Speculum theologiæ in Christo, or, A view of some divine truths which are either practically exemplified in Jesus Christ, set forth in the Gospel, or may be reasonably deduced from thence / by Edward Polhill ..., Esq.

CHAP. XI.

[Chap. 11] Touching Justification, as to the Law. Christ's Righte∣ousness constitutes us Righteous. A double imputation: One to the proper Agent, another to those in Con∣junction; the Conjunctions between Christ and us; how Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us; that it is not only the Meritorious, but Material cause of our Justification; this is proved from that phrase, The Righteousness of God; from the nature of Ju∣stification; from the parallel of the two Adams; from other phrases in Scripture; from a pardon as not be∣ing the same with Justification; from Christ's suf∣fering in our stead; the Objections against imputed Righteousness answered; what justifies us as to the Gospel terms; the Necessity and connexion of a two∣fold Righteousness; how we are justified by Faith; how Good Works are necessary. A short Conclusion.

THERE remaineth yet behind one Eminent piece of Grace; I mean Justification; this in Luther is, Articulus stantis & cadentis Ecclesiae, and in Chemnitius, Arx & propugnaculum Religionis Christianae; a Sacred thing it is, and difficult to ex∣plain; the true measures of it cannot be taken from any thing but the holy Scripture, where this My∣stery is revealed. Touching Justification there are three things considerable, viz. First we are consti∣tuted righteous; then esteemed or pronounced such; and at last treated as such. The first conferrs a righteousness upon us; the second ownes and declares it; the third gives us the consequent reward thereof.

The first we have in that phrase of Justifying the Un∣godly, Rom. 4.5. for that, unless it were collative of a Righteousness, would be the same abomination with the Justifying the Wicked, Prov. 17.15. The second in that phrase of Justifying the Righteous, Deut. 25.1. where the word (Justifying) is not ef∣fectionis, sed aestimationis & declarationis significati∣vum: the third is not so much a part of Justification, as a consequent of it; neither do I remember that it is called Justification in Scripture: The first is the foundation of the other two; unless a Man be con∣stituted righteous, God, who is Truth it self, can∣not esteem or pronounce him such: for that were for him to err, which is impossible; neither can he, who is Sanctity it self, treat him as such; for an unrighte∣ous Person cannot possibly enter into the holy Hea∣ven, where Eternal Life is given to the Righteous.

The main Quaere in Justification is, What it is that constitutes us righteous before God: Righteousness relates to some Law: we are under a double Law; the one the Law of Nature or Creation, which calls for perfect Obedience in every point. The other the Law of Grace, which accepts of sincerity; we must, if justified, be made righteous to both these, accordingly I shall discourse of both.

We are under the Moral Law of Nature; this is immortalized by its own intrinsecal rectitude; it so naturally results out of the Relation which Man stands in towards God, that as long as God is God, the Supream Truth and Goodness, and Man Man, a Creature endued with Reason and Will, it cannot cease to be, or to oblige: it is not imaginable, that such a thing as Reason should be unbound to look up to the original Truth, from whence it came, or that

such a thing as Free-will, should be unbound to em∣brace that infinite Good which made it; this Law stands faster than the pillars of Heaven and Earth: it hath a double Sanction; a promise of Eternal Life upon perfect obedience, and a threatning of eternal Death upon the least Transgression. The promise though never abrogated by God, could not of it self bud or bring forth Life; a Sinner, because a Sinner, not being capable of perfect obedience, could not have Life from that promise, cessat materia. There could be no person capable of the promised Life; the Law was weak, though not in it self, yet through the Flesh, the sin of Man. Man sinned away the Promise, but the Threatning he could not sin away; nay, by his sin he put himself under the Curse and Wrath of it. Sin made him a fit object and fuel for these; the case standing thus, how or which way should a Sinner be justified as to the Law? In a Sinner there was matter enough for the Treatning, but more for the Promise. Death might justly seize him, but Life he was not payable of by vertue of that Law; here infinite Wisdom found out that which no created Eye could spy out, a way of Justification without abrogating the Law: thus therefore it was contrived, the Law, being under the power of the Legislator, was relaxed, though not abrogated; there may be a double notion of the Law; either it may be taken as it is in it self, in summo apice, in its primordial rigor, requiring perfect personal obedience from us; and thus it doth not, cannot justifie us; there is a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an utter impossibility upon it. Rom. 8.3. Righteousness could not come by the Law, nay, in this sense it worketh wrath, it condemns and curses the Sinner; or else it may be taken as it is by the great

Legislator relaxed, to admit of a satisfaction in our Sponsor Jesus Christ; and thus it hath its end, its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Righteousness which satisfied it in him; thus it cannot condemn Believers: a satisfied Law, so far as it is satisfied, hath nothing to say against them who partake of that satisfaction: That of Learned Mr. Gataker is remarkable, Justificatio nostri tum ab Evan∣gelio, tum à Lege pendet; à Lege quatenùs eidem satisfit pro delictis adversùs eam admissis; ab Evangelio, qua∣tenùs satisfactio, non à nobis, sed à Christo Vicariâ ope∣râ pro nobis exhibetur; The Gospel reveals such a Sponsor as hath satisfied the Law for us; the Law being satisfied cannot condemn those who partake of that satisfaction.

It appears by this, That Christ's Righteousness is that which constitutes us righteous as to the Law; only here many worthy learned Divines are at a dif∣ference, how it doth so: doubtless it doth it in a way of Imputation, but the mode of that Imputation is not agreed on. Some say, that Christ's Righteous∣ness is the meritorious cause of our Justification, and so imputed to us in the effects, in that pardon which discharges us from the Law: Others, That it is it self in some sort imputed to us, and so becomes the material cause of our Justification; I take it, our former Divines, who disputed with the Papists about Imputed Righteousness, are of the latter opinion. Hence Bishop Davenant saith,* 1.1 that, Ipsissima Christi obedientia nobis imputatur, quasi esset nostra persona∣lis; The very obedience of Christ is imputed to us, as if it were our personal Righteousness. And again he saith, that In se, it is causa meritoria Justificationis; but as it is apply'd to Believers, Subit vicem causae formalis, it is in the room of a formal cause. 'Tis

true, he saith, That it is imputed to us ad aliquem effectum; not that it is imputed only in the effect, but that it is imputed in a measure, and to some intents, though not in the full latitude, or as it is in Christ. The Learned Professors of Leyden determine thus: Mi∣rum hîc videri non debet Christi Justitiam non merito∣riae solùm, sed & materialis, imò & formalis causae ra∣tionem habere, cum id diversimodè fiat, nempe, quâ illud est, propter quod, in quo, sive ex quo, & per quod justificamur: To quote no more, If Christ's Righte∣ousness be only a meritorious cause of Justification, then our former Divines have striven in the dark, the Controversies between them and the Papists in this point have been but a vain jangling; no Papist ever denied, that Christ merited Justification for us, no Protestant should ask any more. The Council of Trent, laying down the causes of Justification, saith, Chistus suâ sanctissimâ Passione in ligno Crucis nobis Ju∣stificationem meruit, & pro nobis Deo Patri satisfecit. Here our Divines should have acquiesced in silence, but surely they thought there was somewhat more in it: For my own part, I conceive Christ's Righteousness is so far imputed to us, as to be the matter of our Ju∣stification; before I come to offer my Reasons, I shall lay down several things tending to explain my mean∣ing in this point.

First, There is a double Imputation. The one, when a thing inherent or transient is imputed to the very Subject or Agent of it. The other, when it is im∣puted to those in conjunction with the Subject or Agent, as being parts and portions of him. The first Imputation is according to the course of Nature, the second is according to some just constitution made touching the same: the former is unquestionable,

the latter is that which is to be cleared, that such an Imputation is possible; and when it is done, truth may appear by these Instances. The primitive Right∣eousness of our Nature was only inherent in Adam: Yet was it imputed to us; we were by God esteemed as righteous in him, else we are not fallen Creatures, neither do we need any such thing as Regeneration. Adam's sin was an act done by him, yet is it impu∣ted to us; it is derived down upon us as Members of him, else the want of Righteousness in us is not a privative want of what we once had in Adam, and afterwards lost in him, but a meer negative want, as being only of that we never had or forfeited: Adam's Righteousness being not imputed to us, we never had it; Adam's sin being not imputed to us, we ne∣ver forfeited it; such a meer negative want is no sin. Nay, if Adam's sin be not imputed to us, our inhe∣rent pravity is no sin; it cannot be sin in unfallen Creatures; it is no sin to be born into the World; there is no foundation in us to make it sin; and the consequence of this is, that there is no such thing as original sin at all in us, which to say, is to op∣pose the Doctrine of the Church in all Ages: We see here, that such an imputation to those in con∣junction is possible, because it is actually done; and it must needs be true, because it is done by God, who is Truth it self, and cannot err. You will say, It cannot be true, primitive Righteousness was never in us, we never committed Adam's sin: I answer, This is one thing which over-turns Religion; we are apt to re∣ject that as false, which our weak Reason cannot com∣prehend. Is not an internal sin in the Will imputed to the Members of the Body? if not, why must the Body rise and suffer for it? if so, sin may be imputed

to that which it never resided in; in this case the conjunction salves the matter; and by a parity of Reason, Adam's Righteousness and Sin may be im∣puted to us, as being parts and Members of him; and the Imputation is true, because it is to those in conjunction, and according to a just constitution. God set Adam to be a Head of Mankind; we are pro∣pagated from him as Branches from the Root; his fin therefore may be justly imputed to us: the Im∣putation of it is according to the Divine Constitu∣tion: But the reason of that Imputation is, because Adam, the Head of Mankind, sinned, and all in him: It is a pretty question which is started in Anselm,* 1.2 how the Senses and Members in Man should be guilty of sin, when God himself subjected them to Man's Will? I answer, God's order was meet and congru∣ous in so subjecting them; yet the act of the Will renders them guilty, as being in conjunction with it: in like manner, God's Constitution that Adam should be the Head of Mankind, was just and equitable, but this transgression of Adam derives a guilt upon us, as being parts and Members of him.

2ly. The Conjunction between Christ and us must be considered, and that is double.

The one is that Conjunction which is between Christ and Mankind in common; the Titles given to Christ will manifest it; he is a Mediator, not only an internuntial one, but a satisfying and atoning one, a Mediator above all Peer or Parallel, and that in all his Offices, in which he acted not as a private Per∣son, or in his own name only, But, as the Office was in Gods or ours; in his Prophetical and Kingly Offi∣ces he acted in God's Name towards us; in his Priest∣ly Office, he acted in our Name towards God; hence

the Apostle saith, that every Priest is ordained 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for Men, Heb. 5.1. to act in their behalf towards God: he was our Sponsor or Surety, he un∣dertook to satisfie Justice for us. Loe, I come to do thy will, O God, saith he, Heb. 10.7. Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices could not pay our Debts, but he would do it; and for that purpose he took an Humane Na∣ture to do it in: never was there such a Surety as he; he undertook to satisfie for us, not as common Sure∣ties do, upon a meer contingency, but upon a certain determinate Counsel; not when we were solvents or able to reimburse him again, but when we were known utter bankrupts, under a perfect impossibility to expiate the least sin. So plenary was that satisfa∣ction, that if we receive him by Faith, we are Deb∣tors no longer, all our debts are blotted out of God's Book, no more to be charged upon us; a second pay∣ment cannot be demanded of us; he was the represen∣tative of Mankind. He did sustinere nostram personam, he stood in our room; he suffered in our stead, not on∣ly nostro bono, but nostro loco: it may be thought per∣haps that Christ was not a proper substitute; but it was well said by the Learned Rivet in another case, Regulis & Legibus humanis Deum alligare vult pulvis & cinis: We are apt to limit the Holy one to our Rules and measures: But if the Mysteries of Christ may be put into the straights of humane Laws and Rea∣son, he can scarce be properly any thing of that which the Scripture ascribes to him, he cannot pro∣perly be a Surety and a Mediator too, much less a Priest and a Sacrifice too; least of all these, and a Redeemer too in the same sufferings: A Mediator doth not pay as a Surety doth; nor a Surety offer as a Priest doth; nor a Priest die as a Sacrifice doth;

