is not to be excluded, as before

p. 145The Prophet hath this Phraſe, my God hath clothed mee with the garments of ſalvation, hee hath covered mee with the Robe of righteouſnes, 61. Jeſ. 10. as there is a covering of ſin ther's wherewith all.

The Apoſtle, Rom. 4. 6. 11. beſides non-imputationAuthors thus ordinarily Mr. Zanchie ſpeaking of, inſufficiency of inherent rihgteouſneſſe, ſaith, opus habet, tum perfecta Chriſti juſtitia qua tanquam veſte precioſa illius labes contegantur j uxta illud, Pſalmi 32. Beati quorum remiſſae ſunt in iniquitates, et quotum tecta lunt peccata, &c. proinde a poſtolus hanc juſtitiam per ſe ſolum conſiderans et ab altera diſtinguens, dixit ſe nolle inveniri, &c. ad▪ Philip. 3. 9. Praeclare vero etiam juſtinus Martir, Epiſtola ad diogneium: Quid ali…d (inquit) peccata noſtra tege…e potuit quam Chriſti juſtitia▪ In quo alio nos iniqui et impij pro juſtis habe…i poſſumus niſi in ſolo De… … O dulcem perc…nctationem; O imper veſtigabile artificium; et beneficia e… p…ctationem orane … ſuperantia ut iniquita… quidem multorum in juſto uno a… ſcondatur juſtitia autem unius faciat ut multi injuſti juſtificentur, Pareus. whence he proved what he had ſaid that the Gospell evidently witneſſeth God … nec …egere iniquitates niſi per Chriſti obodientiam, c. 4. ad Rom. ad dub. 3. quarta denique p 315. Hac (innocntia Chriſti qua nos induit) nos inſtructi aſſiduam peccatorum remiſſionem in fide obit, nemus; Hujus p…r…ta…e velatae noſtraeſordes et imperfectionum immunditiae non imputantur. Sed velut ſepultae …ontegutur ne in judicium Del veniant. Cal. l. 3. c. 14 Se. 12. Vb…n Chriſtum inſiti ſumus ideo juſti apparemus coram deo quia ejus innocentia conteguntur noſtrae iniquitates l. 3. c. 17. Se. 10. Fides offert nudum hominem Deo ut Chriſti juſtitia iuduatur, Cal. ad Phil. 3. 9. Who alſo out of Amb▪ oſe uſeth that of Jacob in Eſaus apparrell. Ita nos ſub Chriſti primogeniti noſtri fratris praecioſa puritate deliceſcere u… teitimonium juſtitiae a conſpectu Dei eferamus, inſt. l 3. c. 11. p. 13. Tegi dicuntur peccata▪—tum quia Chriſti juſtitia ſunt expiata tum quia eadem nobis per fidem imputata tanquam nitidiſſima veſte operiuntur, ne in conſpectum Dei deformitus corumveniat, Paraeus Caſtig, de juſtif, p. 491.Phil 3:9 mentioneth imputation of righteouſnes, on which nonimputation followeth.

Theſe are enough to ſhew that beſides that remiſsion, there is by Scriptures and our authors, the righteouſnes of Chriſt, by which there is that covering of ſin. What you ſpeak againſt this that the active obedience of Chriſt cannot cover.

Seeing ſinne is wholly diſſolved by the paſſive obedience of Chriſt, and this before the imputation of the Active oebdience of Chriſt and that that which is wholly diſſolved needes no cover.

We have no ſuch opinion, that ſin is forgiven by the paſsive obedience, imputed before the active, we hold the imputation of both together, which make up our full righteouſneſſe, and that by theſe imputed we have Juſtification, and ſo concerning diſſolution or remiſsion of ſins, in regard of guilt and puniſhment.

p. 146It cannot be by the Paſsive alone, its inſufficient ſeeing the active is abſolutely neceſlary to the merit therof and an eſſentiall requiſite to life, ex conceſſis.

4. You ſay the active obedience of Chriſt is ſo farre from being a covering of ſinne, that its rather a meanes of diſcovery, ſetting it out.

I Anſwer that's not to purpoſe, yet you grant it an eſſentiall requiſite, to the Paſsive obedience, and it's doing away our ſinne.

As for that crotchet of yours about covering of finne it croſſeth your ſelf and your authors who make them the ſame, and I will not ſpend time in conſideration of it not being to our purpoſe.

2 Place. p. 3. Jer. 23. 6. and 33 16. Where its ſaid Chriſt ſhall be called the Lord our righteouſneſſe. You anſwer,

1. It is not ſaid the righteouſnes of the Lord ſhall be our righteouſnes, nor that is ſhall be imputed to us for righteouſnes.

1. When it's ſaid he ſhall be the Lord our righteouſneſſe, It muſt needs be ſo in regard of his righteouſnes.

2. His being our righteouſneſſe infoldeth faith, receiving Christ the Lord, 2 Col. 6. our righteouſneſſe may bee rightly ſupplied, and that implyeth Gods giving him for that, the imputation of it: the Apoſtle, Rom. 4. 6. ſupplyeth the word. And S… Pauls deſire is to bee found in him, not having his own righteouſneſſe.

It's all one with that place, where he is ſaid, to be made Mr. Zanchie, eſt enim Chriſtus ipſe per fidem apprehenſus quatenus ipſe pro nobis legem perfectiſſima obedientia ſervavit, quatenus item, ipſe ſua morte et Sanguine peccata noſtra expiavit, patrique reconciliavit, &c. Hi…reſpectibus Chriſtus eſt juſtitia noſtra, ideo merito Apoſtolus cum vocat juſtitiam noſtram, 1 Cor, 1, De quo antea Hierom, 23. Et hoc eſt nomenejus quo vocabunt cum Jehova juſtitia noſtra, in 3. 6. Epiſt. ad Philip. p, 196.unto us of God righteouſneſſe, and we are ſaid to be made the righteouſneſſe of God in him, 1 Cor. 1. 30. and 2 Cor. 5 ult.

So Paraeus when as in anſwering Bellar…ine he had ſaidSed me…onymico ſenſu dixit fidem 1. Chriſtum fide appreheaſum eſſe noſtram juſtitiam; addeth quem ſenſum Meronymicum ſi oppugnat adverſarius, certe non Lutherum impugnat ſed ſpiritum ſanctum blasphemat qui Chriſtum expreſſe vocat ju…ti…iam noſtram 23. Ler. 6. … …. 1. 30. Caſtig. l. 1. c. 4. P. 418, 419. Sec c. 10. p. 501. 502. where 1 Cor. 1. 30, and this place of. Ier. are vindicated, pro imputata Chriſti juſtitia. In anſwer re which. Bel. giveth us the whole cauſe, … Para. ib. & Ames. Ch…. c. 17. p. 24. 25. Bell. ener. p. 145. de Iuſtis. Tom. 4. ſo Chamier de juſtit. c. …. whereby this place, &c. He proveth that we are juſt non noſtra inhaereate, where he citeth an excellent teſtimony opening this text, Cirillus Glaphyron. 5. c. poſtr…m…. Hoc eſt …omeo ejus quod voca verit cum Dominus Ioſedeck in Prophetls, regnavit eaim ſuper nos juſtus rex Chriſtus juſtitiam ſecit nomen vero ipſi Iosedeck hoc eſt juſtitia Dei, juſtificati enim sumus in ipso Id circo etiam dicit Deus te Pater appopinquat celeriter juſtitia mea et misericordia mea revelabatur miſericordia enim et juſtitia nobis factus eſt Chriſtus a deo ae Patre. So where he proveth us juſtfied, aliena juſtiti…, c. 17. he citeth this text, Sect. 2. To which I may adde Doctor Downham who two times urgeth this text to this purpoſe. l. 1. c. 3. p. 5. 1. 4. c. 2. par. 2 Which is enough so give a taſt of this Scripture by Proteſtant Divines and that againſt Papiſts. You except.1 Cor 1:30 of Luther.

p. 1472. Its againſt Gramaticall and Rhetoricall importance of the expreſſure of the words, disagreeing from Scripture phraſe, to put ſuch a ſence on them as Ch iſt is our righteouſneſſe by imputation, the imputation of a perſon was never heard off therefore.

That's your opinion, its not ſo of learned men, as you heare, its no more then Chriſt being made to us of God, righteouſneſſe, or that our being made the righteouſneſſe of God in him of which before: Our righteouſneſſe implieth imputation or donation of God to us believing, for righteouſnes by which we muſt ſtand holy and unreprovable and unblamable in the ſight of God.

3. The direct meaning is. Hee ſhall be acknowledged by the Jews, the great author and procurer of that righteouſnes or juſtification in the ſight of God, for righteouſnes is put for Juſtification, Cap. 3. p. 3.

1. I anſwere Juſtification and righteouſneſſe differ as cauſe and effect as in your, 3. c. Sect. 3. righteouſnes is the cauſe, Juſtification the effect.

2. Grant this place then to be meant, he ſhall be called the Author and procurer of our Juſtification, but yet by righteouſneſſe which is a cauſe thereof: We yield it the meritorious cauſe, and the matter, and being applyed, imputed, ours, the formall cauſe: ſo that the direct meaning eſtabliſheth our interpretation, wee granting him the Lord our righteouſneſſe, by his righteouſneſſe p. 148made ours to produce this effect, Juſtification: I hope you that interpret him the author of Juſtification will not deny righteouſneſſe, the cauſe. And as for application you muſt grant, hee muſt of neceſsity bee our righteouſneſſe, that he may be to us the author of juſtification.

1. Thus according to his name is his work, he juſtifieth us by his righteouſneſſe applyed.

2. Thus is he the procurer of our righteouſneſſe and the effect thereof Juſtification, which are not but where hee is our righteouſneſſe, that is, his righteouſneſſe is applyed.

3. And thus remiſsion of ſins ſhall have it's due place, to bee an inſeparable conſequent of Juſtification, or juſt making, as that's an effect of the Lord, becomming our righteouſneſſe, this putteth both thoſe and all conſequent priviledges. And thus I paſſe to the fourth par.

Some have digged for imputation in that field, Jeſ. 45. 24.Third Place Se, 4. Surely ſhall one ſay, in the Lord have I righteouſneſſe and ſtrength.

You ſuggeſt.

1. There are ſeverall readings and interpretations of this Scripture. And

2. Anſwer there's not the leaſt breathing of imputation ſo much wondered after.

3. The direct meaning and import is doubtles, only a profeſſion made by him of his free juſtificati by God in and through Chriſt.

I anſwer, wh… at laſt you give us the true and direct meaning, it was vaine to pretend ſeverall readings and interpretations and want of pregnancy in the place, to build a diſputable point of faith on.

2. When as it's a profeſsion of free juſtification by God in and through Chriſt it muſt be by Chriſts righteouſneſſe and in him, which denoteth application, imputation.

3. The ſenſe is moſt plaine in the words of the interpreters p. 149In Chriſt the Lord I have righteouſneſſe, having it infoldeth Gods giving it and our application by faith, we grant juſtification and pardon to be as effects infolded. Its a profeſsion of juſtification by righteouſneſſe poſeſſed in Chriſt.

I will greatly rejoyce in the Lord, my ſoule ſhall be joyfull in Loc. ulo Jeſ. 61. 10.my God: for he hath cloathed me with the garment of ſalvation, he hath covered me with the Robe of righteouſneſſe. Theſe garments and Robe are conceived to be the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputea as a Robe or Garment put on them, wherein and by which they ſtand juſtified in the ſight of God.

You anſwer.

1. This cloathing with righteouſneſſe, &c. bare expreſſions chiefly, if not onelyonly of the Church of the lewes in their reſtauration from Babylon, if not that under which they lie now at this day, externall and temporall, not Iuſtification by Chriſt.

Neither by the Robe of righteouſneſſe are we to underſtand the whole obedience of Chriſt to the Morall Law, there not being word, ſillable, letter, tittle, leading to ſuch an interpretation, but in the effect of the righteouſneſſe that is of the truth and faithfullneſſe or graciouſnes of God: or both deliverance from captivity ſafety and other ſweet and comfortable priviledges.

Grant this of the Jewes, then or now, Its not only: as by the 3 firſt Ver. It's of Chriſt, and theres neither lew nor Gentile in him, & preaching the Gospel Its not to beconfind.

Grant it of the Jewes eſpecially now.

That it's of externalls and temporalls and not of juſtification by Chriſt, is very inconſideratly aſſerted.

1. Deliverance, ſafety and other ſweet and comfortable priviledges, confeſſed ſeeme to import more then outwards and temporalls.

The 3 firſt verſes ſhew that Prophet and Chriſt annoynted to preach other things then temporalls, there ore other evills on them, then temporalls ſuppoſed and remedies preached. There's more in that ver. 6. there's the inſtauration of divine workſhip Chriſt ſhewes that he will adorne his Church his Spouſe, with righteouſneſſe, p. 150lefe, and eternall glory. Inſtauration as Scultetus in locum. Cultus divini Chriſtus oftendit ſe or naturum eceleſiam ſponſam ſuam juſtitia vita et gloria aeterna. Tremel. & Iun. pro fat. ad caput. &c.there's more externall, ver. 6. internall, ver. 8. In everlaſting joy, ver. 7. I will direct their worke in truth, Scul. More in that, I will make an everlafting Covenant with them, ver. 8. There's Chriſt and righteouſneſſe and pardon and all ſpirituall bleſsings with Chriſt. It ſhall be ſeene ver. 9.

God ſhall be their God, they ſhall greatly rejoyce in him, for this, he hath clothed me, &c.

And what is meant by this, let Saint Iohn ſhew you 19. Rev. 7. 8. where the Spouſe of Chriſt returning ſhall be clothed with fine linnen cleane and white, which is the righteouſneſſe of the Sames. God ſhall do it by application of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſts Robes of righteouſneſſe, garments of ſalvation of all ſorts. But let us proceed. You ſay,

2. If we carry thoſe metaphors in and underſtand them of Iuſtification by Chriſt, the promiſe ſuppoſed to be contained in them, and to be made to the Church, will not be ſuitable or proper thereunto, becauſe the Church is already and at all times clothed with the robe of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt in ſuch a ſenſe, that is, in a juſtified condition by him: Yeaher Iuſtification is that which gives her her very being as ſhe is his Church. its to promſe what they have, ſo that doubtleſſe it is no Spirituall priviledge, as leaſt not Iuſtification by Chriſt of all other.

1. That theſe are ſuppoſed ever clothed with the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, juſtified, then, or now is worthy conſideration further.

Then though there were ſome juſtified they were but few: many the moſt Vncircumciſed in heart in their ſinnes, onelyonly juſtified Sacramentotenus in regard of Circumciſsion, the ſigne and ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of Faith, outwardly circumciſed a truth of many, elect ones, for their preſent ſtate, to be juſtified in their call when God ſhall call them to repentance and pardon them. Then Gods promiſe is to worke theſe, and ſo their returne, 44 Ic. and yet the Church.

p. 151Now, they are not called, not juſtified, cut off for not ſubmiſsion to the righteouſneſſe of God for eſtabliſhing their own righteouſneſse, to be juſtified when as the Lord ſhall call them.

I deny then that promiſe not ſuitable to them that they doe not need juſtification: your ſuppoſition that this was and ſhall be that peoples ſtate before their call is groundleſſe.

That juſtification gives a Church the very being of a Church as this was Viſible is groundleſſe, uncircumciſed in heart were members of the Church; yea hypocrites are ſo: even ſuch as are the Catholique Church or inviſible ones, Saints indeed are firſt in natures order ſanctified, before juſtified; the promiſe of pardon is made to repentance, if we confeſſe our ſinnes, he is faithfull and juſt to forgive us, &c. waſh you make you cleane, put away the evill of your doing, ceaſe to do evill, learne to do well, and then if your ſinnes were, &c. 1 Jeſ. The Scriptures abound this way; yea in order of nature before ſanctification there's effectuall call: call to faith and call to fellowſhip with Chriſt whence that ſanctification and ſo juſtification, and it's call that giveth her her being as ſhe is the Church. Eccleſia is of foreign as you know calling out that a conſequent priviledge of thoſe that are called out, diſtinct, whom he called he juſtified, Rom. 8. ſo that this objection is of no value.

Laſtly, If we underſtand it of outwards and temporalls, as Muſculus and other Interpreters, the Metaphor will be found ſweet and lively, and conſonant to other Scriptures.

