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. XI.

Objections taken out of Scripture by Mr. Goodwine, a∣gainst the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ unto Justification, Answered.

HAving in the foregoing Chapters proved, both from Scripture & Rea∣son, That Christs Righteousness is imputed unto Beleevers unto ju∣stification; & having vindicated such of them, as were excepted against by Mr. Goodwine; we shall now come & examine the Arguments, by which he oppugneth the Doctrine of Imputation, in the first part of his Treatise of justification; Where he marshalleth his Arguments under two heads, viz. of Scripture & Reason. He beginneth with his supposed Scripture proofs, Chap. 2. &c. As to the first of which, largely prosecuted Chap. 2. we shall speak to it afterward, when we come to speak of the Interest of faith in Justification; for thereunto it doth more properly belong, being rather a proof of the Imputation of faith, in a proper sense, as our Righ∣teousness, unto justification, than of the Non-Imputation of the Righteous∣ness of Christ.

Leaving therefore the examination of this to its proper place, we come to see what other Scriptures, adduced by him against the Truth hitherto as∣serted, do say, in this question under debate; & that the more willingly, because Mr. Baxter in his late book against D. Tully, referreth us to this man for Arguments.

First, he adduceth such passages, as absolutely exclude the works of the law from justification, as Rom. 3: 28. Gal. 2: 16. Rom. 3: 20. We spoke something to this matter, while we were mentioning the Mysteries, re∣markable in justification: yet we shall here consider what he saith. He thus reasoneth, pag. 55. If a man be justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto him, he shall be justified by the works of the law; because that Righteous∣ness of Christ, we now speak of, consists of these works. Ans. The vainity & fals∣hood of the Consequence is obvious: nor doth the reason added, make any supply. It is true the Righteousness of Christ did consist in works of obe∣dience, required by the law; yet though this be imputed to us, it doth not follow, that we are justified by the works of the law ••••ccording to the Scrip∣ture sense of that expression: for the Scripture meaneth works of the law, which we do in our own persons, Tit. 3: 5. And the whole Scope, Drift & purpose of the Spirit of the Lord, in all these places cited, & in all others, evinceth this; and all the Arguments mentioned in Scripture against ju∣stification by the works of the law, demonstrat this to be the true and only impo•••• of that expression, as cannot but be plaine to any considering person. Yet he hath 4. answers, and he addeth several other things, which we must examine.

He saith I. Where the Holy Ghost delivereth a truth simply & indefinitly & in a way of a General & Universal conclusion, without imposeing any necessity there,

or else where, to limite or distinguish upon it; for men to interpose by distinctions & limitations, to overrule the express meaning of the words, is to usurpe authority over the Scriptures. Ans. I grant, to adhibite distinctions or limitations, which the Scripture giveth no warrand for, to over rule the express meaning of the words of the Holy Ghost, is to exercise an unlawful authority over the Scriptures, & savoureth of audacious profanity. And I judge, that there are not afew of such distinctions & limitations to be found, in his Book, making him fall under the lash of this censure. But to assert such a general and universal sense of a Scripture expression, as neither will agree with other Scriptures, nor with common Sense & Reason; yea which so directly crosseth the whole Gospel, and destroyeth the Scope, Cohesion, & obvious Sense of the whole purpose, and of every sentence, used by the Spirit of the Lord in that matter, is to usurpe a Supra-papal power and Authority over the Scriptures of truth, and a most ready way to render them wholly useless. (2) As for our sense of this Expression, who, that will wil∣lingly be ruled by the Scriptures, cannot submit unto it? Let us but look to the very first place cited by himself, Rom. 3. & consider the whole pre∣ceeding discourse of the Apostle from Chap. I: 18. & forward, & particularly Chap. 3: 19. Where the Apostle closeth his discourse, tending to evince both jewes & Gentils to be under the Curse, by saying, Now we know, that what things so ever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Is not this to be understood, in respect of their own personal deeds & works? See then his conclusion, vers 20. Therefore by the deeds of of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight. Can any man, that hath not renounced common sense, understand this otherwise, than that no man shall be justified in the sight of God by his own personal works; seing this is the only native conclusion, that floweth from the premisses; seing by their own personal works they can be justified before men; & seing the following words, for by the law is the knowledge of sin, that is, the law proveth & evinceth all, that we do, to be short & sinful, enforce this likewise? Is not this also enforced by these words, vers 23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God? Is it ima∣ginable, that justification, through the Imputed obedience of Christ to the law can evince, that we are not justified freely by His grace through the Re∣demption, that is in Jesus Christ, vers 24? If this general sense were the true meaning, what ground was there for that vers 27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? no, by the law of faith? Would Justification by Christs obedience give ground of boasting? And what ground were there for that objection vers 31. Do we then make void the law, &c. & in the following Chapter, when speaking of Abraham, doth he or can any man imagine, that the Apostle doth mean any other works, when be denieth that Abraham was justified by works, than Abraham's own personal works? And meaneth he, or can he meane any other works, when he saith vers 4. Now to him, that worketh is the re∣ward not reckoned of grace, but of debt? But it were tedious to prose∣cute this matter further, that is so clear in it self to every ordinary

Reader, that it must needs argue a desperat designe, together with unpasrallel'd boldness, thus, with confidence & peremptoriness, to assert the contrary.

He saith 2. If the Apostles charge had been, in delivering of this doctrine, ei∣ther to have made, or to have given allowance for any such distinction, certainly he should have been unfaithful in his trust, in giving the honour, due to the works of Christ, unto a thing of a far inferiour nature, viz to faith, as he doth Gal. 2: 16. Where he saith not, but by the works of Jesus Christ, but by faith Ans. This answere is, in a great measure, sick of the same distemper of pre∣sumption, with the former. We must not think, that the Apostle is still to be blamed for unfaithfulness, when he speaketh not, as we would have him speak: Christian sobr••ety should reach us, to search for Gods mind, in the expressions He hath thought good to use, for signifying of His mind. These, against whom the Apostle here wrote, & whose errour, in the matter of ju∣stification, he was confuting, never had a thought of such a general ground∣less sense, as we have here obtruded upon us; nor can it come into the thought of any rational man; & when then should we suppose, that the Apo••••le should have spoken to such a thing? (2) Paul giveth not the honour, due to the works of Christs, unto any thing of an Inferiour Nature, no not to faith, whatever this Author, misunderstanding the Apostle's mind, & perverting his words, would make his Reader beleeve, as we shall have occasion to shew hereafter. This Author setreth Christ and Faith at va∣riance, whileas the Apostle every where sheweth their agreement & in∣dissoluble union. (3) Taking faith, in this Authors sense, we see, That by his own Confession, the ascribing of that unto faith, which he doth ascribe to it, in the matter of ••ustification, is a giving of that honour unto it, which, we say, is due to Christs obedience. So that the question betwixt him and us, is, whether Christ and His obedience, or Faith of a far inferiour Na∣ture, must have that honour? We see no ground to imagine, that Paul would give the honour, that Universal obedience might call for, unto one act of obedience, or think that he would cry up one act of obedience, that is, faith, & cry down all other acts of obedience: far less that he would cry up faith, in prejudice of the full & perfect obedience of Jesus Christ, the Re∣deemer and Surety.