neither is a Redeemer the very same with these, but distinct from them all; may there be a proper Priest and Redeemer, a proper Offering and Paying, a pro∣per Sacrifice and Price in the same sufferings: these conjunctions seem to carry difficulty in them. Ne∣vertheless, I verily believe, that he was properly all these, yet in a way of transcendency above humane Law and Reason; it is observable in Scripture, that one notion of Christ runs into another, the notion of a Mediator into that of a Redeemer; he is a Media∣tor, who gave himself a ransom, 1 Tim. 2.5, & 6. the notion of a Mediator into that of a Priest, he is a Mediator for the Redemption of Transgressions, Heb. 9.15. that is, for the expiation of them by offering up himself to God, as it is in the precedent verse; the notion of a Priest into that of a Surety: hence in the midst of a Divine Discourse touching his Priest∣hood, comes in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the surety of the Cove∣nant, Heb. 7.22. nay, it is observable, that these notions of Christ are interwoven with that of a Sub∣stitute, as the mode of performing them. Thus as a Priest he gave himself an Offering and a Sacrifice for us, Ephes. 5.2. as a Redeemer he was made a Curse for us, Gal. 3.13. as a Mediator and Redeemer he gave himself a ransom for all, 1 Tim. 2.5, & 6. in each of which the substitution comes in: hence it appears, that Christ is properly all these; or else, as Socinus would have it, all seems to be but a Metaphor. To add no more, these Conjunctions tell us, that Christ was so far one with us, that those things fell upon him, which otherwise he was utterly incapable of. The Holy One was made sin, the Blessed One a curse; his sufferings were properly penal, such as were not inflicted by Soveraignty, but Justice, such

as were not the Curse causless, but merited by sin; un∣less they were merited by sin, they were meer suffer∣ing, not punishment; punishment for nothing, is no punishment: if there was no punishment in his sufferings, how were they satisfactory? If there was no merit of sin to procure them, how were they pe∣nal? If Justice inflicted them not, how were they a punishment? or, if they were penal, how could Ju∣stice inflict them upon an Innocent? Here we have nothing to say, but this, Christ was so far made one with us, as to render his sufferings penal and satis∣factory.

The other is that special conjunction, which is be∣tween Christ and Believers; Christ is the Head, they are the Members: the Ligatures of this Mystical U∣nion are the Holy Spirit and Faith, the quickning Spi∣rit (saith the reverend Ʋsher) descends downwards from the head to be in us a fountain of supernatural life; a lively Faith, wrought by the same Spirit, a∣scends from us upward to lay fast hold upon him. The Scripture notably sets forth this Union, We dwell in Christ, and he in us, John 6.56. We abide in him, and he in us, John 15.4. We are Members of his Bo∣dy, of his Flesh, and of his Bones, Ephes. 5.30, 32. And he is in us the hope of Glory, Col. 1.27. This the Apostle calls a great Mystery, and the Riches of the Glory of the Mystery; we are ingrasted into him as Branches into a Root; cemented to him as the building is to the foundation; incorporated with him as the food is with our Bodies; united to him as Members are to the Head. We eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood, and become one Spirit with him; nothing can be more emphatical, the Holy Spirit, which resides in him the Head, falls down upon us

his Members, and so makes a kind of continuity be∣tween him and us, too Spiritual and Divine to be in∣terrupted by any local distance: Hence St. Chry∣sostom saith, that there is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.3 no medium or middle between Christ and us; hence St. Austin saith, that, Fideles siunt cum homine Christo unus Christus, Believers are made one Christ with the Man Christ, the Head and the Body make up one Christ: Hence that of Aquinas, that Christ and his Members are but, una persona mystica, one mystical person; the consequence of this admirable Union is the commu∣nication of Divine Blessings from him to us, tota verae justitiae, salutis, vitae participatio ex hâc perne∣cessariâ cum Christo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pendet: saith the learn∣ed Zanchy, All our good things depends on this most necessary Ʋnion.

Thirdly, The righteousness of Christ may be ta∣ken under a double notion, either as it was the very idem to all the Laws he was under, or else as it was the tantundem, a plenary satisfaction to the moral Law by us violated; in the first notion it was a righte∣ousness ex naturâ suâ, being a perfect conformity to those Laws; in the second it was a satisfaction ex di∣vinâ ordinatione, being by God ordained so to be; in the first notion it was not for us; who, being once sinners, were incapable of it. But for himself to justifie and sanctifie him in that state, which he un∣dertook to be in: In the second it was not for him∣self; who, as being pure from all sin, was incapable of it; but for us, to justifie us sinners against the Law: Here I shall only add, that, under the notion of satisfaction, I take in all Christ's righteousness, Active as well as Passive; though I think the Active in it self alone could not have amounted to a satis∣faction,

because without shedding of blood there was no remission to be; yet the Active being in Con∣junction with the Passive, is a part of the satisfaction, and makes it the more compleat; for a satisfaction made up of both together, answers the threatning, and honours the precept of the Law; it satisfies God's Justice in it self by penal sufferings, and in its foundation, that is, God's holiness, by perfect obedience.

Fourthly, The Active and Passive Righteousness of Christ are not imputed to us, as they are the Idem, a perfect conformity to the Laws he was under; for we were not under the Mediatorial Law: nor, be∣ing once sinners, are we capable of a perfect confor∣mity to the moral: but they are imputed to us, as they are the tantundem, a plenary satisfaction to the moral Law by us broken; for so they are very apt and proper to justifie sinners against the Law: Neither is Christ's satisfaction imputed to all actually to justifie them against the Law, for all are not justified a∣gainst it, but it is imputed to Believers, as being mystical parts and portions of him: hence that Learned Bishop saith,* 1.4 Quia insiti sumus in corpus ejus, & coalescimus cum illo in unam personam, ideò ejus justitia nostra reputatur, because we are ingrafted into his bo∣dy, and grow as it were, into one Person with him, therefore his Righteousness is reputed ours; neither is Christ's satisfaction imputed to his belleving Mem∣bers according to its fulness and latitude as it is in Christ the Head, but in such sort and measure as is meet for it to be communicated to Members: this is notably illustrated in the parallel of the two Adams, who are two such communicative Heads, as never were the like, who communicate to theirs in such

proportion as is congruous between Head and Mem∣bers. Adam's sin is derived to each of us, not in its full latitude, but pro mensurâ membri; and in like manner, Christ's satisfaction is derived to each Be∣liever, not in its full latitude, but pro mensurâ membri; so much of Ada's sin comes upon each one of us, as soon as he is proles Adae, as makes him a sinner; so much of Christ's satisfaction comes upon each one of us, as soon as he is proles Christi, as makes him Righteous against the Law; in both there is a communication to Members, yet in such a way, as that the difference between Head and Members is observed.

Fifthly, There was a Divine Constitution, that Je∣sus Christ should be our Sponsor, and standing in our room, should satisfie for us, that he should be an Head to Believers, and his satisfaction should so far be∣come theirs, as to justifie them against the Law: ac∣cordingly that satisfaction is truly imputed to them. Some Persons have been pleased to speak of Imputed Righteousness, as if it were a fancy, a meer putative imaginary thing; but we see here upon what grounds it stands: the first Foundation of it, is the Divine constitution made touching Christ; the intermediate Foundation is this, that Christ was our Sponfor and satisfied for us: the immediate Foundation is this, that Christ is a communicating Head to his believing Members, and they as Members participate in his sa∣tisfaction; these things are sufficient to make us con∣clude as Bishop Davenant doth, Imputatio non nititur fictitiâ aliquâ suppositione, sed verâ participatione rei imputatae: Imputation doth not stand upon any fictiti∣ous supposition, but upon a true participation of the thing imputed. These things being thus laid down, I

shall come directly to the point, my Opinion is, That the Righteousness of Christ is not meerly the meritorious cause of Justification, but somwhat more; neither is it meerly imputed to us in the Effects, but it self, as a satisfaction, is so far imputed to us, as to be the material cause of Justification, as to the Law, I think nothing can be more proper to justifie us as the Law than that which satisfied it. I cannot tell how to suppose that one thing should satisfie the Law, and another justifie against it: And here I shall first lay down my Reasons, and then answer the Obje∣ctions made against my Opinion: For Reasons I shall offer several things.

First, I shall begin with that memorable phrase, The Righteousness of God, which cannot but be of great moment in this point: some take it for the mercy of God, and so it is sometimes taken in the Old Testament, The Mercy of the Lord is up∣on them that fear him, and his Righteousness unto Childrens Children, Psal. 103.17. where Mercy and Righteousness are one and the same; but in the New Testament, where this phrase often occurs, it is ne∣ver so taken; the Righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel, Rom. 1.17. Revealed, that, which be∣fore was only obscurely hinted, was in the Gospel clearly opened; but the Mercy of God was not only darkly hinted, but openly proclaimed in very high and stately terms in the Old Testament. An Instance we have of it, Exod. 34.6, and 7. where the Titles of Mercy carry as much of Glory and Magnificence as any thing can do. We are said to be made the Righteousness of God, 2 Cor. 5.21. but never to be made his Mercy; neither would be at all proper to say so. Others take it for our Inherent Graces, which

are our Evangelical Righteousness; but these, though they come down from Heaven, are never called the Righteousness; nay, on the contrary they are called our own, as being inherent in us: Hence we find Your Faith, Rom. 1.8. your Love, 2 Cor. 8.8. your Patience, Luke 21.19. your Hope, 1 Pet. 1.21. your Righteousness, Matth. 5.20. that, which in Scripture is called the Righteousness of God, is not the same with that which is called our own there; were our Inherent Graces imported in that phrase. Faith, which is a prime excellent Grace, must have its share therein; but the Righteousness of God is by Faith, Rom. 3.22. Therefore it is not Faith, the Righteousness of God is upon the Believer, there∣fore it is not in him: Others take it for Pardon; but neither can this Interpretation stand. The Jews were ignorant of God's Righteousness, Rom. 10.3. but surely they were not ignorant, that God was a God pardoning iniquity, that Pardon which in the Old Testament is elegantly decyphered by Cover∣ing, Blotting out, Remembring no more, Casting away sin, is not in the New vailed in an Expresli∣on, so obscure and improper for it, as that of the Righteousness of God seems to be to that intent; leaving these, I take it, that the Righteousness of God imports that of Christ; and in this sence the phrase is as Glorious and Illustrious, as it would be obscure and improper to denote Pardon: The Righteousness of Christ is indeed the Righteousness of God; it is the Righteousness of him who is God, of him, whose Blood is called the Blood of God; it is a pure perfect Righte∣ousness which can consist before the Tribunal of God, which was by God ordained to make us Righteous: This is it which, being before but darkly hinted, was in

the Gospel manifestly revealed; this is that which is upon the Believer as a rich Covering to hide his im∣perfections, this is it which the Jews were ignorant of, and submitted not unto: the Apostle tells us, That they submitted not to the Righteousness of God, Rom. 10.3. and what that Righteousness is, the next Verse expresses; for Christ is the end of the Law for Right∣eousness to every one that believeth; the Law hath its end in nothing but in his Righteousness, which sa∣tisfied it. But besides there is one place, which in terminis calls the Righteousness of God the Righteous∣ness of Christ, to them who have obtained like preci∣ous Faith with us through the Righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, 2 Pet. 1.1. Observe, it is not through the Righteousness 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, as noting two Persons, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of God and our Saviour, as betokening one, as Bishop Downham hath observed; like that Tit. 2.13. The glorious Appearance of the great God and our Saviour, where one Person is in∣tended: Thus far it appears, that the Righteousness of God denotes the Righteousness of Christ. That which remains is to enquire, Whether the Righte∣ousness of God never import any more than a meer meritorious cause: 'Tis true in that place 2 Pet. 1.1. it imports no more; but in others it speaks further: We are made the Righteousness of God, 2 Cor. 5.21. The Righteousness of God is upon us, Rom. 3.22. and, as a paraphrase upon the Righteousness of God, the Apostle tells us, that Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to the Believer, Rom. 10.4. Here I take it, the Righteousness of Christ is set forth not only as a meritorious antecedent cause of Justifi∣cation, but as an Ingredient, a material cause in it: he

that hath only the effect, cannot be said to be made the Impetrating cause, no more can we be said to be made the Righteousness of Christ, if we only have the fruit of it, not the thing it self: That Righte∣ousness, as a meritorious cause, may be said to be for us; but not to be upon us, unless by Imputation it be made ours: Christ in respect of Merit only is no more for Righteousness (which yet is the Emphasis of the Text) than for sanctifying Graces, these being as much merited as the other; Christ is so far Right∣eousness as he is the end of the Law, and that he is in the satisfaction it self, not in Remission, which is the effect of it; the Satisfaction it self therefore is made ours in Justification. It seems to me a great depar∣ture from the Text to say, Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness, that is for Pardon, which is the Effect, or for Impunity, which is the Effect of the Effect.

