The Doctrine of Justification Cleared, Treatise · Examination 2 · Chapter 7
CHAP, VII. Arguments are propoſed (as you …ay) an… you deſire acceptation of Anſwers elſwhere given without repetition.
YOur intreaty is mine own, let all be confidered together.
1 Argu. If there be no ſtanding in Judgement before God except we be indued with perfect righteouſneſſe, then muſt the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt be imputed to us in our juſtification.
But there is no ſtanding for us, &c.
I deny the conſequence, there may be no ſtanding in judgement before God, and yet the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, in the ſenſe controverted not be imputed. Remiſſion of ſinnes purchaſed by the death of Chriſt is ſo, as in the 5. firſt concluſions, p. 3. & 4. Yea our Divines as Calvin finde ſufficient ſtrength for confidence in the death of Chriſt alone.
1. The righteouſneſſe of Chriſt aſſerted by us is his active and paſſive obedience, what weakneſſe is it then for you to aſſert his paſsive obedience by way of oppoſition unto us, and to deny imputation therof. And I appeale to the Reader how you can exclude the active obedience of Chriſt, and ſeparate it from the paſsive, which you aſſert the purchaſer of pardon, when as your ſelfe call that active obedience an eſſentiall requiſite to conſtitute the paſſive obedience meritorious.
Calvin doth not exclude the imputation of Chriſts active obedience to the Law from Chriſts death; I appeale to what's anſwered before out of him.
2. Remiſsion of ſinnes is no righteouſneſſe, neither is it to be confounded as if it were the ſame with Chriſts death, they are cauſe and effect: remiſsion indeed is a conſequent of Juſtification; let the Reader obſerve the Reference.
2. Arg. He that is juſtified by an others righteouſneſſe muſt be juſtified by Chriſts imputed, for no other righteouſneſſe is fit.
But every man that is juſtified is juſtified by the righteouſneſſe of an other, and not his own.
1. I deny the Major, a man may be juſtified by the righteouſneſſe of another, and yet no neceſſity of Chriſts active obedience (of which onelyonly the queſtion i…) to be imputed to him, the paſſive obedience of Chriſt: by merit of which communicated in free pardon without further righteouſneſſe derived upon them in a way of imputation or however, of which ſec 4. or 5. Concluſ. p. 5. 6. 7.
I anſwer, by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt we meane active and paſsive, and I never read of one that held the active alone, you do but fight with a ſhaddow.
2. And ſhewed but now that you putting the paſsive, cannot exclude the active, the paſsive without that isnot meritorious and that the imputation of both are neceſſary to juſtification of which pardon is a conſequent.
Your communicated and our imputed are one with us and with you, or elſe with Mr. Wotten and Socinus you deny imputation of Chriſts paſsive obedience in which you are deſerted even by Mr Gattaker, &c.
To the Minor, by a…ſtinction, a man may be ſaid to be juſtified by the righteouſneſſe of another and not his owne: Either 1. by way of merit, or 2. by way of forme, whoſoever is juſtified by the righteouſneſſe of another and not his own, is juſtified by the merit of the righteouſneſſe of another and not his own.
In the latter ſenſe it's altogether untrue, for the righteouſneſse wher with a man is formally juſtifie dis alwaies his own by donation and poſſeſſion and not anothers, except onelyonly in respect of procurement Chriſts, or collation, and ſo it's Gods. Remiſſion of ſinnes wherby a believer is formally (a… often) is a mans own in ſuch a ſenſe a… repentance or faith.
Every man that's juſtified, is juſtified by the righteouſneſſe of an other and not his own, the diſtinction is Saint Pauls, 1 Philip 3. and anſwer, that that which doth formally juſtifie is alſo meritorious it cannot juſtifie applied, that hath not worth and merit in it, as ours truly teach.
Chriſts righteouſneſſe we grant as the materiall ſo the meri…orious cauſe, and it imputed that which ſupplieth the place of a forme. So nothing that is our own (inherent ſu…poſe) is or can be.