He saith 3. If Paul's intent had been, to have reserved a place in Iustifica∣tion, for the works of the law, as performed by Christ, his indefinite expression would have been, as a snare upon men, to cause them passe over the great things of their Iustification. Ans. Paul's indefinite expression neither was, nor could have been a snare unto any; nor came such an imagination ever in the head of any man, but such an one, as can stumble in the most even path, being blinded with prejudice at the truth, & drunk with love to his own Inven∣tions, which he cannot otherwise maintaine, but by new and unheard-of fictions. What great things of justification could, I pray, Paul's expres∣sions cause any passe over? Why are not some of these great things men∣tioned?

He saith 4. If this had been Paul's meaning, it cannot be once imagined, but

that he would have made use of such a distinction, or reservation, & would have been glad, if, without trenching upon some Gospel-truth, he could have come over so neer unto the jewes, who where chiefly incensed against Paul, for passing over the law in justification. Now had he said, that be did not exclude the righteousness of the law by faith, but advance it rather; only he preached that they could not be justified by their own observation of it; who seeth not how this would have taken off great part of their opposition, Ans. It is a wonder to see, how some men can shut their eyes, that they should not see what is most obvious, and what is in plaine termes asserted in the Scriptures. Did not Paul say expresly enough, Rom. 3. ult. That he did not make void the law through faith, but did esta∣blish it? doth he not also plainly tell us, where the difference lay betwixt him & the jewes; & what it was especially, at which they stumbled, when he said, Rom. 9: 31, 32. But Israel, which followed after the law of Righteou∣sness, hath not attained to the law of Righteousness; wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law, for they stumbled at that stum∣bling stone. And againe Rom. 10: 3, 4. But they being ignorant of God's Righ∣teousness, & going about to establish their own Righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the Righteousness of God; for Christ is the end of the law for righteous∣ness, &c. Is it not hence clear, that they rejected Christ, and would not owne Him, as the end of the law for Righteousness: & that they stumbled at Him, seeking after justification & life, by their own personal following after the law of Righteousness, & by seeking to establish their own righ∣teousness? How then can this man say pag. 61. That Paul was as far from holding justification by the works of the law, as performed by Christ, as the jewes were, who would have nothing to do with Christ, but stumbled at Him, while as Paul sought only to be found in Him, not having his owne Righteousness, which is of the law; but that which is through the faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by faith, Phil. 3: 9. And proclamed Christ to be the end of the law for Righteousnes, to every one that belee∣veth, Rom. 10: 4.

Against Fit. 3: 5. where mention is made of the works of righteousness; which we have done; & a sufficient ground laid for the distinction mentioned, & to prevent the stumbling of such, as love to walk in the light, he advan∣ceth several answers, pag. 62. &c. As I. He never said, that the active righ∣teousness of Christ should be made a stander-by; but that it hath a blessed influence into justification, as it issueth into His passive obedience, which together may be called a Righteousness for which, but not with which we are justified, except it can be proved to be either the Material, or formal, or instrumental cause of justifica∣tion, & whoever attempt to do this, will wholly dissolve the merite of it. Ans. (1) All this maketh nothing to the purpose now in hand, which is to show, that Paul by this expression cleareth sufficiently, what he meaneth by the works of the law, which he excludeth from having any interest in justification, viz. The works of the law, performed by us in our own persons. (2) What influence the active obedience of Christ hath in justication, when he will not admit it to be any part of that Surety-righteousness, which is imputed un∣to us, he showeth not; nor what way it issueth in to His passive obedience.

If all this influence be to make Him fit to be a Sacrifice, we have shown above, that the personal Union did that; and consequently His active obe∣dience, if it had no other influence, is made a meer stander by. (3.) A Righ∣teousness for which, & a Righteousness with which, is a distinction, in our case, without a difference; for the one doth no way oppugne, or exclude the other, because the meritorious cause imputed, made over to and reckoned upon the score of beleevers, can be also that Righteousness with which they are justified. (4) Whether it may be called the Material, or Formal cause of justification (that any ever called it the instrumental cause, is more than I know) is no great matter, seing it may be either, as the termes shall be ex∣plained, which men are at freedom to do, according to their own minde, when they apply them unto this matter, which hath so little affinity with Effects meerly Natural, unto the causes of which these termes are pro∣perly applied: though I should choose rather to call it the formal objective cause, if necessitated to use here philosophik termes. (3) That to call Christ's whole Righteousness either the Material or Formal cause of justification, is to overthrow the merite of it, is said, but not proved: It is not these philosophical termes themselves, but the explication of them by such, as use them in this matter, that is to be regarded: and none shall ever show, that either of these termes, as explained by the orthodox, doth overthrow the merite of Christ's Righteousness, both doth rather esta∣blish it.

He saith, 2. The H. Ghost may reject the works of men from being the cause of such or such a thing, & yet no wayes intimat, that the works of any other should be the cause thereof, If the words had gone thus, not by the works of Righteousness, which we our selves had done, this had been some what an higher ground, to have inferred the opposite member of the distinction upon, viz. by the works of another, or of Christ. Ans. This exception is as little to the purpose, as the former; for these words were here brought only to show, what the Apostle meant by the works of the law, which he excluded from justification, viz. the works which we do: and not to prove immediatly, that the works of any other were understood hereby. (2) It is foolish thing to imagine a distinction, be∣twixt works, which we do & works, which we our selves, do, the same word in the original, which vers 5. is rendered we, is rendered we our selves, vers 3. What poor shifts are these, which men take to support a desperat cause?

He saith 3. To put the matter out of all question, that excluding the works of the law, which we had done, he had no intent to imply the works, which another might do, he expresseth the opposition thus, according to His mercy. Ans. The mistake is still continued in: By these words, we onely cleare what the works are, which are excluded; viz. our personal works, or works, which we do, or have done: whose works else are accepted, other places prove expresly, & this by con∣sequence, unless the worke of a third could be alleiged. (2) The opposition here made, destroyeth not the opposition, which we make: for when we are justified & Saved by the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, we are justified & saved according to His mercy; as well as we are justified freely by

His grace, when justified through the Redemption, that is in Jesus Christ, Rom. 3: 24.

He saith 4. & thereby seemeth to reply to what is last said. The Apostle delivereth himself distinctly of that, wherein this Mercy of God, be speaks of, con∣sisteth, viz. regenerating us, &c. Ans. But, I hope, the Apostles men∣tioning of Regeneration, doth not exclude the Imputation of Christ's Righ∣teousness, the ground thereof; nor can he suppose this, unless he plead with Papists for justification by our good works, done after Regeneration, & the new birth.

