The Doctrine of Justification Cleared, Treatise (2 of 4)

The Doctrine of Justification Cleared · Treatise (2 of 4)

p. 42Leſſe then the whole will not ſatisfie Gods juſtice, will not juſtifie, procure our freedome from ſinne, and eternall life. I will try that with you when you pleaſe. So that yet he hath quitted himſelfe.

Sect. 10. But before you leave him you play the Crier. If any man or woman longs for contradictions, or other abſurdities of the bloud, I can yet releeve them out of this tract of Mr. W.

Surely that office doth not become you, you wanted an office when you tooke up that, the Ware you vent is no commodity, it is not appetible, adverſaries onelyonly deſire them in▪ ſuch as they oppoſe for their owne advantage. O how corruption pleaſeth it ſelfe with them! What a pretious p. 43diſh is it to pleaſe your admirers in this your opinion! Let us examine the matter.

P. 6. He affirmeth, and that truly (as you conceive) faith to P. 30.be the firſt and radicall grace and vertue of renovation. I will1. agree with you both. Where is the contradiction or abſurdity?Anſw. you ſay, yet p. 5. in his definition of faith he ſuppoſeth the ſubject or perſon in whom it is wrought to be regenerate, which doubtleſſe is as much as to be renued.

Sir, are not faith and all graces wrought together, andAnſw. at once? are they not together? is the ſubject then a beleever, and not regenerate, and not renued? Is not faith that which is born of God, & the ſubject in that name regenerate and renued? What is regeneration or renovation but workes of God by his ſpirit inabling to beleeve, &c. and is it not neceſſary that in order of nature inabling to beleeve be before faith? This will never ſave a man or womans longing, nor tickle the Reader unleſſe he be a beleever of you on thoſe termes of Pythagoras his ſchollers, Ipſe dixit, he ſaid it. Let us try another.

Againe, p. 9. he affirmeth that God doth account and judge 2.of all perſons and things ſo as they are, and yet p. 11. gran…th Mr. G.that God accounted Job his enemy, which he was not.

Mr. W. ſaid not that God counted Job his enemy, butAnſw. as Jobs ſpeech: and then it is ſo aſſerted in an improper ſenſe, and that diſtinct to the other which was firſt named, ſo that this is no contradiction: had he ſaid the word is ſo taken, univerſally, alwayes, still, (which you untruly charge him with before) it had beene ſomewhat to purpoſe, now it is neither contradiction nor abſurdity. Mr. W. profeſſedly laieth downe divers ſenſes of the word, and that with a ſometimes—as in that eleventh and tenth page. Why did you not make more contradictions as many as he did put different acceptations of the word?

So p. 5. he defines faith, which is here ſaid to be imputed 3.for righteouſneſſe to be the ſupernaturall gift and grace of beleeving, and yet p. 8. that God imputes a righteouſneſſe which Mr. G.neither conſiſts in any worke or workes, nor in any grace or vertue inherent, and p. 12. he ſaith, by imputing▪ faith for righteouſneſſe p. 44is meant Gods ſetting of Chriſt's righteouſneſſe on the ſcore, and putting it on the account of every beleever.

Faith queſtionleſſe is a ſupernaturall gift, but that it isAnſw. imputed in a proper ſenſe, he ſaith it not, he blameth you for the ſame, but ſtill in a relative ſenſe, as it apprehendeth and applieth the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

This righteouſneſſe imputed is neither any worke or worke or workes, grace or vertue inherent in us.

By imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe is meant Gods ſetting it on the ſcore of, or putting it on the account of a beleever, he ſetteth it on his account, or really and truly giveth the ſame unto him. Here is not a contradiction to ſave a mans longing. It is well for him, not for your credit who beate up the Drum in Print and cry, If any man or woman, who may ſay, Parturiunt montes: let the Reader looke for itsg Enliſh in your ſelfe.

Defining faith which the Apoſtle ſaith is imputed, he defines 4.it a ſtrong faith, or faith in the higheſt degree, ſo that P. 31.a weake faith is not capable of Pauls imputation for righteouſneſſe.Mr. G.

It is true he ſaith, this faith of Abraham was not weak, Anſw.but a ſtrong faith and beliefe without ſtaggering, in that place. Doth he ſay the faith that is imputed muſt be ſtrong or not imputed? Where ſaith he, that a true faith, if not ſtrong and a weake faithed Chriſtian muſt to Hell? No, it is another queſtion. Mr. W. holdeth faith juſtifying as a hand receiving, ſo it receiveth the treaſure be it never ſo weakly it inricheth, ſo it receiveth Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe it juſtifieth ſtrong, and weake belongs to the more and leſſe, not to the nature of faith ſimply.

This alſo troubleth you, that the ſpirit of God in working Mr. G.faith confirmes the heart with confidence and firme perſuaſion. Anſw.But why are you troubled? Is not the heart by nature weake, and doe not the workes of ſuch an one ſhew it? Ezek. 16. Doe not all graces ſtrengthen, and ſhall faith, the chiefeſt, not confirme?

Doth it trouble you that he ſaith, the ſpirit of God working faith confirmes the heart with confidence? it needeth p. 45not, for whether confidence be of the nature of that mixt habit faith (as I thinke) or the effect of faith, it muſt …eeds confirme the heart. It needeth not that he calleth …t a perſwaſion, it was ſo truly called before you were born, …nd if it did not perſwade, how doth the ſoule aſſent?

And as for firmneſſe, it being a part of the inward and …idden man which is incorruptible, a part of the everlaſting Kingdome of Chriſt, it muſt be acknowledged firme; infuſed …abits are ſo, all: they have more or leſſe firmneſſe in them.

Laſtly, whereas Mr. W. ſaith that God ſets Chriſts …ghteouſneſſe on the ſcore, and puts it on the account of …very beleever; you would know whether his meaning be …at God accounteth every beleever to have done and ſuffered; the …ings which Chriſt did and ſuffered; or other tolerable conſtru…ion.

I anſwer, his putting to account is ſuch a valid dona…on of the ſame to a beleever, that he by faith in Chriſt … as if himſelfe had ſatisfied. We by him died, we by …im fulfilled the Law. He for them paid the ranſome by his …ath, he for them fulfilled the Law in his life: ſo that now in …im and by him every true Chriſtian man may be called a fulller of the Law. Thus the Church of England in her Homily.

To your ifs.

If God puts the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt it ſelfe upon a be…evers Mr. G.ſcore, he puts the merit of Chriſts righteouſneſſe up… his ſcore alſo, for theſe are inſeparable: If he puts the me…t of Chriſts righteouſneſſe upon his ſcore, he muſt put all the …uits and effects of his merit alſo, for theſe likewiſe are in…arable as the other, and ſo God ſhall have accounted every …leever to have redeemed, juſtified, and ſaved the world.

I anſwer, God putteth the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt on …he ſcore of a beleever and the merit alſo, and ſo the ef…cts of his merit are communicated. So that hereby man … juſt, hath what to anſwer God requiring doing to life, …nd threatning death for ſinnes, Chriſt his righteouſneſſe …nd merits, and hence is he juſtified, ſaved, &c. And yet followeth not that God ſhould account every beleever Sa…iour of the world. Your conſequence is an abſurd p. 46Popiſh one, reaſons are given by our learned Proteſtants anſweringSivere imputaretur nobis juſtitia Chriſti, profecto non minus juſti haberi cenſeri que deheremus quā ipſe Chriſtas, proinde redemptores & ſalvaroresmundi, quod eſt abſurdum. Nos autem abſurdū dicimus. Tantum praecario, id eſt aliunde & in alio. Rurſus fieri non poteſt ut qui imputative juſtus eſt, ſit redemptor mundi & ſervator, ſed tantum ſervatus & redemptus. Cham. de juſtif. c. 20. P. 23 24. Ejuſdem cauſae omnia effecta in unum individaum conſundere. Quis neget ſolis calorem applicatum arboribus, eſſe cauſam generatorum fructuum omnium, neque tamen quiſquam adeo inſanit, u Piro applicaret generationem omnium ſructuum, quia piro vidit applicatum ſolis calorem Cauſa eſt, quia longe differunt calor & applicatio coloris. Calor conſideratur in ipſo ſole unde manat in omnes at bores, ſed applicatio attenditur omnibus arboribus, ut non ſ… omnibus idem actus communis, revera alius actus eſt cum calor applicatur Pito, & alim cum Pomo & cum nuci & deinceps. Eadem ratio eſt juſtitiae communis eſt ſervandis in viram aeternam, quandoquidem nulſum eſt aliud nomen ſub caelo m quo nos oporter ſalutem aſſequi, ſed ſua ſuit Paulo juſtitiae impuratio, ſua Petro. Johanm, jacobo. Abſurdiſſuna ergo conſequentia, imputari Pauls redemptionem Petri, Iohann…, Iacobi, & aliorum Id. c. 21 P.3. In an anſwer to an objection of Salmeton. Bellarmine, whoſe it is againſt imputed righteouſneſſe. If the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt (ſaith Bellarmine) ſhould be truly imputed unto us, truly we ought to be accounted and thought no leſſe righteous then Chriſt himſelf, and therefore Redeemers and Saviours of the world, which is abſurd. Cham. anſwering him, denieth the conſequence in theſe words. We (Proteſtants) ſay it to be an abſurd thing, and denieth us equally juſt, for as much as he hath it inherently, a ſe, from himſelf, and is per ſe juſtus, juſt of himſelf, when as we inherently are unjuſt, and have our righteouſneſſe onelyonly by favour, that is elſewhere and in another: and addeth. Againe, it cannot be that he that is juſt by imputation ſhould be a Redeemer of the world, and Saviour, but onelyonly redeemed and ſaved.

Elſewhere he anſwereth this to be, to poure all effects of the ſame cauſe into one individuall thing. Who would deny the heate of the Sunne applied to trees to be the cauſe of all fruits brought forth? Yet none is ſo madde as to give unto the Peare-tree the bringing forth of all fruits, becauſe he ſeeth the heate of the Sunne applied to the Peare-tree. The reaſon followeth. The reaſon is, heate and application of heat have a far difference.

Heate is conſidered in the Sunne it ſelfe, from whence it paſſeth to all the trees; but the application thereof is given to all the trees: ſo that it is not the ſame common act to all, indeed it is one act when as the heate of the Sunne is applied to a Peare-tree, another when to an Apple-tree, and when to a Nut-tree, and ſo for the reſt. This he applieth. There is the ſame reaſon of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt which is common to all that ſhall be ſaved to eternall life, for as much as there is no other name under Heaven in whom we ought to attaine ſalvation. p. 47But Paul had his imputation of righteouſneſſe, Peter his, and ſo John and James. It is therefore a moſt abſurd conſequence, that the redemption of Peter, James, and the reſt, ſhould be imputed unt Paul. Doctor Ames anſwering the ſame objection, laieth downe the Proteſtants tenent.

1. Chriſts righteouſneſſe to be ſo 1. Chriſti juſtitiam, eatenus nobis imputari ut cjus virtue, nos perinde juſti cenſeamur coram Deo, ac ſi noſmer ipſi in nobis haberemus quo juſti coram ipſo cenſeamur.farre imputed unto us, that we by the vertue thereof ſhould be accounted ſo juſt God, as if 2. Juſtitiam Chriſti imputati ſingulis fideſibus ſecundum eorum particularem neceſſitatem, non ſecundum univerſalem quem habet valorem, ſicut gemma maximi pretii, quae datur pro variis captivis redimendis, applicatur ſingulis non ſecundum univerſame aeſtimationem, ſed ſecundum cujuſque captivi neceſſiratem: abſurde igitur fit mentio mandi in applicatione ſingulari.we our ſelves had that by which we are accounted righteous before the Lord.

2. The righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to be accounted to particular beleevers according to their Particular 3. Juſtitia Chriſti non imputatur nobis ut cauſis, ſed ut ſubjectis tantum: ineptiſſime igitur inſert Bellarminuss nos poſſe dici redemptores aur ſalvatores, quia ſumus redempti & ſalvati. Ame. Bell. enerv. 10. 4. p. 139.neceſſity, not according to all the worth of it, as a precious ſtone of great price, which is given for …he redeeming of divers Captices, is applied to particulars, not according to the univerſall worth, Ridicula illatio nam redemptor & ſalvator eſt non qui accipit redemptionem & ſalu tem alterius opera ſibi impulata: ſed qui praeſtitir alteri redemptionem & ſalutem ſua opera efficaci. Abimputatione igitur hujus inſliti… redempti & ſalvati recte affirmamur, ſed redemptores a nemine qui mentis compos eſt appellamut. Poſtremo, & illud perpenden dum, Chriſti juſtitiam non imputari huic aut …iſti credenti, ſecundum totam latitudinem efficaciae, fed prout unuſquiſque illa opus habet. Non igitur Petro imputarur ut generale pretium redemptionis pro omnibus, ſed ut pretium qua illius anima in particulari redimatur, cujuſque merito ille in particulari ad vitam gloriae evchatur. Ex tali autem impuratione hujus juſtitiae neque colligi poteſt nos aeque juſtos effe ac Chriſtum, neque omnino tedempteres dicendos. Dr. Dav. de juſtif hab. c. 24 ad arg. ſextum p 331.but according to the neceſſity of every Captive: mention therefore of the world is abſurdly made in particular application.

