The life of justification opened, or, A treatise grounded upon Gal. 2, II wherein the orthodox doctrine of justification by faith, & imputation of Christ's righteousness is clearly expounded, solidly confirmed, & learnedly vindicated from the various objections of its adversaries, whereunto are subjoined some arguments against universal redemption / by that faithful and learned servant of Jesus Christ Mr. John Broun ...

CHAP. X.

Some Arguments for the Imputation of Christs Righ∣teousness, Vindicated from the Exceptions of John Goodwine.

THe truth concerning the Imputation of Christs Righteousness, hath been hitherto asserted from Scripture; & several of these passages have been vindicated from the Exceptions of Mr. Goodwine, a maine adversary thereunto. For further clearing of the matter, we shall see what Exceptions the same man bringeth-in against the Arguments, which are made use of by the Orthodox for the truth asserted.

Argum. 1. If there be no standing in judgment before God, unless we be endued with perfect Righteousness; then must the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to us, in our justification. But there is no standing for us in judgment before God, unless we be endued with a perfect Righteousness. Ergo, &c.

Against this he excepteth, pag. 192. Chap. 7. saying, That the consequence of the former proposition is not good. And so doth Bellar. answere de Iustific. lib. 2. cap. 7. So do also the Socinians. But let us hear his reasons. Remissin of sins (saith he) which is the purchase & procurement of the death of Christ, is a perfect

Righteousness, & is every way able to bear us out in judgment. Ans. Remission of sins neither is, nor can be called righteousness; ••or a pardoned person is no•• the same with one, that hath kept the law: though by vertue of this par∣don, he is freed from the punishment, due to the transgressours of the law; yet hath he no right to the reward, promised to the keepers of the law. (2) Remission of sins being the purchase of Christs death & Sufferings, can∣not be had without the Imputation of the death & Sufferings of Christ unto the Beleever: & so hereby one halfe of the truth must be granted. But His Sufferings & Obedience going together & both making up one Mediatory & Surety-righteousness, performed by Christ in His estate of humiliation, both most be Imputed, & made over to the Beleever, to the end he may re∣ceive pardon, & right to Glory.

Arg. 2. He that is justified by the Righteousness of another, and not by his own, must needs be justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed; because there is no righteousness to be found in any other, for the justification of a person, in the sight of God. But every man, that is justified, is justified by the righteousness of another, and not by his own. Ergo, &c.

He excepteth 1. The Major is false, because the passive obedience of Christ is the Righteousness of another: and men may be & are throughly & fully justified by the merite hereof, communicated to them in the free pardon of their sinnes; and so need not the imputation of His active obedience. Ans. (1) We plead not for the sole Imputation of Christs active obedience; but for the Imputation of all, that He did and suffered, for & in the room & stead of His owne. (2) Where are Christs meer Sufferings, as distinguished from His obedience, called a righteousness? or how can meer Sufferings, as such, or bearing of the pu∣nishment threatened by the law, be called a righteousness? doth not righ∣teousness denote the conformity of actions unto the law? (3) When it is said, the merite of Christs passive obedience is communicated unto us, the meaning must be one of these two; either that it self is properly made over & imputed to us; or onely in its effect, free pardon of sinnes. If this latter be said, Then no other Imputation is granted, than what Socinians will yeeld unto: & how can it be said to be Imputed, as to its Effects, when it self is not Imputed, in order to the partaking of these effects? If the former be said, then there is something, that is in it self imputed, & not meerly in its Effects. And if Christs Passions & Sufferings be imputed, abstracted from His righ∣teousness & Active obedience, they shall be justified without a righteousness. And it neither is, nor ever will be proved, that pardon of sinnes is the whole of justification; or that a pardoned man is, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ipso, that he is par∣doned, a righteous man; or that a pardoned man, meerly as such, hath right to the recompence of reward, promised to the fulfiller of the law.

Except 2. to the Minor, A man may be said (saith he) to be justified by the Righteousness of another, and not by his own, in a double sense, Either 1. by way of merite; and then it is true, that every one is justified by the Righteousness of another, that is, by the merite of the righteousness of another, or 2. by way of forme; & so it is altogether untrue; for that Righteousness, where with a man

is formally made Righteous, is alwayes a mans own by donation & Possession. Ans. (1) When a man is justified by the merite of the Righteousness of another, that Righteousness of the other must be imputed to the justified person; or we have no other Imputation, than what Socinians yeeld to (2.) If the righteousness, whereby one is formally justified, be his owne by donation & possession, & no other possession be thereunto requisite, then we may be said to be formally justified by the righteousness of Christ: for we affirme, that Beleevers are possessed thereof by Gods free donation and Imputation: & thus the whole is granted; for nothwithstanding hereof, that same righ∣teousness, which is made over to the Beleever, by free donation & Imputation, is Christs Inherently, & so is the righteousness of another. Where∣by we see, that the members of this distinction thus explained, are not dif∣ferent. Yet, we must not think, that this righteousness of Christ is so given to us, as that it is inherent in us, & wrought in us, as Faith & Repentance are: for even Remission of sinnes, whereby he will have us formally justi∣fied, is not so in us, as Faith and Repentance are in us: And through Gods Imputation and Donation, the righteousness of Christ may be the Beleevers, when it is received by faith, as well as Remission of sinnes: for, to speak in his own language, that which is given unto man by God, may truely and properly be called his own. (3) That remission of sins is formal justification, will never be proved: and seing he will have Remission of sins to be the pure Effect of Christs Sufferings and death; so must justification be: and then, why saith the Apostle, Rom. 4: 25. Who was delivered (viz. to Sufferings and death) for our offences, and raised againe for our justifica∣tion?

Arg. 3. If Beleevers have a true and real communion with Christ, then is his Righteousness theirs by imputation. But the former is true, &c. It may be, he proposeth the Argument, in such a mode & way, as may be most to His own advantage; for who argueth thus, he nameth not. Yet it is true, that the Union, which beleevers have with Christ, is the ground or their communion with Him in all things, which He was made or God to be for them, & which their necessity called for; among which His whole Surety-righteousness doth challenge a chiefe p••ace. Nor would I argue from the Union & communion in general; but from such a particular Union and communion, as is darkly shadowed forth unto us in the Scriptures, by such and such similitudes; such as the Union betwixt Man and Wife, who are one flesh, as Christ and Beleevers are one Spirit; as the Union be∣twixt the principal debtor and the Cautioner; and betwixt the publick Head and Representative, and the Members represented; as betwixt the Redeemer and the Redeemed and the like. And to argue from such an Union, for such a peculiar end, to such a communion, as we here plead for, may stand against all his Exceptions, pag. 195. &c. Which are these fol∣lowing.

