Sect. I. THe Doctrine of free Justification is The worth of the doctrine of free justificatiō. worthily, highly esteemed of, by all Orthodox Divines. As by Here­tiques, Praecip [...]è in controversiam vocatur. it is principally called into controversie: so by the other against them hath it beene maintained. When'as they have entred lists with them, they have set the same amongst the chiefest Articles of Christian religion. The truth thereof professed and maintained in the Reformed Churches against Romanists, I finde stiled by one, Doctrinam Christi & A­postolorum de praecipuo salu­tis articulo Dr. Prid. Lect. 5. de justif p. 143. the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles of the chiefe Article of Salvation: who afterwards leaveth this also upon record concerning it. Justificatio principium est & cardo (ut ingenuè cum Pighio agnos­cit Bellarminus de Justif. l. 1. c. 4. a quo pen­dent, vel in quo versantur omnes inter nos & Pontifi­cios controver­siae. ib. p. 148. Justification is a principle and hinge (as Bellar. with Pighius ingenuously confesseth) on which depend, or in which all con­traversies betweene us and the Pontificians are infoulded. Pa­reus calleth it, Praeter caete­ras maximè necessatiam. besides others most necessary; and giveth this reason. Est enim quaestio haec (de formali causa Justificationis) una ex maximis quibus sacra theologia a Philosophia humana, Evangelium a Lege, Ecclesia Christi a Judaeis, Turcis, Paganis; E­vangelicia Papatu separantur. For this question (of the formall cause of justi­fication) is one of the greatest, in which sacred Theologie is sepa­rated from Philosophy that is humane, the Gospell from the Law, the Church of Christ from Jews, Turks, Pagans; Protestants from papists. Castigat. de Justif. p. 364. Potissima fuit & est causa divortii, quod Ecclesiae Evangelicae annis ab hinc 97 a Romano Papatu facere coach su­emnt. ib. p. 364. It was, saith he, & is the chiefe cause of the divorce which the Protestant Churches were inforced to make from the Roman Papacy. Learned Junius calleth it Velut nucleus Evangelii & Consolationis caput. Thes. 11. as it were the kernell [Page 2] of the Gospell, and head of consolation. Gerhard. l. de justif p. 435 in fol. p. 2. Hic locus est tan­quam arx & praecipuum pro pugnacu­lum totius do­ctrinae & reli­gionis, quo vel obscurato, vel adulterato, vel subverso, im­possibile est puritatem do­ctrinae in aliis locis retinere: salvo autem hoc loco, cor­ruunt per se omnes idolo­maniae, super­stitiones & quic quid est corruptelarum in omnib. aliis locis. Ger. ubi supra, ex Clem. & Luthero. Gerhardus, This place is as a Castle and chiefe Fort of the whole doctrine and religion, which obscured, or adulterated, or overthrown, its impossible to re­taine purenesse of doctrine in other heads; this being safe, idola­tries, superstitions, and all corruptions else, fall to the ground by themselves. Hic locus est praecipuus in doctrina Christiana. Chemnit. exam. 231. This head is the chiefe in Christian doctrine, as Chemnit. It especially setteth forth the free grace of God, and declareth his righteousnesse. It is the chiefe of those that glorifie Jesus Christ; It setteth and keepeth the Crowne on his head. Its a foundation of solid peace and comfort to Christians whilst on earth. In sanctifica­tion the streames run very muddy at the best, here they are liquid, alwayes very cleere, from hence peace and comfort flow; inflow into the heart and defuse themselves through their life: the soule is at peace with God and with its selfe, and hence it glorieth in the saddest condition, as appeareth by the word of God, examples in Scripture, and the sweete experience of Gods Saints. If ever the soule did leape, was of good cheare, and comforted, that was the time when as God justified it; when as that was discovered unto the soule, with the bottoms and foundations thereof. Here all doubts are answered and scruples satisfied and removed: for hereby such a man is not onely invested with the great priviledges of a man perfectly righteous, deliverance from death and condemnation, acceptation into favour with God, as Mr. John Goodwin. 1 cap. p. 55. Edit. Walk. to which I may add a Long, &c. But also made white, though before as blacke as a coale; though before as Scarlet, as Crimson: as Scarlet in regard of the bloody Die of sinne, yet then white as wooll, white as snow, whiter then the snow. Christs Cum nigra essem peccatis & per opera affinis essem & conjuncta te­nebris, me pul­chram secit per dilectionem sua pulchtitudine commutata cum mea tur­pitudine In so enim translatis sordibus meorum peccatorum, me sua puritate impertiit, efficiens participem suae pulchritudinis. Hom. 2. in Cant. Greg. Nissen. be­loved is wholly faire, and there is no spot in her; they that are Christs are presented holy, unreproveable, and unblameable in Gods sight, exactly just and perfect; perfected for ever, com­pleate in Christ, and hence sinnes are pardoned. I cannot say, they are In statu quo. in the state they were before; the state of inno­cencie, by pardon (as some) which cannot be in regard of [Page 3] inherent righteousnesse in this life; which if it were in them would be but justification by inherent righteous­nesse, Popery; but by that which is farre exceeding, even the most perfect and exact righteousnesse and obedience of Je­sus Christ. By this is the true beleever Just before God as Christ is, the beleever in him. Aeque justi sumus ( saith that learned Dr. out of the Chaire) quia eadem justitia, licet non aequa­liter, & eodem modo; Ille sub­jective, nos im­putative; ille de proprio, nos de illius largitate. Dr. Prid. ubi supra p. 171. See Master John Goodw. as by Mr. W. & Mr. W. from p. 55. to 62. We are alike just, because with the same righteousnesse, though not equally, and in the same manner: He subjectively, we imputatively; He of his owne, we of his bounty. This judging of God and account, is according unto truth: deliverance from sinne and condem­nation and acceptation to the favour of God follow righ­teously here; God's just in justification: Here feares, questi­ons, doubts, &c. which are and may well be where there is nothing but inherent righteousnesse or faith in a proper sense, which are and arise in the minds of men, still mo­ving men to aske where is the righteousnesse, are calmed and answered rationally. Here (if I be called to an ac­count) I have to answer to scrupulous conscience, to the Devill, to God! which will serve before God, and is good in his righteous sight: a strong ground of comfort both in life and death. All Christians have experience In agone; in agone quanti Papistis? saith Pareus, castig. de Justif p. 363. in a conflict; of how great esteeme to papists themselves in a con­fiict?

In all which names as a Christian, as well as a Minister of Gods word, I (the least of many thousands) may not be blamed if in this cause, for keeping the Crowne on the head of the Lord Jesus Christ I appeare and encounter gaine­saiers.

When as the whole world standeth ingaged in this con­troversie ile not withdraw my selfe. Ile give this golden Apple to none but Christ. If ever there was in me that which is as new Wine, bubling and striving to have its vent; If ever any word of the Lord was in me as fire, it is this, and it must have its went. I have beleeved and spoken comfort to others from hence, and I cannot but speake in this cause, especially being called thereunto.

Sect. 2. I take not upon me the honour to be a defen­der of him who hath ingaged himselfe in this cause, he is [Page 4] an old Souldier, and I think his work will beare him out. But as a wel-wisher ile offer my mite; and doe humbly crave leave of Master John Goodwin, to consider his reply to Master Walker, as I finde cause in his Animadversions, to animadvert, Veniam petimus dabi­musque vicis­sim. We crave leave and will give it in like manner. In this let me be pardoned if I doe not walke in the same steps of Master Goodwin, that I professe the contrary in the beginning, (it is what he desireth in his second booke) that I Animadvert not on some and those the looser and fouler passages of his reply, as he professeth in the Frontispice of his booke, and promiseth to doe to Master W. I conceive that evilly to conduce to the cause, as well as to the Authours honour and worth, and respect in the world, and that it is but an indirect way to steale hearts after the Author of the Reply.

It is no praise in a Reply to meddle but with some pas­sages, a. much lesse with the looser & fouler passages: That is but a kind of cowardize, as the falling on lame, wounded, stragling parts of an Army: to leave the Army we should oppose in full strength. Little honour is gotten by the Captaine that doth and glorieth in this. These might have beene neglected with more honour. The soundest and fairest passages in which strength lieth, should have beene his ambition, not loose and foule ones, much lesse the fouler and looser passages. It is ominous, indeed a stumbling on the threshold.

O that there were not too manifest a truth in that passage b. of your Animadversions, and that so much paines had not beene spent about foule and loose passages, there had not beene so foule and loose a Recipe, the reply had not beene so full of foule and loose passages, much labour might have beene spared by him that replied, and those that reade and answer the same. I know not who can reade with comfort, or content. It suted not with a grave Divine, or so waighty a matter as the chiefe Article of salva­tion.

It was not now a time in that manner to laugh or See the Front of Master G. book. dance, in that manner to speake, to warre with such wea­pons; [Page 5] the Scriptures cited in the front are but abused. It was not a time of love, it relisheth of somewhat else, it will have a time of weeping and mourning before there be solid peace; such veines, how rich soever, yeeld much vanity; such jesting is not comely: the Prophets practise will not patronage such ironies as abound here. Our times have beene times of licence under the name of recre­ation: and mans nature is foully degenerated that can recreate it selfe thus: It is not wisdome to make a pastime of sinne. The labour and strength to which, may well be suspected that is thus repaired. It were evill in transient words, for which yet we must give an account; it is worse in published bookes, which may continue with the world. It is an evill example, some adversaries will laugh, others blaspheme, the Lord give repentance for it to him that did it, and those that take pleasure therein.

You will say, he was provoked: It should not have beene, had it beene so, wise men should have borne with such as they account fooles; and it was neither wisdome nor strength to be overcome to such evill; evill should have been overcome with good; this had beene to be approved of men, and acceptable to God. My profession is not to meddle with impertinencies, or to rake in fouler and loo­ser matters, but in a humble manner to follow the cause, as God shall inable.

Neither will I be a Patron of any evill word in any man, words against the person of a brother, or Christian man, let evill words be applied to evill things, and so farre forth I cannot much blame Master Walkers language. M. W. The censure of others. hath written or spoken little that way which hath not beene written long before.

I could present the Reader with a large catalogue of such speeches.

[Page 6] Sibrandus Lubbertus against Bertius, that Prince of the Arminian band as you phrase him; holding Justification by faith in a proper sense against the figurative sense, which is yours, calleth it Detestabi­lem & abomi­nabilem doctri­nam, Epist. p. 1. Detestable and abominable doctrine. Damnatam Serveti haeresin, p. 5. The damn'd heresie of Servetus. Socini bla­sphemiam, p. 29. 33. 58. Socinus his blasphemy. Damnatos Serveti surores, p. 26. The damned phrensies of Servetus. Tradidit ante vos Serve­tus, fecit idem Socinus, & O­sterodus, ubi etiam Armini­um secum sen­tire testem citat Bertium, p. 6. Ser­vetus before you delivered it, so did Socinus and Osterodus, where he also citeth Bertius a witnesse that Arminius jumpeth with him. Ex Bla­sphemiis Ser­veti & Osterodi, quas omnes Ec­clesiae nostrae detestantur, de­sumptae, ib. Taken out of the blasphemies of Servetus and Osterodus, which all our Churches detest. Abomina­bilem & execabilem Serveti & Socini haeresin quae papisticis erroribus deterior est, p. 116. The abomina­ble and accursed heresie of Servetus and Socinus, which is worse then Popish errours. Dico esse blasphemam & [...]e [...]que quaterque execrabilem haeresin, p. 121. I say it is a blasphemous and thrice and foure times execrable heresie. Haec tua thesis est causa quare statuam vobis, si ramen vobis ipsis constare vultis, necessario eo tan­dem deveniendum esse ut cum Serveto, Socino, Osterode, meritum sive satisfactionem pro nobis factam omnino tollatis, dicatisque neque Christum nobis justitiam peperisse, neque nos ipsius justitia imputata justificari, p. 85. Illi negant Christi mortem esse satisfactionem pro peccaris nostris, ut denique negant illum satisfactionem nobis imputari, & nos illa nobis impurata justificari. Ita tibi faciendum est, p. 87. Quorsum enim justitia Christi si non habet in se vim justificandi, & si nos non justificat? ib. This thy position is the cause why I conclude, if you will be like your selves, you must at length with Servetus, Socinus, and Osterodus, de­stroy wholly the merit or satisfaction of Christ, and that you say that Christ neither attained righteousnesse to us, nor that we are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to us, for to what end is the righteousnesse of Christ if it hath not in it force to justifie? Ponis illa in tuis literis ex quibus impia illa & blasphema Serveti, Socini, & Osterodi bdelugmata necessatio sequun­tur, p. 87. You write those things from whence those wicked and blasphemous abominations of Servetus, So­cinus, and Osterodus, doe necessarily follow. Passim audimus viros doctos dicere Authores hujus opinionis Papismum non satis exuisse; quin disette dicunt justificationem ob fidem proprie sic dictam, hoc est, ob opus nostrum, esse ex reliquiis Monachalis Pharisaismi. Hoc certum est Socinum & ante eum Servetum hoc à Papistis mutuatum esse, &c. We heare every where learned men say that the Authors of this opinion have not enough put off Popery, they plainely say justification by faith in a proper sense, that is, our worke, to be the reliques of Monkish Pharisaisme. This is certaine that Socinus and Ser­vetus before him borrowed this of the Papists. [Page 7] Non nego Authorem hu­jus scripti no­biscum & cum Papistis sentire Christum pro nobis satisfe­cisse: Sed quod dolendum est, dum hanc ju­stificationem per fidem pro­prie sic dictam probat; talia adhiber argu­menta per quae meritum & sa­tisfactio Christi prorsus everti­tur, p. 98. I deny not the Authour of this writing to thinke with us and Papists, Christ to have satisfied for us; but which is grie­vous, whilest he proveth this justification by faith in a proper sense, he giveth such arguments by which the merit and satisfa­ction of Christ are overthrowne. Qui haec di­ligenter expen­dunt vident fa­cillimum tran­situm esse ab hoc novo Sa­mosatenismo ad Papismum, p. 98. Those that wright these see the passage easie from this new Samosatenisme to Popery.

Consider how neerely these may concerne you Master G. who deny professedly the imputation of Christs righ­teousnesse to justification as Socinus doth, which yet Ber­tius professeth, p. 104.

Si sequerer non veritatem sed mendacium neque Deum sed Socinum, Servetum, & O­sterodum seque­ret, p. 117. If I should follow I should follow not the truth, but a lie, not God, but Socinus, Servetus, Osterodus. Ego autem ut me vel tellus optem prius i­ma dehiscat, quam admit­tam, &c. p. 117. So Sibrandus. I wish the earth might open is mouth and swallow me up rather then I ad­mit it.

Beza (as Master W. citeth him) calleth it blasphemy, Master Forbs de justificatione, grosse impiety in placing it ei­ther in whole or in part in our righteousnesse as it is our owne worke, seeing by no worke of his owne can man possibly be justified, p. 78. and p. 80. he saith, by this we may perceive that the opinion of these men who place our righteousnesse in faith properly taken as it is the act of our heart, without relation of it, as an apprehending instrument to Christ, is much more perni­tious then the opinion of the Papists, p. 80.

Now it is certaine that if God should justifie us either by the workes of the Law, or by faith as it is a worke or habit in us, God could never be seene to be just in justifying of us, p. 29.

Which opinion can never be maintained with Gods honour, p. 163.

He calleth it a dangerous errour, p. 171. and a manifest errour, p. 193.

Hearken to Pareus Quem sensum (Metonymicum) si oppugnar Adversatius, certe non Lutherum impug­nat, sed Spiritum Sanctum blasphemat qui Christum expresse vocat nostram justitiam, 23. ler. & 1 Cor. 1. 30. Pareus Castig. p 419. who saith, Which (Metonymicke) sense if our Adversary (Bellarmine) opposeth, truly he doth not impugne Luther, but blaspheme the Holy Ghost, who calleth Christ expressely our righteousnesse.

[Page 8]I my selfe cannot speake well of your cause, it were to call evill good, to procure a woe. The justification of wicked­nesse, abomination to the Lord. This is my judgement, I will indeavour to make it good by answering this reply, which I desire to doe without passion.

Sect. 3. It offendeth you that Master Walker calleth his interpretation the true sense; there was no cause untill he be refuted, and doe not you the same of faith in a pro­per sense?

What you, therefore, say they did of the golden Calfe, and of the practise of those that adulterate Coine, ser­veth your selfe as well as Master W. and may be returned; but of this let them judge who reade when they come to the end.

Neither doth he abate of the true sense or his confidence by adding, according to the common judgement of the most godly, learned, and judicious Divines of the best reformed Churches, that argument is your owne. You take upon you to prove a proper sense by authority, as of Ancient, so Moderne Divines, and thereby pretend confidence; Master W. might have so much leave as you take to your selfe, without the least diminution of his confidence. He may be farre more confident, if this be a ground; the au­thority of judicious and godly Divines, they are not for you, but Master W. I thinke I shall make it good by the time I shall come to the end of this worke, what you say.

That there may be as great a difference betweene the true sense Mr. G. and meaning of the Scripture, and the judgement of most godly and learned Divines, as is betweene Heaven and Earth, and is in examples.

1. Is not to purpose, unlesse what may be, be a truth of Answ. these Master W. meaneth.

2. It is evilly urged against M. W. when as your selfe use them to proppe your owne cause, with such confi­dence.

3. It argueth weaknesse on your side in the argument, and selfe conviction, when you urge Authors, you doe but pretend it and make a shew.

[Page 9]4. In my weake judgement your wisdome will be to give over that argument in this Name. I advise you to it, if it be not too late.

Whom Master W. meaneth by Divines you need not cu­riously to enquire, they are no secret packe, when he com­meth to that part he nameth the men. Luther, Calvin, Musculus, Bullinger, are of those men, neither are they made by him.

When I found these mentioned by you in this cause, it put me in minde of the practise of Bertius that Prince of the Arminian band, he for faith in a proper sense maketh the world beleeve that Luther, &c. were for his cause; but how vainely, Lubbertus sheweth, who disputing against that proper sense, for that which is relative and figurative, proveth it out of the same and other Divines. Let it please you to heare him, it may be what he saith concerneth you, though he be dead, to this purpose in that booke doth he speake unto you. See Gerhard de justificatione, p. 180. & p. 201.

In co con­sentiunt omnes Doctoresnostri, Lutherus, Me­lancthon, Bren­tius, Bucerus, Cytreus, Hemin­gius, Calvinus, Zuinglius, Oeco­lompadius, Gry­neus, Bullinge­rus, Gnulterus, Simlerus, Beza, Daneus, Zanchi­us, Martyr, Mus­culus, Ʋrsinus, Marloratus, lu­ellus, Perkinsus. In that (the Relative sense) agree all our Doctors, Lu­ther, &c. Tu & Arminius negatis, provoco igitur ad omnes Doctores no­stors an non aliquid novi in Ecclesiam nostram introducere velitis, p. 12. Thou and Arminius deny it, I appeale to all our Doctors whether yee would not bring in some new thing into our Church. Where also he addeth. Jam pe­to abs te, ut unum, unum, unum, inquam, Doctorem reformatarum Ecclesiarum producas qui idem doceat. Now I intreat thee to produce one, one, I say one Doctor of the Reformed Churches that teacheth the same.

He giveth the testimonies of Pareus, Duneus, Ʋrsinus, &c. p. 15. 16. &c. The Palatinate Catechisme, Chemnitius, Musculus, Hemingius, Bucanus, p. 17. Hesuchius, Martir, Pisca­tor, p. 18. the Augustane and Belgike Confes. and Musculus, p. 19. Bucer, p. 20. Melancthon, p. 53. 54. and 60. Zanchie, p. 62. and 76. Pezelius, p. 63. 64. Where also he repeateth his chalenge to the same purpose as before. Experire virestuas & vide an vel unum, unum, unum, inquam, locum qui hoc claris & perspicuis verbis doceat adducere possis, p. 61. Try thy strength and see whether thou canst bring forth but one, one, I say one place which teacheth this in cleare and manifest words.