3. The righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is not imputed unto us as cauſes, but onelyonly as Subjects thereof. Bellarmine therefore moſt unſitly inferreth us to be capable of the name of Redeemers or Saviours, becauſe we be redeemed and ſaved.

Our late Learned Biſhop of Salisbury anſwereth the ſame argument, and to that part ſaith, It is a ridiculous inference, for he is a Redeemer and a Saviour, not who receiveth redemption and ſalvation, anothers worke imputed unto him; but who performeth redemption and ſalvation by his owne effectuall worke. p. 48Therefore we are rightly affirmed redeemed, and ſaved, from the imputation of this righteouſneſſe, but we are called Redeemers by none that are in their right wits. Laſt of all, that alſo is to be conſidered, Chriſts righteouſneſſe, cannot be imputed to this or that beleever according to the whole latitude of its efficacie, but as every one hath need of it. It is not therefore imputed to Peter a the generall price of redemption for all, but as the price by which a ſoule in particular is redeemed, and by whoſe merit he in particular is exalted to eternall life. But from ſuch an imputation of this righteouſneſſe, it can neither be gathered that we are equal'y as juſt as Chriſt, nor at all to be called Redeemers.

If we looke on the truth of the righteouſneſſe which is imputed Si veritatem juſtitiae nobis imputatae ſpectes non minus juſti cenſemur coram Deo ac Chriſtus, nec tamen redemptores. Luc. Trel. p. 94.to us, we are accounted no leſſe juſt before God then Chriſt, and yet we are not Redeemers. See the place.

Thus what you oppoſe to imputed righteouſneſſe as abſurdity is oppoſed by Papiſts, and the inference ſhewed to be moſt abſurd by the learned Proteſtants againſt them, to their Barre you ſtand and muſt make an anſwer. In a word, though every member hath communion with the head Chriſt, and partaketh for, and according to his need, as a member of a naturall body from the naturall head, yet hath he not Chriſts merits to give to others, more then a member in the body, ſuppoſe the finger, hath life from the head and heart, to give to the feete and toes: and this you may take as Maſter Walkers owne anſwer.

Sect. 11. Come we now to the confirmation of the expoſition Mr. W. gave, neglecting what you faſten on him before ſufficiently cleared; and many vaine lines together, p. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. for, debent neg'igi, they ought to be neglected.

Mr. Walker judging the Apoſtle the beſt interpreter of himſelfe, argueth for a tropicall ſenſe, from Rom. 2. 26. &c. where the word foreign to be accounted or imputed, is firſt uſed. If the Ʋncircumciſion keepe the righteouſneſſe of the Law, ſhall not his Vncircumciſion be accounted for Cirumciſion? from whence he gathereth that as by a double trope (at large explicated) Uncircumciſion taking in with it and comprehending the righteouſneſſe of the Law ſhall be accounted p. 49and accepted for the ſtate of an holy and righteous man, one circumciſed in heart, though he be uncircumci…and in a Gentile outward eſtate.

So by Aorobams beleeving by a Metalepſis or double trope the Apoſtle doth underſtand Abrahams ſtanding in the ſtate of a true beleever united by one ſpirit to God in Chriſt, and having communion of his ſatisfaction and righteouſneſſe, faith comprehending the perfect rightebuſneſſe and full ſatisfaction of Chriſt to be accounted to him given to him for righteouſneſſe, or that which makes him righteous.

To this. (Paſſing what you ſay this Scripture would doe Mr. G.if managed to throw downe his interpretation, and the ſlight ſumme of all granted, being but a cipher in your account, apparantly ſuch (as you ſay) becauſe you doe but ſay both.)

1. By way of anſwer you demand, What if he could prove Mr. G.that here were trope upon trope, and mountaines of metonymies? Doth this prove a neceſſity either of the ſame kinde of tropes or figures in other Scriptures, which yet is the strength of the argument?

Anſw. Mr. Walkers intent is not to prove a neceſſity by this argument, but that the Apoſtle (the beſt expounder of himſelfe) thus uſeth the phraſe in another place in the ſame Epiſtle as is here interpreted, that it is not therefore ſo ſtrange, harſh, and uncouth an expreſſion, and figure of ſpeech, and not to be found in all his writings beſides, as you charge the figurative interpretation to be. See Mr. W. book p. 352. Tropicall ſpeeches are uſuall, and that is manifeſt place ſuting with this.

And this may ſuffice for this argument, your anſwer unto it, the reſt p. 34, 35, 36, 37. are but impertinencies, which I may neglect without giving you advantage or the leaſt dammage to Mr. W. cauſe: there is nothing unſound but might well be maintained againſt your many words.

Sect. 12. Mr. Walkers firſt argument is taken from the fourth verſe, and is framed by you thus. That thing which is counted for righteouſneſſe bringeth with it a reward to the beleever, not of debt, but grace, viz. eternall life. But it is the p. 50ſatisfaction and righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, not faith in a propo ſenſe, that bringeth this reward, eternall life with it; therefore it is the righteouſneſſe and ſatisfaction, and not faith that is imputed for righteouſneſſe.

To the propoſition you anſwer by diſtinction. A thing Mr. G.may be ſaid to bring with it a reward either of voluntary and free covenant or compact, or by way of merit and juſt retribution. In the former ſenſe the propoſition is granted for truth becauſe faith brings with it a reward in this ſenſe, as well a… the ſatisfaction of Chriſt doth in the other.

If he meaneth by way of merit, the propoſition is falſe, ſo tha… which is imputed doth not neceſſarily bring with it a reward … ſuch termes, or in ſuch a way. God in a gracious and free covenant hath promiſed the ſame (if not greater) reward to thoſe that ſhall beleeve in Jeſus Chriſt, which he hath promiſed to thoſe that ſhall keepe the whole Law.

Anſw. For anſwer. Firſt, for you diſtinction of free convenant, and merit in this our buſineſſe, I ſuppoſe things in it are divided and ſet in oppoſition which God hath joyned together. For the merit of Chriſt is the confirmation of the free covenant. God is ſo, by Jeſus Chriſt the juſt, and the covenant is in his bloud, he and his righteouſneſſe are the promiſe of God. What is offered and tendered in all ordinances for eternall life to faith, or receiving of him, as Acts 10. 43. by beleeving and receiving him he is made the Lord my righteouſneſſe, righteouſneſſe to me, to which the Lord performeth life. The Apoſtle ſheweth them ſubordinate, when as he ſaith we are juſtified freely by grace through the redemption which is in Jeſus Chriſt, whom God hath ſet forth a propitiation through faith his bloud, Rom. 4. 24 Your diſtinction is humane merits, not the merits of Chriſt, the Surety of the Covenant.

2. I aſſert, Mr. Walker intendeth ſuch a gracious way of merit, and ſo doth the Apoſtle diſputing againſt our works, this doth in this way infallibly bring with it the reward, eternall life; which faith in a proper ſenſe, not taking in the righteouſneſſe and merit of Chriſt, doth not, cannot more then mans workes.

p. 513. There is nothing elſe can doe it ſaith Mr. W. It is a gracious way ſatisfying juſtice, the Apoſtle ſaith, the ſpirit is life, that is, the ſoule liveth eternally, becauſe of righteouſneſſe, the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed, Rom. 8. 10.Hanc ipſam quam nos aſſe…mus juſtitiam imputatam. Cham. de juſt. c 2. Sect. 59. there by righteouſneſſe the Apoſtle meaneth this ſame im…uted righteouſneſſe which we aſſert againſi Papiſts.

4. Hence the aſſumption is ſound, for howſoever faith …n a relative ſenſe and Chriſts righteouſneſſe imputed, (faith …eing but the hand, the applying inſtrument, Chriſt righ…eouſneſſe applied that alone which juſtifieth as the meriorious and formall cauſe) have a ſweet and harmonious greement in our juſtification. It is not ſo when as faith …s taken in a proper ſenſe, though it be faith in Chriſt. Whence your ſelſe, Armimius, and Socinus, aſſerting the …mputation of faith, adde, and not Chriſts righteouſneſſe im…uted, and ſo put them in oppoſition in the matter of Juſti…cation.

When as you lay downe the manner of either, viz. that Chriſt juſtifieth by way of merit, ſatisfaction, and atone…nent making with God for ſinne. Here is a truth, but not …l, for there muſt be imputation of it, reall donation alſo …f Gods part to make us righteous, and faith muſt concur …ot in a proper ſenſe as accepted for the righteouſneſſe of …he Law in it ſelfe (as you ſay) but (as you ſay alſo) as it …ringeth us into communion of Chriſts perfect righteouſneſſe, by …hich ſaith, (as by an hand receiving riches, riches doe …ake rich the receiver) receiving the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt that maketh righteous; faith is as the hand, the …ighteouſneſſe that which as riches corporall that way, do …ake us thus ſpiritually rich, that is, righteous in the ſight of God. Faith doth it relatively or by a figure not in a proper ſenſe which you ſtand for: thus much you ſay, alſo.

5. When as you ſay, the Lord hath promiſed the ſame reward, …r a greater to thoſe that ſhall beleeve in Jeſus Chriſt, then which he hath promiſed to thoſe that keep his whole Law, diſputing againſt the relative ſenſe for faith in a proper ſenſe. What doth reſult but the Servetion, Socinian, and Arminian p. 52tenet, delivered alſo by Bertius, faith is accounted for the Fides habetur pro omni legis juſtitia quam nos praeſtare renebamur. See Sybrand. p. 9. ad Bert.whole righteouſneſſe of the Law which we are bound to performe, which alſo they attribute to gratuide acceptation.

Sect. 13. Mr. Wrs. third argument is taken from the 6. and 11. v. That the thing imputed by God is properly righteouſneſſe, ſuch as being imputed brings forgiveneſſe of iniquity and covers ſinnes, and ſo maketh the beleever bleſſed. Now there is no righteouſneſſe to be found amongſt all mankinde but Chriſts perfect righteouſneſſe and ſatisfaction and that is a perfect propitiation for all ſins, therefore it is the righteouſneſſe which is imputed for juſtification.

Of this argument you ſay it is built cleane beſides the foundation it claimeth, and when you prove what you ſay, you ſhall have an anſwer. But to what you anſwer.

1. You ſay, That the concluſion Chriſts righteouſneſſe muſt needs be that which is imputed for righteouſneſſe in a proper ſenſe, is diametrally oppoſite unto himſelfe in ſeverall examined paſſages, particularly to that which ſaith faith comprehending in it the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is imputed for him, which differ greatly.

1. Though faith and Chriſts righteouſneſſe differ, andAnſw. are oppoſed diametrally in your ſenſe and acceptation they are ſubordinate in Mr. Walkers.

2. And when faith is ſaid to be imputed taking in the the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt; You know Mr. Walker ſaith faith is imputed in an improper ſenſe, and that Chriſts righteouſneſſe is that which is imputed in a proper ſenſe; that is it w^ch alone properly imputed maketh us righteous.

2. You blame his underſtanding the Apoſtles phraſe of imputing righteouſnes, v. 6. ſuppoſing a proper pre-exiſtent righteouſneſſe for the matter of ſuch imputation which is one of his miſtakes.

I anſwer, Mr. Walkers underſtanding had beene blame worthy, had he ſuppoſed otherwiſe; for a proper perfect righteouſneſſe is neceſſary to make one ſo righteous.

Gods people are holy, unreprovable, unblamable in Gods ſight, perfectly juſt, can that be without righteouſneſſe?

Mr. Bradſhaw ſheweth, that, the proper matter of Juſtification is juſtice or innocency not cauſed or produced by the act of p. 53Juſtification, but exiſting ſome way or other before, for a perſon is not therefore juſt becauſe he is juſtified, but he is therefore juſtified Mr. Bradſh. treat. juſtif. c. 2. Sect. 10.becauſe he is juſt. The juſtice of the party juſtified, being the cauſe of his juſtification, and not his juſtification the cauſe of his juſtice.

Papiſt and Proteſtant agree in this, the one putting inherentCum juſtificationem ſine juſtitia conſtituere, ſit inſomnium ſine ſomno cogitare Gerh. de juſtif. p. 135. Juſtificationis formam juſtitia conſtare cerrū eſt, quoniam juſtificamur ſive juſti conſtituimur per juſtitiam nobis a Deo donatam. Wetton, de reconcil. par. 1. l. 2. c. 2. p. 34. righteouſneſſe the formall cauſe, which being imperfect, is truly rejected by us, and ſo faith in a proper ſenſe. The other put the perfect righteouſneſſe of Jeſus Chriſt.

