FRom the ninth verse of this Chapter to the eigh­teenth, the Apostle com­mendeth his faithfulnesse and sinceritie in the execution of his function Apostolicall. From the eighteenth verse vnto the end, hee [Page] commendeth the doctrine of the Gospell, and that by a double argu­ment: the former whereof is taken from the Authour or efficient cause, who is, GOD himselfe: the latter from the effect, to wit, reconcilia­tion betweene God and man; and therefore it is called the Ministerie of reconciliation. Further this ef­fect is enlarged by sundry argu­ments: first, from the Authour, who is also God himselfe: secondly, from the subiect, viz. the World, by a Metonimie of the subiect, men li­uing in the world; and by a Synec­doche of the whole for the part, the Elect in the world: thirdly, from the forme, viz. the not imputing of sinne: fourthly, from the adiuuant causes, that is, the Ministers of the word, to whom the dispensation of this heauenly ambassage is commit­ted, verse 19. and 20. fiftly, from [Page] the meritorious & impulsiue cause, which is the worke of Christs Me­diatorshippe, in vndertaking the dis­charge of mans sinne before God. verse 21.

Wherein three things more par­ticularly are to be considered. First, our Sauiour Christ, the Redeemer and reconciler of the world, is de­scribed by his adioynt or propertie, which is puritie of nature, and im­munitie from sinne, in these words, (Which knew no sinne.) Secondly, his worke is propounded, whereby hee merited and procured at the hands of his Father, attonement and re­conciliation between God and man, in these words, ( became sinne for vs. Thirdly, this work is amplified from the vse and end of it, which is the iustification of a sinner before God, in the last words, (that we might be made the righteousnesse of GOD in [Page] him.) Thus much shall suffice to haue spoken of the coherence, order, and resolution of these wordes.

Now to descend to a more par­ticular examination of them, let vs first of all search the true and pro­per meaning of the wordes, and then proceede to the vse of doctrine and edification which they shall na­turally afford.

First, therefore whereas the Apo­stle saith, he made him, the meaning is, God the Father in his eternall and vnchangeable counsell, de­creed and appointed him which knew no sinne to become sinne for vs, and answerably, in fulnesse of time, sent his Sonne to take vpon him flesh, that is, mans nature, that in the same he might worke and suf­fer whatsoeuer was to be done and suffered for the accomplishment of mans redemption. This appeareth to [Page] be so, both because the outward and external works of God stretch them­selues not onely to the diuels them­selues, but to the executions there­of, as also because this worke of Re­demption and Reconciliation be­tweene God and man, as it was be­gun in the decree of God, so it was continued in the incarnation of Christ, and then finished and ac­complished when all our sinne and guilt was laid vpon him, and he paid the ransome for them all.

And least this should seeme strange and hard to any, that Christ being very God should be any way subiect or subordinate vnto the de­cree of God, the Scripture is plaine and pregnant in this point: 1 Pet. 1.20. He was fore-appointed, or fore-or­dained from the beginning of the world, viz. to this worke of media­tion. And our Sauiour Christ him­selfe [Page] speaketh plainely, Iohn 6.27. Him hath the Father sealed, that is, signed and singled, by setting as it were, a stamp and marke vpon him, thereby separating him vnto this worke.

This we shall the better conceiue if wee doe but remember this di­stinction: Christ is to be conside­red of vs two wayes: first, absolute­ly as he is God, in which respect be­ing equall with the Father and the holy Ghost, he decreeth & determi­neth together with them all things that are or come to passe in heauen or in earth: secondly, with limitati­on or addition, viz. as hee is God incarnate, God manifested in the flesh, the mediator and reconciler of the world; in which respect hee may be truly said to be vnder the decree of God, though not in respect of his Nature, yet in respect of his Office.

Which knew no sin.] The meaning is not that our Sauiour Christ was ignorant of the nature, qualitie and force of sinne, all our sinnes being laid vpon him, but he knew no sin, to wit, experimentally, eyther inhe­rent in his person or practised in his life; in a word, he was no sinner at al, eyther by the guilt of Adams first transgression, or by the corruption of nature proceeding thence, or by any actual offence committed in all his life. The Scripture is cleere and euident in this point: And first for original sin, that is the guilt and cor­ruption of nature, Lu. 1.35. The An­gell Gabriel in his salutation to the Virgine Marie, saith, that that which shall be borne of her, shall be holy, that is, pure and free from all staine and contagion of originall sinne: Hebre. 4.15. Hee was tempted in all things like vnto vs, yet without sinne. [Page] And though this were a sufficient reason to exempt our Sauiour Christ from all actuall sinne, yet the Scrip­ture is not wanting in this point also, Ioh. 8.46. he cleareth himselfe from all actuall transgression, when hee saith, Which of you can conuince or rebuke me of sinne? And for them both, 1 Pet. 3.18. Christ suffered, the iust for the vniust, iust in nature, iust in actions. Heb. 7.26 Such an high Priest it became vs to haue, as is holy, vndefiled, innocent, and separate from sinners. And the reason is ren­dred in the wordes following, be­cause hee must not be like to the high Priests of the Law, who being sinners themselues, first offered sa­crifice for themselues, and then for the people; but hee must be an ab­solute and perfect high Priest, that he may be in all points an absolute and a perfect Sauiour.