The Jewes and other N…tions cloathed themſelves according to their condition, they had times for ſackcloth, they were now as Captives, priſoners; he will change their eſtate and make them free, poſſeſſors of their owne land, honourable, all this is ſignified by the change of their habits, proportioning clothes to their dignity, ſo 19. Rev. 7, 8. which you cleere and anſwer by the way) Its not of juſtification or righteouſneſſe, but the great honour Chriſt will beſtow on them juſtified long before.

p. 152It's given in remembrdce of herrighteouſnes, that is, her holynes, &c. under perſecution.

Pure and ſhining linnen, that is the bright glory, wherwith the Church is inveſted, is ſaid to be the righteousneſſe of the Saints, becauſe the reward of it, the linnen is, &c. a reaſon why the Saints ſo arrayed.

It's Paralell is, c. 3, 4. theſe ſhall walke in white, for they are worthy, they are the reaſon. So the great City was clothed in fine linnen and purple, 18. Rev. 16. Ther's nothing inward meant, touching the inward condition of the Church, much leſſe his juſtification by the active righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, and it's ſtrange to build a dog maticall point of faith upon metaphoricall expreſſions, there being no plaine ones to warrant it.

1. I believe not that Muſculus or any other, hold it of temporalls, onelyonly, Muſculus is not in mine hands. I have inſtanced in Sculretus; and Tremelius, and Iunius are cleare for ſpiritualls; if all the interpreters in the world were of that opinion, unleſſe I were blind I muſt oppoſe them, as by the particulars in the Chapter; of which before.

2. I grant outward temporalls to have their place, freedome, their lands, honour and that habits were proportionable by other places of Scripture. I deny there was not ſpirituall freedome, right to the creatures, and true honour, which is of God, conſiſting in ſpirituall Priviledges.

Nay the latter are, what are caſt in over and above.

Jun. & Tremel. Note that ^cJus et authoritas eccleſia vindicata per Chriſtis in res omnes creatus, quae per antiſheſin miſeri et ignominionſi ſtatus, precedentis illuſtratur, in ver, 6. 7.the right and authority of the church over all created things vindicated, which is illuſtrated by oppoſition of a miſerable and ignominious eſtate foregoing.

But there are far higher priviledges promiſed, Chriſt was annointed for other matters, as in the 3. firſt, &c.

Their is that acceptable yeer of the Lord, reconciliation with God, redemption comfort. They ſhall be trees of righteouſneſſe. Their s an everlaſting covenant in which God becommeth their God in Chriſt: ſhewing it in ſanctification, juſtification, adoption, in giving the ſpirit to all thoſe ends, to the exerciſe p. 153and growth of grace the ſaving of the ſoule, and reſurrection of the body. Theſe are prime bleſsings, and primely intended; though you (as if the Old teſtament contained none of theſe) ſee nothing but externals, temporalls.

3. If ſweetneſſe and livelynes, and conſonancy to the Scripture, be our card and compaſſe. Let any ſpirituall man judge.

1. If there be ſweetnes and life in temporall freedome, poſſeſſions, honour. Spirituall excelleth, it's of an higher kind, ther's no compariſon between them, were man in the greateſt want of the one, having the other, hee were an happy man: and on the other ſide, miſerable in the midſt of thoſe without theſe: that man did never taſt God in theſe, and is blind wholly that judgeth otherwiſe.

2. For agreement with other Scriptures.

This hath ſo, as where mention is made of putting on Chriſt; where we are ſaid to be found in him, as Paul. 3. Ph. 9. When hee deſired to bee found in him, not having his owne righteouſneſſe, which importeth that hee would bee found in, is the righteouſnes of Chriſt: It's as in agreement, of which ſee our examination of your 6. Argument out of Phil. 3. 9. and what is urged in defence of 32. ph. 1. the firſt Scripture paſsing which

Let us conſider thoſe in the Revelation 19. and 3. and ſee whether there bee nothing inward meant, or of the inward condition of the Church, much leſſe Juſtification by the active obedience of Chriſt.

The words are, And to her was graunted that ſhee ſhould be arrayed in fine linnen, cleene and white, for the fine linnen is the righteouſnes of Saints.

Chriſt the Husband in the call of his people (his ancient people the Jewes, as it ſeemeth) giveth her to bee arrayed, clotheth her with fine linnen, cleane and white, which is explained to bee the righteouſneſſe of the Saints, the righteouſneſſe which God giveth them, and they receive by faith.

p. 154Her's not onelyonly the priviledges and returne, but the righteouſnes of the Saints, a ſpirituall thing which you cannot exclude by your interpretation, and it's expreſſed.

2. Though metaphors are uſed, they are explained, they meane the righteouſneſſe of the Saints.

3. When as this is a dogmaticall point of faith. 1. it ſhould have moved you to more care and feare of adventuring to oppoſe it againſt all the reformed Churches: Your error if it bee proved, will be the greater in regard of Preaching and printing againſt it, it will bee againſt a dogmaticall point of faith.

Let us now to the interpretation of chief Proteſtants; you have brought not one for your interpretation which yet was your promiſe.

As in the argument of that, 61. Jeſ. Jun. ſaith, ddChriſtus ſe oſtend …ſe ornatutum eccleſiam Sponſam ſuam juſtitia, in the very words of this their ſeemeth agreement, here's Chriſt adorning his spouſe with righteouſneſſe.Chriſt ſheweth that he will adorne his Church his spouſe with righteouſnes.

Are ſpeaking of the ornament of his Church ſheweth whence it Aretius in locum. De ornat… Sponſae loquutus; oſtendit unde illum habeat nimirum a ſponſo Chriſto, datum eſt ci, hoc eſt a Chriſto. datumeſt, ſolius enim ſponſi eſt veſtire ſponſam et ornament is donare. Deinde nominat veſtimentum Byſſum purum et ſplendidum, hoc eſt can, didum, ſtola eſt innocentiae, bonorum operum quibus nihil eſt ſplendidius coram Domino nihil purius. 30. exponit veſtitum hunc nihil aliudeſſe, quam juſtificationem ſanctorum. igitur veſtitur Sponſa Chriſti Juſtificationibus, hoc eſt meritis et juſtitia ſui Sponſi. Hoc etiam dixit Apoſtolus ad Philip, 3. 9. Comperiar in ipso non habe n… meam juſtitiam quae ex lege eſt led quae eſt ex fide Chriſti, illam in quam quae eſt ex Deo juſtitiam per fidem. H…c juſtiti… ornatur Sponſa.hath it, that it is given by her husband Chriſt to her, that is, that it is given by Chriſt for it is the office of the husband only to cloth his ſpouſe, and to give her rayment, then he calleth the garment linnen pure and ſhining, that is the white garment of innocencie good works then which nothing is more ſhineing before the Lord, nothing more pure. 3. He expoundeth this rayment to be nothing elſe but the Iuſtifications of the Saints, therefore is the Church adorned with the Iuſtifications of Chriſt; that is, with the merits and righteouſneſſe of her husband: this the Apoſtle ſaid, Phil. 3. 9. That I may be found, &c, the church is adorned with this righteouſnes.

Hearken to learned Brightman, Illi alteri) that youQuae squalida …u…pis, nuda ne pannis obſita jacebat antea byſſinae veſtes dantur quibus deformem ſuam nudi…atem operiat. Haec autem Byſſus eſt Jeſus Chriſtus factus …oſter ad Juſtitiam et ſalutem per imputationem; qua veſte carebant Judaei d…m reſpuentes Dei filium, ejuſque juſtitiam propriam juſtitiam conſtituere ſtudierunt, ſed tamen inſiti per fidem renunciabunt ſuae priſtinae ſpei et hanc ſalutatem amplectentur, amicti hoc uno glorioſo, indumento. Haec Biſſus eſt pura et ſplendida; Pura ratione juſtificationis, quia ſiſtit nos coram Deo in culpatos et irrepre…enſibiles, immunes omnis labis et maculae; Splendida reſpectu gloriae, tum apud Deum qui peopter hanc puritatem in ſuo filio nos haeredes conſtituit aeterni ſui regni tum apud homin…s quibus adoptionem noſtram ſplendidiſſimis ſuis fructibus indicat, &c. may ſee it to have the ſame ſcope with that, 61. Ies.)

p. 155To them (the church of the Iews) which before lay filthy, naed, in rags, linnen clothes are given to cover her deformed nakednes, this linnen is Jeſus Chriſt made ours for righteouſnes and ſalvation by imputation, which garment the Iewes wanted, whilſt refuſing the ſonne of God and his righteouſnes, they indeavoured to eſtabliſh their owne, but being inſet by faith; they ſhall renounce their owne old hope, and ſhall imbrace this ſaving one, being arrayed with this one glorious garment. This linnen is pure and ſhining pure in regard of Iuſtification, becauſe it preſenteth us before God unblamable and unreprovable, without any ſpot or wrinckle, ſhining in reſpect of glory as well with God, who for this holynes in his Son, hath conſtituted us heires of his Eternall Kingdome, as alſo with men to which hee ſheweth our adoption with it's ſhining fruits.

The place more cleerly and fully expreſſeth the Proteſtant ſenſe, who take righteouſneſſe for good workes; as Beza, which yet he calleth, vivae fide foreign in locum.

The Rhemiſts acknowledg, that when wee ſay, bona opera meant, that they are the fruits and effects of Faith, and of the juſtice wee have by onelyonly faith, Remiſt. in locum. Which they denying Doctor Fulke replyeth. This Text compared with Rev. 7. 14. ſheweth whence the beauty of this garment commeth, verily not of the juſtice of men but of the blood of the Lambe, and the merit of his Sacrifice, 1b. If you ſay that's not the active obedience, you muſt hold your peace, ſeeing that maketh the other meritorious and is an eſsentiall requiſite thereof confeſſedly.

Who alſo addeth in truth all theſe Iuſtifications (good workes) are the effect of one Iuſtification which is by faith, onelyonly in the merits of Chriſt, ib.

ffMr. Brightm. after on theſe words. Biſſus enim juſtifica…iones ſunt ſanctorum non ex ſeipſis aut rebus inſitis mamat, ſed ſoris haeret in externa veſte, nimirum Chriſto quem per unam fidem induimus, and then. Nullla ſimilitudo dilacidius ante oculos ponit imputationem juſtitiae per fidem, quam haec veſtis tam …rebro in-Scripturis uſurpata▪Linnen are the righteouſnes of the Saints, not from them ſelves or what floweth from what is inward, but it cleaveth from p. 156without, in our outward garment, Chriſt whom we put on onelyonly by faith: No ſimilitude doth more cleerely put the imputation of righteouſneſſe by Faith, then this of a garment ſo often uſed in the Scriptures.

But let them remember this merit to be given to the garmēt, not And on the 3. c. v. 4. to the Papiſts, he ſaith, Sed meminerint hoc meritum tribui veſti non corpori. id eſt imputationi juſtitiae Chriſti qua tanquam veſte induim…r. Brightman.to the body, that is, to the imputation of the righteouſnes of Chriſt, with which as with a garment we are clothed.

Places of the New Teſtament.

3. Rom. 21, 22. But now the righteouſneſſe of God without the law is manifeſt…a being witneſſed by the law and prophets even the righteouſnes of God which is by faith of Jeſus Chriſt, unto all and upon all them that believe.

They ſay is here meant the righteouſneſſe or active obedience of Chriſt, who is God imputed to all that believe.

When as this place is urged by ours againſt Pontificians, &c. by righteouſneſſe, none meane the active obedience of Chriſt excluding the Paſsive, they ſpeake of both▪ you Anſwer.

1. This text is fully opened, Trea. 1. c. 4. and found to ſpeak plainly for the imputation of faith, no wayes for the imputation of the righteouſnes of Chriſt.

Let the Reader judge, and to that end look ſo farre backe and he ſhall find, that argument ſatisfied.

And in this text faith is not mentioned as righteouſnes, but what is diſtinct from it, that righteouſneſſe is by the faith of Jeſus Chriſt.

2. Some by the righteouſnes of God underſtand Gods faithfullneſſe in keeping promiſes as Ambroſe.

On examination before our learned have found it ootherwiſe, and the ſcope of the Apoſtle ſheweth it.

3. By, the righteouſnes of God is doubtleſſe meant that that method way or meanes which God himſelfe hath found out to juſtifie or make men righteous. Of which, c. 3. S. 2. p. 40. Or that very righteouſnes by which we ſtand juſtified or righteous in the ſight of God, neither have I found any that underſtands it of the righteouſnes of Chriſt.

The method and meanes God hath found, and is revealed p. 157is Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe, to prove which and helpe you, you may meet with both out of Par…us, and Calvin on the place, ſee before.

Let Beza be conſulted with, what may bee underſtood by Quid vocabul… Juſtitiae Dei intelligatur, per. ſecta nimirum illa et ſumma integritas humanae naturae qu… quiſquis donatus eſt (donatur autem credentibus in cam) qui h…c integritate ſecundum carnem absolutisſime praeditus eſt, no ſtri cauſa ut poſtea declarabitur. …iſtitur coram deo foreign ut loquitur Paulus, 1 Col, 23. Ea igitur a Paulo dicitur juſtitia Dei nou medo quia grat…itum Dei eſt donum &c. in 1 Rom. 17.the word righteouſnes, forſooth that perfect and higheſt integrity of his humane nature, with which every one is indowed (it is given to thoſe that believe in him) who is indowed according to his humanitie with this integrity moſt abſolutely, for our ſake as ſhall be declared afterwards. He is preſented befor God holy unblameable and unreprovable. That therefore is ſaid by St Paul; the righteouſnes of God not onelyonly becauſe it is the free gift of God, &c.

Beza on the text thoſe wordes, of Jeſus Chriſt.Id eſt quae ha, betur Chriſto vel quae Chriſto nititur. Hoc enim addendum fuit ne quis ex▪ iſtimaret fidem eſſe illud quod juſtificat, quum ſit duntaxat inſtrumentum quo Chriſtum juſtitiam noſtram apprehendimus.

That which is given to Chriſt, or which reſteth on Chriſt: for this was to bee added leſt any one ſhould think faith to be that which juſtifieth, when as it is onelyonly the inſtrument by which wee apprehend Chriſt our righteouſnes.

Read the paſſages out of Calvin and it ſhall be evicted that the man that met not with Chriſts righteouſneſſe was either willingly blind or negligent.

3. Rom. ult. The laſt ver. of the 3. Rom. is laid hold on as a favourer of their imputation.

It's not ours but the Lords: Let imputations be layd on it, as that it's ours it doth but conforme them who do ſo to that brood of Papiſts with whom they have this in common, that they cannot indure the word, as elſewhere hath been obſerved. The words are, Do we make voyd the Law through faith? God forbid! yea we eſtabliſh the Law. You ſay,

They conceive that the Law cannot be ſaid to be eſtabliſhed by faith or by the doctrine of faith, but onelyonly by imputation of Chriſts fulfilling of it.

We ſay the Law is eſtabliſhed by faith when as it is ſaid to juſtifie us, it doth it by application of Chriſts p. 158perfect obedience to the Law, active and paſsive imputed unto us. What ſay you againſt it?

1. That there's no neceſſity that in this place ſhould be meant preciſely the Moral Law, Calvin underſtands it of the Morall and Ceremoniall, &c. therefore he is far from conceiving, that the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe ſhould be eſtabliſhed by Pauls affirming the Law to be eſtabliſhed by faith.

Let it be underſtood of both, the Morall Laws eſtabliſhment cannot be denied to be by faith, nor that of the imputation of Chriſts obedience, by that eſtabliſhment, but confirmed alſo. Calvin telleth you, When as Vbi ventum eſt ad Chriſtum, in co invenitur exacta Legis juſtitia, quae per imputationem etiam noſtra fit.we come unto Chriſt, in him is found the exact righteouſneſſe of the Law, which alſo by imputation is made ours. The righteouſneſſe of faith is the exact righteouſneſſe or obedience to the Law, which is by imputation made ours.

I ſee not what this is to prejudice our doctrine, or to what it tendeth.

2. You ſay it's more probable that Paul here aſſerts the eſtabliſhment of the Ceremoniall Law, &c.

To what end is this? I know not truely, and therfore will paſſe it. It eſtabliſheth both.

3. When you ſay there's no neceſſity that the Morall Law ſhould be eſtabliſhed by the imputation of Ieſus Chriſt.

1. I anſwer that cannot be excluded. See Calvin, ſee alſo Paraeus, who anſwer that other objection, that faith eſtabliſheth the Law in ſanctification, which none deny. Calvin and Paraeus oppoſe not theſe, but eſtabliſh both.