[Page 10]I will transcribe one passage more thence, and I intreat you consider whether it doth not concerne you in the same cause. Sibrandus having examined that argument of authority saith: Si haec di­cta quae a do­ctoribus a te al­legatis exscrip­si expendes, in­dicabit tibitua conscientia te hic vel ex in­scitia impegisse, & ho [...]um scri­pta nunquam legisse, aut ex malitia hanc sententiam illis per calumniam attribuisse, ut imperitosatque incau [...]os [...]alle­res, illisque per­suederes sum­mos illos vitos Lutherum, Ma­larcthonem, &c. appro [...]asse & sovisse Serveli & Socini furo­res, quos vos calide & occul­te in Ecclesi­am introducere conammi. Re­ctius dixeritis vos, spretis do­ctoribusnostris, haec a Serveto & Socino didicisse. So Lubbertus. If thou wilt weigh these sayings which I have written out of the Doctors you alleadge, thy conscience will tell thee that here either thou haest stumbled out of ignorance, or out of malice by a calumny given this opinion to them that thou mightest deceive the unskilfull or negligent, and mightest per­swade them, those chiefe men, Luther, &c. to have approved and fomented the mad conceits of Servetus and Socinus, which you slily and secretly indeavour to bring into the Church; you should more truly say that you despising our Doct [...]s, learned these things of Servetus and Socinus.

Pareus saith, quae omnium Evangeli­corum est sen­ [...]en [...]ia, castig de justif. p. 368. Which is the judgement of all Protestant Divines. And thus before I am aware I am come to consi­der whether the contrary exposition and cause built on it are not Socinian and Arminian?

Sect. 4. And here I professe it my judgement, that if the assimulation of you to Socinus, &c. be the inhumane practise of the tyrant Mezentius, it is not Master W. but your owne fault, for your faces answer faces, and hands hands, in this question; and your selfe have coupled your selfe with these in this cause. Master Walker is but a discoverer of what he found, and in part is shewed to have beene in Bertius by Sybrandus, as in his judgement of your opini­on, and the last passages cited out of him in this cause. The shame that is in it, is from your selfe, and sorrow, which if you take not to yourselfe, you may with sorrow and shame also goe downe unto the grave (as you speake.) If his Withs are greene (as you say) they will hold you the stronger, your Art in Withs did faile here, they are dry ones that snap asunder, they doe so without fire. Your Knife truth, (but why doe you reprehend it in Master W. and offend in the same thing?) is errour at the least, and will never deliver you, and though you be never so cun­ning (as you speake) in stretching on Tenter-bookes, and doe your utmost, Daedalus sis, liceat, mediocritatem excedis & ad ruinam tantum ingeniosus videberis.

[Page 11]When as you tell us what you could doe if you sought revenge on the man, and of your confidence that you could make him hold up his hand to the Barre, to answer the crimes of Heresie and Blasphemy; none beleeve you but your owne Disciples, I doe not; you doe but beg him to be erratique, the intelligent Reader will judge these straines, militis gloriosi, and say, projecit ampullas, &c.

But (say you) what if Socinus and Arminius were of the same judgement with you in the interpretation of the Scrip­tures in question?

I should thinke that cause sufficient to say, that erra­ [...]ique Arminius (to speake softly) and that heretique Socinus and your selfe in this opinion are coupled, face to face, and [...]ands to hands, that you are ad hoc gemelli, and what the earned in this have laid to their score, lieth on yours also, [...]nd must stand there untill you be acquited.

Neither is it Popish Mountabankery for M. W. to put you [...]n their company, to number you amongst them. Sibrandus [...]id so by the opinion before him, and it was your owne ault to be so indeed. Your being so is rather Popish Moun­abankry in the judgement of learned men, as before out of Sibrandus, as after shall appeare through our discourse; the weapons you use are for the most part meerely Po­ [...]ish, you may be noted for it. We reade some taxed for [...]oing in the way of Caine; others for walking in the way of [...]alaam: so long as there is a reall agreement betweene you [...]nd them, a man may say it.

Daniel was not by choyce with the Lions, he was with [...]hem as Lillies amongst Thornes, as the Lord Christ be­ [...]weene two Theeves, by Gods heavenly disposition. You [...]ight have bin so with these. No man would have accoun­ [...]ed you a Papist had you been cast amongst Priests into the Gatehouse, or a Separatist for being in the same room with them, or for suffering simply with them; Contraries may be in [...]he same subject, asflesh and spirit in the godly. You are bre­ [...]hren in the same evill, the man that runneth may see you the same in judgement, and speech, and opinion, in this Ex­position of Scripture, as it is shewed afterwards. It were not [Page 12] absurd to say, Daniel & the Lions agree in animality, or the Lilly with the Thornes in being vegetative. It is not affir­med of you that you agree in all opinions, and it trou­bleth us it is in this, this, we doe judge too much.

But Master W. did not first prove it erronious before those imputations. That I confesse should be done. Did we not doe both in one work? hath he not done it since? was it not done to his hands by Divines of the reformed Chur­ches? by our owne Divines in Print, as well as in Pulpit, moved thereunto by your Preaching? If none of these be, the imputation is just so long as there is a reall agreement.

Have you not read it theirs before this, nor that it is censured as erronious?

I think you have, and cannot be ignorantof this con­troversie betweene us and Arminians, I, us and the Popish party. Have you not read their hatred against this Tenet of imputed righteousnesse? read Gerhard. de justif. p. 234. Doctrinae huic de imputatione justitiae Christi admo­dum iniqui sunt Pontificii: Adeo ut appellent imputativam & imaginariam justitiam. An­dradius in de­fens. [...]id. Trid. p. 477. vocat amentissimam insaniam. Sta­peltenus in An­tid. Apost. p. 97. nominat spectrum cere­bri Luthe. Cens. Colon. dicit, à seculo non esse auditam. Will Rainold in l. contra Whitak. p. 314. vocat mathematicum solifidianorum commentum, &c. Andradius hanc Mediatoris justitiam fide nobis imputatam blasphemat esse commen­titiam, adumbratam & fictitiam, sic Chemnit. exam. p. 266. Osius dicit novam & a seculo in auditam esse vocem justitiae imputativae. Item justitiam Christi nobis imputari, nec in­Canonic is nec in Orthodoxorum libtis reperiri, p. 270. ib

Have you not read that the Obedience or Righteous­nesse of Christ imputed to us by God apprehended by faith is the formall cause of our justification before God? Have you not read it affirmed and proved by ours against Papists?

I thinke I heard it from Doctor Davenants mouth, and I am sure he hath left this on Record to be Communis omnium nostrorum sententia, neque quod ad rem attinet quisquam è nostris aliter scripsit aut sen­sit, De justi. hab. p. 312. The com­mon opinion of all ours, neither for the substance hath any one written or thought otherwise. And doth he not prove the same? p. 363 &c. he doth by many arguments.

Disp. 8. Dicimus imputationem justitiae Christi esse formam nostrae justificationis ex parte Dei, adversarii negativam in se suscipientes, &c. p. 334. Johannes Crotius, We say the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to be the forme of our justification of Gods part, our adversaries taking the negative part on them, &c.

[Page 13]It is manifest by the state of the question laid downe by See Bellarm. de justis. l. 1. c. 17. p. alterum ar­gumentum, p. 997. & l. 2. c. 9. 106 [...]. See Dr. Dan. p. 370. 371. Joh. Croc. de justif, imput. p. 358. & 420. & 335. & 343. non relative Papanis D. Prid. p. 162. Papists and Protestants, and in this you agree with them. Have you not read faith to justifie against them in a Rela­tive and figurative sense? and that as it taketh in the ob­ject, the obedience and righteousnesse of Jesus Christ? See Master Perkins, Master Wotton, def. p. 166. stating the question betweene us and Romanists.

Did you never read Romanists in this controversie of ju­stification, urging, Rom. 4. with your interpretation of a proper sense, against the Relative se [...]se which the Prote­stants urge? Doe you not agree for the proper sense of faith against the Relative, and against the imputation of Christs righteouseesse?

Untill you have answered all the arguments of the Pro­testant party, and so farre made good the Papists cause, you must be coupled with them. Sibrandus sheweth what men said of this opinion before, and I shall doe it often in this worke.

Did you never read in Festus Hommius this proposition gathered out of Arminius, Ad Hip. Fidem pro prie loquendo, seu [...] credere nos justificare, seu esse justitiā qua coram Deo consistimus & justificamur. Dico ipsum fi­dei actum, id est [...] credere, im­putari ad justi­tiam, id (que) pro­prio sensu, non metonymice, ib. Fides pro justi­tia habetur per gratiosam dig­nationem Dei. Declar. p. 65. Quaestio move­tur de verbis Apostoli Pauli ad Rom. c. 4. hisce vid. fides imputatur ad justitiam, utrum ea debeant pro­prie intelligi, sicut ipsa fides tanquam actus, juxta mandatum evangelii praestitus imputetur coram Deo, in, sive ad justi­tiam, idque ex gratia, cum non sic ipsamet justitia Legis, an vero sic intelligi debeant, ut justitia Christi per fidem apprehensa nobis in justitiam imputetur, idest, figurate & impro­prie: ego priorem sententiam sequutus sum in thesibus de justificatione sub me disputatis. Faith, speaking properly, or that act of beleeving to justifie us, or to be the righteousnesse by which we stand before God, and are justified. And, I say the very act of faith to be imputed unto righteousnesse, and that in a proper sense, not metonymically, faith is accounted for righteousnesse by Gods gracious esteeme.

A question is moved of the words of the Apostle Paul, Rom. 4. faith is imputed for righteousnesse, whether they ought to be understood so as faith it selfe as an act performed accor­ding to the commandement of the Gospell, be imputed before God in or unto righteousnesse, and that by grace, seeing it is not the very righteousnesse of the Law; or whether that ought so to be un­derstood that the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith be imputed to us for righteousnesse, that is, figuratively and impro­perly: I indeed followed the first opinion in the theses of justifica­tion disputed under me.

[Page 14]Where also you may finde other like passages taxed, and cited out of Vorstius, Bertius, and Arnoldus himselfe, who there p. 41. saith, Arminius dicit fidem ju­stificate ut a­ctum, qui opus illud Dei est, Joh. 6 atque ip­sum [...] credere in Christum, no­bis in justitiam imputati. Arminius saith, faith justi­fieth as an act, which is that worke of God, John 6 and the very beleeving in Christ, to be imputed unto us for righ­teousnesse.

Doth not Peltius in his Harmoniam Remonstranti­um & Socinia­norum. Harmony of Arminians and Socinians instance in this point, [...] credere nobis imputati p. 151. 152. 153 the beleeving to be im­puted to us out of both? and shew in the next Paragraph the agreement of both in this, Fidem gra­tiose pro justi­tia haberi, &c. Faith graciously to be accounted for righteousnesse?

Doe not both shew their agreement in this, Justitiam Christi non im­putari in no­stram justitiam co [...]am Deo. Hom. p. 84. Pelt. p. 148. &c. through the whole three Pa­ragraphs. P. 33. de justif. That the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed for our righteousnesse before God?

Doth not that worthy Scholler Master Pemble shew the Authors of this tenet, Servetus, Socinus, Osterodus, Ar­minius? doth he not give it to Bertius, Vorstius, Episcopi­us, and Bellarmine? You could not but reade this in Do­ctor Prideaux, for you cite him. Lect. 5 de justif. p. 157. Asserimus nos, negant pontificii una cum Socinianis & Remonstran­tibus. We assert it, the Pon­tificians, together with Socinians and Arminians deny it, where he stateth the question.

In Mr. Wotton I finde those Fidem for­malem causam statuentes, vel in solidum, ut Arminius aliique eum sequnti tradiderunt, vel pro parte, quod Ecclesiae Romanae placuisse intelligo; de recon. p. 102 That teach faith the for­mall cause, either wholly, as Arminius and his followers have delivered, or in part, which pleaseth the Church of Rome.

Justitia imputata quam a Christo habemus justitiari nos cum ipso contra Socinum ex aequo agnos­cimus. Gat. pars ult. p. 8. n. 36. p. 84. 4. We with you equally acknowledge our selves justified with imputed righteousnesse which we have in Christ against Socinus.

Let these passages out of the Censura of those praised Theologs of Leiden by you, p. 13. be observed, and it will be seene whether they are not of the same judgement with you.

Moliuntur (Remonstrantes) quod Pon­tificii & Sociniani, &c. Ita ut fide justificemur non ratione quadam Metonymica, qua fides sit instrumentum, apprehendens justitiam illam quam Christus nobis obedientiae suae merito acquisivit, quod quidem fidei officium ha ctenus in omnibus Ecclesiis reformatis tanquam ei proprium agnitum fuit, p. 143. Arminians doe the same with the Papists, and Socini­ans, &c. so that we are not justified by faith, metonymically as [Page 15] an instrument apprebending that righteousnesse which Christ got for us by the merit of his obedience, which office of faith as proper to it, hath beene hitherto acknowledged in all the reformed Churches.

Paul said, onely faith to be imputed to righteousnesse, and Paulus dixit tantum fidem imputatam ad justitiam, at illi de suo addunt, ipsam, ut lo­quutionem fi­guratam in pro­priam transfor­ment, & suam interpretatio­nem aut potius commentum pro ipsis Paull verbis obtru­dant, ne vid. fi­des accipiatur Metonimice aut correlative cum suo obje­cto, nempe ju­stitia Christi fide apprehen­denda, sed pro fide ipsa in se quae apud De­um habetur pro justitia, &c. p. 146. Christi justi­tiam nobis im­putari negat quidem Socin. iid. Episcopi.. us alibi id ex­presserit non esse justitiam Christi propri [...] id quod imputatur. Disp. 12. thes. 4. ib. they adde of their owne that, that they may transforme a figura­tive speech into a proper one, and obtrude their interpretation, or rather errour, for Pauls words, lest saith should be taken by a metonymy or relatively, with its object, that is the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith, but for faith it selfe, in it selfe, which is accounted for righteousnesse by God. Socinus truly denieth Christs righteousnesse to be imputed to us. Episcopius elsewhere expressed it, that it was not the righteousnesse of Christ properly that which is imputed.

By this time I hope you may be abundantly satisfied in this, neither is Mr. W. the onely censurer of your opini­on, others have said as much of Arminius for the same as he doth.

Sect. 5. But when as Mr. Walker no Arminian. Mr. W. crieth out of Arminianisme, is not he himself the Arminian? surely (say you) no two judgements ever jumped better together, the judgement of Arminius the Here­tique, and Mr. W. the Erratique in the point of imputation.

Why, what saith Arminius? Arminius in resp. adart. impos. Justitiam Christi nobis imputari, & fieri nostram gratuita aestimatione Dei. & arbitrari se id ipsum contineri verbis Apostoli, Cor. 5. Christum fecit Deus pro nobis peccatum, ut nos essemus justitia Dei in illo. He saith the righteousnesse of Christ to be imputed unto us and to be made ours in the gra­cious account of God, and that he supposed the same thing con­tained in the words of the Apostle. 2 Cor. 5. God made Christ sinne for us that we might he the righteousnesse of God in him.

1. I answer, yet Mr. W. is no Arminian: First, suppose he fully held the same with Arminius. It might not de­nominate Mr. W. seeing the tenet is his in common with all of the reformed Churches. Neither in that name, had it beene a fault in Mr. W. to hold the same Arminius did, how faulty soever Arminius else, it is the substance of your owne answer.

[Page 16]2. Arminius himself in that agreeth not with himself, &c. Your selfe confesse him and some of his followers much more to expresse themselves on the other hand, and to af­firme the imputation of faith for righteousnesse, and not the righteousnesse of Christ.

3. You say sometimes, if so, it is more then once, name another time if you can; you might have said alwayes, else: So that there is farre more reason denomination should be from what is ever his fault (being so indeed) you constantly speaking with him, then that Mr. W. should be so stiled from his once.

4. Againe, doe you not clip his words? and doth not Arminius say more then you report in that point? and would he have these two, Christs righteousnesse to be im­puted unto us, and faith to be imputed unto us for righ­teousnesse to be the same? and did he there approve that phrase the righteousnesse of Christ to be imputed to us for righ­teousnesse? which yet is Mr. Walkers, and of all Protestants. Those praised Divines of Leiden, having repeated what you doe out of Arminius, truly observe and adde. Sed non voluit idem es­se Christi justi­tiam nobis im­putari, & fidem nobis imputari ad justitiam. I­mo nec phrasin illam volebat probare, justi­am Christi no­his imputari ad justitiam. But he would not that Christs righteousnesse to be imputed unto us, and faith to be imputed to righteousnesse, should be the same. Neither would be prove that phrase, Christs righteousnesse to be imputed to righteousnesse. Both which Mr. W. would have done. So that Mr. W. and he jumpe not together. Nay Arminius faith ( Fieri ne­quit, Deus Chri­stum ejusque justitiam nobis imputer ad ju­stitiam. Epist. ad Hippol. Justi­tiam Christi im­putari ad ju­stitiam, mihi non probari dixi. Quicquid imtatur ad ju­stitiam, vel in justiti [...], vel pro justitia, idipsum non est justitia stricte & rigide sumpta: at Christi justitia quam ille prae­stitit, est ipsissi­ma justitia stri­cte & rigide sumpta: ergo non imputatur ad justitiam. It cannot be that God should impute unto us Christs righteousnesse. He professeth he fol­lowed the contrary in his Theses, in his Declaration, and ad art. 31. he saith, I said I approve not the righteousnesse of Christ to be imputed to us, whatsoever is imputed to righ­teousnesse, &c. that is not righteousnesse strictly and rigidly ta­ken: but Christs righteousnesse which he performed is righte­ousnesse it selfe straitly and rigidly taken: therefore it is not imputed unto righteousnesse.

For my part I conceive that by his imputation of Christs righteousnesse, he meant not that, in it selfe, but in its effect, faith, the imputation whereof is the effect of Christs righteousnesse. Forsooth Christ by his righte­ousnesse [Page 17] merited that faith should be gratiously accepted in the place of righteousnesse. So he constantly, and in the same sense answering to the question of a proper or figurative sense, he denieth the latter and asserteth the for­mer, with an, I plainely thinke so, wherein he agreeth Ita plane sen­tio. not with Mr. W. but your selfe; you are the men that jumpe together. These are a sufficient defence of him, they shew he doth not (as you charge him) directly maintaine what Mr. W. doth; there is palpable difference. Mr. W. saith that the right teousnesse of Christ is imputed to righ­teousnesse. Shew me the same in Arminius, then I will yeeld they jumpe, till then you come short of your undertaking.

Sect. 6. But Mr. W. in this, Fairy-like, leaves a chanleging to the Arminians, better favoured then their owne, giving them Mr. G. an opinion rather, then relating theirs, to make the Arminian tenet and yours to meete: forsooth the Arminians meane by faith not as Mr. Walker saith that grace onely consisting in con­fidence and assent, but an universall obedience to the will of God in all those duties which be requires of men in the Gospel.

Answ. For the practise of Fairies, I never read of it, and if it be so I shall thinke better of them then I did. Those that tell tales of them, seeme to say otherwise, and I never heard of a well-favoured changeling before. But how prove you that to be the Arminian tenet? you answer from those Divines of Leiden, c. 10. Who challenge them for af­firming the word faith to be sometimes taken in Scrip­ture Pro tota & universa illa) voluntate Dei. for that whole and universall will of God, which before they said God would have performed by us, in which sense they would be taken and understood in this Chapter. 2. They are charged with Pontifician friendship, In eo quod opera inter ju­stificationis causas nume­rant, aequali cū fide jure. In that they number works amongst the causes of Justification with faith by an equall right. And after to have drawn this their notion of faith out of the Socianin lakes. Memin isse debemus fidem hanc sc. qua ju­stificamur, Dei obedientiam esse. We must remember this faith by which we are justified to be obedience of God. And after, in Christum credere, nihil aliud est, quam Deo ad ipsius Christi normam & prae scriptum obedientem se praebere: and after that by faith which they hold to be imputed for righteousnesse, they understand and meane fidem ipsam in [Page 18] se quae apud Deum habeatur pro justitia, quatenus fidei no­mine comprehenditur p [...]nitentia, resipis [...]entia & in universum obedientia hominis Christiani.