He saith 5. Such an inference is neither probable, nor pertinent to the purpose; because the Apostle rejecteth the works of righteousness, which he nameth, from being any cause, antecedaneously moving God to save us; & not from being the formal cause of justification: and we our selves (saith he) will not say, that the works of the law, which Christ hath done, moved God to saveus. Ans. (1) The Inference, which he here speaketh of, is his own, and not ours, as we have said. (2) The Salvation here mentioned is comprehensive, and includeth Justifi∣cation & Adoption, as vers 7. cleareth; & the Mercy, mentioned, v. 5. comprehendeth all other subordinat causes & meanes, which the Lord hath appointed: & though the obedience of Christ be no cause, moving God to decree to save; yet it may be a cause of justification. But then (saith he pag. 65.) This will only establish the merite of Christ's Righteousness in justification, but overthrow the formality of it. And why so? Because (sait be) it is unpossi∣ble, that one and the self same thing, in respect of one and the self same effect, should put on the different habitude both of the Formal & Efficient cause. Ans. All this is but vaine talk, & a reasoning from termes of art, or philosophical notions taken improperly, to the same taken most properly & strickly; as if a Mo∣ral, polititical or legal effect were every way the same, with a Natural phy∣sical effect: and yet in physical Effects, as such, meritorious causes have no proper Efficiency: But, as to our case, we plainly say, that Christ's Righ∣teousness is the meritorious cause of our justification, & yet may be called the formal cause thereof, as that terme may be adapted & fitly explained, ac∣cording as the matter will bear; or the formal objective cause, which we rather incline to.

He speaketh against Gal. 4: 4. pag. 66. saying, that it is adduced to prove, that Paul mentioneth the works of the law, as done by Christ, in the dis∣course of justification; & consequently, that he had no intent to exclude the works of the law, as done by Christ from having their part in justification. But, as was shown above, there are many other places of Scripture evincing this. Yet let us see what he saith. 1. The law, under which Christ was made, is the ceremonial law, as is clear vers 5. we are not redeemed from the Moral law, which is of eternal obligation; but from the Ceremonial law. Ans. (1) That Christ was made under the Ceremonial law only, no reason can evince; for He was made under that law, under the curse whereof we were, who were to be delivered there from by Him, Gal. 3: 10, 12. But this was not the Cere∣monial law only; otherwise he should have died only for the jewes. Againe, The law, which he speaketh of, was ordained by Angels, in the hand of a

Mediator, Gal. 3: 17, 19. but this was the Moral law, contained in the decalogue. Is the ceremonial law only that law, that cannot give life vers 21. was nothing a Schoolmaster to Christ, but the ceremonial part of the law, vers 24. (2) To be under the law, is not only to be under the lawes obliga∣tion, but chiefly to be under the lawes Curse, which is the same with being concluded under sin, Gal. 3: 22. (3) If being under the law be thus limited, or restricked, to a being under the obligation of the ceremonial law, no more can be meaned, by receiving the Adoptions of Sones, there mentioned, as the opposite mercy, than a freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law! but this, I suppose, will be too narrow an Interpretation. (4) Though none be redeemed from obedience to the Moral law; yet they may be delivered there from, as the sole condition of the Covenant, & as the sole way of ob∣taining life. 2. He saith, hereby may be meaned His subjection to the curse of the law. Ans. That this may be part of the meaning, may very easily be gran∣ted: & what then can hence follow? The expression of being under the law, hath not alwayes this single and sole import, as we see in that same Chapter, vers 21.

Secondly, Chap. 4. pag. 69. He argueth from Rom. 3: 21, 22. thus, If the Righteousness, of faith, which is here called the Righteousness of God, consists in the Imputation of Christs Righteousness, then is it not, nor can it be, made mani∣fest without the law, that is, without the works of the law. But the Righteousness of faith is sufficiently manifested without the law, that is without the works or Righ∣teousness of the law. Ergo. The connexion of the Major he thus confirmeth. Because to such a Righteousness the law, and the works thereof, are every white as necessary than faith it self; for faith is made only a Meanes of the derivation of it upon men; but the body & substance of the Righteousness it self is nothing else, but the pure law, & the works of it. Ans. The connexion of the Major is unsound, and its probation is founded upon a manifest wresting, or misinterpretation of the place: for the meaning of these words, The Righteousness of God without the law, is this, The Righteousness of God, which is not had by our per∣formance of the commands of the law, or, doth not consist therein; not, the Righteousness of God, which is without all obedience to the law: for there be no such Righteousness; all Righteousness being a conformity to the law of God; & if Righteousness consist not in obeying the law of God, where∣in shall it consist? The Righteousness then of God is a Righteousness consi∣sting indeed in full obedience to the law; but yet a Righteousness consisting in obedience to the law, performed by one, who was God (& therefore al∣so called the Righteousness of God; & not meerly because invented by God; or because bestowed by Him upon men; or because such, as will only be ac∣cepted of by Him, as he saith; though these be also true, & may in part ground the denomination) & not by ou rselves, who were properly and ori∣ginally under the obligation of the law.

This will not satisfie him, & therefore he saith. I. This sanctuary hath been polluted, & the hornes of ibis altar broken down, in the demonstration of the former proof. Ans. The contrary is manifest from our foregoing examination of that supposed demonstration.

He saith 2. There is not the least intimation given, that the Apostle should have any such by, or back meaning, as this. Ans. Nor was there any necessity, for any express mention hereof; not only because the party, the Apostle had here mainely to deal with, understood nothing else by the law, but our obedience performed thereunto; knowing the meaning of the law to be this, he that doth these things shall live by them; but also because the whole scope and manner of argueing of the Apostle, & his whole procedure in this debate, manifest this to be the meaning: for having convinced both jewes and Gentiles to be under the law, as guilty before God, he inferreth, that therefore by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified, Rom. 3: 20. That is, by their own deeds or actions: for the law to them can do nothing, but con∣vince of sin, & binde guilt more upon them. But it did not so to Christ, who yeelded perfect obedience. We might also demonstrate this from the Apostles following discourse, if it were necessary; but we said enough of this, in answere to the foregoing objection.

He saith 3. The works of the law are never the less the works of the law, because performed by Christ. Ans. Yet when performed by Christ, they are not the works of the law done by us, who did lye under the obligation; and by the Imputation of such an obedience, as was performed by Christ, we have no ground of boasting or of glorying, either before God, or Man: and it is against such an obedience to the law, as the ground of justification, as doth not exclude glorying or boasting, and such as consisteth in works of Righteous∣ness, which we have done, & is exclusive offree grace, that the Apostle disputeth.