2. As for what you object fourthly, I include in the obedience by faith in which I hold juſtification: thoſe 2 make but one conſideration, and they are not to be ſeparated. fiftly, Your laſt conceipt croſſeth all before, ſo that here's no anſwer to the objection of the enemies of Chriſt and the Apoſtle who thought them enemies to the Law, and their doctrine, Mat. 3. & Acts 15. whichSee Chemnit. exam. p. 352. de Iuſtif. yet is layd down to be the ſcope of the Apoſtle, both by Calvin and Pareus in the place.

p. 159This hath been an unpleaſant digreſſion, how that text and for what it's urged you may better conſider. where we urge it to ſhew that righteouſneſſe by which we are juſtified muſt be anexact conformity to the Law. For which ſee places urged from interpreters.

Rom. 4. 6. To whom the Lord imputeth righteouſneſſe.

That righteouſneſſe can be no other then but the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. To this you anſwer,

1. This is fully opened in mine anſwer to Mr. Walker, p. 41. whither the Reader is deſired to repaire for anſwer. I deſire it alſo, for mine anſwer thereunto, he ſhall find it full.

2. That the Apoſtle rather requires a righteouſneſſe ſuitable to every mans condition, then that of Chriſt, which hath no ſuch property already, preſented in this diſcourſe, there ſhalt thou finde it examined alſo, C. 2. ſect. 5. p. 7.

3. That righteouſneſſe which God is ſaid to impute, is placed by the beſt Expoſitors in remiſſiion of ſinnes. ſo Paraeus.

Of him we have ſeene before, in our Defence of Mr. Walker, and in this place he calleth righteouſneſſe and fin immediate contraries, in which the conſequence is neceſſary Contraria immediata, in quibus neceſſaria eſt conſequentia á negatione unus ad poſitionem alterius et contra: ubi peccatum, ibi non eſt juſtitia; tibi non peccatum ibi juſtitia; recte igitur Apoſtolus, beati quibus Deus non imputat peccatorum; ergo beati quibus imputat juſtitiam.from poſition of one to the poſition of the other, and contrarily, where there is ſinne there righteouſneſſe is not, where ſinne is not there is righteouſneſſe, therefore the Apoſtle rightly, bleſſed are they to whom the Lord imputeth not ſinne, therefore they are bleſſed to whom he imputeth righteouſneſse.

It followeth not therefore there's no imputation of righteouſneſſe. But è contra ergo imputat juſtitiam. Paraeus, in Rom. 4. 7. Thus that great engine doth batter yourObſerva 1. hoc verſu. 6. expreſſe doceri juſtitiā imputatam, Deus imputat juſtitiam ergo eſt juſtitia imputata. Hunc igitur lacerent Sophiſtae ut velint nunquam nobis execurient own Bullwarke. Paraeus in the ſame place urgeth, as obſervable.

Obſerve. 1. in this 6. ver. imputed righteouſneſse expreſly to be taught: God imputeth righteouſneſse, therefore there is imputed righteouſneſse: Let the Sophiſters teare this as they pleaſe they ſhall never take it from us.

p. 160Therefore expoſitors exclude not, nor can imputation of righteouſneſſe as we have ſeene, and with Paraeus his leave, that righteouſneſſe is ſubjectively in Chriſt, as ours ſhew, and that out of the Apoſtle, 2 Corin. 5. ult.

4. To impute ſinne ſignifieth, either to looke upon a perſon as juſtly liable to puniſhment, or to inflict puniſhment for ſinne: the latter I finde moſt frequent, either to hold a man liable to puniſhment, for ſinne or to execute puniſhment; then to impute righteouſneſſe importeth to looke upon a man as a righteous perſon, and to inveſt him with thoſe priviledges.

To impute ſinne infoldeth a man a ſinner and guilty of death and Gods chargeing it on his ſcore, and an holding him ſo, ſo long, whether hee ſhew it in puniſhment or not, puniſhment may be deferred, God may after that inflict it, but is an infallible conſequent except man repent and God forgive.

Not to impute ſinne is not onelyonly not to puniſh, but not to hold guilty, and ſo to forgive, which God doth not where a man continueth a ſinner, God ſhould hold the guilty innocent, acquit a wicked man. He is therefore ſuppoſed juſt and righteous when as the Lord doth ſo, and that by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt applied to him, by righteouſneſſe imputed: the imputing therefore of ſinne, or charging it on a mans ſcore, denyeth imputation or application of that righteouſneſſe, the not imputation thereof putteth the imputation of righteouſneſſe ex conceſſis of Paraeus, and Gods laying it to our account.

As therefore puniſhment is a conſequent of ſin, &c. God chargeing it upon a man, ſo the priviledges of a juſtified perſon the conſequents of righteouſneſſe imputed to that man.

In the former God is a juſt judge, the juſt judgement of God is, that they that doe thoſe things ſhould die; mans ſin and perdition are of himſelfe. In the latter righteouſneſſe is p. 161by the free grace of God, yet declaring himſelfe juſt in Juſtification through the blood of Chriſt applyed by Faith, which alſo makes further differences, deſtroying your concluſion. But to the laſt,

Ult. Here is neither peere nor peepe, of the leaſt ground or reaſon to conceive that by righteouſnes ſhould be meant the righteouſnes of Chriſt.

A righteouſneſſe is neceſſary as hath beene ſhewed in defence of Mr. Walker, and that ther's no other to bee found, by which it may be done amongſt the ſons of men.

Let that place be conſulted with, and you ſhall ſind it cleered, and that by the interpretation of Proteſtant Divines, Paraeus, Ames, Whitaker, &c. Let the judicious reader both read and judge.

The next place you mention is.

Rom. 5. 19. For as by one mans diſobedience many are made ſinners, ſo by the obedience of one ſhall many bee made righteous.

Hence you ſay we argue.

That as by the imputation of Adams diſobedience men are made formally ſinners, in like manner by the imputation of Chriſts righteouſnes men are made formally righteous.

For your formally. I find it not in any of our Divines from this place, when as they urge it againſt the Papiſts; for to prove wee are juſtified by the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, if you make uſe of theſe words, therefore you ſhall but vainly jangle, our ſence hath bin ſufficiently expreſſed before.

Doctor Downham may bee ſeene, l. 5. c. 2. Sect. 1. See Mr. Perk Refor. cath. and Abbot defence. p. 404. Doctor Ames Bell. Enerv. Tom. 4. p. 144. Its a place vrged by all Proteſtants againſt Papiſts, to prove the imputation of the righteouſnes of Chriſt.

To this you anſwer.

1. Somewhat hath beene ſpoken of the ſence of this Scripture and the inconcludency of this argument, Par. 1. c. 21. Sect. 2, 3. where that may be alſo found, examined.

p. 1622. It's not ſaid here by imputation of Adams ſinne men are formally ſinners, but ſinners, that is, obnoxious to death and condemnation, or ſinners by propagation, ſo that her▪s neither little nor much for imputation.

1. Formally taken for inherently we meane not.

2. When as they are ſaid obnoxious to damnation; they are not denyed ſinners as hath been ſhewed. If the ſinne it ſelf had not bin imputed, then as Bellarmine himſelfe ſomwhere argues; neither the guilt nor the corruption, ſaith, Doctor Downham (I may of the reſt of the puniſhment) had not belonged unto us.

And hee addeth which hath beene obſerved before that.

Things that are traſient when they are once paſt and gone, cannot be otherwiſe communicated then by imputation. ubi ſupra p. 27….

When as you ſay, or by propagation not imputation.

1. None queſtion but we are formally ſinners by propagation; corruption of nature is ſpirituall death wherein we are conceived and borne, the deprivation of Gods Image, and depravation of nature are what wee have by propagation, which argueth the cauſe our ſin in Adam.

When as you deny imputation, and not by imputation, you runne into the Pelagian Hereſie, as Voſſius before, where he ſheweth the contrary the Orthodox doctrine. You joyne with the Papiſt, of whom yet many are againſt you and Bellarmine himſelf, againſt himſelf as Dr. Downh. ſheweth l. 4 c. 10. Sect. 2. and Se. 4. and Dr Abbot againſt Biſhop: all ours hold as inquination of nature by propagation ſo imputation of Adams ſinne, whence guilt and puniſhment. … not waſt time in numbring them, hearken to your maſter, he is amongſt the Prophets here

We affirme Adams ſinne is imputed to us to our juſt condemnation, ſo Wot. in Defence Mr Perk. p. 178.

3. Neither doth the Apoſtle compare one act with another, but the ſatisfaction with the provocation and remedy with the diſeaſe, p. 163therwiſe he ſhould make ſins of omiſſion to be no diſobsdience, becauſe they are no acts, in which yet alſo Adams ſin ſtood.

The compariſon is betweene diſobedience and obedience, diſobedience infoldeth his omiſsion & commiſsion: Chriſts obedience the perfect remedy, but whats this againſt the imputation of it?

4. By the obedience of Chriſt whereby its here ſaid, many are or ſhall bee made righteous, wee cannot underſtand that the righteousnes of Chriſt, which con ſiſts onelyonly in his obedience to the morall Law, but that ſatisfactory righteouſnes which he performed to that peculiar law of mediation, which was impoſed on him, and which chiefly conſiſted in his ſufferings, ſee c. 3. of this part, Sect. 4. p. 45.

The moſt interpreters compare this with 2 Phil. 8. where it's ſaid he humbled himſelfe and became obedient unto death.

1. None of our's meane by the obedience of Chriſt that which conſiſts onelyonly to the morall law, they infold his Paſsive obedience.

2. You do not well in oppoſing that obedience to the Law, to what's mediatory. I have ſhewed he obeyed not that law for himſelfe but us and your ſelfe hold it an eſſentiall requiſite to the Paſsive obedience, where you have conſidered of this you muſt ſeeeke for ſatisfaction.

3. When this is compared with that 2. Phi. in that you ſhall find not onelyonly Chriſts death and ſufferings, but his incarnation with all that ever he did and ſuffered even till death, his whole doings and ſufferings becomming man was his poverty, not for himſelfe but us: neither is there here an excluſion of his Active obedience.

When as you object, out of Paraeus (as you ſay) if by the obedience of Chriſt we underſtand, Univerſalem ejus conformitatem cum lege. 1. The Antitheſis will not ſtand, betweene the diſobedience of Adam, and the obedience of Chriſt, Adams diſobedience being but a particular transgreſſion.

I Anſwer, 1. when we underſtand his univerſall obedience to the law, it was but our debt, wee exclude not p. 164Chriſts ſufferings, which Paraeus calleth ſatisfaction to the Law.

But to the oppoſition, Adams ſin is called diſobedience, and Chriſts righteouſneſſe obedience; the one was univerſall obedience you ſay, and was not Adams univerſall diſobedience to the whole law? Yes, but this is a leſſer reaſon, there is a greater.

The effect, righteous making hath been hitherto attributed to his blood.

We eſtabliſh that the other cannot in your judgement be excluded, ſeeing it's eſſentiall neither is blood ſufficient without that which is abſolutely neceſlary, nay eſſen…iall.

5. Suppoſe that contrary to Scriptures and generall current of Interpreters; we underſtand that active obedience he performed to the Law, yet will it not follow from hence therefore men muſt be made righteous by imputation, for the righteous making here is the ſame with that, ver. 16, 17. 18. now that righteouſneſſe as he calls it, ver. 17. is deſcribed to be the gift, forgiveneſſe of many offences, and that cannot ſtand in the imputation, of an obſervation of the Law.

It's a weary taske to run over and over the ſame things which yet I muſt doe if I examine you, the Reader may ſee I do but follow you let it be mine Apologie.

1. It's not contrary to Scriptures, and as for the generall current, the man cannot bluſh that denyeth we have many for us againſt one that oppoſeth.

2. Righteous making in one and other place are the ſame, here more fully delivered to be by Chriſts obedience, nothing but righteouſneſſe can make righteous, and no righteouſneſſe but Chriſts; remiſsion is a conſequent as hath been ſhewed that which ſuppoſeth imputation of righteouſneſſe paſsive all confeſſe, but you, &c. and you hold that active obedience to be a neceſſary, nay eſſentiall requiſite to that and meritorious, how anothers righteouſneſſe can be ours, but by imputation we know not.

p. 1656. Laſtly, Its looſe arguing from a thing done to a determinate manner, as Peter was ſlaine with death, therefore, by a beaſt or with a Dagger, ſo from this that we are made righteous by Chriſts diſobedience to this aeterminate manner by Imputation, there being other manners of righteous making.

This arguing is not looſe an others ſin or righteouſneſſe can be no other waies ours but by imputation, being tranſient as we have ſhewed: I cannot be a ſinner or righteous by the ſame otherwiſe, which yet the Apoſtle aſſerteth: righteouſneſſe of Chriſt active or paſſive will not doe it unleſſe it be applied, imputed by God.

Imputation of ſinne is read in the ſame Chapter. v. 13. and ſo is imputation of righteouſneſſe twice in the former, but it ſeemes it will not ſtand with your imputation of faith in a proper ſenſe.

Another text is Rom. 8. 4. that the righteouſneſſe of the Law might be fulfilled in us.

Say you,

It's argued that the righteouſneſſe of the Law can in no ſenſe be ſaid to be fulfilled in us but onelyonly by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt or obedience to the Law imputed.

I anſwer, this text is uſually urged for our juſtification againſt Romaniſts, but that it ſhould be onelyonly Chriſts fulfilling of the Law excluding his paſsive obedience, I know none that aſſerteth it but this is your common practiſe in laying down our arguments to intimate to the world your oppoſition againſt men that are onelyonly for the imputation of Chriſts active obedience.

You tell us,

1. Some Learned and Orthodox underſtand it of ſanctification rather then juſtification.

I anſwer, the ſcope ſheweth the contrary which is to prove though there be corruption in Gods people, yet no condemnation to them that are in Jeſus Chriſt: theſe words ſhew what the Law could not do God ſent his Son, &c. p. 166that the righteouſneſſe of the Law might be fulfilled in us ſee D. Downham, l. 7. de juſtif. c. 7. ſect. 10. 11. Muſculus and your ſelfe are rather otherwiſe [huc omnes proprudent quos viderim Papiſtae] Sed noſtri tamen, &c. Cham. l. 11. c. 7. ſect. 18. 19 Neither doth one or an others oppoſition hinder, but the ſtrength and reaſon of it.

And here Il'e cite ſome of many, who plainely interpret it that way.

Our Homily amongſt other texts, mentioneth this, whence as it taketh notice, 1 of Gods mercy, ſo 2. of Chriſts juſtice: upon Chriſts part juſtice, that is the ſatiſfaction of Gods juſtice, or the price of our redemption by the offoring of his body and ſhedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly.—It conſiſteth in paying our ranſom, and fulfilling of the Law.—whereby our ranſom might be fully payd, the Law fulfilled, and his juſtice fully ſatisfied: So that Chriſt is now the righteouſneſſe of all them that do truely believe in him, he for them paid the ranſome by his death be for them fulfilled the Law in his life, ſo that now in him and by him every true Chriſtian may be called a fulfiller of the Law, for as much as that which their infirmity lacked Chriſts juſtice hath ſupplied. 1. par. Serm. Salvation.

It's a manifeſt alluſion to this place, and theſe contain the Doctrine of the Church of England about this buſineſſe. Let Beza follow.

foreign. Illud ipſum nimirum quod requirit Lex ut ex ejus preſcripto juſti et integri coram deo cenſeamur. Nam cum ad peccatorum remiſsionem et impletionem juſtitiae acceſsit etiam hoc tertium, id eſt, perfecta naturae noſtrae integritas (quae omnia gratis conſequimur in Chriſto per fidem apprehenſo) ut in omnes facies ſe convertat Sathan juſti ſumus coram deo etiam ex illa abſolutiſsima legis formula quam ob rem etiam dixit Apoſtolus ſupra ſe legem non evertere ſed ſtabilire.

In nobis, non dicit Apoſtolus a nobis. Neque enim idcirco in nobis nulla eſt condemnatio quod juſtitia fit in nobis inchoata: ſed quia in Chriſto ſumus in quo p. 167plene ſumus ſanctificati, &c.

Bullinger. Ex loco infert, ſecundum poſterius ſequitur ex priori, nempe cum lex nos nec vivificare potuit, neque nos praeſtare potuimus, quod lex requiret a nobis, Deus qui Dives eſt miſericordia, et bonitate filium ſuum miſit in mundum ut hic incaranretur, moreretur pro nobis atque ita peccatum imperfectionis noſtrae tolleret, et perfectionem ſuam nobis conferret in fide; quae eſt perfectio et plenitudo legis, Conſtat ergo ex his Chriſtum impleviſſe Legem et hunc eſſe perfectionem in orbe omnium. Der. 3. Serm. 8. p. 137. 1.