Answ. To answer. First, were there a difference in Explication, yet there is agreement in the same thing faith; neither can you blame men for disagreeing in Ex­plication who are therein notorious for agreement with Bellarmine, and disagreement with reformed Divines.

2. Though I might let them stand or fall by their Ex­plication. Yet I must doe them right. Those Divines you name say that they involve all in ambiguities, as their manner is, so as one cannot easily attaine their mind; so that one may mistake them.

They doe not peremptorily as you, but doubtfully as inquirers affirme. Id tamen videntur velle, & videntur cum Sccino ac­cipere, p. 142. Yet they seeme to meane that, and they seeme to take it with Socinus.

Thus the Remonstrants in their Apologie answer those Di­vines, and observe the same. Istud aper­te profiteri non audeant: ubi­que enim suum istud videtur ingeminan, & conclusio tan­dem est cos propio [...]s S [...] ­ [...] quam Eccle­si [...] Reformantae videri posse: quae loquutio quam sit, cir­cumspecta & solcita, quis non vider? They dare not plainely pro­fesse it, for they every where double that there, they seeme, and conclude at length they may sceme nearer to Socinus then the reformed Church; and much more to that purpose, which you would not or did not see.

To that question, An Re­monstrantes [...]dei formam essentialem faciant obedientiam & quidem operum lega'ium atqu [...] imprimis Evangelicorum. Whether the Remonstrants make the essentiall forme of faith to be obedience, that of the workes of the Law, and especially of the Gospel; they seeme to cleare the matter whilst they answer. Haec prima manifesta ca'umnia est. Ausquam id a [...] in confessione ecrum factum prohabitur. C [...]ntrarium [...]atet in termi­ais Nam obedienr am no vamsive obedientiam proprièdictam, quae in Scholis ita voca­tur, s [...]mp [...]r & ubique distingunt à fident effectum à causa sua, à qua [...]manat ut rivus à lcn­te, ut [...] à matre, contra quam So [...]inus faciendum esse sentit, p. 110.2. This is a manifest calum­nie, this will not be proved done in their Confession, the contrary appe ireth in termes, for they alwayes distinguish obedience pro­perly called from faith, as the effect from the cause from which it fla [...]eth, as a River from the Fountaine, as the Child from the Mother, where is Socinus thinketh otherwise. Arminius him­selfe disclaimeth it, ad artic. 5.

[Page 19]And when as they joyne workes with faith in instifica­tion, they say it is but a Grammatical or Logicall contro­versie, and that the confessions of all reformed Churches acknowledge faith to be Vivam. living, not Mortuam, fidem quaecon­juncta sibi ha­bet bona ope­ra, imo quae sine bonis operibus nec est, nec esse potest, esse fi­dem illam ve­ram justifican­tem, ut vocant, quae ista pro­prietate ab hi­storica & tem­poranea ac mi­raculorum fide ut ajunt, distin­guitur. dead, faith which bath joyned with it good workes, yea, which neither is without good workes, nor can be, to be that true justifying faith as they call it, which by that property is distinguished from historicall faith, temporary, and that of miracles, as they speake. Where also they urge out of those Censores, p. 11. Diserte o­bedientiam o­perum aecessa­tiam esse asse­runt ad justifi­cationem, non quidem neces­sitate efficien­tiae, sed praesen­tiae. They plainely assert obedience of workes necessary to justifi­cation, not indeed with necessity of efficiencie, but of presence.

So that you say they say it, and your witnesses that they seeme, and themselves deny it. Judge now whether Mr. W. giveth them a better opinion then they have to make you meet with them.

If they did so, Mr. Walker telleth you that they are more tolerable herein then your selves: you and Master Wotton: for it is more agreeable to justice and reason that God should count all graces of renovation for righteousnesse rather then faith alone in the proper sense, which is but one grace, and so Mr. Forbs also.

Finally, whosoever shall reade that Chapter, and the answer, and compare some passages with your opinions, will see you meete indeed; and that you desire not leave to dissent from those learned men for nothing. I could finde much observable. But I passe to what you relate out of Doctor Prideaux concerning Vorstius. Who saith:

He holds Fides im­putatur imme­diate & forma­liter, & meritū Christi mediate & effective. Faith is imputed immediately and formal­ly, and the merit of Christ mediately and in effect.

What is this but your owne opinion? You say faith is imputed immediately, and the merit of Christ but me­diately, if at all. Roundly, you, in its effect, that is faith, which is imputed.

But there he addeth. Per fidem ulterius osten­dit se observa­tionem Christi­anismi solumo­do intelligere, quia credere idem est quod observare Christi praecepta, nec dispuduit tandem concludere fidem justificantem illam, esse illam inhaeientem justitiam quam Papistae urgent. By faith be sarther sheweth be only underst andeth observation of Christianisme, because to beleeve is to keepe Christs precepts, neither was be ashamed at length [Page 20] to conclude that justisying faith, to be that inherent righteous­nesse which the Papists urge.

This is given unto him alone by the Doctor, and with a Ulterius. further; belike, in this he went beyond Arminius. So Arminius himselfe, and so the Remonstrants as before.

And I pray you is not faith obedience to Christs com­mandement and Gods worke? (as you both love to speak, in opposition to the morall Law, out of the 1 John 3. and Job. 6. of which after.) And is not faith that ju­stifieth in a proper sense the inherent righteousnesse the Papists urge in this cause by the same text? Rom. 4. The difference is.

Papists make it a part, the beginning, and give it to all the graces, you to faith alone, both are for a proper sense against the Relative one.

Ours call it grosse impiety to place that righteousnesse, where­by we are justified in faith, in whole or in part, Forbs 78. And of faith properly taken, and without relation he saith, it is more pernitious then that of the Papists, p. 80. Ne [...] dum dispuduit.

But, a little before he saith out of Corvinus, that Ar­minius was not pleased that faith should be called the in­strumentall cause of justification, which is against what you teach.

It is true he saith not so; you do, and yet that which the Doctor there speaketh to Arminius, appertaineth to and touch­eth you both. Bona igitur side dic Armini pro tuo acumi­ne, qua ratione fides justificat? [...] credere, hoc est actum fidei (dicit Armini­us) imputa [...]i in justitiam, id (que) proprio sensu non Me [...]ony­mi [...], quatenus objectum ap­prehendi [...]. E­pist. ad Hippol. Tell us in truth Arminius out of thine acute judgement how faith justifieth? The act of faith (saith Arminius) is imputed for righteousnesse, in a proper sense, not metonymically as it apprehendeth the object. If not as an instrument, How? So the Doctor answereth himselfe. So he denying, so you calling it an instrument, both teach the [...] credere in a proper sense imputed, for righteousnes; both deny the figurative sense; you that teach it an instru­ment, deny justification by it as an instrument receiving and applying Christs righteousness [...] to justification; The agreement being such, it had beene wisdome to conceale this disagreement.

[Page 21]You say he citeth Bertius, another Prince of the Armi­nian band; that he acknowledgeth Hanc sen­tentiam meri­tum Christi ex­clude [...]e. this opinion to ex­clude the merit of Christ, which is contrary to what you have taught and professe.

If he be a Prince of the Arminian band; you are no com­mon Souldier, but ad ho [...], a Prince, as he, above him, a King. That he derogateth not from Christ he sheweth, (with what agreement to himselfe let him looke to that) Fides ista meritum Christi respicit, atque hoc modo ve­rum est quod dicitur, fides ju­stifica [...]non per se, sed corre­lative, quate­nus nimi [...]um apprehendit Christium ejus­que justitiam, Sib. Ep. p. 144. That faith respecteth the merit of Christ, and thus it is true which is said, faith justifieth not by it selfe, but relative­ly as it apprehendeth Christ and his righteousnesse: he is nea­rer the Protestant tenet in this then you, and if descent will make it, he leaveth you to be a King, you are lower or higher in that band. That faith in a proper sense is im­puted, &c. he saith, and therein is but one of the Princes with you.

When as the Doctor saith Hanc sen­tentiam. this opinion; he hath no relation to Ʋorstius, or that his opinion, of which before, of faith so taken. When as he saith Arminius his opinion to exclude Christs merit, it concerneth you. Sibrandus said to Bertius. Haec tua thesis est causa qua [...]e statuam vobis ( [...]i tamen vobis constare vultis) necessa­rio tandem eo de veniendum esse ut cum Ser­veto, Socino, O­sterodo, meritū sive satisfactio­nem Christi pro nobis sactam omnino tollatis dicatis (que) ne (que) Christum nobis justitiam pepr­risse. Ne [...] nos ipsius justitia nobis imputata justitiari, p. 85. Talia enim ponit funda­menta per quae meritum Chri­sti necessario eve [...]titur, ib. This your thesis is the cause why I con­clude, if you will be like your selves, at length necessarily to come to it, that with Socinus, Servetus, Osterodus, you altoge­ther take away the merit or satisfaction of Christ made for us, and say that Christ neither brought righteousnesse for us; (when you with Arminius preach yee are not justified by any righte­ousnesse at all) Neither that we be justified by his righteous­nesse. Bertius said not the latter; Arminius and Socinus, &c. did, Bertius must come to it. Bertius saith it of Arminius. For he layeth such foundations by which the merit of Christ is necessarily overthrowne. For either it must be by faith in a proper sense imputed and Christs righteousnesse impu­ted, or one of them: If it be by faith in a proper sense as in your Doctrine, justification by Christs righteousnesse imputed, is excluded; and it is your Doctrine as this lat­ter excludeth the proper sense of Faith. Indeed at best the merit of Christ, as a remoter thing, must be establish­ed, meriting that faith should be imputed, which is Socini­anisme [Page 22] as Sibrandus sheweth out of Osterodus, p. 10. & p. 97. and that which was taxed by the Doctor in Vorstius, but even now; see your 15. p.

As for your charge on Mr. W. that he by his opinion Mr. G. of imputation of the active obedience of Christs righte­ousnesse doth more trench on the merit of Christs righ­teousnesse then your opinion, it is arresting, arraigning, and finding full of guilt.

Answ. You shew not at whose suite, nor at what barre, nor in what. Neither can I divine which way it will ap­peare, lesse you be the accuser, the witnesse, and the Judge in that Assise; open it when you please. Looke at home, you deny it to Christs active obedience; as being Christs ☞ debt, and Christs passive obedience also, when as thereun­to you doe call his active obedience as an essentiall requi­site, though not without contradiction. Seeing nihil dat quod non habet, that which meriteth not, being debt, can­not make his sufferings to be so, of this in the answer to your treatises.

The other things which you say you could improve, p. 16. I passe and leave to the Readers to judge whether there be not Arminian bloud in your tenent apparent, which is that the [...] credere of Abraham in a proper sense is imputed denying the imputation of Christs righteous­nesse to justification: these are yours, they are of Armini­us and Arminians, as before. In the words of Sibrandus I will adde. Hoc ipsum ante [...]e docuit Servetus, scribit enima. libro de lege & Evang. ut est apud Cal­vinum in refu­tatione erro­rum Michaelis Serveti, p. 903. suum credere reputatum fu­isse Abrahae ad justitiam. This same thing Servetus taught before thee, for he writeth, his faith was reputed to Abraham for righ­teousnesse. Sed & Socinus hoc ipsum docet de Christo servatore, p. 388. ejus verba haec sunt, cum fides nostra nobisad justitiam imputatur, sensus est, fidem nostram pro justitia habe [...]i. Cum justitiam Abrahae exemplo imputari docet, &c. sed ideo (nos justos coram Deo) quia Deo visum sit fidem nostram justitiae loco nobis ducere. And Socinus teacheth the same. When our faith is imputed to us for righteousnesse; the sense is, our faith is ac­counted for righteousnesse, when he teacheth righteousnesse to be imputed to us by Abrahams example. But therefore, because it seemed good to God to account our faith to us in the place of righteousnesse.

[Page 23] Socinus in one place writeth Ne syllaba quidem in sa­cris monumen­tis exter, de Christi justiti­a nobis im­putanda. Uta­pud Sibrand in censuris p. 463 & credidit A­braham Deo, & ob eam causam ab ipso justus habitus suit, p. 463. There is not a syllable in the Scripture of Christs righteousnesse to be imputed to us. Abraham beleeved God, and for that cause was he accounted just of him.

And when as you detract not justification from the bloud and merit of Christ, but give it the bloud and death of Christ, what doe you more then Osterodus? these are his words. Quatenus sanguis ille & mo [...]s in nobis efficiunt eas res propter quas Deus nos justi­ficat, nempe fi­dem. Ex his quilibet videre porest t [...] & Arminium [...] ­dem docere de fide jus [...]ican [...]e quod an [...]e vo [...] Serven [...], S [...]ci­nus, Ostero [...]us, de illa script [...] l [...]eris & viva voce docue­runt. So farre as that bloud and death worke in us those things for which God doth justifie us, forsooth faith. I will conclude in Sibrandus words to Bertius. Out of which every one may see thee and Arminius to teach the same of justi­fying faith, which before you, Servetus, Socinus, Ostero­dus, wrote and p [...]ea [...]hed. And if you desire to see far­ther agreement, see it in Peltius his Harmony de justif. par. 3. & 4.

Here is Arminian bloud, neither have you proved the same in Mr. W. nor can you, sift and examine as through­ly as you will. When as you say Arminian faith impu­ted includeth obedience to the Law of God. You heare they distinguish it from workes, and you know, it is cal­led by them and your selfe, the worke of God, the commande­ment and condition of the Gospel Mr. Ws. faith in the Rela­tive sense indeed includeth the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to Gods Law.

You say Arminian faith is performed in their owne person. So is yours: you say it was Abrahams faith in a proper sense as before. Mr. W. teacheth the righteousnesse of Christ applied by faith so to constitute us just as if we had per­formed it in our owne persons.

You say the Arminia [...] faith excludeth Christs merit from justification. So doth yours as before; as that which is immediate, as that with which imputed we are just. You cannot say Mr. W. faith doth little lesse; per­fect righteousnesse is that which faith applieth in Mr. W. Doctrine, by which we are justified before the Lord.

When as you aske, if Christs righteousnesse and obedience be imputed to righteousnesse, what need there is of any satisfacti­on or atonement by bloud.

[Page 24]Mr. W. will answer you, both are debt, full satisfacti­on consisteth in them both.

Mr. J. Goodw. will tell you it is an hainous crime to divide Christs righteousnesse: and that his active obedience infloweth, and is in a sort satisfaction.

When as you tell us you have wrung the best weapons out of the adversaries hands, you are but Miles gloriosus, (to continue your Metaphor) It was sine hoste, tua te jact as in aula. And me thinkes those that teach this doctrine should not be professed enemies to you. The Church of En­gland teacheth the same in her Homily, and the Articles of Ireland. As great and as godly as the lively faith is (saith the Homily) yet it putteth us from it selfe, and remitteth, or appointeth us unto Christ for to have onely by him remission of our sinnes or justification, 3. part. hom. salv. p. 18. 19.

When as the world was not able to pay, &c. It pleased God to prepare for us the most pretious Jewels of Christs body and bloud, whereby the ransome might be fully paid, the Law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied, p. 15. So that Christ is now the righteousnesse of all them that truly beleeve in him, he for them paid the ransome by his death, he for them fulfilled the Law in his life, so that now in him and by him every true Christian man may he called a fulfiller of the Law; for as much as that which their infirmity lacked, Christs ju­stice hath supplied, &c. p. 15. Is this tenet your adversa­ry? It is the tenet of your Mother: It is not to know or acknowledge your Mother; to be her adversary, and an adversary to your selfe.

And though you thus part with Arminianisme now in words; you are found not to doe so indeed, and shall be shewed to doe so, to the end.

For the other grand heresies Socinus holdeth which you doe not; I know not that Mr. Walker laieth them to your charge directly. It is good you should looke to con­sequences. Sibrandus gave Bertius good cautions, p. 85. 87. 122. &c. In the imputation of faith in a proper sense, and denying the imputation of Christs righteousnesse you a­gree, as Sibrandus to Bertius, of which before; these he called blasphemous heresies.

[Page 25] Sect. 7. Here (passing many vaine words, impertinences P. 21. [...]nd froth) you say Mr. W. granteth p. 7. that Abraham re­ [...]ing on the Lord by firme faith for the performance of the [...]omises made unto him, the Lord counted it to him for righ­ [...]eousnesse; and after, even faith was rockoned to him for [...]ighteousnesse; and after p. 11. whereby faith (he saith) he [...]eaneth the holy spirituall faith and beliefe, which is before [...]ewed to have beene in Abraham, and which is proper to the [...]ect and regenerate. What of this? It agreeth not with his [...]inion, it is not his tropicall or metonymicall faith, it is [...]aith in the proper nature and direct signification; and so [...]hat have we to doe with the discourse following? he holds the [...]ame interpretation of faith with you.

Softly Sir, his interpretation is out of your mouth [...]opicall, in this I see no agreement with you, nor disagree­ [...]ent with himselfe.

By faith in Christ Abraham rested on God for perfor­ [...]ance of the promises, the word to him was, In thy seed [...]all all the Nations of the earth be blessed, in him all promises [...]re Yea and Amen. He must rest by faith in Christ, on God for them; indeed in him he was Abrahams God, to [...]im the promise is made first, in him, to us, if yee bee Christs, yee be Abrahams seed and heirs, &c. Gal. 3. ult.

This faith in Christ he saith was reckoned to him for [...]ighteousnesse, and the faith which apprehendeth and ap­ [...]lieth the righteousnesse of Christ is proper to the elect [...]nd regenerate, and is an holy spirituall faith and beliefe: [...]ere is no opposition to himselfe, or agreement with you, [...]ou doe but flatter your selfe, and deceive your Reader.

But faith so often said to be imputed for righteousnesse, P. 22. Mr. W. cannot understand a tropicall or metonymicall faith, [...]iz. the righteousnesse is evident (say you) because immedi­ately after, p. 11. interpreting the word righteousnesse, he saith, by it is meant the righteousnesse of Christ, &c. so that if by faith we understand the righteousnesse of Christ, and by righ­teousnesse, the righteousnesse of Christ too, we must make the A­postles meaning to runne thus. The righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to a beleever for the righteousnesse of Christ, an hyper ab­surdity.

[Page 26]The Remonstrants Apol. p. 113. giving a reason why they used not the phrase ( Christi ju­stitiam nobis imputari.) Christs righteousnesse to be im­puted to us, give this reason, ( Necesse est justitiam Chri­sti dicamus no­bis imputari propter justi­tiam Christi, quae loquutio non modo [...] sed manifestam in sese habet absurditatem.) We must necessarily s [...] that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to us for the righte­ousnesse of Christ, which is not proper but absurd. It was bor­rowed, Discipulum t [...] facile agn [...]sc [...].

1. Faith in a tropicall sense is that which Mr. Walke teacheth with all the Reformed Churches.

2. The explication of Mr. W. is of righteousnesse im­puted, which he saith is that which faith laieth hold of, no [...] those words, to righteousnesse, which you might observe to have a distinct interpretation given it by Mr. W. His words are by imputing and accounting that faith for righteous­nesse to Abraham, and every one of his faithfull seede is be [...] mea [...] Gods setting of Christs righteousnesse on the score and putting it on the account of the beleever, his judging them per­fectly rightnesse.