He saith 4. This righteousness is said to receive testimony from the law, that is, from that part of Scripture, which is often called the law; and from the Prophe••••. Now, neither of these give any testimony to such a Righteousness, but to a Righteous∣ness procured or derived upon a man by faith, Gen. 15: 6. Hab. 2: 4. Ans. It is true, this Righteousness receiveth testimony from the law, and from the writtings of the Prophets; & we plead for no other Righteousness, but such, as is so testified of, & hath the concurrent consent both of the O. and of the N. Testament. Both law & Prophets, that spoke of the seed of the Woman, & of the Messiah, & of His being the Lord our Righteousness, or spoke of the peo∣ples duty in reference to Him, as such, did bear witness to this Truth. (2) What is that Righteousness, which is here said to be procured, or deri∣ved upon a Man by faith? Is it the Righteousness of Christ? Then the cause is yeelded. Is it the Righteousness of men themselves? Then justification by works is established, & the whole Gospel is overthrown. And how, I pray, can this besaid to be procured or derived upon a man by faith? The places ci∣ted speak of no such thing, but have a far contrary Import, as may hereafter appear.

He saith 5. This Righteousness of God is said to be unto all, & upon all 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by or through faith, by way of opposition to the works of the law: Now be∣tween Faith & the works of the law, there is a constant opposition; but between the law and the works of righteousness of Christ, there is no opposition. Ans. (1) If this Righteousness be unto and upon all, by or through faith, it must of necessity

be the Righteousness of another, in bringing home and applying of which, faith is an Instrument: & to this way of bringing in the Righteousness of God by faith from without, is the seeking of Righteousness by our own works, or by our own acts of obedience to the law, manifestly opposite & irreconcila∣ble: & this is the opposition, which the Scripture alwayes maketh, betwixt justification by the law, & by faith, as the very Scriptures, cited by himself, make manifest, to wit, Rom. 3: 27, 28. & 4: 13, 14. & 9: 32. & 10: 5, 6. Gal. 2: 16. & 3: 5, 11, 12. &c. (2) This argument & all the steps of its prosecution, make against himself, who will have our act of faith to be the Righteousness of God, though it be no where so called; & cannot be that, which is by, or through faith; for faith is not by or through faith; nor doth faith become a Righteousness by, or through faith: nor is faith, as our act, against the law, otherwise it should be no act of obedience, but a piece of willworship; and consequently no righteousness at all but an unrighteousness, & a plaine disobedience, or a work of Supererogation: nor do the law or Prophets, any where, testify to this, as our Righ∣teousness.

Thirdly Chap. 5. pag. 73. He reasoneth from Rom. 5: 16, 17. thus. The gift of righteousness (as it is called vers 17.) which is by Christ, in the Gospel, & is said vers 16. to be a free gift of many offences unto justification, that is the forgive∣ness of many offences, cannot be a perfect legal righteousnes imputed unto vs, or made ours by Imputation, but the righteousness which is by Christ in the Gospel, is the gift of many offences. Ergo, &c. The Major he thus confirmeth. That righteousness, which extends unto a mans justification, by the forginess of sins, can be no perfect legal righteousness imputed. But the righteousness of Christ, in the Gos∣pel, by which we are justified, extendeth unto a mans justification, by the forgive∣ness of sins. Ergo, &c. The Major of this, he thus proveth. Because a legal or perfect righteousness doth not proceed to justifie a mans person by way of forgiveness of sinnes; but is of it self intrinsecally & essen••ially a man's justification ••t yea such a justification, with which forgiveness of sins, is not competible: for what need hath he, that is legally righteous, or hath a legal righteousness imputed to him, of forgiveness of sins, when as such a rightousness excluded all sin, & all guilt of sin from his person.

To all which I ans. (1) The Major propos. of the two Syllogis••es, is true only of a perfect righteousness, wrought by our selves, in conformity to the law; and not of the Righteousness of another imputed to us; which though it may be called legal, as to Christ, as consisting in perfect obedience & conformity to the law; yet is rather to be called Evangelical, as to us, upon the account of its discovery and revelation, and manner of communi∣cation unto us. (2) The confirmation of the Major is likewise only true of a righteousness performed by our selves: for that indeed excludeth all Remis∣sion: and therefore if our faith be accounted our righteousness (as he faith) it must be our justification, & so, inconsistent with free forgiveness. (3) As to the Scripture, where upon all this founded. I say, The text saith not, that our righteousness is only free forgiveness; but that in reference to pardon & free forgiveness, there is a gift bestowed; & that this gift by grace, which

aboundeth unto many, is attended with free forgiveness, as a necessary con∣sequent. It is the free gift, that cometh upon all men unto justification vers 18. & that, by which many are made righteous vers 19. & therefore is called the gift of righteousness, vers 17.

He objecteth against himself thus, A man's sins are first forgiven him, and then this perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed unto him; and so he is justi∣fied. But this is not the thing we would say, but on the contrary, That first the perfect Righteousness of Christ is imputed, whereupon the beleever is justified & pardoned, Let us hear his answer.

1. He saith, If we will needs distinguish the effects of the active & passive obe∣dience of Christ, so as from the active part to fetch a perfect righteousness for Impu∣tation, & from the passive remission of sins; yet whether it be any wayes reasonable to invert the order, I leave to sober consideration. Christ did not first die, & after death keep the law; therefore reason requireth, that what is first purchased, should be first received & applied. Ans. I see no necessity of distinguishing, after this man∣ner, the Effects of Christ's active & passive obedience; but judge it best, to keep as conjoined what divine wisdom hath firmerly & inseparably joined together: But though we should thus needlesly distinguish these effects; yet there is no necessity of saying, That Christ's obedience, because first existing, should be first imputed unto justification; and then His death to Remission: for neither do we assigne justification to His active obedience on∣ly; nor is the same order to be observed, in the application of the Effects, that was observed in Christ's performance, of what was laid upon Him, and required of Him, as our Sponsor: for the Nature of the thing required, that Christ should first have obeyed, before He died: & on the other hand, the condition of sinners requireth, that they be first justified and pardoned, before they have a right to all the Effects of Christ's active obedience im∣puted.

2. He saith, If a man hath once sinned, it is not any legal righteousness what so ever imputed, that can justifie him. Ans. This is granted; But in order to justification we say, That Christ's whole Surety-righteousness is imputed; & this comprehendeth both His active & His passive obedience, so usually di∣stinguished.

3. He saith, If a mans sins be once forgiven him, he hath no need of any fur∣ther righteousness for his justification; because forgiveness of sins reacheth home, & amounteth unto a full justification with God. Ans. If justification were no∣thing else, but forgiveness of sins, there would be some colour for this: but in justification there is also an accepting of the man as righteous, & to this a meer pardon of sins will not serve: for a Righteousness is hereunto re∣quisite; & pardon of sins and Righteousness are not one thing. It is false then to say, as he addeth, That this is all the justification, the Scripture knowes, or speaks of, the forgiveness of sins, or acquiting from condemnation. For both according to Scripture, and the native import, and universal usage of the word, justification denoteth a constituting legally and declaring solemnely a person to be righteous, or free of the accusation, given in against him; or a pronouncing of an accused man to be righteous; & therefore supposeth,

when the sentence is just, that the person is a righteous person: &, in our case, the sentence of God being according to truth, the person justified, having no righteousness of his own, must be clothed with the Surety-righ∣teousness of Christ, as Surety, Head & Husband, imputed to him & re∣ceived by faith.