Except 1. The Major wants truth, because a true and real communion with Christ may stand, without His active obedience being made theirs by Imputation. There is a real Union and communion between the head and the feet, in the same

Natural body; yet is not the braine, or the proper functions & operations of the head, made the braine or functions of the feet. So between the Husband and the Wife; yet is not the holiness, strength and Wisdom of the Husband made over to the Wife by Imputation. And. Similitudes go not alwayes upon foure ••eet: and as these Similitudes come short of expressing the Union and Communion, that is betwixt Christ and Beleevers; so they are not appos••••ely here applied: for neither is the end of the Union and Communion between the Head and the Feet, that the braines and operations of the Head should be communi∣cate to the feet; but that the head should use its proper operations & fun∣ctions for the good of the feet: nor do the feet stand in need of any other thing from the head. And thus also is it in the other Similitude, as to the particulars Instanced: yet in other particulars, this last Similitude will come neerer to our business; for though the Husbands Wisdom, Holiness or Strength (which are not communicable) be not imputable to the Wife; yet his Honour & Riches can be & are imputed or communicated: for, though before the Mariage, the Woman was in a base condition, yet being mat∣ched with on honorable person, she partaketh of his honour; and being, before the marriage, a person in debt, her Husbands riches are so impu∣ted to her, that she may be & is made thereby solvendo, and freed from her Creditors pursuit, and her Husband and she becometh one person in law, & he becometh chargable with her debt, & obliged to pay it So that as there is an Imputation, or a real devolving by law of the debt of the Wife upon the Husband; so his making payment & Satisfaction for the same, is by law accounted hers; & she is thereupon freed from all charge & trouble from her creditours.

Except 2. The Major wanteth reason; for there is no coloure of truth in it, that that Union and Communion, which beleevers have with Christ, should of ne∣cessity draw after it the Imputation of His active obedience; so that this obedience of His should become their formal Righteousness; more than the Imputation of His Wisdom, Power and Glory. Ans. (1) If by formal righteousness he understand with Papists, inherent holiness, or righteousness, it is nothing to the pur∣pose; for we assert no such Imputation. (2) That the whole of Christs Su∣rety-righteousness be so imputed to beleevers, as that it becometh theirs; so that they, meerly upon the account thereof, and clothed therewith, may be and are repute and held to be persons just, in the account of God, & so be justified in His sight, is the thing we assert: and that this doth necessari∣ly flow from Beleevers Union with Him by faith, and is a part of the Com∣munion they have with Him, and that upon a double account, First be∣cause He became Surety, and undertook their debt; & so was made under the law, and obeyed and Suffered all that it could have demanded of them; for this end and purpose, that what He thus did & suffered, as a publick person or Surety, might stand for them, & be accepted on their behalfe. Secondly because their case and necessity called for this, in order to their justification and Acceptance with God. (3) His Wisdom and power are other waves improven, and laid forth to their advantage, according to the Nature of the thing, and necessity.

Arg. 4. If there be no other principal End, Reason, or Necessity, why Christ should fulfill the law; but only that His obedience thereunto might be imputed to us for Righteousness, in our Justification, then is not the Im∣putation thereof to be denied. But the former is true. Ergo, &c. And sure, if Christs obedience to the law, was not necessary in respect of Him∣self, it must have been performed upon the account of Beleevers; and that principally and mainely for their Justification and Salvation; and therefore for this end, that it might be imputed unto them. Against this, pag. 197. &c. He,

Except. There are diverse other ends, reasons and necessities to be assigned hereof. Ans. This is not the maine thing, that is here denied; nor will all this help our Adversary, unless it can be shown, that those other Ends, which we deny not, are prejudicial unto, & inconsistent with that, which we look upon, as the chiefe, & as peculiar to Him, as Mediator & Surety, standing in the room of His people, who did mainely stand in need of this. Let us now see the particular ends he toucheth.

1. One reason (saith he) might be, to procure the greater Authority & deeper reverence to the Doctrine, which he taught, Matt. 7: 28. Ans. (1) The Soci∣nians, upon the same account, deny, that His death was any proper Satis∣faction for Beleevers: and if this be a weak argument in their mouth, it cannot be strong in the mouth of our present Opposites. (2) This End is but subordinat unto, and no way inconsistent with the principal End, which we have mentioned. (3) Though Christs Miracles had a more direct ten∣dency to procure this Reverence, than His Holy life; yet neither the one, nor the other were peculiar to Him alone: for both the Miracles, wrought by others, such as Prophets and Apostles, and their holy life, had a ten∣dency to procure Reverence and Beleef to their Doctrine: And himself con∣firmeth this in the following words, saying. It is a truth of general acknowledg∣ment, that the holiness, uprightness and unblameableness of the lives of Teachers have a powerful Influence into the consciences of Men, to render them more obser∣vant & awfull in their attention to the things, which are taught by them, citeing Mat. 2••: 32. Ioh. 5: 35. & 8: 46. 1 Tim. 4: 12. 2 Tim. 3: 14. (4) We are to consider Christ, as Mediator and Surety, in what He did, as well, as in what He Suffered, in His state of Humiliation: for to us a Childe was born, and to us a Son was given; He was made under the law for us, that he might redeem such, as ••ere under the law, that they might receive the Adoption of Sones. Esai. 9: 5. Gal. 4: 4, 5.

2. This active obedience of Christ, (saith he) was serviceable to that same great End, whereunto our righteousness and obedience are subservient, viz. the glory of God, & the advancement of His Kingdom, Ioh. 8: 49. & 7: 18. Ans. And was not His death & Sufferings also subservient unto this great end? Will it therefore follow, that He died not, to make Satisfaction to justice, for the sinnes of His people? And if this cannot follow, what ever Socinians ima∣gine; how shall it, or can it hence follow, that His obedience was not to sa∣tisfie the demands of the law, and to procure the reward to His people? Is there any Inconsistency betwixt His fulfilling the law, as Mediator and Sure∣ty,

in the room of His people; & His doing it for the glory of God, & the advancement of His Kingdom?

3. Another en•• (saith he) is the exemplariness of it. Ans. This is but another arrow, taken out of the quiver of the Socinians; & is of no force to weaken our argument; seing a subordinat & less principal end doth not destroy a more principal end. Was He not exemplary to us in His death & Sufferings? shall we therefore say, That there was no satisfaction for sins intended there∣by? And what is there here peculiar unto Christ, as Lord Mediator, seing the lives of other Saints are also exemplary?

4. It had (saith he) an excellent Importance to draw to Imitation. Ans. This is the same with the preceeding, and deserveth no further answere.

5. It was (saith he) a meanes of continueing His person in the love and compla∣c••ncy of His Father, which was a thing of absolute necessity, for the carrying on of the great work of Redemption: for if He had once miscarried, who should have mediated for Him? Ioh. 15: 10. & 8: 29. Ans. As to His Person, He was God equal with the Father, in power and Glory: It were therefore blas∣phemy once to suppose, that His person stood in need of this, for any such end: or to suppose, that He could have failed, as to any act of obedience, & thereby have displeased God. Wherefore His obedience being the obe∣dience of one, who was & is God over all, blessed for ever, it could not be necessary to Himself unto any such end. Therefore it behoved to be wholly for us, for whom He was made under the law; as He was given to us, and borne for us.