Deinde implevit legem Dominus quia voluntati Dei abſolutiſsime per omnia ſatiſfecit, cum ſit ipſe ſanctum ſanctorum in quo nulla eſt macula, concupiſcentia prava nulla, peccatum nullum. In eo eſt dilectio Dei perfectiſsima, et juſtitia per omnia abſolutiſsima, et hanc nobis imperfectiſsimis communicat gratis, ſi credamus condonat enim nobis peccata factus pro nobis expiatio et communicat nobis ſuam juſtitiam quae imputativa vocatur.

Aretius, hoc foreign prorſus ſuit complendum etiamSee Chimnit. de juſtit. P. 255. in nobis ideoque Chriſtus induens noſtram carnem, noſtro nomine perfecte preſtitit Legem, Math. 5. non veni &c.—pertinet hoc membrum ad beneficij Chriſti applicationem ad nos ad Rom. 8. 4.

Chamier. Sed noſtris tamen magis placet foreign intelligi jus Legis duobus comprehenſum capitibus: uno paenas decernente adverſus peccatores, altero ctiam fic plenam obedientiam exigente, nec aliter quenquam abſolvente. Quorum neutrum nos in hac carne peccati poteramus praeſtare, itaque nihil erat certrus aeoerna damnatione. Sed providit Deus, et dedit Mediatorem a quo utrumque impletum eſt; et quidem pro nobis: nam et paenas dedit violatae legis et legem tamen plene implevit. Utrumque illud cum ſit pro nobis non habet amplius quod a nobis requirat, it a que jam pro certo …ulla damnatio eſt ijs qui ſunt in Chriſto. l. 11. …. 7. Sect. 19.

p. 168The juſtification of the Law is fulfilled in us or by us, becauſe the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt through faith is ſo reckoned unto us as if we our ſelves had done it, &c. Cartw. Annot. in Loc.

Dr. Davenant, anſwering Bell. citing this text thus, Reſpondeo ad primum Locum: et ſi nos non implemus Legem, tamen juſtitia Legis impletur in nobis qui inſerimur in Chriſtum; primum, quia Chriſtus ſatisfecit Legi, pro omnibus membris ſuis, patiendo mortem carnis; ſecundo quia illorum nomine exacte ad minimium uſque apicem totam legem implevit, &c. c. 52. de actuali juſtitia, p. 562.

Idem Deus ſuo decreto (quia homo per peccatum infirmatus fuit) tranſtulit legis impletionem in chriſtum. foreign, atque voluit ut illa obedientia et juſtitia quam chriſtus in carne noſtra praeſtaret per imputationem noſtra fieret. Ergo, &c.

Probatur, ex Rom. 34. Senſus loci hic eſt: Chriſtum a patre miſſum renatos omnes et ſibi inſitos, a damnatoria vi legis et peccati exemiſſe, poenam noſtro nomine ſuſtinendo; quam nos ſuſtinere non potuimus, legem noſtro nomine implendo cum nos implere non potuimus; atque ſic nos in chriſto reputamur totum jus Legis impleviſſe, quia et perpeſsi ſumus propter peccata noſtra poenam quam lex intentat, et praeſtitimus ſimul exactam illam obedientiam quam ipſa effla gitat. c. 28. arg. 4. p. 365.

Ergo hoc ad veniam referre neceſſe eſt: quia dum nobis accepta fertur Chriſti obedientia, Legid ſatisfactum eſt, ut pro juſtis ſenſeamur—ſed quia ſuam juſtitiam nullis communicat chriſtus niſi, &c.—Calvin in locum.

Ubi non aliud Complementum deſignat quam quod Imputatione conſequimur. Calv. inſtit. l. 3. c. 11. p. 23. adlocum, & Rom. 8. 3.

Eo enim jure communicat nobiſcum Dominus chriſtus ſuam juſtitiam ut mirabili quodam modo quantum pertinet ad Dei judicium, vim ejus in nos trans fundat.

p. 169Aliud non ſenſiſſe abunde liquet, ex altera ſententia, quam paulo ante poſuerat quemadmodum per unius obedientiam conſtituti ſumus peccatores ita per obedientiam unius juſtificari: quid aliud eſt in Chriſti obedientia collocare noſtram juſtitiam niſi aſſerere eo ſolo nos haberi juſtos, quia Chriſti obedientia nobis accepta fertur ac ſi noſtra eſſet. &c. viſe.

Paraeus in locum Altera cauſa finalis liberotionis noſtrae per Chriſtum fuit, ut jus Legis impleretur in nobis hoc eſt ut maledictioni Legis maledicta morte crucis Chriſti ſatisfieret, eaque ſatisfactio nobis imputaretur non ſecus acſi a nobis impleta fuiſſet. Impletur in nobis dum nobis imputatur per fidem, hoc eſt acceptatur a deo quaſi per nos praeſtita dum propter eum nos a peccatis juſtificat. Obſerve his phraſes and imputation.

I have been too large enough, if not too much of conſcience to ſhew our ſenſe by Interpreters. Let us now conſider what is oppoſed.

2. It cannot be meant of active obedience imputed, becauſe it muſt be ſuch a righteouſneſſe and fulfilling which may be apprehended a proper effect of Chriſts condemning ſinne in the fleſh, ver. 3. The latter is intended a fruit of the former; now Chriſts active obedience or imputation of it cannot be that effect, condemning ſinne is by death, and he that hath the guilt of his ſinne taken away by death needs no other righteouſneſſe or imputation whatſoever; as Concluſ 1. & 4. 2. cap. of this Treatiſe.

Beza ſheweth the prepoſition foreign aaNulla ratione poteſt hanc interpretationem admittere; ne que nunc Apoſtolus agit de morte Chriſti et noſtrorum peccatorum expiatione, ſed de Chriſti incarnatione et naturae noſt rae corruptione peream abolita, &c. See the place.can by no reaſon admit this interpretation, neither doth the Apoſtle now speake of the death of Chriſt, and the expiation of our ſinnes, but of his Incarnation and the corruption of our nature aboliſhed thereby. and he giveth bbCondemnavitcondemned, ccAbolevit.Aboliſhed, as you, andNam imputata nobis Cſtriſti ſanctificatione peccatum pro nihilo habetur, quam vis ſuperſunt reliquiae ejus in nobis. ſhewes how it doth come to paſſe for ſinne is accounted nothing though the reliques thereof remaine in us, by Chriſts righteouſneſſe imputed unto us.

2. Suppoſe it of forgiveneſſe of ſinne by death, you cannot exclude imputation, nor imputation of the p. 169active obedience of Chriſt, Chriſts death not imputed doth not do away guilt, and Chriſts active obedience is an eſſentiall requiſitc as you ſay to that. Let us intreat you then that both may be imputed; what you ſay is examined.

3. But it muſt be the end of condemning ſinne in the fleſh. No, but an other end of ſending Chriſt, &c. one was forAltera was ſaith paraeus, ut jus Legis impleretur in nobis, ut maledictioni Legis maledicta morte crucis, ſatisficret …aqu… ſatisfactio nobis imputaretur non ſecus ac ſi à nobis ipſis impleta fuiſſet—Impletur in nobis d…m nobis imputatur. ſinne, the other was that the righteouſneſſe of the Law might be fulfilled in us, that by the curſed death of the croſſe ſatisfaction might be made to the curſe of the Law, and that ſatisfaction imputed to us, as if it had been fulfilled by us.—It is fulfilled in us whilſt is it imputed unto us.

By the ſufferings of Chriſt Paraeus meaneth his whole poverty, obedience from his Incarnation to his death, from which Chriſts active obedience to the Law cannot be excluded, it was part of his ſubjection and humiliation, and as for you, your grant that its an eſſentiaell requiſite to what is Mediatorie will ſtop your mouth.

3. Its an unquoth expreſſion in them, for it denotes ſubjective inheſion or ſome kind of efficiency: friends of imputation affirme Chriſts righteouſneſſe ſubjectively in him, in us by imputaeion, not by way of efficiency, for they are not works, therefore an imputed righteouſneſſe cannot in any tolerable conſtruction be ſaid to be fulfilled in men.

1. foreign your ſelfe (p. 14. in 7.) give us the cleere meaning of the place: in us or upon us, made good and fully manifeſted in us or upon us, viz. in our Iuſtification.

In which ſenſe their's neither ſubjective inheſion of the righteouſneſſe of the Law nor efficiency.

2. When as it's ſaid to be [foreign] we deny it [a nobis] in that name with Beza, and may oppoſe with him.Sed quia in Chriſto ſumus in quo ſumus plene ſanctificati. nam quod de imputata Chriſti ſanctificatione dicimus ita accipiendum eſt ut ſciamus non id …ir…o … ſanctos coram Deo haberi quod Chriſti hominis integritas ſarciat quod noſtrae deeſt ſed quod ille nos in ſolidum ſanctificavit in ſeſe in eternum.

But becauſe wee are in Chriſt, in whom wee are fully ſanctified, for that which we ſpeake of the imputed holyneſſe of Chriſt, is ſo to be underſtood that we may know that wee are not therefore accounted holy before the Lord becauſe the integrity of the man Chriſt, doth peece out what is wanting to ours, but becauſe he hath wholly ſanctified us in himſelf for ever.

p. 170It is fullfilled in us whilſt it is imputed by faith: that is, it is accepted of God as done by us, whilſt for it hee juſtifieth us from our ſinnes.

4. If compleat obedience which every believer according to the great variety of their ſeverall callings and conditions, &c. ſtand bound to performe: it's not truth its fullfilled in them, by the imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, ſcarce a believer but Impletur in nobis dum nobis imputatur per Fidem; hoc eſt acceptatur a Deo quaſi per nos praeſtita dum propter cam nos a peccatis juſtifiy cat.ſtands bound to particular acts not found in the workes of righteouſneſſe performed by Chriſt.

Its ſtrange when as he fulifilled allrighteouſnes, but of that ſee the place, and the next argument taken from it's ſuperabundance, &c.

5. foreign tranſlated righteouſneſſe ſignifieth not conformity with the Law; but that Iuſtification which was the end and intent of the Law, &c.

And yet you ſee they hold and gather the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, that contention about the word will not ſtead you.

6. Neither must we of neceſſity and with all preciſenes, underſtand the morall law, and that it cannot be meant preciſely of the morall law is evident:

1. Peter Martir hath theſe words, I ſay thoſe words cannot Iſta inquam verba non poſſunt exponi de lege ceremoniarum. loci Com…d… ju…it. Sect. 2o,be expounded of the Ceremoniall law.

And the concupiſcence he comforteth himſelf againſt is undeniably in the morall law, and that was it which had the promiſe of life.

1. To your Arguments, I know not that the Ceremoniall Law or judiciall were impoſsible, bu…henſome it may be; or if, ther's no compariſon between them for impoſsibility, with the morall. The wiſedome of the fleſh, is not ſubject to the Law of God nor can be, not to that law.

2. Its falſe that they built ſo much on thoſe as theſe; And if it were granted the morall law cannot bee excluded from man.

When as you ſay.

4. The morall law ſuppoſe it had not beene weake by the fleſh, could not by exact obſervation have juſtified Jewes who were p. 172bound to the obſervation of the other two, and had beene found ſinne s.

But you muſt conſider both theſe were added becauſe of hat weaknes; and ſuppoſe it, which deſtroyeth your ſuppoſition.

And when you ſay.

It's euident that by the righteouſneſſe of the law in this place, the Apoſtle meaneth ſuch a law which of it ſelf was able to juſtifie had it met with ſtrength in men anſwerable to it, and therefore it cannot bee meant here determinatly of the morall Law which hath no ſuch ability in reſpect of the Jewes.

You ſee not how you deſtroy your owne aſſertion, for the morall law was able but on our weaknes diſinabled: It had that ability to whole mankind, the man that did it ſhould live: of whatever Nation or condition.

As for your determinatly and preciſly I have no skill in them. (if they pleaſure you ought) I know not who againſt you uſeth them.

4. Laſtly, becauſe Jews had bin never the neerer juſtification by the righteonſnes of the law imputed from Chriſt, being under the transgreſſion of other lawes.

Chriſt fullfilled all righteouſneſſe, which imputed is as large as they need, and how it can follow that the morall Law is not meant, were ther's a fulffilling all righteouſnes, or a righteouſnes imputed, which is the fulfilling of all righteouſnes, I conceive not.

7. The cleere meaning of the place ſeemes to be this, that that juſtification or way of making men righteous which Moſes writings, held forth, by faith in the Meſſiah to come, to bee made good or fully manifeſted upon us, who walke not, &c. giving evidence the great juſtifier of Men, MOSES foretold is come, &c.

1. This interpretation is confirmed by the ſweet agreement it hath with ſuch a fullfilling of the Law in thoſe that believe and live accordingly, and the ſending of the Meſsias, as in the former, &c.

What truth ſoever there be in that, that, what Moſes p. 173propheſied of is fullfilled in ſuch, as believe; and that ther's an agreement, as in the reaſon. Yet it's not the ſcope of the place, which hath been ſhewed.

Beſides that interpretation wee give of imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt agreeth both which Moſes and David, as the Apoſtle ſheweth. It's a fullfilling of what Moſes ſpake …n thy ſeed ſhall all the Nations of the earth be bleſſed, and with Gods ſending of the Meſsias which was to make an end of ſins and to bring in everlaſting righteousneſſe, of which Daniel, &c.

The ſenſe of fullfilled is not loſt in our expoſition, Calvin Dum nobis accepta fertur Chriſti obedien… tia legi ſatisfac tum eſt, ut pro juſtis cenſeamur, in loc.found it when he ſaid, when as Chriſts obedience to the law is given to us, ſatisfaction is made to the law, that wee may bee accounted iuſt.

He deſigneth no other fullfilling to us then that which we attaine by imputation.And when bee ſaith, non aliud complementum deſignat quam quod imputatione conſe quimur.

See before; and Paraeus; ſurely, when as Chriſt came to fullfill it he did ſo and it is fullfilled in us when as it is applyed. As if we had done it.

3 You ſay queſtionleſſe, righteousneſſe here is the ſame with that Rom. 3. 21. witneſſed by the law and the Prophets, and Impletur in nobis quando applicat…r.eſtabliſhed, ver. 31.

Of the text Rom. 3. 31. enough hath beene ſpoken twice before, and alſo the 21. verſ. Thither I ſend the Reader that I may ſpare often doing over the ſame, See Calvin on both places.

And to your fourth, I grant this place agrees with that, Rom 2. 21, 22. 25. &c. But deny in either, that the righteouſneſſe of God, that is, the way or means, God uſeth for Juſtification ſtands in remiſsion of ſinnes, only ſeeing it muſt needs be by righteouſnes and ſeeing remiſsion of ſinnes is a conſequent of Juſtification, it cannot be a way and meanes of God unto it.

And Secondly, I deny that it can well bee called the righteouſneſſe of the Law.

Thirdly, though it was not ſo fully revealed in the Law and Prophets, as after Chriſts incarnation and p. 173death, yet Chriſt was a Lambe ſlaine from the beginning of the World, and ſo ſinne was condemned in the fleſh of Chriſt, the vertue of it had the ſame effect, but this laſt is not to our buſineſſe.

The next Text which commeth to your underſtanding uſed from this cauſe is.

9. Rom. 31, 32. But Iſrael which followed after the Law of righteouſnes, hath not attained to the law of righteouſnes, wherfore? becauſe they ſought it not by faith, but as it were by the workes of the Law.

That is, had the Jewes who followed after the law of righteouſneſſe believed in Chriſt, they had attained the Law of righteouſneſſe, that is, ſhould have had the righteouſneſſe of the Law performed by Chriſt imputed to them.

Had the Jewes who ſought after righteouſneſſe and Juſtification by the workes of the law, by their obedience to the Law of God, beleeved in Jeſus Chriſt for righteouſneſſe and Juſtification they had attained righteouſneſſe and Juſtification, God had imputed it, they had received it and bin juſtified by it. But they knew not this righteouſnes of God, they ſubmitted not to it, they rejected Chriſt and it, and would bee juſtified by performance of the Law, and ſo miſt it.Noluerunt eam amplecti, Paraeus nolen…e, ejus juſtitiae ſubdi; hoc eſt fide amplecti.

1. It's ſaid c. 10. 3. they knew not Gods righteouſneſſe, that which he revealeth in the Goſpell, Chriſt our righteouſneſſe or his righteouſneſſe, the righteouſnes of GOD our Saviour, 1 Pet. 1. They went about to eſtabliſh their owne Ignorantia et ſuperbia quadam juſtitiam Dei in Cſtriſto oblatam contemnunt et abijciunt, contemnunt finem legis qui eſt Chriſtus. Ignorant quam in Chriſto fide conſequamur, Par, in ver, 4.righteouſnes inherent; that which was not, or ſhort of what God required to that end. they ſubmitted not to it, they would not imbrace it by faith.