He addeth, That righteousness, which we have by Christ, and where with we are said to be justified, is only a negative righteousness, not a positive: It is nothing else, but a non-Imputation of sin, which I therefore call a Righteousness by Impu∣tation, as having the privileges, but not the nature & substance of a perfect legal righteousness, Ans. A Righteousness not positive, but meerly negative, is no righteousness at all; for a true Righteousness is a positive conformity unto the law, the Rule of Righteousness; and as the Righteousness is but nega∣tive and Interpretatively such; so must the justification be, that is founded thereupon. He thinketh to prove this from Rom. 4: 6, 7, 8. & addeth, a Righteousness without works must needs be a negative or privative Righteousness. The Imputation of righteousness vers 6. is interpreted vers 7, 8. to be a not imputing of sin. Ans. The place cited, as we declared above, giveth no countenance un∣to this sense of the word justification; but evinceth rather the contrary. A righteousness without our works (which is the Apostles meaning) may be, & is no negative, nor privative Righteousness; but a positive, full and com∣pleat Righteousness, being the Surety-righteousnes of Christ, the Spon∣sor: and the Text saith, not, That this Righteousness is nothing else, than a non-Imputation of sin, but inferreth rather the Imputation of Righ∣teousness, as the cause, from the Non-Imputation of sin, as the Effect; and all this to prove, that justification is not by the works of the law.

He tels us, that we have the like description of this Righteousnes, 2 Cor. 5. that which vers 19. he calls in God, the not imputing of our sins unto us, he calls in us vers 21. a being made the righteousness of God in Him. Ans. This is a plaine perversion of the scope of the meaning of the words: for vers 21. the Apostle is giving the ground & reason of what was said vers 19. & showing how this Reconciliation & Non-Imputation of sin is founded, & what is the special ground thereof; as appeareth by the particle for vers 21. for He hath made Him sin, &c. He saith, This is most plaine, Act. 13: 38, 39. where forgiveness of sins is immediatly thereafter called justification. Ans. All that can be hence inferred, is, that in justification sins are pardoned; or that such as have forgiveness of sins are justified; or that these do inseparably go toge∣ther: But no appearance of proof here, that they are both one thing; or that in justification there is no more, but pardon of sins.

He prosecuteth this purpose yet further, saying, This is the most usual & proper signification of the word, justifie, not to signify the giving or bestowing of a compleat positive righteousness; but only an acquiting or discharging & setting a man free from guilt & penalty, due unto such things, as were laid to his charge. Ans. (1) Nor do we say, that justification signifieth such a giving & bestowing of a com∣pleat, positive Righteousness; but that it signifieth a declaring & pronoun∣cing of a person to be righteous: & therefore presupposeth this giving or be stowing of a compleat Righteousness; for the man, whom God declareth

& pronounceth to be Righteous, must be Righteous; & seing he hath no Righteousness of his own, he must have his Suretie's Righteousness imputed to him. (2) And so, in this sense, justification is an acquitting, or setting a man free from the guilt & penalty, due to such things, as were laid to his charge; for he is pronounced Righteous. But it is not a simple discharge of the person from the guilt and penalty, upon a pardon & Remission: for a pardoned man is not a justified man, but rather is supposed to be guilty, & is pardoned, because guilty.

He proceedeth, In the Scripture, it is usually opposed to condemning Prov. 17: 15. Where, by justifying the wicked, nothing is meart, but the making of them just, in the rights & privileges of just men, which are freedom from censure, pu∣nishment, &c. So that by justifying the wicked, nothing else is meant, but the not condemning of him, Rom. 8: 33, 34, & 5: 19. Therefore by justifying nothing else is meant, but acquitting from condemnation; & so to be justified & live are equipollent, Gal. 3: 11, 21. Esai, 53: 11. Ans. (1) That justifying is opposed to condemning, is granted; but this maketh for us; for condemning is some∣thing-else, than a not pardoning, even a pronouncing or declaring of a per∣son guilty; & therefore an adjuging of him to the punishment, due for the guilt; and therefore justification must be something else than pardon. (2) Ju∣stification is more than not condemning; for not condemning may be a meer suspending of the sentence of condemnation; & while the Process is under tryal, or the guilty person not yet convicted in law, he is not condemned; yet he is not therefore justified. (3) When justification & life are said to be equipollent, it is manifest, that justification is more than pardon, even an adjudging of one to the reward promised: for life here is not a meer Nega∣tive or privative life, but a positive life, called a Reigning in life, Rom. 5: 17. & the blessing of Abraham Gal. 3: 14. the promise of the Spirit, ibid. & all the bles∣sings of the Covenant vers 17. & the Inheritance vers 18. Here then is a diffe∣rence betwixt justification in our case, & justification among men: for among men, justification is usually in reference to the Accusation given-in; & the accusation beareth a reference only unto the sin committed & to the punish∣ment due to such or such transgressours: so that the justified man is declared not guilty, & therefore not liable unto the penalty; but there is no word here of a Reward, due to the observers of the law, unless in cases, where a reward is expresly promised. And yet, even where there is no more, but a simple declaring of the person not guilty, & so not liable to the punishment, justification is more than meer pardon. But in our case, when the Lord justi∣fieth the Beleever, He not only declareth him not liable to the punishment, due to transgressours of the law; but also adjudgeth him to the Reward pro∣mised to the observers: and therefore here the person is declared and pro∣nounced righteous, having a right to the reward, through imputed righ∣teousness.

Fourhtly, He objecteth from Phil. 3: 9. This objection must be hard-hea∣ded, & sheweth, with what confidence, some men, once in love with their own darling conceipt, can abuse the most plaine passages of Scripture: for what can be more plaine & full against our Adversaries, than is this

Text? The Apostle is here shewing, upon what ground he desired to stand, in his appearing before God, & expresly renounceth all his former privileges, & what once he had an high esteem for; & particularly also his own Righ∣teousness, of whatsoever kind, that consisted in his obedience to the law; & he saith not, which consisteth in my full obedience to the law; but, in mine own righteousness, which is of the law. And, in opposition to all this, he desireth to be found in Christ, stated & hid in Him, which includeth Christ's Righ∣teousness: for Christ & His Righteousness are not separated; & the Righ∣teousness he also expresly mentioneth, calling it, that which is through the faith of Christ, & againe, the Righteousness, which is of God by faith. By which he cannot meane the act of faith, for that is his own righteousness, all which he renounced; for it was conforme to the law & commandement, being en∣joined by the law of God, otherwise it had been no act of obedience. More∣over; Faith is not through faith, nor by faith; but this Righteousness, which Paul sought after, is a righteousness, that is through faith & by faith, as an Instrument laying hold upon it, & applying it; Faith cannot be that Righteousness, which is through faith, or by the faith of Christ; for if so, Christ should be rendered useless, & the nature of faith in Christ should be changed, seing true faith in Christ carrieth the soul out of it self to Christ, to the end a Righteousness may be had. Faith, sure, is not the Righteous∣ness, which is of God, wrought by God, & imputed by Him. So that when Paul desired to be found in Christ, having the Righteousness, which is through faith in Christ, even the Righteousness, which is of God by faith, what can be more plaine, than that he desired to be found in the Righteous∣ness of Christ, which is imputed by God, & received by faith?

