The Doctrine of Justification Cleared, Treatise (3 of 4)

The Doctrine of Justification Cleared · Treatise (3 of 4)

p. 84Queſt. 20. and 21. But how can Mr. Walker hold it a mistake to ſay, that juſtification and life are promiſed upon condition of beleeving?

For my part, I ſuppoſe he may ſay ſo in a ſound ſenſe. And to your argument, either they are promiſed abſolutely, or on condition of ſomewhat elſe, or of beleeving, or not promiſed at all.

1. I anſwer, They are promiſed to faith in Chriſt, that is, faith taking in the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

2. It is not made to every faith, not to a meere aſſent to the revelation, not to your faith of a proper ſenſe (though you call it faith in Chriſt) when as it doth not as a hand bring home the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt by which I am juſtified. The faith you ſpeake of infoldeth not the object, but oppoſeth it in this effect juſtification. Faith in a proper ſenſe (ſay you) is imputed, and not the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

Neither doth Mr. Walker hang out a flag of defiance to the orthodox; you doe in your whole buſineſſe. Doctor p. 85Dounham calling faith a condition, taketh it with its object as all the reſt you mention, againſt your ſenſe, whom they oppoſe as they doe the Papiſt.

Harken and learne. Junius ſpeaking of the covenantCujus condi…io extra nos in Chriſto reperitur. p. 16. & 8. Sect 3. of grace, ſaith, whoſe condition is found out of us in Chriſt, and there he ſaith, that by that apprehended by faith we are juſt, &c.

Faith is wont to be conſidered two Fides in Scripturis & apud Patres duobus modis conſiderari ſolet, proprie ſecundum naturam fidei ſimplici…er; altero figurate, id eſt, metaleptice & correlative, qua fides apprehendit objectum ſuum, &c. poſteriori dicitur ſola juſtifica…e. Trelca…. p. 85.wayes, in the Scriptures and amongſt the Fathers, properly according to the nature of faith ſimply, another figuratively, that is, by a metalepſis, and correlatively, as faith apprehendeth the object, &c. in the laſt ſenſe it is ſaid alone to juſtifie.

Our juſtification is not with the Nequidem juſtificatio noſtra eſt cum conditione fidei, qua fides eſt habitus in nobis, ſed qua extra nos Chriſtum apprehendi…. Id. p. 88.condition of faith, as faith is an habit in us, but as out of us it appprehendeth Chriſt.

When as faith is an inſtrument, Cum fides inſtrumentum ſit, non mi…um eſt, ſi quae inſtrumentorum ratio eſt nomen & officium re… cujus inſtrumentum eſt, ei attribuitur. Id. p. 89.it is no wonder if, which is the nature of inſtruments, the name and office of the thing whoſe inſtrument it is, be given unto it.

Chriſt as to be applied, is the condition of the covenant.Qua applicanduseſt conditio ſoederis. Ib. p. 100. Ad Gal. 64. 2▪

Chriſt is the object of faith, ſaith Luther, yea rather in faith Chriſt himſelfe is preſent.

Hence Bucanus. And how is Et quomodo ad juſtitiam imputatur? non abſolute, ſed relative, cum fides non ſola ſed cum objecto ſuo crucifixo intelligitur; quemadmodum manus quae recipit the ſau…um donatum non dita…, ſed the ſau…us. Bu…. ad q. 35.faith imputed to righteouſneſſe? not abſolutely, but relatively, becauſe faith not alone, but with his crucified object is underſtood, as an hand which receiveth a treaſure given, doth not make rich, but the treaſure.

This you account perilous, and preached againſt in my hearing once, you cannot indure it to be ſet forth with its object Chriſt, or it to have the nature of an hand, which yet is an ordinary orthodox expreſſion: and to that of Bucanus Ad Gal. p. 65. 2.for your hearers ſake, I will give you an account of divers. Faith juſtifieth (ſaith Luther) becauſe it apprehendeth p. 86and poſſeſſeth this treaſure, even Chriſt preſent.

Therefore Chriſt apprehended by faith, and dwelling in the heart of the true Chriſtian, is the true Chriſtian righteouſneſſe, for the which God counteth us righteous, and giveth us eternall Ib. p ſeq.life.

Becauſe thou beleeveſt in me, ſaith the Lord, and thy faith Ib.layeth hold upon Chriſt, &c. therefore be thou juſtified and righteous.

Hence we have firſt in what ſenſe Hinc habemus primum quo ſenſu juſtificationem fidei tribuimus, qua…enus videlicet ea Chriſtum amplectitur & applicat. Unde Bez. (in confeſſ▪ Major art 3. c. 4.) vocat unicum illud inſtrumentum quo Jeſum Chriſtum oblatum apprehendimus, & vas unicum ad eum percipiendum compaparatum: & poſt. art. 7 Quum ex Paulo affirmamus nos ſola fide, ſive gratis, ſive fide, ſive ſine operibus juſtificari (ſunt enim haec ſynonyma) non eſt hoc dictum perinde accipiendum ac ſi diceremus, fidem eſſe quandam virtutem quae nos in nobis coram Deo juſtificer; id enim eſſet fidem ſubſtituere in locum Jeſu Chriſti, qui unus eſt noſt…a perſecta & integra juſtitia. Verum ita loquimur, cum Apoſtolo, & fide ſola nos juſtificari dicimus eo quod amplectitur eum qui nos juſtificat, nempe Jeſum Chriſtum, quo cum nos unit & copulat, ut ſimus & ipſius & omnium ejus bonorum participes; quae quidem nobis imputata prorſus ſufficiunt ad hoc ut coram Deo abſolvamur▪ & pro juſtis cenſ…amur. Cham l. 22. c. 2. Sect. 14.we give justification to faith, forſooth ſo farre as it imbraceth Chriſt and applieth him▪ Whence Beza calleth it, that onelyonly instrument by which we apprehend Chriſt offered, the onelyonly veſſell provided to receive him. And after, when as out of Paul we affirm us to be juſtified, only by faith, or by faith, or without workes, (for theſe are of the ſame ſignification) this ſaying is not ſo to be underſtood, as if we ſaid faith to be a certaine vertue which juſtifieth us in our ſelves before God; for that were to ſubſtitute faith in the place of Jeſus Chriſt who alone is our perfect and whole righteouſneſſe. But we ſo ſpeake with the Apoſtle, and we ſay we are juſtified by faith alone, becauſe it doth imbrace him, who doth juſtifie us, that is, Jeſus Chriſt, with whom it doth unite and couple us that we may be partakers both of him and all his goods, which indeed beingimputed to us altogether ſuffice to this that we may be abſolved before God, and be accounted for juſt men.

Where he citeth Bell. alſo, laying downe the ſtate of theQuam gratiam fides credendo recipit: ſicut cum manu pauper eleemoſynam à divi…e recipit, ea manus recipiens eleemoſynam non eſt ipſa eleemoſyna, neque cauſa efficiens eleemoſynae, neque propter ipſam—ſed ſolum relative concurri… ad eleemoſynam obtinendam, quoniam dare & accipere ſunt relata. queſtion, who giveth to Proteſtants.—Which grace faith by beleeving receiveth: as when a poore man receiveth an almes p. 87of a rich man with his hand, that hand receiving the almes, is not the almes it ſelfe, nor the efficient cauſe of the almes, nor for it—but it onelyonly concurreth relatively to obtaine the almes, becauſe to give and receive are relates.Non male, niſi relative concurrere eſſet phraſis apud nos inaudita.

Sect. 16. To which report of Bellarmine Chamier noteth, He doth it not evilly, but that, that phraſe, to concurre relatively, is unheard of amongſt us.

It ought rather to be named relatively, Debuit potius relative nominari, id eſt, quat…nus fides conſideratur cum ſuo objecto, ut cum dicitur Eccleſia ſuper fide Petri fundata apud veteres: nos alias evicimus interpretandum de Chriſto, quem fides Petri conſeſſa erat. Ib.that is, ſo farre forth as faith is conſidered with its object, as when the Church is ſaid to be founded upon the faith of Peter amongſt the Fathers. We have elſewhere evicted the place, to be interpreted of Chriſt whom Peters faith confeſſed.

Junius, But correlatively as they Sed correlative tantum ut loquuntur, quatenus meritum Chriſti apprehendit, tanquam manus mendici eleemoſynam. De juſtiſ Sect. 16.ſpeake, as it apprehendeth the merit of Chriſt as the hand of a begger doth the almes.

To conclude, that we may expound Denique ut metonymiam hanc quam evidentiſſimo poſſimus ſimili exponamus; fides eſt tanquam manus, aut tanquam loculus apprehendens theſaurum gratiae quam Deus nobis exhibet in Chriſto Jeſu Comment, ad Heb. c. 11.Heb 11this metonymy by as evident a ſimilitude as we may; faith is as it were the hand, or as the purſe apprehending the treaſure of grace, which God giveth to us in Jeſus Chriſt.

Peter Martir, And alſo faith it ſelfe, Quin etiam fides ipſa, ſi qua noſtrum opus eſt conſideretur, ea juſtificari non poſſumus cum opus ſit & man…um & imperſectum, longe deterius quam requirit; ſed illa juſtificari dicimur qua promiſſiones Dei, & Chriſti juſtiriam meritaque per ipſam apprehendimus & applicamus. L. de juſtif. Sect. 8.if it be conſidered as it is our worke, we cannot be juſtified by it, ſeeing it is a worke both lame and imperfect, farre worſe then he requireth. But we ſay we are juſtified by it as we apprehend and apply the promiſes of God and Chriſts righteouſnes & merits.Reſpondemus (ſaith the ſame Martir) id quod ſaepius alias diximus, fidem quatenus opus eſt non juſtificare; id enim habet non ex vi aliqua ſua ſed ex objecto, ex morte enim Chriſti promiſſionibus Dei juſtitia in nos derivatur: ita mendicus recipit eleemoſynam manu le proſa vel cruenta non tamen qua manum habet ita iufirmam & leproſam—fidem ad hunc uſum factam eſſe & inſtitutam à Deo. Ib. Sect. 62. & 71.

We anſwer, that which we have often elſewhere ſaid, faith as it is a worke doth not juſtifie; for it hath that not from any ſtrengh of its owne, but from its object. For, from the death of p. 88Chriſt, the promiſes of God, righteouſneſſe is derived to us. So the begger receiveth an almes with a leprous hand, or that which is bloudy, yet not as he hath an hand ſo infirme and leprous.—Faith was made and inſtituted of God to this uſe.

This Sir is the Proteſtant tenet, as faith taketh in theSee Gerhard. de juſtif. Sect. 181. p. 658. Conditio praeſtita, inſtrumentum. object it is a condition, and ſo it juſtifieth; rejecting this, you deſert them, and joyn with the Papiſts, and Arminians, who calling faith a condition performed, an inſtrument: they allow it an inſtrument in a proper ſenſe as you. Yet adde not as if faith performed were made Non quaſi fides praeſtita proprie inſtrumentum fiat, ſeu inſtrumentalis actio, qua ſicutananu apprehendimus aut attr…himus remiſſionem nugae, &c. Remonſt. ex Cenſ. c. 10. p. 112.an inſtrument properly, or as an inſtrumentall action, by which as with an hand we apprehend and draw to us remiſſion: thoſe are toyes.

Neither is there feare of his agreement with Jewes, Pagans, Def. Mr Wotton p. 34. Eſt haec una ex maximis quibus—Eccleſia Chriſtia Judaeis, Turcis, Paganis, ſeparantur. de juſtif. l. 2 c. 1. p 364.and Mahometans, concurring with him in this that faith in Chriſt (as hath beene ſaid) is the condition of juſtification.

And if you beleeve Pareus, who of this queſtion we diſpute ſaith. This is one of the greateſt in which—the Churches of Chriſt are ſeparated from Iewes, Turkes, and Pagans. Where having laid downe the difference he addeth.

Truly the Proteſtant Church dareth Evangelica vero Eccleſia talem formalem cauſam juſtificationis non magis audet opponere judicio Dei. (He ſpeaketh of faith not applying Chriſt for in a relative ſenſe) quam ſtupam igni. Sed credit ſe juſtificari fide, gratis imputata juſtitia propter Chriſti meritum. no more to oppoſe ſuch a formall cauſe of juſtification to the judgement of God, then ſtubble to the fire: but it beleeveth ſhe is juſtified freely by imputed righteouſneſſe, for the merits of Chriſt.

Thus have I anſwered your queries which were no anſwer but tergiverſation, and an argument that they were too hot for you in a direct way to meddle with.

My next taske is to examine your arguments, Mr. Wrs. anſwer, &c. And here paſſing the entrance in which there is much very unſavoury, with collaterall impertinencies, which your ſelfe rightly conceive, are but the crude and indigeſted ebullitions of unnaturall heate and paſsion; indeed vaine-glorious babling, deſerving rather pity, then examination, Mr. G. arguments.or as much as reading.

And come to the arguments.

p. 89The ſumme of your firſt argument as you give it, is. Imputation of faith is in a proper ſenſe, becauſe the phraſe is ſo often uſed in this chapter without alteration or exchange: whereas the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe hath not the leaſt reliefe either from ſound of words or ſight of letter in the Scriptures.