Righteouſneſſe may be ſaid to be his own and man formally juſtified either inherently as Faith, Hope, and Charity which are not only given but by way of infuſion and ſo inhere onelyonly in thoſe to whom it's given, or elſe by imputation, ſo as the ſinne inhering in ſuch as believe is Chriſts, layd on him as in the Type, and ſo is the righteouſneſſe which is in him ſubjectivly, is ours given by God, and received by us, this alſo is given by God, ours by his donation and poſſeſsion as Chriſt is, who dwelling in us by faith is the ſubject of it.
Now by formally you may know (and do acknowledge ſomewhere I remember) we meane not inherently, that's the Popiſh forme of Juſtification which we oppoſe; this is ſo our own as it is not anothers, ſo is my Faith, and Hope and Charity.
And you ſhall never prove that we are juſtified by that which is ſo our own and no others.
That we are juſtified by, is Chriſts inherently or ſubjectivly only, though ours by donation and poſſeſsion, not ſubjectivly further then as Chriſt in whom it is dwelleth in us, by his Spirit and faith, it's his and ours as he is the Lord our righteouſneſſe made unto us righteouſneſse.
Remiſsion of ſinnes, though ours by Chriſts procurement and Gods donation received by faith, is no righteouſneſſe, as hath been anſwered and proved, and being a conſequent of Juſtification as hath been anſwered and proved, can never formally juſtifie. It cannot be before and after juſtification, neither doth it inhere in man as Faith and Hope, nor can it therefore be ſo our own, as they are.
The Argument you may read in Chamier, de juſtit. c 17.
Iuſtificatio per alienam juſtitiam, eſt imputativa. At noſtra juſtificatio eſt per aliena in juſtitiam. which he proveth and defendeth againſt Papiſts ibid.
3. Argum. If believers have a true and reall communion with Chriſt, then is his righteouſneſſe theirs by imputation. But the former is certaine, therefore.
1. The propoſition wants truth, becauſe a true and reall communion with Chriſt may ſtand without his active obedience being made theirs by imputation, ſee c. 10. ſect 4. & 5. of the former par c. 2. p. 9. & 10. of this 2. par
The queſtion is what maketh man righteous; we aſſert the active and paſſive obedience of Chriſt imputed or given us, and applied by faith: we adde this is done by reall. Communion, for ſo our finners are counted actually to him, and his righteouſneſſe to us. It be commeth ours for making us juſt. To your exception, Communion is denyed where his active obedience is not made ours. It's a demonſtration, Communion is the cauſe, Chriſts active obedience it's being, ours the effect, it's like that of the Apoſtle; as many of us as are Baeptized into Chriſt, are Baptized into his death, 6. Rom. 3. the difference is, his death is named and not his active obedience: It's not excluded more then his Reſurrection; and if it infloweth and concurreth; be an eſſentiall requiſite, to the efficacy of his death, With what face can you granting the one, deny the other? Imputation then is the buſineſſe: but imputation of Chriſts paſsive obedience is granted to us by Piſcator, Paraeus, and Mr. Gataker, we are altogether here againſt Socinus and Mr. Wotton, and you being Judge, the eſſentiall requiſite cannot be left out. Imputation is nothing elſe but that act of God wherby he applieth that to us that believe, be not offended with thoſe that ſpeake thus with Saint Paul 4. Ro. 6. 11. who as he ſaith, by the obedience of Chriſt we are maderighteous, c. 5. ſaith, when God juſtifieth he imputeth righteouſneſſe. Let the Reader ſee your places examined.
And Sir, if the feet be ſinnefull, they need righteouſneſſe, and if they are made righteouſneſſe (not having of their own elſe) it muſt be by the righteouſneſſe of the head, communicated or applied to the ſame. Once the Apoſtle ſaith, we are compleat in him who is the head, 2 Col. where we ſee it a truth of the body and by Communion.
2. It wants reaſon, it hath neither colour nor ſhew of truth in it, that the unic… and Communion which believers have with Chriſt, ſhould of neceſſity imply or draw with it the appropriation of his active obedience by way of imputation, at leaſt ſuch an one, as is the golden Apple, &c. that is ſo that it become thence formall righteouſneſſe, either in whole or in port, for what difference can be aſſigned out of that union and Communion which interceds between Chriſt and a believer; why rather the active obedience or righteouſneſſe of Chriſt then the wiſdom or power or glory of Chriſt ſhould be made the believers by imputation.