The ground of all this is, the ex­traordinarie and miraculous sancti­fication of our Sauiour Christ in the womb of the Virgin, wherof there be two parts: the first is the stay & stop­page of the guilt of Adams first trans­gression, with the corruption of na­ture proceeding thence, which was done on this manner: God in the beginning tooke this order touching man, that whatsoeuer good he had, he should haue it for himself and his posteritie, and whatsoeuer euill or hurt he brought vpon himselfe, that hee should deriue it to euery one of his posterity descending from him, insomuch as euery father is in stead of Adam, to conuey vnto his childe not onely nature and sub­stance, but the guilt also and corrup­tion of nature: now that this euill might be preuented in Christ, God in great wisdome appointed that he [Page] should be immediately conceiued by the holy Ghost in the wombe of the Virgin, without any manner ge­neration by man, insomuch as hee tooke substance from Marie without the guilt and corruption of nature.

Obiect. If it shall be obiected (as the spirit of errour hath found one only cauill against this cleere truth) that all that are in Adam haue sin­ned in him but our Sauiour Christ was in Adam, ergo.

An. The proposition is not true, vnlesse it be thus expounded: All that are in Adam haue sinned in him, sobeit they descend from him by ordinary generation. Rom. 5.12. the holy Ghost saith, by one man sinne entered into the world, he doth not say from one man, signifying that Adam conueyeth the corruption of nature to no more then he doth be­get: for the Assumption, it must be [Page] distinguished; our Sauiour Christ was in Adam not simply as other men are, but in part onely, that is, in regard of substance which hee tooke from Adam, but not in regard of the propagation of nature by ordinarie generation. All other men are from Adam, and by Adam; but hee is from him onely, and not by him, as by a begetter and procreant cause.

The second part is the infusion of holinesse into the manhoode of Christ, so farre forth as is meet for the person and office of a Mediator.

Became sinne for vs.] These words at the first sight may seeme to im­ply a contradiction, but being right­ly expounded, all difficultie will ea­sily be remoued. Some expound (Sinne) a sacrifice for sinne, by a Metonimie of the subiect, Sinne be­ing the obiect of sacrifice, specially of the propitiatory sacrifice, which [Page] was conuersant about the expiation of sinne: this exposition is Ortho­doxe, agreeable to the Analogie of Faith, the tenure of Scripture, and the vse of the word, which often in the Scripture admitteth this trope, as might be shewed in many places of the old Testament if neede were. Neuerthelesse it seemeth not to be so fit and sutable vnto this place, & that for two reasons principally: first, because of the Antithesis here vsed by the Apostle, wherein if by one member, viz. Sinne, wee vnder­stand a sacrifice for sinne and no more, so as our guilt and punish­ment shall be translated vnto Christ alone, and not the fault (as Bellar­mine and the Rhemists would haue it) then necessarily by righteousnesse in the second member wee must vn­derstand the reward and fruit of righteousnesse, which cannot stand; [Page] because the very righteousnesse it selfe is imputed to iustification, as afterward we shall shew. Secondly, it is vnequall and vniust; yea, altoge­ther impossible, to impose our guilt vpon Christ and not our sinne, be­cause sinne and guilt goe insepera­bly together, and where there is no sinne, there can be no guilt, there­fore that our guilt might be laid vp­on Christ, necessarily our sinne must after a sort be made his, and annex­ed vnto him, that is, by imputation. Wherefore the more conuenient exposition, and (as I take it) the bet­ter befitting this place, is, if by sinne we vnderstand a grieuous and notorious sinner, the abstract em­phatically noting the haynousnesse of the offence. And indeede the of­fence must needes be great, not which he had committed, but which was imputed vnto him, all the sinnes [Page] of the Elect, their periuries, blasphe­mies, adulteries, murthers, oppres­sions and Heresies being laid vpon him, so that he might iustly be ter­med, and yet without disgrace vnto his person, Luther. in Gal. 3.13. & Caluin. idem. blasphemus, periurus, hae­reticorum haereticissimus, (as Luther speaketh.)

Now if any man shall reply and say these are contrary one to ano­ther, for Christ to be a sinner, and to be no sinner, the answere is easie: there is no contradiction, vnlesse the same respect be obserued in both, hee is verily a sinner, and verily no sinner: in a diuers and sundry consi­deration, hee is verily no sinner pro­perly, personally, and by act of inhe­rencie; he is a sinner truely, yet rela­tiuely and by act of imputation.