Mr. W. anſwereth, Tropicall ſpeeches may be often repeated, and are in Scripture, as Jer. 26. v. 3. 13. 19. & Gal. 3. Where faith is uſed ten times in an improper ſenſe. Therefore often repeating doth not prove a proper acceptation. What ſay you to this? Forſooth, the concluſion indefinitly taken and in the generall is unqueſtionably true. What then is become of your argument? and what will helpe you?

You anſwer, Auguſtines rule approved by Divines. That Mr. G.a literall and proper ſenſe in Scripture is ſtill to be preferred where there is no neceſſity of rejecting it; or ſubſtituting an improper ſenſe inſtead of it. You ſay, in the places inſtanced in, there is need of a trope, but not ſo here, neither reaſon nor religion contradicting it.

But Sir you cannot be ignorant but this interpretation of yours is againſt reaſon and Religion too in the judgement of all Proteſtant Divines (except heretofore excepted) improved by many arguments in Sybrandus againſt Bertius, through all the Epiſtles, who calleth it a blaſphemous hereſie; and witneſſe as many as are for the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, and the relative ſenſe: and that faith doth juſtifie as an inſtrument taking in the object: to them you muſt firſt anſwer.

Beſides, is there not mention of imputation of righteouſneſſe as well as imputation of faith? verſ. 6. & 11. It cannot be faith in a proper ſenſe, that is but inherent and imperfect righteouſneſſe. It may be then the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

If Mr.Walker ſaith ſo, he is not alone, as before.

Yea, there is ground, ſeeing by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt in the word, we are ſaid to be conſtituted righteous, Rom. 5. 19. and where he is ſaid to be made unto us of God righteouſnes, and we the righteouſneſſe of God in him. For which we have the ſtreame of Proteſtants againſt Papiſts, Arminians and Socinians, as before.

p. 90Is there not ground when as hereby God is declared juſt in juſtification? which juſtice faith in a proper ſenſe, deſtroyeth, as Mr. Forbs, and before, ſeeing faith in it ſelfe is to divine judgement but as ſtubble to fire; needeth a covering, and muſt be juſtified as well as the perſon and other workes. Here is the Advocate with the Father, Jeſus Chriſt the juſt, the juſt for the unjuſt. What doe you but not ſubmit to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, that which is by faith, and eſtabliſh a worke, your owne worke, ſo is faith?

We cleare that place againſt Papiſts, as before, ſo dothBellar de juſtif l. 2. c. 9. ipſam fidem reputari, to whom Doctor Dav Sed ſrivola eſt haec objectio; nam nihil uſitatius quam cauſae applicanti illud tribuere quod proprie & immediate pertiner ad rem applicatā: quia igitur fides applicat & apprehendit nobis Chriſti juſtitiam, id fidei ipſi tribuitur, quod reapſe Chriſto debetur. p. 371. Pareus format argumentum. Cui fides imputatur ad juſtitiam is juſtificatur, non &c. Sed juſtitia grat is imputata Abrahae & cuivis credenti imputatur ſides. Ergo, p. 484. &c. 1. Licet fides quae imputatur ad juſtitiam non ſit juſtitia Chriſti abſolute; eſt tamen relate, quia juſtitiam quam in Chriſto quaerit, ſeu quia juſtitiam Chriſti ſibi applicat, de qua Apoſtolus, Rom. 5. 18. Fide juſtificamur, aur proprie qua qualitas, aut Metonymice qua, &c. non proprie, ergo Metonymice, Pareus Caſtig. in Luc.Rom 5:18 Calvine, as in Bellarmine. We anſwer thus to the Papiſt.

This is one of Arminius his arguments, who as he isAd artic. quart. p. 297. for the propriety of the words, mentioneth the repetition of the phraſe againſt the figurative ſenſe.

And thus have I before I was aware anſwered what Mr. Walker called your ſecond argument alſo, to what you mention done elſewhere, there alſo is the anſwer; for my part I know no other righteouſneſſe then that of the Law or Chriſt: and if it be righteouſneſſe, and not of the Law, I meane our inherent righteouſneſſe, it muſt be Chriſts who was the end of the Law for righteouſneſſe to ſuch as beleeve.

That for which, or the ſcope of the Law, the fulfilling of Finis perficiens, the end perſecting, as Toſſ. out of Auguſt. foreign propter quod, vel ſcopum Legis, foreign complementum. Lex ergo hunc habet finem ut facientes Legem & rectè viventes juſtificarentur; illum finem ſolus aſſequutus eſt Chriſtus, & nos aſſequimur dum fide cum apprehendimus. Ita in Chriſto exhibetur & praeſtatur vera juſtitia quam Lex requitit, modo in eum credamus, ut air Apoſtolus, Omni credenti: offertur enim quidem juſtitia omnibus, donatur autem & imputatur ſolis credentibus. Dr. Toſſ. ad. 10. c. Rom.it. The Law therefore hath this end, that thoſe that doe the Law and live rightly ſhould be juſtified. That end Chriſt alone attained, p. 91aud we attaine it when as we apprehend him by faith. So in Chriſt there is given and performed true righteouſneſſe which the Nihil imperſectum aut mancum poteſt dici juſtitia Dei juſtificans. Id. ib. 173.Law required, ſo we beleeve in him, as the Apoſtle ſaith, To every one that beleeveth: for truly righteouſneſſe is offered to all, but given and imputed onelyonly to beleevers. Where alſo he ſaith, nothing imperfect or lame can be called the righteouſneſſe of God juſtifying.

But theſe things diligently conſidered Haec autem diligenter conſiderata manifeſte dicunt, quid vocabulo juſtitiae Dei intelligatur, perfecta nimirum illa & ſumma integritas humanae naturae, qua quiſque donatus eſt (donatur autem credentibus in eum, qui hac integritate ſecondum carnem abſoluriſſime praeditus eſt noſtri cauſa poſtea declarabitur) ſiſtitur coram Deo foreign, ut loquitur Paulus Col 1. 22. id eſt ſanctus, inculpatus & qui nullius criminis poſſit poſtulari. Ea igitur à Paulo dicitur juſtitia Dei, non modo quia gratuitum eſt Dei donum, aut quia hanc largiendo, Deus ſe vere juſtum (id eſt, fidelem ac varacem) praeſtat, ſed etiam ut opponatur juſtitiae hominum ſive ex operibus, qua …eſtatur David neminem juſtificari.Col 1:22manifeſtly ſhew what is underſtood by the word the juſtice of God. Forſooth that perfect and moſt high integrity of the humane nature, with which every one is indowed (but it is given to them that beleeve in him, who is abſolutely indowed with this integrity according to the fleſh for our ſakes, as it ſhall be afterwards declared.) He is preſented before God as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh, holy, unblamable, and unreprovable. That therefore is ſaid to be the juſtice of God, not onelyonly becauſe it is the free gift of God, or becauſe God in giving his ſheweth himſelfe truly juſt (that is faithfull and true) but alſo that it may be oppoſed to the righteouſneſſe of men, or of workes, by which David teſtifieth no man can be juſtified.

Sect. 17. But to the ſecond Argument (paſſing bitter and vaine words not a few) which ſaith, the ſcope of the Apoſtle Mr. G. p. 66.is to put men by the falſe way of juſtification which lies through workes, and to diſcover the true way, that is to make knowne what they muſt doe, what he requires of them to juſtification, and will accept of them inſtead of the workes of the Law; and that is it which he here ſaith is imputed for righteouſneſſe. Now faith in the proper and formall ſignification is that which they muſt doe, &c. and therefore is faith in a proper ſenſe to be accounted for righteouſneſſe.

Againſt this one exception is, that you contradict your Mr. W.ſelfe, for the doing you urge is but the way of workes, ſo that it is not, and yet is the way, it is the true and falſe way, both.

p. 92To this you anſwer, that Chriſt calleth faith a worke, JohnP. 67. 6. 29. this is the worke of God, that yee beleeve in him whom he hath ſent.

To this I anſwer, the words are acknowledged, and that beleeving is a work, receiving and applying is a work, and what is required there; ſo elſewhere explained, John 1. 12. but deny faith to be Gods way, as a worke in a proper ſenſe, oppoſed to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt its object as accepted of God for righteouſneſſe inſtead of the works of the Law. I doe not, nor can thinke that the meaning of Chriſt, Gods judgement is according to truth, it were not ſo if he ſhould account that ſo which is not, or accept of ſuch an imperfect worke for the righteouſneſſe of the Law, of which before.

Then a man ſhould be juſtified by a worke, which is denied by many other plaine Scriptures, your ſelfe acknowledging it a falſe way, and the word, not of workes of righteouſneſſe which we have done, Tit. 3. 5. of which place Sybrandus anſwering Bertius your Arminian Prince objecting the ſame text ſaith, that ſpeech of the Apoſtle (not of workes Firmiſſima eſt enim illa Apoſtoli oratio.of righteouſneſſe which we have done) is moſt firme: your interpretation then muſt be falſe, who alſo there cite Calvinus (of Papiſts:) the words at full are theſe.

At the laſt when they are weary Cavillanrur in eo quod ſides alicubi opus vocatur, at que inde nos perperam opetibus fidem opponere. Quaſi vero ſides quatenus obedientia eſt Divinae voluntatis, ſuo merito nobis juſtitiam concilier, ac non potius quod miſericordiam Dei amplectendo Chriſti juſtitiam ab eo nobis oblatam in evangelii praedicatione cordibus noſtris obſigner. L. 3. Inſt. c. 18. Sect. 10.of wreſting the Scripture they fall to ſubtilties and ſophiſticall arguments. They cavill upon this, that faith is in ſome places called a worke, that we doe wrongfully ſet faith as contrary to workes. As though forſooth faith in that it is an obeying of the will of God, doth with her owne deſerving procure unto us righteouſneſſe, and not rather becauſe by imbracing the mercy of God, it ſealeth to our hearts the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt offered to us by him in the preaching of the Goſpel.

And here though you hold it not meritorious, yet a worke, and oppoſe it to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt offered in the Goſpel.

p. 93The Lord there calleth for faith in the object himſelfe, who is the end of the Law for righteouſneſſe, as but now: Which the Law not being able to fit us with, we have from Chriſt. Faith in the relative ſenſe, as Sybr. there both out of Melancthon and Calvine. Hearken to the Homily. So that as John The Baptiſt although he were never ſo vertuous and godly a man, yet in this matter of forgiveneſſe of ſinne, he 2. Part. ſerm. Salv. p. 18. fine.did put the people from him, and appointed them unto Chriſt, ſaying thus unto them, Behold yonder is the Lambe of God which taketh away the ſins of the world: even ſo us great and as godly a vertue as the lively faith is, yet it putteth us from it ſelfe and remitteth or appointeth us unto Chriſt, for to have onelyonly by him remiſſion of our ſins or juſtification. So that our faith in Chriſt ſaith unto us as it were thus. It is not I that take away your ſins, but it is Chriſt onelyonly, and to him onelyonly I ſend you for that purpoſe.

Faith thus conſidered, though but as a leaprous and weake hand, may doe the ſame, ſo that ſtill you are intangled by your proper ſenſe of faith.

Neither can you eſcape to ſay, by workes excluded is meant P. 68.the merit of workes, or what is done with an opinion of deſerving juſtification.

As if the Apoſtle onelyonly diſputed againſt their merit or opinion of deſerving, we know they deſerve not, and muſt have pardon themſelves. The diſpute is againſt them ſimply as cauſes, to keepe this crowne on the head of Chriſt alone, which that leaprous hand faith and act of receiving doth, without oppoſition to Gods free grace or Chriſts righteouſneſſe; thus faith eſtabliſheth grace and the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to Gods juſtice, Rom. 3. 24, 25, &c. and the Law to boote, verſ. ult.

That phraſe of faith in a proper ſenſe, as a worke accepted of God for, and inſtead of the works of the Law, is down right the Arminian tenet, & deſtroyeth as I conceive, the righteouſnes of Chriſt, making his doings and ſufferings void and vaine; For to what end, if the condition be faith in a proper ſenſe, and that inſtead of the righteouſneſſe of the Law? It is to no uſe, unleſſe it be ſaid to be a meritorious cauſe of faith being ſuch a condition, and ſuch acceptation, as Oſterodus before.

p. 94Once it deſtroyeth the juſtice of God with which it will never ſtand to accept what is weake and imperfect, ſin full in that reſpect, for perfect obedience due unto the Law.

Before I goe on, thoſe words are conſiderable. Surely P. 68.to ſerve, worſhip, and beleeve in Jeſus Chriſt as Mediatour, are Mr. Goodw.juſt and lawfull, yet no workes of the morall Law, nor was Adam in his innocency bound unto them?

To paſſe that of Adams obligation, which was obedience to what ever the Lord did or ſhould propoſe unto him, and that though it be not in the Law originally it2. Treat. p. 47. 48. may be in the Law as if ſtands, with additions and improvements, as you diſtinguiſh.

Give me leave as unſatisfied to propoſe ſome queſtions to you now and to intreat your anſwer. I freely acknowledge you a learned man, anſwer ſatisfactorily, & eris mihi magnus Apollo.

1. Whether the ſecond Perſon in Trinity, Jeſus Chriſt, Gods ſon, were not from eternity, ſet and choſen Mediatour, God giving us to him for life eternall, be accepting of the ſame?