It is certaine, ſaith Mr. Wotton, that the forme of Juſtification conſiſteth in righteouſneſſe, becauſe we are juſtified or conſtituted juſt by righteouſneſſe given to us from God, which he ſheweth out of Papiſts and Proteſtants.

The Apoſtle ſaith, by the obedience of Chriſt we ſhall be conſtituted righteous. It is you and Arminius that talke of making juſt without any juſtice at all.

That Mr. W. is miſtaken you prove.

1. Becauſe it is not ſaid foreign, but without the article, foreign, which intimateth he ſpeaketh not here of any particular or ſpeciall righteouſ. foreign fixed in any ſubject as the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is.

Here you grant righteouſneſſe, whether it be fixed in a1. ſubject or not, you ſeeme ſo at leaſt.

And when as you tell us of righteouſneſſe not in a ſubject, you tell us of an accident without a ſubject; where was your Logique? There is no righteouſneſſe whether it be generall or particular, but it is in ſome ſubject; ſo is the inherent righteouſneſſe, of which Papiſts in their opinion, ſo faith in that opinion, and ſo the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

To your ſecond, Then the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt muſt be 2.imputed for the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. We anſwered before. It is but a borrowed jengle.

Thirdly, you anſwer, The righteouſneſſe here imputed is 3.without workes, which Chriſts is not; workes are the eſſence thereof.

To which you know is anſwered, the workes which are excluded are not workes ſimply, and namely of Chriſt, but our own works.

p. 54Againſt this you argue, or ſay, ſuch a diſtinction as this is, is without any foundation in this or in any other Scripture.

But not truly, for as the Scripture denieth Juſtification by the workes of the Law, ſo it eſtabliſheth Juſtification by the righteouſneſſe and obedience of Chriſt, Rom. 5. 17, 18, 19. by this is there a perfect ſupply of what was not in us, but ſhould have beene to life, as the Apoſtle, Rom. 8. 4. and Rom. 10. 4. and when as the Apoſtle objecteth, Doe we make the Law of God voide through faith? He anſwereth, God forbid, and yea we eſtabliſh the Law. So doth faith applying the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt that eſtabliſheth the Law.

The Church of England ſaw this, you might have learned it there. Where as it lay not in us to doe, (that was impoſſible Homil. ſalv. p. 14.before) he provided a ranſome for us, that was the moſt precious body and bloud of his owne moſt deare and beſt beloved Sonne Jeſus Chriſt, who beſides this ranſome fulfilled the Law lb.for us perfectly: and from the third of the Rom. 8. & 10. our Church, there muſt be on Chriſts part to juſtification, juſtice, that is the ſatisfaction of Gods juſtice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of his body, and ſhedding of his bloud with fulfilling of the Law perfectly.

So the grace of God doth not ſhut out the juſtice of God in our Juſtification, but onelyonly ſhulteth out the juſtice of man, that is to ſay the juſtice of our workes, as to be merits deſerving our juſtification.lb.

Whereas all the world was not able of their ſelves to pay any part towards their ranſome, it pleaſed our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy, without any our deſert or deſerving to prepare for us the moſt precious jewels of Chriſts body and bloud, whereby our ranſome might be fully paid, the Law fulfilled and his juſtice fully ſatisfied. So that Chriſt is now the righteouſneſſe of all them that truly doe beleeve in him, he for them paid the ranſome by his death, he for them fulfilled the Law in his life, ſo that now in him and by him every true Chriſtian man may be called a fulfiller of the Law, for as much as that which lb.our infirmity lacked, Chriſts juſtice hath ſupplied. Here is the explication of our article of Juſtification, and thus in the p. 55Art. of Ireland, Art. 35. Other Authors are needleſſe, theſe enough.

And hence may you perceive the neceſſity of the diſtinction; the Lew and juſtice of God are hereby ſatisfied, which cannot be where workes are ſimply excluded, that it is not vaine and frivolous, our juſtification elſe is impoſſible.

Sect. 14. You argue that if the righteouſneſſe God is here 4.ſaid to impute, be the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, then the deſcription thereof, v. 7. & 8. is impertinent and improper, being laid downe, in imputing ſinnes, covering ſinnes, not imputing ſinnes; the imputing of Chriſts righteouſneſſe in the ſenſe pretended is much more then forgiveneſſe of iniquity or not imputing ſinne.See Mr. Gatak. ſaepe contra Lucium. p. 9. 1. p. 10, l, 11, 21, 45 82. 98. 3. 64. 4. Imo vero hoc nondum à te demonſtratum eſt, nec vero unquam demonſtrabitur, par. 1. Sect. 8. nu. I 2 p. 45. He to Piſcator. Remiſſio peccatorum fit per juſtitiam imputatam perfectā. So Pareus. Caſtig. Bell. de juſtif. p. 389. Eſtque juſtificatio revera proprius & verus juſtitiae eſfectus, quoquo modo ea juſtitia imputari ſive communicari nobis intelligatur. p. 34 M. Bradſh. p. 34.

For anſwer. You muſt prove that forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, &c. are the deſcription of that righteouſneſſe imputed. It is but begged.

Imputation of righteouſneſſe is not the ſame with forgiveneſſe of ſinnes. It is more, it is the cauſe of remiſſion of ſinnes, this an effect of righteouſneſſe imputed. This righteouſneſſe imputed bringeth forgiveneſſe with it, covers ſinne, making the beleever in that reſpect bleſſed.

Remiſsion of ſinnes is cauſed by perfect righteouſneſſe imputed.

Mr. Wotton confeſſeth Juſtification an effect of righteouſneſſe, and Juſtification is indeed the proper and the true effect of righteouſneſſe what way ſoever, that righteouſneſſe is imputed or communicated unto us.

Yea, remiſsion of ſinnes is an effect of Juſtification. Pardon is neither the whole nor any eſſentiall part of Juſtification, but onelyonly a contingent effect of it.

Finally you ſay, Gods imputing righteouſneſſe (in this place) is meant onelyonly his juſtifying of men, or (as Mr. W. p. 10.) a dealing with men according as if they were righteous.

It is ſo, not in deed, but in the effect thereof: indeed imputation of righteouſneſſe is the cauſe, juſtification the effect thereof. Mr. W. ſaith not ſo, but that it is Gods accounting them righteous, and dealing with them accordingly.

p. 56To that which followeth I may ſay, that, to imputeSee Pareus on Rom. 4. 7. cited elſewhere.Rom 4:7 righteouſneſſe is not the deſcription of the act of abſolution. It is an effect following on that, upon imputation of righteouſneſſe, not imputation of ſinne followeth and no condemnation.

The ſame may be ſaid to what is alleadged out of the 11. verſ. being juſtified, and righteouſneſſe imputed differ as the cauſe and the effect. Imputation goeth before remiſſion Cauſalitateimputatio praecedit remiſſionem, & Receſſario prae-requiritur. Polan. in Daniel. p. 324.as a cauſe, and is neceſſarly pre-required.

When as you ſay, being juſtified, cannot be without righteouſneſſe, either it is that which is inherent or imputed; not in herent, it is againſt the ſcope of the Apoſtle denying Juſtification by workes or habits whence they flow, and therfore not by faith, which is a part of inherent righteouſneſſe conſidered in a proper ſenſe: therefore it muſt be by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt; the righteouſneſſe which is by faith as the word calleth it.

From thence Toſſanus giveth to us as Saint Pauls Thereme. Unde extruit Paulus iſtud theorema, juſtitiam noſtram non eſſe virtutem moralem aut habitualem juſtitiam, ſicut cum Phariſae is Pontificii volunt, ſed imputationem juſtitiae Chriſti. Toſſ. ad Rom. c. 4. p. 4.Rom 4Whence Paul laieth downe that Theoreme. Our righteouſneſſe not to be morall vertue or habituall juſtice, as with the Phariſees the Pontificians would have it; but the imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

To that you beleeve, that if the beſt interpreters be conſulted, not one will be found to contradict this interpretation of the phraſe imputing to righteouſneſſe in this place, or by righteouſneſſe to underſtand the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

I hope your infidelity is not invincible, many things are in Interpreters which you doe not looke after.

Though Gods imputing righteouſneſſe juſtifieth; yet theſe differ as cauſe and effect as hath beene ſhewed. And

When you ſay they underſtand not the righteouſneſſeAd Rom. 4. 3. Ad juſtitiam. Hic enim finis & ſcopus fidei ut imputatione juſtitiae Chriſti peream apprehenſi juſtificemur. …b.Rom 4:3 of Chriſt. It is apparently againſt all Proteſtant writers, who teach the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to be that which is imputed, and not faith in a proper ſenſe, as alſo from this that they denying the proper ſenſe, are for the relative and improper ſenſe.

Beza to thoſe words, to righteouſneſſe. For this is the end and ſcope of faith, that we ſhould be juſtified by the imputation of p. 57the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt apprehended by it.

Who alſo addeth, But there is in Sed eſt in verbis Hypallage, nam pro prie dicitur Deus imputare juſtitiam per …idem, ut mox loquitur Apoſtolus, v. 6. & 11. Quid autem intelligitur juſtitiae nomine, expoſuimus adverſus Sophiſtas; ſupra, 1. 17. &c. 3. 20.the words an Hypallage, (a figure ſo called) for God is properly ſaid to impute righteouſneſſe by faith as the Apoſtle by and by ſpeaketh, verſ. 6. & 11. But what is underſtood by the word righteouſneſſe, we have expounded before, againſt the Sophiſters; above, cap. 1. v. 17. & 3. 20.

When Bellarmine ſaid, our Adverſaries Nullam in Scripturis aut Patribus locum hactenus inveni…e potuerunt adverſarii, ubi legeretur Chriſti juſtitiam nobis imputari ad juſtitiam, vel nos juſtos eſſe per imputatam nobis Chriſti obedientiam, e…go hoc falſum eſt.(Proteſtants) could never hitherto finde a place in the Scriptures or Fathers, where it is read that Chriſts righteouſneſſe is imputed to us for righteouſneſſe, or that we be juſt by the imputed obedience of Chriſt, therefore this is falſe. Pareus anſwereth.

The Antecedent is falſe, for it is expreſſely Antecedens eſt falſum, legitur enim expreſſe, Credenti fides ſua imputatur; & mox, Beatus cuiDeus imputat juſtitiam abſque operibus. Haec Apoſtolo eſſe aequipollentia tam eſt evidens ut negari non poſſit; proinde aequipollentia ſunt, fidem imputari ad juſtitiam, & juſtitiam imputa…i abſque operibus. Evidenter igitur habetur juſtitiam qua credentes juſtificamur nobis a Deo imputa…i, ſeu eſſe juſtitiam nobis a Deo imputa…i, ſeu eſſe juſtitiam nobis imputatam. Cujus vero eſt haec juſtitia, id exponit idem Apoſtolus, c. ſequente, 5. 19—Habet Adverſarius ubi leger…mus: inde enim ſic, …uſtitia qua credentes …iſicamur, nobis imputatur a Deo, Rom. 4 5, 6. Juſtitia q…a credentes juſtificamur eſt juſtitia ſeu obedientia Chriſti, Rome 5. 19. igitur juſtitia ſeu obedientia Chriſti, nobis à Deo imputatur. Caſtig. p. 457.Rom 4:5Rom 4:6read, To him that beleeveth, his faith is imputed; …nd by and by, Bleſſed is he to whom God imputeth righteouſneſſe without workes. That theſe are equipollent to the Apoſtle, is ſo evident that it cannot be denied: therefore they are equivalent, faith to be imputed to righteouſneſſe, and righteouſneſſe to be imputed without workes. It is therefore evidently found, righteouſneſſe, by which we beleevers are juſtified, to be imputed unto us from God, or to be imputed righteouſneſſe. Whoſe this righteouſneſſe is, the ſame Apoſtle expoundeth in the following chap. 5. 19. Now our Adverſarie (Bellarmine) hath where we have read it, from thence thus, (we reaſon) Righteouſneſſe by which beleevers are juſtified, is imputed unto us from God, Rom. 4. 5, 6. the righteouſneſſe by which we beleevers are juſtified, is the righteouſneſſe or obedience of Chriſt, Rom. 5. 19. therefore the righteouſneſſe or obedience of Chriſt is imputed to us of God.

p. 58The ſame learned man, Neither is Nec reſert quod Apoſtolus non dixit beatus cui Deus imputat Chriſti juſtitiam: ſed abſolute, cui Deus imputat juſtitiam: juſtitia enim imputata recte dicitur juſtitia Chriſti, quia Chriſtus ſua obedientia eam nobis acquiſivit—imo Chriſti juſtitia expreſſe vocatur, Rom. 5. 18, 19. Pareus Caſtig. …. p. 388.Rom 5:18Rom 5:19it any thing that the Apoſtle ſaid not, he is happy to whom God imputeth the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt; but abſolutely, to whom God imputeth righteouſneſſe: for imputed righteouſneſſe is rightly called the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, becauſe Chriſt acquired it by his obedience—I, it is expreſſely called the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, Rom. 5. 18, 19. The ſame Pareus, Ad Rom. 4. 3, 5. p. 484.Rom 4:3Rom 4:5juſtitia imputata Chriſti juſtitia dicitur, imputed righteouſneſſe is called Chriſts righteouſneſſe.