By that phrase for righteousnesse, is not meant the righteousnesse of Christ as you would fasten on him, no [...] perfect conformity to the Law, as in the first Covenant, personall righteousnesse of Abraham, but a righteousnesse by which the beleever is as if be had perfectly performed the Law in his person, in such a state, and had never sinned, by which the beleever is just in the sight of God.

A beleever is not so by faith in a proper sense, that is not perfect righteousnesse, and cannot make a man so▪ But in a relative sense as it applieth the righteousnesse of Christ active and passive, by which imputed, set on our score, it is that we are righteous, and so ac­counted.

Sect. 8. But let us come to the phrase of imputing, or Mr. G. [...]ting, and here Mr. W [...]. first fault is. He makes a suppo­s [...]tion, that to impute and account are universally termini aequi­pollentes, to runne alwayes hand in hand.

Answ. 1. He hath no such words in that place, there i [...] neither universally, nor alwayes.

2. If he did so, there is no [...]ispri [...]ion from his owne Scripture instances,

[Page 27] It had not beene good English (you say) I and my sonne Solomon shall be imputed offenders, and yet you must ac­knowledge to have offence imputed is to be accounted an offender.

Your selfe confesse in some cases and fals of speech, they may be of indifferent use and signification, and in the case in hand to be expressions of good propriety, and that there is not [...]uch difference betweene them, except a man hath a minde to [...]avill and wrang [...]e about words. The man then that quar­ [...]els these words must be conceived ex confessis, to have a minde to cavill and wrangle. Who then laieth on tongue [...]nd multiplieth discourse? it is your phrase.

But this is his great fault indeed, namely, the description [...]e layeth downe of the sense of the phrase, imputing a thing [...]o one, which description is this. The phrase of imputing or counting a thing to one signifieth both in the Old and New Testament, an act of judgement and estimation by which a [...]hing is judged and esteemed, reckoned and accounted to be as it is indeed.

These are his words, but he calleth it not a description once, as you doe twice, and so usually afterwards: for­sooth, that you may examine it by the rules of a right de­finition, or description, as in your 2. exception, where you trie it by that Law.

But the bare giving of the sense of a word cannot be [...]ermed a description, neither is every description to be [...]ried by the rules of a true definition, much lesse every explication of the sense of a word; passe that, What say you to it?

Capiat qui. potis est [...]aper [...], and confesse his eloquence to Mr. G. passe your intelligence.

Answ. Which surely is a wonder, when as he seemeth to explaine his speech to a common capacity. Doe not you know what it is to judge a thing to be as it is indeed? I would not have said so of you, his words following spell them more plainely when as he addeth, then it is just and according to truth. The judgement is so not when it is judged as it is not, but as it is, for that is unjust judge­ment [Page 28] and not according to truth. Hee addeth, Gods thoughts are alwayes just, and his judgement is ac­cording to truth, Rom. 2. 2. therefore a just impu­ting and counting is here meant, saith Mr. for God doth account of all persons and things, as they are. He giveth in­stance of an unjust account and false imputing, 1 King. 1. 21. and of true counting, Neb. 13. 13. and Levit. 17. 4. and Psal. 22. 30. and doe you not yet under­stand it?

Why doe you dispute against it, and condemne Mr. W. for it in the entrance, saying, The man is no where liker him­selfe then in the description? Surely you can never justly judge him or his cause in dispute, if so be that you doe not understand him: you might have spared your 1. 2. 4. and last onset against what is said, and first have required Mr. W. explanation, that you might understand him.

These are but words; the fault is in your will: he put­teth you to it, as we shall see in examination of your op­position.

You say, I should have thought that Gods imputing faith for righteousnesse (take faith in what sense you will) had beene an act of grace and mercy in God, and not an act of judgement.

1. By an act of judgement in Mr. W. sense you should understand, an act of understanding.

2. But I suppose you take it for an act of justice, for judgement the exercise thereof; and if, why may there not be in justification a concurrence both of mercy and judgement? and both not be exercised in making men just? I should have thought there is sweete agreement be­tweene them. I have read in one of our Homilies, that God in our redemption and justification, with endlesse mercy joyned his most upright and perfect justice. Homil. salv. 1. part. That Gods mercy did not deliver us without a just ransome, p. 14. that when as it lay not in us to doe, he pro­vided a ransome for us, that was the most precious body and bloud of his owne most deare—who besides his ransome sul­led the Law for us perfectly, ib. that in this the justice of God [Page 29] and his mercy did imbrace together, ib. so that in our justifi­cation is not onely Gods mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the Law calleth the justice of God, and it consisteth in paying our ransome, and fulfilling the Law. The grace of God shutteth not out the justice of God in our justification, but onely shutteth out the justice of, man, that is to say, the justice of our workes, as to be meanes of deserving our justification, ib.

I have read of Justification freely by grace through the re­demption which is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth a propiriation through faith in his bloud to declare his righteous­nesse—in it God is just and the justifier, Rom. 3.

When as faith is taken in a relative sense with its ob­ject, Christ and his perfect righteousnesse, and is imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse, Abraham is made just per­fectly, God judgeth justly in accounting him so, in pro­nouncing him so, with this he may stand in judgement and be as if he had never sinned, as if he had perfectly fulfilled the Law in his owne person.

It is not so where faith is taken in a proper sense, nei­ther is that accounting faith for righteousnesse a righte­ous judgement; or that which is in truth. Faith thus ta­ken is a worke of the Law, (some thinke) a part of inhe­rent righteousnesse, as charity, an imperfect grace, it cannot stand in judgement.

Faith in the relative sense establisheth the Law (as you shall see) bringeth in what it requireth, and so justifieth, and so justification is a worke of mercy and judgement.

I professe I could never indure what I read in Mr. Wot­ton and Socinians, that Poena & ve­nia sunt adver­sa. punishment and pardon are ad­verse, in some, nay in it selfe it is joyned with deniall of the satisfaction of Christ, and a destroyer of Gods justice. Looke you to it.

Justice shineth through mercy, Mr. Forbs, p. 92. and this Perkinsi verba Wot. in Bish. p. 174. of faith in a proper sense is against the justice of God, (as he) When as we are before Gods judgement-seate to be judged in the rigour of justice; then we must bring some thing that may countervaile the justice of God, not onely acceptation in mer­cy, but also approbation in justice. Justos ess [...] oportet si simus ei accepti, Cal. in Rom. 5. 1 [...]. We must be just if we [Page 30] be accepted of him. Simul qua­lis si [...] Christi ju­stitia interpre­tatur, tum vocat obedientiam, ubi nos abno­temus quaeso, quid nos afferre inconspectū Dei opotteat si ve­limus operibus justificari, nem­pe legis justiti am numeris omnibus abso­lutam, Calv. in Rom. 5 19. Sed quia offerimus per [...]ectam Legis gratuito donat, Calv. in Gal. 3. 6. The Apostle sheweth what Christ righteousnesse is when be calleth it obedience. Observe what we must bring into Gods sight if we will be justified by works the righteousnesse of the Law compleate. But because we bring th perfect obedience of the Law—because we have it not in us, God freely giveth it. Non asia justitia admittitur in Coelis, quam inte­gra Legis observatio, Calv. instit. 1. 3. c. 14. p. 13. No other righteousnesse is admitted in Heaven then the intire observation of the Law. Justitiam Dei quae apud Dei tribunal approbabitur, Calv. in Gal. 3 9 The righteousnesse of God which shall be approved at Gods Tri­bunall. Non vivimus coram Deo sine justitia, Calv. in Rom. 1. 17. We live not before God without righteousnesse. Primam justification is nostrae causam non ad hominum judici­um referri, cum ad Dei tribunal ubi nulla justitia censetur perfecta absolutaque Le­gis obedientia, Calv. ib. At Gods Tribunall no righteousnesse is so judged but per­fect and absolute obedience of the Law. At justitiam quae examen rigoremque judicii sustine at no­bis omnibus, integram perfectamque necesse est, Aret. in Phil. 3. 9. We have need of righteousnesse which will beare the examen and rigour of justice intire and perfect.

2. When as you tell us, p. 24. every Act of judging and esteening a thing to be as it is, is not an imputing or accounting it to another, which yet must be if it be rightly defined by the rules of a definition.

The Answer is Mr. W. did not define it, he said not it is, but it signifieth, which is not the manner of him that defineth. Neither hath he a word of imputing it to ano­ther, upon which what you tell us of the Sun and Moone, &c. are built, they are Castles in the aire.

3. You say, when God imputes either my faith to me, or Christs righteousnesse (the one being the Scripture phrase, the other Mr. Ws.) for my righteousnesse; he doth not judge any thing to be as indeed it is: for neither is my faith, nor the righ­teousnesse of Christ indeed my righteousnesse, but my faith in that grace which God hath consecrated and ordained to bring me into communion and fellowship of that righteousnesse that is of that Justification, &c. which Christ by the merit of his life [Page 31] and death hath purchased for m [...] and for all those that beleeve in him. Therefore the phrase of imputing doth not signifie an act of judgement, &c. by which a man judgeth a thing to be as it is.

1. The Scripture, and what hath beene spoken are di­rectly against you, which shew Gods judgement according to truth. I oppose it to your bare negation.

2. For the Scripture as it mentioneth imputation of faith, which you confesse is not righteousnesse, and truly as in a proper sense, so it saith righteousnesse is imputed, which is also against your assertion that it is not righte­ousnesse indeed, and elsewhere I shall make good to be Christs; you shall not name a third.

3. The righteousnesse of Christ is mine, he is my wel­beloved, mine, he is the Lord my righteousnesse. Sir, whether you will or no the Lord saith it, this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our righteousnesse, Jer. 23. 6.

4. Faith in a proper sense bringeth not into commu­nion with the righteousnesse of Christ, as your selfe, though here you say it, elsewhere you deny it, & here you confound righteousnesse and justification as if they were one; if so, why doe you deny it elsewhere? if it be dif­ferent, indeed it is an effect of righteousnesse imputed (so is justification) the matter, by imputation that by which) Why doe you confound them?

And here we may see what a goodly effect faith hath, and what a bringing into communion you meane, when as you deny communion with Christs righteousnesse, but in the effect of it, to which after.

5. Faith in a relative sense setteth all at rights, it cau­seth communion and fellowship with Christ, and his righteousnesse to justification; by this Christs righteous­nesse is our owne; the judgement of God is according to truth; when as the Lord imputeth it to righteousnesse, as the streame of Protestants runneth.

4. When as you say, Mr. W. instances from Scripture, [...]ply not naturally with his description of the word Impu­ting. It is but a deniall; a deniall will answer it. To omit, [Page 32] it is you, not Mr. W. that made it a description.

Vlt. You say, some instances contradict that description of his according to his owne interpretation, of the phrase imputing, as that of Shimei, Let not my Lord impute iniquity to me, hee doth not (saith Mr. W. truly but contradictingly to himselfe) that David should not judge his iniquity to be none, and there­fore it is against all reason be should say, still it so signifies; and so for that of Job 33. 10. whence you deduce it, doth alwayes so signifie.

To which the answer is easie. The words universally and alwayes, before, still and afterwards repeated now a­gaine are not in Mr. W. they are your owne, as these, de­finition and description; devised to serve a turne. Where he saith it was so, he saith, it is taken sometimes in other senses there named, when used by a trope, a metonymy of the cause for the effect, &c. a metaphor, &c. see his instances; neither hath Mr. W. yet delivered you his applica­tion.

When as to shew the contrary you instance in Rom. 4. 8. & 2 Cor. 5. 19. Where God is said not to impute sinne, the meaning is not that God doth not judge a beleever to have sinne in him, and to judge as it is, but that God absolving men from guilt and punishment, and so imputing righteous­nesse, that it is of a full different nature from judging it as in­deed it is.

For my part I know not, but when as God imputeth not sinne, he judgeth as it is, for there is neither guilt nor punishment properly so called to them that beleeve in Je­sus Christ; which is therefore true, because they are justi­fied by the righteousnesse of Christ, truly given them and applied by faith, by which as they are accounted righte­ous, and are so indeed.

When as you say Mr. Ws. owne tenet sheweth it, that God imputeth Christs righteousnesse for the righteousnesse we should have performed in our owne persons, which is not our owne personall righteousnesse. You misse-report it. Mr. Ws. words are, when God imputeth Christs righteousnesse to a beleever, he counteth him perfectly righteous by that righteousnes, and so he is indeed.

[Page 33]And because you judge Mr. W. for that passage (which a reason why imputing signifieth an act of judgement) Gods [...]oughts are just, and his judgements according to truth, Rom. [...] 2. as if Gods imputing righteousnesse to him that is a [...]nner, and hath no righteousnesse, were an act of injustice [...] him, and contrary to truth.

Answ. I suppose he did it with good cause. Then when [...] a man is accounted righteous for the righteous for the righteousnesse of [...]hrist imputed by God, applied by faith, as he is righte­ [...]us indeed, so the judgement or account is true and righ­ [...]ous. Which not being a truth of faith imputed in a pro­ [...]r sense, if it should be impu [...]d, doth therefore render [...]ods account not true nor just. So that directly you deny [...]e one and other in this exception.

Neither is it a new practise of Mr. W. or his alone, but [...]dinary to be found in the learned.

Mr. Forbs, condemning imputation of faith in a pro­ [...]er sense, (which is your opinion) and calling it pernitious, [...]d more pernitious then that of Papists, sheweth the same [...]hus.

For when faith is not Relatively or instrumentally taken, [...] respect of Christ apprehended by it, it can never containe per­ [...]ct righteousnesse, and so the Lord can never justifie us [...]y it; for the judgement of God is just and according to [...]uth, Rom. 2. v. 2. 5. &c. They wittingly lay a ground [...] themselves touching justification, wherein it is impossible that [...]ods judgement can be according to truth, seeing they make him [...] justifie them, by that which in their owne confession is ne­ [...]er answerable to the justice of God, p. 91. so he.

If God should justifie us—or by faith as it is a worke or abit in us, God could never be seene to be just in justifying of [...]s, &c. p 92.

( Sybrandus to Bertius: De­us est justus & judicium ejus secundum veri­tatem; fides au­tem, non est to­ta legis justitia, sed tantum ex­igua pars illi­us, p. 10. Sed Dei judi­cium est secun­dum veritatem, Rom. 2. 2. sci­mus, &c. Num autem ille qui judicat se­cundum veri­tatem, & qui in judicando er­rare nequit, quique nec fal­lere nec falli potest, exigu­am justitiae portionem, e­amque imper­fectam, & multis peccatis con­taminatam, ha­bebit aut ha­bere poterit pro perfecta legis justitia? p. 30.) God is just, and his judgement according to truth, faith [...] not the whole righteousnesse of the Law, but onely a little part [...]hereof.

But Gods judgement is according to truth, Rom. 2. 2. We know, &c. Will he who judgeth according unto truth, and who in judging cannot erre, who cannot deceive nor be deceived, ac­count [Page 34] or can be, a small portion of saith imperfect and much de­filed, for the persect righteousnesse of the Law.

( Quando Deus nosre pu­tat justos ex fi­de, veritas quae huic reputati­oni divinae re­spondet, nonest justitia Christi formalterinhae­rens in nobis, sed justitia Christi reali [...]er participata & donata nobis ordinationedi­vina. Si Deus ex eo quod nobis imputat Christi justiti­am existima [...]e [...] nos inhaerenrer justos (quod nesas dictu) er­raret Dei judi­cium atque es­set in mente divina existi­matio cui veri­tas rei non re­spondet, Bish. Dav. c. 28. p. 171.) When God doth account us just by faith, the truth which answereth this divine account, is not the righteousnesse of Christ formally inhering in us, but the righteousnesse of Christ really communicated and given us by divine ordination. If God should esteeme us inherently just from that, that he im­puteth unto us Christs righteousnesse, his judgement should erre, and there should be in the minde of God an account to which the truth of the thing answereth not (which is wicked­nesse for a man to speake) ( Fallit ig [...]tur & fallitur Bel­larminus im­putationem justitiae Christi vocans nudam existimationem sive opinationem sine re, cum sit realis ac­ceptatio peccatoris credentis pro justo in judicio Dei, Pareus Castig. de justif. p. 485. Ut Cham. n. c 5. Sect. 24.) Therefore Bellar. deceiveth and is deceived, calling th [...] imputation of Christs righteousnesse, a naked esteeme or thought without the thing, seeing it is a reall acceptation of the beleeving sinner for a just man in Gods judgement.

Papists and Protestants agree that in justification Gods account is true and right. Bellar. and Becanus urge the judge­ment of God according to truth, to which Cham. ( Judicium Dei sateor esse secundum veritatem. Vere justi facti sunt quicunque justificantur a Deo, sed aliter per inhaerentem aliter per imputatam justiti­am, p. 865. 866.) I confesse that the judgement of God is according to truth, they are truly made just who are justified by God, but one way by inherent, another way by imputed righteousnesse. ( Esto, imputare non simplici [...]e [...] existi mare, ut cum fallitut intel­lectus, & videtur hypocrita bonus qui tamen malus est: esto potius conjunctum cum [...] veritate, sed sua: nimirum ut cuique Christiano, vere & realiter imputetur Christi justitia [...] hanc nos veritatem imputationis absit ut oppugnemus, c. 13. Sect. 14. p. 20.) Grant that to impute is not simply to suppose, as when the under­standing is deceived, and an Hypocrite seemeth good, who is wicked. Let it rather be joyned with the truth of the thing, but its owne truth, that Christs righteousnesse be truly and re­ally imputed to every Christian; this imputation God forbid we should oppose.

Mr. Pemble to Becanus, urging Rom. 2. 2. saith. Wee embrace this rule, and the reason of it, acknowledging that where­soever there is justification, there is justice, one way or other in the party justified. The question still stands in the manner, &c.

[Page 35] We affirme that it is by imputing unto him the perfect righ­ [...]eousnesse of Christ, accepting Christs obedience for [...]is.

We here take up the forenamed rule, laid downe by our ad­versaries. De justif. p. 13. Whomsoever God pronounceth to be perfectly just, be must needs be made perfectly just, for Gods judgement is accor­ding to truth, p. 9. and elsewhere. God accounts that onely for perfect righteousnesse of the Law which is so indeed and truth, but faith is not the perfect fulfilling of the Law: therefore God doth not account it for such.—

The major must be proved that God accounts not that for per­fect justice, which is not perfect indeed; this appeares, Rom. [...]. 2. the judgement of God is according to truth. When there­fore any thing is not truly good and perfect, there God esteemes it not truly good and perfect, ib. p. 37.

Gualter (you say) an orthodox Interpreter findeth grace and favour not strictnesse of judgement in the phrase of im­ [...]utation. It teacheth us that God might indeed have dealt in [...]rictnesse of judgement with us, and that we are indebted to [...]is free gra [...] that he dealeth not with us as we have de­ [...]rved.

Who denieth but God might have dealt in strictnesse, equired and exacted personall obedience, and have execu­ [...]ed death on us for our sinne? and that it is mercy that God imputeth or giveth Christs righteousnesse: the A­ [...]stle sheweth Christ and all his, gifts, and so effects of [...]race, and yet in that there is strict justice, and that is [...]nswered by the L. Christ our surety by his perfect righ­ [...]eousnesse, so that Gods righteousnesse is declared thereby. He is just in justifying, and so Orthodox interpreters, our [...]wne, and others, as before. I may adde more.

The Law must be satisfied, or else we cannot be just, for the Lord doth allow no other righteousnesse but the very same which [...]s described in the Law, which whosoever cannot attaine are pro­ [...]ounced guilty of eternall death; therefore if we will be righ­ [...]eous and saved, such a righteousnesse must be sought out, then which the Law cannot require a more absolute—and where [...]hall we finde it? Our faith is but begun and we must al­wayes pray it may be increased in us—but righteousnesse must [Page 36] be of that kind as that nothing at all may be added thereunto. Dr. Whitak. against Camp. Englished by M. Stoke, p. 224. & p. 229. 230.

