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. XII.

Some other objections, proposed by John Goodwine, examined.

MR. Iohn Goodwine proceedeth, in his forementioned book Chap. 9. and forward, to propose some Arguments, against the Impu∣tation of Christ's righteousness, which in order fall under con∣sideration.

Obj. 1. That Righteousness, which will not furnish all Beleevers with all points or parts of that righteousness, which the law requireth of them, cannot be imputed

to them unto justification. But such is the Obedience, that Christ performed unto the Moral Law. Therefore &c. Ans. (1.) We plead not only for the Imputa∣tion of Christ's Obedience to the Moral Law; but for the Imputation of His whole Surety Righteousness, that is, of all He both did & Suffered, as the designed & appointed Surety. (2.) This Argum, though it be levelled only against the Imputation of Christ's Obedience; yet it equally wageth warre against the Imputation of His Sufferings: for as to the Satisfaction & pay∣ment of the old Covenant, or His Suffering of death, it may be also said. The payment of the penalty must be such, as they, for whom it was laid down, were otherwise lying under, & under a necessity to pay it themselves. But Christ's death & payment was not such; for He did not suffer the same, as to duration, nor as to concomitant despaire, & other evils, that would neces∣sarily attend the same in Man, & doth attend it in the damned. Which consideration is enough to render this Argument suspected of falshood, un∣to all such, as are not bred in the School of Socinus.

Let us see, how he confirmeth this Argum. & particularly the first proposi∣tion thereof. Because (saith he) a compleat legal righteousness requireth a pun∣ctual through-obedience unto all things in the Law, in reference to each mans place & Calling. Ans. But we may distinguish the proposition thus. That righ∣teousness, which will not furnish all beleevers with every specifick & indi∣vidual act of obedience, which is required of them, in their places & Sta∣tions, i.e. Is not made up of, nor expresly & explicitly comprehendeth in it all these particular Acts, specifically & numerically considered, cannot be imputed unto them in justification; It is false in this sense. But if it be thus taken. That righteousness, which neither did comprehend in it, not was made up of every specifick & numerical Act, required of them, nor yet was infinitly transcending & exceeding the obedience of all men what∣somever, in all their distinct and particular occasions, Relations, places, & Callings, & brought more glory unto God, the Law-giver, and was a fuller proclamation of the holiness of the Law and of the Law-maker, and acknowledgment of His Authority; and with which the great Rector of the world and Law-giver was fully satisfied in all points, cannot be imputed; in this sense it may be granted. But then the Minor is palpably false; and so the Conclusion is null. And as to the first sense, or branch of the distinction, it is no way touched, let be weakened by the confirmation mentioned, as every one may see. And so the Argument is null. And as for the ground & relevancy of the distinction, it is clear from what is said, touching the Sufferings of Christ; so that it can be denied by none, who are not profes∣sed Socimans.

To confirme the Minor, he tels us of duties of Servants, Masters, hus∣bands wives, judges &c. Ans. The distinction given maketh all this useless, and to no purpose. Christ obeyed perfectly the same Law, we were lying un∣der, & that as made under the Law, and as willingly subjecting himself thereunto, in our room and stead, as Surety and Sponsor; and this obe∣dience of His was full, perfect end Compleat, for He fulfilled all righte∣ousness. Mat. 3: 15. He was, dureing His life, holy, harmeless, unde∣filed,

and separat from sinners, Heb. 7: 26. He knew no sin 2. Cor. 5: 21. No man could convince Him of sin. Ioh. 8: 46. Yea the father was well pleased in Him Mat. 3: 17-& 17: 5. And this perfect and full obedience, which Christ gave unto the Law, which He came to fulfill Mat. 5: 17. be∣ing the obedience of one, who was God, equal with the Father, had in it a Supereminent excellency, worth and dignity, to the full Satisfaction of the Law and of the Law-giver, and to the repairing of that loss, and to the recovering of that Glory, which was wronged by mans violation of the Law. So that howbeit He performed not all duties, which were required of eve∣ry one of the Chosen ones, in their several Sexes, Ages, Relations, oc∣casions and Callings, which was Impossible and not needful: Yet He per∣formed that obedience to the Law of God, which was required of Him, as standing in the room and stead of the given ones, and that in all points, yea and full obedience, wherewith the Supream Law-giver was fully Satisfied. And, Sure, every unprejudiced person may easily see and be convinced, that this perfect and compleat obedience of Christ is moreable to furnish be∣leevers with all points of Righteousness, which the Law requireth, than the single act of faith, which our Adversaries Substitute in the place thereof. Shall we think, that God accepteth of, in place of all, and imputeth that unto beleevers for their Righteousness, rather than the Full and perfect Obedience of Christ? Shall one imperfect Act of obedience be of more va∣lue, than the Full and perfect obedience of Christ? W••ence we see, that whatever shew our Adversary maketh with this Argument against us; yet it is of no weight with himself; for as He useth it against the Imputed Obedi∣ence of Christ, so we may use it, with much more strength of reason, a∣gainst the Imputation of our Faith for Righteousness, as is obvius.

We need not take notice of that objection, which He moveth against him∣self pag. 101. viz. That love is the fulfilling of the Law; nor of his Replies made thereunto: for we assert Christ's fulfilling of the Law in another man∣ner, and upon other grounds: He fulfilled all righteousness, and perfor∣med all particular acts of obedience, required of Him as our Surety, so that the Father was well pleased with Him: and what more is requisite!

He moveth another objection pag. 103. viz. That it is not necessary, that men should have all particular Acts of Righteousness, qualified with all cir∣cumstances, imputed to them, it being Sufficient, that such a righteous∣ness be imputed, which is equivalent; yea and more than equivalent, as bringing more glory to God, and as much worthy in it self. He answereth. 1. The Law will not know any thing by way of proportion, but must have its jot for jot, title for title, or else it will curse. Ans. (1.) We are to regard here more what the Law-giver and Supream Rector will know, than what the letter of the Law will acquiesce in. (2.) This taketh away the Satisfaction of Christ, and all His Sufferings, as Mediator, and destroyeth that ground of our hope and Salvation: for the Law, as to its letter, saith, the Soul that sinneth to it shall die; and hath not one jote or title of the Satisfaction and Suf∣fering of a Mediator. (3.) What shall our Adversary now do with faith? doth any jote or title of the Law countenance the Imputation of faith, for

a proportionable Righteousness? doth faith answere every jote, title, point and letter of the Law? He answereth. 2. To impute acts of Righteousness to a Man, which are proper to another calling, is rather to impute sin, than righte∣ousness, Ans. Christ was a publick person, appointed of the Father to re∣present all the chosen ones, & did, in their place & room, fulfill the law, in all points, according as was required of Him, by the Supream Lord Re∣ctor & Law-giver; & this perfect & compleat Obedience is made over to all those, who are His; & not one part to this particular Beleever, and another to another, or some acts to this man, & some other acts to that man: & therefore this reply is groundless.

As to that viz. That God inflicted on Christ, not the circumstantiat cur∣se threatned, but its equivalency, he saith. 1. That in these words, Thou∣shalt die the death, there is no necessity to meane precisely & determinatly eternal death, according to the letter. Ans. If that was not threatned in the Law, no man shall suffer it, for the breach of the Law; and so there shall be no eter∣nal death even to such as perish, which yet himself granteth. (2.) It was a spiritual death, and such as includeth many circumstances, which Christ neither could, nor did suffer. He saith 2. Gods meaning there was not, to threaten eternal death in one kinde, or other; but to have the word death understood, as it indifferently signifieth that evil of punishment, which was known by that na∣mes for eternity is not of the essence of the punishment, due unto sins. Ans. The doubt remaineth concerning other circumstances, & ingredients of that death, as threatned to man. And whether eternity be of the Essence of the punishment, threatned for sin, or not; this is sure, that all, for whom Christ hath not suffered, shall perish eternally; & all had perished eternal∣ly, if Christ had not suffered: And when God threatned death to man, he know, that if that threatning did overtake him, his death would be eter∣nal. He saith 3. Though God should take liberty to vary from the letter of the Curse; yet it followeth not, that the creature, who was bound to obey the precepts of the Law, might take the like liberty to do one thing, in stead of another; or that God should accept any such payment for them. Ans. We assert no liberty for man: but why should not this liberty be allowed to the Supream God? All the reason he giveth, I finde to be this. That God accepteth on any mans be∣half, as a perfect legal righteousness, the performance of such things, which are not required of him, hath no correspondence with any of the Covenants. Ans. If God could accept that, as a perfect Satisfaction, which did not every way answere to & correspond with that, which Man himself was to suffer; why might He not accept of that, as a perfect legal righteousness, which did not in all particulars, answere to, & correspond with that, which every be∣leever was obliged unto? What reason is, or can be given for the one, which will not hold for the other? The answere he hath given, is no answe∣re unto this. Perfect obedience was required of all by the first Covenant, & Christ did performe perfect obedience for all His owne; & this being a per∣fect legal Righteousness, is sufficient for all; & is not the performance of such things, as are not required of them.

Obj. 2. Chap. 10. pag. 107. That Righteousness, which is exactly and preci∣sely

fitted to the person of Him, that is Mediator between God & man, cannot be imputed unto any other man. But such is the Righteousness of Christ. Ergo. The Major he thus confirmeth. He that assumeth this Righteousness of Christ, re∣presents himself to God, in the glorious attire of him, who maketh men righteous, & may conceue himself as great in holiness, as Iesus Christ himself &c. Ans. Christ's Righteousness was indeed the Righteousness of a Mediator & Sure∣ty; & therefore was imputable to all, who by faith should be married to Him, & have union with Him, as their Head, & Husband, & are beco∣me one person in Law with Him, as their Representative & Surety; though not as it was subjected in Him, but according to the nature of the thing, & to their necessity. Hereby therefore is no wrong done to Christ, no rob∣bing of Him of His mediatory glory; but, on the contrary, a more clear & manifest ascribing of the same unto Him, by acknowledging Him for the only Mediator, & by resting on Him, & on His Righteousness, as our only Righteousness and ground of Acceptance. We cleare the matter thus. When the payment of a Surety is imputed to the debtor, and he pleadeth the same in court, for his own absolution, he doth no injurie unto the cau∣tioner; but rather declareth himself unable to pay, & ascribeth the honour of the payment unto the Surety: for he doth alleige or produce that pay∣ment, as if he would thereby declare, that he himself; as Surety, had paid the summe for another; but only produceth the payment of a Surety, in reference to himself, as a ground sufficient in Law, whereupon he should be absolved from the Charge, giuen-in against him by the creditor. So when the beleever applieth to himself the Righteousness of Christ, he doth not make himself a Mediator or Surety; but only applieth the Righteousness & payment of his Surety, Head & Husband, for his own use, to answere the charge given-in against himself, and in reference to his own particular case & necessity. Hereby the beleever doth not assume to himself an equa∣lity of Righteousness with God himself; but only assumeth that Mediatory & Surety-righteousness, which He wrought, who was equal with God, & was God, so far as their own case & necessity requireth. We dream of no such imputation, as would give ground to us to conceite our selves to have done & said all that He did & said. This is the fiction of the Adversary, not our Assertion.

Against the consideration of the Union betwixt Christ, as the Head, & beleevers as the Members, which is the ground of this Imputation & com∣munication, He saith pag. 113. 1. Christ & Beleevers are a mystical body, & therefore an universal agreement, in all things, with a natural body, cannot be thought on; one difference is this, what one member of the body natural doth, the whole may be said to do. But not so in the mystical body; the body of Christ cannot be said to have wrought miracles &c. Ans. Nor de we asserte an agreement betwixt this mystical body & a natural body, in all points: But yet, as Christ accounteth Himself a sufferer, when the members of His body are suffering, as such: So what Christ did, as an Head to His mystical Body▪ and Spiritual Kingdom, according to the designation and appointment of God, who made Him both King & Lord, must redound to their advanta∣ge,

according to their necessity; and therefore what He did, as a publick Head & Representative, must be imputed unto them, who are of His Bo∣dy, & were undertaken for & represented by Him.