For vs.] That is, so many of vs as are elected, and doe beleeue: for we may not thinke that our Sauiour [Page] Christ vndertooke the discharge of all mens sinnes before God, to an­swere and satisfie the iustice of God for them all; for then why are not all men saued? Col. 1.14. In whom we haue redemption by his bloud, that is, the remission of sinnes. Out of which place I reason thus: All that are effectually redeemed by Christ on Gods part, they haue the pardon of their sins, but all and euery par­ticular singular man haue not the pardon of their sinne, ergo, all and euery particular man are not effe­ctually redeemed by Christ on Gods part. The proposition is ma­nifest out of the wordes of the text, where redemption and remission of sinnes, are inseperably yoaked and coupled together, and reason doth enforce the same, that where the iu­stice of God is fully satisfied, no­thing can be further obiected vnto, [Page] or required of the sinner: & on satis­faction necessarily followeth and dependeth the abolishment of all sinne and guilt: for the Assumption, that is likewise cleere. For if all men had the pardon of their sins, then some who are effectually called, iustified, sanctified and vnited vnto Christ, may totally fall away from grace, and finally perish, which is a hellish and vncomfortably doctrine; the reprobates may be members of the Catholike Church, which is a Po­pish doctrine: then the gifts and cal­ling of God should be such, whereof hee did repent him, if the pardon of sinne once giuen could be frustrate and made void. Wherefore those men that hold and teach that our Sauiour Christ tooke vpon him the discharge of all mens sinnes, to ap­pease and pacifie the wrath of God for them all, as well of Caine as of [Page] Abel, of Esau as of Iacob, of Pharaoh as of Moses, of Iudas as of Peter, of reprobate as of elect, they erre and are greatly deceiued, as might be shewed at large, if this Text did giue me so fit occasion.

That we.] That is, so many of vs as doe beleeue. Here comes three things to be expounded: first, what this righteousnesse here mentioned is: secondly, why it is called the righteousnesse of God: thirdly, how we become it, and it ours. This righ­teousnesse that wee may the better conceiue, wee must remember this distinction. There is in Christ a two­fold righteousnesse, according to the diuersitie of his nature; the one is vncreated and infinite, which is the righteousnesse of the Deitie, called by Diuines, his essentiall righteous­nesse: the other is created and finite, which is the righteousnesse of the [Page] humanitie. The former is not here intended or spoken of by the Apo­stle, as may appeare by two reasons: first, this righteousnesse is infinite, and therefore incommunicable, and if it could be communicated, yet the finite creature were not ca­pable of it, considering that that which is infinite, can neither be part nor accident of that which is finite: secondly, if wee could be capable of it, wee should be Deified; and then the Apostle might more sit­ly haue said, that wee might be made righteous Gods in him, then the righteousnesse of God in him.

Wherefore the dotage of Osian­der, concerning the iustification of a sinner by his essentiall righteous­nesse, is to be abhorred and renoun­ced as blasphemous heresie, absurd and ridiculous euen to common sense. As for the place, 2 Pet. 1.4. [Page] where it is said that the faithfull are made partakers of the diuine nature, it maketh nothing for the patrona­ging of this errour, for by Nature is not meant substance, but diuine qua­lities of wisdome, holines, & righte­ousnes, liuelily representing the na­ture of God, who is wisdome, holines and righteousnesse it selfe. The latter is the righteousnes of the humanity, which is here: which is two-fold, originall, which is the puritie and integritie of his nature, viz. the con­formitie of the whole man vnto the will of God: actuall, which is eyther actiue, which he achiued in fulfilling the Law; or passiue in his sufferings. Now this whole righteousnesse is imputed vnto vs to iustification, as after wee shall declare.

In the second place, this righte­ousnesse is called the righteousnesse of God, and that for three causes: [Page] first, because God is the sole Author and giuer of it, Nature doth not af­ford, neither good education, al that free-will & the good vse of the gifts of Nature doth or can afford is no more but an outward ciuil righteous­nes before men, which cannot iusti­fie a sinner before God: secondly, God alone accepteth it for & in the behalfe of the sinner, therby giuing him absolution from guilt, and title and interest vnto life: thirdly, in re­spect of the subiect, because it is in that person which is not onely man but also God, in whom it is reserued as in a store-house for the vse of the Church.

Thirdly, this righteousnesse be­comes ours after this manner; Sinne is that which makes a man vnrigh­teous and the childe of wrath and vengeance: now in sinne there are three things hurtfull vnto man: the [Page] first is, condemnation or guilt, which is an obligation to punishment: the second is actuall disobedience vnto the morall Law: the third is, origi­nall corruption, the fountaine of all sinne: these are three deadly wounds and three running sores in the harts and consciences of all sinners.

Contrariwise Christ Iesus is per­fectly righteous, and in him are three inestimable benefits, answera­ble to the three former euils: first, the sufferings of Christ vpon the Crosse, sufficient for all mens sins: secondly, the obedience of Christ in fulfilling the Law: thirdly, the perfect holinesse of the humane na­ture of Christ, and these are three soueraigne medicines to heale all wounded consciences: and as three running streames of liuing waters to bathe and to supple the bruised and contrite heart. Now commeth [Page] Faith, and first layeth hold on the sufferings or passiue obedience of Christ, which being imputed and appived to the sinner, hee is deliue­red from guilt and condemnation, and so the first deadly wound is cu­red. Againe, Faith layeth hold vpon his actiue obedience in fulfilling the Law, which being imputed and ap­plyed, the person of the sinner is accepted as perfectly iust before God, and so the second deadly wound is cured Thirdly, Faith ap­plyeth the holinesse of his humane nature, called his habituall or origi­nall righteousnesse, whereby hee is accepted of God as perfectly holy, and so the third deadly wound is cu­red. And thus we see how this righ­teousnesse is become ours, and wee it. And thus much shall suffice to haue spoken touching the meaning of the wordes.