Secondly, It is utterly impossible that there should be a Justification without a Righteousness. Con∣stitutive Justification makes us Righteous, Estima∣tive or sentential Justification esteems or pronounces us such; a Justification cannot be without a Right∣eousness; nor can any thing be a Righteousness, un∣less it answer the Law. What then is our Righte∣ousness as to the Law? Faith, answers the Gospel terms: But what answers the Law? Surely nothing under Heaven can do it but Christ's Satisfaction. The Quaere therefore is, Whether that Satisfaction be our Righteousness in it self, or only in its effects: if in the effects only, then something less than Christ's satisfaction, viz. an effect, is our Righteous∣ness as to the Law, and by consequence something less than that satisfies the Law: I cannot imagine

that one thing should satisfie the Law, and another justifie against it; one and the same satisfaction of Christ doth both. There are but two sorts of Right∣eousness as to the Law; the one a Righteousness in the idem, a direct conformity to it; the other a Right∣eousness in valor, a full compensation or satissaction for the breaches of it, a third cannot be found, where there is neither such a conformity to the Law, that all is done as it ought to be, nor such a satisfaction to it, that all that is done amiss, is compensated, there is no such thing as Righteousness, a pardon or freedom from punishment there may be, but a Right∣eousness there is not. Because there is nothing done to the Law; either by way of obedience or recom∣pence; and where nothing is done to the Law, there cannot be a Righteousness: Now a Sinner not be∣ing capable of a Righteousness of consormity, his Righteousness must be that of a satisfaction or com∣pensation; not an effect of it, but the thing it self, no other thing can be a Sinners Righteousness. It is observable in Scripture, That Justification is so set forth, that the Law is established in it, Rom. 3.31. that its Righteousness is fulfilled, Rom. 8.4. that it hath its end, Rom. 10.4. And all this because in Christ's Satisfaction there is a full compensution made for sin, such as comes in the room of a perfect conformity, and supplies that defect of it which rises out of the suult committed: This is done by the Satisfaction it self, not by an effect of it. Nothing less than it self could give the Law its end or establish∣ment: If that Satisfaction be our Righteousness, not in it self but in its effects, what is that effect? Is it a Pardon? that is God's act; God's act may make or esteem us righteous, but it is not the Righteous∣ness

it self; it is a jus impunitatis that is not the Right∣eousness it self; a Righteousness as to the Law must be either a perfect conformity or a satisfaction, but a Jus impunitatis is neither of these; as in Condem∣nation the Obligatio ad paenam is not the very culpa, but a consequent of it. So in Justification the Jus impunitatis is not the very Righteousness, but a consequent of it. A Jus impunitatis is oppo∣site to the reatus paenae; but a Satisfaction, which is our true Righteousness, is opposite to the reatus cul∣pae, as compensating the fault committed. It remains therefore that Christ's Satisfaction is not in its effects, but in it self our Righteousness, which also further appears: In that, when we are to answer for our breaches of the Law, our great Plea is to that no other than his Satisfaction; Ostendo fide jussorem me∣um,* 1.5 saith Bishop Davenant, When the Law makes its demands against me, I shew my Sponsor Christ, who satisfied it. Now, if his Satisfaction be it self our Righteousness, it must be made ours by Imputa∣tion, for that which is not ours, cannot be our Right∣eousness; neither doth God, who judgeth according to Truth, esteem it such: You will say, Though it self be not ours, yet it is that for which God doth justifie us: To which I answer, Though God justifie us for it, yet, unless it be ours, it is no more our Righteousness than it is our Holiness; when God sanctifies us for it, no Man (I think) will call it our Holiness, no more, unless it be ours, may we call it our Righteousness. If it be ours by Imputation, then it is more than a meritorious cause. It is the very matter of our Justification; neither can I tell how to think it less, seeing a Sinner is capable of no other Righteousness, as to the Law, but a Satisfacti∣on,

seeing so glorious a Satisfaction, as that of Christ is, is ushered into the World for that very end; it is to me unimaginable, that that Satisfaction should yet not be our Righteousness as to the Law, but some∣thing less than it self should have the honour of it.

Thirdly, Very momentous in this point, is the collation of the two Adams, Rom. 5. the first Adam was the Origen of Sin; Christ the second Adam, was the Origen of Righteousness and Life: never were there in the World two such Heads as these, uterque quod suumest cum suis communicat, as the Learned Beza hath it, Adam communicates Sin and Death to his Posterity; Christs Righteousness and Life to his believing Seed, in the parallel it is observable, that Christ is as strong; nay, a stronger Head than Adam, Adam was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Type of him that was to come; and less then the Antitype, who was more potent to re∣build the ruines of the fall, than Adam was to make them, Righteousness came as full from Christ, as sin did from Adam; nay, more fully, as the Apostle hints in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, verse. 15. and in the abund∣ance and superabundance of Grace, vers. 17. & 20. hence it appears, that so far as Adam's sin was ours, so far is Christ's Righteousness ours also. Adam's sin was not ours in the full latitude, as it was in him, we did not eat the Fruit in our own persons, we were not heads of Mankind, we did not usher in Sin and Death upon the World, no, this was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by that one A∣dam, neither was it ours in the effect only, for then our innate pravity would be no sin, as meerly proceeding from that first sin of Adam, in which we participated not: that in the Schools must needs be true, peccatum habituale dicit essentialem ordinem ad praecedens actua∣le; Its impossible, that one should be a sinner habitually, who in no sense was a sinner before: hence that of St.

Austin, quoted by Dr. Ward, Nulla foret hominis culpa, st talis a Deo Creatus esset, qualis nunc nascitur, it re∣mains therefore that Adam's sin it self is derived to each one of us, pro ratione membri, proportionably: Christ's satisfaction is not ours in the full latitude, as it was in him; we satissied not God's Justice in our own Persons, we were not Heads of the Church, nei∣ther did we usher in Life and Righteousness into the World; no, it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by that one Christ, neither is it ours in the effect only; for then the effect a thing less than the satisfaction it self, should justifie or make us righteous against the Law, which cannot be: It remains therefore that it is it self derived upon each one of us, pro mensurâ membri: Again, Adam's sin did first in order of Nature, make us sin∣ners by it self imputed, and then by the inherent pravity consequent; in like manner Christ's satis∣faction doth first in order of Nature make us righte∣ous by it self imputed, and then by the sanctifying Graces communicated by vertue of it: Now if Christs satisfaction be not it self communicated to us as Members of him; then the Glory of his Headship seems to fail, he is not so strong an Head as Adam, Righteousness is not so amply communicated from Christ, as sin is from Adam, Adam communicates the sin it self to us, but Christ communicates his Righteousness in the effects only; if Christ only me∣rited Justification, the Glory of his Headship seems not to stand in it; in Sanctification he as our Head communicates sanctifying Graces to us, to be the matter of our Sanctification, but in Justification he doth not communicate his satisfaction to us, to be the matter of our Justification; he merited Justification upon Gospel-terms before our Union with him,

What doth he after, or more, as our head in Justificati∣on? his satisfaction not being communicated to us, he seems not to be so compleat an Head in Justification, as in Sanctification; to make this Argument from Christ's Headship more clear, it will not be amiss to consi∣der some passages in that fifth Chapter to the Ro∣mans; Wherefore as by one Man sin entred into the World, and Death by Sin, and so Death passed upon all Men, for that all have sinned, verse 12. in this and the two following verses one part of the collation, viz. That of Adam being laid down, where is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 collationis? or how is it to be supplyed? some Divines think, that it is quite omitted by the Apostle, others conceive it to be couched in those words, Who is the figure of him that was to come, verse 14. but whether it be the one or the other, sure∣ly there must be somewhat understood on Christ's part as correspondent to that of Adam, who was a Type of him, Piscator supplies it thus, Plena compa∣ratio sic habet quemadmodum per Adam peccatum introiit in omnes homines, & per peccatum mors, eo quod in Adamo omnes peccarunt, sic per Christum Ju∣stitia introiit in omnes credentes, & per Justitiam vita, eo quod in Christo omnes credentes pro peccatis satisfecerunt; he saith, that all Believers satisfied in Christ, I intend somewhat more in this point then I suppose he did. Yet I would speak less in words then so, I think the expression, that we satisfied in him, is not an expedient one, though in Scripture nothing to me seems to sound more like an answer to that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, verse 12. then that Text 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2 Cor. 5.15. though the Learn∣ed Camero saith,* 1.6 in Christi morte Ecclesiae est veluti satisfaciens Deo: Yet I wave that expression, for it

seems to import, as if Christ's satisfaction were in its full latitude imputed to us: It is as much as I intend, that we as Members of him do in a measure partici∣pate of his satisfaction, so far, that it is the matter of our Justification against the Law: Adam's sin is is not communicated to us in the full latitude, but so far as to make us sinners; Christ's Satisfaction is not communicated to us in the full latitude, but so far as to make us righteous. But to go on to another passage in that Chapter, As by one Man's disobedi∣ence many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous, Vers. 19. In this famous Text those words (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as and so also) are to be noted; it is as much as to say, as it was in the one case, so it is in the other, as Adam's sin was derived upon us, so also is Christ's Righteousness, if Adam's sin were in some measure communicated to us to make us sinners; then Christ's Righteousness is in some measure comunicated to us to make us righteous; we see, what is the best way to judge how far Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us, not by comparing the Imputation of our Sin to Christ, and the Imputa∣tion of Christ's Righteousness to us, but by compa∣ring the Imputation of Adam's sin to us, and the Im∣putation of Christ's Righteousness to us, in that Text (He was made Sin for us, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.21.) there is no (as and so also) as there is in the parallel of the two Adams: though I think it hard to say, that sin was Imputed to Christ only in the effects, for unless our sin, as it was fundamentum paenae, was Imputed to him, unless it was so far Imputed, as to render his sufferings punishments, his sufferings were not penal, and if not penal, sin was not at all imputed to him;

no, not in the effect: yet if sin was Imputed to him only in the effect, it follows not, that his Righteous∣ness should be so only Imputed to us, the Apostle saith not, as he was made sin, so we are made Righte∣ousness, there is no (as and so) in that Text as there is in the parallel of the Adam's: there is a great dis∣parity in the cases; Sin was not imputed to Christ to constitute him a sinner, but Christ's Righteous∣ness is imputed to us to constitute us righteous; Sin was imputed to Christ, that it might be absorpt and swallowed up in his sweet-smelling Sacrifice; but Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us, that it may abide upon us as the matter of our Justification: We see here, in the point of Imputed Righteousness, we must take our measures; not from our sin imputed to Christ, but from Adam's sin imputed to us: Further, The word (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) in the 19. Verse emphati∣cally points out the material cause of Justification. Christ's Righteousness, as a meritorious cause, is an impulsive to God to constitute us righteous, but to be an impulsive to constitute is not properly to con∣stitute, as a meritorious cause it impetrates, that we shall be made righteous; but by that Impetration it doth no more make us righteous, than by the Impetra∣tion of sanctifying Graces it makes us holy: notwith∣standing these Impetrations, we are not indeed holy without those Graces, nor are we righteous with∣out a Righteousness: as a meritorious cause it was be∣fore Faith, nay, before the Covenant of Promise, but then it constituted none righteous. It was for all, but it constitutes not all: You will say, As soon as a Man by Faith hath a capacity, it constitutes him righteous; How so? It was a meritorious cause be∣fore Faith, now it is no more; at the first it procured

that Men should be justified upon Gospel-terms, and now what new or fresh act or energy hath it? Indeed there is somewhat more on Man's part, viz. Faith; somewhat more on God's viz. Justifying the Be∣liever. But what is there more on Christ's? the merit is as before, one and the same, and impetrates Justifi∣cation on Gospel-terms for all; on our part there is a difference, one believes, not another; on God's a difference, he justifies one, not another; but Christ stands only as a common cause, his Satisfaction is in communi, and constitutes no one righteous more than another: He is no more, as it seems, the end of the Law for Righteousness to the Believer, than to the Unbeliever. Now if this be, as it is durus sermo, then it remains that Christ's Righteousness is by par∣ticular imputation made over to Believers, and so be∣comes the matter of their Justification; accordingly the Apostle in Rom. the fifth speaks of it, not as a com∣mon cause, but as peculiarized to Believers, such as receive Grace: He doth not speak of what Christ merited for all, but of what Christ as an Head com∣municates to his Members: The scope of the paral∣lel between the two Adams evinces this; it be∣ing no other than this, That both of them commu∣nicate to those, who are in them. The sum of all is, Adam and Christ are set forth by the Apostle as two communicative Heads; if Adam's sin be imputati∣vely ours, so is Christ's Righteousness also.