He saith, 2. Though the benefite of what the head doth, be communicated to the whole body; yet what the head doth, is no wayes to be imputed to hand, or to foot. Ans. The hand or foot needeth no imputation of what is done by the head, but a community, or political body, and every member thereof, needeth an Imputation of what is done for their good, & in their Law-place, by their Head & publick Representative. And in this matter, we look upon Christ, as such an Head.

Against the Marriage Union betwixt Christ & Beleevers, mentioned as another ground to cleare this Imputation, he saith 1. It is true, the wife by marriage, comes to be endowed with all that is her husbands, but this endowing is no ingredient into the marriage it self, but a fruit thereof; so the right, which a beleever hath to the Righteousness of Christ, accrueth unto him by & upon this Spi∣ritual marriage; and therefore it cannot be imputed to him. The marriage must be first made up, before the right be had unto this Righteousness. Ans. If the right unto Christ's Righteousness accrue unto Beleevers by & upon their Spiritual marriage with Christ, this Righteousness must be imputed to them, and reckoned upon their score, or made over unto them, as the dowrie is made over to the wife and reckoned hers, upon her marriage. We grant the mar∣riage is first made up, and that this is done by faith; and yet at the very act of beleeving, this Righteousness is imputed. This marriage Union is first in order of nature, but no time interveeneth betwixt this Union and the Im∣putation of Righteousness. He saith 2. all that is the husbands is not every way the wifes, nor for every use & purpose, but only in a way of expediency and beneficialness; as his clothes are not hers to put on: so the beleever must take heed of assuming the glorious rob of His Righteousness to himself, otherwayes than in the benefite and comfort of it. Ans. All that is the husband's becometh the wifes by Marriage, for every use and purpose, that her necessity calleth for, and the nature of the thing admitteth; as his riches becometh hers to her main∣tainance, and to the paying of her debt; and his honour becometh hers, to the exalting of her to a Sutable state of honour; even so must Christ's Righ∣teousness become the Beleevers, that his debt may be payed, and he sa∣ved out of the hand of justice, & advanced to a state of life, and have right to glory.

Obj. 3. Chap. 11. pag. 118. If God hath sufficiently provided otherwayes for the justification of his people, He doth not impute this Righteousness of Christ for that end. But God hath provided otherwayes for this end. Which he thus pro∣deth. He that is compleatly justified by having his sins forgiven, is justified with∣out this Imputation. But a beleever is sufficiently justified before God by the for∣giveness of sins. Ergo. Ans. Though a person justified is pardoned, yet justi∣fication includeth more, than meer pardon of Sins. Justification is the pro∣nouncing and accepting of a person as Righteous; and therefore the per∣son so justified and accepted must be righteous: and seing he is not inherently righteous, he must be righteous by Imputation. What he said to this pur∣pose

before Chap. 5. of his book (to which he here remitteth us) hath been examined already. What he addeth here, shall now be considered, wa∣ving mens Sayings, wherewith I purpose not to medle here. He citeth agai∣ne to this purpose Rom. 4: 6, 7. to which we spoke above. He supposeth, that the Apostle here did intend a full description of justification; But this he cannot clearly evince, & he forgetteth, that the Apostle maketh mention of Imputed Righteousness; and that not as one and the same thing with free Remission, but as inseparable from it. The Apostles designe was not to gi∣ve here a full Definition or description of Justification, it being Sufficient to the purpose he had in hand, to mention so much thereof, as did clearly & irrefragably confirme the same viz. That the blessed state of justification is not brought about, or had by the works of the Law: yea, (as is said) that very Imputation of Righteousness is not only included in the word blessedness, by which this State of justification is expressed; for a blessed man is one, who not only is freed from guilt and punishment, but hath also a right to the Crown, and to the rich recompense of reward, which is not had with∣out a Righteousness; but is plainly also expressed, when he saith, Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth Righte∣ousness without works. Here is a Righteousness, even a positive Righteous∣ness, mentioned, and a Righteousness imputed, and a Righteousness with∣out our works of obedience to the Law. Hence we need not assert any Sy∣necdoche here; or say, that a part is put fot the whole, which yet is no unu∣sual thing in Scripture; and might be admitted here, even in this matter, without any absurdity; seing where one part of this business is mentioned, the other is necessarily understood, because of the necessary & inviolable connexion, that is betwixt them.

He saith further pag. 130. If forgiveness of sins be but a part, and the wor∣ser half of our justification, then when the Scripture saith, we are justified by His blood (Rom. 5: 9.) the sense must be, we are justified by half through his blood, but the better halfe of our justification must come another way; for by his blood we cannot have his active Righteousness imputed to us. (1.) We use not to make such comparisons betwixt these things (here called parts) had in justifica∣tion; as to call the one the better part, and the other the worser part, both being requisite to make up our state of blessedness, and necessary thereunto. (2.) When the Scripture saith, we are justified by His blood, the meaning is not, we are justified by the half through His blood: for half justification is no justification. (3) Nor is the Reason added of any force: for by blood here, we may as well understand, by a Synecdoche, His active Righteousness, as all His passive, both being but integral parts of His Surety-righteousness, & emphatically expressed by His death, or blood, the most remarkable piece thereof, & expressive of His love and condescension, and terminating point of Surety-obedience; for He said, it was finished, when He offered up Himself, & gave up the Ghost.

He addeth, So where it is said againe Chap. 5. vers 16. that the gift (viz. of Righteousness by Christ) is of many offences unto justification: If the gift of many offences, i.e. the forgiveness of Mans Sinnes, will not amount to a justifica∣tion,

without the Imputation of a legal Righteousness, we must give a check to Paul's pen. Ans. This is but vanity: we need give no check unto the Apo∣stle's pen: for though He said not in this verse expresly, that there was a gift of Righteousness also imputed; yet he said it expresly vers 17. & 18. & 1. And shall we think, that in such a continued discourse, as this is, wherein the Apostle is explaining the whole mystery by its parts, he should mention all things, in one verse?

He proceeds to prove, that Remission of sins is the whole of justification pag. 131. Because the end (saith he) for which this Imputed Righteovsness of Christ is thus brought in to the business of justification, viz. to be the Right to the Inheritance, is supplied in a way more evangelical, & of more sweetness & dear∣ness to the Children of God, to wit, by the grace of Adoption, Ans. To this we have said enough above, & will have occasion to speak againe to it, in the next objection.

He addeth further 4. That if we thus separat and divide the benefite of Christ's Active and passive Obedience, in Iustification, we take a course to lose & destroy both. Ans. Not to transcribe his tedious discourse, on this accout, I only say, That it is wholly founded upon a mistake, as if our showing the neces∣sity of the Imputation of both, were a separating or dividing of the benefi∣te of both, whileas the whole Effect floweth from the whole cause, both Christ's Active & His passive obedience making up one compleat Surety-righteousness; and so producing one whole blessedness to beleevers, consi∣sting in Remission of Sins, & in a Right to Glory: we say with him, that neither of them separated or abstracted from the other can profite us; and therefore we assert the Imputation of both, as one compleat Surety-righte∣ousness, answereing our necessity in all points. His own words pag. 132. 133. make clearly for us. I would not have (saith he) the active obedience of Christ separated from the passive, nor againe the passive from the active, in re∣spect of the common & joint effect, justification, arising from a concurrence of them both; yet would I not have Christ in his mystery tumbled up together on a heap; for this would be to deface the beauty and excellency of that wisdom, which shines forth gloriously, in the face thereof. I would have every thing, that Christ was, did-and suffered, to be distinguished, not only in themselves; but also in their pro∣per and immediat Effects, respectively ariseing and flowing from them severally.

Lastly. He tels us, If the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness must be added, as another part of justification, then must the formal cause of one & the same Ef∣fect be double; yea one & the same formal part of the thing shall be compounded of two things, of a diverse and opposite consideration. Ans. We make the Imp••∣tation of Christ's Righteousness not a part of justification; But the cause of it; and yet the formal cause of one and the same Effect is not made double▪ for as the Cause is one compleat Cause, viz. the Surety-righteousness of Christ, so the Effect is one compleat Effect, though both Cause and Effect may be considered, as consisting of several Integral parts. There is no ground here to say, That one and the same formal part of a thing is compounded of diverse or opposite things.

Obj. 4. Chap. 12. Pag. 136. &c. That which dissolveth and taketh away the

necessity & use of that sweet evangelical grace of Adoption, cannot hold a streight course with the thruth of the Gospel. But this is done by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. Ergo. The Minor, which is only here to be denied, he la∣boureth to prove, because we say, The Righteousness of Christ must be im∣puted in order to our obtaining Right and Title to Life; & that by Remis∣sion of Sins a man is only delivered from death, but receiveth no Right to the Kingdom of heaven. But what can he hence inferre for confirmation of the Minor? Now (saith he) this being the direct & proper end, use, office, purpose & intent of Adoption, to invest a beleever with a capacity with heaven; it followes, that whosoever shall attempt to set any thing else upon this throne, seeks to dissolve Adoption. Ans. The Consequence is null. The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness will no more take away Adoption, than justification; for it is the ground and Cause of both. He might as well say, That becau∣se in and by justification, we have Remission of Sins, to assert the Imputa∣tion of Christ's death and Sufferings for this end, is to dissolve justifica∣tion. But the truth is clear, as was explained above Myst. 14.

He thinks both cannot stand together, because either of them is a compleat & entire Title within itself; perfect Righteousness is a perfect title alone; so is A∣doption or Sonship. Ans. (1.) This will say as much against the Imputation of Christ's death and Sufferings, as against justification: for either of these is a compleat Title (according to our Adversary) to Immunity from death: perfect Satisfaction is a perfect title alone to this Immunity, as well as per∣fect Righteousness is a perfect title to the Inheritance: & Justification or Remission of Sins, (which are one with him) is also a perfect Right to this, as well as Adoption is a perfect Right to that. (2) But as Justification is founded upon the Imputed Righteousness of Christ; so is Adoption. As Christ's death and Satisfaction is not formall pardon, or Right to Impunity, but is, when Imputed, the ground and cause of justification, wherein the Beleever is solemnely brought into a state of freedome from death: So Christ's Obedience and Fulfilling of the Law is not a formal Right unto the inheritance, but, when Imputed and received by faith, the ground and cause of Adoption, whereby the Beleever is, as it were, solemnely infe∣offed of the Inheritance. Here then is nothing in vaine; but all things so ordered, as may most commend the riches of the wisdom & Grace of God; & may most ensure life and all to the ••eleever. So that his following dis∣course is meer froath and vanity: for, as God may appoint moe meanes for the same end, as He pleaseth; as His promises, oath & Sacraments to con∣firme the faith of beleevers; so there can be no reason given, why it may not be so here: & yet, to speak properly, Adoption is no mean, or Cause of the Right and Title to Glory, being the solemne Collation of that Right to the beleever, or the solemne stating of him in that Right; as justification properly is no Meane to or Cause of pardon and Acceptation of Sinners, but rather the solemne bringing of them into or placeing of them in that state of peace, Pardon and Reconciliation, who beleeve in Jesus and lay hold on His Righteousness. What he speaketh of the opposition betwixt the Law and the promise, in giving of life from Gal. 3: 21. is most Impertinent; so also

is that, which he saith from Gal. 2: 21. for though it be an abrogating and making void of the ordinances of God, when another thing, that is con∣trary & expresly excluded by the Lord from that office & work, is set up with it, to bring the same end to passe, or to serve in the same place and office: yet is there not the least coloure of ground to say, That if our Right & Title to heaven be by Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, then doth God give the grace of Adoption in vaine: for the Righteousness of Christ is the Merito∣rious procuring Cause of this Right and Title to heaven; and when this is Imputed & made over to the beleever, he receiveth the Effect and▪ Fruit of that purchase viz. an Actual Right to glory, & is solemnely infeofed (as it were) thereof. What ignorance & folly would it discover in a man, to say, That the legal installing of a man by publick seasing & Infeofment in the legal Right to & possession of such a Land, or House, is that which gi∣veth the man Right; and therefore the price he hath laid down, to purcha∣se that Land, or house, hath no Interest or Consideration in that purchase, for these two cannot consist, the one must necessarily render the other use∣less; if he hath made a purchase of the Land & house by his money, he nee∣deth no Charter or Infeofment thereof: or if his Charter & Infeofment gi∣veth him Right to possesse the same, the price laid down is of no use? would not every one smile at such Non-sense? And yet so reasoneth this learned Adversary, who will have the Righteousness of Christ laid by, which is the only price and purchasing Merite of our Right to Heaven; or the Grace of Adoption, whereby the beleever becometh legally (as it were) infeofed of the Inheritance. It is vaine, if he should think to escape by saying. That he acknowledgeth the price of Christ's Righteousness; but speaketh of the Imputation of that Righteousness, in order to this Right; For the Imputa∣tion of this Righteousness is but the Interessing of the beleever in that price, as the price of such a purchase, to the end he may receive the legal infeofment of the Inheritance purchased, in Adoption.