Now followeth the vse of doctrine. And to omit many other doctrines which might be gathered out of this place, I will content my selfe with this one which the wordes doe naturally afford, being almost ex­pressed in the Text, to wit, hence we are taught what is the formall cause of the iustification of a sinner before God, viz. a reciprocall translation of our sinne vnto Christ, and his righteousnesse vnto vs, the which comprehendeth the whole forme of Iustification: wherein there are two things: first, a not imputing of sin: secondly, an imputing of righteous­nesse; for that our sinnes may not be imputed vnto vs, necessarily they must be imputed vnto Christ; and that we of sinners may become iust, his righteousnesse must be imputed vnto vs. In a word then, the forme of Iustification is the imputation of the [Page] perfect obedience of Christ vnto the beleeuer for the remission of sinnes, and for righteousnesse. This point because it is a fundamentall principle, and a maine ground and piller of our religion, and not a little controuerted betweene the church of Rome and vs, I will stand the lon­ger in the handling of it, both that we may be confirmed in the truth of so necessary doctrine, as also ar­med with the armour of proofe a­gainst all the assaults of the aduersa­ries wherewith they shall impugne it.

And that wee may proceede in some order, wee will consider these three things: first, what imputation is: secondly, that it is the formall cause of the Iustification of a sinner before God: thirdly, we will touch some of the principall obiections which are alledged to the contrary [Page] by that apostaticall and hereticall Church of Rome. And to beginne with the name: Imputation, is a Me­taphor, borrowed not from num­bers & Arithmetique (as some haue thought) but from a kinde of con­tract, called acceptilation; wherein the creditor is content to accept the payment of the suretie in the be­halfe of the debter, euen as if hee had discharged it in his owne per­son. Touching the vse and accep­tion of the word, it is two-fold in Scriptures: the first is, when an in­herent qualitie or action procee­ding thence, is imputed vnto re­ward or punishment: for reward, mention is made of it, Rom. 4.4. to him that worketh, the wages are im­puted: an example of it wee haue in Phinchas, Psal. 106.31. whose worke the Lord imputed vnto him for righ­teousnesse, that is, hee approued it, [Page] accepted it, and rewarded it for the faith of the worker. For punishment wee haue an instance, 2 Sam. 19.19. where the varlet Shimei doth be­seech Dauid on this manner: Let not my Lord impute wickednesse vnto me, that is, let him not inflict the pu­nishment of my sinne vpon mee. 2. Tim. 4.26. At my first answering no man assisted mee, but all forsooke me, I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. The second is, when something out of a mans selfe is by imputation made his, as though it were inherent in him, or wrought by him: thus it is vsed, Rom. 2.26. Thy vncircumcision is made Circumci­sion if thou beest an obseruer of the Law. So to Philemon, verse 18. If Onesimus hath done thee any hurt, impute it to me, or set it on my score, I will repay: and in this latter sense we are to speake of it in this place.

Imputation therefore may be thus described; It is an action of God ac­cepting the all-sufficient and per­fect Obedience of Christ, in the be­halfe of the beleeuing sinner, vnto satisfaction and iustification. Now then to come to the first point, that Imputation thus described, is the forme of the iustification of a sinner before God, though many argu­ments might be vsed, yet I will con­tent my selfe with these two, both which are contained in this Text: the former whereof may be framed thus; After what manner Christ be­came a sinner, after the same man­ner wee are made iust; but hee be­came a sinner, not by infusion of any corrupt qualities into his holy na­ture (which were blasphemie once to conceiue) but by imputation of our sin onely: therefore we are iust before God, not by infusion of any [Page] habituall grace into our corrupt na­tures, but by imputation of his righ­teousnesse onely. This argument is firme and inuincible, and cannot be deluded, being so surely grounded vpon this Text If it be replyed (as indeede it is) that if this reason of reciprocall imputation be so firme, and of such force, why doe not the like consequents follow of both? to wit, why doth not the imputation of our sinne vnto Christ, as well bring with it inherent corruption in him, as the imputation of his righteous­nesse vnto vs, inherent grace in vs. Ans. The reason is farre vnlike; for first though sin be of a very poyson­full nature, yet there is not the like force and power in sinne to defile and to pollute, as in grace to purge and to sanctifie, Rom. 5.15. The gift is not so as is the offence, noting that there is more vertue and efficacie in [Page] grace to sanctifie and to saue, then in sinne to defile and to destroy. And indeed Grace is like vnto fire, which though it be for quantitie small, yet for efficacie great: Againe, the hu­mane nature of Christ is so repleni­shed with holinesse, that it is not at all capable of sinne; but mans na­ture is not so stained and corrupted with sinne, but that it is capable of grace being at the first created after the Image of God, and afterward againe to be re [...]ed by Christ and therefore considering that Christ is not so capable of sinne as man is of holines, the reason is of no moment. The latter reason may be gathered out of the wordes of the Apostle, where hee saith, That wee might be made the righteousnes of God in him: Whence I reason thus: The righ­teousnesse whereby a sinner is iust before God, is eyther his owne, or [Page] the righteousnesse of another; but it is not his owne, for the Apostle would haue said, wee are made the righteousnesse of God in our selues, and not in him: and thus some of the auncient Fathers expounding this place, say, that it is not in our selues, but in him; not ours, but his: and Chrisostome saith, that therfore it is called the righteousnes of God, because it is without all staine and defect, and therefore cannot possi­bly be inherent in vs, wherefore we may safely conclude, that this righ­teousnesse is not resident in vs, but receiued from another, and after a sort made ours, to wit, by imputa­tion.