I should now pass on to another Reason: But possi∣bly some may object, That there is a great difference between the two Heads. We were seminally in Adam, we receive an Humane Nature from him; but we were not seminally in Christ, we receive not a Nature from him: therefore, though Adam's sin be

imputatively ours, yet so is not Christ's Righte∣ousness. In answer to this I shall offer several things.

First, We receive an Humane Nature from Adam; but is this the only foundation of the Imputation of his sin to us? No, surely: Then all the sins of our Progenitors should be as much imputed to us, as the first sin of Adam was. Which I cannot at all believe; Adam was a moral Head of Holiness and Righteous∣ness to all Mankind, but since the fall, no Man, no, not Adam himself, was such; the sin of Adam is u∣niversally imputed to all, even to the most holy, but so are not the sins of other Progenitors; we were not therefore one with Adam only by a Natural union, but by a Divine Constitution.

Secondly, We receive an Human Nature from Adam; and have we not a Divine Nature from Christ? are we not called his Seed? are we not be∣gotten by his Spirit and Word? were we not in a Spiritual sence seminally in his Blood and Merits? how else should any such thing as the New Creature, be produced in a lapsed Nature? These things are as proper to make us Parts and Members of Christ, as an Humane Nature is to make us Parts and Members of Adam; therefore the communication of Righteousness from Christ must be as full and great, as the commu∣nication of sin is from Adam. Bishop Ʋsher tells us, That we have a more strict conjunction in the Spirit with Christ, then ever we had in Nature with Adam, one and the same Spirit is in Christ and Believers, but there is not one Soul in Adam and his Posterity: the communication from Christ therefore, if answerable to the Union, must be as great, nay greater than that from Adam.

Thirdly, Adam was a Head both by Nature, and

by Constitution; Sin, unless in Conjunction with Nature, could not pass from him to us, neither could we, without a Nature conveyed from him, have been members of him: It di•• therefore appertain to his Headship to convey a Nature to us; but Christ was an Head not by Nature, But above it by Divine Consti∣tution; he was not to convey Naturals to us, but su∣per-naturals; since the Fall, Righteousness was not to pass to us, in Conjunction with Nature; Nature was to be from one Head, and Righteousness from ano∣ther; we were to be made Members of Christ, not by communication of Nature, but of Grace; it therefore did not appertain to his Headship to com∣municate Nature to us, yet was his Headship as potent to convey Righteousness to us, as A∣dam's was to convey sin; the Divine Constitu∣tion made him such an Head, that his Satisfacti∣on might become ours for our Justification: thus much touching this Argument drawn from the Headship of Christ.

Fourthly, Those Scripture phrases of being pur∣ged, sprinkled, cleansed, washed, justifyed in the Blood of Christ, notably import two things, the one, that Justification is in a signal manner attributed to Christ's Blood, as Sanctification is to the Spirit; the other, that Christ's Blood justifies by way of Ap∣plication: but neither of these can stand, if that Blood be only a meritorious cause, not the first, how can Justification, be signally attributed to it; when as a meritorious cause, it no less impetrates Sanctification than Justification? nothing singular is done by it in the one more than in the other; not the second, how can it justifie by Application, when as a merito∣rious cause, it operates only by impetration? You

will say, Christ's Blood is applyed in the effect, in a pardon: I answer, those Scripture phrases before quoted, shew, that the Blood it self is applyed to us; how else is it said, that we are purged, cleansed, sprinkled, washed in it? unless it be applyed to us, the phrases, how emphatical soever, seem to be improper: surely a satisfaction must in its own nature be a justi∣fying matter against the Law, next to an absolute conformity to the Law. Nothing is or can be more justifying against it then a satisfaction; when God hath provided a plenary satisfaction to justifie us, how may we think, that it is not it self applyed to us actually to justifie us, or that something less than it self should do it? the Scripture sets forth this Ap∣plication on both hands, on our part it is applyed by Faith, We receiving the Atonement, Rom. 5.11. and Christ, being a propitiation through Faith in his Blood, Rom. 3.25. and on God's part by Imputation, we being made the Righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.21. and the Righteousness of God being upon us, Rom. 3.22. I cannot tell how to think, that such an excellent justifying matter, as Christ's Satisfaction is, should be provided for us, and yet not applyed to us, according to the terms of the Gospel: a pardon is, as I take it, upon the satisfaction not meerly made but applyed; for it is given to Believers only: if the satisfaction be it self applyed, then that is our Righteousness against the Law; if it be applyed in the effect, that is, in a pardon, then the pardon is the very application, and not a pardon upon a satisfaction applyed; or if there be a pardon upon a satisfaction applyed, there will be a pardon before a pardon; a pardon in the application, and a pardon upon it; if the satisfaction be it self applyed, then it may precede a

pardon, and a pardon may be upon it; but if it be ap∣plyed only in the effect, in a pardon, then it cannot precede a pardon, no more then a pardon can precede it self: You will say, a pardon is not upon a satis∣faction applyed, but is the very application. To this I answer, the Learned Mr. Gataker saith, remissio est Justificationis efficacis consequens necessarium; and the worthy Mr. Bradshaw saith, culpae remissio accuratè considerata neque totum neque pars Justificationis ex∣istit, sed contingens tantùm Justificationis effectus: I conceive, the application of Christ's Justifying Blood, is in order of Nature antecedent to remission; under the Law, first the Atonement was made, and Blood sprinkled, and then there was forgiveness; un∣der the Gospel, first Christ's Blood is applyed and sprinkled upon us, and then there is remission; Christ is a propitiation through Faith in his Blood, saith the Apostle, Rom. 3.25. and then he adds, To declare his Righteousness for the Remission of sins: Christ's Blood is first applyed, and then remission follows upon it; I say, it follows upon it, but it is no more the same with it under the Gospel, then forgiveness under the Law was the same with the sprinklings and purify∣ings by the Blood of the Sacrifices; when in Scrip∣ture there is attributed to Christ's Blood, purging, washing, sprinkling, cleansing from Sin, and to a par∣don, covering, blotting out, taking away, and casting away of Sin, I cannot imagine that both these are the same, as if Christ's Blood did not by it self do a∣way Sin, but only impetrate that it might be done away in a pardon; I take it, these are distinct, first that Blood in the sence herein after declared, frees us à culpâ, and then the consequent pardon frees us à Baenâ.

Fifthly, If Christ's Righteousness be Imputed to us, not in it seif, but in its effect only, that is, a par∣don, then Justification, as to the Law, wholly consists in a pardon; on the other hand, if Justification do not stand in a pardon, then it stands in the Imputa∣tion of Christ's Righteousness to us: in this great point I shall offer several things.

First, The Scripture must be the great Rule to judge of Justification by, there I find that we are ju∣stified by Christ's Blood, that we are made right∣cous by his Obedience; but that we are justified by a Pardon, I find not. There I read that Christ is made to us Righteousness, that we are made the Righteousness of God in him; but, not that an Im∣munity from punishment is a Righteousness. I know many Learned Divines take Justification and Pardon to be one and the same, but I shall consider the chief Scriptures which look that way; The first is Rom. 4. There the Imputation of Righteousness, Ver. 6. and the remission of sin, Vers. 7. and 8. seem to be the very same; the quotation of the 32. Psalm seems to make it clear to answer to this. I shall consider the scope of the Apostle: He doth in the third Chapter lay down this Conclusion, That we are justified by Faith, Ver. 28. and in the fourth Chapter he lays down this, That we are not justified by Works, Ver. 4. that is, perfect Works, such as Man may glory in, such as might make the reward of debt. Abra∣ham himself could not reach such a Justification: this is proved by two things; the one is this, Abra∣ham's Faith was counted to him for Righteousness, therefore he was not justified by Works: For Faith is not Works. The other is this, A justified Man is a pardoned one, therefore he is not justified by Works;

for perfect Obedience leaves no room at all for a Par∣don. Touching the first, I shall first consider what was the object of Abraham's Faith, and then how Faith is counted for Righteousness: The primary ob∣ject of Abraham's Faith was Chrrist; for the Apostle in the third Chapter speaks of the Faith of Christ; and in the fourth, where the same Discourse of Ju∣stification is continued, the object cannot in any reason be varied. Abraham is set forth as a great pattern of believing, and he can hardly be so to Christians, if his Faith had not for substance the same object with theirs. The Scripture fore-seeing that God would justifie the Heathen through Faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham; saying, In thee shall all Nations be blessed, Gal. 3.8. That A∣braham's Faith and ours might have the same object, God took care, that a Gospel,* 1.7 a Blessing, Christ should be set before him: his Eyes were so far opened, that he could see Christ's day, and in a kind of Triumph of Faith, rejoyce at it, 1 Joh. 8.56. 'Tis true, our Faith, as having more of Evangelical light in it, is more explicite than Abraham's was; Abra∣ham's was in the Messiah in universali, in more gene∣ral terms; ours is in him in particulari, in propriâ formâ, in a satisfying atoning Messiah, in his Blood and Righteousness; nevertheless (this being but a gra∣dual difference according to gradual Light) our Faith and Abraham's are for substance the same and center in one object; and Christ's Righteousness and Sa∣tisfaction, though not so clearly known to Abraham, as to us, was no less imputed to him than to us, there being the same way of Justification by Impu∣ted righteousness for him as for us. Christ being the

object of Abraham's Faith, the next thing is, how Faith is imputed for Righteousness. Here I answer, Faith is counted for Righteousness, not as taken in abstracto, meerly in it self, but as taken in concreto, in its conjunction with its object: that is, Christ and his Righteousness, and then we have the full Right∣eousness of Justification, Faith in it self answering to the Gospel-terms, and in its object Christ's Right∣eousness answering to the Law. Here I crave leave to set down the words of an Excellent Person, though different from my self in this point; the words are these:* 1.8

Faith looks both ways, respects both the Law and the Gospel, and comprizeth all that is re∣quisite to our Justification with reference to both; all the charge of the Law it answers ratione objecti, in respect of its object, which is Christ, and all that is required by the Gospel, ratione sui, as being it self the performance of the condition annex∣ed thereunto.