Obj. 5. Chap. 13. pag. 145. He that hath a perfect & compleat Righteousness of the Law imputed to him, standeth in need of no Repentance. Ans. This Conse∣quence is utterly false, as was shewed above Chap. 6. Mystery. 13. Repen∣tance is not prescribed in the Gospel, for any such use or end, for which the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is called for. If Adam (saith he) had kept the Law, he had needed: no Repentance, more than Christ himself needed; & those that kept the Law in him, as exactly & perfectly as he did, what more ne••d of Repentance have they, than he had, Ans Adam, it is true, had needed no Repentance, if he had kept the Law: But the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness & obedience to us, though thereby we come to enjoy the Effects & purchase thereof, as really as if we had Fulfilled the Law oursel∣ves; yet it maketh us not to have been no sinners; nor doth it exeem us from the Law, in time coming, nor put us out of case of sinning any more; and consequently prejudgeth not the true & lively exercise of that grace of Re∣pentance.

He addeth. He that is as righteous, as Christ is, (which those must needs be, who are righteous with His righteousness) needeth no more Repentance, than He

needed. Ans. We do not love to say, that beleevers, through this Impu∣tation, are as Righteous, as Christ was: for that expression might import that thereby they become as Righteous inherently, as He was; which is false: But that thereby they are legally accounted Righteous, to all ends & purposes, as if they themselves, in their own persons, had Fulfilled the Law: And therefore, though thereby they become, in Law-sense, Righ∣teous; yet they are inherently ungodly & unrighteous, till sanctifying grace make a change here; & therefore stand in need of Repentance.

To that That Beleevers need Repentance for their daily & personal fail∣ings, he saith, But they that have an entire & perfect Law-righteousness Im∣puted to them, have no such need, in any respect; because in the Imputation of a perfect Righteousness, there is an universal non-Imputation of sin apparently in∣cluded. Besides, if God doth Impute a perfect Law-righteousness, it must be supposed, that the rights & privileges, belonging to such righteousness do accom∣pany it, in the Imputation—Now, one maine privilege hereof is to invest with a full & entire right unto life, out of its own intrinsecal & inherent dignity & worth, which is a privilege, wholly inconsistent with the least tincture of sin, in the person that stands possessed of it. Ans. Where there is an Imputation of a perfect Righteousness, there there is an universal Non-Imputation of sin, in refe∣rence to actual condemnation, or to the prejudging of the person, parta∣ker of this Imputation, of the reward of life; but as this Imputation of Righteousness maketh not a sinner to have been no sinner; so neither doth it make their future sinnes to be no sinnes, or them to be no sinners, in time coming; because it is imputed for no such end. (2) It is true, the Rights & privileges, belonging to this Righteousness, do accompany the Impu∣tation thereof; & that thereby beleevers become invested with a full & en∣tire Right to life, because of its intrinsecal & inherent dignity; but it is ut∣terly false, to say, That this full & entire Right to life is inconsistent with the least tincture of sin, in the person possessed of it: & hereby he must say one of these two; either that there is no full Right had to life, while per∣sons are in this life; or that there is a full and sinless perfection attain∣able and had by all beleevers; so that they sinne no more, Both which are most false.

But what will he say of Faith, which he will have imputed for Righteous∣ness, seing this must bring alongs with it the same privileges; & so exclude Repentance too? To this he saith. The meaning is not, as if God either Im∣puted, or accepted, or accounted faith for the self same thing, which the Right∣eousness of the Law is intrinsecally & formally; or as if God, in this Imputation, either gave or accounted unto faith any power or privilege to justifie, out of any inherent worth of it. But the meaning only is, that God, upon Man's faith, will as fully justify him, as if he had perfectly fulfilled the Law•• He that fulfilled the Law & thereby is justified, is justified out of the inherent dignity of that, which justifieth him; but he that is justified by faith, is justified by the free & gra∣cious acceptation of it by God; for that, which is justifying in its own Nature, & by vertue of its inherent worth & dignity. Ans. What God Imputeth & re∣puteth to be a Righteousness, in order to justification, must be accounted

such, or a man shall be justified, without all consideration of a Righteous∣ness▪ and so be pronounced & declared Righteous, though he be not Righ∣teous upon any account, or in any manner of way: And if faith be not ac∣counted for the self same thing, or for the equivalent with the Righteous∣ness of the Law, how shall it be accounted a Righteousness, in order to the justification of a sinner, who is under the Curse of the Law, & who, because of the breach of the Law, hath no right to life? wherefore faith must have that inherent worth, that the Righteousness of the Law should have had, else it cannot be a Righteousness, whereupon a sinner can be justified before God, who is Just and Righteous, and will not pronounce such to be Righteous, as are not Righteous. (2) If God, upon a man's faith, will as fully justify a man, as if he had fulfilled the Law, either that faith must be a Righteousness, and so accounted, which he here denieth; or the man must be declared Righteous, who hath no Righteousness; and so the judgment of God should not be according to truth; or upon his be∣leeving he must be justified, as being Righteous by an Imputed Righteous∣ness; which is the thing he peremptorily denieth. (3) When one is justi∣fied by faith, by God's free & gracious Acceptation of it, this act of grace must either import, that faith is accepted as a Righteousness, & so accounted of God; or still the beleever shall be declared and pronounced Righteous, though he hath no Righteousness; or the meaning of this Acceptation must be, that God hath graciously condescended to appoint this mean & way of sinners having an Interest in the Righteousness of Christ, whereby he may be accounted Righteous & justified, as really, as is he had performed that Righteousness himself, in his own person: & in this sense, it is most true, but utterly destructive of his designe. (4) If faith be accepted for that, which is justifying in its own Nature, & by vertue of its Inherent worth & dignity, it must either be that, which is of such inherent worth, or it must be accepted for that, which it is not, & so a man must be judged by God to have that, which he hath not.

He concludeth thus. Wherefore, the Imputation of faith for righteousness may well stand with personal sins, in him, to whom this Imputation is made, in respect of which sins he remaines obliged to repent: but the Imputation of a per∣fect legal Righteousness makes a man perfectly righteous in the letter & formality of it. Ans. Then it seemeth that by the Imputation of faith for Righteousness, a man standeth not invested & possessed of a full & entire right unto life: for that, he said before, was a privilege wholly inconsistent with the least tinc∣ture of sin. (2) If by a perfect legal Righteousness, he meane a Righteous∣ness required of the Law & performed by us personally, we plead not for the Imputation of any such: but if he mean a Righteousness consisting in full conformity to the Law, performed by Christ & graciously imputed to us, & received by faith, that is well consistent with inherent & personal sins. What he meaneth by making a man perfectly righteous in the letter & formality of it. I know not, till some be pleased to explaine it.

Obj. 6. Another argum. he prosecuteth pag. 149. &c. thus. If men be as Righteous as Christ himself was, in his life, there was no more necessity of His

death for them, than for himself▪ then the just should not have died for the unjust, but for the just. Ans. If we had not transgressed the Law, there had been no necessity, that either we, or any for us, should have died; but having transgressed the Law, & thereby fallen under the Curse, & wanting all right to life, we must have a Surety-righteousness, whereby not only the Curse shall be taken away, but the blessing of Abraham may come upon us, & we may have a full right to life: & therefore both the Active & passive Righteousness of Christ is necessary (2) Christ died for the unjust, because His death, which was the period & terminating act of His obedience, and Surety righteousness, which He undertook to performe in our room and Law-place, was for sinners, lying under the Curse, & void of all right & title to life. He imagineth, that first Christ's Active Righteousness is im∣puted, & thereby the person is constituted Righteous; & then inferreth the non•• necessity of Christ's death: By we say, that Christ's whole Surety-righteousness, consisting in what He did & suffered, in His state of Humi∣liation, in our room, and as Cautioner, is at once imputed, and not in parts; that so the necessity of sinners may be answered in all points.

He thinks to prove this consequence by these words Gal. 2: 21. If righ∣teousness be by the Law, then Christ died in vaine; rejecting the sense of the word Law, viz. as importing the works of the Law, as performed by us, in our own person, & thereby doing violence to the whole Scope of the place, & to the constant acceptation of the expression; & supposing that the Consequence will be strong, though the works of the Law, as perfor∣med by Christ, be here understood; & that meerly upon this false ground, Because the Righteousness of Christ's life imputed had been a Sufficient, & every wayes a compleat Righteousness for us. Nor need we say, as he saith in our na∣me, That there was a Necessity, that Cbrist should did, that so the righteousness of His life might be imputed to 〈◊〉〈◊〉. For the necessity of His death arose from our transgressing of the Law, & being under the Curse.

Obj. 7. Chap. 14. pag. 151. He alleigeth, that this Imputation evania∣teth Remission of Sins, saying, for if men be righteous with the same righteous∣ness, wherewith Christ was righteous, they have no more need of pardon, than He had. Ans. We spoke to this above. Chap. 6. Mystery 11. & therefore need say no more here, then that the Consequence is null, & that the probation is insufficient, for though we be constituted Righteous through the Imputa∣tion of Christ's Righteousness; it is but a Surety-righteousness, & not our own inherently: & the Surety not being of our appointing or fitting & fur∣nishing, our pardon is a Consequent & Effect of this Imputation. (2) The consequence is no more valide from the Imputation of the Active Righ∣teousness of Christ, than from His passive and Satisfaction: and so with Soci••ians, he must also hereby deny Christ's Satisfaction, that he may esta∣blish his free Remission. But Gospel free forgiveness is rather established, than any way weakened by our Assertion of the Imputation of Christ's who∣le Surety-righteousness.

He addeth, Christ hath taught us to pray for forgiveness of Sins: now to pray for that, and yet to conceite ourselves as righteous, as Christ was, is rather to

mock, than to worship. Ans. This expression to conceite ourselves as righteous as Christ was, is none of ours; & though it may admit of a good sense as being true, quoad veritatem, though not quoad modum: yet because it is so ambiguous, & liable to misconstruction, I chose rather to forbear it, seeing no necessity touse it. And to conceite our selves legally & juridically righ∣teous with the Imputed Surety-righteousness of Christ, is very consistent with praying for pardon: for Christ's Surety-righteousness is not, nor yet said to be, imputed for this end immediatly, that all our after actions should be sinless; but to this end rather, that we may have actual pardon of by past sinnes, & of future sins too, after the methode of the Gospel; and that none of our sins should actually procure our Condemnation, or pre∣judge us of eternal Felicity; but that notwithstanding thereof, we should not come into condemnation, but enter into life.