Obiect. But it is excepted, that it is absurd in reason, that a man shold be iust by the righteousnesse of an­other, euen as if a man should be wise by the wisedome of another, or [Page] learned by the learning of another, or liue by the life of another.

Ans. This reason had some co­lour, if the righteousnesse of Christ were personall, and so limited and tied vnto him, that it could not from him be deriued vnto others; but it is so in him that it may be ours, and conueyed vnto vs by imputation: the reason is, because Christ is a publike person, representing all the Elect; yea, the roote and stocke of the Elect, euen as Adam was the roote and stocke of all mankinde. Looke as therefore the first trans­gression of Adam was not his alone, but euery particular mans descen­ding from him by generation: euen so, the righteousnesse of Christ is not his alone, but pertaines to all the Elect, being by faith vnited vn­to him, and made bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh.

And as the iuyce and sap which is in the roote of the tree, is made the sap of the branches by partici­pation: euen so the righteousnesse of Christ being inherent in him as in the head, is made the righteous­nesse of the members by imputati­on. And as the Lands and goods of one man are made ouer vnto ano­ther by deed of gift, sale, exchange, or some like conueyance of Law, both for title and vse: euen so, the righteousnesse of Christ, by vertue of the free gift of God, according to the tenure of the Couenant of Grace, is truely and really conuey­ed vnto vs and made ours. These two reasons are sufficient grounds, whatsoeuer may be excepted to the contrary, whereupon this conclu­sion may be raised; that the sole imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ, is the forme of the iustifica­tion [Page] of a sinner before GOD.

Now followeth the third point, viz. the answering of those obiecti­ons which are alledged to the con­trary.

Ob. First of all, it is replyed that Imputation, is a conceit inuented and deuised by man, not aboue fifty or sixty yeeres old, not to be found in Scriptures, or in the ancient and Or­thodoxe Writers of the Church.

Ans. To this many things may be answered; first, what greater im­pudencie and bold-hardinesse can there be, then to contradict the ma­nifest and expresse testimonie of Scripture? for this very Imputation is beat vpon and repeated no sel­domer then eleuen times in the fourth Chapter to the Romanes, and it is as ancient as Abraham, of whom it is said, Gen. 15.6. He beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for [Page] righteousnesse: not as the Papists falsely interprete it; that Abrahams faith was so excellent, that it deser­ued the infusion of habituall grace, but Abraham by faith casting him­selfe and relying vpon the promise of grace concerning righteousnesse, remission of sins, and life by Christ, was iustified, or his Faith was impu­ted vnto him for righteousnesse, Me­tonimia adiuncti; that is, what his faith apprehended became his righ­teousnesse by imputation. Againe, it is to be found in the best and soun­dest auncient Writers, Hierome, An­selme, and Chrisostome vpon this place, who though they doe not ex­presse the word Imputation, yet vse it in effect; saying, that this righte­ousnesse is not in vs, but in him, as our sinne is not his but ours, not in him but in vs, and Chrisostome saith, it must be without all staine & want. [Page] So Aug. in tract. 3. in Iohn. & de Sp. & litera, ca. 9. & 26. & Bernard. ser. 62. in Cant. & ser. ad milites tem­pli, ca. 11. mors in Christo morte fu­gatur, & Christi iustitia nohis impu­tatur. Many more testimonies might be alledged to this purpose, but qui plura videre cupit, legat Fulconem in responsione ad annotationes Rhemen­sium super hunc locum. Let then the Rhemists mock so long as they will, and call this a new no-iustice, it is sufficient for vs, that it is grounded on Scriptures, and wanteth not the testimonie of the Church.