6. It was (saith he) of absolute necessity to qualify & fit the Sacrifice for the Al∣tar, and render Him a person meet by His death and Sacrifice of Himself, to make attonement for the world, and to purge and take away the sin of it. Ans. Shall we think that He, who was God, was not a fit enoug Sacrifice for the world; but that He must be made fit and prepared by acts of obedience? And as for His Humane Nature, which was no person, but did subsist in the Divine Nature, being assumed into the subsistence thereof, was it not suffi∣ciently fitted to be a Sacrifice, by its personal union with the Godhead? was it not thereby Holy Harmless & undefiled & separat from sinners, which is all that the Apostle requireth, Heb. 7: 26? Was not the Humane Na∣ture personally united unto the Godhead, from the very first moment of conception? The holiness then, that consisteth in Acts of Actual obedience, was not required unto this Union: and after this Union it was not possible, that He could sinne: as it is not possible, that the glorified now in Heaven can break the Lawes, that we break here, while on earth; and yet it will not follow, that they are under the same particular obligations to particu∣lar acts of commanded duties, that we stand under: So nor was Christ, as to Himself, under the obligation of the p••rticular duties of the law, to which He willingly submitted Himself, & gave obedience; but all this was for us: Nor was this necessarily required to make His Sacrifice Holy; for His Humane Nature, being once united, to the Divine, could not otherwayes be but holy and without sin; and so a sinless and holy Sacrifice. And with∣all we would take notice, that the Actions of the Mediator, were the Actions

of the person, and not of either of the Natures alone; & therefore must not be looked upon, as the Actions of a meer man. So that His acts of obe∣dience, were the acts of obedience of God man, or of that person, that was God. He needeth not then tell us, that the Absolute holiness and Righ∣teousness of the humanity it self was of necessary concurrence unto His obedience: for we grant it, and this flowed from the hypostatical union: but that, which we deny, is, That there was an Holiness and Righteousness in acts of outward obedience to the law requisite thereunto; as if the humane Na∣ture, by vertue of the hypostatical union, had not been holy and harmless, untecedently unto those outward acts of obedience; and so had not been a sinless and holy Sacrifice, if He had been offered up in His Infancy, or before He was in capacity to do any commanded acts. He needeth not say (as he doth pag. 204.) that we conceive, that Christ-man might have been righteous without doing the works of Righteousness, which is all one, as to say, that He might have been Righteous, though He had transgressed; for not to keep the law, in those, to whom the law is given, is nothing else, but to transgress. For we neither do, nor need assert any such thing: for by vertue of the hypostatical union, He was Righteous, and could not transgress, or do any thing contrary to what was imposed upon Him: but we say, that by vertue of this union, as to Himself, the Humane Nature was not under the law, as we are; but He was under the law, that He might fulfill it for others; & not to fit and qua∣lifie Him to be a meet Sacrifice, as if for this His Humane Nature had not been meet enough before. To this he saith, pag. 205. Let this Supposition be admitted, that Christ had suffered in the womb, and that this Suffering of His had been fully Satisfactory; yet had He been as perfectly righteous, in this case; and consequently had kept the law perfectly, as now He hath done; for the law requireth of Infants, during their Infancy, nothing but holiness of Nature. I Ans. (1.) This is enoug to confirme what we say, viz. That all His after actual obedience was not necessary to this end. (2) And beside though this holiness of Nature was conforme to the law upon the matter, yet it was not a formal obedience unto the law, if we speak of Him in reference to Himself; for the Humane Nature had this Holiness by vertue of the Hypostatical union: and Christ, when the Humane Nature was first conceived, was God-man; and the per∣son was under no law; & so was not under the obligation of any such law; but was made under the law, as Mediator; and so, for us, and not for him∣self; nor it is any more to advantage, to except againe & say, that His meaning is not, that there was an absolute necessity, that he should keep the law, upon the same termes, every wayes, which now He hath done, as that He should performe the same Individual acts of obedience, or the same number of acts, in case He had been called to suffer any white sooner: but that untill the very Instant, in which He should suffer, whether it were sooner, or later, He should in all things submit himself unto the good pleasure of God. For it doth hence sufficiently ap∣pear, That all his after obedience, in all these particular acts, was not ne∣cessary to fit Him, as a Sacrifice; & so could not be necessary for Himself. And therefore seing He had been a sufficiently holy Sacrifice, had He been offered up before the actual performance of these commanded duties in the law, it is manifest, that these duties were not required unto the end alleiged:

but that, as He was made under the law for us; so all His actual obedience to the law was for us, and not for himself. The Excepter, in end, per∣ceiving the Invalidity of all his own discourse here, closeth the matter thus, pag. 206. But however suppose this necessity or use of the Righteousness of Christ could not be sufficiently cleared; yet since there are many others of undeniable evidence, the position so much contended for; to wit, that the Godhead of Christ sufficiently qualified Him for such a Sacrifice, as He was, makes nothing at all for the Impu∣tation of His Righteousness. Therefore we shall not trouble either our selves, or our Reader any further with untying an Impertinent knot. What these others of un∣deniable evidence are, we have not yet seen: and, sure, this one ground is sufficient to demonstrat, that his obedience to the law, in all points, was not for himself, nor to qualifie him, as a Sacrifice; but for us: and there∣fore it must be imputed, & made over to us and become our Righteousness, whereby and whereupon, together with his Sufferings, made over to us also, we are to be justified and accepted of God, as Righteous; and not only have pardon of sinnes, but also a Right to the Inheritance, and to the reward promised upon obedience.

7. As Christ (saith he, p. 206.) was a Sacrifice; so was He and yet is, & is to be for ever, Hebr. 7: 27. &c. An High-Priest; and that Righteousness of His we speak of, qualifieth Him, that is, contributeth to His qualification for Priest∣hood, as well as it did for His Sacrifice. Ans. Seing it cannot be proved, that his actual obedience to the law (which is the Righteousness we are here spea∣king of) was necessary to qualifie him to be a Sacrifice here on earth; much less can it be proven, that it was necessary to qualifie him for his Priest-hood in heaven. And all these qualifications mentioned, Heb. 7: 26, He had, before that actual obedience was either performed, or he in a capacity to performe it: & therefore his actual obedience was not necessary thereunto.

8. That holy pleasure (saith he) and contentment, which Christ himself took in these works of Righteousness, may be looked upon, as one considerable end, Ioh. 4: 34. Ans. So took He pleasure and delight to Suffer: He had a Baptisme to be baptized with, and how was he straitned, or pained, till it was accom∣plished, Luk. 12: 50. Shall we then say, that therefore his death was not to make Satisfaction for the sins of his own? These are but Socinian Evasions, that have no force to weaken the truth, in the least. And thus, notwith∣standing of all his Exceptions, this Argument abideth in its strength. We proceed to another.