Our Ames. We reade every where Legimus paſſim apud Paulum juſtos nos fieri & juſtificari, per Chriſtum, per Chriſti mortem, ſanguinem, redemptionem obedientiam & juſtitiam, & illam juſtitiam imputari nobis a Deo abſque oberibus. Bellar. Enerv. to. 4. p. 137.in Paul, that we are made juſt and juſtified by Chriſt, by Chriſts death, bloud, redemption, obedience, and righteouſneſſe, and that righteouſneſſe to be imputed to us of God without Juſtificationem Apoſtolus deſcribit, non ſola remiſſione peccatorum, ſed etiam Juſtitiae Chriſti mputatione, ut apparet ex c. 4. ad Rom. v. 6. & 7. Ge…a…d. de juſt…ſ. Sect. 63.Rom 5:6Rom 5:7workes.

To the ſame purpoſe, ſee Sybran. declar. Vorſt. p. 94.

I will end this with that learned Doctor of our Church, Doctor Whitaker, to Dureus, ſaying, our Doctrine of imputativeWhitaker againſt Camp. & D…reus Engliſhed. p. 224. putative righteouſneſſe to be againſt the word.

Thus you ſpeake like a Jeſuite, but what doth the Scripture more celebrate? Rom. 4. 3, 4, 5, 6. a cleare text for it, ſo that there being more then one ſuch Interpreters, you may beleeve it.

When Muſculus ſaith, the righteouſneſſe of God which is Juſtitia Dei qu… gratis imputatur eſt non imputari peccatum.freely imputed, is not to impute ſinne; He intendeth not that they be formally one and the ſame, but in the effect, this as an effect followeth that; ſo doth he call remiſſion of ſinnes our righteouſneſſe, as Mr. W. citeth him, p. 348. the book is not in mine hands.

Sect. 15. Mr. Walkers fourth argument runnes thus, ſummed up by it ſelfe. Whatſoever is here ſaid to be imputed, is, that which ſerves for righteouſneſſe to juſtification. Chriſts righteouſneſſe is that which ſerves for righteouſneſſe to juſtification, Rom. 5. 19. Rom. 8, 4. Rom. 10, 4. Ergo, p. 59it is that which under the name of faith is ſaid to be imputed.

You anſwer, This was for ſubſtance before propounded and anſwered. To which I, if ſo, repetition will be vaine on both ſides. Let it goe.

You adde, Though nothing but the righteouſneſſe or ſatiſfaction of Chriſt will ſerve meritoriouſly unto juſtification. Severall things doe miniſterially, the Word, the Miniſter, and ſo faith in Chriſt, &c.

Mr. Wr. is not about inſtrumentals in this argument, but that, which imputed, juſtifieth, which is (ſaith he) by the Scriptures the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

When as you grant nothing meritoriouſly ſerving but the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, though we take it in part, yet we muſt have more, it muſt be alſo a formall cauſe, or all one with it; Doctor Davenant may teach you to ſpeak out.

Truely in Juſtification ſuch a formall Revera in juſtificatione, talis cauſa formalis ponenda eſt quae ſimul & meritoria eſſe poſſit niſi enim contineat illam dignitatem in ſe, propter quam homo rite juſtificatus reputetur, nunquam erit formalis cauſa per quam juſtificatus exiſtit in conſpectu Dei. De inſtit. habit. el. 22. p. 312.cauſe is to be put, which withall may be the meritorious cauſe: for unleſſe it containe that worth in it ſelfe, for which a man may be rightly accounted juſtified, it will never be the formall cauſe by which a man ſtands juſtified in the ſight of God.

Grant then this meritorious cauſe imputed to juſtifie, it ſatisfieth Mr. Walker, and ſerveth the turne, elſe not.

He confeſſeth and contendeth faith an inſtrument by which we have fellowſhip with that righteouſneſſe to juſtification, faith being as the hand receiving and applying the ſame, by which righteouſneſſe it is that we are juſtified, and not faith in a proper ſenſe; it not being the hand that properly maketh rich, but what is received by it: which you cannot indure (with the Remonſtrants) though a common Proteſtant expreſſion in this controverſie againſt the Romaniſt denying alſo the proper ſenſe of faith.

To omit that faith is not the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt urged, Rom. 5. 19. nor righteouſneſſe in which a man can ſtand before God, be made juſt, ſaid to be holy and unreprovable, and unblamable in Gods ſight, perfected for ever, as the p. 60man is that is juſtified, or otherwiſe then taken in a Relative ſenſe to the object thereof.

Sect. 16. Mr. Ws. fifth argument is, That this expoſition is warranted by other places of Scripture, which he proveth out of Pſh. 100. as the onelyonly place: ſee the place.

This you bring on the ſtage, and ſay it hath ſu h a viſor on the face of it, that a man cannot tell of what ſhape it is, onelyonly it is evident from his owne words, that here he ſtarts, or rather conjures up a new concluſion as farre differing from what be laboured to conclude, as the Eaſt is from the Weſt.

Good Sir, if (by reaſon of the viſor on the face of it) a man cannot tell of what ſhape it is, how is the latter ſo evident? may not a man queſtion you for the latter, profeſſing the former, that a man cannot tell of what ſhape it is; or are you more? this, and what followeth ſuch a profeſſion muſt be accounted roving.

But how prove you ſuch a differing new concluſion? he writes (ſay you) that the imputing or accounting of a thing for righteouſneſſe is no more but declaring a man thereby to be righteous, and giving him the teſtimony of righteouſneſſe.

Thus you deliver him. I finde it not ſo in his Printed Copy, and even there his concluſion is what was to be concluded, therefore this is to be judged the best expoſition.

Beſides what he ſpeaketh of declaring is added for farther explication of what God did, when as he imputed righteouſneſſe to Phineas as himſelfe. God upon this act gave him teſtimony and declared and judged him to be a righteous man truly juſtified. But by this reaſoning ſay you, be ſeemeth to imply that a man is not conſtituted or made righteous, or truly and really juſtified by the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe or ſatisfaction it ſelfe unto him, but onelyonly that be is declared to be ſuch, &c.

There is no ſuch implication. That is neceſſarily implyed by Gods declaration, for God cannot give teſtimony contrary to what a man is indeed, God cannot ly, his judgement is according to truth, and ſo his teſtimony; the viſor troubleth you. You proceed.

Neither doth that Scripture prove that heterogeneall concluſion, p. 61it doth not import any teſtimony from God of his perſonall righteouſneſſe or juſtified eſtate before God, but onelyonly the righteouſneſſe of the particular act.

Surely that act did ſhew him (as Mr. Wr.) united to Chriſt, and a partaker of righteouſneſſe by faith, on which God gave him teſtimony.

And I ſuppoſe a righteous act importeth perſonall righteouſneſſe inherent, which are inſeparable from righteouſimputed, by which righteouſneſſe imputed, that which is inherent, the acts thereof and perſon are juſtified. From this, not inherent righteouſneſſe or acts thereof, it is that man is perfectly juſt and ſo denominated. And thus Mr. Wr. paſſeth to the Confutation of the falſe expoſition made by Socinus and other Heretiques his diſciples, &c.

Here you charge Mr. Wr. to be an Heretique maker, which Mr. Wr. may eaſily diſcharge with repetition of the ſame words, and reſolve his making Heretiques into Mr. John Goodwine as the maker of an Heretique maker, &c. The truth is, if the interpretation be hereticall (as ſome have ſaid before Mr. W. as before) not Mr. Wr. but Mr. John Goodwine, &c. have made themſelves ſuch by imbracing and broaching the ſame with thoſe Heretiques: and though Mr. Wotton be dead, his opinion liveth in his workes and ſuch as follow him. His fall is the greater in this by how much the more he is exalted as a Cedar in Lebanen. It is a truth of him and all the Princes of his opinion. That hath beene diſcuſſed already, and we have ſeene Mr. Wr. farre from affirming the ſame, deteſting it, conſtantly denying you his hand:

And for your appeale to the ſtrong ſavour of Socinianiſme in the beginning of his fifth argument, you ſpeake of, you neither there nor here doc ſhew in what that rankneſſe lieth. There, if you remember, it had ſuch a Ʋiſor on the face of it, that a man cannot tell what the face of it is, or its complexion.

Farther you ſay, none of the 3. &c. conceived or delivered that expoſition that is faith is imputed in a proper ſenſe. But it is cleare for Socinus; he holdeth the proper ſenſe, and ſo p. 62faith imputed. So doth Mr. Wotton, you cannot but know it, and it is your Helena.

But now let us come to Mr. Wr. his arguments, by which he proveth the ſame, and improveth the falſe expoſition; they are 7. You doe not ſo much as lay them down or anſwer formally to any one of them.

All the anſwer you make is by Queſtions, and they are but of ſome things contained in them, ſo that all the reſt is left unqueſtioned and unanſwered. I will not do ſo with your Queſtions. Let us heare, what are they?

Queſt. 1. You would know from what Fountain Mr. W. drankee that draught of Divinity, that faith Rom. 5. 1, 2. taken in a proper ſenſe, ſhould be a part of our obedience to the morall Law?

You adde, intire obedience to the whole Law was required of Adam, but not to beleeve in Chriſt, the Law not being of faith, Gal. 3. 12.

To the firſt I anſwer. That faith which juſtifieth in relation to its object, conſidered as a worke or vertue in a proper ſenſe, is (as is ſuppoſed by ſuch as are learned) commanded in the morall Law. They ſay:

Where the L. requireth me to have no other God, and willeth me to have him to be mine by faith; be willeth me to beleeve in Chriſt, without whom God never offereth himſelfe to be, nor can be mine, by whom it is I beleeve in him.

And where the argument runneth, I am the Lord thy God, there faith in Chriſt is required, to whom be is firſt a God, and in whom mine.

They take faith in Chriſt to be a ſpeciall part of internall worſhip, ſuch as when I performe it to Chriſt, I performe it not to him alone, but to God, not onelyonly himſelfe, but the other perſons. He that beleeveth in me, beleeveth not in me, but in him that ſent me.

And ſo they take it that the morall Law is the perfect rule of our worſhip of God.

I ſuppoſe faith in Chriſt undeniably ſince the fall preſcribed and called for and anſwered by Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham; by what? but the morall Law. The Goſpel giveth indeed, p. 63but it is the Law that requireth it. They ſay:

That faith is required in the Law, none ever doubted: faith to all that is written, then to the Goſpel, to God as revealed in Chriſt, the lively faith which worketh by love, which is none but faith in Chriſt; or elſe the dead faith, that which is in the Devils.

Againe, that that Grace is but one, and ſo that it is but the Some faith by which we beleeve in Chriſt and God. Yea that grace, without which other graces required are not. That radicall grace, without which other graces and their workes cannot be ſuch as God requireth, ſuch hope, ſuch love, ſuch feare, ſuch joy, ſuch prayer, ſuch praiſe, as God requireth ſutable to him as a God in covenant and a Father, without which they cannot pleaſe God, neither aime at or attaine Gods ends, ſhould not be excluded; the Law that requireth thoſe graces elſe and their workes, requireth that faith; and that, if faith in Chriſt he not required in the Law, infidelity will not be ſinne, neither can it condemne him that is under the ſame.

That the rule of faith, &c. is Gods will contained in his word, and that the manner of worſhip and faith is ordinarily given to the ſecond Commandement.

For Adam in innocency, there might be a bond on him to beleeve in Chriſt, though not as a Lambe and ſlaine, but as onelyonly Mediatour betweene God and man for eternall life. I am ſure he was ever the beire and Lord of life, and that eternall life was for ever in him.

An obedientiall power to beleeve what ever word or revelation of God we ordinarily meet with in orthodox Divines, as for obedience to Gods commands ſimply, thoſe, at leaſt ſome, that diſpute the contrary, drinke deeply of Arminian ſtreames: had you given us reaſons againſt it, we would have conſidered them.

When as you ſay the Law is not of faith, Gal. 3. 12. It proveth not that faith in a proper ſenſe is not required in the Law, neither neede I to finde out the true ſenſe, it not being to purpoſe.