The justice that freeth us from the Law, neither increaseth nor groweth, but is ever most perfect and absolute, that is, Christ his obedience imputed to us by faith;—what that righteous­nesse is see there. I will not make application. ( Ad Dei tribunal, ubi nulla justitia censetur nisi persecta legis obedientia, Toss. in Rom. 2. 21.) At Gods tribunall nothing is accounted righteousnesse but perfect obedi­ence of the Law. ( Nihil im­perfectum aut maneum potest dici justitia Dei justificās, Id. ad Rom. p. 173. 7. Deum verè & summè justum in sponsore, Beza. ad Rom. 4. 25.) Nothing imperfect or lame can be called the justifying righteousnesse of God. ( Nam ut alibi dixi nullos pro justis approbat Deus, nisi quos prius verè ac summè (non in ipsis sed) in Christo suo, seu imputata Christi justitia justifica [...]et, ut Pro. 17. 15. Bek. ad Rom. 4. 21. 5.) God is truly and most just in the surety. God, as I have elsewhere said, doth approve none for just, but those whom first he maketh just truly, and in the highest degree, not in themselves, but Christs righteousnes imputed. ( Junius. Sola Dei Patris mi [...]ericordia justificari peccatorem ita profitemur, ut Christum cum Officio Media­toris causam proximam agnoscamus, qui sibi non natus sed nobis, Jes 9. 5. ita offensi Patris sempiternam justitiam absolutissimae persectionis [...] miseris hominibus re­conciliavit, ut Deus justitiae laudem in media misericordia non amitteret. Et si ut agens li­ber [...]imum quos & quomodocunque velit justificare potuit; obedientiam tamen fi­lii necessariam fecit, tum natura ipsius qua infinite justus, tum patefacta in Lege voluntas quae in Deo est aeterna & immota justitiae regula (sic & Calvinus instit. l. 4. c. 10. Sect. 15. quae insuper immutabiliter requirit satisfactionem pro peccato, & Legis impletionem per obedientiam, cum justificare impium sine ulla justitia [...] esse dixerit, Pro. 17. 15. facta est igitur translatio Legis, Heb. 7. 12. quae non potuit vivifica [...]e, Gal. 3. 2. in Christum qui pro nobis sub Lege factus, Gal. 4. 4. Legi omnimodo [...]atis [...]ace­ [...]et, Thes. Theol. 35. p. 689.) We so professe a sinner to be justified by the on­ly mercy of God the Father that we acknowledge Christ with his office of a Mediatour the next cause, who being borne for us, not himselfe, Jes. 9. 5. who by the ransome of most absolute perfection so reconciled the eternall justice of his offended Fa­ther to miserable men that God lost not the praise of justice in midst of mercy. Though as a most free agent he could justifie whomsoever, and in what manner soever he would, yet both his Nature as he is infinitely just, and also his Will revealed in the Law, which in God is the eternall and immovable rule of justice: which moreover, in immutably requireth satisfaction for sinne, and fulfilling the Law by obedience, seeing to justifie a wicked man without righteousnesse he hath [...]alled it abomina­tion, there is therefore made a translation of the Law which could not give life on Christ, who being made for us under the Law might every way satisfie the Law for us.

[Page 37]( Hoc [...] pro [...]sus suit complen­dum etiam in nobis, ideoque Christus indu­ens nostram carnem nostro nomine perse­cte praestitit le­gem, Matth. 5. non veni—& 16. hic facilius est coelum—pertinet hoc membrum ad beneficii Chri­sti applicatio­nem ad nos, A­ret in Rom. 8. 4.) This righteousnesse was altogether to be fulfilled in us, therefore Christ putting on our flesh in our behalfe perfectly per­formed it. I came not, &c. Matth. 5. & 16. here it is easier for the Heavens to passe, this member appertaineth to the appli­cation of Christs benefit to us. ( Nam tum demū reddere­tur inanis si illi non satisfiere [...], vel per nos vel nostro nomine per aliū ▪ atqui id per Christum est satisfactum, qui non venit solvere sed implere, Matth. 5. & eam in ca [...]ne nostra implevit ad Rom. 8 Tossa [...]. p. 26. Beza in Rom. 8. v. 4.) Then should it be vaine if not satisfied by us, or in our name by another, and that is satis­fied by Christ who came not to dissolve, &c. and he did ful­fill it in our flesh. ( [...], illud ipsum quod requitit Le [...] ut ex ejus praescripto justi & integ [...]i coram Deo censcamur: nam tum ad peccatorum remissionem & impletio­nem justitiae accesserit etiam hoc tertium, id est, perfecta naturae nostrae integritas (quae om­nia gratis consequimur in Christo per fidem apprehenso) ut in omnes facies se conver­tat Satan, justi sumus coram Deo, etiam ex illa absolutissima Legis formula quamo­brem dixit Apostolus supra, c. 3. 31. se Legem non evertere sed stabilire.) That very righteousnesse which the Law required that by its prescript we may be thought just and intire before God, for when as to forgivenesse of sinnes and fulfilling the Law this third shall come, the perfect integrity of our nature, (all which we freely attaine in Christ apprehended by faith) let Satan doe what ever he can we are just before God, and that from that most absolute forme of the Law, there­fore the Apostle said he came not to destroy the Law, but to esta­blish it, Rom. 3. 21. ( [...]ustitia Jesu Christi, per quam justificamur coram D [...]est perfectissima totius Legis divinae obe­dientia—justitia in Evangelio pa [...]esacta est impletio Legis a Christo facta pro nobis, Po­lan. synt. l. 6. c. 36. p. 2947. per Evangelium Lex non aboletur s [...]d stabilitur, R [...] 3. [...].) The righteousnesse of Jesus Christ by which we are justified before God is the most perfect obedi­ence of the whole Law of God—the righteousnesse manifested in the Gospel, is the fulfilling of the Law made by Christ for us. ( Calv. hunc scrupulum optime discurit cum ex ipsa Legis doctrina [...] Legis ju [...] ­tiam. Calv. ad Rom. 10. v. 5. Stabilimus, merito hoc dixit Apostolas, nam Christ satisfa­ctio quid aliud quam Legis minas ostendit, min [...]e irritas esse, quum [...] lucre Christ [...] oportuerit? Sed & Christi justitia quid aliud est quam plena Legis praestatio: doctrina igi­tur ex fide quum non prius nos servet quam justificet (idest, Christum nobis pe [...] imputa­tionem applicet his omnibus virtutibus Legis ornatum) certe justitiam [...] non modo non evertit, sed potius stabilit in nobis, Bez. ad Rom. 3. ult,) He excellently taketh away this scruple, when as out of the doctrine of the Law he establisheth the righteousnesse of the Law. (f) The Apostle well said we establish; for what doth Christs satisfaction but shew the threats of the Law not voyd when as Christ must indure them? and what is Christs righteousnesse else [Page 38] but a full performance of the Law. The doctrine therefore of faith seeing it doth not save us before it justifieth us, (that is, it applieth Christ to us by imputation, adorned with all these vertues) surely it doth not onely not overthrow the Law, but rather stablisheth it in us.

Hitherto may I referre that eternall rule, Doe this and live, see Mr. Perkins argument. That which must be our righteousnesse before God must satisfie the justice of the Law, which saith, Doe these things and thou shalt live, but there is nothing that can satisfie that justice of the Law, but the righteousnesse and obedience of Christ, ergo. See Abbot. p. 387. see Abot. p. 389. See Sybrand against Ber­tius, p. 140. & 144. and Mr. Pemb. p. 149.

By all which much may be noted by you if you will put the same to use, and that not onely mercy, but justice, exact satisfaction to the Law, are by Orthodox Writers established in free justification.

Sect. 9. You goe on, and say ( when as Mr. W. by righteous­nesse P. 27. saith is meant Evangelicall righteousnesse—even the perfect satisfaction and righteousnes of Christ our Mediator and surety, which he the Son of God, in mans nature performed to the Law.)

Riddle me, riddle me, &c. and that faith in any sense cannot be Mr. G. imputed for the righteousnesse of Christ.

1. If it be a Riddle, how can you solve it without ex­plication? your arguing is a beating of the aire.

2. And in the rest you doe but trifle, that which is im­puted is the righteousnesse of Christ, so Mr. W. truly; that is Evangelicall, Dan. 9.

3. That for the righteousnesse of Christ is not Mr. Ws. but your owne before answered, see his explication.

4. To that question, (though impertinent) whether any thing may properly be said to be truly and indeed the same with it selfe, and your reference of it to Mr. Walkers owne determination when his Logick returnes againe unto him.

I Answer, that I should thinke any thing may truly and properly be said to be the same with it selfe; neither doe I conceive any thing more truly and properly the same then the thing it selfe: other things may be like, are not [Page 39] the same. Every thing is every way the same with it selfe, identity is the samenesse of a thing in my Logick. Your owne immediately preceding words may answer your question, which are, surely there is nothing truly, really, and indeed the same with the satisfaction of Christ, but this satis­faction it selfe.

So that what Mr. W. said is a truth, that which God ac­counteth for righteousnesse is so indeed and maketh the person righteous indeed.

So is faith (not in a proper sense) in a figurative sense apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ, righteousnesse indeed, and your inference, p. 28. but a formerly destroy­ed Remonstrant device.

When you comprehend not why Mr. W. should call the 2. righteousnesse of Christ evangelicall righteousnesse, opposed to legall, and yet define a legall righteousnesse to be every mans fulfilling the Law in his owne person.

I take it no difficult thing; take it as performed by him­selfe, it was his performance and legall; take him to be our surety, and consider him so performing the same, and it graciously given unto us by God in the Gospel, it is Evangelicall and rightly so called: Christ and all his be­nefits are Evangelicall, such is his everlasting righteous­nesse, Dan. 9. ( Nec desunt apud Prophe­tas loca de ju­stitia justifican­te in Christi Regno, ut Isai. 45. & 53. & Dan. 9. Tossan ad Rom. p. 173.) Neither are there places wanting amongst the Prophets of justifying righteousnesse, as,

You say legall righteousenes of workes cannot be inherent, be­cause they are matters transient. 3.

1. Though the works passe, the habit whence which al­so is strengthened by the worke, is inherent.

2. As sinfull acts passing, leave a staine and skarre as well as guilt on the soule, why may not acts of righteous­nesse a contrary lustre?

3. The acts of righteousnesse of Christ passe not simply, they remaine with God to whom they were offered to the ends and uses for which they were performed as in the ef­fects thereof.

4. Habits and acts in the Apostles disputes are infol­ded, neither doth he dispute against transient acts alone, [Page 40] but inhering habits, the habit is actus primus, neither is it the love of God, or faith in Christ that acteth not o [...] him, conjoyning the soule and the object thereby.

You demand why he should say, that to be inherent in eve­ry 4. man which was never in any but Christ.

That may have a faire account. Legall righteousnesse was inherent in Adam, as well as in Christ. God made man just, what Adam had, the whole nature had in him, and so it was in every man. There is also a proportion to the Law in every Christian, the Law of God is in his heart, though it be imperfect and given by the Gospel.

You know not why he should affirme Evangelicall righteous­nesse 5. to be a satisfaction performed to the Law. Why not? You grant it of the active obedience of Christ, but how the pas­sive obedience of Christ which Mr. W. intendeth should be a sa­tisfaction to the Law you apprehend not. You say the Law was satisfied in that perfect and intire obedience which Christ exhi­bited to it, and did not require of him (no more then it doth of any other man that shall fulfill it as he did) that he should be made a curse and die the death.

1. I answer, both make up full satisfaction in our be­halfe, the Law said, Doe this and live, and, Accursed is every man that abideth not in all the Commandements of the Lord to doe them: both are our debt: our surety must doe both in these names. God required doing, he must fulfill all righ­teousnesse; as God threatned death, Christ must suffer these things; he was accursed for us, he died for us.

2. The Law requireth full satisfaction of the surety as well as the principall, and punisheth the surety as well as the principall.

But he setteth himselfe against the wrath of the Law, and Luther ad Gal. p. 160. 2. taketh it away, and satisfieth the Law in his owne body by him­selfe, I satisfie the Law for thee.

But the Law doth not require that an innocent person should Mr. G. die, but the transgressour, so you; he should not, considering the innocent person per se, in himselfe, & qua, as a sure­ty, it is not so: so considered he was and might be num­bred with transgressours. He was made sinne for us, the ini­quities [Page 41] of us all were laid on him. They, sinnes were on his account, on him, he bore our sinnes; hence guilt, hence punishment; Satisfactory it was (you say) but not to the Law, it knowes no satisfaction, but to God, because hee requi­red it.

Answ. Whose Law was it, but Gods? you say God re­quired Bez. ad 2 Cor. 5. ult. Etsi peccatum victima ex He­braeorum idio­tismo, &c. Ta­men ratio Anti­thesis poscit ut potius Christus dicatur factus esse peccatum pro nobis, idest peccator, non in se sed ex omnium pec­catorum no­strorum reatu ipsi imputa­to.—I pse peccatum & nos justitia, non nostra sed Dei, non in no­bis sed in ipso, sicut ipse pec­catum non su­um sed nostrū, nec in se, sed in nobjs factus est—sic ergo sumus justitia Dei in ipso ut ille peccatum in nobis▪ nempe ex imputati­one. Luther. ad Gal. c▪ 3. 15. 13. p. 136. 137. C. 53. it, Was it not in the Law? satisfie God requiring, and satisfie the Law: in it he requireth death on the trans­gression thereof.

Now that our Surety was by imputation a transgres­sour, hearken to Divines. Although sinne be taken for Sacri­fice in the Hebrewes speech—yet the reason of the opposition re­quireth rather that Christ should be said to be made sinne for [...]s, that is a sinner, not in himselfe, but by the guilt of all our sins imputed to him—where he citeth that of Augustine.

He was sinne, and we righteousnesse, not our owne, but of God, not in our selves, but in him, as he is made sinne, not his owne, but ours, nor in himselfe, but in us;—We therefore are so the righteousnesse of God in him, as he was sinne in us, for­ [...]ooth by imputation.

Christ is innocent concerning his owne person, and therefore he [...]ought not to have beene hanged upon a tree. But because according [...]o the Law of Moses every Thiefe and Malefactor ought to be [...]anged, therefore Christ also according to the Law ought to be [...]anged, for be sustained the person of a sinner, and of a thiefe, not of one, but of all sinners and theeves.—Therefore it behoved that he should become a transgressour, and as Jes. the Prophet saith, to be reckoned and accounted amongst transgressours and [...]respassers. And this no doubt all the Prophets did foresee in spirit, that Christ should become the greatest transgressour, mur­ [...]herer, adulterer, blasphemer, that ever was, or could be in all the world. For he being made a Sacrifice for the sinnes of the whole world, is not now an innocent person and without sinnes, is not now the Sonne of God borne of the Virgin Mary, but a sinner which hath and carrieth the sinne of Paul, who was a blasphemer, an oppressour, and a persecutor: of Peter which de­nied Christ: of David which was an adulterer, a murtherer, and caused the Gentiles to blaspheme the name of the Lord. And [Page 42] briefely which hath and beareth all the sinnes of all men in his, body that he might make satisfaction for them with his owne bloud.—He verily is innocent, because he is the unspotted and undefiled Lambe of God: but because he beareth the sinnes of the world, his innocency is burthened with the sinnes and guilt of the whole world.

Whatsoever sinnes I and thou and we all have done or shall d [...] hereafter, they are Christs owne sinnes as verily as if he himselfe had done them.—But what is it to beare? The Sophisters an­swer to be punished. Ʋery well, but wherefore is Christ punished? ☞ Is it not because he hath sinne and beareth sinne?—So Lu­ther. See Gerhard de justif. p. 207▪ I passe others for the present.

Lastly, you call him a Dedalian Divine, and say he makes 6. no clever worke when he jumbles together the active and passive Mr. G. obedience of Christ and subjecteth them to the same consideration in respect to their performance to the Law.

Answ. Call him as you please, he hath not exceeded his mediocrity, here you prove it not. I finde no jumbling. What if he had put them together? they agree, and are his obedience. What was his taking our nature, what he did and suffered, his making himselfe of no reputation, his taking on him the forme of a servant, his being made under the Law, but his obedience, which lasted even untill death? and what but answer to Gods will and commandement on him as our Surety, what the Law spake to our Surety?

Lesse then the whole will not satisfie Gods justice, will not justifie, procure our freedome from sinne, and eternall life. I will try that with you when you please. So that yet he hath quitted himselfe.

Sect. 10. But before you leave him you play the Crier. If any man or woman longs for contradictions, or other absur­dities of the bloud, I can yet releeve them out of this tract of Mr. W.

Surely that office doth not become you, you wanted an office when you tooke up that, the Ware you vent is no commodity, it is not appetible, adversaries onely desire them in▪ such as they oppose for their owne advantage. O how corruption pleaseth it selfe with them! What a pre­tious [Page 43] dish is it to please your admirers in this your opi­nion! Let us examine the matter.

P. 6. He affirmeth, and that truly (as you conceive) faith to P. 30. be the first and radicall grace and vertue of renovation. I will 1. agree with you both. Where is the contradiction or ab­surdity? Answ. you say, yet p. 5. in his definition of faith he sup­poseth the subject or person in whom it is wrought to be rege­nerate, which doubtlesse is as much as to be renued.

Sir, are not faith and all graces wrought together, and Answ. at once? are they not together? is the subject then a be­leever, and not regenerate, and not renued? Is not faith that which is born of God, & the subject in that name regenerate and renued? What is regeneration or renovation but workes of God by his spirit inabling to beleeve, &c. and is it not necessary that in order of nature inabling to be­leeve be before faith? This will never save a man or womans longing, nor tickle the Reader unlesse he be a beleever of you on those termes of Pythagoras his schollers, Ipse dixit, he said it. Let us try another.

Againe, p. 9. he affirmeth that God doth account and judge 2. of all persons and things so as they are, and yet p. 11. gran­ [...]th Mr. G. that God accounted Job his enemy, which he was not.

Mr. W. said not that God counted Job his enemy, but Answ. as Jobs speech: and then it is so asserted in an improper sense, and that distinct to the other which was first na­med, so that this is no contradiction: had he said the word is so taken, universally, alwayes, still, (which you un­truly charge him with before) it had beene somewhat to purpose, now it is neither contradiction nor absurdity. Mr. W. professedly laieth downe divers senses of the word, and that with a sometimes—as in that eleventh and tenth page. Why did you not make more contradictions as ma­ny as he did put different acceptations of the word?

So p. 5. he defines faith, which is here said to be imputed 3. for righteousnesse to be the supernaturall gift and grace of be­leeving, and yet p. 8. that God imputes a righteousnesse which Mr. G. neither consists in any worke or workes, nor in any grace or vertue inherent, and p. 12. he saith, by imputing▪ faith for righ­teousnesse [Page 44] is meant Gods setting of Christ's righteousnesse on the score, and putting it on the account of every beleever.

Faith questionlesse is a supernaturall gift, but that it is Answ. imputed in a proper sense, he saith it not, he blameth you for the same, but still in a relative sense, as it apprehendeth and applieth the righteousnesse of Christ.

This righteousnesse imputed is neither any worke or worke or workes, grace or vertue inherent in us.

By imputation of Christs righteousnesse is meant Gods setting it on the score of, or putting it on the account of a beleever, he setteth it on his account, or really and tru­ly giveth the same unto him. Here is not a contradiction to save a mans longing. It is well for him, not for your credit who beate up the Drum in Print and cry, If any man or woman, who may say, Parturiunt montes: let the Reader looke for itsg Enlish in your selfe.

Defining faith which the Apostle saith is imputed, he de­fines 4. it a strong faith, or faith in the highest degree, so that P. 31. a weake faith is not capable of Pauls imputation for righte­ousnesse. Mr. G.