Arg. 5. If we be debtors unto the law, and that not only in matter of punishment, but in perfection of obedience also; then did Christ ••ot only suffer death for us, that we might be delivered from the Curse; but also fulfilled the law, that so we may be reputed to have fulfilled the law in him, or by the Imputation of His fulfilling of the law to us. Otherwise the law should yet remaine to be fulfilled by us. But the former is true. Ergo, &c. The force of the Argum. lyeth here, that we were debtors unto the law, not only as to the punishment, which we had deserved by transgression; but also as to perfect conformity thereunto: and therefore coming in our law-place, & taking on our debt, did not only un∣dergoe the punishment for us, but did also yeeld perfect obedience: And

this compleet Surety-righteousness of Christ, consisting both in doing and Suffering, must be imputed unto us, and reckoned upon our score, to the end, we may be justified and Accepted of God, as Righteous; & have Right not only to Impunity, but also to the Reward, promised to the obedient.

He excepteth p. 208. &c. Against the Minor, upon these grounds. 1. If the meaning (saith he) be, that we, who are beleevers, are debtors to the law in perfection for our justification; it is false. But as for these, that beleeve not in Christ, it may be true, in this sense; that if they mean to be justified, and to escape the punishment, otherwise than by Christ, they must keep the whole law. Ans. (1) We say not, that Beleevers, who are already justified, through the Im∣puted Righteousness of Christ, are debtors unto the law, for this end: but that ere they could be justified and accepted of God, as Righteous, they were obliged to perfect obedience, as well as to suffer the penalty: and seing this was impossible unto them, their Surety was to do it, and he did it, and what he did was imputed unto them, and reckoned upon their score. (2) As for Unbeleevers (ans such are all by Nature) seing it is confessed, that they ere under this obligation, then it is necessary, that before they be ju∣stified, either they, or a Surety for them, must satisfy both these demands of the law. And though none be now under a command, to give perfect obedience unto the law, to the end, they may be justified; but such as hear the Gospel are commanded to beleeve in Christ, and to accept of him by faith, that they may have an Interest in his Righteousness, & so be justified: yet that taketh not away this Imputation, but establisheth it rather; be∣cause Christ having satisfied all the demands of the law, both in doing and in Suffering, and that as a Surety, Head, Redeemer and publick Person, by beleeving in him, they receive this, and have it made over unto them.

2. If the proposition (saith he) meaneth, that Beleevers are debtors of perfect obedience to the law, in a way of Sanctification & thankfulness. This is true, but it concerneth not the question. Ans. Nor do we speak of this, knowing that it is nothing to the present question: But this we say, That all men by nature, and so Beleevers, before they be justified by faith in Christ, are not on∣ly under the Curse, because of sin; but are under the demand of the law, or the commanding power of the law, requiring perfect obedience, in order to the reward: And that therefore both these demands of the law must be satisfied by their Surety, and the same must be imputed to them and reckoned upon their score, before they can be looked on, as free of the Curse, and as heirs of the Reward, promised to full & perfect obedience.

3. We are not (saith he) therefore exempted from keeping the law, no not in re∣spect of justification it self, because we have transgressed it, but because 1. having once transgressed it, we are utterly uncapable of such an observation, whether per∣sonally, or by imputation, which may amount to justification, or exemption from punishment. 2. That relaxation or release from an observation of, or dependance upon the law by justification accrueth unto us by meanes of our dependance upon

Christ for justification, through his death, Rom. 7: 4. Ans. (1) If our trans∣gression of the law doth not exeem us from the obligation to keep it per∣fectly, in order to justification, then, ere we be justified, that obligation must be satisfied, as well, as the obligation to punishment; and so the law must be perfectly keeped, as well as its penalty suffered: And seing we our selves can do neither, our Surety must do it for us, & that must be accepted for us, & imputed to us. (2) Nor can it be said, that our uncapableness to keep it, so as may amount to justification, doth exeem us from the obliga∣tion, or destroy the lawes power to require that of us; more than our unca∣pableness to suffer the penalty, so as may amount to a justification, doth or can exeem us from the obligation to suffer, or destroy the lawes power to re∣quire the penalty of us. It is true, that no man now is called of God to en∣deavoure this way of justification: yet all such, as live without the Gospel have not the better & more sure way, through faith in Christ made known unto them. The obligation to perfect obedience remaining after the trans∣gression, saith, that, ere a man, that was both obliged to Suffer, and to yeeld perfect obedience, can be justified, the law, as to both these de∣mands, must be satisfied, & the Sureties Satisfaction to both must be rec∣koned upon his score. (3) Justification & Exemption from punishment are not one & the same, in our case, more than pardon & Righteousness. (4) The Exemption, that accrueth to beleevers, saith not, that there was no obligation upon mankind both to suffer and to obey, in order to justifica∣tion, anteriour to Christs doing both.

4. God never required (saith he pag. 210.) of any man, but only of Christ, both exactness of obedience to the law, & subjection to punishment, due to the transgression of the law conjunctim, but divisim only. He that shall perfectly keep the law, is not bound to suffer the penalty. Ans. (1) Then our transgressing of the law should exeem us from the obligation to obedience, contrare to what was granted in the First Exception. (2) Though he, who perfectly keepeth the law, is obnoxious to no punishment; yet he, who breaketh the law (as we all did in Adam, beside our daily transgressions) is obnoxious to pu∣nishment; & this obnoxiousness to punishment no more dissolveth his obli∣gation to obedience, than his transgression was able to do. And therefore we are all, considered in our Natural state, obliged to both conjunctim; for we are borne sinners, and yet born under the obligation of keeping the law of God. (3) Gods requiring both of Christ, who was Mediator & Surety, saith, that both were required of us: for what was required of him, as Su∣rety, was required of the principal debtors.