Thus he; I quote not these words, as if in this point he were of my opinion, but because they are full and expressive of my thoughts: Now, that Faith is in this place to be taken in con∣junction with its object, appears thus; the Apostle in the third Chapter proves, That as to the Law every Mouth must be stopped, that all the world must be∣come guilty before God, verse 19, and then con∣cludes, that by the deeds of the Law, no Flesh can be justified, verse 20. And in his After-discourse (as the following words (but now) do import) he sheweth what it is that justifieth us against the Law, viz. The Righteousness of God; that is of Christ, which is not Faith it self, but by Faith, Vers. 21, & 22. And at last he concludes, That we are justified by Faith, Vers. 28. but Faith in it self cannot justifie

us against the Law; for Faith was not crucified for us, neither did it satisfie Justice on our behalf: it is therefore Faith in its object, that is Christ's Right∣eousness which justifies us against the Law; that Faith which is counted for Righteousness, is that which establishes the Law, Vers. 31. and that Establishment Faith makes, not in it self, but in its object, Christ's Righteousness, which established the Law by satisfy∣ing of it; Faith therefore and its object must be taken together: Hence the Apostle, who mentions the Im∣putation of Faith. Ver. 5. in the 4. Chapter, menti∣ons also the Imputation of Righteousness, Ver. 6. It's true, both are but one in sence, but in words the latter expresses the object of Faith, as the former doth the Act: Thus, as I said before, Faith in Conjunction with its object takes in the whole of Justification, and then the after-words, quoted out of the Psalm, touch∣ing Remission, do not describe the Imputation of Righteousness in its proper Nature, but in its blessed Fruit, viz. Pardon of sin, which is not properly our Righteousness, but a consequent upon it. Another place is this; —Through this Man is preached unto you the Forgiveness of sin; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses, Acts 13.38, & 39. Here it seems, that what is called Remission in the first verse, is called Justification in the next: but I take it, they are not the same in the 38. Ver. We have Remission in the offer or tender of the Gospel, in the 39. we have Justification actual as it is in the Believer. So they are not the same; Justification here is not Remission, but Justification by Sacrifice; Justificati∣on by Christ's Sacrifice is opposed to Justification by the Legal ones: Justification by these was typical,

and but in some cases, the Law not allowing a Sacri∣fice in all, but Justification by that is real, and in all cases where Faith is not wanting; here therefore Ju∣stification and Remission are not the same. Another place is Luke 18. when the Publican penitentially prayed for Pardon, God be merciful to me a Sinner, he went home justified, Vers. 13, & 14. Justified is the same with Pardoned. I answer, This place shews that Justification follows upon true Repentance, but not that Justification and Pardon are the same; the Satisfaction of Christ justifies a Sinner, a Pardon only frees him from punishment. To name but one place more; The Free-gift is of many offences to justifica∣tion, Rom, 5.16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Free-gift, seems here to import Pardon, as if Pardon and Justification were all one. To this I answer; The Apostle in this fa∣mous place sets down a Parallel between the two Heads, Adam and Christ; Adam's Sin and Christ's Righteousness; Adam's Sin making us Sinners unto death, and Christ's Righteousness making us righte∣ous unto Life. But the word (Pardon or Remission) is not so much as once named in all the Parallel; by the Free-gift Vers. 16. is not meant Remission, but Christ's Righteousness. This is clear upon a double account: the one is this; The Free-gift is opposed to Adam's sin, and that which in this Parallel is opposed to Adam's sin, must needs be Christ's Righteousness; this appears throughout the whole Parallel, in the 15, & 16. Vers. Adam's Sin and the Free-gift are opposed; in the 18. Vers. Adam's Offence and Christ's Righte∣ousness are opposed; in the 19. Vers. Adam's Diso∣bedience and Christ's Obedience are opposed: Hence it appears, that what is the Free-gift in the 15, and 16. Vers. is the Righteousness or Obedience of Christ

in the 18. & 19. Vers. neither indeed can the Parallel stand, if any other thing than Christ's Righteous∣ness should be opposed to Adam's sin. The other is this; these words, The Free-gift, are put instead of Christ's Righteousness or Obedience; this appears in that, where the one is mentioned, the other is omit∣ted, in the 15, 16, 17. Vers. The Free-gift is mention∣ed, but the Righteousness or Obedience of Christ is omitted; in the 18, and 19. Vers. the Righteousness and Obedience of Christ is mentioned, but the Free∣gift is omitted. Indeed in our Translation we have the Free-gift Vers. 18. but not in the Original. Hence it appears that they are the same; I suppose that in the 18. Vers. should be otherwise supplied: Thus it appears that the Free-gift is not Pardon. Having seen the most material Texts; I shall observe one thing more: Justification is set forth in such a way in Scri∣pture, that it must needs be distinct from Pardon: It is set forth so, that the Law is established by it, Rom. 3.31. but the Law is not established by a Pardon, but by a Satisfaction. You will say, Our Pardon is upon a Satisfaction; but if that Satisfaction do not justifie us, if it be no Ingredient in our Justification; then in our Justification the Law is not established as the Apostle speaks; Justification is set forth so, that the Righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us, Rom. 8.4. But the Righteousness of the Law is not ful∣filled in a Pardon; neither is it fulfilled in our im∣perfect, though sincere Obedience: The Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is, as Aristotle saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.9 Correctio injuriae, Satisfaction for the injured Law, but nothing is such but Christ's Righteousness. The Apostle in the precedent Verse saith, That sin was condemned in the Flesh of Christ; and of this, there

is a double Fruit; first Justification: The Righteous∣ness of the Law is fulfilled in us; that is, Christ's Sa∣tisfaction becomes imputatively ours, and then San∣ctification; we walk not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit: This Interpretation harmonizes with the first Verse; ther first we have Justification, There is no Condemnation to them who are in Christ; and then Sanctification, We walk not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit; as therefore Christ's Righteousness is the only thing which satisfies the Law, so it is the only ju∣stifying matter against it: Justification is so set forth, that the Law hath its end: Thus the Apostle, Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to the Be∣liever, Rom. 10.4. as he is the end of the Law, so he is for Righteousness; he is not the end of the Law in a procured pardon, but in a Satisfaction made and applied; Justification therefore consists not in a Par∣don, but in a Satisfaction applied and made ours by Imputation. Thus far out of Scripture.

Secondly, Justification cannot be without a Righteousness; that God (who judgeth according to truth, who is Just, and a Justifyer) doth not esteem or pronounce us righteous unless we are so; a pardon is not our Righteousness; for that is God's Act, and God's Act, though it may make or esteem us righte∣ous, is not it self our Righteousness, neither is that, which a pardon gives, viz. an immunity from pu∣nishment; such an immunity from punishment, which is, ex merâ indulgentiâ, as in the case of a par∣doned Malefactor, is not such; the Malefactor in that case is treated in point of punishment as a right∣eous Man, but he is not such indeed, his plea is only a pardon, he is free only à paenâ, not à culpâ, the Judge doth not esteem him as righteous, but as one

exempt from punishment; nay, an immunity, which is ex Justitiâ, as in the case of an innocent person, though it suppose a Righteousness in him, yet it is no more it self a righteousness than in the other case; it is distinct from his Righteousness as a consequent is from its antecedent: Now if a pardon or immuni∣ty from punishment be not our Righteousness, then Christ's Righteousness (which was penal and obediential to an infinite value, and did com∣pensate the very culpâ, and free us from it) is, as soon as it is made ours by Imputation, our Righteousness against the Law.

Thirdly, If a pardon might be called Justificati∣on, it is but improperly such; there are then as (I will suppose for Discourse sake) three sorts of Justificati∣on to be distinguished, one by the idem, the very same perfect Righteousness, which the Law calls for, ano∣ther by the tantundem, a Righteousness which is a plenary satisfaction to the broken Law; a third by Remission only: the first is more strictly Justifi∣cation than the second, because the very Letter of the Law is fulfilled in it, which it is not in the other; the second is more properly Justification than the third, because there is a plenary compensation to the Law in it; when in the other there is nothing but a meer condonation: the third is the most improper Justification of all the rest, because it communicates not Righteousness, but an Indulgence: Now in our case, had there been no satisfaction at all, Justi∣fication, if possible, must have stood in remission on∣ly; but a great and glorious satisfaction being made, it seems very strange, that Justification should consist only in the less proper, in remission, which frees us à paenâ, whilst the proper, Christ's Satisfaction, which

in a way of compensation, frees us à culpâ, is waved: It is true, it is not totally waved; it is allowed to be an antecedent meritorious cause of Justification, but being no Ingredient in it, Justification still consists in the less proper, while the more proper in that re∣spect is waved.

Before I pass on, I must consider one objection; pardon takes away reatum penae, the obligation to punishment, and what more can be done to a sinner? still the reatus culpae abides, the fault will be a fault; the Sinner a Sinner; that is, one who sinned; and if no more can be done to a sinner, why is not immunity from punishment, his Righteousnes, or what can be Righteousness if that be not so?

In answer to this great Objection, I shall offer two or three things.

First, It is indeed a rule of reason, that, factum in∣fectum fieri non potest; yet it is worthy the conside∣ration of the Learned, whether the culpâ, which ever continues in facto, in it self may not yet cease in jure, so far as not to redound upon the Person to make him culpable? I shall only mention one in∣stance, and so leave it; the Blessed Virgin, not being, as her Son was, conceived of the Holy Ghost, was no doubt fubject to Original Sin, that put a culpâ upon every part of her, and factum infectum fieri non potest. Nevertheless, when the Word was made Flesh; when his Body was framed out of the Substance of the Virgin, no culpâ did remain, or re∣dound upon his Humane Nature, much less upon his Sacred Person which assumed it: in Sacred Mysteries we must not be too peremptory upon our reason, but speak with all caution and re∣verence.

Secondly, Beatus culpae, or guilt of fault, may be considered under a double notion, either in it self, in its intrinsecal desert of punishment, or else in its re∣dundancy upon the sinner, which consists in three things. First, it so redounds upon him as to deno∣minate him a sinner, that is, one who hath sinned; then it so redounds as to make him continue worthy of punishment; and again it so re∣dounds, as actually to oblige him to punishment: Now the reatus in its self, in its intrinsecal de∣sert, must needs be perpetual, because sin cannot cease to be sin, the denominating him a sinner, one who hath sinned, must be perpetual too, because factum infectum fieri non potest: but, as I take it, that redundancy which makes him worthy of punish∣ment, is removed in Justification, and that which actually obliges him to punishment, is removed in remission; it is usually said in the Schools, transit actus, manet reatus, after the Act of Sin is passed and gone, the guilt abides; we may say of the sinner, that he hath sinned in praeterito, nay, and in praesenti, that he is filius mortis, worthy to die, and suffer punish∣ment; but after he hath received the great atone∣ment, after Christ's satisfaction (which is more than an aequipondium to his unworthiness) is Imputed and made over to him, he continues no longer worthy of punishment; the sin it self is worthy of it, but he is not; he was once worthy of it, but now he is no longer so. I cannot imagine, that Christ's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or worthy ones, Rev. 3.1. should remain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, worthy of Death, Rom. 1.32. Or that the pure Hea∣vens should be inhabited by such as still continue worthy of Hell: Christ's Righteousness so much out∣weighs and counterpoises the meritum paenae that is

in sin, that though the worthiness of punishment cannot be separated from the sin it self, yet it ceases to redound upon the sinner, as soon as he believes and hath an interest in that Righteousness: Its true, the sinner as he is in himself, is worthy of punish∣ment, but as he is in Christ, a part or Member of him, a participant of his Satisfaction, he is not worthy thereof.

Thirdly, If we look distinctly upon a satisfaction, or plenary compensation for sin of the one hand, and upon a pardon, or immunity from punishment of the other, it will be easily seen where our Righteousness lies, and what is our justifying Plea and matter a∣gainst the Law; a pardon frees from punishment, but a Satisfaction salves the honour of the broken Law, repairs the damage done to it, compensates for the violations of it, and comes in the Room of that perfect conformity which the Law did primarily aim at: in this therefore, not in the other stands our Righteousness as to the Law. Thus much touching my fifth Reason, that Justification consists not in a pardon.

Sixthly, Christ suffered nostro loco, in our place and stead; those pregnant Scriptures (that he gave his Life a ransom 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the stead of many, Matth. 20.28. that he gave himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a coun∣terprize for all, 1 Tim. 2.6. that he suffered the just for the unjust, 1 Pet. 3.18.) are no cold improprie∣ties, but full proofs of it; he did sustinere nostram personam, sustein our person in his sufferings; there was a double commutaton, his person was put in the room of our persons, and his sufferings in the room of our sufferings; he that satisfies for another, must do it nomine debitoris, he that

pays in his own name, cannot satisfie for another. When our Saviour said to Peter, That give 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for me and thee, Matth. 17.27. if Peter had paid it only in his own name, he could not have satisfied for his Master. In like manner, if Christ had suffered only in his own Name, he could not have satisfied for Peter or any other: The Debt which he satisfied for was ours, not his; he stood as our Representative, and satisfied for us; he did not only suffer nostro bono, that the profit might be ours, but nostro loco, that the Satisfaction it self might be ours; nevertheless, accord∣ing to Divine Constitution; that is, that it might be ours; not immediately, but as soon as we become Members of him; not according to the full latitude, but according to the capacity of Members; not to all intents, but that it might be the matter of our Ju∣stification as to the Law.