He saw, that what he here objecteth against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, will militat as much against the Imputation of Faith, which must derive a righteousness upon the person, as perfect and compleat, as the Righteousness of the Law; & so can leave as little place for Remission, as what we plead for; and therefore to obviat this, he tels us. That when faith is imputed, another thing is imputed▪ then the righteousness of the Law it self, to wit, faith, by name, in stead of it: Now any other righteousness, or any other thing imputed for righteousness, besides the righteousness of the Law, will bear a consistency of sin with it, & of remission. Ans. If by the righteousness of the Law here, he only meaneth that, which we performe in our own persons, it is true, that is inconsistent with sin or pardon: but it is false, if he under∣stand thereby, the righteousness of the Law, performed by another, Christ our Surety. And sure, if his faith be accounted a Righteousness, it must be a Righteousness, or God's estimation is not just: & if it be a Righteous∣ness; it must be accompanied with all the privileges of a Righteousness (as himself saith) and consequently exclude all Sin & Remission, if these be such concomitans of an Imputed righteousness.

He addeth, when a perfect Sanctification is imputed to a man for his justifica∣tion▪ that man can be no more reputed to have sin in him, than to be obnoxious to death, which is opposite to justification. Ans. And no wonder; for perfect Sanctification being a perfect inherent holiness, cannot, without a contra∣diction, but exclude sin. But who speak of such an Imputation of Sanctifi∣cation? We know no such thing; for Sanctification is wrought & inherent in us, & not imputed to us. If he meane by this perfect Sanctification, the perfect Obedience and Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, we say, though that perfect Sanctification or Righteousness could be consistent with no sin in Christ; yet, when imputed to us, it can consist with sin inherent in us, & with pardon of sin also; as we have already cleared.

Further saith he. But when that, which either is no Sanctification, or at most, but an imperfect Sanctification, is imputed for Righteousness in a mans justification, place is left for inherencie of sin, & consequently for the forgiveness of it. Ans. That which is no Sanctification, or at most, but an imperfect Sanctification, must either be no Righteousness, or at most, an imperfect

righteousness; and therefore cannot be reputed or accounted a perfect righ∣teousness; and so cannot be imputed to a person, in order to justification. Or if we should suppose, that God did make it, & really repute it to be a righteousness, it must be a compleat righteousness; & consequently inconsi∣stent with pardon, because it shall hereby become a compleat inherent Ho∣liness & Righteousness.

Obj. 8. Chap. 15. pag. 153. &c. Whoseever is perfectly righteous, or as righ∣teous as Christ is, in him God can see no sin. But every beleever (saith this opinion, which we impugne) is as perfectly & compleatly righteous, as Christ himself is. Therefore &c. Ans. How false this consequence is, was manifested above Chap. 6. Mystery 15. And now, waving that expression of being as righ∣teous, as Christ himself is. I distinguish the Major thus, Whosoever is per∣fectly righteous with an inherent Righteousness (taking perfection here not for kind, but for degrees) in him God can see no sin, true: but in this sen∣se the Minor is false. Whosoever is perfectly Righteous with an Imputed righteousness, in him God can see no sin, or order to actual condemnation, it is true, but then the Conclusion containeth nothing but truth. It is true, God could see no sin in Christ, because there was no sin existing in Him; yet He can see sin in beleeves, in whom sin existeth, notwithstanding they be clothed with the perfect Righteousness of Christ, which only maketh, that God can see no sin in them, for which He will actually bring them into con∣demnation; and this is consonant to Scripture Rom. 8: 1.

Obj. 9. Another Reason he proposeth Chap. 16. pag. 154. &c. alleiging; That by this Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, we confound the two Co∣venants of Works & of Grace. But as to this, we have cleared the truth abo∣ve Chap. 6. Mystery 16. Nor need we be much troubled at his bold alleigan∣ce; fo•• not we, but he & others with him, by his opinion, in pleading for the sole Imputation of faith, as our Gospel Righteousness, to which some adde other works of obedience, do turne the Gospel into a new Cove∣nant of Works: for if faith, properly taken, alone, or conjunct with other works of Righteousness, which we do, be all our Gospel-righteous∣ness, we are justified by our own personal obedience & righteousness; and this was the plaine tenor of the Covenant of works: The variation of the obedience, now required from what was of old, though now it be but as a pepper corne, in comparison of the greater rent formerly required, doth make no alteration in the Nature and Essence of the Covenant: for justifi∣cation & life is still by works of righteousness, which we do, and which are our owne. But when the Righteousness of a Surety is imputed, & we are upon that account accepted, though the righteousness, wrought by the Surety, be obedience to the same Law, that was in force under the first Covenant, & which we were obliged unto, & lying under the Curse of (as it must needs have been, seing He did substitute himself in our place, & took our debt upon Him) the Covenant is altered: for the first Covenant knew no Righteousness, but what was our owne & personal; & did not admit of a Surety. Thus these two Covenants are not confounded by us, but kept manifestly distinct; & we cannot owne their Gospel-way of justifi∣cation,

as being a way to bring us back againe to the old Covenant of works, with a meer pretext of some ease, as to the Conditions, or Termes.

Yet he would prove, that the two Covenants are made one by us, thus, where the parties Covenanting are the same; & the things covenanted for are the same; and the Conditions or agreement the same, there the Covenants are every way the same. But if the Righteousness of the Law imputed to us be the agreement, or Condition of the New Covenant, all the three, persons, things, & Conditions are the same. Ans. (1) It may be questioned, if either the persons Covenanting, or the things Covenanted for, in both Covenants, be the same every way; but to speak of this is not our present purpose (2) The Covenants do not agree, as to their Conditions; for the condition required in the Covenant of works, was a proper antecedent condition, which is a cause of the thing promised; but the Condition of the New Covenant is only a consequent condition, denoting nothing else, than a connexion, or order betwixt the thing promised, & the condition required. (3) The Righteousness of the Law imputed to us, is no condition required of us, in the New Covenant; but it is required of us, that by faith we close with Christ, & thereby come to have an Interest in Christ, & in all His Righteousness, to all ends and purposes; which our case and necessity calleth for. (4) This Righteousness of the Law was called for from us, in our own persons, in the old Cove∣nant; but in the New Covenant, the righteousness is Imputed to us, when we beleeve in Him. And this, as is said, is enough to distinguish these Covenants.

But he thinks. The Righteousness of the Law imputed from another, & wrought by ourselves do not much differ, the substance being the same. Ans. Yet this dif∣ference may make a substantial difference in the two Covenants: for when the Covenant of Works did not admit of the performance of the Conditi∣ons by a Surety, as himself proved by foure Arguments pag. 155. And the Covenant of Grace holdeth forth justification only through the Righteous∣ness of another, imputed to us, & received by faith: Though the Righ∣teousness, mentioned in both, consist in conformity to the same Law; yet the Covenants cannot but substantially differ, as is obvious to every one. Be∣side, that the righteousness imputed consisteth in more, than in Obedience to the Law; for it comprehendeth his whole Surety-righteousness; & that took in His Sufferings also. The following objection, which he preoccupi∣eth, is purely his owne, & so I leave it.

Obj. 10. Chap. 17. pag. 158. &c. That for which Righteousness is imputed to those that beleeve, cannot be imputed to them for righteousness. But the Righ∣teousness of Christ is that, for which righteousness is imputed to those that beleeve. Ergo. The Assumption he thinks none will deny, but such as deny the righ∣teousness to be the Meritorious Cause of that Righteousness or justification, which is conferred upon men. The Major he thus proveth If it be Impossi∣ble, that the thing merited should be the same thing, with that, which is the Meritorious Cause thereof, then it is not only not true, but impossible, that the Righteousness of Christ should be the Righteousness of a beleever. But the former is

true Ergo &c. Aus. This is nothing but a pure fallacy, founded upon a pal∣pable mistake viz of confounding righteousness & justification as if they were one & the same. To discover this, let us put Iustification for Righteousness in the first Argument, thus. That for which beleevers are justified, cannot be imputed to them for righteousness, But the Righteousness of Christ is that for which beleevers are justified. Therefore &c. Who seeth not now, how false the Major propositions is; & how impertinent & ridiculous the proba∣tion thereof is? justification, which is the Effect, or the thing merited, is not the same thing with the Righteousness of Christ, the Meritorious cau∣se thereof.

Obj. 11. pag. 160. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to a belee∣ver for righteousness, in his justification, then the meritorious cause of his justification is imputed. But that cannot be imputed. Ergo &c. He pro∣veth the Minor, which is denied, thus, Because the Meritorious cause, being a kind of Efficient can not be either the matter, or the forme of that, whereof it is Efficient—It is an Inviolable Law amongs the foure kindes of causes, Ma∣terial, Formal, Final & Efficient, that the two former do only ingredi composi∣tion, or effectum, & are partes rei constitutae; & that the two latter are al∣wayes extrinsecal, & stand without. Ans. All which is but vaine argueing, grounded upon this palpable mistake, that justification is a physical Effect, like the whiteing of a wall; (which is the example, whereby, he illu∣strats the matter) & therefore he thinketh, that these termes are used, in this matter, in as proper a sense, as when they are applied to physical causes & Effects; whileas the matter is quite otherwise; & many of these termes are here used, but in a metaphorical sense. But to the matter, whether Imputed Righteousness, be called the Material cause, with so∣me, or the formal cause, with others, of justification, is no great mat∣ter, seing every one hath liberty to explaine, in what sense he useth these termes, in this matter; & I should rather choose to use the terme (if such like termes must be used) of the formal objective cause, or Reason; This is enough to us, That it is that, whereby they become juridically righ∣teous; & that, upon the consideration whereof, now imputed to them, they are pronounced Righteous & justified; & so is the meritorious cause of their justification, & that Righteousness, which covereth them, & upon the account of which, they are declared & pronounced Righteous: as the payment of the Surety, is as the meritorious cause in Law of the absolution of the debtor, & the ground upon which he is absolved, being accounted his payment, because the debtor & Surety are one person in Law. As in a juridical sentence of Absolution of an accused debtor, there is no proper formal, or material cause; so neither in the matter of justification, which is God's juridical Act & Sentence.

Yet I cannot acquiesce to what he addeth, saying That only remission of sins or absolution from punishment, is as the forme applied unto, or put upon the matter, & the matter or subject it self, where unto this forme is applied; Not only because, according to his own argueing, one thing cannot be both matter & forme of the same thing; but because Remission of sins in hereby

made the whole of justification; whereas to speak properly it is but an Effect or consequent, or at most a part thereof; & the person justified is properly absolved from the accusation & declared to be Righteous; & so is legally constituted or put into a state of Righteousness, or of Righteous persons, whereupon followeth freedom from guilt, or punishment, & a Right to the reward: & as to this State, whatever we shall conceive as the forme thereof, it must be a Righteousness; & consequently the Righ∣teousness of Christ imputed; for sinners can have no other.

Obj. 12. If the meritorious cause of our justification be imputed unto us, thon the Effects themselves of this cause may be imputed to us also; & so we may be said to have merited both our own justification, & salvation: for if I may be ac∣counted or reputed to have wrought that Righteousness, which is meritorious, why may I not be conceived as well to have merited? Nay further, if I may be concei∣ved to have wrought that Righteousness in Christ, whereby I am justified my self, I may as well be conceived to have wrought that Righteousness, by which the whole world is justified. Ans. This is but a meer sophisme, founded upon a mistake: The consequence is false, & the proof thereof standeth only upon this rotten bottome. That to say, That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us, is to say, that we are reputed, esteemed, or accounted to have do∣ne or wrought that Righteousness our selves; whileas the true meaning of Imputation is this. That the Righteousness of Christ is made over by grace unto Beleevers, & reckoned upon their score, where by they are dealt with now, no other wayes, than if they had fulfilled all Righteousness, in their own person. Whence it is clear, that the Effects cannot be said to be imputed to us; but only that we partake of the Effects thereofs, so far as our own Necessity requireth: As the Ransom payed for the Redemp∣tion of so many captives, is imputed to each of the captives, in order to his owne Redemption, & to none of them as Redemption of others: & without this Imputation, or reckoning it upon their score, as the price of their Redemption, no man could have right to the Effects thereof in re∣ference to himself, or could be redeemed thereby. So that it is manifest, that through the meritorious cause, or the righteousnes of Christ imputed to us, we obtaine justification & Salvation; but do not merite them: our Redeemer & Surety meriteth them for us, & we enjoy what He merited for our own happiness. It is false then to say, That by Imputation we are conceived to have wrought that righteousness in Christ, whereby we are justified: & therefore it cannot but be most false to think, That we may be conceived to have wrought that righteousness also, by which others are justified; for it was only our Head, Husband, Surety & Redeemer, who wrought it, & free grace imputed it to, or reckoneth it upon the score of Beleevers.