The queſtion is of juſtifying, that it may be done, there muſt be righteouſneſſe, the Scripture ſaith, that by Chriſts obedience we ſhall be conſtituted righteous, and the Scripture doth tell us of imputation thereof. So is Chriſt made unto us, of God righteouſneſse. The wiſdome, power, glory of Chriſt, though they have place in my Juſtification, &c. yet do not as his righteouſneſſe make me juſt, and the Scripture which teaching imputation of righteouſneſſe, mentioneth neither the imputation of his wiſdome, power or glory, we are wiſe according to what is written.
5. Arg. If there be no other end reaſon or neceſsity why Chriſt ſhould fulfill the Law, but onelyonly that his obedience therunto might be imputed unto us for righteouſneſſe in our juſtification. Then is not the imputation, th…rof to be denyed.
But no other end reaſon, or neceſſity can be given.
But.
The monor propoſition i… unſound, there…re …. 1. T▪ gai… Authority, to his Doctrine, he did what he tought. 2. T▪ Gods glory… therfore, he, did it as a debtor with all mankinde…, and as mediater to that Law. 3. For exemplarineſſe; 5. Eph. 2 4… to …. 5. It kept him i… God… fa…our, … Joh. 10. 6. It's of abſolute neceſſity to fit the Sacrifice to the Altar, &c. which … largely argued ſo that … at … the pretended imputation, and … againſt ſuch as ſay the … of the natures, did ſufficiently qualifi…it. 7. It qualifieth him eternally to his Prieſthood. 8. His own …. 4. Joh. 34. Therefore th… Argument, from the … of it otherwiſe is weaker. Paſsing with deniall that he did the Law as a debt or for himſelf, and that which, I might ſay elſe that the holynes &c. of Chriſt is a neceſſary reſult of union of both …aturs.
I anſwer. I know none that urge this argument, and that there was no other end. Neither is it needfull: when as you preſſe all theſe it followeth not that our juſtification was not an end: and that this was an end with the reſt, that neceſſary concurrence which you here plead, and calling it an eſſentiall requiſite to Chriſts ſuffering for juſtification ſheweth it, which inflowing and concurring produceth the effect by imputation, or application. Gods imputing it to us, and our applying it by Faith. That this was his end is evident, where it i… ſaid that by the righteouſneſſe of one many ſhall be made righteous, which it never attaineth, but by imputation or application.
5. Argu. Becauſe we are debtors to the Law in puniſhment and perfect obedience alſo, otherwiſe our ſinning againſt the Law ſhould exempt and priviledge us from ſubjection to the Law.
This minor I name becauſe the major hath nothing ſaid to it, and you ſay,
It laboureth of ambiguity, when it ſaith, we are debtors to the Law in perfection of obedience, as well as in matter of puniſhment, it may be true and falſe. If the meaning be believers are debtors to the Law in perfection of obedience to juſtification it's utterly falſe, there's no need to depend on it. It's freely by blood, 5. Rom. 9. Neither are they debtors in regard of puniſhment, Chriſt having born it.
It's true, unbelievers are debtors in both respects, if they mean to be juſtified, otherwiſe then by Chriſt, becauſe there's no third way, he muſt keepe the whole himſelfe.
Unbelievers as you ſay are debtors in both, to do and ſuffer to juſtification. Very well, their ſuretie then muſt pay their debt, if he will be their juſtifier he muſt ſuffer he muſt fulfill the Law.
Put Chriſt doing and ſuffering, and man a believer, I yeeld he is not bound to do, to live, he was before faith, by faith, being a partaker of the ſatisfaction of Chriſt,
God accounting the ſame unto him, it's as if hee had ſatisfied, his ſurety hath don it, he then is acquited, freed from death, freed from ſtrict rigorous performance of the Law to Juſtification from perſonall obedience, this is what we ſay.