Having laid down my Reasons, I shall now pro∣ceed to answer the Objections made against Imputed Righteousness; only here I must remember the Rea∣der of one thing. Let him not think that there are no Mysteries in our Religion, as if all there were within the line of Humane Reason: There are Super-rational Mysteries in Christ's person; mortal and immortal, temporal and eternal, the Creature and the Creator; do in an ineffable manner meet together in one Per∣son; and why may there not be such in Christ My∣stical too? The union between Christ and Believers is a great Mystery, Ephes. 5.32. and the communica∣tion of his Righteousness to them, which ensues up∣on that union, hath too much of Mystery in it to be measured by Humane Reason. Proclus said well, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Why dost thou reproach Divine things with Humane Rea∣sonings?

Reason is no competent Judge of such matters.

Object. 1. An Accident cannot be removed from its ject: Christ's Righteousness is an accident.

Ans. An Accident cannot be removed from its Subject, so as to have a novel inhesion; but it may be transferred by a just Imputation. I shall give two instances of this: Adam's sin was imputed unto us; if not, then, as I have before proved, there can be no such thing as original sin, the Doctrine of which hath been owned by the Church in all Ages: Again, our sin was imputed unto Christ, else his sufferings could not be penal; the Scripture is emphatical, he was made Sin for us, 2 Cor. 5.21. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all, Esa. 53.6. St. Austin saith, that he was delictorum susceptor, non commissor. St. Jerom saith, non de coelis attulit, sed de nobis as∣sumpsit: if our sin was not at all imputed to him, his sufferings could not be penal: To clear this, I shall first prove that Christs sufferings were penal in a pro∣per sence, and then, that they could not be such without sin imputed: First, Christ's sufferings were penal; in Scripture we find, that our sins were born in his body, and condemned in his flesh, that he was wounded and bruised for them, that he was made a curse for us; all which speak penal sufferings: If his sufferings were not penal, how were they satisfacto∣ry? a proper satisfaction can hardly be proved from an improper punishment. How did he suffer in our stead; If he did, it was in a no-punishment, which is all one, as if Archelaus had reigned in the room of his Father in a No-kingdom: what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or ex∣ample was there in his sufferings to deterr us from sin? There is no such thing in sufferings not penal:

what demonstration of Justice was there in them? in sufferings not penal power may appear, but justice cannot: We see here his sufferings were penal, but without sin imputed how could they be so? Socinus (who would not have them penal, lest they should be satisfactory too saith, that Christ died, quia ita & Deo & ipsi visum est,* 1.10 because so it seemed good to God and him: but would this make his sufferings penal? no, he intended no such thing, neither will this do it; God's meer Will may inflict sufferings, but nothing but Justice can inflict punishment. Ju∣stice, unless moved, inflicts it not; neither is there any other mover, but that of sin imputed. Where no sin is imputed, there it is, as to punishment, all one as if there were no sin; and where there is no sin at all, there can be no such thing as punishment: We are therefore under a necessity to say, that sin was in tantum, so far imputed to Christ as to render his suf∣ferings penal, and withal we see an accident passing to another by imputation; only here it will be ob∣jected, that sin was only imputed to Christ in the effects; but, I take it, this suffices not; for the effect of sin is punishment; and punishment cannot be, where no sin is imputed; a punishment without a why or a wherefore, is a punishment for nothing; that is, it is no punishment; and where there is no punishment, sin is not so much as imputed in the ef∣fect. So that if it be imputed in the effect, it self must be so far imputed, as to render the sufferings penal, which makes good the instance.

Object. 2. If Christ's Righteousness be indeed im∣puted to us, then it is imputed in the full latitude; we are reputed by God to have satisfied Divine Justice, we are then imputatively our own Saviours and Redeemers;

Nay, as Bellarmine saith, Redemptores & Salvato∣res Mundi, Redeemers and Saviours of the World.

Ans. If this Principle, That all Imputation is in the full latitude, be true, I yeild up the cause for ever. I am sure I am not my own Saviour or Re∣deemer; I never satisfied Divine Justice for my sins; but that this Principle is not true, I shll endeavour to manifest. Non-imputation and Imputation must needs have the same Rules to be governed by: this, I suppose, must not be denied by those who say, That the Non-imputation of sin, is the Imputation of Right∣ousness, Rom. 4.1. Sin is not imputed to Believers: But how what, totally and in every respect? No, surely; still the culpa abides, the sin will be a sin, the Sinner a Sinner; that is, one who sinned; but it is not imputed as to punishment: If Sin may be Non-imputed in some respects, then Righteousness may be imputed in a limited sence also; if all Impu∣tation be in the full latitude, then there is no Impu∣tation of a thing at all (save only to the proper doer of it) neither according to Principles of meer Nature, nor according to Principles of Justice, nor yet accord∣ing to a Divine Constitution: Not according to Prin∣ciples of meer Nature; according to these sin inter∣nal in the Will is imputed to the Members of the Body, as being in conjunction with the Soul; else the Body should not rise and suffer for it: But how is it imputed? what, in the full latitude? Doth God ac∣count that the sin properly did issue from the Mem∣bers, and reside there? It is not true, or possible, yet in a lower and diminutive manner is it to them im∣puted; nor according to Principles of Justice; our sin (and that, as but now was proved) not in the effect only, but in some sence in it self, was imputed to

Christ; and that upon Principles of Justice, upon his Sponsion to satisfie for us, our sin was imputed to him; but what in the full latitude? what to make as if there were a spot or turpitude in the Holy one? as if he by his own sinful commissions had deserved penal sufferings? No, by no means; but in the least respect that could possibly be, in no other respect than this, viz. So far as to render his sufferings penal. Nor yet according to the Divine Constitution; this is most proper to the present case. And for this I must bring forth the Parallel of the two Adams, because there never were any two such Heads as these: Adam's sin, as I have before proved, was imputed to us; but what, in its full latitude? Were we the Head of Mankind? did we usher in Sin and Death upon the World, as Adam did? No: This was by one Adam; but in a lower measure, and according to the capacity of Mem∣bers; it came upon us, as Bellarmine well expresses it, Eo modo, quo communicari potest id quod transit, nimirum per imputationem; it came upon us ex post facto, after the action done; Interpretativè and by way of reception, it only so far redounded upon us, as by that sin to make us sinners, Rom. 5.19. In like manner, Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us; but what, in its full latitude? were we the Saviours or Redeemers of the World? did we usher in Life and Righteousness upon the Church? No; This was by one Christ; but in a lower measure, and according to the capacity of Members; it comes upon us only by Imputation, and Interpretativè, it only so far re∣dounds upon us, as by that Righteousness to make us righteous against the Law, Rom. 5.19. These things being laid down, it appears, that the Imputa∣tion of Christ's Righteousness to us doth not imply

that we are our own Saviours or Redeemers, much less that we are such to the World; we did not satis∣fie Divine Justice: No: This is, as Bishop Davenant tells Bellarmine, Ridicula illatio, a thing which can∣not be inferred from imputed Righteousness; we do only as Members of Christ so far participate of his Satisfaction, as to be thereby justified against the Law. To say, that his Satisfaction, if imputed to us, must become ours as amply as it is his, is to say things impossible, as if Imputation were as much as Action; or the derivative could equalize the Primi∣tive; as if Head and Members, because there is a communication between them, must be confounded and become the same, as if the Believer, if once called into Communion with Christ, as the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 1.9. must become a Christ, a Saviour or Me∣diator; all which is meer confusion: But in Imputati∣on, the proportion between Head and Members is kept inviolate. Christ the Head communicates to Belie∣vers, yet Salva praerogativâ capitis; Believers receive from him, but it is only in the measure of Members.

Object. 3. If Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us, then God reputes us to have made satisfaction, and so errs in his Judgement, which cannot be.

Ans. God with out error imputes Adam's sin to us; yet doth not repute us to be the very doers of it: he without error imputes the internal sin of the Will to the Members of the Body, yet doth not repute the Members to have done it; Christ's Satisfaction is not imputed to us as to Agents, but as to Participant Members; and that truly, because according to that Divine Constitution, which made Christ an Head as strong to communicate Righteousness, as Adam was to convey sin.

Object. 4. If Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us, then we are as righteous as Christ is.

Ans. The Consequence is absurd, and the Learned Chamier gives this Reason, Fieri non posse, ut tàm justus sit, qui inhaerenter injustus; imputativè justus est, quàm qui inhaerentèr justus; nam iste à se & per se justus est, ille tantùm precariò, id est, aliundè & in alio; Christ's Righteousness hath distinct respects; as to himself it was the idem, as to us the tantundem; as it was in∣herent in him, it was Justifying and Sanctifying too; as it is imputed to us, it is Justifying only; it was Christ's in the Agency; the glory of it is ours only by Participation; Christ is the Author of the Satisfa∣ction; we are but the Receivers in the quality of Members; it was his in the capacity of a Sponsor, Sa∣viour, Redeemer, Mediator, Head; it is ours only derivatively, and as participant Members of him.

Object. 5. Imputed Righteousness is the root of Anti∣tinomianism, this dissolves the Law, as if it did no longer oblige us to Obedience.

Ans. Christ's Righteousness is not imputed to us as it is the idem of the Law, but as it is a Satisfaction made thereunto neither was that satisfaction meant: to dissolve the Law-obligation, so as that it should cease to be a Rule of Holiness in point of Sanctifica∣tion; but to dissolve it so, as that the Law should demand from Believers no other matter but it self in point of Justification. Did it cease to be a Rule of Holiness in Sanctification; we must all be Antino∣mians. Did it not cease to demand no more than it self in Justification, we must all be undone: its fur∣ther demand, viz. Perfect Obedience from us in our Persons being impossible, Justification and Salvation must be so also. Christ's Satisfaction was made, that

we might be justifiable against the Law; it is imputed, that we may be actually justified against it. If the Satisfaction imputed run into Antinomianism, so doth the Satisfaction made, which is indeed the Socinian out-cry;* 1.11 Quis nexus, quae copula inter sidem, quâ cre∣ditur Christum pro nobis Deo plenissimè satisfecisse, & inter bonorum operum studium? So Schlictingius; Quid causae est,* 1.12 cur is, qui satisfactionem istam persua∣sam habens, aliquid, in repellendâ à se impietate, ju∣stitiá{que} colendâ, laboris sibi ponendum existimet? So Volkelius: Now what is answered on the behalf of Satisfaction made, viz. That the Law is still a Rule of Holiness; that Christ's Satisfaction is an inflam∣mative to it, that the just odium of sin is seen in the atoning Blood; that that Blood is sprinkled only up∣on Believers, with the like; the same may be as truly answered on the behalf of Satisfaction imputed.

Object. 6. If Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us, then God sees no sin is in us.

Ans. God sees not sin in us with a vindictive Eye, but with an intuitive one he doth; nay, he cannot but do so, as long as there is omniscience in him, and sin in us; Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us as it is a Satisfaction; and that supposes us to have been Sinners; else what need could there be of a Satisfa∣ction? though the Law were satisfied in point of Ju∣stification, yet still it demands duty in point of San∣ctification; though that Satisfaction take away the imperfection of our duties and Graces as to the guilt, yet not as to the very being.

Object. 7. If Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us, there needs no new Obedience in order to Salvation.

Ans. The Socinians object this against Christ's Sa∣tisfaction; in which notion I take it, that Christ's

righteousness is imputed to us.* 1.13 Si jàm Deo plenè persolutum est, quod ei à nobis plenè debebatur, quid adhuc nos pietate & bonis operibus maceremus? jam nec Deus nos jure punire, not ab aeternâ vitâ jure ex∣cludere potest; so Schlictingius. But Christ's Satisfa∣faction may very well stand with our obedience; Christ satisfied the Law so far, as that his righteous∣ness imputed justifies us against the Law, but not so far, as that it should be our very sanctity and holi∣ness: for then, of imputed, it should become such as they are, inherent; which is impossible: in this re∣spect therefore the Law asks obedience from us, every Believer is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Under the Law to Christ, as far under it as it is a rule to our life. Nay, Christ's righteousness is far from evacuating our obedience, that it is the great foundation upon which the Holy Spirit, the fountain of Holiness, is communicated to us, as it was under the Law in cleansing the Leper; the holy Oyl was put upon the Atoning Blood, Levit. 14.17. So it is under the Gospel in purifying us. First, the Blood of Christ is sprinkled on us by imputation, and then the holy Unction, the Divine spirit, is poured out upon us: were there no Atoning blood shed, the Holy Spi∣rit would not so much as touch upon fallen man: were that Blood not applied to us, the Holy Spirit would never dwell in us as a principle of obedi∣ence.