To proceede further, Imputation is not a meere deuice, but a very thing; for it is a relation, that is, an ordination, or application of that which the Logitians call the funda­ment vnto his terme, or of the rela­tiue vnto his correlatiue, for exam­ple: In Imputation the fundament is [Page] the righteousnesse of Christ; the terme is the person of the beleeuer; and the relation is the mercy of God, or the action of God merciful­ly accepting the perfect righteous­nesse of Christ in the behalfe of the beleeuer. Now this is not a fiction: and if a relation be nothing, how shall wee distinguish the persons in Trinitie, who though they subsist all in one infinite, & vndiuided essence, yet are three really distinguished by an incōmunicable propertie, which is nothing else but a relation? Again, if a relation be nothing, what shall be the internall forme of a Sacra­ment? is it any other but a relation or proportion betweene the signe and the thing signified? And if a re­lation be nothing, many a man is vniustly adiudged and condemned to dye, both in the Courts of men, and in the court of Conscience, be­fore [Page] God: for why doe men daily dye the death of the body, and the death of the soule, is it not because they are guiltie? And if sin had not guiltinesse annexed vnto it as an in­separable propertie thereof, men might at their pleasures breake and transgresse both the Lawes of God and of men, and neuer be obnoxi­ous to punishment: for it is not sin, but guilt that bindes ouer vnto pu­nishment: now what else is this guilt but a relation? and if the imputation of Adams sin vnto vs be something, why should not the imputation of Christs righteousnesse be also some­thing, and not a meere figment as they would make it? Nay, Relations (as the Schoole-men speak, though they be minimae entitatis, yet are they maximae efficaciae.

To conclude this point, behold what iniurie this Antichristian Sy­nagogue [Page] doth offer vnto our Saui­our Christ: the Pope forsooth, by vertue of the keyes, hath power to dispense and apply the merits of one man to another, insomuch as all his Indulgences are imputatiue, but Christ hath not this power. What is this else, but to deny vnto the Head, that which they allow vnto the members? and to giue to their mi­nisteriall head, that which they de­nie vnto the imperiall, as they foo­lishly distinguish? But not content with this, they pleade further for themselues, saying, that there is no necessitie of the imputation of righ­teousnesse, because wee are iustified by an inherent righteousnesse, recei­ued from Christ by infusion: this they labour to confirme by testimo­nie of Scripture, principally out of Rom. 5.18. As by the offence of one man many dye; out of which place [Page] they reason thus: As the imputatiue disobedience of Adam did truly print into the nature of man, corruption and sinne, and not putatiuely onely, as they speake: so the imputatiue obedience of Christ, doth print into the nature of man holinesse & grace, and notiby imputation onely. This argument they take to be so firme and so strong that it admitteth no answere, which notwithstanding, be­ing well weighed is of no moment: for if all were graunted, nothing could be proued, vnlesse it could be shewed that this righteousnes prin­ted in our natures, and resident in vs, were that whereby a sinner is iu­stified before God, which cannot be, as is manifest by this reason: That righteousnesse which must absolue and acquite a sinner before God, must be absolute and perfect, and in all points answerable and corre­spondent [Page] vnto the rigour and extre­mitie of the morall Law; but our in­herent righteousnesse is not such, nay, Psal. 143.2 Dan. 9.18. it is imperfect in this life, and therfore Dauid and Daniel durst not oppose it to the seuere examination of gods iudgement seat, but renoun­ced it, and relyed themselues onely vpon the meer mercy of God, & me­rit of Christ, and so haue the Saints of God done from time to time.

Paul, 1 Cor. 4.4. Though he had a great measure of this inherent righteousnesse, yet testifieth plaine­ly, that hee is not thereby iustified; and S. Iohn telleth vs, 1 Ioh. 3.11 that it is min­gled and blemished with sinne in this life; and if any man think other­wise, he is no better then a lyar and an hypocrite. But let all be granted which this place in shew of wordes, and according to their interpretati­on, will or can afford, it serueth as [Page] much to stablish iustification by imputation, as by inherencie; yea, and more rather, by how much the cause is of greater force then the effect: for as the imputatiue sinne of Adam was the cause of inherent corruption in mans nature; euen so the imputatiue righteousnesse of Christ is the cause of inherent grace in the faithfull. And now to take this weapon out of their hands, which they haue drawne (as it were) to cut the throate of Imputation, it may fitly be retorted vpon their owne heads on this manner: As the imputatiue disobedience of Adam was sufficient to make all men guil­tie and culpable of condemnation before God, though it left behinde it no print or impression of corrup­tion in the nature of man: euen so, the imputatiue righteousnesse of Christ is sufficient to discharge and [Page] absolue vs of this guilt, though it should bring with it no inherent righteousnesse in vs.

Ob. Further, they reason for them­selues out of Dan. 9.24. the righte­ousnesse of the Messias is an eter­nall righteousnesse, but this impu­tatiue righteousnesse ceaseth at the end of this life: ergo.

An. Though the act of imputati­on of righteousnesse ceaseth after death, because there is no remission of sins this life ended, yet the righ­teousnesse imputed abideth still, and standeth a man in stead to discharge and set him free from all the sins of his life by-past, which otherwise the Lord might require at his hands. Againe, it remaineth in an insepa­rable fruit and effect of it, which is perfect holinesse, to wit, a confor­mitie of the whole man vnto the will of God.

Thus being destitute of Scrip­tures, they flye vnto reason, plead­ing for themselues in this manner.

Obiect. Christ, the second Adam, did restore no more then the first Adam lost; but the first Adam neuer had, and therefore could neuer lose this imputatiue righteousnesse: ergo.