Our Writers are of this opinion, that faith in Chriſt is in the Law.

p. 64So ſaith he in this cauſe to thatFides qua opus pertinet ad primam legem neque evadere potes. Sybrand. ad Bert. p. 57. Quin dicas nos opere legis juſtificari, ſi dixeris nos fide quatenus opus noſtrum eſt juſtficari. Arminian Prince Bertius, Faith as a worke appertaineth to the firſt Commandement, neither canſt thou evade it. Thou muſt ſay us to be juſtified by a worke of the Law, if thou ſhalt affirme us juſtified by faith as a worke of ours. He goeth on.

Great Zanchius proveth our opinion. Noſtram ſententiam probat magnus ille Zanch. de natur. Dei, l. 4. c 2. Legis nomine intelligit omnia quae lex praecipit; praecipit autem, non tantum externa facta ſedimprimis internā renovationem, cordis circumciſionem dilectionem Dei, (nota) fidem. Ergo cum Sctiptura dicit per gratiam Dei nos juſtifica…i, min…me autem per legem, omnem renovationem & omnem inte…nam & externam …onam actionem noſtram ab officio juſtificandi excludit, & ſoli gratuito favori aſcribit.By the word Law hee underſtandeth all which the Law requireth, but that requireth not onelyonly externall workes, but chiefely internall renovation, circumciſion of the heart, the Love of God, (note it) faith. When as therefore the Scripture ſaith we are juſtified by the grace of God, and not by the Law, he excludeth all renovation, and all internall, and externall good action of ours from the office of juſtifying, and aſcribeth it onelyonly to free grace.

It is true, the Law of workes requires ſaith.Ve…um eſt legem operū requirere fidem. Cham l 22. c. 2. Sect. 9.

Queſt. 2. You require where Wotton or Goodwine teach we are juſtified (meritoriouſly, or elſe the charge vaniſheth) by a worke, by a work of obedience to the Law?

Anſw. Mr. W. requireth of you where he chargeth you with it in plain words? his words are they that teach that, faith in a proper ſenſe is counted for righteouſneſſe, doe teach that we are juſtified by a worke of obedience to the Law performed in our owne perſons: and that God on our behalfe requires no other righteouſneſſe for juſtification: which doctrine he ſaith the Apoſtle condemneth, that is enough; this, all account inherent righteouſneſſe, Popery, and worſe then Popery, where all graces elſe are conjoyned with faith.

To omit that, here you imply juſtification by a worke of the Law, confeſſed, ſo it be not meritoriouſly, in which I ſuppoſe you are alone.

Queſt. 3. You demand how Mr. Walker proves that the p. 65righteouſneſſe imputed to Abraham was perfect conformity to the Law.

I ſuppoſe it is evident, becauſe conformity to the Law is in the definition of righteouſneſſe, which if it be not perfect, hath neede of pardon, cannot procure it of the Lord, cannot beare a man ou… in Gods ſight, cannot afford peace with God, or conſcience; can never make a man holy, unblamable, unreprovable in the ſight of God; white as Snow, and whiter then the Snow; perfect him for ever; all which are true of Abraham by the righteouſneſſe which was imputed, and ſo is it of the Church by Gods word.

As righteouſneſſe was imputed to him, Rom. 4. v. 6. 11. ſo it was perfect conformity to Gods Law, which Chriſts righteouſneſſe is, not faith in a proper ſenſe.

Queſt. 4. How doth it follow that God muſt needs erre, lie, or judge unrighteouſly, if he imputeth righteouſneſſe without workes?

To this Mr. Wolker is not bound to anſwer, he affirmed it not. But that your opinion, that God counts faith for righteouſneſſe, that is, thinketh, judgeth, and eſteemeth it to be righteouſneſſe in a proper ſenſe, chargeth God with errour and falſhood in his judgement, and ſo is blaſphemy.

Queſt. 5. How Mr. Walker proves that the imputation of faith for righteouſneſſe maketh the ſatisfaction of Chriſt and his perfect fulfilling of the Law a vaine and needleſſe thing, which Mr. Goodwine conceiveth it eſtabliſheth both the one and the other.

1. I anſwer. This, if not proved, yet leaveth the argument in force to that part, viz. that it denieth the meanes whereby God is revealed to be infinitly juſt, mercifull, and wiſe, which he urged, which hath not ſo much as a queſtion to undermine it.

2. Theſe are done by Chriſt our Surety, his perfect obedience in our nature; in this wiſdome, merciemercy, and juſtice, are revealed, as Mr. Walker and our Church in the Homily. With which, though faith in a Relative ſenſe doth conſiſt, yet in a proper ſenſe, excluding the imputation of the p. 66righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to juſtification, it is oppoſed, your ſelfe putting the one with Arminius ſay, and not the other.

Indeed if faith be that righteouſneſſe or inſtead thereof, that of Chriſt is vaine and void; and if this righteouſneſſe of Chriſt be it, faith in that ſenſe, (as workes are) excluded in this matter, and exclude each other.

This Theſis of thine (ſaith Sybrandus)Faectua Theſis eſt cauſa quate ſtatuam vobis (ſi tamen vobis ipſis conſtare vultis) necaſſario eo tandem deveniendum eſſe, ut cum Serveto Socino, &c. meritum, ſive ſatisfactionem pro nobis factam omnino tollatis, dicatiſque neque Chriſtum nobis juſtitiam peperiſſe, neque nos ipſius juſtitia nobis imputata juſtifica…i. Ad Be…t p. 35. is a reaſon why I may conclude (if yet you will be like our ſelves) you muſt at length come to this, that with Servetus and Socinus, &c. yee altogether take away the merit or ſatiſfaction made for us, and ſay Chriſt neither to have brought forth righteouſneſſe to us, nor us to be juſtified by his righteouſneſſe imputed unto us—For to what end is the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, if it hath not in it force of Juſtifying, and if it juſtifie us not? Which (ſay I) it cannot, if faith in a proper ſenſe be imputed for righteouſneſſe.

Let the Reader obſerve the argument and proofe of Mr. Walker, and this anſwer of queſtion (as the reſt) will appeare not to be ſatisfactory, but a lying under the burthen rather.

Queſt. 6. How Mr. Walker can bring it about that the making of Chriſts ſatisfaction ou…s, as truly as if we had performed the ſame in our owne perſons, ſhould be a meanes whereby God is revealed infinitly juſt, wiſe, and mercifull? Mr. G. conceiveth that inſufficient, becauſe a man having ſinned could not be juſtified by perſonall performance of the Law.

1. That the righteouſneſſe of Chriſts is ſo truly ours for righteouſneſſe as if we had fulfilled the Law, you bogle not at: our Church is cleare; ſo are learned Writers. Indeed by faith he and his righteouſneſſe are truly ours.

2. Your ſuppoſition to be a ſinner and perſonally to performe the Law, is a contradiction, to fulfill it and not; none of Mr. Wrs.

3. When as Mr. Walker putteth Chriſts righteouſneſſe, p. 67his meaning is his perfect obedience to the Law, our full debt Active and Paſſive righteouſneſſe, wherein ſatisfaction for ſinne is infoulded, ſo that the perſon is wholly faire; God ſeene to be juſt, mercifull, and wiſe, this is ſufficient.

Queſt. 7. Whether God did not diſpenſe with his juſtice in paſſing by the ſinner, inflicting puniſhment upon the innocent, and whether he will call the one or the other an act of Juſtice? Mr. G. conceives that Gods juſtice led him directly to the ſinner to exetute vengeance on him, and that it was his mercy that led him aſide from him that deſerved death, to another that had not deſerved it.

1. I anſwer, God was juſt and merciful in our Juſtification by faith in Chriſt, as before is largely ſhewed out of the word of God, and orthodox Writers; neither can either be denied. It is freely by grace to declare his righteouſneſſe. It was an act of juſtice not denying mercy, and an act of mercy not excluding juſtice.

2. Though juſtice leadeth to the offendor, and not to the innocent party, here it cannot be ſo, the caſe is altened, the L. Chriſt cannot be ſaid to be innocent, but as our Surety a ſinner, our ſinnes being on his ſcore. He voluntarily accepted it, and undertooke eternally to give theſe eternall life. So is he propoſed to us ſince the fall by God himſelfe, his taking our nature, doing all righteouſneſſe, and doing for us, proclaime the ſame, that he was a Surety, in this name he muſt fulfill all righteouſneſſe. He muſt die, it was his meat and drinke to doe, and he offered up himſelfe. God ſpared not his Sonne, at his command the ſword ar…ſe and ſmote Chriſt, the man that is Gods fellow, he declared himſelfe righteous.

To exact a debt of a Surety, willingly giving the Creditor the hand, and let the principall not able to pay, to go free, is juſtice: mercy indeed, did ſweetly meete in accepting a Surety, and giving him, and Chriſt accepting the bargaine, and giving himſelfe to be the Surety, whereby that juſtice was ſatisfied.

Queſt. 8. What moved Mr. W. to thinke or ſay that thoſe p. 68that hold imputation of faith for righteouſneſſe ſhould deny communion with Chriſt in his ſatisfaction, when as Mr. G. ſtill affirmeth that that faith is ordained by God to bring men into communion and fellowſhip with Chriſt in his ſatisfaction, and by vertue of ſuch ordination juſtifieth inſtrumentally, or which is the ſame, is imputed for righteouſneſſe.

1. He might well ſo thinke of Maſter Wotton, whoQuoniam non revera & proprie ſed improprie, & per ſimilitudinem quandam unū cum illo corpus efficimus. De reconcil. p. 16. & p. 110. though he acknowledgeth uinon, and that by the Spirit; yet he ſaith we make one body with Chriſt, not indeed, and properly, but improperly, and by a certaine ſimilitude.

When as he ſaith it is not indeed, he denieth union and communion, which is ſo much the more abſurd, when as yet he confeſſeth it cauſed by faith and the Spirit, then union, by which, there cannot be one more reall.

2. You denying the imputation to our Juſtification, deny union and communion ſo farre, nay, both ſeeing they are inſeperable.

3. The fellowſhip you affirme is not to fellowſhip with the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, but the effect thereof or returne, pardon, which is not all.

4. When as you ſay faith juſtifieth inſtrumentally, &c. yet you deny it as an hand laying hold of and receiving Chriſts righteouſneſſe which juſtifieth, that it ſo juſtifieth as the hand that receiveth money maketh rich, which though it be an ordinary expreſſure of the Learned, you ſlighted and rejected in the Pulpit as the Remonſtrants, who give it a nuge.

5. For my part I ſuſpect your calling it an inſtrument there is ſomewhat under it, for if ſo be that faith be acknowledged an inſtrument indeed, it cannot juſtifie in a proper ſenſe, which may be the reaſon that Arminius, &c. deny it, but figuratively.

No man is ignorant but that by a figure called Metonymia, Nemo ignorat inſtrumento per Metonymiam tribui quod eſt inſtrumentati, (as Sybrandus to Bertius.)p. 72. Si dicis penicillum dealbare parietem, omnes per Metonymiam intelligunt hoc dici, Penicillo datur quod eſt materiae, albedinis. ld. p. 77.that is given to the inſtrument which doth belong to that which the inſtrument ſubſerveth: as if you affirme the Pencell to white p. 69the wall, all underſtand this to be ſpoken by a Metonymie, that is given to the Pencell which belongeth to the matter, whiting.

This he ſheweth out of Ʋrſinus. It is commonly ſaid we are juſtified Vulgo dicitur, fide juſtificamur correlative, hoc eſt eo juſtificamur quod eſt correlativum fidei, nempe merito Chriſti, ad quod refertur ſeu quod apprehendit, fides Nam fides & ſatisfactio Chriſti habent ſe correlative ut accipiens & acceptum: recte au…m ſic loquimur, quia tunc fides de cauſa formali Juſtification is intelligitur, & ſenſus, eſt meritum Chriſti juſtificat, non fides Apprehenſum juſtificat, non apprehendens inſtrumentum. Sed juſtificatio etiam ſine relatione recte tribuitur fidei, ut cauſae inſtrumentali: fide juſtificamur, hoc eſt, per fidem ut per medium. Uſitate enim effectus cauſae efficientis tribuitur inſtrumento. At cum dicitur, Fides imputata eſt ei ad juſtitiam, & aliae ejuſmodi propoſitiones, neceſſario tantum correlative ſunt intelligenda, quatenus nimirum fides eſt apprehenſae juſtitiae inſtrumentum & veluti manus, qua juſtitia Chriſti accipitur. Sybr. ib. p. 80.by faith correlatively, that is, we are juſtified by that which is correlative to faith, forſooth by the merit of Chriſt to which it is referred, or which faith doth apprehend: for faith and the ſatisfaction of Chriſt are correlatives, as the receiver and that which is received. But then we ſpeake rightly, becauſe then faith is underſtood of the formall cauſe of Juſtification: and the ſenſe is, the merit of Chriſt doth juſtifie, not faith. That which is apprehended juſtifieth, not the inſtrument apprehending. But juſtification is alſo without relation rightly given to faith, as to an inſtrumentall cauſe. We are juſtified by faith, that is by faith as by a meanes: for uſually the effect of the efficient cauſe, is given to the inſtrument. But when it is ſaid. Faith is imputed to him for righteouſneſſe, and other ſuch propoſitions, they are neceſſarily to be underſtood onelyonly correlatively, ſo faith is the inſtrument of righteouſneſſe apprehended, and as it were the hand by which the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is received. So the learned man Vrſinus. But to the next Queſtion.