It is true he saith, this faith of Abraham was not weak, Answ. but a strong faith and beliefe without staggering, in that place. Doth he say the faith that is imputed must be strong or not imputed? Where saith he, that a true faith, if not strong and a weake faithed Christian must to Hell? No, it is another question. Mr. W. holdeth faith justifying as a hand receiving, so it receiveth the treasure be it never so weakly it inricheth, so it receiveth Christ and his righteousnesse it justifieth strong, and weake belongs to the more and lesse, not to the nature of faith simply.

This also troubleth you, that the spirit of God in working Mr. G. faith confirmes the heart with confidence and firme persua­sion. Answ. But why are you troubled? Is not the heart by na­ture weake, and doe not the workes of such an one shew it? Ezek. 16. Doe not all graces strengthen, and shall faith, the chiefest, not confirme?

Doth it trouble you that he saith, the spirit of God working faith confirmes the heart with confidence? it needeth [Page 45] not, for whether confidence be of the nature of that mixt habit faith (as I thinke) or the effect of faith, it must [...]eeds confirme the heart. It needeth not that he calleth [...]t a perswasion, it was so truly called before you were born, [...]nd if it did not perswade, how doth the soule assent?

And as for firmnesse, it being a part of the inward and [...]idden man which is incorruptible, a part of the everlasting Kingdome of Christ, it must be acknowledged firme; infused [...]abits are so, all: they have more or lesse firmnesse in them.

Lastly, whereas Mr. W. saith that God sets Christs [...]ghteousnesse on the score, and puts it on the account of [...]very beleever; you would know whether his meaning be [...]at God accounteth every beleever to have done and suffered; the [...]ings which Christ did and suffered; or other tolerable constru­ [...]ion.

I answer, his putting to account is such a valid dona­ [...]on of the same to a beleever, that he by faith in Christ [...] as if himselfe had satisfied. We by him died, we by [...]im fulfilled the Law. He for them paid the ransome by his [...]ath, he for them fulfilled the Law in his life: so that now in [...]im and by him every true Christian man may be called a ful­ller of the Law. Thus the Church of England in her Homily.

To your ifs.

If God puts the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe upon a be­ [...]evers Mr. G. score, he puts the merit of Christs righteousnesse up­ [...] his score also, for these are inseparable: If he puts the me­ [...]t of Christs righteousnesse upon his score, he must put all the [...]uits and effects of his merit also, for these likewise are in­ [...]arable as the other, and so God shall have accounted every [...]leever to have redeemed, justified, and saved the world.

I answer, God putteth the righteousnesse of Christ on [...]he score of a beleever and the merit also, and so the ef­ [...]cts of his merit are communicated. So that hereby man [...] just, hath what to answer God requiring doing to life, [...]nd threatning death for sinnes, Christ his righteousnesse [...]nd merits, and hence is he justified, saved, &c. And yet followeth not that God should account every beleever Sa [...]iour of the world. Your consequence is an absurd [Page 46] Popish one, reasons are given by our learned Protestants an­swering Sivere imputa­retur nobis ju­stitia Christi, profecto non minus justi ha­beri censeri (que) deheremus quā ipse Christas, proinde re­demptores & salvaroresmun­di, quod est absurdum. Nos autem ab­surdū dicimus. Tantum praecario, id est ali­unde & in alio. Rursus fieri non potest ut qui imputative justus est, sit re­demptor mun­di & servator, sed tantum ser­vatus & redem­ptus. Cham. de justif. c. 20. P. 23 24. Ejusdem causae omnia effecta in unum indi­vidaum con­sundere. Quis neget so­lis calorem ap­plicatum arbo­ribus, esse causam generatorum fructuum omnium, neque tamen quisquam adeo insanit, u Piro applicaret generationem omnium sructuum, quia piro vidit applicatum solis calorem Causa est, quia longe differunt calor & applicatio coloris. Calor consideratur in ipso sole unde manat in omnes at bores, sed applicatio attenditur omnibus arboribus, ut non s [...] omnibus idem actus communis, revera alius actus est cum calor applicatur Pito, & alim cum Pomo & cum nuci & deinceps. Eadem ratio est justitiae communis est servandis in viram aeternam, quandoquidem nulsum est aliud nomen sub caelo m quo nos oporter salutem assequi, sed sua suit Paulo justitiae impuratio, sua Petro. Johanm, jacobo. Absurdissuna ergo consequentia, imputari Pauls redemptionem Petri, Iohann [...], Iacobi, & aliorum Id. c. 21 P.3. In an answer to an objection of Salmeton. Bellarmine, whose it is against imputed righteous­nesse. If the righteousnesse of Christ (saith Bellarmine) should be truly imputed unto us, truly we ought to be accounted and thought no lesse righteous then Christ himself, and therefore Redeemers and Saviours of the world, which is absurd. Cham. answering him, denieth the consequence in these words. We (Protestants) say it to be an absurd thing, and denieth us equally just, for as much as he hath it inherently, a se, from himself, and is per se justus, just of himself, when as we in­herently are unjust, and have our righteousnesse onely by favour, that is elsewhere and in another: and addeth. Againe, it cannot be that he that is just by imputation should be a Redeemer of the world, and Saviour, but onely redeemed and saved.

Elsewhere he answereth this to be, to poure all effects of the same cause into one individuall thing. Who would deny the heate of the Sunne applied to trees to be the cause of all fruits brought forth? Yet none is so madde as to give unto the Peare-tree the bringing forth of all fruits, because he seeth the heate of the Sunne applied to the Peare-tree. The reason followeth. The reason is, heate and application of heat have a far difference.

Heate is considered in the Sunne it selfe, from whence it passeth to all the trees; but the application thereof is given to all the trees: so that it is not the same common act to all, indeed it is one act when as the heate of the Sunne is ap­plied to a Peare-tree, another when to an Apple-tree, and when to a Nut-tree, and so for the rest. This he applieth. There is the same reason of the righteousnesse of Christ which is common to all that shall be saved to eternall life, for as much as there is no other name under Heaven in whom we ought to attaine sal­vation. [Page 47] But Paul had his imputation of righteousnesse, Peter his, and so John and James. It is therefore a most absurd consequence, that the redemption of Peter, James, and the rest, should be imputed unt Paul. Doctor Ames answe­ring the same objection, laieth downe the Protestants te­nent.

1. Christs righteousnesse to be so 1. Christi justitiam, eatenus nobis imputari ut cjus virtue, nos perinde justi censeamur coram Deo, ac si nosmer ipsi in nobis haberemus quo justi coram ipso censeamur. farre imputed unto us, that we by the vertue thereof should be ac­counted so just God, as if 2. Justitiam Christi imputati singulis fidesibus secundum eorum particularem necessitatem, non secundum universalem quem habet valorem, sicut gemma maximi pretii, quae datur pro variis cap­tivis redimendis, applicatur singulis non secun­dum universame aestimationem, sed secundum cu­jusque captivi necessiratem: absurde igitur fit mentio mandi in applicatione singulari. we our selves had that by which we are accounted righteous before the Lord.

2. The righteousnesse of Christ to be accounted to particular be­leevers according to their Particular 3. Justitia Christi non imputatur nobis ut causis, sed ut subjectis tantum: ineptissime igitur insert Bellarminuss nos posse dici redemptores aur salvatores, quia sumus redempti & salvati. Ame. Bell. enerv. 10. 4. p. 139. necessity, not according to all the worth of it, as a precious stone of great price, which is given for [...]he redeeming of divers Captices, is applied to particulars, not according to the universall worth, Ridicula illatio nam redemptor & salvator est non qui acci­pit redempti­onem & salu tem alterius o­pera sibi impu­lata: sed qui praestitir alteri redemptionem & salutem sua opera efficaci. Abimputatione igitur hujus in­sliti [...] redempti & salvati recte affirmamur, sed redemptores a nemine qui mentis compos est appellamut. Postremo, & illud perpenden dum, Christi justitiam non imputari huic aut [...]isti credenti, secundum totam latitudinem efficaciae, fed prout unusquisque illa opus habet. Non igitur Petro imputarur ut generale pretium redemptionis pro omnibus, sed ut pretium qua illius anima in particulari redimatur, cujusque merito ille in particulari ad vitam gloriae evchatur. Ex tali autem impuratione hujus justitiae neque colligi potest nos aeque justos effe ac Christum, neque omnino tedempteres dicendos. Dr. Dav. de justif hab. c. 24 ad arg. sextum p 331. but according to the necessity of every Captive: mention therefore of the world is absurdly made in particular application.

3. The righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed unto us as cau­ses, but onely as Subjects thereof. Bellarmine therefore most un­sitly inferreth us to be capable of the name of Redeemers or Sa­viours, because we be redeemed and saved.

Our late Learned Bishop of Salisbury answereth the same argument, and to that part saith, It is a ridiculous inference, for he is a Redeemer and a Saviour, not who receiveth redem­ption and salvation, anothers worke imputed unto him; but who performeth redemption and salvation by his owne effectuall worke. [Page 48] Therefore we are rightly affirmed redeemed, and saved, from the imputation of this righteousnesse, but we are called Redeemers by none that are in their right wits. Last of all, that also is to be considered, Christs righteousnesse, cannot be imputed to this or that beleever according to the whole latitude of its efficacie, but as eve­ry one hath need of it. It is not therefore imputed to Peter a the generall price of redemption for all, but as the price by which a soule in particular is redeemed, and by whose merit he in par­ticular is exalted to eternall life. But from such an imputation of this righteousnesse, it can neither be gathered that we are e­qual'y as just as Christ, nor at all to be called Redeemers.

If we looke on the truth of the righteousnesse which is imputed Si veritatem justitiae nobis imputatae spe­ctes non minus justi censemur coram Deo ac Christus, nec tamen redem­ptores. Luc. Trel. p. 94. to us, we are accounted no lesse just before God then Christ, and yet we are not Redeemers. See the place.

Thus what you oppose to imputed righteousnesse as absurdity is opposed by Papists, and the inference shewed to be most absurd by the learned Protestants against them, to their Barre you stand and must make an answer. In a word, though every member hath communion with the head Christ, and partaketh for, and according to his need, as a member of a naturall body from the naturall head, yet hath he not Christs merits to give to others, more then a member in the body, suppose the finger, hath life from the head and heart, to give to the feete and toes: and this you may take as Master Walkers owne answer.

Sect. 11. Come we now to the confirmation of the ex­position Mr. W. gave, neglecting what you fasten on him before sufficiently cleared; and many vaine lines toge­ther, p. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. for, debent neg'igi, they ought to be neglected.

Mr. Walker judging the Apostle the best interpreter of himselfe, argueth for a tropicall sense, from Rom. 2. 26. &c. where the word [...] to be accounted or imputed, is first used. If the Ʋncircumcision keepe the righteousnesse of the Law, shall not his Vncircumcision be accounted for Cirumcision? from whence he gathereth that as by a double trope (at large explicated) Uncircumcision taking in with it and comprehending the righteousnesse of the Law shall be ac­counted [Page 49] and accepted for the state of an holy and righteous man, one circumcised in heart, though he be uncircumci­ [...]and in a Gentile outward estate.

So by Aorobams beleeving by a Metalepsis or double trope the Apostle doth understand Abrahams standing in the state of a true beleever united by one spirit to God in Christ, and having communion of his satisfaction and righteousnesse, faith comprehending the perfect righte­busnesse and full satisfaction of Christ to be accounted to him given to him for righteousnesse, or that which makes him righteous.

To this. ( Passing what you say this Scripture would doe Mr. G. if managed to throw downe his interpretation, and the slight summe of all granted, being but a cipher in your account, appa­rantly such (as you say) because you doe but say both.)

1. By way of answer you demand, What if he could prove Mr. G. that here were trope upon trope, and mountaines of metonymies? Doth this prove a necessity either of the same kinde of tropes or figures in other Scriptures, which yet is the strength of the argument?

Answ. Mr. Walkers intent is not to prove a necessity by this argument, but that the Apostle (the best expounder of himselfe) thus useth the phrase in another place in the same Epistle as is here interpreted, that it is not therefore so strange, harsh, and uncouth an expression, and figure of speech, and not to be found in all his writings besides, as you charge the figurative interpretation to be. See Mr. W. book p. 352. Tropicall speeches are usuall, and that is manifest place su­ting with this.

And this may suffice for this argument, your answer un­to it, the rest p. 34, 35, 36, 37. are but impertinencies, which I may neglect without giving you advantage or the least dammage to Mr. W. cause: there is nothing unsound but might well be maintained against your many words.

Sect. 12. Mr. Walkers first argument is taken from the fourth verse, and is framed by you thus. That thing which is counted for righteousnesse bringeth with it a reward to the be­leever, not of debt, but grace, viz. eternall life. But it is the [Page 50] satisfaction and righteousnesse of Christ, not faith in a propo sense, that bringeth this reward, eternall life with it; therefore it is the righteousnesse and satisfaction, and not faith that is im­puted for righteousnesse.

To the proposition you answer by distinction. A thing Mr. G. may be said to bring with it a reward either of voluntary and free covenant or compact, or by way of merit and just retribu­tion. In the former sense the proposition is granted for truth because faith brings with it a reward in this sense, as well a [...] the satisfaction of Christ doth in the other.

If he meaneth by way of merit, the proposition is false, so tha [...] which is imputed doth not necessarily bring with it a reward [...] such termes, or in such a way. God in a gracious and free co­venant hath promised the same (if not greater) reward to those that shall beleeve in Jesus Christ, which he hath promised to those that shall keepe the whole Law.

Answ. For answer. First, for you distinction of free convenant, and merit in this our businesse, I suppose things in it are divided and set in opposition which God hath joyned together. For the merit of Christ is the confirma­tion of the free covenant. God is so, by Jesus Christ the just, and the covenant is in his bloud, he and his righte­ousnesse are the promise of God. What is offered and ten­dered in all ordinances for eternall life to faith, or recei­ving of him, as Acts 10. 43. by beleeving and receiving him he is made the Lord my righteousnesse, righteousnesse to me, to which the Lord performeth life. The Apostle sheweth them subordinate, when as he saith we are justified freely by grace through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth a propitiation through faith his bloud, Rom. 4. 24 Your distinction is humane merits, not the merits of Christ, the Surety of the Covenant.

2. I assert, Mr. Walker intendeth such a gracious way of merit, and so doth the Apostle disputing against our works, this doth in this way infallibly bring with it the reward, eternall life; which faith in a proper sense, not taking in the righteousnesse and merit of Christ, doth not, cannot more then mans workes.

[Page 51]3. There is nothing else can doe it saith Mr. W. It is a gracious way satisfying justice, the Apostle saith, the spirit is life, that is, the soule liveth eternally, because of righteous­nesse, the righteousnesse of Christ imputed, Rom. 8. 10. Hanc ipsam quam nos asse­ [...]mus justitiam imputatam. Cham. de just. c 2. Sect. 59. there by righteousnesse the Apostle meaneth this same im­ [...]uted righteousnesse which we assert againsi Papists.

4. Hence the assumption is sound, for howsoever faith [...]n a relative sense and Christs righteousnesse imputed, (faith [...]eing but the hand, the applying instrument, Christ righ­ [...]eousnesse applied that alone which justifieth as the meri­orious and formall cause) have a sweet and harmonious greement in our justification. It is not so when as faith [...]s taken in a proper sense, though it be faith in Christ. Whence your selse, Armimius, and Socinus, asserting the [...]mputation of faith, adde, and not Christs righteousnesse im­ [...]uted, and so put them in opposition in the matter of Justi­ [...]cation.

When as you lay downe the manner of either, viz. that Christ justifieth by way of merit, satisfaction, and atone­ [...]nent making with God for sinne. Here is a truth, but not [...]l, for there must be imputation of it, reall donation also [...]f Gods part to make us righteous, and faith must concur [...]ot in a proper sense as accepted for the righteousnesse of [...]he Law in it selfe (as you say) but (as you say also) as it [...]ringeth us into communion of Christs perfect righteousnesse, by [...]hich saith, (as by an hand receiving riches, riches doe [...]ake rich the receiver) receiving the righteousnesse of Christ that maketh righteous; faith is as the hand, the [...]ighteousnesse that which as riches corporall that way, do [...]ake us thus spiritually rich, that is, righteous in the sight of God. Faith doth it relatively or by a figure not in a proper sense which you stand for: thus much you say, also.

5. When as you say, the Lord hath promised the same reward, [...]r a greater to those that shall beleeve in Jesus Christ, then which he hath promised to those that keep his whole Law, di­sputing against the relative sense for faith in a proper sense. What doth result but the Servetion, Socinian, and Armini­an [Page 52] tenet, delivered also by Bertius, faith is accounted for the Fides habetur pro omni legis justitia quam nos praestare renebamur. See Sybrand. p. 9. ad Bert. whole righteousnesse of the Law which we are bound to performe, which also they attribute to gratuide acceptation.

Sect. 13. Mr. Wrs. third argument is taken from the 6. and 11. v. That the thing imputed by God is properly righte­ousnesse, such as being imputed brings forgivenesse of ini­quity and covers sinnes, and so maketh the beleever blessed. Now there is no righteousnesse to be found amongst all mankinde but Christs perfect righteousnesse and satisfa­ction and that is a perfect propitiation for all sins, therefore it is the righteousnesse which is imputed for justification.

Of this argument you say it is built cleane besides the foun­dation it claimeth, and when you prove what you say, you shall have an answer. But to what you answer.

1. You say, That the conclusion Christs righteousnesse must needs be that which is imputed for righteousnesse in a proper sense, is diametrally opposite unto himselfe in severall examined passages, particularly to that which saith faith comprehending in it the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed for him, which differ greatly.

1. Though faith and Christs righteousnesse differ, and Answ. are opposed diametrally in your sense and acceptation they are subordinate in Mr. Walkers.

2. And when faith is said to be imputed taking in the the righteousnesse of Christ; You know Mr. Walker saith faith is imputed in an improper sense, and that Christs righteousnesse is that which is imputed in a proper sense; that is it w ^ch alone properly imputed maketh us righteous.

2. You blame his understanding the Apostles phrase of impu­ting righteousnes, v. 6. supposing a proper pre-existent righteousnesse for the matter of such imputation which is one of his mistakes.

I answer, Mr. Walkers understanding had beene blame worthy, had he supposed otherwise; for a proper perfect righteousnesse is necessary to make one so righteous.

Gods people are holy, unreprovable, unblamable in Gods sight, perfectly just, can that be without righteousnesse?

Mr. Bradshaw sheweth, that, the proper matter of Justifi­cation is justice or innocency not caused or produced by the act of [Page 53] Justification, but existing some way or other before, for a person is not therefore just because he is justified, but he is therefore justi­fied Mr. Bradsh. treat. justif. c. 2. Sect. 10. because he is just. The justice of the party justified, being the cause of his justification, and not his justification the cause of his justice.

Papist and Protestant agree in this, the one putting in­herent Cum justifica­tionem sine ju­stitia constitu­ere, sit insom­nium sine som­no cogitare Gerh. de justif. p. 135. Justificationis formam justitia constare cerrū est, quoniam justificamur si­ve justi consti­tuimur per ju­stitiam nobis a Deo donatam. Wetton, de re­concil. par. 1. l. 2. c. 2. p. 34. righteousnesse the formall cause, which being im­perfect, is truly rejected by us, and so faith in a proper sense. The other put the perfect righteousnesse of Jesus Christ.

It is certaine, saith Mr. Wotton, that the forme of Justifi­cation consisteth in righteousnesse, because we are justified or con­stituted just by righteousnesse given to us from God, which he sheweth out of Papists and Protestants.

The Apostle saith, by the obedience of Christ we shall be constituted righteous. It is you and Arminius that talke of making just without any justice at all.

That Mr. W. is mistaken you prove.

1. Because it is not said [...], but without the ar­ticle, [...], which intimateth he speaketh not here of any particular or speciall righteous. [...] fixed in any subject as the righteousnesse of Christ is.

Here you grant righteousnesse, whether it be fixed in a 1. subject or not, you seeme so at least.