5. He saith, In case a Man hath transgressed the law, & hath suffered (whether by himself, or by some other for him) the full punishment threatned, he is no fur∣ther a debtor unto the law, neither in point of punishment, nor of obedience: for the punishment is of equal consideration to the law, with the most absolute confor∣mity: and as no man can be obliged to fulfill the law twice for his justification; so neither is it reasonable to conceive, that he, who hath suffered the full penalty, that being as satisfactory to the law, as the exactest obedience, should be still bound to the observation of the law. Ans. When the law promiseth life to the fulfillers, as

well as threatneth death to the transgressours, the suffering of death for the transgression, is not such a fulfilling of the law, as hath the promise of life annexed to it: Devils, though now suffering the vengeance of eternal fire, the death threatned, yet cannot be said to be fulfilling the law, or o∣beying unto life; nor can they be said to be justified, nor to be suffering any thing, in order thereunto. In order therefore to our justification & Ac∣ceptance with God, as heirs of the life promised, who were both obnoxious to punishment, & also obliged to give perfect obedience to the law, the law as to both, must be satisfied. Nor can we say, that the punishment of Devils is of equal consideration to the law, with the conformity yeelded thereunto by the confirmed Angels. And though the suffering of the penalty in lawes pe∣nal or such as promise no reward unto the obeyers, may be said to be of equal consideration with the keeping of the law; yet this cannot be said in lawes, which promise a Reward to the observers, as well as threaten a pu∣nishment to transgressours: Nor can the man, that suffereth the punishment, suppose to the full, that is threatened in the law, be said to have fulfilled the law, and to have deserved the reward promised to obeyers. (2) Though Christ hath both obeyed the law, & suffered the punishment; yet the law is not twice fulfilled, but once, because, as was granted, such as were sin∣ners and obnoxious to punishment, were also obliged to yeeld perfect obe∣dience: for transgression did not destroy this obligation. As when a man is punished for breach of a law, that not only required obedience under such a penalty, but also promised a reward to the observers, when he is put to per∣forme what was commanded, ere he can have the promised reward, he is not put to fulfill the law twice: for his punishment was but Satisfaction to one part of the law, or to threatning; but it was no satisfaction of the law, as to the reward promised.

Arg. 6. If there be no justification, without a perfect Righteousness, & no such Righteousness to be found, but the Righteousness of Christ perfor∣med to the law, then of Necessity this Righteousness must be imputed to us unto justification. But the former is true. Ergo, &c. The ground of this Argument is, that justification is the pronouncing of a person righteous, & justification being Gods act, the person justified must be righteous, ere God can judge & pronounce him to be such; for the judgment of God is alwayes according to truth; & no person having a righteousness of his own, all that are justified must have a Righteousness imputed to them; and there is no Righteousness that can be said to be imputed, but the Surety righ∣teousness of Christ, and particularly, in satisfying all the demands of the law.

He Excepteth, pag. 211. against the Minor 1. That however it be true, that justification cannot take place, without a perfect Righteousness, being nothing else than the making of a man perfectly Righteous: yet a Righteousness consisting determinatly of such a tale of righteous acts, as Christ performed unto the Moral law, is not absolutely necessary: for in reference to the jewes, there must have been righteous acts performed unto the ceremonial law also. Ans. (1) Justifica∣tion is not the making of a man perfectly righteous; but the judicial pro∣nouncing

& declaring of a man to be so, through the Righteouseness of Christ, imputed to him & received by faith. (2) A perfect Righteousness, consisting in compleat obedience the law is required: we urge not such a determination of acts, in number & tale to the moral, or to the Ceremo∣nial law: only we assert the necessity of a full obedience to the Rule of Righteousness, which God prescribed unto men, & this was the Moral law: Though, as to the jewes there were other prescriptions proposed, than were to others of the world; yet these same prescriptions, consisting in Ceremo∣nials, or in Judicials, were reduced to the Moral law, & were enjoined thereby, so long as they stood in force, and were not repealed by the Su∣pream Law giver.

Except 2. Neither is it so absolutly true, that there is no perfect Righteousness to be found, beside Christs. There is a Righteousness in the law as absolut & com∣pleat. And it is much more probable, that if God Imputes a legal Righteousness unto Men in justification, He fournisheth them this way out of the law. Ans. But what is that Righteousness in the law? doth the law hold forth any Righteousness, but perfect obedience? and how can God furnish them with this, but by Imputing unto them the perfect obedience of Christ, seing He hath not so or∣dered matters, as they shall be in case, while here, perfectly to keep the law themselves. (2) He remitteth us to what he said formerly in the same Trea∣tise; and in that place, he maketh this compleat Righteousness to consist in Remission of sinnes. And yet, it is certaine, that Remission is no obe∣dience; nor is it a Righteousness held forth in the law; not is it any Sa∣tisfaction to the law: yea, it agreeth noth with common sense, nor with Reason to say, that by Remission of sins men are made formally Righ∣teous.

Except. 3. That perfect Righteousness, wherein justification consisteth, and where with men are made formally Righteous, when they are justified, is nothing else but Remission of sins, Rom. 4: 6, 7. Ans. Remission of sins is not a perfect Righ∣teousness. This hath no countenance, from Scripture, nor from Reason, or common sense. Who ever thought, or said, that a pardoned Thiefe or Murderer was a Righteous man? or that his pardon made him formally Righ∣theous, and an observer of the law? Though thereupon he be freed from the penalty, or from the punishment threatned in the law against such transgressours; yet is he nor thereupon either made or declared to be Righteous; but his pardon is a virtual declaration, that he is not Righ∣teous, but a Transgressour. How that place, Rom. 4: 6, 7. is perver∣ted, when adduced to give countenance to this fiction, is declared al∣ready.

He addeth, pag. 215. two Reasons for this: the first is, That remission of sins is equivalent unto, and virtually containeth & comprehendeth in it, the most absolute and entire obedience unto the law. Ans. Remission of sins, as such, is so far from being equivalent to this, or from comprehending this in it, that it is a plaine declaration of the contrary: for where entire obedience is, there Remission hath no place, and Remission must presuppose a Trans∣gression. The next is, Because (swaith he) it hath all these great and high

privileges annexed to it, and depending upon it, which a Righteousness, most strickly so called, could have, as the Love, Favour, acceptation and approba∣tion of God. Ans. If we speak of Remission of sinnes, in it self, and ab∣stractly considered, this is also false: for though a pardoned man be freed from the punishment, due to Transgressours; yet, as meerly pardoned, he hath no right to Reward, promised to the perfect observers of the law: Nothwithstanding hereof, we grant that the man pardoned of God hath all these high and great privileges; but not by vertue of his meer pardon; but because there is a Righteousness, imputed to him, upon which these privileges do depend, and Exemption from punishment dependeth upon his pardon.