2. Whether ſince the fall that eternall purpoſe be not revealed, and Chriſt to be him in whom alone is, and ever was eternall life for his Church, men and Angels?

3. Whether as Mediatour he be not to be worſhipped? and whether it be not Gods Commandement through the word in all times, as he was made knowne in the ſame under the notion of an Angel, Gods Sonne, &c. by obedience, faith, hope, love, feare, joy, ſubjection, prayer, and praiſe; and now with the obſervation of the Lords day, our Chriſtian Sabbath to his his honor, and righteouſnes, Rom. 14. 18. his ſervice: and whether theſe be, or which are, or which not morall?

4. Whether worſhip and ſervice to God in Jeſus Chriſt be required in the morall Law, ſuch faith, hope, love, feare, joy, obedience, prayer, prayſe, or not? and what are the differences; and if, why worſhip of Chriſt ſhall be excluded? Whether worſhip of God out of Chriſt be required, or abrogated?

5. Whether if it be not in the morall Law, it falleth p. 95under the Judiciall Law, or Ceremoniall Law, or be a Counſell, or is the Goſpel a Law?

6. If to ſerve and worſhip Chriſt be juſt, &c. How can it not fall under the rule of juſtice, which I take to be the morall Law?

7. If not, how is that a perfect and exact rule of works and worſhip, as Mr. Bradſh. p. 43. the ſumme of what is to be done?

8. Whether Chriſt and his Apoſtles ever commanded other worſhip. I, or the Prophets then Moſes?

9. Whether the firſt Commandement doth not require worſhip according to the will of God?

10. Whether thoſe words, I am the Lord thy God, prefixed to the Commandements, be not the tenour of Gods covenant in Chriſt, to which there muſt be a ſutable anſwer?

11. Whether any Commandement in the decalogue hath more requiſites of a morall Law, then faith and worſhip of Chriſt as Mediatour?

12. Whether faith being a cauſe, a roote, a mother of all good, an eſpeciall requiſite to make them good, be not required in the ſame Lawes where thoſeworkes are

13. Whether faith in the worſhip of Chriſt the Mediatour, be not that ſame worſhip and honour that is given to God the Father and the bleſſed Spirit? So that both or neither are morall? And how elſe is it that the conſtant practice of the Churches is in prayer to beginne in the name of Chriſt, and to end, to whom with thee Spirit be glory?

I finde it written that all ſhould honour the Sonne even as they honour the Father, and that he that honoureth not the Sonne, honoureth not the Father that ſent him, John 5. 23. And, Yet beleeve in God, beleeve in me alſo, John 14. 1. And that, Jeſus cried and ſaid, He that beleeveth on me, beleeveth not on me, but on him that ſent me, John 12. 44. I finde that in righteouſneſſe, the grace and workes of righteouſneſſe, Chriſt is ſerved, Rom. 14. 18, 18. I finde that as grace is from God the Father and our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, 1 Cor. 1. 3. ſo that the p. 96glory of it appertaineth to both.

I finde thoſe praiſed Divines of Leyden, doubting leſt the Remonſtrants (naming the title of their eleventh Chap. of faith in Jeſus Chriſt) would have faith in Chriſt another from faith in God the Father, and in the Holy Ghoſt; to which they ſpeake thus.

For we who have knowne but one Nos enim qui unam fidem no vimus ex Apoſt. Eph. 4. v. 5. unum etiam terminum ſolum Deum agnoſcimus; & in Chriſtum credimus quia Deus eſt, eandem omnino ob cauſam qua in Patrem: ita ut Chriſtus quatenus in eum credimus, ſit cum Patre proptium ac primarium fidei ſalvificae objectum. Etſi enim in Symbolo profiteamur diſtincte nos credere in Patrem, Filium & Spiritum Sanctum, non tamen habemus tres illas diſtinctas perſonas pro tribus differentibus ſalvificae fidei objectis; fatemur tamen fidem deberi Chriſto ut Prophetae, Sacerdoti & Regi noſtro unico, non aliam tamen officii & aliam ratione perſonae, ſed unam & eandem, qua qui recipit Chriſtum, recipit eum qui miſit eum, Matth. 10. 40. Ideo dicit Petrus nos per Chriſtum credere Deo qui excitavit eum à mortuis, & gloriam ei dedit ut fides & ſpes noſtra in Deo eſſet, 1 Pet. 1. 21. quo loco oſtendit objectum ultimum ſeu terminum fidei noſtrae Deum eſſe, á quo Chriſtus diſtinguitur non naturae ſed officii ratione, qua per Filium poſtremis temporibus nobiſcum loquutus eſt Deus, Heb. 1. 1.—Ubi nullum eſt diſcrimen fidei, ſed una fides, quae primum ad Chriſtum foreign directa, propter Chriſtum optima quaeque de Patre ſibi pollicetur, in quem alioquin extra Chriſtum credere ad ſalutem non poſſemus, ideo author & conſummator fidei noſtrae dicitur ab Apoſt. Heb. 12. 1. Eſt ergo una fides qua Patrem & Chriſtum com plectimur, quam etiam idem Apoſtolus ad Heb. 6. 1. appellat fidem in Deum.Eph 4:5Matt 10:401 Pet 1:21Heb 1:1Heb 12:1Heb 6:1faith out of the Apoſtle, Eph. 4. 5. doe alſo acknowledge God onelyonly the one terme of our faith: and we beleeve in Chriſt becauſe he is God, for the ſame cauſe altogether as in the Father; ſo that Chriſt as we beleeve in him, is with the Father the proper and primary object of faith that ſaveth. For though in the Creed we profeſſe diſtinctly we beleeve in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, yet we have not thoſe three diſtinct perſons for three different or divers objects of ſaving faith. Notwithſtanding we confeſſe faith to be due to Chriſt, as to our onelyonly Prophet, Prieſt, and King, not one becauſe of his office, and another by reaſon of his perſon, but one and the ſame, by which he that receiveth Chriſt, receiveth him that ſent him, Matth. 10. 40. Therefore Peter teacheth us by Chriſt to beleeve in God, who raiſed him from the dead, and gave him glory, that our faith and hope might be in God, 1 Pet. 1. 21. In which place he ſheweth the laſt object or terme of our faith to be God, from whom Chriſt is diſtinguiſhed, not in nature, but by reaſon of his office, as God in the laſt times ſpake to us by his Sonne, Heb. 1. 1.—Where there is no difference of faith, but one faith, which firſt directed to Chriſt God-man promiſeth to it ſelfe all beſt things p. 97of the Father for Chriſts ſake, in whom otherwiſe out of Chriſt we ſhould not beleeve to ſalvation; therefore is he called the Authour and finiſher of our faith by the Apoſtle, Heb. 12. 1. Therefore there is one faith by which we imbrace the Father and Chriſt, Parem eſſe fidem in Deum & in Chriſtum. Cenſura. In cap. 1…. p. 154. 155. P. 68.which the ſame Apoſtle, Heb. 6. 1. calleth faith in God.

Where alſo they ſay, and prove by places brought to that purpoſe, that the Socinians deny faith in God and Chriſt to be the ſame.

That alſo muſt be conſidered, where you ſay by workes, (the falſe way) is not meant whatſoever may in any reſpect be ſaid to be done by a man himſelfe, if any thing ſhould be upon any conſideration required of him in reference to his juſtification.

To which I ſay, it is true in the Proteſtant ſenſe, taking faith in a Relative ſenſe; I, and of all graces elſe as Companions, and preſent with the faith that juſtifieth, for it is not alone when it juſtifieth, though it alone juſtifieth, (as the Learned acknowledge) but then, that any thing but faith as an inſtrument receiving, ſhould have efficience, that there ſhould be ſomewhat, any thing, faith it ſelfe, accepted of God inſtead of the workes of the Law, to juſtification, I am afraid to acknowledge. Truely Sir there is more in this firſt heape then I was aware of at firſt ſight, and I think you muſt to worke againe.

Another thing Mr. Walker excepteth againſt, is that you ſay. God doth not require of us the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to Juſtification, this be required of Chriſt himſelfe. To which you ſay, that before Mr. W. ſheweth the groſſeneſſe of this errour, himſelfe drops two groſſe errours indeed.

What is the firſt? That (ſay you) God requireth nothing of us to Juſtification, when as it is notoriouſly knowne that he threatens damnation except we beleeve; and to credit his ſaying, he cites, Rom. 3. 24. whereas the verſe following quite overthrowes it, wherein the condition of faith is expreſſely mentioned.

I anſwer, here is no errour if you will underſtand Mr. Walker, his meaning is, he required no workes or doing of ours for it, it being done freely by grace in Chriſt, which grace will not ſtand with our workes.

p. 98Neither doth he deny faith required as a condition in a ſenſe, Relatively, or as the hand and inſtrument receiving Chriſts righteouſneſſe to juſtification. He denieth it as our worke, for, or inſtead of the righteouſneſſe of the Law to juſtification.

When you ſay, God threatneth damnation, except we beleeve, is it not a ſinne? a tranſgreſſion of the Law? Is it not the Law's to miniſter death? It ſeemeth this faith is therefore required in the Law. You goe on.

He (ſay you) drops a ſecond errour more groſſe then the former, ſaying, that faith is a qualification to us for the receiving, applying, and injoying Chriſts righteouſneſſe, that is, faith is a qualification to us for beleeving; for what is the receiving, applying, and injoying the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, but beleeving as before obſerved?

1. Here you ſee Mr. W. excludes not faith beleeving as a qualification, which was your late charge, your ſelfe diſcharge him.

2. To ſay that a man may receive, that is, apply and injoy the righteouſneſſe, which receiving is beleeving, he muſt be qualified, is no more then to ſay, he muſt have a power that he may doe; be habitually diſpoſed, that he may act, which is ſo farre from being an errour, that it is impoſſible that a man ſhould beleeve, receive, or apply in this kind without faith.

And with your leave Sir, faith in a proper ſenſe qualifieth not, but as inſtrumentall, as an hand it receiveth and injoyeth, it bringeth home treaſure which inricheth; the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt which juſtifieth. It is ſo far from oppoſition to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt in juſtification, which is your tenet.

Finally, here is more granted to faith by you, then an aſſent, or work of the underſtanding, which is of ſome uſe.

But let us returne to what Mr. Walker taxed, that is, You ſaid, God required not of us the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt for juſtification; this (you ſay) Mr. Walker cals a groſſe errour, and inſtead of proofe, complaineth of it as an harſh, unſavory, p. 99and abſurd phraſe: and that to juſtifie his complaint, he ſaith God requires not the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, but of Chriſt himſelfe, implying he had need.

1. I anſwer, Mr. Walker in all chargeth you here but with one groſſe errour, and if that be made good it is enough.

2. It is true, he calleth Gods requiring of us the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt for juſtification, abſurd, &c. which he ſheweth, and you touch not: ſee the place.

3. I ſuppoſe what you inferre as his proofe thereof is not ſo, nor to that end intended, but a plaine paſſing to it (as he conceived) a groſſe errour, and ſo your jeſts p. 70. faile, are but irrelativeneſſe and impertinencies.

Before I come to the maine thing (not having your writing, I muſt ſpeake to it as it is related) What if one ſhould contradict your poſition, and ſay, God requires of us the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to juſtification? you ſay he requires faith, and faith in Chriſt, a beleeving, which is receiving, applying, and injoying. Why may I not put in the object received, applied, and injoyed, the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to juſtifie me? Is it not a receiving him, an applying him, and injoying him, to juſtification and ſalvation? I hope it is with his righteouſneſſe. He that threatneth damnation for not receiving, applying, and injoying Chriſt, requires of me receiving Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe alſo to juſtification, as he requireth that I be juſt, and revealeth him our righteouſneſſe, he requireth applying and receiving him, putting him on for juſtification; that, or perfectly to performe the Law, which being impoſſible it is that; and the Scripture ſaith that by the obedience of one I am conſtituted righteous, Rom. 5. 19.

But to the buſineſſe, God required not of us the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt for juſtification. This he required of Chriſt himſelfe: ſo you. This laſt he calleth an errour indeed, There he putteth an Accent. This ſaith Mr. Wr. implieth Chriſt had need of juſtification, and was bound to fulfill the Law for himſelfe, and ſavoureth of Socinian and Samoſatenian hereſie, which denies Chriſts Godhead; for if Chriſts humane nature being p. 100from the firſt conception moſt pure, upright, and holy, was perſonally united to his Godhead, and ſo the Sonne of God, and heire of all things; Who can doubt but in himſelfe he was worthy of all glory, at Gods right hand from his birth: as his taking of our nature upon him, was altogether for us: ſo his infirmities, ſufferings, death, and continuance on earth for the performance of all righteouſneſſe and obedience to the whole Law was for us, and for all the elect, who of old beleeved in him to come for them, who doe now beleeve in him exalted to glory according to his humanity. To think or ſay that he had need to juſtifie himſelfe, and to merit by his righteouſneſſe the ſtate of glory, is in effect to deny he was God, infinitely worthy of all glory as he was the onelyonly begotten Sonne of God and Heire of all things. Thus Mr. Walker.