Queſt. 9. To your ninth Queſtion. How your opinion denies the infinite juſtice of God, to ſtand in ſtrength or to require ſuch a ſatisfaction as Chriſt, God and man, made? when as they conceive no poſſibility of ſuch imputation, but by vertue of ſuch ſatisfaction, nor can they imagine ſuch a faith to be imputed without ſuppoſing a Mediator, Chriſt God and man, on which it ſhould reſt, who gives it the name and being that it hath. It is true, they deny that the juſtice of God ſimply and abſolutely required ſuch a ſatisfaction as Christ God and man made, but on ſuppoſition that God would bring many ſonnes to glory, p. 70and ſave what was loſt, they deny it not.

Gods juſtice cannot ſtand in ſtrength where men are juſtified by that which is no ſatisfaction to it, faith in a proper ſenſe. And where the ſatisfaction which the Law requires, is not ſo much as imputed to them for their Juſtification.

2. Infinite juſtice requires ſuch a ſatisfaction as Chriſt God and man made, to Juſtification, becauſe in that God declareth himſelfe juſt, as before.

3. Imputation of faith by vertue of the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, is to ſay that Chriſt merited that faith ſhould be imputed (as I conceive) and that Socinianiſme, Oſterodus.

I doe not detract it (Juſtification) Non detraho illam ſanguini & morti Chriſti, ſed tribuo illam morti & ſanguini Chriſti, quatenus ſanguis & mors in nobis efficiunt eas res propter quas Deus nos juſtificat, nempe ſidem. See Sybran. ad Bert. p. 10.from the bloud and death of Chriſt, but I give it to the bloud of Chriſt, ſo farre forth as his bloud and death work in us thoſe things for which God doth juſtifie us, forſooth faith.

4. Though they cannot imagine a faith imputed, not ſuppoſing a Mediator on whom, yet they deny faith in a Relative ſenſe, taking in the Mediator, to be imputed, diſpute againſt it for the proper ſenſe, which ſatisfieth not juſtice, but deſtroyeth it, as before.

5. Gods bringing many ſonnes to glory, and to ſave what ſhould be loſt by Chriſts ſatisfaction of his juſtice was Gods eternall and immutable purpoſe. The glory of juſtice and mercy Gods maine ends required it; as Chriſt did in time, God determined eternally: thus eternall will determined it ſelfe, and to conſider otherwiſe is but the worke of idle braine, there is no reality in the Lord to anſwer it.

Queſt. 10. To the tenth queſtion I anſwer, it appeareth you hold God can and doth by his Soveraigne power and will, things contrary to his juſtice, in your opinion: Seeing you teach God can, doth, and will juſtifie men, without ſatisfaction made by the perfect righteoufeſſe of Chriſt their Surety, accounted to them, putting faith in a proper ſenſe, a created imperfect grace Imputed for righteouſneſſe p. 71which cannot ſatisfie juſtice, which cannot ſtand with or declare the ſame, ſo that either Gods end is not to declare his righteouſneſſe againſt the Apoſtle in juſtification, Rom. 3. 26. or elſe you deſtroy that end, and ſo eſtabliſh ſuch a ſoveraigne power and will.

Queſt. 11. And to the eleventh, to accept for righteouſneſſe that which is not ſo according to Gods Law, is contrary to juſtice, ſeeing it is a juſtification of the wicked, abomination to the Lord; the holding of a guilty perſon innocent, which the Lord will not doe; being the Judge of all the world be cannot doe, doing right.

When as God accepts Chriſts righteouſneſſe for the debt of a beleever, and imputeth it to him, that righteouſneſſe is not the beleevers perſonall righteouſneſſe, that is righteouſneſſe performed in his owne perſon, ſo no fleſh living can be juſtified in Gods ſight; but the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt his Surety, his Head, his by reall union and communion, as if it were perſonall righteouſneſſe: the Sureties payment of a debt for the principall is all one as if the principall did himſelfe make ſatisfaction to the Creditor.

Queſt. 12. Where Chriſts righteouſneſſe is denyed to be the the righteouſneſſe of a true beleever? I anſwer, where you deny Chriſts righteouſneſſe to be imputed for righteouſnes, and to be that whereby we are made juſt before God: for thoſe words formally I finde not Mr. W. to contend about them, neither are men denominated ever from what is internall and ſuch a forme. It may be from that which is outward, as Doctor Davenant largely anſwereth the Pontificians. Neither is it enough that Chriſts righteouſneſſe is a meritorious cauſe of juſtification, it muſt be ſo applyed by faith that the beleever may be thereby made righteous, which is denyed where there is no imputation thereof for righteouſneſſe. The word ſaith he is holy, unreprovable, unblamable in the ſight of God, which cannot be but as by that which hath merit and worth, ſo applied and made mine; all the money in the world will not inrich any man untill it be his, injoyed to that end. But to that which is a common p. 72evaſion to you and Romaniſts in this controverſie, making Chriſt onelyonly the efficient and meritorious cauſe, more after in due place, where I ſhall ſhew Mr. G. ſenſe Apocryphall, Popiſh, con…uted by our learned Proteſtant…, anſwering them.

Queſt. 13. To the thirteenth, the inſufficiency of Chriſts righteouſneſſe and ſatisfaction for all, even Scripture ſufficiency is there denied where Chriſts righteouſneſſe is denied to fit all men and women of all callings and conditions, and counted an unreaſonable thing, as that one garment ſhould fit all ſtatures and proportions of bodies, or the ſame ſhooe all feete of all ſizes.

And why Sir, ſhould not that fit all which is the Sonne of Gods fulfilling all righteouſneſſe? when as by it all are perfectly righteous that beleeve, men, women, of all ſtatures and conditions.

Either it fitteth all, ſo that all ſorts are perfectly righteous by it applied alone, or none, which might have been ſaid plainly; or being ſo, righteous, they are ſo by ſomewhat elſe, and you muſt name that. What for men and women of all ſorts, of all callings and conditions?

I thought there had been neither male nor female, but alone in Chriſt; and that it were vaine elſe for all to put him on in Baptiſme ſacramentally, and by beleeving really, that the precept was vaine (and impoſſible to ſome) that requireth it.

Did we grant faith in a proper ſenſe, that righteouſnes, or imputed for it, that would ſerve all, fit all in your opinion, belike; or elſe it is liable to the ſame exception, the bride is arraied with it, and the Builder and Maker of it both maketh it and judgeth it fit: no matter for ſuch curious ſpeculators elſe.

And when as you grant an abſolute neceſſity of it, and ſufficiencie for a world of ſinners, to juſtification, neither man or woman of this or that ſtature or proportion, not the talleſt or biggeſt have any cauſe to feare, that if he beleeve he ſhall not be fitted. To deny this fitting, is to deny ſufficiency, but this crochet ſavoureth more of the fleſh then of the ſpirit.

p. 73Queſt. 14. To the foureteenth▪ that which Mr. Walker ſaith overthroweth the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, hath this reaſon, that if we ſatisfie Gods juſtice by our Surety Chriſt there is no Pardon, for pardon and ſatisfaction are contraries, Pena & venia ſunt adverſa.ſo Mr. W. So ſome of the ſtamp, Mr. Wr. diſputeth againſt. In this you are as a Socraticall diſputant, wiſely too, as in all that kinde of anſwer to Mr. Walkers reaſons.

Sir, our ſatisfaction by Chriſt to Gods juſtice and Gods mercy will ſtand together in that name, every true Chriſtian man may be called a fulfiller of the Law; what our infirmity lacked, Chriſts juſtice hath ſupplied. So your Mother taught you in her Doctrine of Juſtification, and to ſay that I by my Surety have ſatisfied for my ſelfe, or debt, is no more then to ſay, that in him and by him a beleever hath fulfilled the Law; neither doth it deny, but eſtabliſh, that Chriſt hath ſatisfied the juſtice of God for me.

Queſt. 15. To the fifteenth, It is monſtrous to reaſonBiſh. Dav. p. 315. & p 330. Toſſan. ad Rom p. 38. Luther ad Gal. p. 70. 2. Aret. Rom. 1. 17 & Rom. 3. 21. Mr. Pemble de juſtif p. 4. & p. 16. Mr. Bradſhaw c. 1. Sect. 1. & p. ult. juſtifying Auguſtines ſpeech. Juſtificationis forma eſt juſtitia, Wetten de ree. p. 34. Juſtificationis formam juſtitia conſtare certū eſt, eſtque juſtificatio revera propritis & verus effectus juſtitiae, quoquo modo ea juſtitia imputari five communicari nobis intelligatur. Part. 1. l. 2. c. 2 Sect. 1. 2. Neque pontificiorum ſed noſtrorum Theologorum ſententia eſt. Nam …ine juſtitia juſtum cenſeri perinde eſſet a… ſine doctrina doctum, ſapientia ſapientem cenſeri. Ib. Sect. 4. Id ib. Sect. 4.Rom 1:17Rom 3:21 to deny Legall righteouſneſſe to juſtification, ſeeing Juſtification is a making man juſt.

This denieth where withall both perſonall righteouſneſſe, and the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed. Mr. Wotton teacheth you, righteouſneſſe is the forme of Juſtification; and, it is certaine that the forme of Juſtification conſiſts in righteouſneſſe, and Juſtification is indeed the proper and true effect of righteouſneſſe, in what manner ſoever that righteouſneſſe is underſtood to be communicated or imputed to us; of this he ſaith, neither is this the judgement alone of Pontificians, but of our owne Divines. He nameth thoſe words out of Polanus. For a man to be accounted juſt without juſtice or righteouſneſſe, is all one as for a man to be accounted learned without learning, wiſe without wiſdome.

That Juſtification (and in that name) ſhould conſiſt only in remiſſion of ſinnes, excluding the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed is as unreaſonable, it is without the cauſe by which. You tell us you have handled it at large, but p. 74not where one may meete with it, had it beene put here it ſhould have beene conſidered. The joynt teſtimony of many a worthy Divine is but ſet us a Wooll-gathering.

For Calvine it ſhall be tried. I beleeve you mention him as Mr. Wotton doth the Church of England. He going about to prove Remiſſion of ſinnes to be the formall cauſe of Juſtification, triumpheth in the judgement of the Church of England.

It ſaith, Juſtification is remiſſion of ſinnes; and this Juſtification Juſtifica…io eſt remiſſio pecca… torum.or juſtice is received, accepted, and approved of God for our full and perfect Juſtification. To which he addeth, In which words the whole nature of Juſtification is comprehended, onelyonly in remiſſion of ſinnes, and that it is affirmed the full and perfect Juſtification of God himſelfe accepting it in judgement: L 2. c. 3. Sect. 1.and then addeth, neither is there in the two other parts of that Sermon, a ſillable or letter which ſignifieth any thing to be wanting, or to be repugnant to this opinion. So he.

When he yet cannot be ignorant but our Church urgeth the ſatisfaction of Chriſt his death and obedience to the Law, not excluding his obedience to the Law, but our workes, as before.

Our Homily ſheweth a neceſſary concurrence on Chriſts part of juſtice, that is the ſatisfaction of his juſtice, which the Apoſtle calleth the juſtice of God, and it conſiſteth in paying our ranſome and fulfilling of the Law. So the grace of God doth not ſhut out the juſtice of God in our Juſtification, but the juſtice of ☞man in our works.—And after laying down our inſufficiency, it extolleth Gods mercy without any deſert or deſerving of ours, to prepare for us the moſt pretious Jewels of Chriſts body and bloud, whereby our ranſome might be fully paid, the Law fulfilled, and his juſtice fully ſatisfied, ſo that Chriſt is now the righteouſneſſe of all them that truly beleeve in him, he for them paid the ranſome by his death, he for them fulfilled the Law by his life. So that now in and by him every true Chriſtian man may be called a fulfiller of the Law, for as much as that which their infirmity lacked, Chriſts juſtice hath ſupplied. Theſe are added for the more full underſtanding of what was delivered before, and muſt not be left out. Nay, Chriſt and his p. 75obedience are eſtabliſhed the righteouſneſſe of beleevers, and ſo that by which we are juſt before God, as before out of Mr. Wotton.