He hath two other Reasons elsewhere, pag. 5, 6. to this purpose; as 1. That Remission includeth the acknowledgment of the observation of the whole law, even as the Imputation of the law fulfilled, necessarily includeth the non-imputation of sin. Ans. Though in our justification, this might be granted to be true, upon the matter, because there is an Imputation of the whole Surety-righteousness of Christ together; and the one part is not separated from the other; so that the one consequently inferreth the other. But when it is thus reasoned against the Imputation of the one, the Inference here must be understood of a formal Inference, and so it is false, that Remission in∣cludeth the acknowledgment of the observation of the whole law; for it on∣ly includeth the non-Imputation of guilt, notwithstanding that the law was broken: yea, as is said, it manifestly supposeth the contrary, viz. That the law was not perfectly observed, for had the law been perfectly observed, there had been no place for pardon. Moreover, Remission as such, giveth no Right to the reward, promised unto perfect obedience; but only impunity from the punishment, threatned for disobedience. 2. saith he. He cannot be said to have all this sinnes fully forgiven, who is yet looked vpon, as one that hath transgressed, either by Omission, or Commission, & intended to be dealt with all as such. Ans. Though he, whose sinnes are fully forgiven, cannot be dealt with, as one guilty of sin, that is, as one liable to the punishment; yet he may be looked on, as one, that was guilty, and so did not give full and perfect obedience: and therefore, though he cannot be dealt with as a Transgres∣sour; yet neither can he be dealt with, upon the account of his Remission, as one that hath yeelded perfect obedience, & did never transgress. Where∣fore, seing he cannot be looked upon, as one that never transgressed, he cannot be looked upon, as one that hath a perfect Righteousness, and so, a Right to the Reward. The similitudes taken from a phisician, restoreing his patient to health, by recovering him from his sickness; and from the Sun, in one act expelling darkness & bringing in light, which are here ad∣duced for illustration, have no force to prove any thing here, in regard, there is no correspondence in all points, betwixt Matters Natural, & Mat∣ters meerly Moral, or Political. There is no Medium betwixt light and darkness, or the habite and its privation; but there is a Medium here be∣twixt Transgressing of the law, & perfect obedience to the law unto the end, Adam, so long as he stood, was no Transgressour; yet he had not then gi∣ven

perfect obedience to the end, according to the Covenant. So there is a Medium betwixt Freedom from the Penalty, & the Right to the Reward, as was shown above.

Arg. 7. If do this & live, be an everlasting Rule of God, & which shall never be dissolved, then must the Active obedience of Christ be imputed un∣to Men, in justification, that so they may be said to have done this, and so live. But the former is true, Ergo, &c. That these words, do this and live, containe a determination & constitution of the Lord, as unalterable, as these words, That day thou eats, thou shalt die, cannot well be denied: and therefore, if because of this latter, no man can be saved, unless their Su∣rety die for them; so because of that former, no man can have right to the reward, unless his Surety performe perfect obedience. And as the one is imputed to the Beleever, so must the other be Imputed also, in order to his compleat Salvation.

Against this he excepteth, pag. 216. &c. thus, In this sense, I grant, that do this and live, is an everlasting Rule, that is, it is, hath been, and shall be everlastingly true, that who so ever shall fulfill the law perfectly, shall live. But not in this sense, that it is the only perpetual and standing Rule, whereby and ac∣cording to which, men must be justified, and so saved: for in this sense, it neither is, nor ever was, nor ever shall be a rule of God: for God hath alwayes had, and for ever will have another rule for the justification of men. Ans. (1.) Was it not a Rule of life & justification to Adam, in the state of Innocency? was he not, according to that Covenant, where in he stood, to purchase the good pro∣mised by his doing? It may be, the Excepter thinketh, with the Socinians, that no more was promised to Adam, than what he had in possession. (2.) We do not assert it, as a standing rule, whereby we should now expect to be ju∣stified; but we say, that it being a constitution of God's, as well as the other, viz. That day thou eats, thou shalt die, It must be satisfied, as well as the other. And as the rule of faith taketh not away Christs suffering of death, according to what was threatened in the law; so nor doth the law of faith take away His obedience, according to the command of the law: and as Christs paying down of the Penalty was necessary for our freedom from death; so His giving full obedience to the law is necessary to our life; though, as was said, we need not nicely thus distinguish, save to shew the necessity of the Imputation of both.

Arg. 8. That Righteousness, which God accepteth on our behalfe, is the Righteousness imputed to us in justification. But the Righteousness of Christ is that Righteousness, which God accepteth on our behalf, Ergo, &c.

He excepteth, pag. 217. 1. Denying the Major, because God may and doth accept that for us, or on our behalf, which yet He need not impute to us; at He ac∣cepted of Abrahanis prayer, in the behalf of Ismael; & of the prayer of Elisha for the Shumanites Son, and yet neither was imputed to the other. Ans. But all this, & a thousand Instances of the like nature, can evince nothing; for the Argu∣ment speaketh of what is accepted of God, in order to justification, as the ground and meritorious cause thereof; which the Instances adduced come

not nigh unto. He addeth, In like manner, these, in whose behalf, Christs Sufferings were accepted, receive an unspeakable benefite & blessing by them; but this operats nothing to the Inference of the Imputation pleaded for; that is, that God must look upon these Sufferings of Christ, as if they had personally endured them, on whose behalf they are accepted. Ans. Then it seemeth not only is the Imputation of Christs active obedience denied; but also the Imputation of His death and Sufferings; and no more is granted, than what Socinians will yeeld unto. (2) The Imputation, we plead for, is not such as maketh God to look upon these Sufferings of Christ, as if Beleevers had personally endured them: but such, as maketh God to look upon them, as the Sufferings of Christ, as Surety, Head & Publick person, in the room & stead of His chosen ones; which Sufferings & payment of the Penalty by the Surety, being made over unto, & reckoned upon the score of Beleevers, they are, upon the account thereof, accepted & dealt with, as if they themselves had so Suffered and Satisfied, in their own persons.

2. He distinguisheth thus, If by the Righteousness of Christ the proposition meaneth, precisely that obedience, which He exhibited to that general & common law, whereunto all Men are obliged, considered apart from His obedience to that particular law of Mediator, given to Himself alone, so it is false. If by Righteous∣ness be here meant that obedience of Christ, commonly called passive, or both active and passive together; so it may be true: but then the other will be found tardy. Ans. (1) Christs obedience to that general law, by which all men were obliged, did as well belong to His law of Mediation, and was comprehended under it, as His giving up Himself to Suffering & to death: for as Mediator He was made under the law, as well as suffered the Curse. (2) The Minor pro∣position is to be understood of the whole Surety-righteousness, consisting not only in Suffering; but also in actual obedience to the law: & when this is granted, the whole we seek is granted. Neither is the former proposition found tardy, as appeareth from what is said; & the Syllogisme is good, and no Paralogisme, what ever he supposeth.

Arg. 9. If Christ were a publick Person, standing in the place or stead of all those that should beleeve in Him; then all that He did and Suffered, is to be looked upon & reputed by God, as done & Suffered by these, & con∣sequently are Imputed to them. But the former is true, Ergo, &c. Sure, if Christ was a publik person, standing in the place and room of the chosen ones, all that He did, as such a person, or as a Surety, as to that wh••••h law and justice required of them, & they were obliged unto, must needs be imputed unto them, & reckoned upon their score; and they must be dealt with upon the account thereof, as if all had been done & suffered by themselves. We do not say, that all He did & Suffered, is or must be Imputed: but that all, which He did and suffered, in Satisfaction of the law, and in payment of that, which we were liable unto, & stood under the obligation of, is and must of necessity be imputed, to the end we may be deliver•••• from under the former obligation.