They would be juſtified by there owne workes, not anothers.

They ignorantly and proudly contemned it, &c. The Gentiles obtained righteouſneſſe, 9. c. ver. …0. as a gift given by God, received by faith as an hand See Paraeus in the Margent.

Let us now examine your anſwer You ſay,

1. By the law of righteouſneſſe they ſought after but could p. 174Obtinuerunt fide in Chriſtum ve…bum foreign innuit, juſtitiam ut donum a Deo; offeiri: fide ut manu a nobis accipi. ut ſ pta, c. 5. verſ. 17. Fides apprehendit juſtitiam gratis imputatam—Iſtam apprenenderu …t fide accipientes remiſſionem peccatorum et do… num juſtitiae in Chriſto. there Obſer. 5. Aliud ſit fides a…ud Juſtitia. juſtitia ex fide eſt imputata, Cham. de Juſtif. c. 3. Sect. 25. 859.not attaine, is not meant the morall Law: or any law properly ſo called, morall cer…moniall or judiciall, but as after Juſtification or righteouſneſſe, as in anſwer; the fifth.

1. I anſwere, Juſtification and righteouſneſſe really differ as cauſe and effect, and may not be confounded: You might more properly ſay righteouſneſſe to Juſtification.

2. I his they ſought but attained not, becauſe they ſought it by the workes of the law, that is by obedience to the law nor onelyonly the morall but coremoniall law.

3. When you ſay. God had given them thoſe laws.

I Anſwer none urge the ſeeking of the Law, as not having them; but the Law as a meanes of righteouſnes to life. When you adde,

Their ſtudy to keepe the law, could not be a cauſe of comming ſhort of righteouſneſſe.

I anſwer yes when as they did it to attaine righteouſneſſe to Juſtification; It was a Pharaſaicall practiſe; condemned by Chriſt and his Apoſtles; holy obedience to the commandements, for ends required by God is on thing, for righteouſnes and Juſtification is condemned becauſe it's impoſsible and for many reaſons elſe.

2. To the ſecond anſwer I reply, we meane righteouſneſſe.

3. As Calvin and Muſculus, neither doe we reſtraine this …o the Morall law, and this ſatisfieth the 3 alſo.

4. Neither could either doe them good, ſuppoſing their attainment, being ſinners, though it be impoſsible which is all I will ſay to the 3.

5. Your fift is granted it was righteouſneſſe to juſtification as before They ſought it then by the workes of the law, and could not attaine it, it was not the courſe or meanes of God. There is another way then which the Gentiles walking in obtained perfect righteouſnes, by, and for Juſtification, that is, the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt given us by God, applyed by faith.

The next Place is.

p. 17610. Rom. 4. For Chriſt is the end of the law for righteouſneſſe to every one that believeth.

Therefore (ſay the maſters of that way of imputation, which wee deſire to hedge up with thornes.) the righteouſneſſe of CHRIST or the obedience performed by him, to the morali Law is that which is imputed to thoſe that doe believe for their righteouſneſſe.

Let the Reader peruſe, that which was taken out of Paraeus, it ſerveth to lead us to the opening this place.Quod praeter juſtitiam operum ſit juſtitia alia. quae eſt fidei ſeu Chriſti. That which they (ſeeking righteouſneſſe by the law, eſtabliſhing their owne,) were ignorant of, and ſubmitted not to was the righteouſneſſe of faith, the righteousneſſe which faith receiveth and God imputeth, ſo here the Apoſtle ſheweth.Solus Chriſtus cam preſtat ad juſtitiam cuivis credenti. At juſtitia fidei imputatur, dubiorum ex plic. p. 796. 5.

Paraeus (having ſhewed that the law was given to give life) and the impoſsibility of attaining it but by comming to Chriſt, not by the laws fault but want of obedience in us not able to obey it) he ſaith, onelyonly Chriſt performeth it to righteouſnes to every one that believeth.Diximus alibi, quomodo Dei juſtitiam fide in duant homine, quia ſc. imputatur illis Chriſti juſtitia. Calv. in loc. Ab ipſo uno (Chriſto juſtitiam gratuitam petamus, See Toſſan id ib. Poſtqnam tamen omnes …n reatum conjecit novam ſubſtituit in Chriſto juſtitiam, quae operum meritis non acquiritur, ſed gratis donata fide recipitur; id ib. Bera ſhewing that the attaining the end of the law, not hindred by any quality of the Law, but the viciouſneſſe of our fleſh addeth. Cui demum ita medetur Chriſtus ut in eo uno gratis per fidem nobis imputato finem legis conſequamur, per illum juſtificati qui pro nobis legem implevit, pronobis maledictiones omnes in ſe recipit, et in quem pro nobis omnes benedictiones ſunt effuſae ut fieret nobis juſtitia ſanctificatio, &c quam obrem etiam Apoſtolus dixit ſupra, 3. 31. ſe per fidem non tollere legem ſed ſtabilire in loc Paulum opinor non modo legem a Chriſto impletam dicere ſed de hujus impletionis efficacia nobis videlicet per imputationem juſtificatis, id ib. Intelligitur (…ocus) de verâ et perſectá juſtitià quam in Chriſto gratis imputato conſequimur. Paraeus having spoken of thoſe texts. Rom. 1. 17. 3. 21. and 10. Rom. 3. ſaith, perpetuo intelligit eam juſtitiam, quam Deus peccatori credenti donat, non per infuſionem ſed per imputationem interprete Apoſtolo, Rom. 4. 6. 11 Caſtig, p. 22. ſee p. 497. of the ſame. Dr. Davenant urgeth thus text in the place before p. 365. 10. Rom. 3, 4. Hic finis de quo loquitur Apoſtolus eſt primaria legis intentio, ſc; ut homine n juſtificet et ad vit am perducat per ejuſdem obſervationem, quia aaetem noſtro vic…o, contrarium potius in nobis, efficit; ſuccurrit Chriſtus et ſuâ obedientiâ omnium crdentium nomine praeſtità primarium finem legis implet; hoc eſt juſtificat ſuos et ad aeternam vitam perducit, ib. thu he urgeth againſt Papiſts. For the juſtice of God in the verſ. (10 Rom. 3.) verſ. 4. is put the perfect fullfilling of the law by Chriſt which is every ones righteouſneſſe which doth believe. Cartw, annot. jn Rhemiſts. This place is urged by out Homily, and what is gathered thence on that of Rom. 8. 3. wee have heard Dr. Downham urgeth it, l. 1. c. 2. Sect. 9.Rom 1:17Rom 1:3Rom 1:21Rom 1:10Rom 3Rom 4:6Rom 4:11Rom 3:4Rom 8:3

Which as before he calleth righteouſneſſe imputed.

p. 177Let us now examine your anſwers.

1. There's … of Reaſon that by Law in this place ſhould be meant the righteouſneſſe of the Morall Law precifly and ….

That the Morall Law is meant is enough, I know none exclude the Ceremoniall Law, and that will be ſpeciall, being eterna lex et eternae obligationis, as your ſelfe.

2. Its not true that the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed to believers (ſuppoſing ſuch imputation) ſhould be called the end of the M… Law, for nothing can bee properly ſaid the end of a thing, but onelyonly that which in reaſon may be obtained by it; there's an utter impoſſibility that Iuſtification by Chriſt ſhould be obtained by the Morall Law: obedience hath no cauſality, to ſuch an effect, it may more reaſonably be ſaid the end of the Ceremoniall Law, as tipifying Chriſt and his blood, not as a Law; which was to expire on Chriſts coming.

The text is, Chriſt is the end of the Law for righteouſneſſe, to every one that believeth; what man ſhall in vaine looke for by the works of the Law, by faith in Chriſt he may obtaine on that ground.

Juſtification might be obtained by the Law, the fault was not in the Law, but our ſelves, as the Apoſtle and Expoſitors: thence impoſsibility as before. We urge not that juſtification by Chriſt ſhould be obtained by the Morall Law, but faith apprehending the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, and yet the Morall Law accidentally (as Mr. Gat.) leadeth to Chriſt, and inſtructeth, as your ſelfe in ult. Chriſt is the complement of both for righteouſneſſe, the perfection of them.

3. That which you give the minde of the Greeke Authors; that Chriſt exhibited to them that which the Law propou…d… to its ſelfe, but could not, viz. Iuſtification. Is what ſay. (if you adde righteouſneſſe) as the text. and Chryſoſt. ſome to Juſtification, without righteouſneſſe there's no Juſtification.

4. The 4. your ſelfe reject.

p. 1785. Is becauſe by his incarnation and death hee put an end to the Moſaicall diſpenſation; you ſay its a truth but no true expoſition.

1. Its no truth, de ceremoniali verum, de morali non item, ſo Paraeus of it. It ſtandeth not with what hee delivered c. 3. ult. per doctrinam fides Legem ſtabiliri. So Toſanus to that place.

2. It's no true interpretation as Toſſanus, ibid. from the ſcope.

6. The plaine meaning ſeemes to be this, that the Law (meaning the whole Moſaicall diſpenſation, was given to the Iewes by God for this end, that it might inſtruct them of the Meſſiah to come to die for them, that ſo they might believe in him accordingly, and be juſtified: and further to prepare them for the Meſſiah himſelfe and perfect ſervice of God which hee ſhould bring with him.

1. If this be Gods aime in the whole Moſaicall dispenſation, its of that part the Morall Law and how is there then an utter impoſsiblillity that juſtification by Chriſt ſhould be procured or attained by the Morall Law? ſect. 19. ſecondly, the whole was given by God to them ſay you) for this end that it might inſtruct them of the Meſſias, that ſo they might believe and be juſtified. I know not but theſe are inconſiſtent.

2. Whenas Mr. Gataker rather inclineth that Chriſt was the end of the Law, for that reaſon ſimply, quia lex revera populo Deslata eſt quae a… meſſiam viam premuniret, quoderat miniſterij Moſaic… praec…pium …u…s.

Though there be a truth in it, that the Law inſtructeth and leadeth to Chriſt Ceremoniall yea and Moral, as Mr Gattaker (which latter I know not how it will conſiſt with your opinion in point of preparation and yet you muſt hold it becauſe it's the office of the whole)

1. Yet that's confeſſed accidentall.

p. 1792. There's an other given by Gomarus, with us.Finis Vox, aut complementum (ut Chryſoſtomo placet) aut cauſam cujus gratiâ Lex eſt, deſignat, nempe obedientiam perfectam, quae cum nobis natura deſit, ſoli vero Chriſto adſit ea noſtra fit perfidem, ut juſti ſimus et jus vita aeternae obtineamus.

It's true, it's called ſtrained but without reaſon given,Interpretationem Chriſoſtomianam ego quidem non illubenter admiſſerim: Chriſtum Legis complementum dici qui Legi anobis violatae pleniſſimam pro nob…s ſatisfactionem exhibendo eam quam conſummatiſſime implevit. (quo modo et illud accipio quod ad Rom. 3. 31. de lege per doctrinam Evangelicam ſtabilita dicitur.Rom 3:31 to omit that it's the common tenet, and Mr. Gattaker ſaith,

3. Chiefly and properly.Per…ſe et maxime proprie (ſaith Paraeus noting that you give accidentall) Chriſtus eſt finis Legis hoc eſt complementum, et perfectio quia Legis impletio in ſolo Chriſto eſt et habetur ſi…ut dicit ipſe, nō vnei legē ſolvere ſed implere, Implevit. Moralem Conformitâte naturae et vitae quam ſolus ipſe habuit et habet. 2 Satisfactione pro maledictione et pro peccatis noſtrisper humilitatem et mortem. Et perſe finis legis fuit, juſtificatio noſtra quia precipit perfectam obedientiam et hanc praeſtantibus promittit vitam. Paraeus.

Neither doth Mr. Gataker deny this legis finem per ſe.

4. I demand why finis per accidens ſhall exclude that which is per ſe? and for the ſcope its proper, the queſtion is how the Gentiles obtained righteouſneſſe, how the Jewes miſt it, theſe ſought it by the works of the Law, they knew not Gods righteouſneſſe, ſubmitted not to it, Chriſt in quo ſolo legis, imple…io eſt et habetur, who therefore is theJuſtitia ve a nou eſt niſi per impletionem Legis, & legis impletio non eſt niſi…n Chriſto. Neque is juſtitiam meruit ſibi; erat enim in ſe ipſe juſtitia eterna. Alijs igitur eſt finis Legis, ad juſtitiam, hoc eſt juſtitiam meruit, quibas vero? ca… vis credenti, Lex hunc habet finem ut facientes legem et juſte viventes juſtificentur ſaith Toſſanus, Illum finem aſſequutu eſt ſolus Chriſtus et nos aſſequimur dum fide eum apprehendimus; Ità in Chriſto exhibetur et praeſtatur vera juſtitia quam lex requirit modo … eum credamus. Offertur quidem juſtitia omnibus donatur can em et impatatur ſolis credentibus. perfection of it, and this is that of faith, and that righteouſneſſe of faith is imputed (as Paraeus elſe where) and when he demandeth ad quid? he anſwereth, ad juſtitiam out of the text and,

Grant the Law now by accident leading to Chriſt, yet in Chriſt the complement and perfect fulfilling of the Law it is and is to be had, eſt et habetur. It's to righteouſneſſe, which is not without fulfilling the Law and it's all one in Chriſt merited for them that believe, given to them that believe and imputed.

Chriſts conformity and humility, was nothing elſe p. 180but perfect fulfilling, his whole poverty conſiſted in theſe, and is our riches.

The text would be granted if no more were urged then Chriſts ſufferings and paſsive obedience, but you that hold the other an eſſentiall requiſite to the efficacy of that paſsive obedience, cannot exclude it, and this text is evident for full obedience to the Law.

But Ile returne to you. You confirme what you ſay,

1. By the renor of the context, for his meaning is doubtleſſe Chriſt is the end of the Law for righteouſneſſe by the obſervation whereof as their own, they ſought to be juſtified, which was as well of the Ceremoniall as the Morall.

This excludeth not the Morall Law, nor that in Chriſt is the perfect fulfilling of it to righteouſneſſe, and ſo juſtification of believers.

2. Neither yet, that the Ceremoniall Law was a Scoolemaſter to Chriſt. 1. Seeing thereby unqueſtionably is meant the whole frame of body or the adminiſtration of Moſes, as your ſelfe in the ſame place, and by this you oppoſe your ſelfe to Mr. Gattaker, who is onelyonly for the Ceremoniall Law, which yet concerned not every believer (which is the Apoſtles here) but Jewes, and ſo long the words had a truth before it, and will have eternally, ſo that the maine ſcope is that the onelyonly way to finde righteouſneſſe to juſtification is by knowledge of Chriſt and ſubmiſsion to Chriſt the righteouſneſſe of God: Faith in Chriſt is the way of obtaining righteouſneſſe before God, and that becauſe he is the Complement of the Law to that end, in eo eſt as habetur; Let me be found not having mine own but that which is by the faith of Chriſt, the righteouſneſſe of God, which is ſo per imputationem as Paraeus out of the Apoſtle, c. 4. ver. 6. & 11. of which before.

The next text is,

1 Cor. 1. 30. But yee are of him in Chriſt Ieſus, who of God is made to us wiſdome and righteouſneſſe, &c.

Becauſe Chriſt is ſaid to be made to us of God righteouſneſſe p. 181therefore the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is imputed to us.

Here is leſse colour for the deemed imputation, then in any of the former Scriptures.

Let us a little view Interpreters, for by them you did propoſe to give us ſatisfaction.

Your adverſaries as you call them, who ſuppoſe and propoſe ſtrength in this place for the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe to us, are all Proteſtants that I know not one excepted.