Ans. The proposition is false; for Christ, as hee was euery way farre more excellent then Adam was, so he is far more liberall in conferring grace, and in bestowing his gifts, then Adam was prodigall in losing them, and in depriuing himselfe and his posteritie of them, and therfore vouchsafed many more and greater gifts vnto vs, then Adam euer lost: for first, Adam neuer had iustifying Faith, neyther indeede was it ne­cessary in that estate: hee beleeued in God, but hee knew not, neyther beleeued in the Messias; but Christ [Page] hath vouchsafed vs this supernatu­rall gift of iustifying Faith. Againe, Adam had not the grace of confir­mation and finall perseuerance, and therfore being tempted, sell though the free motion of his owne will: but wee haue the second grace, that is, of corroboration, whereby wee are preserued in the state of grace, which is the priuiledge of the state of re­demption, before the state of inno­cencie. Adam had power to haue stood, if hee would, but hee had no power to will that hee could, but we by the blessing of God haue in some part, both the posse and the velle, in­somuch as it is not possible for vs, being once in the state of grace, ey­ther totally to fall, or finally to pe­rish. For the Assumption: Adam had the same righteousnes for substance which we haue, but not in one and the same manner: Adam had it resi­dent [Page] in his person by inherencie, but wee haue it out of our selues from another by imputation.

Now being destitute both of Scriptures and reason, they try ano­ther way, if not to stablish their own supposed righteousnes, yet to bring our doctrine of imputation in­to contempt, and therefore they search their wits, labouring by all meanes to fasten some grosse absur­dities vpon it, but all in vaine. First therefore, they reason thus: If the righteousnesse of Christ be the righ­teousnesse of a sinner, then euery sin­ner that beleeueth is as righteous as Christ, and consequently a Sauiour; both which are absurd: the ground of this argument is, because the selfe-same perfect righteousnesse, which is in Christ, both for parts and degrees, is made his by impu­tation, the which is necessary, be­cause [Page] the righteousnesse which iu­stifieth must be absolute, and in all points answerable vnto the morall Law. For the answering of this, first, consider the absurditie of this kinde of reasoning in the like instances: If the light of the Sunne be the light of the Ayre, then the Ayre is as lightsome as the Sunne, and conse­quently the Sunne it selfe, that is, the fountaine of light and heate. If the heate of the fire be the heate of a mans hand, then the hand is as hot as the fire. If the water of the fountaine be the water of the riuer, then the riuer is the fountaine, or as copious and cleere as the fountaine. Who can endure to heare this idle and foolish talking, for it deserueth not the name of reasoning? nay, whose eares doe not glow to heare it? But to satisfie this cauill and so­phistication more fully, both the [Page] consequents of the Proposition are false. For first, though the same righteousnesse which is in Christ be made ours, yet not in the same man­ner: in him it is inherent, as in his proper subiect; in vs it is not resi­dent, but after a sort annexed vnto vs, to wit, by imputation: Againe, though it were in vs as it is in him, yet it should not be equall in both.

Obiect. But it will be said, it is a­like perfect in both, therefore equall in both.

Ans. It followeth not; for the dif­ference of inequalitie ariseth not of the righteousnesse it selfe, which of it selfe, and by it selfe considered, neyther admitteth decrease nor in­crease; but from the diuersitie of the subiect: for being in Christ, it is not the righteousnes of a bare crea­ture, but of him also that is the Creator; yea, of God himselfe, for [Page] whom Christ suffered, God suffered; when Christ obeyed, God obeyed, insomuch as this righteousnesse is of infinite merit, price, value and dignitie, to satisfie for the whole world; yea, of ten thousand worlds, if it were therto appointed by God: but in man it is the righteousnesse of a bare creature, and no more: the diuersitie therefore of the subiect doth adde great excellencie vnto it, though the thing for substance be the same in both.

To explane this by this compari­son: The same righteousnesse which is in Christ, is in the good Angell, and as perfect both for substance and degree, shall wee therefore rea­son, that the good Angell is as righ­teous as Christ? nothing lesse: and why? because the righteousnesse of the one is but the righteousnesse of the creature, the other is besides, the [Page] righteousnesse of the Creator. The other consequent is farre more vn­reasonable, for though the infinite merit of Christ be imputed to the sinner, yet not infinitely, but so farre forth as it serueth to satisfie the iu­stice of God, and to make him righ­teous before God.

To make this plaine by a familiar comparison: The whole light of the Sunne is communicated to one star, yet not wholy, but with a quatenus, so farre forth as it causeth the said Starre to shine.

Obiect. Further, they would in­ferre a second absurditie: If we be righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed, then hee is a sinner by the imputation of our sinne, and consequently the childe of the Di­uell, which is blasphemie once to remember.

Ans. We may safely and without [Page] indignitie vnto the holy person of our Sauiour Christ, & according to the tenure of this Scripture, terme him a sinner, yet not properly, but relatiuely only, as we shewed before: neither doth it hence follow that he is become the childe of the Diuell, for a man may be properly and per­sonally a sinner, and yet not the childe of the Diuell; much more then imputatiuely: but this diabo­licall title, Saint Iohn giueth onely to those that commit sin, that is, wholy addict themselues to the practise of sinne, with full consent of will, and with delight, and make an Art and occupation of sinning, and keepe a course therein: for the children of God, though they be sinfull, yet they are not the Sonnes of the Diuell, but the adopted Sonnes and daugh­ters of God.