He excepteth, pag. 220. &c. 1. The publickness of Christs person, or His standing in the place of those, that should beleeve, is no sufficient ground to build

this Inference upon, That therefore all He did & suffered, are looked upon by God, as done and suffered by them; such as His conception, Birth, &c. Ans. We have obviated this already, by showing, that the Major is to be limited to, & understood of those things only, which the law required of us, & which we were under the obligation of, and were debtors to do and suffer, amongst which none of the particulars mentioned, and many moe such-like, can be reckoned. His after rambling discourse upon this mistake, is not worth the noticeing: And who seeth not, how vaine it is for him to say, that then God should look upon men, as having redeemed the world: For, as the law did not require this of us; so to speak thus, destroyeth all acts of Sutetyship: for the Sureties acts can never be so imputed to the debtor, as to make him thereby the Surety. We know, that Sureties and publick persons may do many things, which cannot be said to be imputed to the deb••ors & persons repre∣sented: but these things are not done by them, as such publick persons & Sureties, but in another capacity. And it is folly hence to inferre, that therefore the Sureties payment of the debt cannot be said to be imputed to the debtor; or that wherein the publick person was a publik person, and which he did as such, cannot be said to be imputed to those, whom he re∣presented.

2. Except. Itagreeth not with Scripture expression, to say, that the Sufferings of Christ are by God looked upon, as our Sufferings, or to conceive, that we should suffer in Him. It is not all one to say, we were punished in Christ, and Christ was punished for us. This last as warranted by Esai. 53: 6. But the other cannot be affirmed; for seing in Christs death, we hav•• remission of sins, we can∣not be said, for the same sinnes to be punished in and with Christ. Ans. This is wholly founded upon his own way of wording the Argument, so as he thought it would give him most advantage: for all this looketh to these words, in the Major propos. are to be looked upon, & are reputed by God, as done & suf∣fered by those; which words might have been left out, without any hurt to our cause: the Argum. without them would have been full and concludent for us, whether any have argued so, or he hath framed the Argum▪ to his own mind, I know not. Sure, there is no necessity for adding of these words: yet the words may admit of a candide Interpretation; for it hath no re∣pugnancy, or dissonancy to Scripture expression, to say, that the Sufferings of Christ are looked upon as the beleevers sufferings, when they are im∣pu••••d to him; not as if God should think, judge or conceive, that the be∣leever, in his own Physical person, had suffered, that which Christ did suf∣fer; but that he hath a special legal interest in these Sufferings, as being in a special manner interessed in Christ: and are now dealt with by God, no otherwayes, than as if he himself had, in his own person, laid down that satisfactory price. And in this sense, there is no difference betwixt the say∣ing, that we are punished in Christ, & that Christ was punished for us: for we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 only punished in Christ legally, as Christ suffered for us, as coming in ••ur law-place. Neither doth the saving, in this sense, That we are pu∣nished in Christ, take a way Remission of sins, but doth rather establish the same, as being the only ground thereof: for till we have an Interest in

Christ, and in His Sufferings, by the Imputation thereof to us, & our leaning to them by faith, we can have no Remission, according to the Gospel∣way.

Except. 3. The publikeness of a person, who negatiats the affaires of others, doth no further, nor any other wayes, interesse those, whose affaires he mannageth, in what he doth in, or about such a transaction: buth only with reference to the issue, & success of what he doth for them, in that behalf: so that his dishonest, or un∣conscientious way, in the miscarying, or his wisdom & faithfulness, in the right managing, are no wayes imputable to the persons, whose business is negotiated. Ans. It is not necessary, that that special manner of managment should be so imputed unto the persons, whose affaire is negotiated, it being sufficient, that the persons represented be interessed in the transaction it self, in refe∣rence to an interest in the issue in the same affaire managed: and the trans∣action it self is so imputed to the persons represented, in reference to the effects, as if it had been done by themselves. So in our case, though the Wisdom, Faithfulness & patience of Christ, used in the managment of that publick affaire intrusted to Him, as a publick person, undertaking for, and representing all His Children, be not imputed unto them: yet the business it self, with which He was intrusted, viz. Giving satisfaction to the law in all points, by Suffering & Obedience, which the law required of us, is im∣puted to us, & must be so, in order to our partaking of the benefites & ad∣vantage thereof.

Except. 4. It is not altogether so solide or sound, as is supposed, that Christ stood in the place & stead of those, that should beleeve in Him, especially in all things, performed by Him, and which tended to the qualification of His per∣son. To stand in the place and stead of another, implieth a necessity of his being in the same place, & doing the same things himself, wherein he stands, & which he doth, who is supposed to stand in his stead, unless they had been done by this other for him. Ans. This last Exception is the same with the first, & needeth little more consideration. We do not assert, that He did so stand in the place & stead of beleevers, as to all things He did & suffered; but only that He stood in in our room & stead, in the whole of His active & passive obedience, or in making satisfaction to the demands of the law, in His state of humiliation, this being it, for & in reference to which, He was appointed to be a publick person: all other things He did, as His Miracles, assuming a body, and the like, need not be said to be imputed to us; though, in that they concerned His person, & were requisite thereunto, & to the work He was imployed in, they carry a special advantage in them for Beleevers; & were in a particular manner designed for their good, & were subservient to that maine designe.

Arg. 10. If we cannot be justified by the Righteousness of Christ other∣wise than by the Imputation of it, then must it needs be imputed to us, in our justification. But the former is true. Ergo. &c.

He excepteth p. 225. The Righteousness of Christ concurreth toward justifica∣tion, by qualifying His person for that Sacrifice of himself, by which justifica∣tion hath been purchased for all those that beleeve Ans. The Argum. is to be un∣derstood of His whole Surety-righteousness, and not of His active obe∣dience

only. (2) Even as to this, it was answered above, that it was not requisite unto this end, His humane nature being sufficiently hereunto qua∣lified, by the personal union, by which His bloud became the bloud of God, and all He did and Suffered was the deed & Suffering of Him, who was God.

Arg. 11. If we may truely be said to be dead & crucified with Christ, to be quickened & have risen againe with Him, &c. then may we truely be said to have fulfilled the law with Christ; & consequently that should be impu∣ted to us. But the former is true, Ergo, &c. These expressions pointe forth the closs union, that is betwixt Christ and Beleevers, & thereupon their Interest in what He did and suffered, as Mediator, Surety & publick person, to the end they may have right to, and possession of the great benefites, pur∣chased and procured by Him. So they hold forth Christs suffering, dying, riseing, &c. as a publick person in their room & in their stead, & as their Representative: so that it is r••ckoned for them, and upon their score, and they are so interessed therein, as that they are to be dealt with, as if all these things had been done & suffered by themselves. And though, in these ex∣pressions mentioned, there be no express mention made of Christs fulfilling the law; yet they sufficiently hold forth that, which by parity of reason will enforce this, as well as the other: for they pointe forth Beleevers their union & communion with Christ, as to His Mediatory work, to which His fulfil∣ling of the law did belong.