To ſatisfie your Hearers and Readers I will enquire a little into Expoſitors.Calvin, Quo intelligit nos ejus nomine acceptoreſſe deo quia morte ſua peceata noſtra expia…, et ejus obedientia nobis in juſtitiam imputatur, nam cum fidei juſtitia in peccatorum remiſſione et gratuim acceptatione conſiſtat, utrumque per Chriſtum conſequimur, In Locum; ſee him Inſtit. l. 3. c. 3. Sect 19. This I finde urged, pro in putata Chriſti juſtitia, againſt Romaniſts, and vindicated in the caſtigatore of Bellatmine. Paraeus bringeth it into forme thus, Juſtitia noſtra ſeu nobis donata juſtificamur. Nulla …li… niſi Chriſti juſtitia nobis per fidem imputata, eſt noſtra coram Deo juſtitia. Nulla igitur alia niſi Chriſti juſtitia nobis imputata coram Deo juſtificamur. See him large. See what's mentioned on, 23. Jer. 6. before, for both theſe places goe hand in hand. See Ameſ. p. 144. and Chamior ſect. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, & 24. Juſtitia à Deo nobis factus eſt quia in eo ſolo juſti habemur, reputamur illius merito juſti. Aret. In Loc. Toſſen. in Loc. Sic juſtitia noſtra per ſanguinem ad Rom. 3. Et quidem juſtitia non exparte ſed tota noſtra juſtitia, per remiſſionem peccatorum et imputationem totius ſuae juſtitiae, fic Ier. 33. p. 19. ad Locum. Seeing we had no ſuch vertue as to obtaine righteouſneſſe for us of the Lord, Chriſt was given us by the Lord who performed perfect obedience to the Law, that by his obedience we might be made righteous, for this obedience of Chriſt imputed to us and apprehended by faith, is that righteouſneſſe of ours, 5 Ro. 19, &c. placed in Chriſt, who is made unto us of God wiſdom, Righteouſneſſe, 1 Cor 1. 30. &c. And this is our righteouſneſſe Chriſt himſelfe, whoſe righteouſneſſe and Innocency being aſcribed to us, doth bring aſſured remiſſion of ſinnes and true righteouſneſſe, Dr. Whittaker p. 229, 230. in Camp. et Dure Paul affirmeth Chriſt to be made unto us, ibid. See Joh. Crotiu on that Text, 1 Cor. 1. 30. & 23 Ier. 6. Si Chriſtus nobis factus eſt juſtitia ergo non ipſi nobis ſed ſumus juſti per imputationem ibid. De juſtitia imputata p. 391. See him confuting Exceptions of Bellar. and Be anus. Novinus ae …u…pollere Chriſtus eſt noſtra juſtitia; et Chriſti juſtitia eſt noſtra juſtitia, Chriſtus enim nec qua eſt perſona nec ratione quarum vis aliarum perfectionum eſt noſtra juſtitia, ſed ratione obedientiae ſatisfactoriae, ſi ratione obedintia et foreign, Chriſtus ſane non poteſt eſſe noſtra juſtitia, qum, ipſius juſtitia noſtra ſit juſtitia, p. 39, 394. ubi nobiſcum citat patres. 327. and Dr. Downham de Juſtit. l. 4. c. 9. Sect. 3, &c.Jer 6Rom 3Jer 331 Cor 1:301 Cor 1:23

Let us now heare you.

1 Chriſt is no otherwiſe affirmed to be, or to be made Righteouſneſſe to us then wiſdome or ſanctification, therefore there's no more ground to conclude hence imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſse p. 182for our righteouſneſse, then of his wiſdome &c. This is unſavory: This speciall manner cannot bee made good herce. The meaning is he is made the Author or ſole meanes by way of merrit, purchaſed for us by his death.

1. As I finde this Text urged by Proteſtants for Imputation, ſo I finde in Papiſts this objection. Becanus maketh it, to whom Ioh. Grocius and Cham…e give a particular anſwer.

2. Though there be granted ſomething generall wherein Chriſt is ſaid to be all thoſe, it followeth not but there are ſpeciall differences.Aliter, ſaith Chamier, ſanctificatio aliter juſtitia nimirum vel inhaerenter vel imputative. Et hoc quidem tanto certius quanto diſtinctius poſita juſtitia et ſanctificatio; nam juſtitia inherens eadem eſt ſanctificatio quia utra que inhabitu utra jue in operibus juſtiò quae eo ipſo quod iuſta ſunt …uod ſancta, ſect. 20. & ſect. 21, unleſſe therfore the Apoſtle ſhall twice ſay the ſame, tegungenda eſt a ſanctificatione iuſtitia, et quia ſanctificatio eſt iuſtitia inhaerens, accipienda juſtitia pro ea, quam nos imputatam dicimus. So he.

For ſanctification is the ſame with righteouſneſſe inhaerent, and therefore muſt it be an other righteouſneſſe which we call imputed.

Paraeus giveth it to the Apoſtle out of Rom. 4. 6. & 11. as before. He ſheweth the ſame out of Bernard. Crotius anſwereth more largely to the ſame purpoſe, and citeth Fathers for it, ſect. 44. and 46. proving the ſame, p. 397.

And though this manner cannot be made good hence in the word and phraſe, yet you ſee ther's a neceſſity of diſtinction; and whenas the Scripture ſaith, that by Et tamen non negemus, effective, factum meritorie ſapientiam juſtitiam ſanctificationem, redemptionem, certe enim ille mecitus eſt à deo qui …uid gratiae aut habem…s aut habere poſſumus, ſed nimirum mer…it ut, et inherenter ſanctificemur et imputativ… juſtificemur, &c. c. 17. ſect. 23.his obedience we are conſtituted righteous, and ſheweth the way imputation of righteouſneſſe, Rom. 4. 6. 11. we may well ſupplie it, and thereby put a difference.

3. To the ſecond part of your anſwer, it being made by the ſame Jeſuite, Chamter anſwereth, granting his merit and extending it to juſtification by imputed righteouſneſſe, aſwell as to our inherent ſanctification.

For the reaſons you give:

1. The word righteouſneſſe is frequently put for juſtification.

You muſt remember that is by a metonymy, for its p. 183the cauſe, juſtification the effect; and if hee be made juſtification hee muſt be made righteouſneſſe to that end cauſe and effect put each other.

2. That righteouſneſſe is ſtill given to the death of Chriſt, and never to his active obedience.

It's righteouſneſſe aſwell as paſſive obedience, and due on our behalfe to God by his eternally obliging Law.

We exclude not Chriſts death.

What you lay down is the queſtion and is no ſtronger then your proofes.

And its wonder to me how you can exclude it who make it eſſentially requiſite to the meritoriouſneſſe of his ſuff…rings, and theſe not to be ſeparated, as before.

3. We profeſſe both active and paſsive, It's not therfore againſt the principles of themſelves, none hould it of his active obedience onelyonly, that ever I read of, but the man of clouts your ſelfe put up and ſhoote at in this buſineſſe.

4. Expoſiters are for this. Who by Chriſts being made righteouſneſſe unto us, underſtand our juſtification or juſt making by …: ſome plac…g it in Remiſſion▪ ſome aſcribing it to his ſufferings, none to his active obedience or imputation of this to us.

1. What Expoſitors have done we have given a taſt, and 2 Ther's none that take it for active obedience alone and imputation thereof excluding Chriſts paſsive obedience. 3. Many joyne the active and paſsiv both, all that I know, either directly as thoſe you o poſe, or in effect; whenas they make hat which indeed was active alſo as Chriſts whole humiliation our obedience as Paraeus. An as for imputation▪ I know no enemies it hath but Soci…us, … and Mr. Wotto… (Mr. Ga…aker diſclaimeth it: So doth Piſcato…, juſtitia. 1. cujus ſa…isfactione nobis donata atque imputata juſti ſumus. M…ton. effecti. … and P…raeus) and Papiſts: and yet the evidence of truth is ſuch as from this place p. 184where he anſwereth Calvin he yeeldeth what we deſire: and Imputation as the Mars. of Controverſies obſerved to us, and is to be ſeen l. 2 de juſtif. c. 10. ſect. deinde: and that out of Bernard.

So ſuch as place juſtification in remiſsion of ſinnes which ſuppoſeth righteouſneſſe and that of Chriſt and that imputed or applied to that end, it being an effect or conſequent, as Mr. Gattaker himſelfe, and ours at at large before ſhewed.

And it's but your preſumption to thinke that on your Popiſh objection anſwered before you made it, which you will not take notice of, that Imputation of Chriſts active obedience will not more be urged or contended for from hence.

The next is, 2 Cor. 5 ult.

For he hath made him to be ſinne for us▪ who knew not ſinne, that we might be made the righteouſneſſe of God in him.

As our ſinnes are imputed to Chriſt, ſo Chriſts righteouſneſſe meaning his active obedience, is imputed to us. Mr. Gataker hath well obſerved, this place is pregnant againſt themſelves.

Let us a little view Expoſitors on the Text, and ſee whether there be a man oppoſite to the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, I ſtill ſay active and paſsive from this text.Bell. Dicto lo…o, giveth it to Calvin and others: hinc enim ſe…ui … Vt nos juſti ſ…mus ipſa juſtitia dei quae eſt in Chriſto, ſicut ipſe dicitur peccatum, i… eſt peccator▪ pe… peccata qu… ſunt in nobis; ut enim imputantur i'li peccata noſtra i…a imputatur nobis juſtitia illius. Calvin in loc. Juſtitia hic non pro qualitate aut habitu ſed pro impuratione … eo quod accepta nobis ſertur Chriſti juſtitia, nunc ad … redeamus juſtitiae e… pecca…. Quomodo juſti▪ ſumus …oram deo▪ qualiter …c. Chriſtus f…it peccator. Perſonam enim noſtram quodammodo ſuſcep…, ut reus noſtro nomine fieret, et tanquam peccator judicaretur non proprijs ſed alie…s …—I…a … nunc juſti ſumus in ipſo non quia operibus proprijs ſatis…aciam… judicio▪ Dei …d quoniam … Chriſti juſtitia, quam …ide indu…mus … noſtra …iat, in loc cit l. 2. Inſtit. c. 16. ſect▪ 6. Nam …ilius dei omni … puriſſimus iniquitatum tamen noſtratum prob…m ac … ac ſua viciſſem puritate nos ope…uit. Vides non in n…bis ſed in Chriſto eſſe juſtitiam noſtram, nobis tantum … jure competere quia Chriſti ſumus perticipes, ſi quidem omnes ejus divitias cum▪ ipſo poſſidemus, in loc Inſtit l. 3. c. …. ſect… ▪ 23. Sic Beza, in loc. Juſtitia dei ad eſt▪ juſti apud deum▪ et …uide… juſtitia, non n…bis … ſed qu… cum in Chriſt… ſit nobis …e… …idem a d…o imputatur, ideo enim addi… eſt foreign Sic e…go ſumus▪ juſtitia Dei in ipſo ut ille eſt … in nobis, nempe ex imputatione, where hee ſheweth how Chriſt … made ſinne. Pareus Caſtig. l. 2. c. 10. p. 509. Propoſitio noſtra eſt manifeſta, &c. et aſſumptio pa…. Cha…ie…. of th… place, in quo magnum pondus, qu…a non tantum nos dicimur …acti juſtitia, ſed etiam Chriſtus factus peccatum, … vis …. Auguſt …. c. 41. d… juſtis. c. 17. Sect. 38. … peccatum …t nos juſtitia noc noſtra ſed De … nec in nobis ſed in ipſo, ſicut ipſe peccatum non …, ſed noſtrum noc in … in nobis. Secundus locus … evincitur Chriſti juſtitiam … noſtram per imputationem habetur, 2 Cor. 5. … Dr. D…venant c. 28. p. 367. Vtr…mqu… hoc loco habemus et Chriſto imputatum quod noſtrum …uit e… … vici…m imputa… quod Chriſti ſuit. So Dr. … l. 5. c. 1. Sect. 4, 5, &c. So Dr. Ioh, … ubi ſupra▪ diſp. 8. Sect 47. 397. … Bell. … ▪ Abbo. againſt …iſhop. Dr. Whit…ake, ubi ſupr… … in locum ut nos effice… juſtitia Dej; hoc eſt juſti …, imputativa juſtiti… tanquam veſte or naremur. In ipſo ſignificat extra Chriſt… … eſſe juſtiti… qu… nos poſſimus … et qu… val…at i… conſpect… de…, …b. Toſſ…s ut nos …; hoc eſt juſtifica…mur non juſtitia inherente, ſed …o propter unione… eum illo et imputationem eju… juſtiti…, in loc. … although we …e in our ſ…lves altogether ſinnefull and …, yet even that man that is impious in himſelfe, full of iniquity, full of ſinne him being found in Chriſt, &c. putteth away his ſinne by not impuring, taketh … away the puniſhment thereunto due by p…doning is and accepteth him in Ieſus Chriſt as perfe…ly … as if he had fullfilled all the whole law. I muſt take heed what I ſay. But the Apoſtle ſaith God… him to be ſinne who know no ſinne▪ &c. ſuch wee are in the ſight of God the father, as the very ſonne of God himſelfe. … in the world but this, that man hath ſinned and God hath ſuffered, that God hath made himſelfe the ſinne of …, and that men are … the righteouſneſſe of God, …. Hooker on the …. …. 4. p. 7.2 Cor 5

p. 185But you muſt be hear….

1. There is no footing in the Scripture for the inference drawn… from it, her's nothing of … of our ſinnes to Chriſt or his imputation of righteouſneſſe to …s, Chriſts being made ſinne imp…r…s … ſuch imputation, &c.

We deny it, lets ſee whoſe reaſons are beſt

2. Dr. Davenant, ſaith thers not the ſame power of … … righteouſneſſe, to make Chriſt …righteous, which is of his righteouſneſſe to make th…ſe that believe righteous, ſee more Sect. 19. p. 26.

You heard the Doctors Argument. I ſpare more but remit you to whats anſwered to that named place.

3. Th…'s not ſo much a… the face of compariſon, betweene Chriſts being made ſinne for us, and our being made the righteouſnes of God but the latter i… affirmed a… the effect, …nd, and conſeq…t of the f…rmer.

1. Ther's an agreement, as hee was wee are and both no other way then by imputation. W…ton def. Perk. p. 175. And Dr. Abb… ib. p. 400. who maintaineth the compariſon againſt Biſhop, when Biſhop, denyed compariſon: Mr. W…tt… anſwereth there is ſome compariſon p. 186or likeneſſe implyed by the Apoſtles.

2. Grant this the effect the former the cauſe the for mer cannot be, nor cauſe this effect without imputation. Nor yet the latter without application, imputation of the ſame.

3. Thirdly, in him muſt import faith and Gods imputation, thence participation of his righteouſneſſe, not in our ſelves but another, him, which can no otherwiſe be as you are often anſwered.

4. The cleare meaning is, that God for that end made Chriſt ſin, that is, a ſacrifice for ſin; that we may be made, &c. That is a ſociety or remnant of righteouſneſſe, after the peculiar manner of Juſtification or righteous making, which God hath contrived through the ſacrifice and offering of his Sonne.

This is but a generall, and it's taken up by parts after, to which we will give particular anſwer.

1. It's a frequent expreſſure to call the ſacrifice for ſinne by the name of ſinne ſimply.

It's granted and yet the ſame tell you, that interpretation, a ſacrifice for ſinne, is ſhort, and that hee was made ſinne, without which he could not be a ſacrifice; not by inherence but imputation.

So Doctor Downham. If God did make Chriſt a ſacrifice Beza tamen natio Antitheſis poſ. it ut potius Chriſtus dicatur factus eſſe peccatum pro nobis i. peccator non in ſeſe, ſed ex omnium noſtrorum pecatorum reatu ipſi imputato, e…hujus rei figura ſuit hircus illc geminu, cajus homentio Lev. c. 16 Beza in loc m. Et ſi patros non nulli peccatum int elligant hoſtiam peccati tamen uterque ſenſus ſtare poteſt quoniam utrogue modo Chriſtus factus eſt peccatum pro nobis, tum qula peccata noſtra ultro in…e derivavit geſta…da, luenda, tum quia victima factus pro illis revera luit. P 110. tamen ſenſus hand dubio eſt ve…ior, et Chryſoſtomo placuit, &c. he was debitor coram Deo: quid eſt antem debitor coram Deo niſi peccator cum debita nil ſunt niſi peccata. Pareuscaſtig. l. 2. c. 10. p. 510. Thus Parzus to Bellarmine objecting as you. S. Crotius p. 401. and p 406. who proveth it from the tipe, 16. Lev. Audio illi imponi peccata populicum portare peccata, unde polluebator hircus ipſe et polluebatalio, que cauſa eſt quod abſolutione indigerit. qui ipſum tetigeret ver. 24. and 26. hun tipum fuiſſe Chriſti non dubitantivere Chriſtiani tolle nanc imputationem peccatorum a Chriſto et vetus ceremonias falt in annis, quippe cui non reſpondetet veritas, &c. 407.Lev 16for ſinne he imputed our ſinnes unto him, &c. neither can it bee conceived how he ſhould be made a ſacrifice for our ſinne, unleſſe our ſinne were imputed unto him. Who ſheweth the agreement between the types and Chriſt, p. 267, 268. See Mr. Wotton defenc. Perkins. the place may be expounded otherwiſe, hee made him to bee counted a ſinner, &c. Thomas and Catherine & p. 190 of Defenc, our ſinnes were charged to him as the ſins of the people were in a type laid on the ſcape goat, Lev. 26. 21. It's Mr Perkins argument, Dr, Abbot defendeth it largely, p. 204.

p. 1872. To expreſſe a number or company of juſtified ones Sect. 3. p. 45.