As to this place, our Adversary frameth no formal argument there∣from, but hath some observes, tending rather to make it useless to our point, than directly to confirme his own Chap. 6. pag. 84. I shall only take notice of such things, as he alleigeth to darken the glorious light of the grace of God, shineing with a meridian brightness in this pas∣sage.

He (i. e. Paul) doth not say (saith he) that he may be found in His righteous∣ness; much less in His righteousness imputed to him; but simply in Himself; which is an usual expression in Scripture of the Spiritual state & condition of a Belee∣ver. Ans. (1) To be found in Christ, who is the publick person & Surety, is to be found in His Surety-righteousness: for Christ & His Righteousness are no more separated, than a Surety, as such, and his Surety-payment and satisfaction: And therefore, when Paul spoke of being found in Him, he emphatically enough expressed what we say. (2) It is true, the expression, in Christ, doth else-where denote a spiritual state, but here Paul speaketh not simply of being in Christ, but of being in Him, in or∣der to the having of a Righteousness, wherewith to appear before God; in order to which, he had renounced all his former privileges and attain∣ments.

What it is (saith he) to be found in Christ, he expresseth, negatively thus, not having mine own righteousness, yet not simply & altogether, no righteousness,

that may in no sense be called his own; but precisely & determinatly no such righ∣teousness, as his own, which stands in works of the law; such he must be sure, not to have; i. e. not to trust to, or to shroud & shelter himself under, from the stroke of Gods justice. Ans. Then faith, considered as an act of obedience, must not be that Righteousness, under which he could think to shelter himself from the stroke of justice: for that stands in one work of the law; & if that righteousness be renounced, which standeth in works of the law; much more must that be renounced, which standeth in one work of the law. (2) The Righteousness of Christ, imputed & received by faith, may in some sense be called the Beleevers own: but that Righteousness, which the Apostle cal∣leth his own here, is opposed to the Righteousness of another, and com∣prehendeth all his own acts & works, done in obedience to the command of God.

Next (he saith) affirmativly thus, but that, which is through the faith of Christ, &c. Here is not the least jot or title of any Righteousness, he should have by Imputation, no nor of any Righteousness by or through tht Righteousness of Christ; but only such a Righteousness, as is through the faith of Christ. Ans. (1) When all that Righteousness is excluded, which is in mans self, or in any acts of obe∣dience to the law, which he doth; & yet a Righteousness mentioned as the only refuge & sheltering place, what can this Righteousness be else, than an Imputed Righteousness? & what can this Imputed Righteousness be: if it be not the Righteousness of Christ? Is there any other that will do our busi∣ness? (2) A Righteousness through faith in Christ is most clearly a Righteous∣ness obtained, possessed & laid hold on by faith.

The Apostle addeth (saith he) by way of commendation of this Righteousness, that it is the Righteousness of God i.e. a righteousness, which God himself hath found out, & which He will owne & countenance, even the righteousness of God, which is in faith, i. which cometh, & ac••rueth, and is derived upon a man by faith. Ans. (1) It is not only a Righteousness, which God himself hath found out, and which He owneth & countenanceth; but a Righteousness also, which is in God, or is in Him, who is God, & is derived from Him to man; for it is a Righteousness, that is not to be found in man, or in any thing he doth, in conformity to the law of God, all such Righteousness being already renoun∣ced by the Apostle. (2) The Righteousness of God, which is by, or through saith, & cometh, accrueth, or is derived upon a man in & by faith, must needs be some thing else, than faith it self, even the Righteousness, that is without a man, & is derived unto him from another, viz. from Him, who is God, & on whom faith laith hold, that is, Jesus Christ, in whom alone the Apostle was seeking to be found.

Fiftly, Chap. 7. pag. 88. &c. He abuseth to this end all those Scriptures, wherein justification is ascribed unto faith, as Rom. 3: 28. & 5: 1. As to the Interest of faith, in the matter of justification, we will have occasion here∣after to speak of it, at some length: here we are only enquiring after that Righteousness, upon the account of which, we are justified, which our Adversary, as it would appear, placeth only in faith: and so, in stead of making faith the meane of applying & bringing home the Surety-righteous∣ness

of Christ, he maketh it the very formal righteousness it self, upon the account of, and because of which we are justified. Let us hear what he saith.

When men say (saith he) that faith justifieth, I demand, what is it, they meane by faith? do they not meane their beleeving of act or faith? Ans. When the Scripture ••aith, That we are justified by faith, faith is taken for our act of faith, laying hold on Christ & on His Righteousness, it being the mean ap∣pointed of God for this end, by interessing us in & uniting us with Christ, & applying that Surety-righteousness of His. But this can no way prove, that therefore faith it selt is that Riphteousness, upon the account whereof we are declared Righteous in the sight of God, in order to justification; or is the formal objective Reason of our justification. Though faith be said to ju∣stifie, as an Instrumental cause (as this Author himself afterward confesseth) it will not follow, that therefore it justifieth as a principal cause, or as the formal objective cause. The hand receiving riches doth instrumentally en∣rich; but is not the principal cause of the mans riches. The producing, in face of court, of the Surety's payment, by the principal debtor, now pur∣sued by the creditor, is not the formal ground of the debtor's absolution from the charge, but the payment it self, which is instructed, is the on∣ly formal ground, though the Instruction of that payment by the debtor, in face of court, be requisite in its place, and a mean to the debtor's abso∣lution.

He saith, he conceiveth not of faith as divided, or severed from its object, ei∣ther Christ in person, or Christ in promise. Ans. It is true, the act cannot be conceived without its object; & all the consideration of the object here had by him, is by vertue of the act reaching the object, & so the act is only considered by him no further, than as a commanded duty, or as any other act of the Soul, which is commanded: and beside, this faith, thus acting on Christ, is but an historical faith: for if he consider faith, as acting on Christ, according to the Gospel, & as it is called Justifying or Saving faith, in distinction from the faith of Miracles, & from Historical faith, he must look upon it, as the soul's fleeing out of it self to Christ for refuge; and as laying hold on His Righteousness as only sufficient; and as receiving, em∣braceing, leaning to and resting upon Christ and His Righteousness; whence it is manifest, that it cannot be conceived, nor looked to, nor rested upon, as our Righteousness, its use & work being to bring-in and receive another gifted Righteousness, and to rest upon that for life, Justification and Sal∣vation.