Here we muſt lay aſide laughing irrelativeneſſe and impertinencies.

What ſay you to this? It ſeemeth a groſſe errour by what is ſaid.

I could I conceive (ſay you) put ſome Queries to him, that would a little trouble him to make good the truth thereof in a poſitive way.

You ſhould firſt anſwer, then propoſe Queries. Your anſwer by Queries is but a wile, tergiverſation. I will be plaine in anſwering you, as I ſhall be able.

How he can prove that Chriſt had no need of juſtification? 1. Quere.Surely Chriſt was a juſtified or righteous perſon in the ſight of Mr. G.God, this justification was not ſuperfiuous, or no wiſe uſefull to him; and what is not ſuperfluous, we men of the lower forme of learning judge to be ſome wayes needfull.

1. Mr. Walker anſwereth, if juſtification be forgiveneſſe and pardon of ſinne onelyonly, (as you elſewhere ſay) when as he is ſaid to have need of juſtification, he is infoulded a ſinner, to have need of remiſſion of ſinnes. Which if it be too too groſſe, by it may be proved that he needed not juſtification for himſelfe.

Yea, to be in need of forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, and ſo righteous a perſon as you ſpeake, are pugnantia ſecum frontibus adverſis, a contradiction.

But it ſeemeth as he was a righteous perſon, that was not p. 101ſuperfluous, therefore ſome waies needfull.

You muſt ſay for himſelfe. But he needed it not for himſelfe being Gods Sonne, God bleſſed for ever, and comprehenſor from the firſt moment of his conception by perſonall union with the holy Ghoſt. It was needfull then for us. He was our Surety, and in that reſpect they might be needfull for us, though not for himſelfe elſe.

Being our Surety, what was our debt muſt be paid, itLikewiſe in the example of David in the remiſſion of ſins the Apoſtle muſt needs underſtand the imputation of righteouſnes, without the which he can never paſſe by the gates of Heaven, which are the gates of righteouſneſſe, that is, where at the righteous ſhall enter▪ Maſter. Cartwright in Rom. 4. v. 6.Rom 4:6 was neceſſary to our life; our debt was perfect obedience to Gods Law. It was alſo death, the wages of our ſinnes, to free us from death he muſt die, and he muſt fulfill the Law, that we may live, by the whole we come to be wholly faire, holy, unreprovable, and unblamable in his ſight, compleate.

I conceive our election to ſalvation was by and in him before the world as our Mediatour and Surety, and we made accepted in him Gods beloved one. That he was verily ordained before the foundation of the world, ſuch, but manifeſted in the laſt times (a Lambe without blemiſh or ſpot) for us who by him due belteve in God. He was ſet for our riſing, ſent to and for us. Raiſed up an horne of ſalvation for us, borne to us, given to us. When the fulneſſe of time was come, God ſent his Sonne made of a Woman, made under the Law to redeeme us that are under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of ſonnes. That his making himſelfe of no reputation, taking upon him the forme of a ſervant, humbling of himſelfe, becomming obedient to death, even the death of, untill the death of the Croſſ, was for us. So was his fulfilling all righteouſneſſe, and comming to fulfill the Law, his comming to doe Gods will, his alwaies doing things pleaſing to God; thus God purpoſed, thus he obeyed. He was a righteous branch, the Lord our righteouſneſſe.

You know the grace of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt (ſaith Saint Paul) that though he was rich, he become poore, that we through his poverty might be made rich, 2 Cor. 8. 9. For their ſakes ſanctifie I my ſelfe, that they alſo may be ſanctified.

When as the Scripture ſheweth him to be made a Surety, it is enough to ſhew he was not made for himſelfe, but for us.

p. 102It pleaſed the Father that in him ſhould all fulneſſe dwell, he is the head of the body the Church; yee are compleate in him.

Though therefore it was not uſefull to himſelf for himſelfe, it was not ſuperfluous, he being our Head, our Mediatour and Surety; It was moſt neceſſary for us. What the Law could not doe, God ſent his Sonne, &c. that the righteouſneſſe of the Law; whatſoever the Law requireth to juſtification, might be fulfilled in us. And thus is he the end of the Law for righteouſneſſe to every one that beleeveth, as before out of Doctor Toſſanus, enough to that queſtion: to the ſecond next, which is,

Queſt. 2. How he would prove Chriſt was not bound to fulfill the righteouſneſſe of the Law for himſelfe.

Mr. Walker told you, you anſwer him not. I may propoſe ſome reaſons to your conſideration which perſwade me ſo to thinke.

1. He had no need of forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, neither was he ever forgiven, and ſo had no need of juſtification, which conſiſteth therein as you hold.

2. He did all for us, our need, being our Surety, in that name he was bound, God ſpared not his Sonne, exacted it, and our Lord Chriſt undertooke the worke, and finiſhed the worke.

3. I read in our learned Writers largely obſerved. See Polanus, Symphonia Cathol. whoſe Theſis is.P. 165. 166. Chriſt is incarnate for us, he obeyed Chriſtus pro nobis eſt incarnatus: pro nohis obedivit Patri: pro nobis baptizatus, paſſus, mortuus, reſuſcitatus, glorificatus.his Father for us, was baptized, ſuffered, dead, raiſed, glorified for us; Chriſtus nihil propter ſe aut ſecit aut paſſus eſt, ſed propter ſalutem omnium. Primaſ. in Rom. 11.Rom 11which he there proveth by the Fathers.

And ſo on Dan. 9.

See Doctor Dounham uſing reaſons which are to be anſwered.P. 202. 203. 20…. De juſtif. 1. 1. c.2. Sect. 9. 10. Ad Gal. c. 4. p. 184. 2.Gal 4

Luther. I could have overcome the Law by my abſolute power without mine owne ſmart, for I am Lord of the Law, and therefore it hath no right over me. But I have made my ſelfe ſubject to the Law for your cauſe which were under the Law, taking your fleſh upon me—I ſuffered the Law to have dominion over p. 103me which was his Lord—which it ought not to have done.

Becauſe, neither hath Chriſt righteouſneſſe Quia nec in alium finem perfectam juſtitiam Chriſtus habet quam ut imputer, nec aliud imputat quam juſtitiam, nec aliter juſtitia noſtra eſt quam per imputationem, as Trelcatius. p. 82.to any other end, then that he may impute it, neither doth he impute any other thing then righteouſneſſe, neither is he otherwiſe our righteouſneſſe, then by imputation.

Chriſt was the Lord of the Law. Chriſtus Dominus legis fuit.—Toſſan ad 4. Gal. p. 212.He willingly ſubjected himſelfe, although the Law was not given to him Sponte ſe ſubjecit, licet illi ab utero juſto & ſanctificato lex poſita non eſſet. lb. p. 213being juſt and ſanctified from the wombe.

The end alſo is ſhewed by the Apoſtle, Finis etiam oſtenditur ab Apoſtolo, quod videlicet non ſibi ipſi ſed nobis talis eſt factus. lb.forſooth, that he was not made ſuch for himſelfe, but for us.

Therefore theſe axioms are to be Tenenda igitur ſunt haec axiomata, Chriſtum non ſibi ſed nobis factum legi obnoxium: & noſtram eſſe totam Chriſti obedientiam, atque adeo nobis imputatam. ld. ib.held. Chriſt was not made ſubject to the Law for himſelf, but for us. And that the whole obedience of Chriſt is ours, and ſo imputed to us.

Calvine. That he may admoniſh Quanquam ponit foreign ſed foreign Chriſti, ut admonear ipſum non ſibi privatim ſuiſſe juſtum, ſed juſtitiam qua praeditus fuit, latius patere, ut collato ſibi dono, fideles locuplcret. Calv, in Rom. 5. 17.Rom 5:17us that Chriſt was not juſt for himſelfe privately, but that the righteouſneſſe which he injoyed was more large, that he might make rich the faithfull by the gift conferred upon him.

Therefore Chriſt the Sonne of God, Chriſtus ergo Filius Dei qui immunis jure ſuiſſet ab omni ſubjectione, Legi ſuit ſubjectus, ut libertatem nobis acquireret. Quemadmodum enim qui liber erat captivum ſe & vadem conſtituendo redemit & induendo vincula exuit: Ita Chriſtus Legi ſervandae obnoxius eſſe voluit, ut nobis immunitarem acquireret; alioquin fruſtra …ugum Legis ſubiiſſet, cum ſua certe cauſa non ſecit. Calv. ad Ga: 44.who by right had beene free from all ſubjection, was ſubject to the Law, that he might gaine unto us liberty. For as the man that was free, by making himſelfe a captive and Surety, redeemeth, and putting on chaines, taketh them off another: ſo Chriſt would become a keeper of the Law that be might gaine unto us freedome, otherwiſe he had in vaine undergone the yoke of the Law, ſeeing certainely be did it not for his owne cauſe.

p. 104And for the undue obedience of the Et proprer obedientiam Filii non debitam, debitum remittit. Ar. in 3. Phil. p 49.Sonne he remitteth what is due.

Junius. But alſo when as he was not Sed etiam cum non eſſet proprie Legis debitor in ſe, neque reſpectu humanae naturae (alias enim propter identitatem foreign logos ipſe pro ſe ad Legis obſequium …eneretur, quod in Legis authorem ſoret contumelioſum) nec reſpectu perſonae: Sed reſpectu diſpoſitionis voluntatiae omni tamen ex pa…e Legi ſatisfecit, ut exuberans infiniti plane meriti plenitudo nobis in Chriſto parata, &c. Jun. theſ. de juſtif Sect. 7.properly a debtor of the Law in himſelfe, nor in reſpect of his humane nature, (for otherwiſe the Word himſelfe by reaſon of the ſameneſſe of the perſon, ſhould for himſelfe be bound to the obedience of the Law, which would be contumelious to the Author of the Law) nor in reſpect of his perſon; but yet in reſpect of his voluntary diſpoſition he did wholly ſatisfie the Law, that the overflowing fulneſſe of his indeed infinite merit prepared for Sibi non na…us ſed nobis. Id. Sect. 4. lb.us in Chriſt, &c.

He was not borne for himſelfe, but us.

Our righteouſneſſe is onelyonly the ſatiſfaction Juſtitia noſtra eſt ſola ſatisfactio Chriſti praeſtita Legi pro nobis & tota humiliantis Chriſti, &c quiquid denique fecit & paſſus eſt, ad quod ipſe tanquam juſtus & Dei filius non ſuit obligatus, eſt ſatisfactio ejus quam pro nobis praeſtitit, & juſtitia quae nobis credent ibus adeo gratis imputatur: ea enim ſatisfactio aequipollet vel impletioni Legis per obedientiam, vel paenae ae…ernae propter peccata, ad quorum alterutrum Legi obligamur Ʋrſinus p 39 ….of Chriſt performed to the Law for us and the whole, &c. of Chriſt humbling himſelfe, &c. whatſoever, to conclude, he did and ſuffered, to which he, as a juſt man, and the Sonne of God was not bound, is his ſatisfaction which he performed for us, and righteouſneſſe which is freely imputed to us beleeving by God. For that ſatisfaction is equall Ger…ar dat Neo-Photinianis Chriſtum quidem perfecte impleviſſe Legem, ſed ad obedientiam illam pro ſeipſo adſtrictum fuiſſe. De juſtif. p. 463. Sect. 35. & Socino, &c. Sic Chemn…t exam. de juſtif. p. 252.either to the fulfilling of the Law by obedience, or eternall puniſhment for ſinne, to both which we are bound by the Law.Viſe Echardum ſaſc. Controverſ citantem Calvinum. l. 2. c 17. inſtit. Sect. 6. Ma…l…ratum in Pſal. 4. 4. & Polanum quaeſt. de obedientia p 1…0. & p. 398.Ps 4:4

Theſe are enough, they may ſatisfie you.

You prove Chriſt was bound to fulfill the Law for himſelfe, by Mr. Deering in his ſecond Lect. on Heb. Chriſt by his ſpirit ſtill filled his manhood more and more with grace, till the fulneſſe of all righteouſneſſe was within him, that ſo his manhood might inherit ſalvation according to the promiſe, Doe this and live.

Whoſe booke is not in mine hands that I may examine it. p. 105OnelyOnly I ſay that it is not ſaid that he merited for himſelfeT…ere might be more and more powerfull exerciſe, and e…tern… manifeſtations, not increaſe in grace ſimply. He was perfectus vir in ventre, &c. Jer. l. 6. in Hier. tom. 5. ful of grace & truth ab initio beatū extitiſſe. Aſſerunt Patres, Aug. l. 4 de conſenſu Evangel. Leo. Ep 97. c. 3. Ubi teſtatur divinitatē aſſumptam humanitatem beatificaſſe, ut glorificata in glorificante permaneat. Se Salmer. tract. 47. p. 441. To 3. &c. c. 13Jer 50:6 by workes of righteouſneſſe which he did, but the ſpirit filled him with grace. For thoſe words more and more till, &c. they are not to be juſtified by me, it is certaine he had the ſpirit, was annointed with it, not by meaſure from the moment of conception; by that, and perſonall union from that moment he had eternall life, and was comprehenſor, and did inherit.