But to Calvine, I grant he ſaith, Juſtification conſiſts alone Sola remiſſione peccatorū conſtat, & non alitet fieri juſtos.in remiſſion of ſinnes, and that we are not otherwiſe made juſt. And yet I aſſert, that in the excluſive he did not ſhut out the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe; but onelyonly renovation, inherent righteouſneſſe and good workes. So toNam ſi operibus aeſtimentur ſhew it he inferreth, for if they ſhould be eſteemed by workes, he diſputeth againſt the Popiſh opinion, not againſt imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, and for both, read the 23. Sect. where you ſhall finde his diſpute to be againſtSect. 23. workes, in theſe words.

That vaine conceipt vaniſheth, that Si quidem evaneſcit nugamentum illud, ideo juſtificari hominem fide, quoniam illa ſpiritum dei participat quo juſtus redditu… quod magis eſt contrarium ſuperiori doctrinae quam ut conciliari unquam queat.a man is therefore juſtified by faith, becauſe by that he partaketh the Spirit of God whereby he is made juſt; which is more contrary to the former doctrine, then that it can be reconciled. He excludeth workes not the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. One place more there.

It cannot be doubtfull but he wanteth Neque enim dubium quim ſit inops propriae juſtitiae qui juſtitiam extra ſe quaetere docetur.righteouſneſſe of his owne that is taught to ſeek it out of himſelfe: where Vide, non in nobis ſed in Chriſto eſſe juſtitiam noſtram, nobis tantum …o jure competere quia Chriſtiſumus participes, ſiquidem omnes ejus … cum ipſa poſſidemus.urging the text, 2 Cor. 5. 21. he addeth.

See, our righteouſneſſe is not in us, but in Chriſt, onelyonly belonging to us by that right, becauſe we are partakers of Chriſt, ſeeing with him we poſſeſſe all his riches.

And ſpeaking of Rom 8. 3. ſaith. And it maketh nothing to the contrary, that in another place, he teacheth that ſinne was Ubi non aliud complemen… deſignat quam quod imputatione conſequimar. Eo enim jure communicat nobiſcum Dom Chriſtus ſuam juſtitiam ut mitabili quodam modo quantum pertinet ad Dei judicium vim ejus in nos transfundit. Aliud non ſen…iſſe abund… liquet exaltera ſententia quum paulo poſt poſucrat, Quemadmodum per unius inobedica…i…m conſtituti ſumus peccatores, ita per obedientiam unius juſtificari Quid aliud eſt in Chriſti obedientia collocare noſtram juſtitiam, niſi aſſerere ca ſola not haberi juſtos, quia Chriſti obedientia nobis accepta ſertur ac ſi noſtra eſſet? quare mihi elegantiſſime videtur Ambroſius hujus juſtitiae paradigma in benedictione Jacob ſtatuiſſe, nempe que…ad▪ modum ille primogenituram à ſeipſo non meritus, habitu fratris occultatus, ejuſque veſte indutus, quae optimum odorem ſpirabat, ſeipſum inſimulavit patri ut ſuo commodo ſub aliena perſona benedictionem acciperet: Ita nos ſub Chriſti primogeniti noſtri fratris pretioſa puritate deli…oſcere, ut teſtimonium juſtitiae à conſpectu Dei referamus.—Et ſane ita ſefres habet, nam quo in ſalutem eoram facie Dei compareamus, bono ejus odore fragrare nos neceſſe eſt, & ejus perfectione vitia noſtra obtegi ac ſepeliri.condemned of ſinne in the fleſh of Chriſt, that the righteouſneſſe of the Law might be fulfilled in us. Where he meaneth no other fulfilling, then that which we obtaine by imputation. For p. 76the L. Chriſt doth in ſuch ſort communicate his righteouſnes with us, that after a certaine marvellous manner, be poureth the force thereof into us, ſo much as appertaineth to the judgement of God. It appeareth he did no otherwiſe meane by the other ſentence which he had ſpoken a little before. As by the diſobedience of one man we were made ſinners, ſo by the obedience of one man we are juſtified. What is it elſe to ſet our righteouſneſſe in the obedience of Chriſt, but to affirmthathereby only we are accounted righteous, becauſe the obedience of Chriſt is imputed unto us, as if it were our own. Therfore me thinkes that Ambroſe hath excellently well ſhewed how Sunt tamen qui exiſtiment juſtitiam quae ad juſtificationem flagitatur a Calvino etiam in imputatione juſtitiae Chriſti eſſe poſitam; ex horum numero eſt ipſe Bellar. qui de Calvino ita ſcripſit. Johannes Calvinus admittit quidem cum Lutheranis non eſſe in nobis ullam inhaerentem juſtitiam & imputari Chriſti juſtitiam, & propter eam condonari peccata.there is an example of this rightouſneſſe in the bleſſing of Jacob: for Jacob not having of himſelfe deſerved the preeminence of the firſt begotten ſonne, hid himſelfe in the apparell of his brother, and being cloathed with his brothers coate that ſavoured of a moſt ſweete ſmell, he crept into the favour of his father, and received the bleſſing to his owne commodity under the perſon of another: ſo we doe lie hid under the pretious pureneſſe of Chriſt our elder brother, that we may get a teſtimony of righteouſneſſe in the ſight of God.—And truly ſo it is, for that we may appeare before the face of God unto ſalvation, it is neceſſary for us to ſmell ſweetly with his Odor, and to have our faults covered and buried with his perfection. So Calvin.

Now let theſe parcels be laid together, and no man of conſcience not deſirous to cavill, can deny, but, though he excludeth workes, he doth not the imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

When Mr. Wotton had forced Calvine, yet he confeſſeth; There are yet that thinke that the righteouſneſſe which is required to juſtification, by Calvine to be alſo placed in imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. Of this number is Bellarmine p. 77himſelfe, who wrote thus of Calvine. John Calvine truly admitteth with the Lutherans, that there is not us any inherent righteouſneſſe, and Chriſts righteouſneſſe to be imputed, and for it ſinnes to be forgiven. And after:Nam cum Calvinus inſtit. l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 22. Et in Antidoto ad Concil. Trid. ad ſeſſ. 6. contendit juſtificationem eſſe poſitam in remiſſione peccatorum, non excludit imputationem juſtitiae Chriſti, ſed internam re novationem & ſanctificationem. Bell. de juſtif. l. 2. c. 1. Sect. Johann eundem etiam Calv. reprehendir quod cauſam formalem juſtificationis du plicem faciat, c. 2. Sect. ſed non minori. Who alſo addeth, Calvino reſpondet Pareus. Part 1. l. 2. c. 4. Sect. 6.

Calvine when in his Institutions and Antidote he contendeth juſtification to be placed in remiſſion of ſinnes, doth not exclude the imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, but internall renovation and ſanctification. And he reprehendeth the ſame Calvine, becauſe he maketh a double formall cauſe of juſtification.

And now for Pareus, give me leave to ſhew his judgement of Calvine in this matter. When as Bellarmine urged Calvine, as you doe to the ſame end, Pareus anſwereth.

But that vaine wrangler (Bellarmine)Sed inanis ille vitilitigator ipſum ſe Calumniae arguit, ſupra enim ſatebatur, Calvinum imputationem juſtitiae Chriſti non excludete, hic etiam denuo fatetur Calvinum cum Lutheranis agnoſcere imputationem juſtitiae Chriſti & non imputationem peccatorum. Si igitur Calv. juſtificationem in remiſſione peccatorum conſtituit & imputationem juſtitiae Chriſti non excludit, quid a Luth. diſſentit? argueth himſelfe of Calumny, for above he did confeſſe that Calvine did not exclude the imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. And here again once more he confeſſeth Calvine with the Lutherans to acknowledge the imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, and not imputation of ſinnes. If therefore Calvine did place juſtification in remiſsion of ſinnes, and did not exclude the imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt; what doth he diſſent from the Lutherans?

And then anſwering to that of his Antidote, he ſaith.

But in ſaying this, he doth diſſent Verum hoc dicendo neque à ſe neque a Luthero, Melancthone, vel quoquam alſo evangelicorum diſſentir, particula enim Sola, non excludit imputationem juſtitiae Chriſti, quod faſſus eſt Bellar. ſed excludit reno vationem quam Tridentini in ſua definitione cum remiſſione peccarorum ad juſtificationem requirunt: hoc reſpectu etiam Lutherus in ſola remiſſione, & non imputatione peccatorum juſtificationem collocat; Melancthon quoque, ſic Martir. Caſtig. de juſtif. l. 2. c. 6. p. 444.neither from himſelfe, nor from Luther, Melancthon, or any other Proteſtant: for that particle Alone, doth not exclude the imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, which thing Bellarmine confeſſed, but it excludeth renovation, which thoſe of Trent require in their definition with remiſsion of p. 78ſinnes to juſtification. In this reſpect alſo Luther doth plan juſtification onelyonly in remiſsion and not imputation of ſinnet— Melancthon alſo—ſo Martir; thus Pareus.

Doctor Dounbam may be added. For though many of our L. de juſtif. c. 5. p. 4.Divines as hath beene ſaid have taught, that unto juſtification remiſsion of ſinnes is onelyonly required: yet their aſſertion it to be underſtood as Bellar. himſelfe underſtandeth Calvine, as ſpoken in oppoſition to Papiſts, who ſay that to juſtification concurre, not onelyonly remiſsion of ſinnes, but alſo inward renovation, or ſanctification. To contradict them our Divines have ſaid that we are juſtified by remiſsion onelyonly, or not imputing of ſinne. Wherewith alwayes concurreth imputation of righteouſneſſe, and not by renovation or ſanctification. Their meaning therefore by the excluſive particle OnelyOnly, was not to exclude imputation of righteouſneſſe, which inſeparably accompanieth not imputation of ſinne or Saint Paul proveth, Rom. 4. 6. 8. and Bellar. himſelfe confeſſeth, but infuſion of righteouſneſſe or renovation.

Doctor Davenant anſwering Bell. Quartam recenſet Calvini qui (ut ille ait) formalem cauſam juſtificationis in ſola remiſſione peccatorum ſitam docet. At nemo neſcit Calvinum imputationem obedientiae Chriſti requirere abſque qua nulla remiſſio peccatorum obtinetur. Si igitur quis a Calvine quaeſi viſſet quidnam tandem illud ſit propter quod & per quod impius juſtificatur; reſpondiſſet, propter & per meritum fil…i Dei, haec cauſa eſt remiſſionis, & cauſa acceptationis, haec cauſa tranſlationis alſtatu mortis ad ſtatum vitae; Deus hanc filii ſui obedientiam & juſtitiam reſpiciens ut a nobis fide apprehenſam ab initio recipit nos in ſtatum juſtificatorum. Deus perpetuo intuens hanc eandem juſtitiam nobis donatam & applicatam in reliquo vitae noſtrae curſu habet nos pro juſtificatis. De Iuſti. habit. c. 22. p. 313.The fourth be repeateth is Calvins, who (as he (Bellarmine) ſaith) teacheth the formall cauſe of juſtification to be placed onelyonly in remiſsion of ſins. But no man is ignorant that Calvine requireth imputation of the obedience of Chriſt, without which no remiſsion of ſinnes is obtained. If therefore one had ſought of Calvine what that is, for which, and by which, a wicked man is juſtified: he had anſwered, for and by the merit of the Sonne of God, this is the cauſe of remiſsion, and the cauſe of acceptation, this is the cauſe of tranſlation from the ſtate of death to the ſtate of life. God reſpecting this obedience and righteouſneſſe of his Sonne, a… apprehended of us by ſaith, from the beginning receiveth us into the ſtate of juſtified ones. God alwayes beholding this ſame righteouſneſſe given unto us and applied, in the remaining courſe of our life, accounteth us for juſtified ones.

Chamier to Bellar. Objecting as you doe, firſt anſwereth p. 79out of Bellar. himſelfe, then out of Calvine, Inſtit. l. 3. c. 12.Potuitquic quā magis contra Bell. figmentum dici? l. 21. c. 15. Sect 20. & Sect. 21. Sect. 2. to which he addeth, What can be more manifeſt? and Sect. 3. to which he ſaith, Could any thing more be ſaid againſt that figment of Bellarmine? Againe he proveth the ſame. We are ſure that cannot firſt be (that we be not accounted ſinners) without imputation of the Certi ſumus ne illud quidem (nos peccatores cenſeri) prius conſtare poſſe abſque imputara juſtitia Chriſti; unde Calvini verba, juſtitiae imputatione nos abſolvit.righteouſneſſe of Chriſt; thence the words of Calvine, he doth abſolve us by the imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

And before, We (Proteſtants) doe Imputationem juſtiſtiae Chriſti omnino cenſemus ejuſdem juſtificationis fundum eſſe, qua neglecta prorſus illa nulla ſit, neque in toto neque in parte, quomodo cunque tantum vel cogitatione concipi queat. Ib.altogether conceive the imputation of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt the foundation of the ſame juſtification, which being neglected, that is altogether none at all, neither in whole nor in part, howſoever it may be conceived as much as in thought.