Obj, 13. chap. 18. pag. 165. If the active Righteousness of Christ be in the let∣ter & formality of it imputed unto me, in my justification, then I am reputed before God, to have wrought that righteousness in Christ. But this is false &c. Ans. Neither proposition is true: The Major is denied, unless by these word, letter and formality, he understand such an Imputation, as we do not ac∣knowledge,

& his words would seem to import this: for (saith he, in confirmation of the Major) to have any thing imputed to a man, in the letter of it, is to be reputed the doer of what is so imputed to him: And if this be the only sense of his proposition, the conclusion maketh not against us: for we asserte no such Imputation, as inferreth such a Reputation, Nay, to say, That God should repute things so, were to destroy all Imputation, for what God (whose judgment is according to truth) ••eputeth us to have done, we must have done it; & if we have really done it, & be reputed to have done it by the Lord, it cannot be said to be imputed to us, in the sense we take Imputation; for Imputation with us, is of that, which we have not, or did not, & which God knoweth & judgeth we did not; & yet is by Imputation so made over to us, & put upon our score, & rec∣koned upon our account, as that we are as really made partakers of the Effects thereof, that is, of justification &c. As if we had done it oursel∣ves, or it had been ours, without & before any Imputation. Hence the be∣leever is made the righteousness of God in Christ; & not reputed, or esteemed to have been the righteousness of God, but now, through the gracious Imputation of God, & through faith made to be so.

Hence we see, that the proof of his Minor goeth upon the same Mista∣ke if (saith he) I be reputed before God to have wrought Righteousness, in Christ in my justification, then is Christ, in His Sufferings, reputed before God to have sinned in me. Ans. We say neither the one, nor the other. Christ did not sinne in us, nor did the Lord repute Him to have done so. But he was made sin, by Imputation; the guilt of sin being laid upon Him; or our sinnes, as to their guilt, being caused to meet on Him. Whence it came to passe, that He suffered as really the punishment of sin, as if He had sinned in us, whileas, as to His own person, He knew no sin, neither was deceit found in His mouth.

Obj. 14. pag. 166. If the Active obedience of Christ be imputed, then His Pas∣sive is imputed also. Ans. And why not? If the death & Sufferings of Christ (saith he) be imputed unto me; then may I be accounted or reputed to have died or suffered in Christ. But this cannot be: because in Christ, we are justified & absolved from punishment; & therefore cannot be said to have been punished in Him. Ans. This whole Argument is of a piece with the foregoing: Though the∣refore it be upon the matter answered already: Yet we shall adde this word further. That though in one sense it is false, to say, That we are reputed to have died & Suffered in Christ viz physically; yet in a legal sense, it may be admitted, as a truth, that Beleevers, who now by faith are in Christ, & of His Body, are accounted & reputed to have suffered in Christ, their Head, Surety & Publick person; & therefore are now dealt with, as, such. Hence they are said to be crucified with Christ, to be dead & buried with Him, & to be risen with Him Rom. 6: 4, 5, 6. Ephes. 2: 5, 6. Col. 2: 12. Yet it will not follow hence, that in a legal sense Christ can be said to ha∣ve sinned in us; for we were not His Representative or Head. Though the debtor may be said, in Law sense, to have paid his creditor, in his Sure∣tys payment; Yet the Surety cannot be said to be contracting debt, in the

debtor, for the debtor's deed cannot affect him, untill he voluntarily sub∣mit himself to be Surety, where may be after the debt is already contracted by the debtor. And to say, in this Law sense, that Beleevers Suffered in Christ, doth not weaken the ground of our justification, absolution, Ac∣ceptation, & Healing, as is manifested above, unless we turn. Socinians; & then upon this same ground, we may deny all the Satisfaction of Christ.

Obj. 15. pag. 168. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to us, then are we justified, at least in part, by the ceremonial Law; because part of that Righteousness, which Christ wrought, stood in obedience to the ceremonial Law. But this is not true. Ergo &c. Ans. We are not said to be justified either by the Moral, or by the Ceremonial Law; But by the righteousness of Christ, which consisted in yeelding perfect obedience to the Law of God, & in answer∣ing all the demands of the Law, in the behalf of His owne. And so, though the Law doth not justifie us, because we are sinners; yet nei∣ther can the Law now condemne us, because Christ, our Surety, hath per∣fectly fulfilled it, & given full Satisfaction to the Law given, for our vio∣lation thereof. And, in this matter, the Ceremonial Law is not to be separated from the Moral, it being but a branch, or an Appendix thereof, & enjoined thereby: for the Moral Law saith, that God must be worship∣ped only that way, which Himself hath prescribed, & that Ceremonial worship being the then Instituted worship of God, whosoever knowing this did not worship God after that manner; did violat the Second of the Mo∣ral Law, which became not Him to do, who came to fulfill all righteous∣ness. And thus the righteousness of obedience, that is Imputed, is Moral, or righteousness consisting in obedience to the Moral Law. And this is wholly imputed to all beleevers, whether of Jewes, or of Gentiles, in reference to their own Redemption, or delivery. The objection, which he frameth against himself. viz. That the Moral Righteousness is Sufficient, & the other needeth not be imputed, is none of ours, as appeareth by what is said; for we do not exclude the Ceremonial, But reduce it to the Moral, obe∣dience to that being enjoined by this.

Obj. 16. Chap. 19. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to us, then are our sinnes imputed to Christ, the same manner. But this is not so. Ergo. The Minor he proveth thus If the sinnes of Men be imputed to Christ, then God looks upon Him, & reputes Him, in His Sufferings, as one that truly & really had provoked Him, & sinned against Him. Ans. This consequence is denied; for no such Reputation, or Estimation followeth upon the Imputation, which we assert, as hath been already cleared: only this will follow, that Christ being, through His own willing consent, in our Law-place, as our Surety, & having undertaken to pay our debt, He was exacted upon, & dealt with by Justice, as if He had been the true sinner, though He knew no sin; as Beleevers, having Christ's righteousness imputed to them, are dealt with, as if they had kept the Law, & made Satisfaction by them∣selves. But as God doth not look upon them, nor esteem, nor consider them, nor repute them, as having really fulfilled the Law in their own Physical persons; so nor doth He look upon, esteem, consider or repute Christ to

have been truely & really a Transgressour of the Law, in His person. Hence we see, that his proof, that God did not look upon Christ so, is impertinent; for we do not say so, knowing that to look upon Christ, as one that had truely sinned, were to look upon Him, as deserving in Him∣self what was inflicted upon Him; & that God's judgment is alwayes accor∣ding to truth; & that Christ knew no sin in Himself, but was made sin, as having the guilt of our sinnes imputed to Him, when He put Himself in our room & Law-place; & so He died & Suffered for us, in our stead, & became a Sacrifice for sin, having the guilt thereof laid on Him.

Obj. 17. pag. 173. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed unto us, in our justification, then God doth look upon us, as worthy of that justification. But this is an unclean saying. Ergo. The Major he thus proveth. If God reputes me to have kept the Law, as perfectly as Christ did, He must conceive of me, as worthy of my justification; for as the fulfilling of the Law, & deserving ju∣stification, are the same Rom. 4: 4. So the reputing of a man to have done the one, is the reputing of him to have deserved the other. The Minor he thus confirmeth, Because then God should show us no grace or favour in our justification. (Rom. 4: 4. with Rom. 11: 6) But if any favour be shewed, it is only in this, that He reputeth us worthy to be justified, or puts a worthiness upon us for justification; whereas the Scripture expresly affirmeth, that God justifieth the ungodly, that is the unworthy Rom. 4: 5. Ans. Unto all this, I say (1.) We say not, that God imputeth to us the righteousness of Christ, in justification; But that He doth it in order to justification. (2.) Though Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us; Yet it will not follow; that God looketh upon us, as worthy of our justification, viz in ourselves: & it may be yeelded, that He looketh on us, when clothed with Christ's righteousness, a worthy of justification, viz in Christ our Surety 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with whose righteousness we are now covered, when it is imputed unto us. But then the conclusion will make nothing against us. (3.) If the meaning be, that therefore God loo∣keth upon us, as worthy of justification in our selves, the consequence is false; & the Reason adduced for confirmation is invalide: for the Text Rom. 4: 4. speaketh of him that worketh, & so hath the ground of the me∣rite in himself: he indeed that fulfilleth the Law in himself deserveth to be justified. And let our Adversaries see to this, who will have no Righteous∣ness imputed, but our own faith, which is in us, & is our own, & is, in their account, as good as the fulfilling of the Law, & is accepted for that end: for Sure, such as have this faith, which is in them, reputed for their righteousness, upon the account of which they are justified, must have the reward reckoned to them, not of grace, but of debt; & so must merite & deserve their justification, in full & proper sense. (4.) It is not to be admitted, as a truth, without the forementioned distinction, to say, that the reputing of a man to have done the one, is the reputing of him to have deserved the other, for to repute a man to have done the one, in his own person, is indeed a reputing of him to have deserved the other. But we assert no such Reputation in God; for His judgment is according to truth;

But only assert an Imputation, which taketh away this Reputation, these two being inconsistent: & from this Imputation can no such thing be infer∣red. (5.) It is true, if we deserved justification, justification should be no act grace; but we deserve no such thing, being in our selves, & as to our∣selves, indeed ungodly; yet when justified, we are looked upon as clothed with the Righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, & received by faith: & so, though our justification be merited by Christ, & be an Act of justice & truth in God, in reference to Christ; yet as to us, it is of free grace; & so much the more of free grace, that the righteousness of Christ is impu∣ted to us for that end. And such as understand not this, are more principled with Socinian abominations, than with the doctrine of the Gospel of the gra∣ce of God.

Obj. 18. pag. 173. If men be formally just by God's act, imputing Christ's righteousness, then do men become formally sinful by the like act of God, imputing Adam's sin. But this is not true: for then an Act of God should be as the life & soul of that sin, which is in men. Ergo Ans. As this argument concludeth nothing against the truth, now asserted, this conclusion being different from the question now in hand; so it is but a meer exhaling of vapores out of the fog of philosophical termes & notions, that thereby the truth may be more darkened. We are not obliged by any Law of God, to explaine or interpret these mysteries of Salvation, according to these Notions, which men explaine after their own pleasure, knowing no Law, constrai∣ning them to follow either one man or other, in the arbitrary sense, which they put upon these termes. But as to the present ••rgument, no answer can be given, untill it be known, what is the true meaning of these words for∣mally just. Possibly he will understand hereby the same, that others meane by Inherently just, & so indeed do all the Papists: And if so, we can an∣swere by saying, That no orthodox man thinketh or saith, that in this sen∣se, we are made formally just by God's act imputing Christ' righteousness; but by Holiness, wrought in us by His Spirit. And as to that righteousness, which is imputed, whether it be called the Formal, or the Material cau∣se of our justification, it is but a nominal debate, having no ground, or occasion, in the Word of God, by which alone we should be ruled in our thoughts & expressions, in this matter. Nor do they, who say, we are formally just by Christ's righteousness, say, we are formally just by God's Act imputing that righteousness; But by the righteousness it self imputed by God & received by faith. Nor do they say, that men become formally sinful by the like act of God, imputing Adam's sin unto his posterity, but by Adam's sin imputed: though God's Act be the cause of this effect, it is not the effect it self. Adam's sin imputed doth constitute the posterity sinners, that is guilty & obnoxious to wrath: so Christ's righteousness imputed doth constitute beleevers Righteous.