When we ſpeake of Chriſts blood, it's our minde. But you muſt not exclude his active obedience, that fulfilling of the Law (which is eternalex and aeternae obligationis to life, (being my debt: and where is the merit of that blood if it be without Chriſts obedience to the Law, which you call it's eſſentiall requiſite to our life?
2. You have our meaning, our queſtion is to juſtification: and though obedience by ſanctification as gratitude be granted by us a debt, yea and in order of nature in ſome degree before juſtification as conditioning faith, and qualifying the perſon to the promiſe, we intend it not in this queſtion, what you ſay in the 3. place.
3. We are not priviledged from keeping the Law no not in reſpect of juſtification becauſe we have tranſgreſſed it, but are 1. uncapable of ſuch keeping, whether perſonally or by imputation, which may amount to juſtification. 2. and that the releaſe we have from ſuch obſervation to juſtification accrueth to us to juſtification, by Chriſts death for …, Rom. 7. 4.
1. If tranſgreſſors are not priviledged from that obedience in reſpect of Juſtification, It's their debt ſtill, and muſt be ſatisfied.
2. Though we are incapable of obſervation, ſuch as amounteth to juſtification, & exemption from puniſhment, whether perſonall or imputed, by the death of Chriſt, whence we have freedome from puniſhment; yet death being not all it's inſufficient to ſatisfie; and where there is an impoſsibility of what is perſonall, imputation is neceſſary, both are our debt, our ſureties ſatisfaction is of both, and your ſelfe grant, Chriſts death inſufficient without the concurernce of his active obedience, as an eſſentiall requiſite; you cannot exclude it, ther's hope you may come over, you muſt or eat your own grant. You ſay,
4. God never required of any man but onelyonly Chriſt exact obedience to the Law and ſubjection to puniſhment due, conjunctim, but diviſive onelyonly, the Law ſaith, do this and live, and he is not threatned that fulfilleth it, puniſhment is on ſuppoſition of ſinne.
You grant God required both of Chriſt together, why? but becauſe hee was our ſurety, and both our debt, to our freedome from puniſhment and life, both were neceſſary therfore required of him, therefore hee tooke our nature and obeyed to death.
2. A ſinner we ſpeake of, and he is a debtor of both, he oweth ſubjection to puniſhment for ſinnes ſimply, for his inability to obey. He oweth obedience to life, Gods Law is a Miniſter of death to ſuch and promiſeth not life but to doing, it concerneth Chriſt becauſe of us; us as principalls, him as our ſuretie. Your ſelfe ſaid but now.
It's true, thoſe that believe not in Chriſt, may … ſaid in this ſenſe to be debtors to the Law, aſwell in matter of perfect obedience as of puniſhment if they meane to be juſtified and eſcape puniſhment otherwiſe then by Chriſt p. 109.
Then both are required conjunctim of them, aſwell as their ſurety, and therfore of their ſurety.
You adde,
5. Jn caſe a man hath ſinned and ſuffered (by himſelf o…r other for him) he is no further a debtor to the Law in point of juſtification; becauſe the … is of equall conſideration to the Law, to abſolute conformity. So that …s no man is or over or can be bound to fulfill the Law twice for his Iuſtification. So there's no reaſon that he that hath ſuffered to the full, the penalty of the Law, which ſuffering is everyway as ſatisfactory to the Law as exactest obedience, and of one and the ſame conſideration, it's to require a double ſatisfaction.
1. In point of juſtification life is infoulded, and in caſe a man ſuffers by himſelfe or another bare ſuffering is not equivalent to exact obedience, towards attainment of his life, it's ſeene in the Divell and damned, who ſuffer for themſelves, they are farre from juſtification or life. Hee fulfilleth not the Law once to life, who onelyonly ſuffereth and doth not.
So that we being unable, it being impoſsible to us to fulfill the Law▪ either way to life; you ſee an abſolute neceſsity of Chriſt our ſureties doing and ſuffering to our life; to omit the inſufficiency of either without the other. You can never eſcape this Argument.