He ••••ls us next, That he also confesseth, that saith justifieth instrumentally, & not otherwise; & that he hath neither said, nor intended to say any other thing. Ans. But how this can agree with what he hath said, & with what hereafter we shall hear him saying, let men of understanding judge. Did ever man before acknowledg faith, to justifie instrumentally, & yet deny the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, as he doth? and yet assert that this Instrument faith is imputed for our Righteousness, for our only Righteousness, and as the only formal ground of our justification, as he doth? Did ever man assert

this Instrumentality of faith, to shoulder-out the chiefe and principal Inte∣rest, that the Surety-righteousness of Christ hath, in the business? This therefore must be looked upon, as inconsistent with his only designe, in this whole book; and as an unwary expression overturning all; or else that he must have said all this in an hid sense, not yet understood.

To that, That faith justifieth, as it taketh hold of Christ's Righteousness, he answereth, That yet it is the act of faith that justifieth. Ans. And did ever any meane otherwise, when they spoke of faith as an Instrument, or mean? But that is not our present question: we are now enquireing after that Righ∣teousness, for which, & upon the account of which we are justified; and not after the Instrument, or Mean, by which we are possessed of that Righ∣teousness, upon the account of which alone we are justified, & by which we are put into a state of Justification. So that all this waste of words is to no purpose.

He moveth another objection against himself, thus, If it be said, that when we are justified by faith, the meaning is, we are justified by that, which faith apprehendeth; & this is far from saying, that faith is imputed for Righteousness.

Here I can observe nothing but confusion, & a jumbling together, as one, these two far different Questions, viz. What is that Righteousness, for, because and upon the account of which we are justified: & what is that way, Mean, or Instrument, by which we partake of Righteousness, unto Justifi∣cation, & are justified. Here is a manifest confounding of the principal Me∣ritorious cause, & the Instrumental cause: of the formal objective cause (which some call the Formal, others the Material cause) and the Inferiour Meane, or Instrumental cause. Here also these two are confounded & made one, viz. We are justified by faith; & faith is Imputed unto Righteousness. That these are far different, shall be cleared hereafter. But what answereth he? He saith 1. If their meaning be simply so, that we are justified by that, which faith apprehendeth, they speak more truth, than they are aware of. But that what∣soever faith apprehendeth should justify, is not true. Ans. Who speaketh thus, I know not; yet I see little danger in it, their meaning being only this, in that expression, we are justified by that, which faith apprendeth, that Christ & His Righteousness, which justifying faith, in the act of justifying, laith hold on▪ is the formal objective cause, or that upon the account of which we are justified: & this no way saith, that our faith is that Righteousness, for which we are justified.

Next he saith, If men ascribe justification, in every respect, to that, which faith apprehendeth, they destroy the Instrumental Iustification of faith. Ans. No man, that I know, doth or will ascribe Justification, in every respect, unto that which faith apprehendeth, & so, they need not destroy the Instrumen∣tal use of faith in Justification; for as to the Instrumental justification of faith, I understand it not; it seemeth to be a very catachrestick expre∣ssion.

In end, he addeth, If faith justifieth any way, it must of necessity be by Im∣putation, or account from God, for righteousness; because it is all that God re∣quires

of men to their justification, in stead of the righteousness of the law. Therefore if God shall not impute, or account it to them for this righteousness, it would stand them in no stead at all to their justification; because there is nothing useful, or available to any holy, or saving purpose, but only to that, whereunto God hath assigned it. If God in the New Covenant, requires faith in Christ, for our justification, in stead of the righteousness of the law, in the old, & this faith will not passe in account with him for such righteousness, but his command and Co∣venant for beleeving, and the obedience it self of beleeving, will both become void, & of none effect, the intire benefite of them being suspended upon the gracious plea∣sure & purpose of God, in the designation of them to their end. Ans. Whatever in∣terest, or place Faith hath, in the New Cov. & in the matter of justification, it hath it from Gods sole appointment & designation, & it is all that, which is now required of us, in order to our justification, & entering into Cove∣nant with God: yet unless we change & alter its true nature, and assigne another place & power to it, that God hath, the Crown is keeped on the head of the Mediator, & His Righteousness is only owned, received, pro∣duced by the sinner, as it were, in face of Court, & rested upon by faith, in order to justification. But when faith is said to be imputed for Righteous∣ness; that is, when our act of beleeving is made our Righteousness, & said to be so accounted & esteemed by God; & all this to shoot out the Righ∣teousness of Christ, and to take away the Imputation thereof to us, as the only ground of our justification, not only are the native & kindly actings of justifying faith destroyed; but the very nature & gentus of the New Cove∣nant is altered, & it is made to be the same, in kinde, with the first Cove∣nant, with this gradual difference, that the first Covenant required full & perfect obedience; the second one act of obedience only, viz. Faith, as a Peppercorn (as some speak) in stead of a great rent, & our whole Righ∣teousness: for no other Righteousness will our adversaries grant to be really imputed to us, save what they grant of the Imputation of Christ's Righ∣teousness only as to Effects, and thus they make the Lord to repute (for that is the meaning of imputing with them) that to be a Righteousness, which, at best, is but imperfect, & not every way conforme to the command of God, enjoining it. Whereby thus one imperfect act of obedience, viz. Faith, is made that, whereupon the wakened sinner is to rest, and lay his whole weight, & wherein he is to refuge himself from the wrath of God, & which he is to hold up, as his legal defence, against all accusations, coming in against him: and all this use is to be made of faith immediatly, in stead of Christ, & His Surety-righteousness. Whence we see, that it is false to say. (1) That if faith justifieth any way, it must of necessity be by Imputation for righteousness: For it justifieth as the mean appointed of God, to lay hold on an Imputed Righteousness, and to carry the soul forth thereunto. The reason added is vaine, for though it be all that God requires of men to their justification, it is not that Rightheousness, which is imputed unto Justifica∣tion, or the ground thereof; but the Mean or Instrument of a soul's par∣taking of that Righteousness of Christ, which is the only ground, or formal objective reason. (2) It is false to say, That if God shall not account it to them

for righteousness, it shall stand them in no stead to justification. For it is requi∣red, as the meane, whereby the Sinner is married unto Christ, & partaketh of His Righteousness, in order to justification; and is as the legal produ∣ction of the righteousness of the Surety, in face of court, as the ground of absolution to be pleaded & stood unto. The reason he here addeth is of no force, because faith is assigned of God to this end & purpose, as the Gospel cleareth; & only to this end, that so the Mediator alone may weare the Crown, & beare the weight of sinners; & nothing in us, or from us may share with Him, in that glory. It is false (3) to say, or suppose (as his fol∣lowing words intimate) That faith in the New Covenant hath the same place, force & efficacy, which the righteousness of the law had, in the old Cove∣nant: For then Faith should be Meritorious ex pacto, & should give ground of glorying before men. It is (4) false to say, That if faith hath not this place, force & efficacy in the New Covenant, the command for beleeving, & beleeving it self shall be vaine. Seing it hath another use designed to it of God; and it is requi∣red for another end, as is said, according to the gracious pleasure & purpose of God.