Obiect. But it will be said, that [Page] Christ in vs is become a committer of sinne, because our commissions are imputed vnto him; why may not he therefore be termed filius diaboli, at the least by imputation?

Ans. To this I answere: howsoe­uer our sinne is in regard of the guilt and punishment translated vnto Christ, yet no further, and therfore these consequents of filius irae, which agreeth onely to them that are par­takers of Adams sinnes, and filius di­aboli, which agreeth onely to them that personally worke and practise sinne, cannot be extended to him who is onely relatiuely a sinner.

Obiect. If wee by this righteous­nesse imputed, be made filij Dei, then why should not hee by imputation of our sinnes be made filius Diaboli?

Ans. The reason is not alike, he is not at all capable of the one, but we are capable of the other: neither [Page] is it necessary that euery consequent and property of sinne, which it hath and bringeth with it in vs, should be translated vnto Christ: for it can­not be proued by Scripture that he tooke any more vpon him then the guilt, fault, and punishment of our sinnes.

To make this plaine by compari­son: The debt of one man is impu­ted vnto another, viz. the Suretie, and yet not the consequent of the debt, for the debt in the debter hath banqueruptnesse annexed vnto it, which it hath not in the surety, being an able man: so our sinnes in vs haue many titles and consequents annex­ed vnto them, mentioned in the Scripture, which cannot be fastned vpon Christ, and it were great iniu­rie to impute them vnto him, as it is great iniquitie for the debter be­sides his debt to impute also his [Page] banqueruptnes vnto the surety: nay, if the debter shal but call his pledge, or terme him a banquerupt imputa­tiuely, in regard of his proper debt translated vnto the other, hee shall offer him no small iniurie and dis­grace, and testifie his vnthankefull minde: how much lesse may this vile title either imputatiuely or false­ly be ascribed vnto Christ, without great disgrace and dishonour to his person? inasmuch as that onely the Scripture testifieth to be imputed vnto him, which falleth vnder sinne, viz. fault, guilt, punishment, and not all that followeth vpon it in vs.

But how then is that title taken from vs? doe we still after iustifica­tion remaine the sonnes of the Di­uell? nothing lesse: for wee are be­come the adopted Sonnes of God in Christ. Now that which giueth vs the right of adoption doth abo­lish [Page] the former title, which is not the imputation of this diabolicall title from vs vnto Christ, but the impu­tation of Christs righteousnesse vn­to vs, whereby wee are become no sonnes of the Diuell, but Sonnes of God.

And to conclude, this very blas­phemy, which they doe so much feare and abhorre, may (will they, nill they) be fastned vpon their do­ctrine of Iustification: for if wee be iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ infused, then hee is a sinner by our sinne and corruption infused, and so shall become indeede filius diaboli, or else the Apostles Antithe­sis fals to the ground, which to the iudgement of any indifferent man is firme and sure.

Ob. It is further replyed that vp­on this doctrine of Imputation it will follow, that God shal pronounce [Page] a false iudgement, viz. him to be iust, who is indeede vniust, and a sin­ner, euen as if a man should salue vp a wound, and draw ouer a skin ouer that which is festered and corrupted within: or as if one should build a Tombe, paint it, and make it glori­ous without, there being nothing within but rottennesse, stinke, and dead mens bones.

Ans. The consequent also is false, for God doth pronounce no man iust, whom he doth not make iust at the very same instant, euen in him­selfe: for by the selfe-same act wher­by a man is iustified, hee is also san­ctified, and by the same iustice and no other; for that which is imputed to iustifie, is also infused to sanctifie, and is inherent in vs, at the least, in the fruit and efficacie of it. To ex­plane this further; the person who is iustified, ceaseth to be a sinner in [Page] regard of guilt wholy, and in regard of the corruption of nature also in part, which though it be not al­together abolished, yet it receiueth a deadly wound in the very act and instant, and neuer raigneth after; yea, to proceede further, at the very same time, and in the same act, hee is presently sanctified, and therfore worthily esteemed and adiudged of God, holy and iust presently, I say, in regard of all the parts and sub­stance of holinesse, which is after­ward to receiue his accomplish­ment by degrees in this life, and in death, to be wholy consummate and finished.

Ob. Lastly, they vrge and say, that it cannot stand with Gods iustice, to iustifie and absolue a sinner: for Prou. 17.15. To iustifie the wicked, and to condemne the iust, both these are abhominable to the Lord.

Ans. Indeed to iustifie the wicked person, and to acquite him in iudge­ment without all manner of satisfa­ction made eyther by himselfe or some other, were iniustice. But God which iustifieth the vngodly, as the Apostle speaketh, Rom. 4.5. doth ac­quite and absolue them for the all-sufficient satisfaction of Christ, and they though they be wicked and vn­godly before their iustification, yet in it, and by it, they become righteous both before God, and also in them­selues in part. (*⁎*)