6. Argu. But there neither can be any juſtification without a perfect righteouſneſſe, nor any ſuch righteouſneſſe found but onelyonly the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt performed to the Law. To this as guilty and weake you anſwer.
1. Though it be true that juſtification cannot take place without a perfect righteouſnes it being nothing alſo but a making a man perfectly righteous, yet ſuch a tale of acts as Chriſt performed to the Morall Law determinately, is not of any abſolute neceſſity ther… to, for if the Iewes were juſtified by Chriſts righteouſneſſe, the Ceremoniall Law alſo muſt be included as before, 1 Tr. c. 18. p. 3.
1. I take what is granted, and that ther's no juſtification without perfect righteouſneſſe, it's of good uſe, it's our minor propoſition in part.
2. I know none limitting Chriſts obedience to the Morall Law, it was to whatſoever, though that was a perfect rule of life, and as for the Ceremoniall Law it was reducible to the 2 Commandement, as God manner of Worſhip ſo that this aliquid is not againſt what we urge, ſee the place wherunto you referre.
2. It's not abſolutely true, there's no perfect righteouſneſse to be found but onelyonly that of Chriſt, there is as abſolute and compleate a righteouſneſse in the Law as Chriſts, and it's more probable that God furniſheth them out of the Law it ſelfe for Chriſti ſake, then that he ſhould impute Chriſts to them See c. 2. ſect. 5. &c. 5. ſect. 2. 2 par. You meane remiſſion of ſinnes.
1. Remiſsion is no righteouſneſſe. 2. It's not in the Law. 3. Such as have it are not furniſhed out of the Law with it, ſee the places examined.
3. Perfect righteouſneſse wherin juſtification conſiſts, and wherwith men are made formally l…ſt, is nothing elſe but remiſſion of ſinnes, as in. 2. & 4. c. of this par. &c. 5. ſect. 5. 1. par. &c. 4. ſect. 28. of this latter, and that Calvin excludes not onelyonly Regeneration but all other things whatſoever, and that others bring horrid blaſphemy on his head.
This third is the ſame with the ſecond many times urged, and anſwered. See the places I appeale.
Sect. 16. It is ſo ſeeing it is equivalent to, and virtually conteines the moſt abſolute obedience to the Law, as hath been demonſtrated, c. 2. p. 4. 2. par.
See it there anſwered.
2. It may bare the name of righteouſneſse, and that which is compleate, becauſe it hath the priviledge of Chriſts righteouſneſse, as elſewhere.
There it's anſwered, ſo faith ſhould be perfect righteouſneſſe, I and charity in it's place, it hath the promiſes of priviledges, and that's enough as your ſelfe though it hath not the nature and eſſence of a perfect righteouſneſſe, what if it hath the name ſo long as it hath not the eſſence? but it hath not the name neither will ſimilitude ſerve the turne, as there is ſhewed.
This Argument doth not complaine but glory it hath no ſatisfaction, ſeeing there's no other righteouſneſſe.
7 Argu. Do this and live is an everlaſting rule, therfore the active obedience of Chriſt muſt be imputed to Juſtification.
This is a truth, you anſwer.
I grant it an everlaſting Rule, he that doth it ſhall live, but this is not to purpoſe, it's without the face of an Argument, becauſe whoſoever abideth, &c. ſhall live whether the righteouſneſse of Chriſt be imputed yea or no. I deny it either is, ever was, or will be, a perpetuall rule for men to be Iuſtified by, and that he onelyonly that doth this can be ſaid to be juſtified, for God hath alwaies had an other, believe this and live, ſee c. 4. 1 par. and anſwer to Gal. 3. 10. c. 5. 2. par.
If this be an everlaſting truth, hee that doth this ſhall live, that is perfectly fulfill the Law, it's as everlaſting that he that doth it not ſhall never live.
None can do and live without the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe.
This I finde Mr. Perkins his Argument, That very thing that muſt be our righteouſnes before God muſt ſatisfie the Iuſtice of the Law which ſaith, do this and live. Now there is nothing can ſatisfie the Iuſtice of the Law but the righteouſneſſe o… obedience of Chriſt for us, See it in Mr. Wortons defence, p. 170
If it be a rule of life everlaſting, it is of juſtification, and muſt be anſwered as debt by our ſelves or ſurety.