Obj. 19. pag. 175. If justification consists in the Imputation of Christ's righ∣teousness, partly in Remission of sins, then must there be a double formal cause of justification, & that made up & compounded of two several natures, really dif∣fering the one from the other. But this is impossible, Ergo. Ans. (1.) This

Argument is founded upon another School-nicety, or notion, viz the Simplicity & Indivisibility of Natural formes: & this Philosophical Noti∣on is here adduced to darken the mystery, we are treating of. It were a suf∣ficient answere then to say, That the Minor, though it be true in natural formes; Yet will not necessarily hold, in the privileges of Saints, which may be single, or compounded, as the Lord thinketh meet to make them. And can any reason evince, that the Lord cannot conferre & bestow, in the grand privilege of justification, moe particular favoures than one? Can He not both pardon sins, & accept as, & declare to be Righteous? Can He not both free the beleever from the condemnation of hell, & adjudge him to the life of glory? or cannot these two be conceived as two things for∣mally distinct, though inseparable? (2.) But I shall not say, That Impu∣tation of Christ's righteousness is a part of justification; But rather that it is the ground thereof, & necessarily presupposed thereunto. Nor shall I say, that Remission of sins is the forme, or formal cause of justification; a pardoned man, as such, not being a justified man. It is true, pardon of sins doth inseparably follow upon, & is a necessary effect of our justifi∣cation, & a certaine consequent of God's accepting of us, as righteous in His sight, upon the account of the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us & received by faith. I grant also that justification may be so described, or defined, as to take in that Effect, without making it thereby a formal part thereof, when strickly considered. (3.) But he will have Remission of sins to be the whole of justification, & nothing more included therein, or conferred thereby, abusing to this end (as we heard above) Rom. 4: 6, 7, 8. Where the Apostle is citing the words of the Psalmist & is not giving us a formal definition of justification; nor saying, that justification is the same with Remission; nor that Remission's the formal cause of justification: but only is proving, that justification is not by our works, as the ground thereof, & that by this reason, Because that would utterly destroy free Re∣mission, which is a necessary Effect & consequent of Gospel-justification, & cannot be had without it; in order to which justification, he there as∣serteth expresly an Imputation of righteousness: Now, an Imputation of righteousness is not formally one & the same thing with Remission of sins; nor can Remission of sins be-called a righteousness, or the Righteousness of God, or of Christ: yet the Man is a blessed man, whose sins are cove∣red, because that man is necessarily covered with the righteousness of Christ, whose sins are covered: for Imputation of righteousness & free pardon do inseparably attend one another. Nor is it to the purpose to say. That pardon is a passive righteousness, though not an Active righteous∣ness; for all righteousness, rightly so called, is conformity to the Law, & that is not a passive or Negative righteousness, which may be in a beast, that transgresseth no Law, & consequenly hath no unrighteousness.

Obj. 20. pag. 176. If such Imputation be necessary, in justification, this necessity must be found either in respect of the justice of God, or in respect of His Mercy, or for the salving or advancing of some other attribute. But there is no necessity in respect of any of these. Ergo. Ans. (1) This same man tels us, that

there is a necessity for the Imputation of faith, as our Righteousness, not withstanding of all that Christ hath done; and why may he not grant the sa∣me necessity for the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ? will it sa∣tisfie him, that we found the necessity of Imputation of Christ's Righteouf∣ness on the same ground? (2) Though we should not be in case to assigne the real & just ground of this necessity; yet, I judge, it should satisfie us, that the Lord, in His wisdom & Goodness, hath thought fit to appointe and or∣daine this methode & manner of justification; & so far should we be from disputing against this Truth, with such Arguments, & from rejecting of it untill we be satisfied, as to the grounds of necessity requiring this, that we should receive it, close with it, and embrace it with all thankfulness, as a Mystery of Love, free Grace & wisdom, that Angels may wonder at. (3) Yet, accrding to the Scriptures, we may say, that the Truth & Justice of God require this: for His judgment is alwayes according to truth Rom. 2: 2. and it would be an abomination in His eyes to justifie one every way wick∣ed. Therefore, if He pronounce a person righteous, in His sight, which He doth when He justifieth a person, that person must be a Righteous per∣son: but when no man can be justified, or pronounced Righteous, as being inherently Righteous Psal. 130: 3. & 143: 2. all, who are justified, must be clothed with an Imputed Righteousness: for God must be just, even when he justifieth him, which beleeveth in Jesus Rom. 3: 26.

In reference to the justice of God, he saith, That there is nothing at all ne∣cessary to be done either by God himself, or by man, about justification of a sinner, by way of Satisfaction to the justice of God, since that one offering of Christ of him∣self upon the cross. Ans. We plead not for Imputation, upon any such ac∣count: nor do we see the least ground to think, that this should derogat any thing from the full & compleat Satisfaction of Christ, made to justice, or from the price, laid down by Him, as if this Imputation were required, to supply some thing wanting there: Yea our doctrine of Imputation doth ra∣ther confirme & establish the same, it being an application of the Sponsor's Surety-righteousness, or payment & Satisfaction unto the debtors, in or∣der to their Absolution & freedome from the sentence. Though the Surety hath paid the creditor; yet the Law may require, that when the debtor is charged or challenged for the debt, the payment of his Surety be instructed & made manifest unto the judges: And yet it will not hence follow, tha•• the Satisfaction or payment, made by the Surety, was defective and in∣sufficient.

He further saith. That God can as well and as truely pronounce that Man righ∣teous, that wants a literal or legal Righteousness (especially supposing▪ he hath another Righteousness, holding any Analogy or proportion thereto) as he may ac∣count any Mans uncircumcision circumcision Rom. 2: 26. Ans. That the Lord may deal with one uncircumcised, that keepeth the Law, no less than if he were circumcised; and so thereby declare, that He valueth not outward cir∣cumcision so much, as the jewes were ready to dream, who questieneth? But what is this to the business in hand? shall we therefore think, that the Lord, whose judgment is according to truth, shall account any Righteous,

who have no righteousness? Shall we think, that the Righteous judge shall pronounce & declare him to be Righteous, who is not so? (2.) He may think to warde this of by his parenthesis; But, I pray, what is that other righteousness, that holds any analogy or proportion to the righteousness, required by the Law of God? Is that the single Act of faith? Sure, that must hold a very unproportionable proportion & a poor analogy unto Obedience to all commands of God! I need not take notice of that word legall righteousness literally so called; for he hath many such of little other use, than to amuse the Reader, & darken the matter (3.) If by this propor∣tionable righteousness, he mean the righteousness of Christ, which may be said to hold an analogy to the righteousness of the Law, which man was obliged to performe, which possibly he understandeth by a legal righ∣teousness literally & properly so called, he speaketh truth, & yeeldeth the cau∣se; for that is it, we contend for.

But afterward he seemeth to tell us, what he meaneth by analogical righ∣teousness, saying So may God, with as much righteousness & truth, pronounce, & call or account a man righteous, that is not strickly, properly or literally, such, if he hath any qualification upon him, that any way answereth, or holdeth pro∣portion, in any point, with such a Righteousness, as he should do, in case this man had this legal righteousness upon him, in the absolutest perfection of the letter. Ans. And who may not see the folly of this Reddition, to inferre this from the Lord's calling Iohn Baptist Elias & the like? Will he make the Lord's pronouncing sentence, in judgment, as a righteous judge (as He doth in the matter of justification) to be such a figurative speach, as when Iohn Baptist was called Elias, because he had some resemblance to Elias, when he came in his Spirit & power? Will he be accounted a righteous judge, upon earth, who in judgment should pronounce that man righteous, who, in stead of the righteousness he should have had, hath only one poor qualification upon him, that some way or other holdeth proportion with it, in any point? If so, it will be a great question, if ever any wicked man can be condemned, seing it will be rare to finde one, that hath never all his dayes done some thing, that answereth to the Law, in some poor way or measure, as to same one point or other. Yea, if we might drive this further, it might be made probable, that hence it would follow, that all the world should be justified even in the sight of God. But enough of this, which is too too gross. Yet wo heare not what that qualification is.

He saith, when God pronounceth a man righteous, it is sufficient to beare out the justice & truth of God, if his person be under any such relation, & condition, as belongeth to a legal righteousness, or which a legal righteousness would cast upon him. Ans. What before was called a Qualification, is here called a Rela∣tion, or condition; & these seem not to be one & the same thing: But what if that Relation, or condition have no foundation, how shall the Lord, upon that account, pronounce such a person righteous? or, though it be not founded upon a legal righteousness, performed by the mans self in his own person, yet may it not be founded upon a Surety-righteousness im∣puted?

But what is this? He addeth, Now, one special privilege or benefite be∣longing to a perfect legal righteousness, is to free the person, in whom it is found, from death & condemnation, & he that hath his sins forgiven him, is par∣taker with him in the fulness of this privilege, is as free of condemnation, as he Ans. But he hath not yet proved, that any man is pardoned, without the Imputed righteousness of Christ: & beside, righteousness bringeth with it, as a special privilege or benefite, right to the promised Inheritance of Glory: But a pardoned man, as such, hath not this Right, nor yet can challenge it, as was showne above. Moreover, if God pronounce a Man righteous, because he is pardoned, then the man must be pardoned, be∣fore he be justified; for in justification he is declared & pronounced Righ∣teous, & not made such: & if he be pardoned, before he be justified par∣don is not the forme of justification, nor the whole thereof, as he saith, but rather something antecedent thereto.

What in fine he saith, is but what we have often heard viz That forgive∣ness of sins, is a true & compleat righteousness, in the kind, a passive righ∣teousness, as absolute & perfect in the kind of it, as any Active righteousnest: And for him that hath once sinned, there is no other righteousness applicable to him, but only this, which for all other ends, purposes, advantages, privileges what som ever, is as offectual as the active righteousness it self could be. Ans. (1.) No Scripture calleth pardon of sins a righteousness (2.) A passive righteons∣ness is no righteonsness, as we lately made appear. (3.) That another righ∣teousness, even the positive Surety-righteousness of Christ, is applicable unto a sinner, hath been hithertil evinced. (4.) pardon, as such, can give no Right to the reward, promised to obedience; & therefore can∣not be as effectual, as an active righteousness, to all Ends, purposes, Ap∣vantages & privileges.

Obj. 21. Chap. 20. That, which having been dhne, in our own person, could not have been our justification, nor any part of the righteousness, by which we could have been justified, cannot be made our justification, nor any part of it, by Imputation from another. But such is the righteousness of the Law, pretended to be imputed from Christ. Ergo &c. Ans. (1.) We do not call the righ∣teousness of Christ our justification; nor do we say, that it is made our justification or any part of it, by Imputation unto us: nor yet do we ma∣ke it a part only of the righteousness, by which we are justified; for His righteousness is the whole of that righteousness: Nor by His Surety-righteousness imputed to us, do we understand only His Active obedience to the Law. (2.) He here Supposeth that we say, there is nothing im∣puted to us, in order to our justification, but Christ's Obedience to the Law, without His Satisfaction by Suffering: And thus we see, the maine pilla••s of this Argument are weak, & its whole foundation being sandy, it cannot stand.

He confirmeth the Major thus. If a personal fulfilling of the Law could ha∣ve been no justification, nor part of justification to us, certainly an Imputative fulfilling of it could not have been either. The Imputation of a thing from another cannot adde any strength to it, above a personal acting, yet the Nature of Impu∣tation

is only to supply the defect of personal performance, & therefore cannot ex∣ceed it. Ans. Though obedience to the Law cannot availe us, now we are sinners, even though it were perfect (which is in effect a supposition of what is impossible yea & self contradictary, & therefore can lay the foun∣dation of no truth, in an Argument) yet it could have availed Adam, whi∣le standing, & us in him. (2.) The Righteousness, which is now imputed, is not the Righteousness of a sinner; & so cannot be called the same with that Rightoeusness, which is supposed to be done by us, who are sinners: for the Righteousness in the supposition had been no righteousness at all, not being compleet & perfect. Now, who seeth not, that the Imputation of a perfect righteousness hath other strength & vertue, then that hath which is personal & Imperfect? (3.) The Imputation of an Obedience, perfect & compleet, can availe such, as are recocciled by the death of Christ, when personal obedience, suppose it never so full (if the supposi∣tion could be made) cannot availe such, as are under God's curse because of sin already committed.