And when as you tell us of righteousnesse not in a sub­ject, you tell us of an accident without a subject; where was your Logique? There is no righteousnesse whether it be generall or particular, but it is in some subject; so is the inherent righteousnesse, of which Papists in their opinion, so faith in that opinion, and so the righteousnesse of Christ.

To your second, Then the righteousnesse of Christ must be 2. imputed for the righteousnesse of Christ. We answered before. It is but a borrowed jengle.

Thirdly, you answer, The righteousnesse here imputed is 3. without workes, which Christs is not; workes are the essence thereof.

To which you know is answered, the workes which are excluded are not workes simply, and namely of Christ, but our own works.

[Page 54]Against this you argue, or say, such a distinction as this is, is without any foundation in this or in any other Scripture.

But not truly, for as the Scripture denieth Justification by the workes of the Law, so it establisheth Justification by the righteousnesse and obedience of Christ, Rom. 5. 17, 18, 19. by this is there a perfect supply of what was not in us, but should have beene to life, as the Apostle, Rom. 8. 4. and Rom. 10. 4. and when as the Apostle objecteth, Doe we make the Law of God voide through faith? He answereth, God forbid, and yea we establish the Law. So doth faith apply­ing the righteousnesse of Christ that establisheth the Law.

The Church of England saw this, you might have lear­ned it there. Where as it lay not in us to doe, (that was impos­sible Homil. salv. p. 14. before) he provided a ransome for us, that was the most pre­cious body and bloud of his owne most deare and best beloved Sonne Jesus Christ, who besides this ransome fulfilled the Law lb. for us perfectly: and from the third of the Rom. 8. & 10. our Church, there must be on Christs part to justification, justice, that is the satisfaction of Gods justice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of his body, and shedding of his bloud with fulfilling of the Law perfectly.

So the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our Justification, but onely shulteth out the justice of man, that is to say the justice of our workes, as to be merits deserving our ju­stification. lb.

Whereas all the world was not able of their selves to pay any part towards their ransome, it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy, without any our desert or deserving to pre­pare for us the most precious jewels of Christs body and bloud, whereby our ransome might be fully paid, the Law fulfilled and his justice fully satisfied. So that Christ is now the righteous­nesse of all them that truly doe beleeve in him, he for them paid the ransome by his death, he for them fulfilled the Law in his life, so that now in him and by him every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the Law, for as much as that which lb. our infirmity lacked, Christs justice hath supplied. Here is the explication of our article of Justification, and thus in the [Page 55] Art. of Ireland, Art. 35. Other Authors are needlesse, these enough.

And hence may you perceive the necessity of the distin­ction; the Lew and justice of God are hereby satisfied, which cannot be where workes are simply excluded, that it is not vaine and frivolous, our justification else is impos­sible.

Sect. 14. You argue that if the righteousnesse God is here 4. said to impute, be the righteousnesse of Christ, then the descrip­tion thereof, v. 7. & 8. is impertinent and improper, being laid downe, in imputing sinnes, covering sinnes, not imputing sinnes; the imputing of Christs righteousnesse in the sense pretended is much more then forgivenesse of iniquity or not imputing sinne. See Mr. Gatak. saepe contra Lu­cium. p. 9. 1. p. 10, l, 11, 21, 45 82. 98. 3. 64. 4. Imo vero hoc nondum à te demonstratum est, nec vero unquam de­monstrabitur, par. 1. Sect. 8. nu. I 2 p. 45. He to Piscator. Remissio pec­catorum fit per justitiam impu­tatam perfectā. So Pareus. Ca­stig. Bell. de justif. p. 389. Estque justifi­catio revera proprius & ve­rus justitiae es­fectus, quoquo modo ea justi­tia imputari si­ve communi­cari nobis in­telligatur. p. 34 M. Bradsh. p. 34.

For answer. You must prove that forgivenesse of sinnes, &c. are the description of that righteousnesse imputed. It is but begged.

Imputation of righteousnesse is not the same with for­givenesse of sinnes. It is more, it is the cause of remission of sinnes, this an effect of righteousnesse imputed. This righteousnesse imputed bringeth forgivenesse with it, co­vers sinne, making the beleever in that respect blessed.

Remission of sinnes is caused by perfect righteousnesse im­puted.

Mr. Wotton confesseth Justification an effect of righteous­nesse, and Justification is indeed the proper and the true effect of righteousnesse what way soever, that righteousnesse is imputed or communicated unto us.

Yea, remission of sinnes is an effect of Justification. Pardon is neither the whole nor any essentiall part of Justification, but onely a contingent effect of it.

Finally you say, Gods imputing righteousnesse (in this place) is meant onely his justifying of men, or (as Mr. W. p. 10.) a dea­ling with men according as if they were righteous.

It is so, not in deed, but in the effect thereof: indeed imputation of righteousnesse is the cause, justification the effect thereof. Mr. W. saith not so, but that it is Gods ac­counting them righteous, and dealing with them accor­dingly.

[Page 56]To that which followeth I may say, that, to impute See Pareus on Rom. 4. 7. cited elsewhere. righteousnesse is not the description of the act of absolu­tion. It is an effect following on that, upon imputation of righteousnesse, not imputation of sinne followeth and no condemnation.

The same may be said to what is alleadged out of the 11. vers. being justified, and righteousnesse imputed differ as the cause and the effect. Imputation goeth before remission Causalitateim­putatio praece­dit remissio­nem, & Recessa­rio prae-requi­ritur. Polan. in Daniel. p. 324. as a cause, and is necessarly pre-required.

When as you say, being justified, cannot be without righte­ousnesse, either it is that which is inherent or imputed; not in herent, it is against the scope of the Apostle denying Ju­stification by workes or habits whence they flow, and ther­fore not by faith, which is a part of inherent righteous­nesse considered in a proper sense: therefore it must be by the righteousnesse of Christ; the righteousnesse which is by faith as the word calleth it.

From thence Tossanus giveth to us as Saint Pauls The­reme. Unde extruit Paulus istud theorema, justi­tiam nostram non esse virtu­tem moralem aut habitualem justitiam, sicut cum Pharisae is Pontificii vo­lunt, sed impu­tationem justi­tiae Christi. Toss. ad Rom. c. 4. p. 4. Whence Paul laieth downe that Theoreme. Our righteous­nesse not to be morall vertue or habituall justice, as with the Pha­risees the Pontificians would have it; but the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ.

To that you beleeve, that if the best interpreters be consul­ted, not one will be found to contradict this interpretation of the phrase imputing to righteousnesse in this place, or by righteousnesse to understand the righteousnesse of Christ.

I hope your infidelity is not invincible, many things are in Interpreters which you doe not looke after.

Though Gods imputing righteousnesse justifieth; yet these differ as cause and effect as hath beene shewed. And

When you say they understand not the righteousnesse Ad Rom. 4. 3. Ad justitiam. Hic enim finis & scopus fidei ut imputatione justitiae Christi peream appre­hensi justifice­mur. [...]b. of Christ. It is apparently against all Protestant writers, who teach the righteousnesse of Christ to be that which is imputed, and not faith in a proper sense, as also from this that they denying the proper sense, are for the relative and improper sense.

Beza to those words, to righteousnesse. For this is the end and scope of faith, that we should be justified by the imputation of [Page 57] the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by it.

Who also addeth, But there is in Sed est in verbis Hypallage, nam pro prie dicitur Deus imputare justitiam per [...]idem, ut mox loquitur Apostolus, v. 6. & 11. Quid autem intelligitur justitiae nomine, ex­posuimus adversus Sophistas; supra, 1. 17. &c. 3. 20. the words an Hypallage, (a figure so called) for God is properly said to impute righteousnesse by faith as the Apostle by and by speaketh, vers. 6. & 11. But what is understood by the word righteousnesse, we have expounded before, against the Sophisters; above, cap. 1. v. 17. & 3. 20.

When Bellarmine said, our Adver­saries Nullam in Scripturis aut Patribus locum hactenus inveni [...]e potuerunt adversarii, ubi legeretur Christi justitiam nobis imputari ad justitiam, vel nos justos esse per impu­tatam nobis Christi obedientiam, e [...]go hoc falsum est. (Protestants) could never hither­to finde a place in the Scriptures or Fa­thers, where it is read that Christs righ­teousnesse is imputed to us for righteous­nesse, or that we be just by the imputed obedience of Christ, there­fore this is false. Pareus answereth.

The Antecedent is false, for it is ex­pressely Antecedens est falsum, legitur enim ex­presse, Credenti fides sua imputatur; & mox, Beatus cuiDeus imputat justitiam absque o­peribus. Haec Apostolo esse aequipollentia tam est evidens ut negari non possit; proin­de aequipollentia sunt, fidem imputari ad ju­stitiam, & justitiam imputa [...]i absque operi­bus. Evidenter igitur habetur justitiam qua credentes justificamur nobis a Deo imputa­ [...]i, seu esse justitiam nobis a Deo imputa­ [...]i, seu esse justitiam nobis imputatam. Cujus vero est haec justitia, id exponit idem Aposto­lus, c. sequente, 5. 19—Habet Adversarius ubi leger [...]mus: inde enim sic, [...]ustitia qua cre­dentes [...]isicamur, nobis imputatur a Deo, Rom. 4 5, 6. Justitia q [...]a credentes justifi­camur est justitia seu obedientia Christi, Rome 5. 19. igitur justitia seu obedientia Christi, nobis à Deo imputatur. Castig. p. 457. read, To him that beleeveth, his faith is imputed; [...]nd by and by, Blessed is he to whom God imputeth righteous­nesse without workes. That these are e­quipollent to the Apostle, is so evident that it cannot be denied: therefore they are equivalent, faith to be imputed to righteousnesse, and righteousnesse to be imputed without workes. It is there­fore evidently found, righteousnesse, by which we beleevers are justified, to be imputed unto us from God, or to be imputed righteousnesse. Whose this righteousnesse is, the same Apostle ex­poundeth in the following chap. 5. 19. Now our Adversarie (Bellarmine) hath where we have read it, from thence thus, (we reason) Righteousnesse by which beleevers are justified, is impu­ted unto us from God, Rom. 4. 5, 6. the righteousnesse by which we beleevers are justified, is the righteousnesse or obedience of Christ, Rom. 5. 19. therefore the righteousnesse or obedience of Christ is imputed to us of God.

[Page 58]The same learned man, Neither is Nec resert quod Apostolus non dixit bea­tus cui Deus imputat Christi justitiam: sed absolute, cui Deus imputat justitiam: justitia enim imputata recte dicitur justitia Christi, quia Christus sua obedientia eam nobis ac­quisivit—imo Christi justitia expresse voca­tur, Rom. 5. 18, 19. Pareus Castig. [...]. p. 388. it any thing that the Apostle said not, he is happy to whom God imputeth the righteousnesse of Christ; but absolutely, to whom God imputeth righteousnesse: for imputed righteousnesse is rightly called the righteousnesse of Christ, be­cause Christ acquired it by his obedience—I, it is expressely called the righteousnesse of Christ, Rom. 5. 18, 19. The same Pareus, Ad Rom. 4. 3, 5. p. 484. justitia imputata Christi justitia dicitur, imputed righteous­nesse is called Christs righteousnesse.

Our Ames. We reade every where Legimus passim apud Paulum justos nos fieri & justificari, per Christum, per Christi mortem, sanguinem, redemptionem obedi­entiam & justitiam, & illam justitiam impu­tari nobis a Deo absque oberibus. Bellar. Enerv. to. 4. p. 137. in Paul, that we are made just and justified by Christ, by Christs death, bloud, redemption, obedience, and righteousnesse, and that righteousnesse to be imputed to us of God without Justificationem Apostolus describit, non sola remissione peccatorum, sed etiam Justitiae Christi mputatione, ut apparet ex c. 4. ad Rom. v. 6. & 7. Ge [...]a [...]d. de just [...]s. Sect. 63. workes.

To the same purpose, see Sybran. declar. Vorst. p. 94.

I will end this with that learned Doctor of our Church, Doctor Whitaker, to Dureus, saying, our Doctrine of im­putative Whitaker a­gainst Camp. & D [...]reus En­glished. p. 224. putative righteousnesse to be against the word.

Thus you speake like a Jesuite, but what doth the Scripture more celebrate? Rom. 4. 3, 4, 5, 6. a cleare text for it, so that there being more then one such Interpreters, you may beleeve it.

When Musculus saith, the righteousnesse of God which is Justitia Dei qu [...] gratis im­putatur est non imputari pec­catum. freely imputed, is not to impute sinne; He intendeth not that they be formally one and the same, but in the effect, this as an effect followeth that; so doth he call remission of sinnes our righteousnesse, as Mr. W. citeth him, p. 348. the book is not in mine hands.

Sect. 15. Mr. Walkers fourth argument runnes thus, summed up by it selfe. Whatsoever is here said to be impu­ted, is, that which serves for righteousnesse to justification. Christs righteousnesse is that which serves for righteousnesse to justification, Rom. 5. 19. Rom. 8, 4. Rom. 10, 4. Ergo, [Page 59] it is that which under the name of faith is said to be imputed.

You answer, This was for substance before propounded and answered. To which I, if so, repetition will be vaine on both sides. Let it goe.

You adde, Though nothing but the righteousnesse or satis­faction of Christ will serve meritoriously unto justification. Se­verall things doe ministerially, the Word, the Minister, and so faith in Christ, &c.

Mr. Wr. is not about instrumentals in this argument, but that, which imputed, justifieth, which is (saith he) by the Scriptures the righteousnesse of Christ.

When as you grant nothing meritoriously serving but the righteousnesse of Christ, though we take it in part, yet we must have more, it must be also a formall cause, or all one with it; Doctor Davenant may teach you to speak out.

Truely in Justification such a for­mall Revera in justificatione, talis causa for­malis ponenda est quae simul & meritoria es­se possit nisi enim contineat illam dignita­tem in se, propter quam homo rite justifi­catus reputetur, nunquam erit formalis cau­sa per quam justificatus existit in conspectu Dei. De instit. habit. el. 22. p. 312. cause is to be put, which with­all may be the meritorious cause: for unlesse it containe that worth in it selfe, for which a man may be rightly accounted justified, it will never be the formall cause by which a man stands justified in the sight of God.

Grant then this meritorious cause imputed to justifie, it satisfieth Mr. Walker, and serveth the turne, else not.

He confesseth and contendeth faith an instrument by which we have fellowship with that righteousnesse to ju­stification, faith being as the hand receiving and applying the same, by which righteousnesse it is that we are justified, and not faith in a proper sense; it not being the hand that properly maketh rich, but what is received by it: which you cannot indure (with the Remonstrants) though a common Protestant expression in this controversie against the Ro­manist denying also the proper sense of faith.

To omit that faith is not the righteousnesse of Christ urged, Rom. 5. 19. nor righteousnesse in which a man can stand before God, be made just, said to be holy and unrepro­vable, and unblamable in Gods sight, perfected for ever, as the [Page 60] man is that is justified, or otherwise then taken in a Rela­tive sense to the object thereof.

Sect. 16. Mr. Ws. fifth argument is, That this exposition is warranted by other places of Scripture, which he proveth out of Psh. 100. as the onely place: see the place.

This you bring on the stage, and say it hath su h a vi­sor on the face of it, that a man cannot tell of what shape it is, onely it is evident from his owne words, that here he starts, or rather conjures up a new conclusion as farre differing from what be laboured to conclude, as the East is from the West.

Good Sir, if ( by reason of the visor on the face of it) a man cannot tell of what shape it is, how is the latter so evident? may not a man question you for the latter, professing the former, that a man cannot tell of what shape it is; or are you more? this, and what followeth such a profession must be accounted roving.

But how prove you such a differing new conclusion? he writes (say you) that the imputing or accounting of a thing for righteousnesse is no more but declaring a man thereby to be righteous, and giving him the testimony of righteousnesse.

Thus you deliver him. I finde it not so in his Prin­ted Copy, and even there his conclusion is what was to be concluded, therefore this is to be judged the best exposition.

Besides what he speaketh of declaring is added for far­ther explication of what God did, when as he imputed righteousnesse to Phineas as himselfe. God upon this act gave him testimony and declared and judged him to be a righ­teous man truly justified. But by this reasoning say you, be seemeth to imply that a man is not constituted or made righteous, or truly and really justified by the imputation of Christs righte­ousnesse or satisfaction it selfe unto him, but onely that be is de­clared to be such, &c.

There is no such implication. That is necessarily im­plyed by Gods declaration, for God cannot give testimony contrary to what a man is indeed, God cannot ly, his judge­ment is according to truth, and so his testimony; the visor troubleth you. You proceed.

Neither doth that Scripture prove that heterogeneall conclusion, [Page 61] it doth not import any testimony from God of his personall righ­teousnesse or justified estate before God, but onely the righteous­nesse of the particular act.

Surely that act did shew him (as Mr. Wr.) united to Christ, and a partaker of righteousnesse by faith, on which God gave him testimony.

And I suppose a righteous act importeth personall righ­teousnesse inherent, which are inseparable from righteous­imputed, by which righteousnesse imputed, that which is inherent, the acts thereof and person are justified. From this, not inherent righteousnesse or acts thereof, it is that man is perfectly just and so denominated. And thus Mr. Wr. passeth to the Confutation of the false exposition made by Socinus and other Heretiques his disciples, &c.

Here you charge Mr. Wr. to be an Heretique maker, which Mr. Wr. may easily discharge with repetition of the same words, and resolve his making Heretiques into Mr. John Goodwine as the maker of an Heretique maker, &c. The truth is, if the interpretation be hereticall (as some have said before Mr. W. as before) not Mr. Wr. but Mr. John Goodwine, &c. have made themselves such by imbracing and broaching the same with those Heretiques: and though Mr. Wotton be dead, his opinion liveth in his workes and such as follow him. His fall is the greater in this by how much the more he is exalted as a Cedar in Lebanen. It is a truth of him and all the Princes of his opinion. That hath beene discussed already, and we have seene Mr. Wr. farre from affirming the same, detesting it, constantly de­nying you his hand:

And for your appeale to the strong savour of Socinia­nisme in the beginning of his fifth argument, you speake of, you neither there nor here doc shew in what that rank­nesse lieth. There, if you remember, it had such a Ʋisor on the face of it, that a man cannot tell what the face of it is, or its complexion.

Farther you say, none of the 3. &c. conceived or delivered that exposition that is faith is imputed in a proper sense. But it is cleare for Socinus; he holdeth the proper sense, and so [Page 62] faith imputed. So doth Mr. Wotton, you cannot but know it, and it is your Helena.

But now let us come to Mr. Wr. his arguments, by which he proveth the same, and improveth the false expo­sition; they are 7. You doe not so much as lay them down or answer formally to any one of them.

All the answer you make is by Questions, and they are but of some things contained in them, so that all the rest is left unquestioned and unanswered. I will not do so with your Questions. Let us heare, what are they?

Quest. 1. You would know from what Fountain Mr. W. drankee that draught of Divinity, that faith Rom. 5. 1, 2. taken in a proper sense, should be a part of our obedience to the morall Law?

You adde, intire obedience to the whole Law was required of Adam, but not to beleeve in Christ, the Law not being of faith, Gal. 3. 12.

To the first I answer. That faith which justifieth in relation to its object, considered as a worke or vertue in a proper sense, is (as is supposed by such as are learned) com­manded in the morall Law. They say:

Where the L. requireth me to have no other God, and willeth me to have him to be mine by faith; be willeth me to beleeve in Christ, without whom God never offereth himselfe to be, nor can be mine, by whom it is I beleeve in him.

And where the argument runneth, I am the Lord thy God, there faith in Christ is required, to whom be is first a God, and in whom mine.

They take faith in Christ to be a speciall part of internall worship, such as when I performe it to Christ, I performe it not to him alone, but to God, not onely himselfe, but the other per­sons. He that beleeveth in me, beleeveth not in me, but in him that sent me.