Object. 8. Christs righteousness cannot be both the meritorious and material cause of Justification, for then it should be both an external and internal cause thereof: Which cannot be.

Ans. We must not here take our measures from reason; it was well said by one, In Logicis ratio facit

fidem, in Theologicis fides facit rationem, Evangelical mysteries, though above the line of humane reason, must be owned in Faith, though the mode of them be inexplicable by us; Christ's righteousness may be considered under a double respect, either as it is offered up to God, or as it is applied to men. In the first respect it is common for all, so far as to render them justifiable on Gospel terms: In the se∣cond it is peculiarized to Believers; In the first it founds the promises of justification by Christ's blood, in the second it executes them, and (which is as easily conceiveable as the other) in the first it is a meritorious cause of justification; in the second a material.

Having answered these Objections, which I look upon as most material; I shall conclude as I began, that Christ's righteousness, as it is a Satisfaction, is so far imputed to his believing members, as to be the matter of their justification: The Law in that point can ask no more of them than that satisfacti∣on; there is enough in that to answer for all their sins.

Thus far I have treated touching our righteous∣ness as to the Law. I now come to speak of our righteousness as to the Gospel; Christ's righteous∣ness answers as to the Law of works: Faith an∣swers as to the terms of the Gospel. Do this, or die, was satisfied by Christ's righteousness: Believe and live; is answered by Faith. Christus est imple∣tio Legis, Spirious est impletio Evangelii: Now here I shall first shew the necessity of this two-fold righteousness; and then the connexion which is be∣tween them.

1. There is a necessity of this two-fold righteous∣ness.

God at first made man a holy, righteous crea∣ture; and upon the fall, he set to his hand a second time to lift up man out of the Chains of Sin and wrath, into a state of Grace and Life eternal. God as Creator gave man a Law of perfect obedience suited to his primitive nature, and as it were inter∣woven with the principles of it. God as Redeemer gave us a Law of Grace; in which there is as much abatement and condescention to our faln estate, as could comport with his own Holiness and Majesty: In the former God stood upon the highest terms of perfect sinless obedience; in the latter he comes down to the lowest terms imaginable: He will ju∣stifie and save every one who by true Faith yields and resigns himself up to the conditions of the Gospel; where there are distinct Laws, there must be distinct righteousnesses to answer them: That which comes up to the condescending terms of the Gospel: falls much short of the high terms of the Law; That which satisfies the Law, is a thing of incomparably greater excellency than that which answers to the terms of the Gospel: There are two distinct charges, or accusations to be supposed; the one, that we are Sinners, such as have broken the Law: The other, that we are Unbelievers, such as have rejected the Gospel: Here therefore must be distinct Plea's; To the First, the Plea is Christ's Sa∣tisfaction to discharge us from the Law: To the Second, the Plea is Faith, which is the condition of the Gospel. To the charge of final unbelief it is no Plea to say, that Christ hath satisfied; to the charge of being a sinner, the Plea doth not consist in Faith it self; but in its object, viz. Christ's Satisfaction: The righteousnesses themselves are of different na∣tures,

as to the Law our righteousness is without us, in the glorious Satisfaction of Christ made ours by a gracious imputation; as to the Gospel, our righte∣ousness is within us, in that Faith which complies with the Evangelical terms; as to the Law, our righ∣teousness is not the idem, but a satisfaction made for the breaches of it; as to the Gospel, our Faith is the very idem which the Gospel condition calls for. It is of great concern in Justification, to place these two righteousnesses in their proper Orbes; if either of them be carried out of their own Sphear, Reli∣gion is subverted. As to the Law, Christ's Satisfa∣ction is our only righteousness, it is true; Faith re∣ceives the Atonement, but neither Faith, nor any other inherent Grace can here be our righteous∣ness. All these have their spots of imperfection; how faltring is our Faith? how cold our charity? how much is there wanting in all our graces? all are but in part, not in their full measure; but in their first lineaments: Neither do they dwell alone, but there is a sad inmate of corruption under the same Roof: All these must pass sub veniâ, under a pardon, and under the Wings of Christ; these are not able to cover their own blots and imperfections; these therefore are not our Saviours or Redeemers; these do not satisfie the Law; these do not compen∣sate for sin; these do not come in the room of per∣fect obedience; neither can the true God, though one of infinite mercy, accept them as such: No, no∣thing but Christ's Satisfaction can here be our righte∣ousness. Hence the Apostle having proved, that all the world is guilty before God. Rom. 3.19. Imme∣diately after adds, but now the righteousness of God is manifested, v. 21. Where by the righteousness of God;

that of Christ must needs be meant; for that, and that only is proper and apposite to answer that charge of the Law, which makes us guilty before God; that was a Salvo to the honour of the Law; that was a ple∣nary compensation for the breaches of it; that came in the room of perfect Obedience; that therefore is the only, thing which could answer that charge: if we bring in Faith. or any other Grace into this Orb, we set them up as Christ's or Saviours; and in effect we say, that Christ died in vain.

As to the Gospel, Faith answers to the terms of it; here Christ's Satisfaction doth not supply the room: It's true, he satisfied for us, but he did not repent or believe for us; for then he should have left nothing for us to do; no, not so much as to accept of that glo∣rious Satisfaction made for us. His Satisfaction was not to spare, but by its superexcellent fulness to draw out our Faith to it self; his atoning. Blood was not to excuse, but upon a view of his Wounds to provoke our repentant Tears; he died not for our sins, that we might live in them; his pure Flesh was not cruci∣fied, that our corrupt Flesh might be spared. The Son of God came not down from Heaven to open a door to wickedness, but to promote a design of Holi∣ness: it is therefore we who must, though not with∣out Grace, repent and believe: Faith must keep its Station, or else Holiness, which is the great Design of the Gospel, must be over-turned.

Secondly, The connexion between these two Righteousnesses is to be considered; in this connexion lies the total sum of Justification. Christ's Satisfa∣ction answers to the Law; Faith answers to the terms of the Gospel; Believers, who are righteous to both, cannot but be in a very blessed condition; ne∣vertheless

it is to be noted (as Learned Mr. Baxter hath observed) Faith is but a particular Righteous∣ness, a Righteousness secundum quid, only as to the performance of the Evangelical condition; but Christ's Satisfaction is an Universal Righteousness as to all other things, save only that performance, for the final neglect of which he never died: Faith is a Righte∣ousness as to the Evangelical condition; yet it is but a Righteousness propter aliud, a Righteousness subor∣dinate and subservient to that great Righteousness of Christ's Satisfaction, to make us capable to partici∣pate thereof. In this connexion we have an heap of Mysteries set before us; Justice is satisfied by a ple∣nary compensation for sin; Mercy is exalted, in that we, though Sinners, are justified upon terms on our part as low as the Holy one could possibly condescend unto; the great thing, the Satisfaction, which no Man, no Angel could accomplish, was from Jesus Christ; who being God in the Flesh, was able to perform it; the comparatively little thing, I mean Faith, which our fallen Nature through Grace might arrive at, was that which was required at our hands; Satisfaction, which we could not have in our selves, we have in another, even in Christ our Sponsor: Faith, which we have in our selves, is that capacity whereby we are made meet to have that Satisfaction communicated to us; the Satisfaction which I think is the Righteousness of God in Scripture mentioned, is communicated to us; yet, as infinite Wisdom or∣dered it, it is communicated to us in the lowest posture of the Creature; I mean when we are by Self-em∣ptying and Self-annihilating, Faith yielding and resigning up our selves to the terms of the Gospel; Faith, which is subjectively ours, is that capacity

wherein we receive Christ's Satisfaction; that Satis∣faction in the Glory and Plenitude is only his; yet, as the Sun hangs down his Beams to the lower World, it derives it self upon each Believer, pro ratione mem∣bri: I mention the Sun, because the Prophet tells us, That upon those that fear God's Name, The Sun of Righteousness arises with Healing in his Wings; a choice part of which Healing I take to be in the com∣munication of his Satisfaction to us, that only heals the deadly Wound of Guilt which is upon us. In Christ's Righteousness there is a Merit to procure Faith; in Faith there is a capacity to have that Righte∣ousness made ours; in that Righteousness there is that which covers the imperfections of Faith. Thus there is an admirable connexion between these two Righteousnesses: Further touching our Justification as to the terms of the Gospel, we must first consider, what that Faith, by which we are justified, is; and then how we are justified by it.

First, That Faith whereby we are justified, is not Reason in its own Sphere conversing about God and his Goodness, but it is totally supernatural; super∣natural in its Principle; it is the Gift of God: and, as the second Aransican Councel tells us, It is per inspi∣rationem Spiritûs sancti, Can. 6. Supernatural in its object, it is fixed in a God in Covenant, and in his Grace. It hangs upon Christ and his Sweet-smelling Sacrifice. It falls in with supernatural promises of Grace and Glory: neither is this Faith a meer naked assent, which may be in wicked Men; nay, and in Devils; but it is that which receives Christ, and feeds upon him, eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood unto Life Eternal: Vitam à Vitae Fonte haurimus, & in ipsum quasi totos. nos immergimus, saith Bishop Da∣venant;

We draw Life from the Fountain of Life, and wholly drown our selves in him: True Faith takes the Divine objects proposed, not by piece-meal, but in their entireness; it is not meerly for God's Grace, that Hony-comb of infinite sweetness; but for his Holiness too, that the Soul may be more and more transformed and assimilated to the Divine Image and likeness. Faith very well knows, That no Man, who by his rebellions strikes at his Holiness, can possibly lean on his Grace: so to do, is not to believe, but to presume and trust in a lye: Faith is for all Christ; not only for a meriting and atoning Christ, but for a teaching and ruling one: it knows that Christ must not be mangled or torn in pieces; the Merit must not be divided from the Spirit; nor the Water from the Blood; these must ever be in conjunction; an half Christ is not the Christ of God, but a Christ of his own fancy, such as cannot profit us; Faith is not meerly for Promises, which are cor∣dials, and Pots of Manna, but for Precepts too; it is Meat and Drink to doe the Will of God; Promises and Precepts run together in Scripture; Promises are the effluxes of Grace, and Faith takes them into the heart by recumbency; Precepts are effluxes of Holiness, and Faith takes them in by an Obediential Subjection; both are owned by Faith, and must be so as long as there is Grace and Holiness in God; Faith cannot stand without repentance; it trusts in Infinite Mercy: and an impenitent one, who still holds up his Arms of Rebellion, cannot do so; it rests upon the Merits and Righteousness of Christ; and an impenitent one, who tramples under foot the atoning Blood, cannot do so. It hath a respect for the holy Commands; and the impenitent, who by willful sinning casts them away, and as much as in him lieth, makes them void,

can have no respect for them; there can no such thing as an impenitent Faith: We see by these things what a Faith that is, by which we are justified.

Secondly, The next thing is, How we are justified by Faith. Faith may be considered under a double notion; either as it respects Christ, or as it respects the condition of the Gospel: As it respects Christ, it unites us to him; it makes us Members of his My∣stical Body; thus it is a Sacred Medium to have Christ's Righteousness imputatively become ours, that we may be justified against the Law; nothing can justifie us against it but Christ's Satisfaction; that cannot do it unless it become ours; ours it cannot be, unless we are Believers. Hence the Apostle saith, That the Righteousness of God is upon the Believer, Rom. 3.22. That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to the Believer, Rom. 10.4. Here Faith doth not justifie us in it self, but in its object, Christ; to whom it so unites us, that his Righteous∣ness so far becomes ours, as to justifie us against the Law. As it respects the Condition of the Gospel, it is the very thing which that Condition calls for; in the Law of Works the Condition and the Precept were coextensive; the one was as large as the other; no Man could live by that Law, but he who had the perfect Obedience commanded in the Precept; but in the Law of Grace it is otherwise. The Precept hath more in it than the Condition; the Precept calls for Faith, not in its Truth only, but in its Statures and gradual Perfections; it would have us aspire af∣ter a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a fiducial Liberty, a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a per∣suasion with full sails towards the great things in the Promise, as if they were sensibly present with us; but the Condition calls only for a true Faith, and no

more; the least Faith, if true, though it be but as a little smoak or wick in the socket; though it be but a little spark or seed of Faith latent in a Desire or Willing Mind; is performance of the Condition. Hence the poor in Spirit, who seem to themselves to have nothing of Grace at all in them, have a Bles∣sedness entailed on them; which could not be, unless they had performed the Condition; woe would it be to Christians, if all that is in the Precept were in the Condition also; if their Justification were suspended till they had reached the top and highest altitude of the Precept; in reference to the Precept, Faith hath its Degrees and Statures; it comes up more or less to the Precept; but in reference to the Condition, Faith hath no Degrees, but stands in puncto indivisibili; it hath no magis or minùs in it; the least true Faith doth as much perform the Condition as the strongest. Cru∣ciger who prayed thus, Invoco te, Domine, languidâ & imbecillâ Fide, sed Fide tamen, did as much per∣form the Condition, as he who hath the strongest confidence in God's Mercy. The verity of Faith is all that the Condition calls for; these things, as I have learned from Mr. Baxter, being so, I conclude thus; as to the Precept, true Faith falls short; it is not as it ought to be, it justifies not; nay, in respect of defects and imperfections, it self wants to be justified and covered with the Righteousness of Christ; but as to the Condition, it fully comes up; it is as it ought to be; it is in it self the very thing required; it is in this point a particular Righteousness, answering for us, That we have performed the Condition: Yet still we must remember, that this particular Righteousness is subordinate to Christ's Satisfaction, which is our universal Righteousness.