There it's examined.

Of that from the righteouſnes of God, we have spoken, it's of Gods donation and contrivement, I and of God, that perſon as before.

4. The effect is meant, deliverance from the guilt and puniſhment of ſinne not impatation of his active obedience.

If the effect bee meant, it followeth not that the righteouſnes of Chriſt expreſſed ſhall be excluded, imputation of righteouſneſſe, the paſsive none exclude, and you cannot the active if it be an eſſentiall requiſite to the paſsive, remiſsion followeth juſtification or juſt making (as you ſpeak) a man cannot bee made juſt but by righteouſnes.

Your ſixt is but an affirmation of expoſitors without places the contrary is largely ſhewed. I ſuppoſe.

One Scripture more, whence the argument being more ridicalous, it ſhall be inſiſted on with more brevity.

You are a merry man that can laugh at Arguments brought from Gods word, all are ridiculous, this more with you, you laugh at all Proteſtant Divines, and truth it ſelfe, God may laugh at you in agone, when you ſhall ſtand, and be found not in Chriſts righteouſnes, but, a weake faith.

3. Gal. 10. For its written curſed is every one that abideth not in all things which are written in the books of the Law, and doe them.

The argument is given in thus.

If every one be curſed that abideth not, &c. then can no man be juſtified but remaines accurſed, who hath not the perfect obedience of Chriſt to the law imputed to him, becauſe no mancan p. 188obtaine ſuch perſonall obſervation thereof.

You ſay, it deſerves not an anſwer; and the man of the argument is conſederate with Stapleton the Papiſt, at leaſt in part: who maintaines againſt Calvin, that the righteouſnes of the law and the righteouſnes of faith, are not two, but one and the ſame righteouſnes.

I know not the man of the argument, neither yet reaſon of your ſlighting him or it.

2. Confedracy with Stapleton is a great matter, It ſeemeth in the man of this argument. Your confederacie with them out of your owne mouth muſt bee acknowledged a great crime.

3. The righteouſneſſe of the Law, which Chriſt in our ſtead as our ſurety performed for us; Active and paſsive, which latter Paraus caleth obedience to the law, is all one with the righteouſneſſe of Faith, that which faith applyeth to our Juſtification.

Yet is he no confederate with Stapleton, ſeeing righteouſneſſe of the law with him is, that which is inherent in us. Which hath no agreement with us, but rather with you, who eſtabliſh faith and that inſtead of that of the Law; and what is it but a part of inherent righteouſnes, required by the law? You call it righteouſnes on 3. Phil. 9.

But lets heare your anſwer.

1. If there be no other way to diſſolve the curſe but Chriſts perfect fullfilling the law, woe a thouſand times to the World: For 1. That ther's none ſuch hath beene proved. 2. If it were it would not diſsolve the curſe, it cannot bee but by the blood of Chriſt. He muſt be made a curſe.

Theſe are words, and ſo is your firſt Reaſon, and your ſecond: For we exclude not Chriſts blood that's obedience as the Apoſtle and Paraeus as before: and how can you exclude Chriſts Active obedience, which you confeſſe Eſſentiall to the blood to this effect diſſolution of ſin, that it may be a ſacrifice?

2. He that's fully diſcharged of non-continance, is out of p. 189danger of the curſe: and it's conſiſtent with the opinion opposed to ascribe perfect forgivenes to the paſſive obedience, without imputation of the active to that end that's pleaded not to bring men of the curſe has under the bleſſing, or promiſe doe this.

1. Chriſts ſufferings are not in themſelves a full diſcharge, they muſt be imputed.

2. They muſt have concurring as an eſſentiall requiſite, Chriſts active obedience, if which they be imputed they take away the curſe: did you never heare of this before: and yet diſpute it ſo often?

Your ſelfe confeſſe, where ther's perfect forgiveneſſe, that man is perfectly righteous; Ile ſay ſo too. That I require is that as you affirme it you ſhew us a cauſe, and tell us wherewithall.

We can when as we name the imputation of both, as ther's righteouſneſſe given us there is a cauſe.

And ſo when as you make the Active obedience an eſsemsiall requiſite to his ſufferings, thers a cauſe. You that deny it, deny the cauſe. But as wee have ſhewed before the imputation of both muſt be ſuppoſed in the ſame; her's pardon, her's righteouſneſſe, her's no curſe her's a bleſsing and the cauſes: your ſelfe deny Chriſts death enough without that eſſentiall requiſite: chew on this good Sir.

To omit that juſt making goeth before pardon as before: and the contrary were the abemination ſpoken of urged by our's to juſtifie a wicked person.

3. Imputation of a perfect fullfilling of the law from another cannot maks him ſuch, a continuer in the law who breakes it daily and leaves him under the Curſe.

All the imputation in the world of whatſoever from whomſoever cannot make him that hath not continued to have continued in them.

This argument is a bloody and mercifull spirit bearing downe all before it to hell.

Imputation of Chriſts Active and Paſsive obedience which is our Tenet, meketh him a continuer in the p. 190workes of the Law, notwithſtanding the many things wherin all offend, in Gods account: thoſe that hold the imputation of the Paſsive obedience alone doe ſo, or muſt grant no man living in Gods account a perfect fulfiller of the Law, or perfectly righteous, which yet you argue for; for it taketh away ſinnes and that man is perfectly juſt as you teach.

Whenas therefore you ſay all the imputations under heaven, of whatſoever, from whomſoever can not; you oppoſe imputation of an others righteouſneſſe or obedience ſimply, imputation of that which is paſsive of Chriſt alſo. And now let the Reader judge whoſe argument or tender is a bloody one; for deny this imputation of Chriſts obedience, ex conceſſis, and all are as by nature, Children of wrath ſtill, and under the curſe. Theſe are but words.

5. Ult. The meaning is, every one that expecteth juſtification by the Law, the Curſe will fall heavy upon him. It's to be limited to the univerſality of them onelyonly who depend on the Law for juſtification.

1. I grant that every one that expecteth juſtification by the Law is accurſed, by this Scripture; but this anſwereth not the Argument, which is that therefore to avoyd that curſe there muſt be perfect obedience imputed by which we muſt be perfectly righteous, and avoyd the curſe, we muſt have it to avoyd the Curſe, either our own or anothers, its impoſsible by our own obedience, we muſt have it by anothers, and that cannot be but by imputation, and ſo might paſſe the reſt as not to the matter.

2. It's a truth of thoſe, but it muſt not be limited to them; if ſo, then onelyonly juſticiaries that looke to be juſtified by the Law perſonally performed are under the curſe and not ſinners ſimply (eſpecially, which in the Church, and ſo under the Law) impenitent men though they hate that opinion are under the curſe, by that place of Scripture.

p. 191Your firſt Reaſon.

1. What the Law ſpeaketh, it ſpeaketh to all that are under the Law, and no other, and thoſe that ex…pect it by faith are not under the Law but under Grace, the curſes concerne them not, againſt ſuch is no Law, &c.

1. This proveth not that thoſe onelyonly that will be juſtified by the Law, are under the curſe; it's a truth of others who ſeeke it not that way, being yet under the Law, as all are that are not under Grace.

No man denyeth what you ſay of the believer in Jeſus Chriſt, neither doth it prove your reſtriction, or limitation: Faith in Chriſt, applieth the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, of which before, By which we are juſtified, and have no condemnation, and it eſtabliſheth the Law.

2. Say you the context leadeth us to this limitation. 1. becauſe the preceding words are, for as many as are of the works of the Law are under the Curſe, for proofe of which he alleadgeth this text. 2. It's proved by the 9 ver. thoſe that are of faith are bleſſed with Abraham: theſe, not thoſe that would be juſtified by the Law, which he proves becauſe they were under the Curſe. So that continuance, &c. is onelyonly required of thoſe either to avoyd the Curſe or obtaine a bleſſing; who ſeeke to be juſtified by the works of the Law, and not of thoſe that believe and depend on Chriſt for juſtification.

I grant as before, juſtitiaries accurſed, onelyonly believers bleſſed:

And to the 3. the juſt to live by faith: Is the curſe therefore limited to juſtitiaries? No, but it's true of other ſinners ſimply.

When as you conclude,

Therefore that Iuſtification which we have by faith in Chriſt cannot be ſaid to be by a continuance in all things Writen in the Law to doe them, becauſe it's nothing elſe but juſtification it ſelfe by, the Law.

1. What agreement there is betweene this concluſion p. 192and what you tooke to prove, the limiting the curſe to Juſtitiaries, I underſtand not.

2. I know none that defendeth that juſtification by faith is by our continuance in the Law to do it. Its by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt his active and paſsive obedience, his dying for us and fulfilling the Law for us, or death with his obedience that eſſentiall requiſite, in our Doctrine apprehended by faith, imputed by God, by which we avoyd the curſe, and injoy the bleſsing, as before.

Sect. 29. Whereas it may be objected, may not a man be juſtified by faith and that Law, and be l…tit…led to a righteouſneſſe of that Law by faith; you anſwer ver. 12. the Law is not of faith, he cannot fulfill the Law one woves or other by faith, it requires a perſonall obſervation, of which c. 8. 1 part. (and then tell us) that here's we Sanctuary for pretended imputation, but an high hand of heaven to overthrow it.

I need ſay no more then what I did immediatly before anſwer, we plead not for perſonall obſervation, more then you, yet obſervation by another we urge; that others paſsive obedience with it's eſſentiall requif…te as you call it.

The former is not of faith this is the righteouſneſſe of faith, and profefle in theſe words of our Homily, Chriſt in the righteouſneſſe of all them that believe in him, bee for them paid the Ranſome by his death, bee for them fulfilled the Law in his life; ſo that now in him and by him every one Chriſtian man may be called a fulfiller of the Law, for aſmuch as that which our infirmity lacked, Chriſts righteouſneſſe ſupplied.

As for the place you referre the Reader to, he may finde it examined.

Some plead, Phil. 39. but we having elſewhere upon a diligent ſearch found this Scriptur looking a quite contrary way, &c.

1. The Some, are all Proteſtants againſt Papiſts: 2. you found it not but indeavoured to make it looke a cleane contrary way; but in vaine as on that place is p. 193ſhewed. See Zanchius on the place in the Margent.In Chriſto…mpe inſitus et incorpotatus eo que habere non ſuam propriam juſtitiam, quae videlicet ex lege eſt, id eſt operiam, ſed juſtitiam Chriſti quae per fidem habetur. Hi exuti propiia—Induuntur juſtitia aliena hoc eſt Chriſti qua vere juſti faecti, &c. ibid. Sola aliena vere, in conſpectu Dei juſtificari poſſumus—Eſt una epraecipius controverſijs quae inter nos ſunt et Pontificios non poſtrema. In Chriſto eſt, fide tantum a nobis apprehenſa-Opus habet—Tam perfect a Chriſti juſtitia qua tan quam veſte pretioſa illius labes contegantur juxta illud, p. 32. beati quotum, &c. 1 p. c. 6. Nempe Chriſti imputata qua ſola vere in conſpectu Dei juſti reputamur. Eſt noſtra non alia ratione niſi quatenus per fidem apprehenditur et nobis imputatur..—Merè aliena eſt juſtitia et tantum noſtra per imputationem nam neque actione fidei noſtrae juſtificamur; ſed ea …c tantum quae per fidem apprehenditur, quae eſt Chriſtus cum ſua obedientia juſti cenſemur, et ſic illid intelligo credidit Abraham et impatatum eſt illi ad juſticiam, Gen. 15. 6. quid reputatum? non actio qua ſed id quod crededit ſeu ut alii loquuntur, ipſa fides non ſui apprehendiatis ſed objecti apprehenſi reſpectu—Haec vero eſt. Tum Chriſti ipfius obedientia qua pro nobis et legem implevit et mortuus eſt. 2 Phil. et 5 Rom. per hunc enim juſti, conſtatuuntur multi eſt credentes - Denique haec juſtitia eſt Chriſtus id ipſe factm pro nobis, obediens uſque ad mortem, 1 Cor. 1. & 2 Phil. haec demum eſt illa juſtitia de qua loquitur Apoſtolds quae ſola fide percipitur, non eſt igitur noſtra propria ſed aliena non niſi ex illa habetur id que manu fidei—Quare-Et niſi per juſtitiam quae eſt in Chriſto juſtus eſſe nemo poteſt noſtra ſola imputationenon ut opus, &c. Sed ut juſtitiam Dei in ſe apprehenſum habens juſtificat, ſicut oculum non ut aurium Sed vinum in ſe continens ſitim exting it. Capite 5. concludit ſicut per in obedientiam Ad ae nobis nimirum imputam facti ſumus omnes peccatores, ſic per obedientiam Chriſti nempe pa: iter imputatam, noc qui in eum credimus juſtos conſtitui, &c. ubi textum profert, 9 Rom. 29 30. 10 Rom. 3. Zan. in lo. Hinc ſeq…r ne que actione fidei noſtrae tanquā vel juſtitia vel parte juſtitiae no, juſtificari. ib.Gen 15:61 Cor 1Rom 3

And thus I have examined the Scriptures which you oppoſe. Let the Reader judge whether you are as good as your words and undertakings.

Arguments againſt faith in a proper ſence propounded and anſwered.

1. Arg. That which impeacheth the truth or juſtice of God, can have no agreement with the truth.

But the imputation of faith in the ſence declared doth ſo.

Ergo.

The minor is proved, becauſe if God ſhould impute faith for righteouſneſſe he ſhould account that to be ſo which is none.

The major is confeſſed an anoynted truth, the minor is denyed, and to the proofe anſwer is made.

This was the plea of that fanatique Spirit Swinkfildius as Zanchie: and the Councell of Trent as Calvin obſerveth, to prove that the word juſtification was not to be taken in a judiciall ſenſe for abſolution, but in a Phiſicall or Morall ſenſe for conſtituting or making a man properly and compleatly juſt, and is the common argument of Papiſts, for juſtification by inherent grace: yet I conceive it very unjuſt to charge either with Swinkfieldianiſme or Popery.

The plea is good as it's made by us, and made good out of the Learned in our vindication of Mr. Walker, and that by our Orthodox Divines.

What Swink fieldius held I cannot finde though I have ſought, and cannot ſpeake to it, it's not in that place of my Booke.

p. 194For the Popiſh opinion of juſt making by inherent righteouſneſſe, and ours by what's imputed, they differ as a oppoſed opinions, the queſtion is of that which conſtituteth a man properly and compleatly juſt: we deny inherent righteouſneſſe, by the ſame argument faith, theſe are imcompleat and imperfect, ther's ſomewhat elſe that doth it, and ther's the perfect righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, here is a truth anſwering Gods account, ſee it at large before.

And methinks the word juſt making ſhould not conforme us to them more then your ſelfe, who uſe the ſame often, as ſomewhere I have gathered and obſerved to you.

2. It doth not follow God ſhould account that for righteouſneſſe which is none—for faith is righteouſneſſe, in truth and propriety of speech.

It's not perfect righteouſneſſe, and therefore it's not enough that it be righteouſneſſe, it muſt be perfect, what maketh a man ſo in the ſaight of God, if God ſhould pute that which is imperfect for this righteouſneſſe, Gods judgement ſhall not be according to truth. It ſhall be but in herent righteouſneſſe if you ſtand to that and what the Papiſts urge. You ſay,

3. You meane not Gods accounting ſuch an act, a righteous act, much leſſe that he eſteemeth it a perfect obſervation of the Law. But that God lookes on a believer, and intends to do as graciouſly as it were with a man pe…fectly righteous. Of this further, c. 19. 1 par. ſect. 6. & 7.

1. I anſwer that which is imputed is not onelyonly righteouſneſſe, but exact conformity to Gods Law, ſuch doing ſuch ſuffering.

2. I adde, When God looketh on a believer ſo, and dealeth ſo it's not with reſpect to faith but that perfect obedience fo Chriſt, which faith apprehendeth, it's in his beloved, in him I am well pleaſed, is but the applying inſtrument.

3. That's not all, it conſtituteth righteous, holy, unreprovable, p. 195unblamable, in Gods ſight, a believer is ſo though not inherently, in and by the imputed righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, as Chriſt himſelfe, becauſe with his righteouſneſſe, which fai…h in a proper ſenſe doth not, and therefore.

