To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
1. I hold fast the literal sense of Scripture, not as opposed to figurative (as the Papists in that point do;) but as it signifieth the plain meaning of the words, opposed to far-fetch'd forced In∣terpretation. For the figurative is oft the plain express sense, which is to be received according to the common use of those words, Again, if the Papists had divers express Texts of Scripture for
their opinion, and we had none against them, I would be of their mind. It is a desperate thing to forsake the plain sense of God's Word, because Pa∣pists adhere to the literal sense of one Text, against the plain more obvious figurative sense, when also other Scriptures contradict them. If express Scrip∣ture be no proof, when-ever men can put a forced sense on it, or cannot reconcile it with other, what is a proof?
2. I agree to your Rule of Interpretation. But as to the Application, 1. You confess we are said to be justified by Faith; and I confess we are justified by Christ. But doth it follow, that therefore we are not justified by Faith, because we are justified by Christ? we are not fed by our hands or teeth, because we are fed by our meat? 2. But the Que∣stion was about [imputing for Righteousness.] The Scripture saith, [Faith is imputed for Righteousness,] but it no-where saith, Christ or his Righteousness is imputed to us for Righteousness. Now the Question is, Whether by [Faith,] the Scripture mean (not Faith, but) [Christ, or his Righteousness] and that only? He that will affirm this, must prove it. And do you indeed think, that when Scripture saith, [Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness,] James 2. 23. Rom. 4. 22, 23, 24. that by [it] is meant [Christ,] or [Christ's Righte∣ousness?] Mr. Wotton, Mr. Gataker, and Jo. Goodwin, have said enough of this. Do you by [Faith] mean [Christ,] when you say, We are justified by Faith? Do not you confess that we are truly justi∣fied by Faith itself, as the Condition, as well as by Christ as the meritorious Cause? Why then do you oppose the same in me? It may you will say, Be∣cause
I say, Faith justifieth as our Righteousness. I answer, 1. That is not the Question now under hand; but, Whether it be Christ only, and not Faith. 2. In regard of that Justification which I believe you mean, viz. from the Accusation of the Law of Works as such: I say, Faith is but a Condition, and no otherwise justifieth. But because it is made that Condition by a New-Law, per legem remediantem, and we must be judged by that Law; therefore when the case is, Whether we have performed the Conditions of that New-Law or not? then Faith is materially that Righteousness by which we must be justified, against all Accusations of non-performance.
3. I have still acknowledged the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness sanosensu; (that is, 1. Per Do∣nationem ejus fructus: And, 2. Per Adjudicationem justitiae, nobis inde promeritae;) but yet I see no such evidence in your Consequence, that should force me to leave the plain sense of any Text. The An∣tecedent I embrace, [All that believe in Christ are justified;] But I see not how it follows, [therefore they are justified only by Christ's Righteousness im∣puted, and not by Faith imputed;] (for that's it you must say, or you say nothing to the point.) Indeed you must interpret Imputation very fairly, before you can hence prove Imputation it self, much less the sole Imputation.