When Mr. Bradſhaw ſaith, Chriſt was a ſervant and bound to the Law, not freed by hypoſtatique uni…n: He

Yet ſaith, that ſtate ſuch as he needed not to have undergone, and that the reaſon was his taking on him to ſatisfie, &c.

He ſaith, as Chriſt was borne of a Woman, not for his owne ſake, but for theirs, whoſe Saviour and Redeemer he is: So being borne of a Woman, he was made under the Law alſo, not for his owne ſake, but for ours; yea, therefore he was borne of a Woman, that ſo for our ſakes he might be under the Law. Alſo as he became a ſervant for our ſake, ſo in that very regard he came under the Law of a ſervant, it being all one to become a ſervant, and to be made under the Law of a ſervant, the being under the Law of a ſervant, &c. All which is in ſumme, he needed it not for himſelfe, but as our Surety, of which before.Sect 6.

You ſay. And he that holds Chriſt as man, was not bound to Sect. 7.fulfill the righteouſnes of the Law for himſelf during his continuuance Sect. 9.on earth in the fleſh, muſt, if he be true to his principles, hold Ib.withall that Chriſt as man had a liberty, or diſpenſation from the Sect. 13.Godhead, to tranſgreſſe in reſpect of himſelfe, and that his diſpenſation P. 71.could not take place or be put in execution onelyonly becauſe Mr. G.of the worke of redemption he had undertaken.

Anſw. I anſwer, that I conceive there is no ſuch need, their principle is hypoſtatique union, whence he was Comprehenſor; I, the Lord of the Law from the firſt moment: his Union, and his Unction by the holy Ghoſt, are inconſiſtent with ſinne, as inconſiſtent with ſinne as with his bringing about the worke of redemption undertaken: ſinning is inconſiſtent with ſoules made perfect, how much more with that perſon, full of grace, that is glorified p. 106fully, the moſt bleſſed GOD?

Thirdly, you ſay, I would put him on this, to prove ſuch 3an abſolute inconſiſtency or diametricall oppoſition as he ſeemes Mr. G.to imagine betweene Chriſts fulfilling the Law for himſelfe and for us, as if at no hand they could ſtand together.

I anſwer, to doe for life and glory during his continuance on earth, and to injoy it from the firſt moment of his conception is vaine: and ſo inconſiſtent with nature; abſolutely inconſiſtent with that perſon which is the moſt wiſe God.

Therefore the ſcope of Chriſt in obedience muſt not be himſelfe, his life and glory, but us and our life and glory.

Neither doth it follow which you ſay, if Mr. Walker had in this worke his ſcope to diſcharge his conſcience, and the benefit of others, that Chriſts ſcope in obedience was his glory as well as mans good; ſeeing he hath that glory as Comprehenſor before his obedience, when as a faithfull Miniſters diſcharge of conſcience by a worke of this nature, cannot be but by this worke, when the worke is done, conſcience diſchargeth it ſelfe.

When as Bernard ſaith, that the worke of our redemption was, opus aeque noſtrum ac ſuum ut angelorum; there may be truth in it in divers reſpects. He ſaith it not with reſpect to his owne redemption or juſtification, and ſo not to your purpoſe.

You ſay it would coſt him many of his thoughts and much of Mr. G.his learning to give a ſufficient and cleare account, how it ſhould any way intrench or ſo much as looke towards the deniall of Chriſts Godhead to conceive that Chriſt might he bound to fulfill the righteouſneſſe of the Law for himſelfe.

I anſwer, for Chriſt to be bound to fulfill that righteouſneſſe, for himſelfe his juſtification as you before, is to imply him a ſinner, and ſo to deny him God.

It is alſo to imply him vainely bufied; living and injoying life eternall being the fountaine thereof, to doe that he may live, and ſo to deny him to be that fountaine, and to be that perſon that is God.

You conceive it is farre more dangerouſly to ſhake the truth p. 107Mr. G.of his humanity to deny that he was no waies bound to keepe the Law for himſelfe.

I conceive no danger in it, for being abſolutely righteous from the firſt moment, and ſo not to need obedience or doing for himſelfe, is ſo far from denying humane nature, that it ſetteth it forth moſt glorious: as it doth ſtand with humane nature to be perfect in glory, though then it worketh not to that end; ſo doth it in Chriſts humane nature, to be perfectly righteous, though he never doth one worke to that end.

And Mr. W. intreateth you to tell him whether you now deny Chriſt to be true man, when as ſitting at Gods right hand he is not bound to obey the Law, and dy, as he did on earth? So that it is not to be compared, in the kind, with the errour of the Ubiquitary.

You ſay, It is marvellous to me that he being the ſeed of the Woman, by the Law of his Creation ſhould not be bound to keepe that Law which both the man and the woman ſtood bound to keep in their innocency.

1. Sir, Wonderfull was one of the names of Chriſt, it is no wonder if there be many wonders in him.

2. Had he beene meere man, what you ſay might follow, being alſo God, there was never ſuch a man or woman in innocency.

3. Adam and Eve muſt doe to live, doing was the way to it, but Chriſt was alive as ſoone as he was a man, there is difference.

4. He being God-man was eminently juſt, Jeſus Chriſt the juſt, and if ever that was true of any, which the Apoſtle ſpeaketh, The Law is not given to the juſt, it is true of him. By this he was the Lord of the Law, the perſon was ſo, and exempted; onelyonly as a Surety, for us he was made under the ſame.

You ſay as the perſonall union with the Godhead could not Mr. G.priviledge his humane nature or body againſt thoſe properties which are naturall and eſſentiall to it, as locality, quantity, finitneſſe, commenſurableneſſe to its place, nor communicate, nor conveigh over thoſe properties of imm…nſity, ubiquity, omnipreſence, p. 108&c. which are eſſentiall to the Divine nature. So neither could it priviledge his manhood againſt thoſe morall habitudes, relations or conditions which are his eſſentiall in another way, as videlicet, ſubjection to God, obligation of ſerving him, and fulfilling his will, &c.

1. I anſwer, eſſentiall properties of man are inſeparable.

2. And eſſentiall properties of God incommunicabla.

3. It is not ſuqtilis hominis oratio, to ſpeake of man priviledged againſt properties, his priviledges (as you call them) being deſtructive and inconſiſtent with his nature.

4. The opinion that Chriſt did not obey for his owne life from morall habitudes, or relations, or conditions which you call eſſentiall in another way, ſubjection to God, obligation of ſerving him, fulfilling his will: We grant all theſe, neceſſary that he might be our Surety, which is that for which he was incarnate, he came to doe Gods will; we ſay he was ſo from the inſtant of conception perfectly, elſe was he not Comprehenſor, and urge that as a reaſon why he did it not for himſelfe, but us. It is one thing to be ſo, and thence to doe for us according to Gods will, another to doe for that life and glory which he poſſeſſeth.

I deny not but God promiſed him the glory of that work of mediation, and that he wrote with an eye to that, and ſo prayeth for it as due by Gods eternall compact, John 17. glory there being that which he had with his Father by covenant on doing that worke before the foundation of the world, that is one thing, living on perſonall doing is another, it was not needfull he ſhould doe for that being his by union in conception.

And I queſtion whether if his obedience was debt, his owne debt, he could merit and ſatisfie thereby for himſelfe or us, ſeeing debt and merit cannot conſiſt. When man hath done all that he is bound to doe by Gods Law, he muſt ſay, and truly, he is an unprofitable ſervant, it is what he ought, and ſo not worth thankes at the Creators hands. Which yet you imply, when as before you ſay Chriſts ſcope in obedience, was his glory as well as mans good, p. 180. before, and p. 109where you ſay in a ſenſe it had an influence. What will become of mans juſtification by his paſſive obedience, which is confeſſed to have abſolute neceſſity of his active to make i… a Sacrifice propitiatory, how is it an eſſentiall requiſite, if due for himſelfe?

That doing or ſuffering is of no force to ſatisfie which is Mr. Brad. c 7.done by bond, though the party offending bad committed no fault at all, it being ridiculous to account the payment of one debt for the diſcharge of another.

Nothing ſatisfieth but that which meriteth, nothing meriteth Ib. Sect. 12 & 12.but righteouſneſſe, which muſt be by anothers.

Concerning Chriſts meriting his exaltation (you ſay)Mr. Goodw. you will not ſtrive with him for the preſent, and beleeve you may both wade deeper and know more then you doe, viz. Rev. 5. 12. Heb. 12. 2. Phil. 2. 7, 8, 9. &c. Luke 24. 26. &c.

I anſwer, I beleeve it, for mans knowledge is but in part. It is but a little that we know of him, O that we knew it and could walk more humbly, and ſo might paſſe them as not againſt us.

OnelyOnly I muſt put you in minde, that if thoſe places make for your purpoſe, and in your ſenſe, they prove that the Lord Chriſt ſuffered for himſelfe as well as for us.

And when we grant the places of the glory of his mediation: It will not follow of glory ſimply for his humane nature, which certainely he had before.

We come now to another exception that you call faith a thing done and performed by us, it being the gift of God and motion of his Spirit in us; in which Mr. Walkers ſcope is not to accuſe you of making beleeving Gods act, or to deny man the ſubject thereof: but to note to you, that, the act of man in a proper ſenſe beleeving, and as our worke, is not the condition of the Covenant, of which before.

And now let us to the bottome of this heape (as you ſpeak) frothy words ſhall not ſtay me. Here you are charged to ſay, that if the Apoſtle had ſaid they muſt be juſtified by Chriſt, or by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, this had beene rather to caſt a ſnare upon them, then to have opened a doore of life and ſalvation, for which be (Mr. W.) curſeth with Anathema maranatha, p. 110the man that proclaimes it and obſtinately maintaines it.

To this you anſwer, he keepeth back part of your words, and ſupply them thus. To have ſaid they muſt be juſtified by Chriſt or Chriſts righteouſneſſe, and with all not to have plainely ſignified what God requireth of them, and will accept at their hand, to give them part and followſhip in that righteouſneſſe or juſtification, had beene rather to have caſt a ſnare upon them, then to have opened a doore of life and ſalvation.

I anſwer, I thinke intimation of that whereby needfull, and that it is done, as where faith and receiving, as the hand and inſtrument are call…d for; ſo where the object of that is laid downe, Chriſt and his obedience, as Rom. 5. 19. 2 Cor. 5. 21. ſo that there is no ſnare. Let us goe on.

In the next place Mr. Wr. propoſeth your firſt argumentArg. 1. Sect. 18. reduced, which is.

That the Relative ſenſe fathers upon the Apoſtle an harſh and uncouth expreſſion often uſed without explaining himſelfe, when he ſaith faith is imputed to righteouſneſſe, and meaneth Chriſts righteouſneſſe is imputed, which is rather to conceale then reveale it.

To this the anſwer is.

It is no harſh, ſtrange, or uncouth expreſſure to uſe aAnſw. figure of ſpeech, and to meane by faith and beleeving, faith with its object, the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, or ſtate of the man, &c. which is ſhewed out of Rom. 2. the foure laſt verſ. by Beza's interpretation.

To this you reply, It is true, there are many figures of ſpeech which are no harſh expreſſions. But,

1. There are plain & direct expreſſions which will be made Mr. G.ſtrange and harſh, if men will Metamorphoſe them into Metalepticall and figurative, as ſweete wine becomes ſharpeſt vineger.

2. If men coyne ſuch new formes of ſpeaking, and will call them figures, they may well be ſtrange and harſh expreſſions.

I anſwer, It is not altogether what men will doe, thoughAnſw. what ſuch and ſo many men doe, as doe this, is not to be deſpiſed by you, but what the holy Ghoſt doth, interpreted by Scriptures, as is ſhewed.

And as for that Jeere on thoſe that call it Metalepticall, p. 111it might have beene forborne. It is the practiſe ofFiguratū genus praedicationis, per Metalepſin p. 404. more then Mr. Wr. divines not to be contemned by Mr. G.

When faith is ſaid to be imputed, ſaith V…ſinus; It is a figurative kind of predication, and nameth it Metalepſis.

I obſerve it in Lueas Trelcatius, Fides in Scripturis & apud Patres, duobus modis conſiderari ſoler, proprie ſecundum naturam fidei ſimpliciter; altero figurate, id eſt Metaleptice & correlative, qu…a fides apprehendit objectum ſuum. p. 85.Faith in the Scriptures and amongſt the Fathers is wont to be conſidered two wayes, properly according to the nature of faith ſimply; another, figuratively, that is, Metaleptically, and correlatively, becauſe faith apprehends its object. So doth he, anſwering Romaniſts.

To an objection of Arminius, Doctor Prideaux his anſwer is.

We doe not properly give juſtification Nos non proprie juſtificationem fidei attribuere, ſed Metaleptice quatenus objecti actus propter arctam connexionem inter illam & habitum, uiſitata Scripturae phraſi in habitum transfertur. De juſtif. p. 170.to faith, but by a figure called Metalepſis, ſo farre forth as the act of the object, becauſe of the neere connexion betweene it and the habit by a uſuall phraſe of Scriptue is given to the habit. Note that we and by an uſuall phraſe of Scripture.

Sir, all Proteſtants are for a figure, and theſe name it a Metalepſis, they deſerve better language then to be called Metamorphoſers and coyners of figures, uſers of Metaleptique oyle elſewhere, and of it as a ſure pinhorſe, p. 82. Mr. Wr. needeth not be aſhamed of uſing it, but yon rather; but (it may be) you knew not who uſed it. Now to a ſecond exception.