4. Beſt writers ſay, God accounts men righteous or perfectly juſt, who have for giveneſſe of ſinnes, and are not ſo in exactneſſe of ſpeech.

I grant it, we are not ſo in our ſelves, yet in exactneſſe of ſpeech are ſo in Chriſt: It's certaine from forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, which is a conſequent of righteouſneſſe imputed, yea of Juſtification, thoſe doe not exclude Chriſts righteouſneſſe, nor imputation: but ſuppoſe it, and ſo doth Mr. Gataker, of the paſsive obedience, and you muſt do ſo if you will not hold with Socinus, and if you hold the imputation thereof, what's eſſentially requiſte, cannot be excluded.

But what's all this to your ſaiths imputation in a proper ſenſe, all hold it relatively taking in the object, as before.

Object. 2. If faith in ſuch a ſenſe ſhould be imputed for righteouſneſſe, then ſhould juſtification be by works or ſomewhat in our ſelves: But the Scriptures reject Works and all things in our ſelves. Ergo You anſwer.

1. Either by works and ſomewhat elſe in our ſelves is meant the merit of works, o… elſe by way of ſimple performance. In the former the Propoſition is falſe, and conſequence donyed, faith may be imputed in the declared ſenſe, and yet not by merit: If in the latter ſenſe ſo the minor is falſe, for the Scripture rejecteth no where every thing that may goe under the name of works, or that may be done by us from having to do inthe matter of juſtification, God attributeth juſtification to faith which he calleth works, 6 Joh this is the worke, &c. thus Writers call faith a worke.

1. That you oppoſe is the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe as the formall cauſe of juſtification; you deny Chriſts righteouſneſſe the materiall, and it imputed the formall cauſe: You eſtabliſh faith. Our argument p. 196is, if by faith, then by a work or ſomewhat in our ſelves; when you deny the conſequence, if it be taken by it's merit.

I anſwer, that which juſtifieth as matter or forme, muſt have worth and merit, ſo hath Chriſts righteouſneſſe, and therefore we pich on it, otherwiſe it could not be the matter or formall cauſe though imputed, and we know works cannot merit, when all is done we are uprofitable ſervants: So your ſelfe, 1 Treat. p. 191. And therefore alſo we may reject faith in proper ſenſe becauſe it's not of worth and value, it cannot juſtifie formally. In the latter ſenſe the Scripture rejecteth works yea faith as a worke as the matter or forme. Paul will be found not having his own righteouſneſſe, not faith, the place it hath is onelyonly as an inſtrument, receiving that by which we are juſtified; as an hand by which we receive riches by which we are rich, as a golden Cup, Non ut aurium ſed vinum in ſe continens ſitim extinguit, as Mr. Zanchy but now, in regard of the object, that which is proper to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is given by you to faith, and it excludeth Chriſt as you defend it, the Argument is ſtrong againſt you.

3. Object. Imputation of faith for righteouſneſſe in that ſenſe makes juſtification not of Grace. To this you anſwer,

I deny the minor, there's anentive conſiſtence between faith and Grace, 2 Epheſ. 8. Rom. 3. 24. it's purpoſly required, 4 Rom. 16. It's free becauſe nothing is required but a receiving, believing is nothing elſe but a receiving that righteouſneſſe the juſtification which God giveth us with his Sonne, 1 Joh. 12. So that ther's no prejudice to grace.

1. It's a good argument.

2. Though what you ſay be good and true of faith as an inſtrument receiving the righteouſneſſe or juſtification which God giveth by Chriſt his Son, in which ſpeech the waight of juſtification is put on what is received, the righteouſneſſe of Gods Sonne, which is p. 197our expreſſure againſt Papiſts, wherin Chriſts righteouſneſſe is allowed the matter and meritorious cauſe, and it's application or imputation the forme, where it's given faith as the inſtrumentall cauſe onelyonly, but to the object to be that by which we are made juſt.

3. Yet this anſwer will not ſerve you, if you remember the queſtion; if you conſider faith is not in conjunction, but oppoſition to Chriſts righteouſneſſe, and in a proper ſenſe, that of an inſtrument is relative, and ſo is receiving, you exclude Chriſts obedience, the object, deny a figurative ſenſe, thus I affirme it a worke, and righteouſneſſe in its ſelfe, a mans own, I deny it, ſubordinate to grace or Chriſt, but in oppoſition.

4. Argu. Faiths imputation for righteouſneſſe in this ſenſe is an occaſion of boaſting unto the fleſh.

This you deny.

Becauſe its by Gods gift, 2 Eph. 8 its what hee receiveth, and if why boaſteſt thou thy ſelfe, no man hath juſt cauſe.

The minor is truth:

That's no cauſe of deniall becauſe it is received, therfore it's not an occaſion to the fleſh: It's true, ther's no true cauſe, yet the fleſh will take it, and it's an occaſion given it. The Phariſe gloried in what he did, and looked to be juſtified by it, and yet he knew he received it, and therefore thanked God, they that urged works of righteouſneſſe with faith and Chriſt and Grace, yet ſtill gloried. The Apoſtle therfore will be found not having his own righteouſneſſe, and will have that of faith, Chriſts; this excludeth boaſting not faith which is held all one with doe this, and which is ſet in oppoſition, as by you and not the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

2. Suppoſe the act of believing were from a mans ſelfe, yet he hath no cauſe of boaſting, becauſe the weight of glory given it, and conſequents, are not given it for its worth, but by Gods good pleaſure.

As a man to whom a King for taking a pinne from his ſleeve ſhould be made honourable, and it were ridiculous hee ſhould p. 198bragge. This is the caſe of faith, though a believer hath given him forgiveneſſe, right and title to heaven, its no ground of boaſting.

When God chooſeth weak and fooliſh things, occaſion of boaſting is put off, had men fulfilled the Law, there were cauſe, becauſe they, had done it out of themſelves, abillities eſſentiall to nature, which are not in faith, or the act of believing

1. The act of believing is a mans own, when a man lives by faith its by his own faith, though God giveth him ability thereunto.

2. It's an act of obedience and righteouſneſſe as you ſay, and the Scripture ſaith, Paul would be found, not having his own righteouſneſſe, and not of works of righteouſneſſe which we have done.

3. Papiſts may anſwer ſo of charity; &c.

4. So long though there be not cauſe ther's occaſion for the fleſh, the fleſh may, will and doth take it.

That it's not given for it's worth but Gods pleaſure is not enough, Gods pleaſure is onelyonly in Chriſt, in whom onelyonly is worth, which you exclude as an enemie to it, in the very queſtion, and not the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt: had faith its place of an inſtrument (the good pleaſure of God being in Chriſt) taking in the object it were ſomewhat: your proper ſenſe indureth it not: The King that doth it for a pin, is not every way free, we deny a pins-worth in faith: a pins-worth and a poundsworth diffen not in kind but degree: a faith in this ſimilitude is worthy, though it be never ſo little.

Receiving, giving pardon and heaven to Gods Grace in and for Chriſts righteouſneſſe are excluders of boaſting, nothing that excludes that righteouſneſſe of Chriſt eſtabliſheth Free grace.

5. If faith in a proper ſenſe be imputed for righteouſneſſe then are we juſtified by that which is imperfect, what needeth a juſtification.

You ſay, you have me… with ſuch an one, and anſwer,

1. The words import either we are juſtified without the concurrence p. 199of any thing that is perfect, or that ſomwhat which is comparatively weake and imperfect, may ſomewaies concurre, and contribute thereunto.

In the former ſenſe it falſe, it doth not follow if faith be imputed, there's nothing perfect required, it ſuppoſeth more things then one, Chriſts perfect attonement for ſinne, which if it had not been there had been no place for the imputation of faith, &c. upon this it is that God imputes our faith to us.

If ſaith be imputed, we are juſtified by that which is imperfect, is as cleere as the Sun.

When you ſay it oppoſeth Chriſts attonement.

1. The effect you give it is not that by his ſufferings imputed by God and applied by faith we ſhould be juſtified, which is all one with our tenet if it be taken with what you call an eſſentiall requiſite, active obedience.

2. Nay you make Chriſts merit to be faiths imputation which is the Socinian and Arminian tenet.

3. And do what you can it's but imperfect and cannot juſtifie otherwiſe then as an inſtrument applying the object, Chriſts active and paſsive righteouſneſſe, to what followeth.

If in the latter ſence, that ſomewhat that is weake and imperfect may ſometimes concurre and conduce to juſtification, ſo the propoſition is granted and the minor goes to wracke, for that faith and the Miniſter by whom, are weake and imperfect, both which concurre, miniſterially and inſtrumentally we may be juſtified by what is weake.

Our queſtion is about what we are formally juſt before God or juſtified, whether imputation of faith in a proper ſenſe or the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

When we aſſert the latter to be that by which we are formally juſt before God, we deny it by faith in a proper ſenſe: That which God imputeth to righteouſneſſe muſt be perfect, it cannot conſtitute us perfectly righteous, elſe, faith in a proper ſenſe is▪ imperfect therfore it cannot; take faith now for an inſtrument in a relative p. 200ſenſe we doe, It's true how weake ſoever, becauſe it layeth hold of and applieth what is perfect, but in a proper ſenſe, denying whats figurative, and oppoſed to the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, it cannot be ſo.

It's one thing to be miniſteriall and inſtrumentall, an other to be the materiall and formall cauſe, ſo much as you take from perfection of thoſe yea from merit and worth, ſo much you take from the perfection of our rightouſneſſe, no effect can exceed the cauſe of it.

6. Argu. Some have oppoſed the imputation of faith we plead for, ſeeing God ſhould rather receive a righteouſneſſe from us then we from him. But in juſtification God receives not a righteouſneſſe from us, but we from him.

The major followes not, that God ſhould receive from us or not we from God. 1. Becauſe faith is not a righteouſneſſe properly, but that God by the meanes thereof, and tender of it lookes on us as righteous, not as made meriteriouſly or formally righteous by it, but as having performed the condition to which the promiſe is made of making us righteous, meritoriouſly by the ſufferings of his Sonne, and formally by remiſſion.

Whoſe reaſon this is I know not but if faith be imputed, &c. we receive not from God a righteouſneſſe, but God from us, by the tender thereof ſay you God lookes on us as righteous.

To the Reaſon, 1. Faith in a proper ſenſe, is properly a righteouſneſſe, that which is called inherent. It may both with truth and properiety of speech be called and counted a righteouſneſſe, yea the ſmalleſt degree, ſo you, p. 176. on tender of this that followeth, ſo that we ſtill receive not.

2. That which is excluded is denyed, that whereby we are formally juſtified, and therefore that which is aſſerted, faith in a proper ſenſe ſhould be by oppoſition the formall cauſe; that its a meanes in our ſenſe is not queſtioned, and that which maketh us formally muſt p. 201be as righteouſneſſe ſo having worth.

3. Faith when as it's a condition is not to be underſtood in a proper ſenſe and in oppoſition to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, but a relative ſenſe taking that in, for that received and applied is the condition, and by it are we (as meritorius and formall) made juſt, that righteouſneſſe conſiſts in the ſufferings of Gods Son as you, not excluding Chriſts active obedience that eſſentiall requiſite, to make it meritorious, thus it receiveth from the Lord, excluding this, it receiveth not but tendreth to him remiſsionof fins is a conſequent of juſtification, and therefore cannot be the formall cauſe.

2. If faith were righteouſneſſe, it followes not, that God receives from us a righteouſneſſe, we rather receive faith from God for our juſtification.

Our receiving faith from God, hindreth not that on our tender and his receiving it, God receives righteouſneſſe from us to our juſtification, which is denied.

3. Our imputation of ſaith ſuppoſeth a righteouſneſſe given unto men and received from God in juſtification, becauſe it could not be traly ſaid that God doth impute faith for righteouſneſſe, unto any man except hee ſhould make him righteous upon believing. Now as it is impoſſible that a man ſhould be made righteous without a righteouſneſſe in one kinde or other, ſo it's impoſſible that righteouſneſſe whereby a man is made righteous in juſtification, ſhould be given him from any but G…d; and this is forgiveneſſe of ſinnes.

If imputation of faith ſuppoſeth a righteouſneſſe given whereby man is made juſt in juſtification, then God in juſtification giveth a righteouſneſſe whereby and without which it's impoſsible that a man ſhould be made juſt; and this muſt needs be that which formally juſtifieth; your words they are, I ſubſcribe; the queſtion will be what it is? either faith that's imputed of remiſsion of ſinnes, or Chriſts righteouſneſſe active and paſsive.

Faith is not that 1. faith ſuppoſeth this. 2. Indeed p. 202its that by which this is received▪ be it either righteouſneſſeWhenas cauſae applicanti tribuitur quod proprie et immediate pertinet ad rem applicatam, as Dr. Davena. p. 371. explaineth that Place, Rom. 4. 5. quia fides apprehendit et applicat nobis Chriſti juſtitiam id fidei ipſi trib …itur quod re…pſe Chriſto Debetur. Zanchius. ne que actione fidei noſtrae juſtificamur ſed ca re tantum, quae per fidem apprehenditur, quae eſt Chriſtus cum ſua obedientia juſti cenſemur et ſic illud intelligo credidit Abraham, &c. quid reputatum … non actio quâ ſed id …od credidit, ſive ut alij loquuntur, ipſa fides non ſui apprehendentis, ſed objecti apprehenſi reſpectu, ſo Zanchius on Philip. 3.Rom 4:5Phil 3 or remiſsion of ſinnes. 3. It is not perfect righteouſneſſe. Remiſsion of ſinnes cannot be it, for though we receive it by faith, yet 1. it's but a conſequent of juſtification as before. And 2. Its no way righteouſneſſe, it hath not the definition of it, and therefore cannot poſsibly be that which maketh righteous; the truth then is▪ that it's the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, by it the word ſaith, we are conſtitued righteous as the word ſheweth, God imputeth righteouſneſſe. Faith takeing in this object by a Metalepſis, is granted imputed.

The difference will be then what righteouſneſſe, paſſive, or both active and paſſive; and thus this controverſie being an other commeth in. I hold both and ſo muſt you, when the Active is an eſſentiall requiſite to the paſſives meritoriouſneſſe. Let theſe particulars be conſidered and they will notably tend to the ſtreighting this Controverſie.

What you further ſay you have anſwered, in that to Mr. Walkers are examined, and what you ſay in defence of your ſelfe not to be an Arminian and Socinian in this point, and the weakneſſe of the charge that is laid on the contrary opinion, we have examined what is charged on the active obedience of Chriſt by P…raeus and Piſcator, c. 2. ſect. 8. concluſ. 7. where Mr. Gattaker is alſo mentioned, whither I remit the Reader and your ſelfe.

When you inferre, Impartiall men judgeing between both parts, would cleerly ſee to ſet the Saddle of Arminianiſme and Socinianiſme on Our opinion as the right Horſe. I intreat Judgement and deſire no favour Sir, Mr. Gataker accuſed by Lucius of that crime denyed it on this ground he held the imputation of the paſſive p. 203obedience of Chriſt, juſtitia imputatâ quam a Chriſto habemus juſtifica… nos cum ipſo contra S…cinum ex aequo agnoſcimus. ſect. 84. ſect alter. p. 8. n. 36. In that name himſelfe and Piſcator are free, Mr. Wotton and you hisJuſt itia imputat quam a Chriſti habemus, juſtifica… nos cum ipſa contra So inum c▪ equo agnoſcimus, p. 84. ſect. 8. n. 3. Scholler are left in the lurch, and Paraeus is free, between whom and us though there be controverſie, whether onelyonly the Active and paſsive or both are imputed, to which you have ſto…ne for ſhelter of you in your opinion of the Tocredere, yet I ſuppoſe, Piſcator, Paraeus and Mr. Gataker abominate your imputation of faith in a proper ſenſe denying a metonymicke ſenſe. I am ſure Paraeus telleth Bellarmine denying the metonimick ſenſe, he did not ſo much oppoſe Luther in it, as blaſpheame the Holy Ghoſt of which before.

And I muſt tell you It's before the Reader to Judge how you have cleared your ſelfe of agreement in this, not onelyonly with Arminius and Socinuus, but with the Papiſts. In this you have a common purſe, and it's a point of faith as you call it. And thoſe not as points in which Papiſts and we agree but ſuch as are defended by Papiſts, againſt the Reformed Churches, and controverted. Neither have we aſſailed you meerly, with words but Scriptures alſo and Reaſons. Neither are they calculated for the meridian of Women and Childrens temper alone, we profeſſe no ſpeciall skill in that, but for men of underſtanding, let them judge of them, and the Lord give true underſtanding.