2. God hath not alwaies had that believe and live, or elſe God required faith in Chriſt of Adam in innocency expreſſely, and God did never require do this and live. Or elſe they are both one.
3. Believing to life is believing in the Lord Jeſus, applying his perfect doings and ſufferings, it's an inſtrument or hand taking in Chriſts righteouſneſſe, not oppoſed to it, or excluding of the object, ſo all as before▪ and let the Reader ſee your former deeds this way in thoſe places examined.
8. Arg. That righteouſneſſe which God accepteth in our behalfe is the righteouſneſſe imputed to us in juſtification. But the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is that which God accepteth on our behalfe.
You deny the Major and diſtinguiſh on the Minor. The reaſon of the firſt is becauſe God may and doth accept for us which he needs not impute, as the praier of Abraham for Iſaack.
So theſe for whom Chriſts ſufferings were accepted, receive unſpeakable benefits by them, yet it followeth not God lookes on them as if they had perſonally indured, which is the imputation specially oppoſed in this Treatiſe, but becauſe they be the ſufferings of his Sonne.
1. The propoſition is firme, that he accepteth to juſtification is righteouſneſſe imputed.
2. God accepteth not Abrahams praier to Iſhmaels juſtification, or the juſtification of any other. Perfect righteouſneſſe doth it, God accepteth no other, and there's no way elſe to have it but Gods imputation.
3. Thoſe for whom God accepteth Chriſts death, have Chriſts death imputed to them to juſtification and are looked on as men that have ſatisfied, not by their own perſonall ſufferings, but thoſe of his Sonne our ſurety.
2. To the Minor, If by obedience is meant that he performed to the Common Law conſidered a part from that he performed to the Law of a Mediator. It's falſe, for God did not accept that on thoſe termes to juſtifie us with it or for it, as hath been ten times ſaid and proved.
If you means his paſſive obedience, ſo it may be granted, but then it will be a paralogiſme with 4▪ termes.
1. We meane Chriſte active; and Paſſive obedience as hath been told you twenty times; and this we contend due in Chriſt as a ſurety by the Law of mediation.
We ſay, what he did to the Morall Law was our debt, which our ſurety muſt pay, that we may live, it's part of his obedience by which we are made righteous.Qui ſponſor pro nobis factus eſt at que totius noſtri debiti ſolutionem in ſe ſuſcepit, illius obedientia atque juſtitia nobis imputatur, et imputata valet eque ac ſi propria et nobis inherens fuiſſet. See p. 370. Chriſtum autem ordinatum et acceptatum a deo pro ſponſore noſtro teſtatur Apoſtolus. 7. He. 22. At Chriſtus noſtro nomine non modo ſubivit per peſſionem crucis ſed etiam impletionem Legis. Quando igitur in jus vocor, atque debitum Legis a me exigitur, oſtendo: ſide juſtorem meum hoc debitum exolviſſe, atque proinde me liberatum eſſe atque Chirographum illud quo obligatus tenebar, deletum eſſe et ab…ogatum. 2 Col. 14. Atque ſie Chriſti juſtitia mihi prodeſt a… juſtificationem periude ac… in … repertarta … fuiſſet, atque hoc eſt ſupplore vocem cauſae formalis, unde completi dicituur in Chriſto … innobis, ver. 10. Argumenty.
When you grant it of his ſufferings, how can you exclude his obedience to the Morall Law, teaching the world that that obedience was an eſſentiall requiſite to the benefit of juſtification; and it's no paralogiſme.
9. Arg. If. Chriſt were a publique perſon ſtanding in the place of all thoſe that ſhould believe in him, then all he did and ſuffered are reputed as don and ſuffered by theſe, and imputed to them. But Chriſt was &c..