Lastly Chap. 8. pag. 93. &c. he argueth from Gal. 3: 12. thus, If the Scrip∣tures do not only no where establish, but in any place absolutely deny a possibility of the translation or removing of the Righteousness of Christ from one person to another, then there is no Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. But the former is emphatical∣ly true from this place. Ergo, &c. Ans. This, upon the matter, is but what Socinus said lib. 3. cap. 3. viz. That one mans deed can no more be the deed of another, than one mans death, or paine can be the death or paine of ano∣ther: & that in deeds of the law, the deed it self is not simply called for, but the proper deed of every one, who is under the law: & that nothing can be more ridiculous, than to say, that one mans righteousness can be the righteousness of another, who is unrighteous in himself: & that it is against common sense, to say, that one may obey for another. But howbeit we easily grant, there neither is, nor can be any physical translation or remo∣ving of Righteousness from one to another: yet to deny all legal translation, is to deny all Suretiship & cautionry; yea and all Satisfection: & therefore the Socinians, who see the force of this consequence, do peremptorily de∣ny, that Christ made any Satisfaction to justice, or payed the debt of the cho∣sen ones, as their Surety: & such, as deny this legal translation of Christ's Righteousness, would do well to consider, if they do not hereby weaken the truth, concerning Christ's Satisfa&ion, & His dying in the Room, place & Stead of the Elect. As for the thing it self, every one, that knoweth what a Surety is, knoweth that his payment of the debt is by law reckoned on the score of the principal debtor, & so transferred upon him, as he is no more liable to the charge of the Creditor, or to the execution of the law a∣gainst him for non-payment, than if he himself had laid down the full Summe.

He would prove, what he alleigeth, thus, This Scripture doth not barely and simply deny a possibility of translation of the Righteousness of the law from one person to another; but denieth it emphatically. Ans. Howbeit it be a truth, that no

meer-mans righteousness is derivable from him to another: set this Text proveth no such thing; but only telleth us the nature 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Co∣venant of works, viz. that it required personal and perfect obedience of him, that would have right to the promised reward. Which speaketh nothing against the new contrivance of the Gospel, wherein the Supream God and Law-giver, & the great Rector of the world did, in Mercy & Love, ap∣point Jesus Christ to be the Mediator & Surety for the chosen ones, to pay their debt, & suffer for them; & did ordaine a way, how they should, in due time, come to have an Interest in, & to partake of that Surety-righ∣teousness of Christ Jesus, that so they might be justified, & dealt with as Righteous persons, having Christ's Surety-righteousness imputed to them, & reckoned upon their score, when by faith they close with Him, and lay hold on it.

He addeth for proof, for it denies a possibility of it to be done even by faith, which was the likeliest hand to have done it, if the nature of the thing had not resisted the doing of it. Ans. The meaning of these werds, the law is not of faith, is, only to shew, That the way of justification by faith & by the law, are so far different, that they cannot agree together: but not to show, that by faith Beleevers are not made partakers of the Righteousness of Christ, or have it not imputed unto them & reckoned upon their score; as the whole scope & circumstances of the place show. That therefore is not true, which he addeth, By which it appeareth also, that be (i.e. the Apostle) had an Intent par∣ticularly, to make the righteousness of the law, as performed by Christ himself, un∣capable of this translation, or Imputation. For though the law should be against the Imputation of the Righteousness of one man, who is Naturally and every way under the law, & obliged by his being, to obey the law, unto another: yet it is not against the Imputation of the Righteousness of one, who is God; & so under the law only by voluntary Submission, & is appointed thereunto by the Supream Law-giver & Rector, unto all such, as were committed & given to Him to save that way, in a way condescended upon by Jehovah, and the Mediator.

He proceedeth, The meaning of these words, the law is not of faith, must be this, that the righteousness of the law doth not arise, or come upon any man, out of his faith, or by his beleeving: & this is proved because the very doer shall live in or by them, Ans. It is true, the law-way of justification, or the way of justifi∣cation, revealed in and by the law, and hold forth in the old Covenant, saith only, that the man that doth these things shall live in them: and doth not prescribe the way of justification through faith. But the Gos∣pel revealeth, how the righteousness of the law, which was part of our debt, being performed and payed by the Lord Jesus, the Surety, appointed of God, is transferred and imputed unto those, He did re∣present.

He addeth further, The word law here is put for the Righteousness or fulfilling of the law. Ans. And why also shall not the word be taken in that sense in the following vers, where it is said, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law; & so the meaning will be, from the curse of the righteousness or fulfilling

of the law? Againe, what though the word had that Import here? can any thing more hence follow, than that personal Righteousness is not de∣rivable now from one man to another, so as to stand for his personal righ∣teousness? But how shall this sense of the words make them a proof or con∣firmation of what was said in the former verse?

He answereth to this, saying, The Apostle in the former verse had delivered it for a truth, that no man could be justified by the law i.e. by the righteousness or works of the law; because the Scripture saith, the just shall live by faith. Now because this consequence might seem doubtful, upon this account, that it might be said, why may not the just live by faith, & by the works of the law too? may not the righteousness of the law be made over to them by faith? No, saith the Apostle, The law is not of faith, there can be no legal rigteousness drawn upon men by faith, &c. Ans. This confirmation is manifestly perverted: for there was no occasion for that question, whether the righteousness of the law could be made over by faith, whether it be taken in his sense, viz. Whether the Righteousness of Christ, performed to the law could be made over and received by faith; as appeareth from what he had said of the Gospel-way vers 8, 9. Or whether it be taken in this sense, that the righteousness of the law, performed by a meer-man, only for himself, according to his obligation, can be now made over to another by faith; for no man over dreamed of such a thing. But enough of this froathy trash.

What he talketh afterward of the opposition betwixt the law and faith, in the matter of justification, is utterly impertinent; because quite mis∣taken, and misunderstood by him: for he only understandeth the difference thus; That faith hath nothing to do with the Righteousness of Christ, but must be considered alone, as our act of obedience; & wherever the law, or the righteousness thereof is excluded in the matter of justification, there the righteousness of Christ is as well to be understood, as our own personal acts of obedience. But how crosse this is unto the whole doctrine of the Gospel, is already abundantly shown; and we may have further occasion to touch upon this matter hereafter.