He confirmeth the Minor thus, Man being once fallen & made obnoxious to condemnation, can never be recovered againe by ten thousand observations of this Law. Ans. Though the observation of the Law, could it now be done by fallen man, which is impossible, cannot availe unto justification; yet, as is said, it could have availed man, while standing: & man remaining still under the obligation, it is his debt: & seing it is now impossible for him to pay this debt, his Surety must pay it for him, & the Surety's payment must be reckoned on his score.

Obj. 22. That which men are not bound by any Law, or command of God, to do, in their own persons, for their justification, cannot be imputed from another to any such and. But men are not bound, by any such Law, to observe the Law, for their justification. Ergo &c. Ans. The Major I distinguish thus▪ That which men neither now are, nor never were bound to do, in their own per∣sons for their justification, by any Law, or command of God, cannot be imputed from another, to any such end; this is granted: but the assumption speaketh only of what men now are obliged unto; & so the Argument is inconcludent. That which men, though once obliged unto, in their own persons, in order to justification, yet now are not obliged unto by the Law of God, cannot be imputed from another, to any such end: this is false. Let us hear his proof. Because (saith he) Imputation is found out & ordained by God to supply personal defects: But where there is no Law, there can be no per∣sonal defect. Ans. Imputation is not found out & ordained by God, to sup∣ply the want of that, which men are now obliged unto by the Law of God; but to supply what once they were obliged unto, & is not yet done: and the reason is, because the Law, being not abrogat by the breach thereof, continueth in force to oblige to perfect & Exact Obedience; & every vio∣lation thereof is a sin before God: & because it must be satisfied, even as to this, ere any can think to enjoy the reward promised to perfect obedien∣ce; & no man can satisfie the demands of the Law by himself: therefore every one, who would have the Reward, & partake of Life, must have

a perfect obedience imputed to him to the end, that, without any in∣fringing of the Law, the sinner may be-justified, & the Law established.

To the Minor I only say, That albeit no Man be under any command of God, now to observe the Moral Law perfectly, that thereby they may be justified, the Lord having now provided another way, in the Gospel which all, to whom it is revealed, are bound to take: Yet all, out of Christ, & who have not yeelded obedience unto the Gospel, are still un∣der the old covenant, being not as yet brought in into the New: & so, while they abide there, have no other way, whereby to expect justifica∣tion, but the old way, hold forth in the old covenant, viz. Perfect Obe∣dience, which is now become Impassible: for till they beleeve in Christ, they are still in Nature, & are not translated into the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, though, as to such as hear the Gospel, there is a command to beleeve in Jesus Christ, to the end they may be justified: But as to such, as either hear not the Gospel, or hearing it would not yeeld obedience thereto, they have no other way, whereby they can expect justification, but doing of the Law Rom. 2: 13. & that is also a desperat & Impossible way, when the Law is already now broken. The meaning of these words Rom. 2: 13. The doers of the Law shall be justified, is not, what he imagineth pag. 184. viz. That God will accept, justifie, & save only such, who out of a sincere & sound faith to wards Him by His Christ, address themselves to serve & please Him, in a way of obedience to His Lawes: for this sen∣se of the words keepeth no correspondence with the scope of the Apostle there, nor with the Circumstances of the place.

Obj. 23. If God requires only faith of men to their justification, then He imputes this faith unto them there-unto. But God requires only faith to justification. Ergo &c. Ans. (1.) The conclusion is not directly the thing, that is now in question, but another question, of which hereafter in due time. (2.) The Minor is false to some of his own party, who joine works with faith. (3.) The Major is denied; for though God require faith of men to their justi∣fication; Yet that faith is not imputed unto them viz. as their Righteous∣ness. It may be, he meaneth no more by the word Impute here, but to accept of it, when performed, according as it is prescribed: and indeed his proof annexed can evince nothing else; because (saith he) to impute unto justification, & to accept unto justification are nothing differing at all, in sense & signification: Now if God should require faith of Men, & only faith to their justi∣fication, & not accept it thereunto, he should make a bargaine, & not stand to it: for hereby it is manifest, that to Impute faith unto justification, is but to accept it, in order to justification, in the place, & for the end, which God hath fixed to it, & required it for; that is, to be a Mean & Instru∣ment, in the business, & to be the way of Interessing us in the Righteous∣ness of Christ, the sole Righteousness for which, & ground upon which, we are justified. This then being the meaning of his Major Proposition, for any thing that yet appeareth, his whole Argument is but a meer sophistical evasion. (4▪) It is true, God requireth of us only faith, as an Instrument & mean to lay hold upon the Righteousness of Christ, in order to our justifi∣cation:

but this is so far from proving that therefore there is no necessity for the Righteousness of Christ, that, on the contrary, it establisheth that truth more firmly: for the faith, that is required unto justification, is not a bare historical faith, but such a faith, as carrieth the beleever out of himself, to seek a Righteousness in Christ, & declareth his full Satisfaction therewith, & his resting thereupon, in order to his Acceptance with God, & being justified & absolved from the sentence of the Law, under the con∣viction of which he was lying. (5) The scope and drift of this Objection is to separat these things, that God hath most firmly and manifestly conjoined, viz. God's Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, and our Receiving that gift of Righteousness by faith, and the atonement through faith. But, as was shown above, the Scripture holdeth forth the necessity of both, and what God hath conjoined, let no man separate.

To this he saith. If the Righteousness of Christ be that, which is imputed, & not the faith, that is required of them, then may this Righteousness be Impu∣ted to this end, before, yea & without the faith of any man; for this faith adds no vertue, or value to that Righteousness. Ans. This being God's free Constitu∣tion, His will should serve us for a Law; and in stead of too curious enqui∣ring, whether this might be, or not be without the other, or before the other, we should rest satisfied with God's Method; & therein carry more like Christians, than in making such objections against His express determi∣nations. What though it were granted, that God might, if it had so plea∣sed Him, impute the Righteousness of Christ unto sinners, before, or without their faith; will it therefore follow, that now faith is unnecessary; or, if faith be asserted to be necessary, that therefore the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness must be denied? Why? what ground can be given for such fictions? Nay, will not this be as strong against the objecters, if Christ made full Satisfaction to Justice, what necessity is there for the Imputa∣tion of faith unto Righteousness? Thus we see, the objecter must either tur∣ne fully Socinian, or reject this way of argueing.

But he will not rest satisfied with the good pleasure of God, in this mat∣ter; for he addeth pag. 186. If the will & pleasure of God be to make no Im∣putation of the Righteousness of Christ, but upon the Condition of faith intervee∣ning, then it is evident, that this Righteousness is not imputed unto justification, to any man, because the Condition of faith must necessarily interveen, so that if this Righteousness of Christ were imputed unto men, yet it must be only towards ju∣stification, not unto it; for faith hath the next & most immediat connexion there∣with. Ans. Not to trouble our selves with that fonde & fooli•• distinction be∣twixt towards & unto, which rather renders the Adversaries Cause desperat, & himself faine to shelter himself under such fig leaves, to cover his nakedness, than evidenceth any apparent probability of a real ground of Scrupling here. We say, That the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, which is God's Act, hath as immediat a connexion with justification, as Faith hath, which is our Act: for there is no priority or posteriority here, as to time; for whensoever a Man beleeveth, in that same instant, Righteousness is im∣puted; and in that same Instant, the beleever is justified; We cannot say,

a Man is a beleever, and yet hath not the Righteousness of Christ imputed to him, or is not justified; as we cannot say, a Man hath the Righteous∣ness of Christ imputed to him, and yet is not justified. Nay, the very Argument will conclude as well, that the Imputation of Righteousness hath a more neer connexion with justification, than faith hath; for we may like∣wise say, though a man beleeve, yet without imputation, cannot be ju∣stified. But the truth is, all such argueings are but the Cavils of men, see∣king to darken that, which they cannot destroy; & are meer sophismes, un∣beseeming Christians, in such a concerning business.

Then (saith he further) faith doth not take hold of the Righteousness of Christ Imputed; but first takes hold of it, & then the Imputation followeth & then a man may have the Righteousness of Christ upon him by faith, & yet not be justified by it. Ans. Though faith at first doth not take hold of the Righteousness of Christ, already imputed; but of the Righteousness of Christ hold forth in the Gos∣pel: yet faith may leane to that Righteousness imputed, and rest upon it (2) We assert no such Conditions, as this argument would say are the Con∣ditions understood by our Adversaries, that is, such Conditions, as are like a price, that may be, for some time, in the buyers hand, before the bargane be made; and may also be paid down some time before he obtaine the purchase. We owne only such consequential conditions here, as are but the means and Methods appointed of God, for such and such ends, & which have an immedial connexion with the end here intended. And there∣fore, we neither say, nor imagine, that a man may have the Righteous∣ness of Christ, or Faith, & yet not be justified; for in the very moment, as was said, that a Man acteth true Gospel-and so justifying faith, he hath the Righteousness of Christ imputed to him, and is justified: Every priority in order of Nature doth not conclude also a priority, as to time; far less can a man be supposed to have the Righteousness of Christ, without God's Act of Imputation. But Finally all these Argueings returne upon his own head; for when he saith, that faith is Imputed for Righteousness, meaning by faith our act of beleeving, he must also say, that a man may beleeve, and yet not be justified, untill his faith be Imputed unto Righteous∣ness, by God, whose work alone this is: and his reply to this will re∣lieve us.

Obj. 24. That which was Imputed to Abraham for Righteousness, in his ju∣stification, is imputed to other beleevers also. But the faith of Abraham was im∣puted to him for Righteousness. Ergo &c. And for proof of all, he referreth us to what he hath said Chap. 2. upon Rom. 4. Ans. We shall not here antici∣pat the consideration of that place, and of this Argument founded there upon; seing afterward we will have a fitter occasion to speak hereunto.

Obj. 25. Here is his last argument, which he largely prosecuteth Chap. 21. pag. 188. &c. and it would seem, that it is here adduced againe (for we had it once, if not oftner before) that he may take occasion to vent his mind a∣gainst the Imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. Thus he Argueth. If the Righteousness of the Law be not imputable, or derivable, in the letter and for∣mality of it, from one mans person to another, then cannot the Righteousness of

Christ be imputed to any man, in justification. But the former is true, therefore▪ &c. Ans. What may be answered unto this Argum. the Reader may see in the foregoing Chapter. Object last & I shall not here repeat, but go on to take notice of what he saith to that objection, which he moveth against himself, and proposeth thus, If the transgression of the Law be imputable from one Mans person to another, then may the Righteousness of the Law be imputed also. But the former is hence evident, because the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity.

He first excepteth against the Major, and denieth the Consequence thereof, and giveth reasons of his denial. 1. There is (saith he) no such Emphatical restraint of the guilt and punishment to the transgressour, as there is of the reward to the performer of obedience: for Gal. 3: 12. the very man that hath done them shall live by them; which is no where said of the Transgressour. Ans. But all this is loose reasoning: for as the Law saith, God will visite the iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children, unto the third and fourth Generation; so it saith, that He will shew mercy to thousands of them that love Him, and keep His Commande∣ments: and here the one is as Emphatick, as the other. (2) As he readeth Gal. 3: 12. that the man that doth them, shall live in them; so we read Ezek. 18: 3. the soul that sinneth, it shall die. and Gal. 3: 10. Deut. 27: 26. Cursed is every one, that abideth not in all things, which are written in the Law to do them; which words do Import as emphatical a restraint, as the other. But of that Gal. 3: 12. we have said enough above, we might also mentione that, which was said to Adam, in the day thou eats, thou shalt die, which seemeth to have no less an Emphatick Import.