1. The Major is weake and untrue, his ſtanding in the place of beluvers is no ground that all that he did and ſuffered are leaked on as done and ſuffered by them, as his incarnation, birth, circumciſion, ſubjection to Joſeph, &c. Redemption of the World, why ſhould I a believing Gentile be looked on at one circumciſed, what advantage have I to be looked on in Chriſt as one that was ſubject to Joſeph, how ſhould I feare and tremble to conceite that God ſhould looke on me as having redeemed the world out of the greateſt acts Chriſt did.
This argument is put in publique words not proper to diſgrace it, whoſe it is, as layd down I know not, but thinke it your own.
I would put it, That which Chriſt did and ſuffered as the ſuretie of believers in their ſtead, which they were debtors in to God; that's looked on as done and ſuffered by them▪ their's by imputation, the Scripture ſheweth him our ſurety: this is our Churches language, and it is Dr. Davenants Arg.
Had you taken our Arguments as layd downe and urged but this Doctors, it would have been ſomewhat: ſuch hungry laying them down as is found in you, leaveth out their hart, and is not ingenuous.
And here we may ſee how what you object would vaniſh, redemption of the world was none of my debt. It's inough that in him I have redemption.
2. It hath been demonſtrated that it's not truth to ſay the ſufferings of Chriſt are locked on as mine, it may be ſaid hee ſuffered in my ſtead, we cannot be ſaid to be puniſhed for the ſame ſinnes in and with Chriſt for which we have remiſſion in his death, as Dr. Willet.
1. Your demonſtrations (as you love to ſpeake) are all examined, and that in it's place.
2. We ſay no more but that he ſuffered in our ſtead, it is, perinde ac ſi in me reperia, aut à me preſtita fuiſſet.
What my ſurety doth, is as if I had done it, and ſo our Homily, every Chriſtian man in him and by him may be called a fulfiller of the Law, what was lacking in us being ſupplied by him.
3. The iſſue of the buſineſſe is not all, our queſtion is not about the effect, juſtification pardon, life. But that by which; which is granted to be by ſatisfaction made to God our Creditor by our ſurety Chriſt, which as it was performed for us, is ours imputed as the Scripture, the word ſaith, we have it by fellowſhip with his blood. I and with his obedience to death, by his obedience we are made righteous, when you ſay,
4. It's not ſo ſound a truth as ſuppoſed, that Chriſt ſtood in the ſtead or place of believers, in all things performed by him... Chriſt did a thouſand things and ſuffered many of which we had no neceſſity as to be borne of a Virgin:
1. This is the ſame with the firſt: as it's layd down out of the Doctor, there are no ſuch unlimited words, but as our ſurety, and as ſatisfaction for our debt.
That we keepe our ſelves to, we ſay Chriſt for us; and we ſay that he was obedient that by it we may be made righteouſneſſe: You will us to ſee, c. 3. ſect. 11. of the 2. part. Which you ſhall find examined.
2. If Chriſt ſuffered many things we have no need of tell us whether it was for himſelfe, or whom or in vaine
Arg. 10. If we cannot be juſtified by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt otherwiſe then by imputation of it, then muſt it needs be imputed to us in our juſtification.
But there's no way of being juſtified, but onelyonly by the imputation of it.
You anſwer.
The active obedience of Chriſt hath influence otherwiſe, qualifying the perſon for the Sacrifice of himſelfe, by which juſtification is purchaſed, as before. That it's not by imputation hath been proved by 3 demonſtrations and 4. and that our quiver is well nigh exhauſt. I know not 2 Arguments more really differing.
1. Your Demonſtrations againſt imputation are all examined.
2. Put that influence of the active obedience in to the ſacrifice of Chriſt to make it propitiatory, I hope it doth not deny imputation, that's granted by thoſe that hold onelyonly Chriſts paſsive obedience: It's urged and obſerved by them that they may not be accounted Socinians, nor numbred with them. I ſee you will leave them there and be ſo your ſelfe if you deny the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe.
The Scripture layeth down imputation of righteouſneſſe, which is Gods way of application, his giving it to us clothing us with it, without which we ſhall never be the better for it. And it followeth not that our quiver is exhauſt becauſe you know no more, one may judge you willingly ignorant. Let any man read our Worthies in this queſtion, againſt Papiſts, and hee ſhall read many arguments untouched; I wiſſe Arrowes feathered and headed and ſhot in an other manner of bow, by an other manner of arme then is preſented by you.