Against the consequence he saith, These expressions have no such Inference: for if we could be said to have fulfilled the law with Christ, our own fulfilling it in Him should rather be said to be imputed to us, than His fulfilling it for us. Ans. (1) This will say as much against the Imputation of Christs sufferings; for we are said to be dead with Christ; & therefore not Christs death, but our own death in Him should be said to be imputed to us: But the Scripture knoweth no such thing. (2) The meaning of the expression is, we say, but to denote emphatically the imputation of what Christ did & suffered, unto us: for our own fulfilling of the law in Him, is but His fulfilling of it for us, & the same imputed to us; so as we are dealt with no otherwayes, than if we had done it our selves; as our being dead & buried with Christ, is but His dying in our place & stead, or our having such an Interest in His death & burial, as that we are dealt with, as if, in a manner, we had died our selves. But he supposeth, there is a difference, as to this, betwixt Christs dying & His fulfilling the law, saying, When the Scripture saith, we are dead &c. with Christ, the meaning is not, that God looked upon us, as if we had laid down our Natural lives by death, when he laid down His; & as if this laying down our lives were a satisfaction to His justice; for then we might be said, to have satis∣fied for & redeemed our selves: But these expressions import either a profession of such a death in us, which holds proportion with, or hath a likeness to the death of Christ, or else this death it self really wrought in us, by that death of Christ. Ans. We do not asserte the meaning of these expressions to be, That God looketh upon us, as if we had laid down our Natural lives, &c. But that beleevers have such an Interest in Christs death, as being the death of their Surety, Redee∣mer, Head, Husband and publick person, that they receive the benefites

& advantag•••• thereof, no less really & effectually, than if they themselves, in their own persons, had dyed & satisfied, the same being now imputed unto them, & laid hold on by faith. (2) Though these expressions, at least some of them, & in some places of Scripture, as Rom. 6. may & do import what is here expressed; yet the full import of these Expressions is not hereby exhausted, as the scope & circumstances of the places may cleare; as parti∣cularly that expression, Gal. 2: 20. I am crucified with Christ: & these Ephes. 2: 5. 6.

He addeth against this. That Gal. 2: 20. The expression is taken in the latter sense, importing that the natural death of Christ for Paul & others, had wrought upon him, in a way of assimilation to it self, & had made him a dead man to the world. Ans. Paul is rather clearing & confirming, how he was become dead to the law, and alive unto God, vers 19. in & through the vertue of Christs death & crucifixion, in which he had such an Interest, that he accounted him self, as it were hinging-on the cross in & with Christ; & did so rest upon that by faith, & owne that Sacrifice alone, that he & Christ, as it were, were become one person; & he owed his being dead unto the law onely thereunto, & had it as really flowing therefrom & following thereupon, as if he himself had hung upon the cross, as a satisfactory Sacrifice.

To that Ephes. 2: 5, 6. he saith, The meaning is not, that God looks upon them, as quickened from a natural or corporal death, as Christs quickening & riseing againe was. Ans. Nor do we say, that this is the meaning, nor need we either think, or say so: but this we say, that the expression holdeth this forth, that Christ dyed & rose againe, as a publick person & Surety; & that Beleevers have so neer an Interest in His Mediatory work, & so closs an union with the Me∣diator, that they are as one person in law; so that they are really made par∣takers of some of the fruites of what Christ did & suffered, already, & shall as really partake of what is yet to be communicated, as if they themselves had laid down that purchasing price. Let us hear what he giveth for the meaning.

The meaning (saith he) is either to signifie the profession, that is made by us of that newness of life, which in way of a Spiritual Analogy, answers that life, where∣unto Christ was quickened and rose againe; or else the new life it self wrought in us. Ans. That the Apostle is not here speaking of a meer profession, is manifest: nor is he speaking only of a new life, wrought in them; for he addeth, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Iesus: Nor doth that, which he saith, invalidate the meaning, which we give; for that effect, or in∣wrough quickening is spoken of, as flowing from Christs dying & riseing, & from their Interst in His dying and riseing, & their union with Him in all that, as being one person in law with Him; & so as virtually riseing with Him, and now sitting with Him, who is their common Head & Represen∣tative All which doth abundantly confirme the Doctrine of Imputation, which we plead for.

He addeth finally, But on the other hand, as there is no such expression in Scrip∣ture, as this, we have fulfilled the law with Christ; so neither•• if there were, would it make any thing at all to salve the truth of the proposition, under question: for what if we should be said either to profess such a fulfilling of the law, as holds pro∣portion

with Christ's fulfilling it, or really & personally to fulfill the law, after such a manner? Ans. The expressions already mentioned do sufficiently evince this union and communion, that beleevers have with Christ, in His media∣tory work, which is a solide ground of Imputation of the same unto them, as the foundation of their partaking of the benefites flowing therefrom: for there cannot any shew of reason be given for the one, which will not hold good for the other also. And it is said, but not proved, that these & the like expressions hold forth no more, but one or both of these two things alleiged: yea the scope of the places, and the Import of the words, hold forth much more, as is said.

Arg. 12. Whosoever is a sinner, & so continueth whil'st he liveth, cannot be justified other wayes, than by the Imputation of Christs Righ∣teousness. But every man (Christ excepted) is a sinner, &c. There∣fore, &c.

He excepteth, pag. 219. &c. If there be no other meanes of justifying, the con∣dition of the whole world is hopless; for there is no such Imputation. Ans. The con∣trary hath been shown, & shall be more demonstrated hereafter. He addeth, Without Imputation there is another door opened. What is this? Those that truely beleeve in Iesus Christ, being not under the law, but under grace, are not liable to condemnation for their daily sinns, 1 Ioh. 2: 1, 2. Ans. True, but what then? How come they to be under grace, & not under the law? Is is not by vertue of the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ unto them, unto their Ju∣stification; & because of their Interest in Christ, as Mediator, as their Head, Husband, Surety, Interessour & Advocat? He addeth. So that for the dis∣solving & taking away of all guilt, there needs no Imputation of the active obedience of Christ. The propitiation, which He is unto them, by His blood & Intercession, hath done this service to them, before this Imputation is supposed to come at them. Ans. We plead for the Imputation of His whole Surety & Mediatory work; & say that it is wholly imputed, & that at once, & not one part now, and another at another time. Nor do we say, that Christs death did procur•• one thing, & His obedience another thing: but that in & by both, He, as Su∣rety, performed what the law required of us; & thereby procured all to us, that we stand in need of, to make us happy.

Thus have we vindicated the Arguments, which this Author thought good to make any answere unto: others might be mentioned, but we shall forbear mentioning of them, till some other occasion.