Which is that your deniall of this figurative ſpeech uſed in the Apoſtle is falſe.

This Mr. Walker might well doe, having proved it out of Rom. 2. the foure laſt verſes, untill you diſprove him; neither will that ſtand for an anſwer, that the Scripture he citeth ſtands in the utmoſt corner of one onelyonly chapter, much leſſe the calling his worke non-ſenſicall figuring and miſſefiguring. When you ſend your Reader to what is done, let it be a bargaine, and let him take in Mr. W. p. 255.

A third exception is, that you ſay the Apoſtle uſeth the phraſe of faith, &c. without either explaining himſelfe or changing p. 112his ſpeech, which M. W. ſheweth to be otherwiſe, v. 6. and 11. where it is ſaid that God imputeth righteouſneſſe and that righteouſneſſe is imputed, as it is called faith, verſ. 3. and 5. in theſe places, righteouſneſſe; in the former uſing a figurative, and in the latter a proper ſpeech.

Neither can he by righteouſneſſe imputed meane faith in a proper ſenſe, it is not righteouſneſſe, or if what is imperfect, on which ground the learned reject that, and call it figurative, comprehending the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt which is uſed twice, and is righteouſneſſe indeed as Mr.W. P. 190.ſheweth at large Socinianiſme.

When as you admit that by righteouſneſſe in theſe places P. 78.the Apoſtle meaneth faith: You will us to ſee what a faire market Mr. G.Mr. Walker hath brought his Hogges to. Let me (paſſing your Rhetorique) demand what is the market?

You ſay the ſenſe muſt be, when God imputeth righteouſnes to a man that beleeveth, that God imputeth faith to him that beleeveth, which is to obſcure what was ſaid before.

To this Mr. W. anſwereth, that it is a Pigge of your owne Sow, you are owner and driver to the market, and leaveth you to looke to it.

What you have done, as you ſay before, hath anſwer. The reſt may be retorted on you, whoſe the argument was, who gave him the charge.

Come we now to your ſecond Argument.Sect. 19.

That faith which is imputed is his before imputation, which cannot be ſaid of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, that it is a mans before it be imputed, at leaſt in order of nature, though not in time; therefore by faith to be imputed cannot be meant the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

To this Mr.W. that Chriſts righteouſneſſe is as truly his as his faith. You reply here you are friends in earneſt, you grant the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt the beleevers, but that is not the queſtion. What is it then? Whether it be his in ſuch manner as it was Chriſts himſelfe? that is, whether we be made righteous with it as Chriſt was, whether not onelyonly for it and not with it?

I anſwer, there is no ſuch queſtion propoſed in this p. 113place, neither doth Mr.Walker, when he ſaith we are juſtified by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, ſay it is his that is juſtified in ſuch a manner as it is Chriſts: nor that we are made juſt with it as Chriſt was, and yet he may well ſay we are made juſt, not onelyonly for it, but with it.

The righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is that robe in the Prophet, that garment of ſalvation, with which the Church as a Bride is arraied, whence white as Snow, whiter: Wholly faire in his beauty, as Jacob in Eſaues apparell to Iſaac, as Calvine before out of Ambroſe.

And if you compare it to mony, it is that by which we are rich, by his poverty, all that he did or ſuffered in his humble eſtate, we are made rich as the Apoſtle. He is the treaſure, faith indeed applyeth him, but it is he that maketh rich. Take the learned Doctors anſwer if you pleaſe, and let him determine this queſtion.

We are alike juſt, becauſe with the Aeque juſti ſumus ac Chriſtus, quia eadem juſtitia, licet non aequaliter & eodem modo: ille ſubjective, nos imputative, ille de proprio, nos de illus largitate. De juſtif. Doctor Prid. p. 171.ſame righteouſneſſe, though not equally, and in the ſame manner; be as the ſubject of it, we by imputation, be of his owne, we of his liberality.

If you regard the truth of imputed Si veritatem juſtitiae imputatae ſpectes (Trelcatius) non minus juſti juſti cenſemur coram Deo ac Chriſtus, P. 89.righteouſneſſe, we are accounted no leſſe juſt before God then Chriſt; and that, that is the money and clothing too, we ſhall ſhew at large anone.

But Mr. Walker, ſay you, to prove the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to be the beleevers as well as faith is his, miſcites two Scriptures, 1 Cor. 1. 30. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Chriſt is ſaid in the firſt to be made unto us righteouſneſſe, but this proves not that the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is made ours, as faith is, &c.

1. Lanſwer, that, as faith is an adding to what Mr. Wr. ſpake, not ſpoken by him.

2. That the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is ours, you granted but now, ſaying, here we be friends in earneſt. It is a received concluſion. Junius.

Neither ought it to ſeeme abſurd that we are juſtified with that righteouſnes which is in him as the ſubject, as anothers. When p. 114as it is ſo anothers, that it is alſo ours Neque vero abſurdum videri debet nos juſtitia quae Chriſti ſubjective tanquam aliena juſtificari, cum ita ſit aliena ut etiam noſtra ſit imputatione, pro nobis enim proprie praeſtita, & a Deo tanquam noſtra accepta, quemadmodum fidei juſſoris pro debitore ſolutionem perinde recipit creditor ac ſi debitor ipſe eam ſeciſſet; & quod eſt proprium capitis noſtri Chriſti, jure communionis reliquo corpori, id eſt Eccleſiae & ſingulis membris tribuitur.by imputation. It was performed for us properly, and accepted of God as ours, as the Creditor ſo receiveth the payment of the Surety for the Creditor, as if the Debtor himſelfe had made it. And that which is the property of our head Chriſt, by right of communion is given to the reſt of the body, that is, the Church.

When God giveth Chriſt, he giveth his righteouſneſſe, we receive both by faith, and ſo both are ours, and thereforeJuſtitia Chriſti vere noſtra, licet non in nobis. Olev. ad Phil. p. 49. is he called the Lord our righteouſneſſe. The righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is truly ours, though it not in us: where he proveth the ſame. See him, p. 50. 51. where ſpeaking of righteouſneſſe imputed, he ſaith, nec minus noſtram eſſe quam ſi corporibus & animabus noſtris adhaereſceret, it is no leſſe ours then if it did adhere to our bodies and ſoules, Olev.

3. For the texts themſelves, hearken to ſome, of whom you ſay they are on your part; they from them ſhew the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt ours to juſtification.

Calv. on the words, he was made unto us righteouſnes, ſaith: In which he underſtandeth us accepted Quo intelligit nos ejus nomine acceptos a Deo, quia motte ſua peccata noſtra expiaverit; & ejus obedientia nobis in juſtitiam imputetur.of God in his name, becauſe be expiated our ſinnes by his death, and that his obedience might be imputed to us for righteouſneſſe.

Though Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe differ, Chriſts righteouſneſſe is ours by imputation in Calvines judgement.

He is made unto us of God righteouſneſſe, Juſtitia nobis a Deo factus, quia in eo ſolo juſti habemur: reputamur illius merito juſti, Aretius in locum.becauſe in him alone we are accounted righteous, we are reputed juſt by his merit.

And truly righteouſneſſe not in part, Et quidem juſtitia (ſaith Toſſanus) non ex parte ſed tota noſtra juſtitia, per remiſſionem peccatonim & imputationem totius ſuae juſtitiae, ſic Jer. 23. p. 19.Jer 23but our whole righteouſneſſe, by remiſſion of ſinnes and imputation of his whole righteouſneſſe.

p. 115Righteouſneſſe, that is our Juſtifier, Juſtiria, hoc eſt juſtificator noſter, donan nos vera juſtitia coram Deo per fidem.beſtowing on us true righteouſneſſe before God by faith; which is ſo not formally, that is, inberently, as Pareus ſpeaketh, but by imputation.Pareus

Abraham is juſtified not with Abraham juſtificatus eſt non inhaerente ſed imputata juſtitia per fideminherent, but imputed righteouſneſſe by faith.

To that text, 2 Cor. 5. Calvine.Jam apertius docet quod ſu pra attigimus, tunc Deum nobis eſſe propitium quum pro juſtis agnoſcit, perinde enim valent haec duo, eſſe nos Deo acceptos, & juſtos ab ipſo reputari. Juſtitia hic pro imputatione accipitur, eo quod accepta nobis fertur Chriſti juſtitia. Now he more plainely teacheth what we touched before, that then God is propitious to us when he acknowledgeth us juſt, for thoſe two are of the ſame force, that we are accepted of God, and reputed juſt by him. Righteouſneſſe is here taken for imputation, becauſe righteouſneſſe is accounted to us.

And in that place, to the queſtion, How are we juſt before God? He anſwereth. Forſooth Quomodo juſti ſumus coram Deo? &c. Ita ſc. nunc juſti ſumus in ipſo, non quia operibus pro priis ſatisfaciamus judicio Dei, ſed quoniam cenſemur juſtitia Chriſti, quam fide induimus ut noſtra fiat. Calv.we are now ſo juſt in him, not becauſe by our owne workes we may ſatisfie the judgement of God, but becauſe we h… accounted the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, which we put on by faith, that it may be ours. Aretius on thoſe words, that we might be made the righteouſneſſe of God.

That we may be pronounced juſt, Hoc eſt juſti pronunciatemur, imputativa juſtitia ia tanquam veſte omaremur: dicitur autem juſtitia, quia noſtra non eſt ſed precario. In ipſo, ſignificat extra Chriſtum nullam eſſe juſtitia qua nos poſſimus ornare & quae valeat in conſpectu Dei. Ib. Arct. in loc.that we might be adorned with imputed righteouſneſſe, as it were with a garment: but it is called the juſtice of God, becauſe it is not ours, but his free gift. In him, he ſignifieth, that out of Chriſt there is nor righteouſneſſe with which we may adorne ourUt nos efficeremut, ſaith Toſſ. hoc eſt juſtificaremur, non juſtitia inhaerente, ſed in eo, propter communionem quam habemus cum illo, & imputationem ejus juſt itiae. In locum. Summa loci eſt: ſic ſumus juſti ſicut Chriſt is peccator: at Chriſtus eſt peccator imputatione noſtrorum peccatorum, non reali corruptione, aut actionibus pravis: ergo nos imputatione ejus juſtitiae ſumus juſti. &c. Olev. in Phil. 3. 9. p. 46. Sic Gerhard: de juſtif. Le…. 61.Phil 3:9

That we may be made, that is, that we may be juſtified not with inherent righteouſneſſe, but in him, becauſe of the communion p. 116we have with him, and the imputation of his righteouſneſſe.

We be juſt with God, not indeed Juſti, ſaith Beza, apud Deuminon quidem juſtitia nobis inhaerente, ſed quoe cum in Chriſto ſit, nobis per ſidem à Deo imputatur: ideo additum eſt, in eo Sic ergo ſumus juſtitia Dei in ipſo, ut îlle peccatum in nobis, ex imputatione. Bez. in locum.with righteouſneſſe inhering in us, but which, when it is in Chriſt is imputed to us from God by faith: therefore it is added, in him. Therefore we are ſo the righteouſneſſe of God in him, as he is ſinne in us, for ſooth by imputation. So that in this you oppoſe not Mr. Walker alone, but the word and interpretation of our learned Authors.

Secondly, he anſwers (ſay you) that this righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is the Beleevers, in order of nature, before it be counted or imputed for righteouſneſſe unto him. For God, whoſe judgement is according to truth, doth not account that to the beleover which he hath not before communicated, or at the ſame time doth communicate to him. Well, what of this? you ſay, He begges 1.the queſtion that God doth impute the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to a Mr. G.beleever in his ſenſe.

I anſwer, we are paſt begging now, and when yourAnſw. ſenſe appeareth, it will be, and is found, Arminian, Socinian, and Pontifician, as ſhall be ſeene anone, and Mr Walkers the ſenſe of all Proteſtant Dlvines againſt them.

You ſay he proveth idem per idem. I anſwer no, he proveth2. the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt the beleevers from the truth of Gods judgement, whence he doth not account that to the beleever which he hath not before, or at the ſame time communicateth to him.

To your deſcant on his words, before, all I will ſay is,3. there is added or at the ſametime.

If it be true at the ſame time, it is enough to evade the inconſequences, which ariſe from its being before, and you ſhould have taken notice of this, or. And now to the third Argument.

The third Argument was, granting a Trope, yet is followeth 3. Arg. Sect. 20.not that the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt ſhould be imputed here, but God or the promiſe made to Abraham.

I anſwer, the Apoſtle calleth it righteouſneſſe, verſ. 6. and p. 117verſ. 11. as before. Neither doe you diſprove it, by ſaying God or the promiſe, you e…illy oppoſe Chriſts righteouſneſſe, God and the promiſe.

Is not God Abrahams in Chriſt, and ſo Abrahams ſaith in Chriſt ſuppoſed to his faith in God? 1 Pel. 1. 21. We by him doe beleeve in God. Is not the promiſe of Gods being Abrahams God in Chriſt, to whom it is firſt made, and in whom it is Yea and Amen, to Abraham and his ſeede? The Apoſtle ſaith, If we be Chriſts, we be Abrahams ſeede, and Heires according to promiſe, ſo Abraham and beleevers are Heires in the Heire, by being Chriſts, and ſo the promiſes containing our inheritance, are ours. Hence amongſt the reſt we are Heires of the righteouſneſſe which is by faith.