I will adde another witneſſe for Calvine, Polanus. Now Partir. p. 114.if any man will ſay that the found Teachers, Calvine; and others, doe affirme that juſtice or righteouſneſſe is the forgivenes of ſinnes. And againe, that juſtice conſiſteth in remiſsion of ſinnes, we muſt know that it is very certaine they ſpeake metonymically, meaning ſo as that either juſtice in their writings, is Quid enim aliud peccata potuiſſet occultare noſtram preter ejus juſtitiam, &c. Juſtin. ad Diogutum.the ſame that juſtification, becauſe we cannot be juſtified but by juſtice, or elſe that juſtice is ſaid to be the remiſsion of ſinnes, becauſe juſtice is the cauſe of remiſsion or forgiveneſſe of ſinnes; and that Calvine doth ſpeake by Metonymia, is plaine out of other places of his workes, as l. 3. Inſtit. c. 17. Sect. 8.—And ſo in another place he plainely proveth that by, through, and for Chriſts righteouſneſſe we obtaine forgiveneſſe of ſinnes: and c. 3. Sect. 19. having obtained forgiveneſſe of ſinnes by meanes of Chriſts righteouſneſſe comming betweene—and more plainely, c. 14. Sect. 12. and c. 11. Sect. 1. and c. 14. Sect. 13. man being covered with the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt pleaſeth God and obtaineth forgiveneſſe of ſinnes.

So that if Calvine himſelfe, and all theſe worthies are to be credited, nay Bellarmine and Mr. Wotton themſelves, you wrong Calvine, and hence the places you talke of out p. 80of other Divines may receive their anſwer.

Queſt. 16. To the ſixteenth queſtion, where the words are, &c. and that you cannot finde in Rom. 5. 19. Rom. 8. 4. Rom. 10. 4. ſo much as one expreſſe word either of the communication, much leſſe of the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe and ſatisfaction to us, leaſt of all of their being made formally righteous by ſuch imputation.

To this, firſt your ſelfe graunt (you ſay) we are juſtified formally too, by the communication of Chriſts righteouſneſſe to us in a ſenſe, viz. in as much as we obtaine by ſuch communication remiſsion of ſinnes which is our formall juſtification (with you;) ſo that the thing is in a ſenſe, though not in expreſſe words, and you ſee it too.

2. Nay you grant remiſſion an effect of righteouſneſſe communicated by theſe texts; not only pardon, but communication of righteouſneſſe, ſo your words; ſo that here is more then a meritorious cauſe, here is application by faith, which you will not other where acknowledge.

3. Mr. W. denieth not remiſſion of ſinnes an effect, he with Calvine and the learned but now mentioned grant it, but that which all contend is alſo imputation and communication to that end, without which pardon cannot be, as before.

4. And Sir, if remiſſion doth formally juſtifie, it is juſtice, as before out of Mr. Wotton, and ſo conformity to Gods Law, deny one and you deny all.

5. But to thoſe texts what you cannot ſee others have,See Dr. Dav. de bab. Juſt. c. 27. arg. 2. p. 363. & arg. 4. p. 365. and others. Formae conſtituete. and you might, had you received counſell of ſome dead and living ſtill: that is, conſulted with the the learned, the words Rom. 5. 19. that by the obedience of one many ſhall be conſtituted righteous. Here is righteouſneſſe conſtituting righteons, and then formall, for it is the nature of the forme to conſtitute.

I know not what you can except but that the forme is internall, and that what is externall cannot be ſo termed, and hence it is that you ſo often put in (that ſophiſticall term, as ours anſwer the Papiſts in the ſame controverſie) formally: and if that will not ſerve your turne, as was p. 81ſhewed you at Cheſwicke out of Doctor Davenant, indeed, put a man conſtituted by righteouſneſſe, righteous, if it be not by his owne perſonall righteouſnes, it muſt be by anothers, Chriſts. The place that was then read unto you was:

We grant that the forme of Juſtification Juſtificationis formam concedimus illud per quod homo juſtificatus non modo reputatur & denominatur coram Deo, ſed efficitur ſive conſtituitur: quia autem homo dicitur juſtificatus denominatione paſſiva (ut ex ipſa Grammatica no…um eſt) non eſt abſolute neceſſarium, ut haec denominatio aut peratur a forma inhaerente, aut ſupponat …ormam inhaerentem. Hujuſmodi enim denominationes paſſivae, quandoque reſpiciunt formam inhaerentem, ut cum patietem dicimus dealbatum: quandoque non, ut cum dicimus hominem amatum, honotatum, damnatum, abſolutum; haec enim omnia de illo vere dicuntur in quo non reperitur forma inhaerens, quae fundare poſſit hujuſmodi denominationes. Annotavit hoc Gulielmus Pariſienſis, denominationes paſſive ſivae praedicationes fiunt in rebus in quibus non ſunt, in eis, vel ad eas, vel de iis.by which a juſtified perſon is non onelyonly reputed and denominated before God, but made or conſtituted ſo. But becauſe he is ſaid to be juſtified by a paſſive denomination (as it is knowne out of Grammer it ſelfe) It is not abſolutely neceſſary that this denomination be taken either from an inberent forme, or that it ſhould ſuppoſe an inherent forme: for ſuch paſſive denominations ſometimes reſpect in an inherent forme, as when we ſay the wall to be whited: and ſometimes not, as when we ſay a man to be beloved honoured, condemned, abſolved. For all theſe are truly ſpoken of him in whom there is not found an inherent forme which may be ground for ſuch denominations. William of Paris noted this Paſsive denominations or predications are made in things in which they are not, in them, or to them, or of them. Where he citeth Vaſques Ut imbelle & inutile.the Jeſuite rejecting that kind of argument as weake and unprofitable. Saying,

I will not fight againſt this kinde Nolo hoc genus denominationis impugnare communi quodam argumento quo aliqui utuntur, nempe quod haec denominatio juſti videatur eſſe eorum quae poſtulant fo…mam intrinſecam: & mox, poteſt aliquid dici juſtum extrinſeca & aliena juſtitia. Dr. Dav. de hab. juſt. c. 27 Sect. 36.of denomination with a certaine kinde of common argument which ſome uſe, forſooth that this denomination of a juſt man ſeemeth to be of theſe, which require an internall forme. And by and by, A thing may be ſaid to be juſt by that which is externall and anothers righteouſneſſe.

And Chamier. Every one that is juſt is ſo ſaid indeed from Omnis juſtus dicitur quidem a juſtitia, non ab inhaerente neceſſario, damr imputativa juſtitia, datur compatentium ut Ezec. 16. Dies calamitoſus ut de lac. & Eph. 5. propier ea quae fiunt in ipſis, ex Chryſoſt. c. 5. Sect. 28. Sect 29.Ezek 16Eph 5righteouſneſſe, not neceſſarily from what is inherent; there is imputed righteouſneſſe, there is righteouſneſſe of ſuch as are compared p. 82Ezec. 16. an evill day, as of Jacob, and Epheſ. 5. becauſe of thoſe which are done in them, as out of Chryſoſtome.

Queſt. 17. You demand where he findeth it to be any branch of the Pelagian hereſie to deny Adams poſterity to be made formally ſinners with Adams ſinne imputed to them in the letter and formality of it?

Sir, I ſuppoſe you intend not that I muſt finde your terme formally, and in the letter and formality, enough of that but now, and that if I finde it the Pelagian hereſie to deny Adams poſterity to be made ſinners by Adams ſin imputed to them, it will ſatisfie your queſtion. For that ſee Ʋoſſius.

That I might meet with them both, Utriſque ut occurrerem oſtendi quam vere olim ſcripſit Ʋinc. Lirinenſ▪ neminem ante prodigioſum Pelagii diſcipulum Caeleſtium, …eatu praevaticationis Adae, omne genus humanum negaſſe adſtrictum. Voſſ. hiſt. …elay. Epiſt. ad Lectorem.I have ſhewed how truly Vincentius Lirinenſis in times paſt wrote, that there was none before Celeſtius that prodigious Diſciple of Pelagius, that did deny whole mankinde to be bound by the guilt of the ſinne of Adam.

The Pelagians did deny Adams ſinne to be imputed to poſterity.Negabant Pelagiani, Adami peccatum imputari poſteritati. V…ſſ. l 2. Theſ 1. p. 172. Catholicorum contra ſententia ſuit, peccatū primorum Parentum impurari omnibus ac reatu …eneti to…m poſteritarem, idque idcirco, quod peccante Adamo omnes in lumbis ejus ſuimus. Ant…heſ. 1. p. 174. In primis hominibus natura humana peccavit, ac per hoc naturae humanae nulla nocu… peccata niſi ſua. Ib. e… Auguſt. ret…act. l. 1. c. 10.2 Thess 1

The Catholiques opinion on the contrary was; The ſinne of firſt Parents to be imputed to all, and the whole poſterity to be held with the guilt, and that therefore becauſe Adam ſinning, we were all in his loynes.

In the firſt men humane nature ſinned, and by this, no ſins hurt humane nature but its owne.

Queſt. 18. He muſt anſwer who are they that deny Inſants dying before they commit actuall ſinne, are puniſhed by death, becauſe they are guilty of Adams ſinne, or affirmeth that God out of his juſtice deſtroyeth innocent babes.

Mr. Ws. anſwer is, he heard it by many witneſſes of good credit, that heard it from your preaching.

And here you give him to underſtand that it is one thing to have the guilt of Adams ſinne derived upon his poſterity, another to have the act of his ſinne in the letter p. 83and formality of it imputed to his poſterity, ſo that for ſuch imputation they ſhould be deſtroyed; the former you grant, the latter you conceive will never be proved.

Dying babes then are innocent in regard of imputation of Adams act; It is nothing but the guilt that is derived, not the act, It is the guilt, not the act. Whether doe you not in this anſwer deny the imputation of Adams ſinne with the Pelagian? and ſo the orthodox tenet, whichPecca…um, & …catus. Peccatum imputari, & reatu teneri. is the imputa…ion of Adams ſinne? I demand whether ſin and guilt be one and the ſame thing with them? Whether there be not ſinne to be imputed, and to be held with the guilt, another and diſtinct thing: and whether they be not diſtinguiſhed in Divinity?

You denying the imputation of Adams act, as Biſhop did againſt Mr. Perkins, ſhould have told us (as Biſhop Abbot ſaith to that Popiſh Biſhop) how it is true that theSee p. 405. Apoſtle ſaith, That by Adams diſobedience we are made ſinners. For h…w ſhould we be made ſinners by the diſobedience, but for that his diſobedience is imputed to us?

Adam (ſaith the ſame Author) bare the perſon of all mankind, Id. ib.either ſtanding to ſtand for all, or falling to fall for all, being to beget children according to his image—therefore when he ſinned, we all being in his loynes (as Bellarmine ſaith) ſinned in Id. ib.him and by him, and his ſinne by imputation lieth upon us all.

For (ſaith Doctor Whitaker) his Ipſius enim voluntas noſtra fuit, ejuſque igitur tranſgreſſio noſtra eſt, quia ille non ut homo unus conſideratur, ſed ut radix generis humani, in quo omnes incluſi virtute fuimus, utque Auguſtinus ait, omnes eramus unus ille homo. Dr. Whitaker de or. ig. pec. p. 43. De pec. mer. & remiſ. l. 1. c. 10.will was ours, and therefore his tranſgreſſion is ours: becauſe he is not conſidered as one man, but as the roote of mankind, in which we all were virtually included, and as Auguſtine ſaith, we all were that one man.

For neither ſhould we …e held either Neque enim aut reatu illo aut iniquitate inde contracta teneremur, niſi ille actus quo Adamus Dei praeceptum violavir, imputatione nobis adſcriberetur. Id. ib p. 37.with any guilt or iniquity contracted therehence, unleſſe that act by which Adam violated Gods precept, ſhould be, by imputation, aſcribed to us.

Here you ſee, in the doctrine of this great Divine, is the act and guilt, both, and if there were no more but imputation p. 84of that act, here is enough to cleare Gods juſtice in deſtruction of babes.

Queſt. 19. How ſuch as deny the imputation of Chriſts righteouſnes (viz. in the letter and formality of it) to beleevers, doe hereby aſcribe as much juſtification by it to infidels and reprobates as beleevers themſelves: when faith is maintained to be the meanes of bringing men into communion with Chriſt, and to give him part in that great benefit of Redemption purchaſed for the world?

Anſw. You ſeem to me to doe ſo, when as what you give faith notwithſtanding, you deny in the former part communication of Chriſts righteouſneſſe to juſtification, and our being made juſt by it communicated, which ſheweth what you give to be but in word and tongue, for a colour and ſhew. Still▪ faith juſtifieth, not relatively to the object, applying it as an hand, but in a proper ſenſe. Neither doe you make the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, as the meritorious cauſe, ſo that by which, imputed, we are juſt, juſt as the Papiſts, whoſe confutation you ſhall meete with after, by our learned Divines.