They ſtick in the Babilonians ſides, and you and they ſhall never be able to pluck them out.
To omit that there's not one, but is managed againſt your gaineſaying. But I will not word it.
11 Arg. If we may be ſaid truely to be dead with Chriſt, crucified, quickened raiſed, and to ſit in in heavenly places with Chriſt, then may we be truely ſaid to have fulfilled the Law with Chriſt alſo (there's no difference) and conſequently it's imputed to us and counted ours.
But we may be, &c.
I proteſt againſt the Majors conſequence, &c.
Whoſe this is I know not, nor am I bound to ſpend time about it. It may be you made it as a man of clouts your ſelfe, or mared it otherwiſe made, that you might ſhoot at it: the force that's aimed at (if I miſſe not) is to the ſame purpoſe that we have ſpoken to in that head of Communion of which enough, and ſo Ile paſſe to your laſt named argument.
Arg. 12 Whoſoever is a ſinner and ſo continueth whilſt he lives cannot be juſtified otherwiſe then by the imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. But every man, Chriſt onelyonly excepted is ſo.
You Anſwer.
If there be no other way or meanes the condition of the world is miſerable, for ſuch there's none, as hath been proved, beyond all reaſonable deniall, except I be miſtaken:
But bleſſed be the Father of mercies.—who without that Key hath opened an effectuall doors of Iuſtification to ſinners, believers are not under the Law but grace and there's no condemnation to them, and if any man ſinne we have an Advocate, &c. Diſſolving guilt needs no imputation of the active obedience, the propitiation by blood hath done this ſervice, before this imputation is ſuppoſed to come at them. The merit of Chriſts death is not ſo far exhauſt on pardon that it will not ſerve to acceptation, &c. Adoption is from his blood. The perfect holyneſſe of his perſon and righteouſneſſe of his life preſuppoſed as hath been ſaid. He that hath communion with his death ſhall not know what to doe with the imputation of his life, after it, but enough if not more then enough of this before.
Here's enough indeed, and more then enough of this.
1. Let the Reader judge an otherwhile, you may be miſtaken, and in a miſerable caſe, being ſo profeſſed an enemie to imputation, and the cauſe of miſtake to ſo many others.
2. Who queſtions believers being under grace, or ſaith that they have condemnation? &c. will not theſe ſtand with imputation of righteouſneſſe? are you alone the Dr. of thoſe concluſions? are your adverſaries, enemies to thoſe encluſions? you take too much upon you.
3. Diſſolving guilt needs imputation of righteouſneſſe; nay, thence followeth non-imputation of ſinne as the Apoſtle. And Paraeus ſo anſwereth Papiſts as before.
4. Diſſolution of ſinnes guilt by Chriſts, blood before imputation is diſſolution before application that which putteth the effect before the cauſe, your friends will not hould with you.
5. Let the merit of Chriſt death be infinite if it be not applied, imputed by God, received by us, it will not have any effect, there's neither pardon, nor adoption; there muſt be communion with his death firſt, before there be the effects, which is by imputation.
And who ſeeth not but that deſpiſed things, the holyneſſe of Chriſts perſon and righteouſneſſe of his life are ſuppoſed by your ſelfe, to this efficacy of his blood, to make it a Sacrifice to Iuſtification, that without which Chriſts death was in vaine? and muſt there not be fellowſhip with it, bloods eſſentiall requiſite alſo.
Fellowſhip with one and other are together, not firſt with death then life, the iſſues are from both; imputed or given to us, received by faith. Will you ſeparate blood and it's eſſentiall requiſite or communion with them to Juſtification? you cannot.
And now you make an end with, we have overcome, and yet I am not ſatisfied, and I have laboured to give you an account therof, the iſſue I leave to God, praying in your forme; The Lord by his Spirit leade us in to the way of truth and keepe us that we turne not aſide either to the right or left hand, that we may be ſoundly built up in our holy faith and fitted for his everlaſting Kingdome.
Amen.
FINIS.