Sir, in that promiſe you might have ſeene the ſeede, the ſeede is Chriſt, and in the promiſe, his natures, offices, adaptations, doing, dying, riſing, ſitting at Gods right hand; our ſalvation, our juſtification by his righteouſneſſe. Abraham by faith ſaw his day and rejoyeed: ſaw all theſe by faith. So did Abel, his Sacrifice witneſſed he was righteous, accepted in the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, and ſo his Sacrifice. So did Enoch pleaſe God, which is impoſſible without faith in Chriſt, in whom God is well pleaſed. So did Noah, and hence was he just before God, an Heire of the righteouſneſſe which is by faith. So did Abraham beleeve in Christ, and it was counted to him for righteouſneſſe. So David, &c.

The Prophet after openeth him a righteous branch, and the Lord our righteouſneſſe.

The Apoſtle more plainely as before, the promiſe was the Seed, and bleſſedneſſe, and we are bleſſed with all in Chriſt, they are the inheritance of beleevers in and by Chriſt the Heire.

Glevian hath paſſages this way obſervable. Having ſaid,Cum Deus ſit juſtus, ideo non imputat peccatum, quia imputat hlit juſti… nam. ſeeing God is …uſt, he imputeth not ſinne, becauſe he imputeth the righteouſneſſe of his Sonne. He addeth,

David did therefore build on the Sacrifice and interceſſion of the higheſt and eternall Prieſt, of whom he ſeake by the holy Ghoſt; Thou are a Prieſt for …, &c. And ſo David beleeved, not in righteouſneſſe inhering us himſelfe, but in that p. 118which was imputed from the High Nitebatur igitur David Sacrificio & interceſſione ſummi & aeterni ſacerdotis, de quo per Spiritum ſanctum loquutus eſt, Tu es Sacerdos in aeternum, &c. Arque it a David non in inhaerentem in ſe juſtitiam, ſed imputatam à ſummo Sacerdore Chriſto credidit. Sic Abraham non in ſe quaeſi vit juſtitiam, ſed ſide extra ſe vidit diem Chriſti & gaviſus eſt: dies autem non ſolum tempus diſpenſation is gratiae Chriſti ſignificat, ſed totum beneficium tum demum exhibirum cum venit plenitudo temporis. P. 48. ad Phil.Prieſt, Chriſt. So Abraham ſought not righteouſnes in himſelf, but by faith out of himſelfe, he ſaw the day of Chriſt, and rejoyeed. The day ſignifieth, not onelyonly the time of the diſpenſation of the grace of Chriſt, but the whole benefit then as length exhibited, when the fulneſſe of time came.

Therefore that inſcription of the Ideo inſcriptio illa ſoederis in tarne Abrahoe ſigillum juſtitiae ſidei appellatur, propterea quod Abrahain ex ſemetipſo utpote corrupto & injuſto egreſſus, ſide in promiſſo ſemine juſtitiam poſſederat; eique in praeputio credenti imputata ſuerat: nunc autem impreſſo ſigillo rei extra ipſum poſitae & eminus conſpectae ſuit in carne ipſius confirmata poſſeſſio. lb. p. 50.Covenant in the fleſh of Abraham, (Circumciſion) is called the Seale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, becauſe, as a corrupt and unjuſt man, had poſſeſſed by faith in the promiſed ſeed, and it was imputed to him beleeving in Vncircumciſion: But now the poſſeſſion was confirmed by an imprinted Seale in his fleſh of a thing placed out of himſelfe and ſeene afarre off.

Abraham beleeved, ſaith Pet. Martyr. Credidit Abraham—at the quid credidit? hocſc. ſemen ſibi dandum eſe, unicumſc illud, ut Paulus interpretatur, in quo omnes nationes eſſent benedicendae, quod eſt Chriſtus Jeſus, Gen. 15. 6. Gal. 3. 16. L. Com. de juſt. Sect. 23.Gen 15:6Gal 3:16But what did he beleeve? Forſooth this ſeed to be given unto him, that one ſeed, as Paul interpreteth it, in whom all the Nations of the earth were to be bleſſed, which is Jeſus Chriſt.

Amongſt other things Abraham beleeved. Pareus addeth,Sed etiam ſpirituali per Chri ſtum caput ſeminis, ex quo in totum ſemen benedictio & gloria coeleſtis ſluere debait. Apoſtolus enim promiſſum ſemen expreſſe dicit eſſe Chriſtum; nec dubitari porc…, ſeminus promiſſionem cui credidiſſe Abraham dicitur, cohaerere cum promiſſionibus antegreſſis & ſubſequ…tis de ſemine & benedictione omnium geatium per illud. Fuit igitur Abrah… ſides generalis quidem ſeu Catholica (ut vocant ſo phiſtae) aſſentiens o…l verbo Dei: Sed & ſpecialis promiſſion… data de ſemine, quod eſt Chriſtus Ira Ambro… in Comment. Credidit Abraham Deo, Quid credidit; ſethen ſe habiturum …linmin quo c…es gentes juſtificarentur. In Chriſto igitur ſuit ſundata Abrahe ſides. Ad Rom. 4. ad verſ. 5. p. 263.Rom 4 But alſo of that which was ſpirituall, by Christ the Head of the ſeed, from whom the bleſſing and heavenly glory ſhould flow unto the whole ſeed. For the Apoſtle expreſſely ſaith the promiſed p. 119ſeed to be Chriſt. Neither can is be doubted but the promiſe of the ſeed which Abraham is ſaid to beleeve, to agree with the promiſes going before, and following of the ſeede and bleſſing of all Nations by it: therefore the ſaith of Abraham was indeed generall or Catholique (as the Sophiſters call it) aſſenting to every word of God, but alſo ſpeciall to the promiſe given of the ſoed, which is Chriſt. So Ambroſe on his commentary. Abraham beleeved God, What did he beleeve? that he ſhould have ſeed, that is, a Sonne in whom all Nations ſhould be bleſſed. Therefore Abrahams ſaith is founded in Chriſt.

And here may you be well minded of your Doctrine, that the object of the faith, that is imputed, is Jeſus Chriſt, and that it bringeth into communion and participation of him and his benefits; which being true, how could Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe be excluded?

But now to your tedious diſcourſe following involved in many vaine words, which I will not touch.

1. You complaine of his friend Metalepſis, which you doe but play with, to which having ſeriouſly anſwered before, I ſay no more.

2. Then you demand, whether becauſe a man cannot, beleeving, ſeparate the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt from Chriſt, by God there muſt be neceſſarily underſtood the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

To which I anſwer, you doe but triſhe, Beleeving inſoldeth God his in Chriſt, Chriſt and what ever is lapt up in that word Bleſſedneſſe; temporall, ſpirituall, eternall, with Jeſus Chriſt: viſiting, redeeming, raiſing up Chriſt an horne of ſalvation, ſalvation from evill, righteouſneſſe and eternall life, are the mercies promiſed to Abraham, Gods holy covenant and his oath, in Zacharies ſong. There is more in it then I ſuppoſe you are aware of, as if you had but trifled in earneſt.

You marvell why Mr. W. ſtill mentions the ſatisfaction of P. 83.Chriſt with the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. Whereas you intend no difference or diſpute about the ſatisfaction of Chriſt but his active obedience to the Law. Whether this be imputed that thereby we may claime Heaven, by Doe this and live. And that his p. 120thruſting in of the paſſive obedience or ſatiſfaction is to preſents you odious as an enemy to Chriſts ſatisfaction.

1. I anſwer, Sir, we muſt crie you mercy, or elſe wonder as you, why you had act opened this before this time.

2. It ſeemes you are then for the imputation of Chriſts Paſſive obedience to obtaine pardon, and then Paſſive righteouſneſſe is that which is imputed, and faith in a Relative ſenſe to that. And what is become of your proper ſenſe then?

This Mr. Wotton blameth in Piſcator, Yet I no where finde in holy Scriptures that there is need of Tamen nuſquam in ſacris literis reperio imputatione paſſivae Chriſti obedientiae ad eam conſequendam opus cſfe, licet verum & perſpicuum ſit, illus perpeſſiones (ex Dei decreto) ſuiſſe neceſſarias ad veniam nobis impetrandam. Neque (ut vere dicam quod res eſt) intelligere poſſum quis veniae relictus ſit locus, ſi (paenas in Chriſto perſolvendo) Irae divinae ſatisfeciſſe, & ſupplicium peccatis debitum pertuliſſe exiſtimenur, nam paena & venia adverſa ſunt. Manuſcrip. accepto Jan. 13. 1613 of Mr. Wotton.imputation of the Paſſive obedience of Chriſt to obtaine it, (Juſtification or pardon) though it be true and cleare; thoſe ſufferings to have beene neceſſary (by the decree of God) to obtaine pardon to us. Neither (that I may truly ſay what the thing is) can I underſtand what place is left to pardon, if we ſhould be judged by ſuffering puniſhment in Chriſt, to have ſatisfied Divine wrath, and borne puniſhment due to ſinne: for pardon and puniſhment are adverſaries. Tell us by your next whether and how farre Magiſter ſit hic …endus.

3. Mr. Walker findeth our debt to the Law to be not onelyonly death for ſinne, but doing that we may live, and we thinke both muſt have ſatisfaction, and are inſeparable; and if Chriſt be the object, why ſhall his righteouſneſſe be excluded? is he … the Lord our righteouſneſſe? is not the Lord's being in … and all the returne thereby the iſſue of Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe? is not the new Teſtament confirmed in his bloud? are we not by his obedience conſtituted righteous? is it not by the righteouſneſſe of one that the free gift … upon all to juſtification of life? The Apoſtle ſaith, that the promiſe to Abraham that he ſhould be the Heire of the world, was not through the Law, but through the righteouſneſſe of faith, Rom. 4. 13. that is the righteouſneſſe p. 121of Chriſt which faith layeth hold on and applieth, by that the promiſe was made. And why ſhall we not thinke his faith then built on that righteouſneſſe? You will not queſtion but we have all for Chriſts ſake, his righteouſneſſe ſake and merit, they muſt be imputed, and we by faith have fellowſhip with them, or never have benefit.

4. Mr. Walker doth thinke Chriſts Paſſive righteouſnes to be obedience to the Law, that which the Law exacted of us, and we being inſolvent of our Surety, and that you cannot eſcape by calling it ſatisfaction to God, not to the Law, ſeeing it was Gods Law; and in ſatisfying God his Law muſt be ſatisfied.

To your demand. Doth it follow (though a man cannot ſeparate the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt from Chriſt himſelfe in beleeving) that the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt muſt needs be the object of faith as juſtifying? And adde, much leſſe doth it follow that this righteouſneſſe of Chriſt muſt needs be ſignified by this word God, or by the promiſe of God concerning Chriſt, which himſelfe granteth to have beene the object of faith, as juſtifying.

I anſwer, it is ſutable to reaſon to pitch on the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt in matter of juſtification, ſeeing without righteouſneſſe there is no juſtification, and by righteouſneſſe, what ever it be, there muſt be juſtification, of which before. The reſt hath a full anſwer as I ſuppoſe alſo. There are other reaſons beſides inſeparableneſſe.

For what is remaining in your owne words, I muſt ſayF. 84. that they are of that manifeſt inconſequence and indigeſtedneſſe, that I will rather truſt the Reader with his owne apprehenſions concerning them, then to trouble him or my ſelfe with a farther anſwer.

The righteouſneſſe of Chriſt can in no tolerable conſtruction be A…g. 4. Sect. 21.called that faith by which Abraham beleeved in God that quickneth the dead, therfore the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is not that faith which is here ſaid to be imputed for righteouſneſſe. Ile adde the firſt propoſition, that faith which is ſaid to be imputed to Abraham for righteouſneſſe, is that faith by which he beleeved in God that quickned the dead. This (you ſay) is your next argument whereby you p…on… by the Word, that faith in theſe paſſages p. 122is not meant the Active obedience of Chriſt.

1. I anſwer, firſt, in this expreſſure added, you change the concluſion. It was never Mr. Walkers meaning by faiths object to ſtand on, alone, Chriſts Active obedience, but both Active and Paſſive obedience.

2. When you exclude this, it ſeemeth you allow that which is Paſſive to be the object. So that faith may be in that and him that quickneth the dead; the other inſeparable part muſt not be excluded.

3. I anſwer, it is faith in Chriſt and his perfect righteouſneſſe whereby we beleeve in him that quickneth the dead, by faith in Chriſt I beleeve in God, be is my God as Abrahams, by which our Lord proveth the reſurrection, Matth. 22. againſt the Sadduces, it reacheth that bleſſing; by faith in Chriſt, Abraham, ſaw Chriſts reſurrection, and ſo his owne, as David did the reſurrection of Chriſt, Acts 2. 30. as Gods oath to him, which was the ſame he ſwore to Abraham. Yea, he ſaw and beleeved his owne reſurrection; indeed lapt up in Chriſts reſurrection, as of a member in the raiſed head, and rejoyced at it, 16. Pſal. fine, compare the places.