There is yet one thing behind, viz. To consider how or in what Respect Obedience or Good Works are necessary unto Justification: I shall set down my thoughts in the following particulars.

First, Our good Works do not come in the room of Christ's Righteousness to justifie us as to the Law; to secure this, the Apostle often concludes, That we are not justified by the Works of the Law; our good Works are full of imperfection; the purest of them come forth ex laeso principio, out of an Heart sanctified but in part; and in their egress from thence gather a taint and tincture from the in-dwelling sin; never any Saint durst stand before God in his own Righteous∣ness. Job, though perfect, would not know his own Soul, Job 9.21. David, though a Man after God's Heart, would not have him mark iniquities, Psalm. 130.3. Anselm upon this account cries out, Terret me Vita mea, My own Life makes me afraid; all of it was in his Eyes sin or barrenness; our Good Works did not, could not satisfie the Law; no, this was that which nothing but Christs Righteousness could ac∣complish: We find not the Saints in Scripture stand∣ing upon their own bottom, but flying to a Mercy seat; and, as the expression is, Hebr. 12, 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, look∣ing off from themselves unto Jesus the Author and Fi∣nisher of their Faith, in whom alone perfect Righte∣ousness is to be found.

Secondly, Our Good Works have not the same sta∣tion with Faith; this appears upon a double account; the one is this, Faith unites us to Christ. And so it is a Divine Medium to have his Righteousness made ours; but Good Works follow after Union; we are by Faith married to Christ, that we might bring forth fruit to God, Rom. 7.4. Before Faith, which

is our Espousal of Christ; we bring forth no genuine Obedience; Good Works are the progeny of a Man in Christ; one who by Union with him is rightly spi∣rited to do the Will of God: not of a Man in Adam, one who stands in the power of Nature: the other is this, In the very instant or first entrance into Justifi∣cation, Faith is there, but so is not Obedience; a Believer, in the very instant of believing, before any Good Works spring up in his Life, hath a true title to the promises of the Gospel; the Righteousness of Christ is upon him; the Spirit of Grace is communi∣cated to him; Obedience is a blessed fruit, which ensues upon these.

Thirdly, Obedience is necessary, though not to the first entrance into Justification, yet to the continu∣ance of it. Not indeed as a Cause, but as a Condi∣tion:* 1.14 Thus Bishop Davenant, Bona opera sunt neces∣saria ad Justificationis statum retinendum & conser∣vandum; non ut causae, quae per se efficiant aut mere∣antur hanc conservationem; sed ut media seu conditio∣nes, fine quibus Deus non vult Justificationis Gratiam in hominibus conservare. If a Believer, who is in∣stantly justified upon believing, would continue ju∣stified, he must sincerely obey God. Though his Obe∣dience in measure and degree reach not fully to the Precept of the Gospel; yet in truth and substance it comes up to the Condition of it; else he cannot con∣tinue justified; this to me is very evident; we are at first justified by a living Faith, such as virtually is O∣bedience; and cannot continue justified by a dead one, such as operates not at all. We are at first justified by a Faith which accepts Christ as a Saviour and Lord; and cannot continue justified by such a Faith as would divide Christ, taking his Salvation from guilt, and

by disobedience casting off his Lordship; could we suppose that which never comes to pass, that a Believer should not sincerely obey: How should he continue justified? if he continue justified, he must, as all justified persons have, needs have a right to life eternal; and if he have such a right, how can he be judged according to his works? no good works being found in him after his believing, how can he be adjudged to life? or how to death, if he continue justified? These things evince, that obedience is a condition necessary as to our conti∣nuance in a state of Justification: Nevertheless it is not necessary, that obedience should be perfect as to the Evangelical precept; but that it should be such, that the truth of Grace, which the Evangelical con∣dition calls for, may not fail for want of it: Bles∣sed are they that do his Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life; and may enter in through the gates into the City, Rev. 22.14. The first fundamental right to Heaven they have by the Faith of Christ only; but sincere obedience is necessa∣ry that that right may be continued to them: In this sence we may fairly construe that conclusion of St. James, Te see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by Faith only. Jam. 2.24. Faith brings a man into a justified estate: But may he rest here? No; his good works must be a proof of his Faith, and give a kind of experiment of the life of it: Nay, they are the Evangelical condition, up∣on which his blessed estate of justification is conti∣nued to him; in foro legis, Christ and his Righte∣ousness is all; neither our Faith nor our Works can supply the room of his Satisfaction to justifie us a∣gainst the Law: But in foro gratiae, our obedience

answers to the Evangelical condition, and is a means to continue our justified estate: It's true, St. Paul asserts that we are justified by Faith, not by Works, Rom. 4. Which seems directly contrary to that of St. James, that a man is justified by Works, not by Faith only; but the difference is reconciled very fairly; if we do but consider what the Works are in St. Paul, and what they are in St. James: In St. Paul the Works are perfect Works, such as corre∣spond to the Law, such as make the reward to be of Debt, vers. 4. Hence Calvin saith, operantem vocat, qui suis meritis aliquid promeretur, non ope∣rantem, cui nihil debetur operum merito: In St. James the Works are sincere only, such as answer not to the Law, but to the Evangelical condition; such as merit not, but are rewarded out of meer Grace: Works in St. Paul, are such as stand in competition or coordination with Christ and his Righteousness, which satisfied the Law for us: Works in St. James, are such as stand in due subordination to Christ and his Righteousness, and are required only as fruits of Faith, and conditions upon which we are to continue in a justified estate. Works in St. Paul, are such as no man can do; Nay, as no man must so much as imagine that he can do, unless he will cast away Christ and Grace. Works in St. James are such as must be done, or else we prove our selves hypocrites, and our Faith dead and vain; in both Apostles Abraham is brought in as an instance. In St. Paul the question was, whether Abraham was a Sinner? and here the Righteousness of Christ did justify him. In St. James the question was, whether Abraham was a true Believer? and here his obedi∣ence did prove him to be so, and did answer to the

Evangelical condition: these differences considered, it is easie to understand how we cannot be justified by good works in St. Pauls sence; and yet how ac∣cording to St. James good works are necessary to prove our Faith a living one; and to answer the condition of the Gospel, that the state of Justifi∣cation, into which we entred by Faith, may be continued.

To shut up this Discourse touching Justification, we must here stand and adore the infinite Wisdom and mercy of God in this great Work; what poor faln Creatures were we? into what an horrible gulf of sin and misery were we sunk? whither could we turn? or how could we think ever to stand before the holy God? storms of wrath hung over our heads, and might justly have fallen upon us; but how should we be justified, or ever escape? Might the pure perfect Law be abrogated, that we might be acquitted? No, it could not be; it was immortalized by its own intrinsecal rectitude and equity: might God wave his holiness and justice, that his mercy might be manifested upon us? would the great Re∣ctor pardon the Sin of a world without any recom∣pence or Satisfaction? No, his Law is sacred and honorable? Sin is no light or indifferent thing in his eyes: Where then shall a satisfaction be found; no Creature could possibly undertake it; no Man, no Angel could or durst start such a thought, as that one of the Sacred Trinity should do it: See then and admire this incomparable work; the Son of God, very God, leaves his Fathers bosom, as∣sumes our frail flesh; in it fulfills all righteousness; and at last is made Sin and a Curse for us, that we might be justified and pardoned: No sooner are we

by Faith in Union with him, but his righteousness is upon us, his blood washes away all our guilt; through him we (but vile worms in our selves) become no less than Sons of God, and Heirs of Hea∣ven: What are we, that such things as these should be made known to us? that Heaven should open and let down such mysteries before our eyes? What manner of persons ought we to be, who live in the shining days of the Gospel; who have so much of the Divine glory breaking out upon us? let us a little sit down and consider how infinite is the malignity of Sin, how deep the stain of it; when God, who cannot nugas agere, made such ado about the expi∣ation of it; when nothing less than the Blood of his own Son could wash it out? Now to have slight thoughts of it, is to Blaspheme the great Atone∣ment; now to indulge it, is to rake in the wounds of Christ, and Crucify him afresh to our selves: How precious should Christ be to us? how altoge∣ther lovely? what a Person is the Eternal Word? what an Union is Immanuel, God and Man in one? what a Laver is his Blood? what a sweet-smelling Sacrifice is his Death? who can tell over the un∣searchable riches of his merit, or set a rate high e∣nough upon that righteousness of his, which re∣freshes the heart of God and Man? what a Sponsor was he, who satisfied infinite Justice for the Sin of a World? and what an excellent head, who makes his Righteousness reach down to every Believer in the World? who would not now say, that he is totus desideria, altogether loves and desires? what little things are Worlds and Creatures? what Dross and Dung in comparison? what a wretched thing is a dead and frozen heart, which will not warm

and take fire at so ravishing an Object? Who would now live in the old Adam, the head of Sin and Death, any longer? or content himself in any state short of an Union with Christ, in whom Righteous∣ness and Life are to be had? O how should we act our Faith upon him, and give him the glory of his Righteousness and Satisfaction by believing? How should we venture our Souls, what ever our Debts are, upon the great Surety? Who paid the utmost Farthing, and had a total discharge in his Resurre∣ction: How we should hide our selves in the Clefts of the Rock, in the precious wounds of Christ as in a City of refuge; where the avenging Law, satis∣fied therein, can never pursue and overtake us? How willing should we now be, to have Christ reign over us? What! hath he come from Heaven, and in our flesh fulfilled all Righteousness; and by his obe∣dience unto Death, even the death of the Cross, sa∣tisfied for our sins, and turned away the dreadful wrath due to the same, and shall he not Reign over us? Hath he bore the heavy end of the Law; the sinless obedience which we could not perform, and the curse; which, if we had been under, would have sunk us down into Hell for ever, and shall he not Reign over us? when by a condescending Law of Grace suited to our frailty, he calls for nothing from us but sincerity: Oh! prodigious ingratitude! who would be guilty of it, or can be so, that is a Belie∣ver indeed? Let us therefore by Faith joyn our selves to Christ, that we may be justified by his Righteous∣ness; and as a real proof of it, let us resign up our selves in sincere obedience to him; that having our fruit unto holiness, we may have the end everlasting Life.

Notes

• * 1.1

  De Just. hab. fol. 364, 373.
• * 1.2

  De Concept. Virg. cap. 4.
• * 1.3

  Com. 1 Cor. 3.11.
• * 1.4

  Dav. de Just. hab. 369.
• * 1.5

  De Just. hab. 370.
• * 1.6

  De Eccles. fol. 224.
• * 1.7

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Evange∣lizandi verbum peculiariter conservatum est Doctrinae de Gratuita per Christum reconciliatione, Bez. in loc.
• * 1.8

  Sir Charles Wols. Justif. Evang. 42.
• * 1.9

  Eth. l. 5. cap. 7.
• * 1.10

  Deserv. l. 3. cap. 9.
• * 1.11

  Contr. Meisn. 208.
• * 1.12

  De Ver. Rel. l. 5. c. 22.
• * 1.13

  Cont. Meis. Fol. 138.
• * 1.14

  De Just. Actual. fol. 404.