But 2. he mentioneth this difference. Sin (saith he) is ever greater, in ra∣tione demerity, than obedience is, in ratione meriti: Adam might by his trans∣gression, merite condemnation to himself and posterity, & yet not have merited by his obedience Salvation to both; because, if he had kept the Law, he had only do∣ne his duty. Luk. 17: 10. & so had been but an unprofitable servant. Ans. All this saith nothing, where a Covenant is made, promising life to the obeyer, as well, as threatning death to the transgressour. Albeit Adam could not be said to have merited life, by his obedience, in way of proper and strick merite; yet in way of merite expacto, he could have been said to have me∣rited; for the reward would have been reckoned to him, not of grace, but of debt; and there would have been ground of boasting and glorying. Rom. 3: 27. & 4: 2, 4. How beit he had done but his duty, when he had obeyed to the end; yet the condescending love of God, promising the reward to perse∣verance in obedience to the end, was sufficient to found this. Whether Adam had merited Salvation to all his posterity, if he had kept the Cove∣nant to the end, or not, is not our present question to enquire j this we know, that by one man sin entered into the world, & death by sin, & so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Rom. 5: 12. And upon the other hand, this we know, that Christ was made sin for His, as a publick per∣son, and all His promised Seed and Children are made the Righteous∣ness of God in Him. 1. Cor. 1: 30. 2. Cor. 5: 21. and those are sufficient for our purpose.

3. He saith. The Imputableness of the transgression of the Law rather over∣throweth the Imputation of the obedience of it, than any wayes establisheth it: for the more Imputable, that is, punishable, the transgression is, the less imput∣able, that is rewardable, is the obedience of it. Ans. This is very true, when we speak of the same man, as of Adam, in both: for he could not both be a Transgressour, and a Final Observer of the Law; and so both obedience and Transgression could not be imputed to himself, Let be to any other; & the Imputation of the one did quite evacuat the other. But what maketh this meer shift to his present purpose, which is to show (if he could) that the Righteousness and obedience of the Second Adam, the Lord from heaven, is not as imputable to His Spiritual Seed & Issue, as the Sin and Transgression of the first Adam, who was of the earth earthy. 1. Cor. 15: 47. was impu∣table to his Natural Seed.

Next, he cometh to the Minor, and denieth the Imputation of Adam's sin; and this seemeth to be his maine buliness, wherein he complieth with the Socinians, and others. Let us hear him, first (saith he) the Scripture no where affirmes either the Imputation of Adam's sin, or of the Righteousness of Christ. Ans. The contrary is sufficiently proven above; & all his reasons can∣not evince what he saith. He tels us, that neither is the phrase, nor manner of such speaking any wayes agreable to the language of the Holy Ghost: for still in the Scriptures, wheresoever the word, imputing, is used, it is only applied unto or spoken of something of the same persons, to whom the Imputation is said to be made; & never to or of any thing of anothers. Ans. Though it be true, that some things are said to be imputed, in Scripture, unto persons, which are, or were theirs, before the Imputation: (though that Instance of faiths being imputed to Abraham Rom. 4. which he adduceth, doth not belong to this head, as shall be evinced in due time) whether it be good, or evil, as 2. Sam. 19: 19, Act. 7: 60. where this Imputation is deprecated. So 2. Chron. 24: 22. Gen. 30: 33. Psal. 106: 31. Yet it is also true, that we read of an Imputation of Something, that did not belong to, or was not possessed by the person, before the Imputation was made; as when Paul desireth Philemon, to impute to him what Onesimue was oweing; and that he would reckon both the debt and the injury, whereof Onesimus might beguilty, upon his score, and require it of him. Philem. vers 18. Thus do Sureties take upon themselves what formerly was not theirs; and so make that im∣putable to themselves, which formerly was not so, as we seen Gen. 43: 9. & 44: 32. and the Sureties payment or Satisfaction, according to what he vo∣luntarily undertook, is according to Law and equity, imputable & to be imputed unto, or reckoned on the Score of the debtor, to the end he may be dealt with, by vertue of that imputed payment & Satisfaction, as if he himself had made the payment, or given the Satisfaction. And this is the very Nature & End of this Imputation; not that the person, to whom the Imputation is made, should be accounted one, who had that before the Im∣putation was made; but that the thing Imputed may become his, to whom it is imputed, and he thereupon be dealt with, as now an owner & possessor of that thing by Imputatio••.

Secondly, he saith, When a thing is said simply to be imputed, as sin, folly or righteousness, the meaning is not to be taken concerning the bare acts of things; as if to impute sin signified to repute the man to have committed a sinful act, but to charge the guilt or demerite of sin upon his head, of purpose to punish him for it. Ans. This is true of such things, as are either really or falsly by injustice sup∣posed to be in the person, before that imputation be made. But notwith∣standing hereof, there is, as we have seen, & as all acts of Suretiship do further cleare, an imputation of what was not the persons before, where∣by the thing it self, that is imputed, is legally made over unto them, & reckoned upon their score, & thereupon they are dealt with, as being now possessed of that, which is imputed; as when a person voluntarily becometh Surety for another, as Paul for Onesimus, Iudah for Benjamin; first the debt it self is made their & reckoned upon their score, & then they wil∣lingly undergo the consequences thereof, that is, the payment or punish∣ment.

Thridly pag. 198. he cometh home to the point, saying. The expressions (i.e. of Christ's Righteousness & of Adam's sin) are unknown to the Holy Gost in Scripture. Ans. This is but the old exception of Bellarmin de Iustif. lib. 2. chap. 7. & of the Socinians; See Volkel do Vera Relig. lib. 5. pag. 564, 565. who, upon this same ground, reject several other fundamental points, as the Trinity & others. But we have already shown Scripture-proof enough of this matter; & himself in the following words granteth, that there are expressions in Scripture, concerning both the Communication of Adam's sin, & of Christ's Righteousness, that will fairly enough bear the terme of Imputation. So that all the difference betwixt him & us is about the sense of the word.

Now, we come to the matter. He speaketh to Rom. 5▪ 19, giving this for the only meaning thereof, that the demerite or guilt of Adam's sin, is char∣ged on his posterity, or that the punishment ran over from his person to them, i a maine part of which punishment lyeth in that original defilement, wherein they are all conceived & borne, & whereby they are made truely and formally sinners before God. Ans. But, if that sin of Adam be imputed, in its curse & punishment, the sin it self must be imputed, as to its guilt; else we must say, that God curseth & punisheth the posterity, that is no wayes guilty, which to do suiteth not the justice of God, the righteous Governour of the world. We do not say, (as he supposeth, when he setteth down our sense of the words) that that sinful act of eating the forbidden fruit, in the letter & formality of it (an expression that on all occasions he useth, & whose sense, is not obvious, but needeth explication, & is excogitated meerly to darken the matter) & as it was Adam's own personal sin, is imputed to the posterity: but it is enough for us, to say, with the Scripture, that by Adam's disobe∣dience, his posterity became guilty; & that all sinned in him; & therefore death passed on all, & that guilt was by that one sin to condemnation Rom. 5: 12, 15, 16, 18, 19. & so that the posterity sinned legally & originally, though not formally, because not existing in Adam actually, but legally & originally; & became thereby obnoxious to the punishment threatned,

that is, death both in body & Soul, here & hereafter: Whence it is ma∣nifest, that punishment being relative to sin, such as are punished becau∣se of sin, must be sinners, & judged to be sinners & so guilty, before they be punished for sin, Adam being the Head & Root of Mankind, & God entering into Covenant with him, as such, & therefore with all his po∣sterity in him, when he broke the Covenant & transgressed, all Mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, being comprehended with him in the Covenant, became actually partakers of that guilt, so soon as they did partake of Nature actually; & being really guilty when existing, they were justly punished. But if this guilt were not imputed to them, they could not be justly punished for it.

On the contrary, he thinks they might be justly punished for that sin, though not guilty thereof: & he laboureth to establish this upon three pil∣lars. 1. The demerite (saith he) & sinfulness of that sin which had so many ag∣gravations, and in this regard, was beyond the sin of devils, that Adam had the estates of all his posterity in his hand, & knew, that if he sinned, he should draw all their souls after him into the same perdition. Ans. But if by Adam's having the estates of all his posterity in his hand, this truth be not included, that his sin should become their sin, & they should be looked upon as guilty thereof, & chargable therewith; how could he know, that by his sin he∣should draw the souls of all his posterity after him into the same condemna∣tion! And how could they be punished for that same guilt, if it was not some way theirs, by the just & righteous Judge & Governour of the world? The posterity can no more be justly punished for the great & hainous sins of their progenitors, than for their lesser sinnes, if they have no interest in these sinnes, nor partake of the guilt thereof: But as to Original sin, the Scripture giveth the Sin, as the ground of the punishment, & maketh the one to reach all, as well as the other, telling us Rom. 5: 12. that by one Man, sin ••ntered in to the world, & death by sin; & so death passed upon all Men, for that all have sinned; or, in whom all have sinned. See vers 19.

2. The Narrownese or scantisness of Adam's Person, who could not beat that fulness of punishment, which God might require for that great sin; & we cannot think, that God should sit down with loss. Ans. This is his second pillar. But neither is it sufficient; for God could have punished Adam condingly for his sin: but when the posterity is punished for that sin also, that sin must be theirs. Though for great crimes, as Treason & the like, the Posterity suffe••eth, when the guilty is forfeited I yet the posterity are not properly punished for that sin; nor can be said to be so; as we are punished for Origi∣nal sin, because it is ours, & we sinned in Adam.

3. His 3^d. & maine pillar is, the peculir & near relation of the posterity of Adam to his person; for then they were in it, &, as it were, a part, or some what of it; so that Adam was us all, & we were all that one Adam, as Augustine speaketh; & the whole generation of mankind is but Adam, or Adam's person, expounded at large. Ans. This is sufficient for us; for it will hold forth the Covenant relation, wherein Adam stood, as representing all his posterity; & so they were as well in him, & a part of him, in his sin, as in his pu∣nishment:

which is all we desire, for hence it appeareth, that all sinned in that one Adam, as well, as they were all punished in him.

Then he tels us, that all these three are jointly intimat R••••. 5: 12. Whe∣re first there is the demerito, Imported, when death is said to enter; & the scantiness of Adam's person, when it is said, to have passed upon all men; & the relation of his posterity to him, in that all are said to have sin∣ned in him. Ans. But the maine thing, which he denieth, is there also im∣ported, when it is said, that all men sinned in him, or became guilty of his sin: for thereby it is manifest, that only they had an interest in his person, but that they had such an Interest in & relation to his person, as so stated, & as standing in a Covenant-relation to God, that they sinned in him, or became guilty of his sin, & therefore suffered with him the demerite there¦of. Whence it is evident (howbeit he seemeth confident of the contrary pag. 207.) That the Imputation of Adam's sin, or of his sinful Act as sinful, or as it was a sin; & not of the act as such (for that himself faith once & a∣gaine, was directly & efficiently from God himself, & therefore was good) is the ground, or cause of punishment, that cometh on his posterity.

But he saith pag. 208. If any Imputation be in this case, it is of every mans own sin, in Adam; for is was Adam alone that sinned, but all sinned in him: It is not said, that Adam's sin is Imputed to his posterity; but rather that his posterity themselves sinned in Adam. Ans. If he wil stand to this, we need not contend with him, about the word, Impute; this expression of Scri∣pture comprehending & plainely holding forth all that we would say. And if he will grant as much, in reference to the Imputation of Christ's Righ¦teousness, as is here said of Adam, who was the type of him that was to co∣me, he must, I judge, retract all that he hath said, against the same.

What followeth in that Chapter, being but founded upon what is alrea∣dy mentioned & examined, needeth not here againe be repeated or expres∣sed, & considered.

Thus we have taken notice of all, which this voluminous Adversary hath said, upon this matter, both against the Truth, & for his own Errour: & no doubt, he hath scraped together all that he could finde, giving any, seeming contribution unto the Notion, which he hugged; & hath labou∣red after his usual manner, to set of with a more than ordinary measure of confidence, & with an affected pedantrie of language, supplying, with bombast expressions, the want of reality of truth & solidity of reasoning. What remaineth in that book, concerning the Imputation of faith, in op∣position to the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ shall be examined, when we come to the second part of our Text, & to speak of the matter of justification. And as for other things, we may take notice of them elsewhere.