The Apoſtle ſaith the ſpirit is life becauſe of righteouſneſſe, Rom. 8. 10. which life is without queſtion (though I exclude not life ſimply) the quickning of the dead, as in the next, v. by righteouſneſſe, I take imputed righteouſneſſe meant; Hanc ipſam quam nos aſſerimus imputatam. Cham. de juſt. c. 2 Sect. 59. c. 15. Sect. 36. Sect. 37.and, Chamier calleth it the very ſame we call imputed; and for that quickning of the dead, ſee the ſame Cham. out of Tolet, and Cajetan calleth it the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

Neither is there oppoſition here, but ſubordination, betweene Chriſt and God and life and faith in Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe.

Neither are theſe effects of two faiths, faiths of adifferent kind, but of the ſame, there is but one faith, by which, as I beleeve in Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe, ſo in God, as he is in Chriſt for bleſſedneſſe ſimply, the remiſſion of ſinnes, the reſurrection of the body, and everlaſting life; the naming of one excludeth not, but neceſſarily implyeth all the reſt.

And though Mr. Walker (as you conceive) Reads not Chriſts lying three dayes and three nights in the grave, any where p. 123called faith, or ſignified by that expreſſion, yet I ſuppoſe I read the Goſpel to be called faith, and if that you mention be Goſpel, it muſt be called faith, infolded under that expreſſion. I am ſure faith by which I beleeve remiſſion of ſinnes, reſurrection of the body, and everlaſting life, to be faith in God through Chriſt ſatisfying, obedient even untill death, continuing Gods ſet time in the ſtate of the dead, for us, our juſtification and pardon, yea, ſalvation, to the glory not onelyonly of free grace, but exact juſtice, and doe you conſider the ſame.

Abrahams faith imputed to him, was ſuch a faith wherein Arg. 5. Sect. 22.he was not weake, nor doubted of Gods promiſe, verſ. 19. & 20. This can be no deſcription of Chriſts righteouſneſſe.

I anſwer, though this be no deſcription of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, yet Abrahams faith imputed might be a ſtrong faith in the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, and this makes nothing againſt the Relative conſideration of faith: what ever the degree of faith is, the object is the ſame, nay the ſtronger the faith is, the more is a man united to Chriſt, the greater is his communion with Chriſt and fellowſhip with God, and ſo is his hold faſt of righteouſneſſe, and ſo his peace and comfort. So that this hindereth not, but righteouſneſſe under the notion of faith, may be imputed.

When you ſay the queſtion is not whether Abraham had communion with Chriſt in his righteouſneſſe or no, either more full or leſſe full; but whether what is here affirmed of Abrahams faith, can be applied to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, and be conceived as ſpoken of that.

I anſwer, it can be applyed to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, and thence Abrahams communion with Chriſt in his righteouſneſſe, in that full manner faith being ſo full and ſtrong.

When you demand, Was that faith whereby AbrahamP. 85. doubted not of Gods promiſe, the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt?

I anſwer, it was the ſame faith by which he apprehended the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, by which hee beleeved the promiſe, and in God: What was that promiſe of but p. 124the ſeed, Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe and bleſſedneſſe in and by the ſame?

You ſay your Antagoniſt ſtarteth a new queſtion, you remember not you ever met withall from the Pen or mouth of any Divine, viz. Degrees in Juſtification, as if he held becauſe Abrahams faith was ſtronger, it had fuller communion with Chriſt in his righteouſneſſe then other beleevers have, and ſo muſt needs be more juſtified, and conſequently others juſtification unperfect.

1. Then there is ſomewhat you never heard of, I have betweene two famous and godly Divines in my time, though I approve not that Juſtification hath degrees. It is none of Mr. Walkers, there may be, and are degrees of union and communion with Chriſt, and ſo of faith, by which neither of theſe I ſuppoſe are here perfect. It followeth not of Juſtification or righteouſneſſe, ſeeing every one is perfected for ever, wholly faire, compleate. Mr. Walkers aime is no more then this, that he more ſtrongly applied it, that his a apprehenſion was ſtronger, and that he had more ſenſible communion with him in his righteouſneſſe. Mr. Calv. on thoſe words, Rom. 1. 27. unto faith faith, becauſe ſo much Quia quantum progreditur ſides noſtra, quā tumque in hac cognitioneproſicitur, ſimul augeſcit in nobis Dei juſtitia, & quodammodo ſancitur ejus poſſeſſio.as our faith goeth forward, and ſo much as in this knowledge it profiteth, the righteouſneſſe of God together increaſeth in us, and after a manner its poſſeſsion is eſtabliſhed. Let the laſt phraſe explaine the firſt, that of increaſing, and what is ſaid in my poor opinion is ſafe.

This your argument I read urged by that Prince of the Arminian band, Bertius, p. 135. where it is anſwered by Lubbertus.

Faith imputed to Abraham was that by which he was aſſured Arg. 6. Sect. 23.that he who had promiſnd was able alſo doe it, verſ. 21. & 22. But Chriſts righteouſneſſe is not capable of any ſuch deſcription as this is, therefore it is not imputed.

I anſwer, though Chriſts righteouſneſſe be not capable of ſuch deſcription, that by it Abraham was fully aſſured, yet faith which apprehended the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, was, it ſeemeth it was of its nature, aſſurance is oppoſed to doubt, as by faith he received it, he as a reaſonable and p. 125underſtanding agent did it, and knew the ſame, by faith he was perſwaded and aſſured of the ſame, and ſo of God in Chriſt as revealed, of the promiſe in which God appeared to him Almighty, ingaging power for the ſame. This being added, let your argument and Mr. Walkers anſwer be turned looſe together, and ſtand or fall.

For his ill-ſounding phraſe or two, at beſt, deſerving rods, Scorpions: Let it be tried, the firſt is the repetition of the expreſſure cenſured in the former anſwer, to which all I will ſay is, let what is ſaid by you and anſwered, be turned looſe.

But he ſaith, the more Abraham reſted on Gods power, the more juſtly did God count him a righteous man and impute G.Chriſts righteouſneſſe to him; which implies God doth with leſſe juſtice impute the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to a ſtrong faith.

I anſwer, more juſtly may be conſidered in regard of expreſſion or manifeſtation of it to us, for if it appeare juſtly to be done where the faith is weake, where it is ſtrong the appeareance is more cleare. Truly your adviſe is good, we cannot ſpeake too too conſiderately and adviſedly. I will ſay here, Nemo ſine crimine vivit, & optimus ille qui minimis urgetur. He is an happy man that offends not in what he blameth another. Woe be to your writing, this book, if Rods and Scorpions be made uſe of for every inconſiderate and unadviſed word or ſpeech.

Finally, that which is ſaid, that the object of Abrahams faith, was Gods power and ability, and your inference therefore not the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, is in effect Bell. argument to exclude ſpeciall mercy.

Abraham did not beleeve ſins to be Abraham non creditit ſibi per ſpecialom miſcrico rdiam remiſſa ſuiſſe peccata; ſed ſe patrem ſuturum multarum gentiū, &c. Ideſt, credidit Deum qui promiſerat omnipotentem ac ſideliſſimum, arque haec ſides eireputara ſuit in juſtitiam: ergo.for given to him by ſpeciall mercy, but that he ſhould be the Father of many Nations, &c. That is, he beleeved God who had promiſed to be omnipotent & moſt faithfull, and this faith was reputed to him for righteouſneſſe.

Pareus anſwering, granteth that Abraham did beleeve p. 126thoſe things which his adverſary ſaith, but that did not exclude his faith of ſpeciall mercy in pardon by Chriſt, and then:

Abraham beleeved God not onelyonly Credidit Abraham Deo non ſolum promittenti ſilium ex Sara, ſed etiam promittenti benediſtionem omnibus gentibus in ſemine naſcituro ex ſilio Saroe: In ſemine tuo benedicentur omnes Gentes. Hoc vero ſemen Apoſtolus ad Galatas docer eſſe Chriſtum, & benedictionem interpretatut redemptionem ab execratione, & juſtificationem per ſidem, ad Rom. 4. 11. clarius dicit Abrahamo ſuiſſe imputatam juſtitiam ſidei, &c.Rom 4:11promiſing a ſonne of Sarah, but alſo promiſing bleſſedneſſe to all Nations in his ſeed to be borne of the ſonne of Sarah; In thy ſeed ſhall all Nations be bleſſed. The Apoſtle to the Galatians, teacheth this ſeed truly to be Chriſt, and interpreteth the bleſſing Redemption from the curſe, and juſtification by faith, and Rom. 4. 11. be more clearely ſaith, that unto Abraham was imputed righteouſneſſe by faith.

We beleeve in Jeſus Chriſt for Pardon in the Creed, and God Almighty, ſo did God appeare to Abraham. Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe are not oppoſed to Gods omnipotence, they are ſubordinate: And now to the ſeventh Argument.

That faith that is imputed, is beleeving in him who raiſed Arg. 7. Sect. 24.up Chriſt from the dead, verſ. 24. Chriſts righteouſneſſe is not our beleeving in him that raiſed up Chriſt from the dead: it therefore is not imputed.

I anſwer, your aſſumption and concluſion (which is a common fault) are laid downe onelyonly of the righteouſnes of Chriſt, not of faith, whereas, what you are to improve, is faith in a Relativeſenſe, and taking in Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe, which had you done, the anſwer had beene eaſie. This faith taking in Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe is faith in God which raiſed up the Lord Chriſt from the dead, the ſame faith that beleeveth in Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe, beleeveth in God that raiſed up Chriſt, ſo is it laid downe, 1 Pet 1. 21. upon it our juſtification dependeth; and if it were not, the Apoſtle ſaith our faith is vaine, and we are yet in our ſinnes. Chriſts Reſurrection ſuppoſeth him fully ſatisfying by obedience, even untill death, acquited. In the Creed there is faith in God Almighty, and in Jeſus Chriſt, dead and riſen, &c. whence our remiſſion of p. 127ſinnes and life everlaſting. Who can lay thing to the charge of Gods choſen? Who can cordenone? It is Chriſt that is dead, yea, rather that is riſen, &c.

Here is ſweet harmony, I will leave this alſo to any reaſonable judgement.

The ſumme of it is thus much as laid downe by yourVlt. Arg. Sect. 25. ſelfe. The point of imputation in juſtification being onelyonly handled in this Scripture, and no where elſe explained, it is no waies probable but that the Apoſtle ſhould ſpeake ſomewhat diſtinctly and plainely of the nature of it, otherwiſe he might ſeeme rather to lay a ſtumbling blocke in the way, then to write any thing for the learning and comfort of Chriſtians.

To this I will firſt take the boldneſſe to anſwer, and then conſider of the matter as betweene you and Mr Walker.

1. I anſwer the point of Imputation is not onelyonly handled in this Scripture, it is handled, Gen. 15. 6. and then Pſal. 32. which are the foundations of what the Apoſtle here doth concerning the ſame, and after, Gal. 3. 6.

2. It is elſewhere explained manifeſtly, Rom. 3. 24. Rom. 5. 17, 18, 19. Rom. 8. 4. & Rom. 10. 4. Yea, 1 Cor. 1. 30. 2 Cor. 5. ult. whereas Chriſt, and his righteouſneſſe, and obedience are laid downe that by which, ſo by imputation.C. 7. Sect. 14. To be made juſt by the juſtice of another, is to be juſt by imputation, it being not poſſible for any man to be juſt by anothers juſtice, but by imputation, ſaith Mr. Bradſhaw. So is Adams ſinne ours, ſo is our ſinne Chriſts righteouſneſſe ours by imputation, as all our Divines.

Now by the foundation judge of your ſuperſtructives.

I adde, this ſpeech is a diſtinct and plaine ſpeech, which appeareth by the unanimous judgement of all reformed Writers (but you Mr. Wotton, Arminius, &c.) againſt the Papiſts, who ſtumble at Chriſts righteouſneſſe, and eſtabliſh their owne.

As alſo by all places of Scripture wherein the effects given to faith that juſtifieth, are given to it in reſpect of its relation to Chriſt, as his proper effects to faith meerely as an inſtrument cauſing union and fellowſhip with him by whom they are effected.

p. 128Your interpretation is a meere ſtumbling blocke, and deſtroyer of comfort. This a principall foundation of comfort. The kernell of the Goſpel and head of conſolation, as Junius. Saint Paul judged it ſo when as he accounted all as dung, and would be found not having his owne righteouſneſſe, therefore not faith in a proper ſenſe, his, and a kind of righteouſneſſe, but that which is by faith. I will finiſh this, making it my prayer, which Doctor Prideaux did.

The greateſt and beſt God grant that Faxit Deus optimus maximus ut nos omnia pro detrimentis habeamus, & comperiamur in eo non habentes juſtitiam noſtram quae eſt ex operibus, ſed cam quae eſt ex fide. De juſtif p. 171.we may account all for loſſe, and may be found in him not having our owne righteouſneſſe, which is of workes. (I will adde) faith in a proper ſenſe oppoſed in juſtification to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt; but that which is by faith, which faith receiveth and applieth, the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt Active and paſſive; thoſe robes of righteouſneſſe and garments of ſalvation. In him to that end.