And so they take it that the morall Law is the perfect rule of our worship of God.

I suppose faith in Christ undeniably since the fall prescribed and called for and answered by Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abra­ham; by what? but the morall Law. The Gospel giveth indeed, [Page 63] but it is the Law that requireth it. They say:

That faith is required in the Law, none ever doubted: faith to all that is written, then to the Gospel, to God as revealed in Christ, the lively faith which worketh by love, which is none but faith in Christ; or else the dead faith, that which is in the Devils.

Againe, that that Grace is but one, and so that it is but the Some faith by which we beleeve in Christ and God. Yea that grace, without which other graces required are not. That radicall grace, without which other graces and their workes cannot be such as God requireth, such hope, such love, such feare, such joy, such prayer, such praise, as God requireth sutable to him as a God in covenant and a Father, without which they cannot please God, neither aime at or attaine Gods ends, should not be excluded; the Law that requireth those graces else and their workes, requireth that faith; and that, if faith in Christ he not required in the Law, infidelity will not be sinne, neither can it condemne him that is under the same.

That the rule of faith, &c. is Gods will contained in his word, and that the manner of worship and faith is ordinarily given to the second Commandement.

For Adam in innocency, there might be a bond on him to beleeve in Christ, though not as a Lambe and slaine, but as onely Mediatour betweene God and man for eternall life. I am sure he was ever the beire and Lord of life, and that eter­nall life was for ever in him.

An obedientiall power to beleeve what ever word or reve­lation of God we ordinarily meet with in orthodox Di­vines, as for obedience to Gods commands simply, those, at least some, that dispute the contrary, drinke deeply of Arminian streames: had you given us reasons against it, we would have considered them.

When as you say the Law is not of faith, Gal. 3. 12. It proveth not that faith in a proper sense is not required in the Law, neither neede I to finde out the true sense, it not being to purpose.

Our Writers are of this opinion, that faith in Christ is in the Law.

[Page 64]So saith he in this cause to that Fides qua opus pertinet ad primam legem neque evadere potes. Sybrand. ad Bert. p. 57. Quin dicas nos opere legis justificari, si dixe­ris nos fide quatenus opus nostrum est just­ficari. Arminian Prince Bertius, Faith as a worke appertaineth to the first Com­mandement, neither canst thou evade it. Thou must say us to be justified by a worke of the Law, if thou shalt affirme us justified by faith as a worke of ours. He goeth on.

Great Zanchius proveth our opi­nion. Nostram sententiam probat magnus ille Zanch. de natur. Dei, l. 4. c 2. Legis nomine intelligit omnia quae lex praecipit; praecipit autem, non tantum externa facta sedimprimis internā renovationem, cordis circumcisionem dilectionem Dei, (nota) fidem. Ergo cum Scti­ptura dicit per gratiam Dei nos justifica [...]i, min [...]me autem per legem, omnem renovati­onem & omnem inte [...]nam & externam [...]o­nam actionem nostram ab officio justificandi excludit, & soli gratuito favori ascribit. By the word Law hee un­derstandeth all which the Law re­quireth, but that requireth not onely externall workes, but chiefely inter­nall renovation, circumcision of the heart, the Love of God, (note it) faith. When as therefore the Scripture saith we are justified by the grace of God, and not by the Law, he excludeth all renovation, and all internall, and exter­nall good action of ours from the office of justifying, and ascri­beth it onely to free grace.

It is true, the Law of workes requires saith. Ve [...]um est le­gem operū re­quirere fidem. Cham l 22. c. 2. Sect. 9.

Quest. 2. You require where Wotton or Goodwine teach we are justified (meritoriously, or else the charge vanisheth) by a worke, by a work of obedience to the Law?

Answ. Mr. W. requireth of you where he chargeth you with it in plain words? his words are they that teach that, faith in a proper sense is counted for righteousnesse, doe teach that we are justified by a worke of obedience to the Law performed in our owne persons: and that God on our behalfe requires no other righteousnesse for justifica­tion: which doctrine he saith the Apostle condemneth, that is enough; this, all account inherent righteousnesse, Popery, and worse then Popery, where all graces else are conjoyned with faith.

To omit that, here you imply justification by a worke of the Law, confessed, so it be not meritoriously, in which I suppose you are alone.

Quest. 3. You demand how Mr. Walker proves that the [Page 65] righteousnesse imputed to Abraham was perfect conformity to the Law.

I suppose it is evident, because conformity to the Law is in the definition of righteousnesse, which if it be not perfect, hath neede of pardon, cannot procure it of the Lord, can­not beare a man ou [...] in Gods sight, cannot afford peace with God, or conscience; can never make a man holy, unbla­mable, unreprovable in the sight of God; white as Snow, and whi­ter then the Snow; perfect him for ever; all which are true of Abraham by the righteousnesse which was imputed, and so is it of the Church by Gods word.

As righteousnesse was imputed to him, Rom. 4. v. 6. 11. so it was perfect conformity to Gods Law, which Christs righteousnesse is, not faith in a proper sense.

Quest. 4. How doth it follow that God must needs erre, lie, or judge unrighteously, if he imputeth righteousnesse without workes?

To this Mr. Wolker is not bound to answer, he affirmed it not. But that your opinion, that God counts faith for righteousnesse, that is, thinketh, judgeth, and esteemeth it to be righteousnesse in a proper sense, chargeth God with errour and falshood in his judgement, and so is blas­phemy.

Quest. 5. How Mr. Walker proves that the imputation of faith for righteousnesse maketh the satisfaction of Christ and his per­fect fulfilling of the Law a vaine and needlesse thing, which Mr. Goodwine conceiveth it establisheth both the one and the other.

1. I answer. This, if not proved, yet leaveth the argu­ment in force to that part, viz. that it denieth the meanes whereby God is revealed to be infinitly just, mercifull, and wise, which he urged, which hath not so much as a questi­on to undermine it.

2. These are done by Christ our Surety, his perfect obe­dience in our nature; in this wisdome, mercie, and justice, are revealed, as Mr. Walker and our Church in the Homily. With which, though faith in a Relative sense doth con­sist, yet in a proper sense, excluding the imputation of the [Page 66] righteousnesse of Christ to justification, it is opposed, your selfe putting the one with Arminius say, and not the other.

Indeed if faith be that righteousnesse or instead there­of, that of Christ is vaine and void; and if this righteous­nesse of Christ be it, faith in that sense, (as workes are) ex­cluded in this matter, and exclude each other.

This Thesis of thine (saith Sybran­dus) Faectua Thesis est causa quate statuam vo­bis (si tamen vobis ipsis constare vultis) ne­cassario eo tandem deveniendum esse, ut cum Serveto Socino, &c. meritum, sive sa­tisfactionem pro nobis factam omnino tolla­tis, dicatisque neque Christum nobis justiti­am peperisse, neque nos ipsius justitia nobis imputata justifica [...]i. Ad Be [...]t p. 35. is a reason why I may conclude (if yet you will be like our selves) you must at length come to this, that with Servetus and Socinus, &c. yee altogether take away the merit or satis­faction made for us, and say Christ neither to have brought forth righteous­nesse to us, nor us to be justified by his righteousnesse imputed unto us—For to what end is the righteousnesse of Christ, if it hath not in it force of Justifying, and if it justifie us not? Which (say I) it cannot, if faith in a proper sense be imputed for righte­ousnesse.

Let the Reader observe the argument and proofe of Mr. Walker, and this answer of question (as the rest) will ap­peare not to be satisfactory, but a lying under the burthen rather.

Quest. 6. How Mr. Walker can bring it about that the ma­king of Christs satisfaction ou [...]s, as truly as if we had performed the same in our owne persons, should be a meanes whereby God is revealed infinitly just, wise, and mercifull? Mr. G. conceiveth that insufficient, because a man having sinned could not be justi­fied by personall performance of the Law.

1. That the righteousnesse of Christs is so truly ours for righteousnesse as if we had fulfilled the Law, you bogle not at: our Church is cleare; so are learned Writers. In­deed by faith he and his righteousnesse are truly ours.

2. Your supposition to be a sinner and personally to performe the Law, is a contradiction, to fulfill it and not; none of Mr. Wrs.

3. When as Mr. Walker putteth Christs righteousnesse, [Page 67] his meaning is his perfect obedience to the Law, our full debt Active and Passive righteousnesse, wherein satisfacti­on for sinne is infoulded, so that the person is wholly faire; God seene to be just, mercifull, and wise, this is suffi­cient.

Quest. 7. Whether God did not dispense with his justice in passing by the sinner, inflicting punishment upon the innocent, and whether he will call the one or the other an act of Justice? Mr. G. conceives that Gods justice led him directly to the sinner to ex­etute vengeance on him, and that it was his mercy that led him a­side from him that deserved death, to another that had not deser­ved it.

1. I answer, God was just and merciful in our Justification by faith in Christ, as before is largely shewed out of the word of God, and orthodox Writers; neither can either be denied. It is freely by grace to declare his righteousnesse. It was an act of justice not denying mercy, and an act of mercy not excluding justice.

2. Though justice leadeth to the offendor, and not to the innocent party, here it cannot be so, the case is altened, the L. Christ cannot be said to be innocent, but as our Surety a sinner, our sinnes being on his score. He volunta­rily accepted it, and undertooke eternally to give these e­ternall life. So is he proposed to us since the fall by God himselfe, his taking our nature, doing all righteousnesse, and doing for us, proclaime the same, that he was a Surety, in this name he must fulfill all righteousnesse. He must die, it was his meat and drinke to doe, and he offered up himselfe. God spared not his Sonne, at his command the sword ar [...]se and smote Christ, the man that is Gods fellow, he declared him­selfe righteous.

To exact a debt of a Surety, willingly giving the Cre­ditor the hand, and let the principall not able to pay, to go free, is justice: mercy indeed, did sweetly meete in ac­cepting a Surety, and giving him, and Christ accepting the bargaine, and giving himselfe to be the Surety, whereby that justice was satisfied.

Quest. 8. What moved Mr. W. to thinke or say that those [Page 68] that hold imputation of faith for righteousnesse should deny com­munion with Christ in his satisfaction, when as Mr. G. still af­firmeth that that faith is ordained by God to bring men into com­munion and fellowship with Christ in his satisfaction, and by vertue of such ordination justifieth instrumentally, or which is the same, is imputed for righteousnesse.

1. He might well so thinke of Master Wotton, who Quoniam non revera & pro­prie sed impro­prie, & per si­militudinem quandam unū cum illo corpus efficimus. De reconcil. p. 16. & p. 110. though he acknowledgeth uinon, and that by the Spirit; yet he saith we make one body with Christ, not indeed, and properly, but improperly, and by a certaine similitude.

When as he saith it is not indeed, he denieth union and communion, which is so much the more absurd, when as yet he confesseth it caused by faith and the Spirit, then u­nion, by which, there cannot be one more reall.

2. You denying the imputation to our Justification, deny union and communion so farre, nay, both seeing they are inseperable.

3. The fellowship you affirme is not to fellowship with the righteousnesse of Christ, but the effect thereof or re­turne, pardon, which is not all.

4. When as you say faith justifieth instrumentally, &c. yet you deny it as an hand laying hold of and receiving Christs righteousnesse which justifieth, that it so justifieth as the hand that receiveth money maketh rich, which though it be an ordinary expressure of the Learned, you slighted and rejected in the Pulpit as the Remonstrants, who give it a nuge.

5. For my part I suspect your calling it an instrument there is somewhat under it, for if so be that faith be ac­knowledged an instrument indeed, it cannot justifie in a proper sense, which may be the reason that Arminius, &c. deny it, but figuratively.

No man is ignorant but that by a figure called Metonymia, Nemo ignorat instrumento per Metonymiam tribui quod est instrumentati, ( as Sybrandus to Bertius.)p. 72. Si dicis penicillum dealbare parietem, omnes per Metonymiam intelligunt hoc dici, Penicillo datur quod est materiae, albedi­nis. ld. p. 77. that is given to the instrument which doth belong to that which the instrument subserveth: as if you affirme the Pencell to white [Page 69] the wall, all understand this to be spoken by a Metonymie, that is given to the Pencell which belongeth to the matter, whiting.

This he sheweth out of Ʋrsinus. It is commonly said we are justified Vulgo dicitur, fide justificamur correlative, hoc est eo justificamur quod est correlativum fidei, nempe merito Christi, ad quod refer­tur seu quod apprehendit, fides Nam fides & satisfactio Christi habent se correlative ut ac­cipiens & acceptum: recte au [...]m sic loqui­mur, quia tunc fides de causa formali Justifi­cation is intelligitur, & sensus, est meritum Christi justificat, non fides Apprehen­sum justificat, non apprehendens instrumen­tum. Sed justificatio etiam sine relatione recte tribuitur fidei, ut causae instrumentali: fide justificamur, hoc est, per fidem ut per medium. Usitate enim effectus causae effici­entis tribuitur instrumento. At cum dicitur, Fides imputata est ei ad justitiam, & aliae e­jusmodi propositiones, necessario tantum correlative sunt intelligenda, quatenus nimi­rum fides est apprehensae justitiae instrumen­tum & veluti manus, qua justitia Christi ac­cipitur. Sybr. ib. p. 80. by faith correlatively, that is, we are justified by that which is correlative to faith, forsooth by the merit of Christ to which it is referred, or which faith doth apprehend: for faith and the satisfa­ction of Christ are correlatives, as the receiver and that which is received. But then we speake rightly, because then faith is understood of the formall cause of Justification: and the sense is, the merit of Christ doth justifie, not faith. That which is apprehended justi­fieth, not the instrument apprehending. But justification is also without rela­tion rightly given to faith, as to an in­strumentall cause. We are justified by faith, that is by faith as by a meanes: for usually the effect of the efficient cause, is given to the instru­ment. But when it is said. Faith is imputed to him for righteous­nesse, and other such propositions, they are necessarily to be under­stood onely correlatively, so faith is the instrument of righte­ousnesse apprehended, and as it were the hand by which the righ­teousnesse of Christ is received. So the learned man Vrsinus. But to the next Question.

Quest. 9. To your ninth Question. How your opinion denies the infinite justice of God, to stand in strength or to re­quire such a satisfaction as Christ, God and man, made? when as they conceive no possibility of such imputation, but by vertue of such satisfaction, nor can they imagine such a faith to be impu­ted without supposing a Mediator, Christ God and man, on which it should rest, who gives it the name and being that it hath. It is true, they deny that the justice of God simply and absolutely re­quired such a satisfaction as Christ God and man made, but on supposition that God would bring many sonnes to glory, [Page 70] and save what was lost, they deny it not.

Gods justice cannot stand in strength where men are justified by that which is no satisfaction to it, faith in a proper sense. And where the satisfaction which the Law requires, is not so much as imputed to them for their Ju­stification.

2. Infinite justice requires such a satisfaction as Christ God and man made, to Justification, because in that God de­clareth himselfe just, as before.

3. Imputation of faith by vertue of the satisfaction of Christ, is to say that Christ merited that faith should be im­puted (as I conceive) and that Socinianisme, Osterodus.

I doe not detract it (Justification) Non detraho illam sanguini & morti Chri­sti, sed tribuo illam morti & sanguini Christi, quatenus sanguis & mors in nobis efficiunt eas res propter quas Deus nos justificat, nempe sidem. See Sybran. ad Bert. p. 10. from the bloud and death of Christ, but I give it to the bloud of Christ, so farre forth as his bloud and death work in us those things for which God doth justifie us, forsooth faith.

4. Though they cannot imagine a faith imputed, not supposing a Mediator on whom, yet they deny faith in a Relative sense, taking in the Mediator, to be imputed, di­spute against it for the proper sense, which satisfieth not justice, but destroyeth it, as before.

5. Gods bringing many sonnes to glory, and to save what should be lost by Christs satisfaction of his justice was Gods eternall and immutable purpose. The glory of ju­stice and mercy Gods maine ends required it; as Christ did in time, God determined eternally: thus eternall will determined it selfe, and to consider otherwise is but the worke of idle braine, there is no reality in the Lord to answer it.

Quest. 10. To the tenth question I answer, it appea­reth you hold God can and doth by his Soveraigne pow­er and will, things contrary to his justice, in your opini­on: Seeing you teach God can, doth, and will justifie men, without satisfaction made by the perfect righteoufesse of Christ their Surety, accounted to them, putting faith in a proper sense, a created imperfect grace Imputed for righte­ousnesse [Page 71] which cannot satisfie justice, which cannot stand with or declare the same, so that either Gods end is not to declare his righteousnesse against the Apostle in justificati­on, Rom. 3. 26. or else you destroy that end, and so esta­blish such a soveraigne power and will.

Quest. 11. And to the eleventh, to accept for righte­ousnesse that which is not so according to Gods Law, is contrary to justice, seeing it is a justification of the wicked, abomination to the Lord; the holding of a guilty person innocent, which the Lord will not doe; being the Judge of all the world be cannot doe, doing right.

When as God accepts Christs righteousnesse for the debt of a beleever, and imputeth it to him, that righteous­nesse is not the beleevers personall righteousnesse, that is righteousnesse performed in his owne person, so no flesh living can be justified in Gods sight; but the righteousnesse of Christ his Surety, his Head, his by reall union and communion, as if it were personall righteousnesse: the Sureties payment of a debt for the principall is all one as if the principall did himselfe make satisfaction to the Cre­ditor.

Quest. 12. Where Christs righteousnesse is denyed to be the the righteousnesse of a true beleever? I answer, where you de­ny Christs righteousnesse to be imputed for righteousnes, and to be that whereby we are made just before God: for those words formally I finde not Mr. W. to contend about them, neither are men denominated ever from what is internall and such a forme. It may be from that which is outward, as Doctor Davenant largely answereth the Ponti­ficians. Neither is it enough that Christs righteousnesse is a meritorious cause of justification, it must be so applyed by faith that the beleever may be thereby made righteous, which is denyed where there is no imputation thereof for righteousnesse. The word saith he is holy, unreprovable, un­blamable in the sight of God, which cannot be but as by that which hath merit and worth, so applied and made mine; all the money in the world will not inrich any man untill it be his, injoyed to that end. But to that which is a com­mon [Page 72] evasion to you and Romanists in this controversie, making Christ onely the efficient and meritorious cause, more after in due place, where I shall shew Mr. G. sense Apo­cryphall, Popish, con [...]uted by our learned Protestant [...], an­swering them.

Quest. 13. To the thirteenth, the insufficiency of Christs righteousnesse and satisfaction for all, even Scripture suffi­ciency is there denied where Christs righteousnesse is denied to fit all men and women of all callings and conditions, and counted an unreasonable thing, as that one garment should fit all statures and proportions of bodies, or the same shooe all feete of all sizes.

And why Sir, should not that fit all which is the Sonne of Gods fulfilling all righteousnesse? when as by it all are perfectly righteous that beleeve, men, women, of all sta­tures and conditions.

Either it fitteth all, so that all sorts are perfectly righ­teous by it applied alone, or none, which might have been said plainly; or being so, righteous, they are so by some­what else, and you must name that. What for men and women of all sorts, of all callings and conditions?

I thought there had been neither male nor female, but alone in Christ; and that it were vaine else for all to put him on in Baptisme sacramentally, and by beleeving really, that the precept was vaine (and impossible to some) that re­quireth it.

Did we grant faith in a proper sense, that righteousnes, or imputed for it, that would serve all, fit all in your opi­nion, belike; or else it is liable to the same exception, the bride is arraied with it, and the Builder and Maker of it both maketh it and judgeth it fit: no matter for such curious speculators else.

And when as you grant an absolute necessity of it, and suf­ficiencie for a world of sinners, to justification, neither man or woman of this or that stature or proportion, not the tallest or biggest have any cause to feare, that if he beleeve he shall not be fitted. To deny this fitting, is to deny suffi­ciency, but this crochet savoureth more of the flesh then of the spirit.

[Page 73] Quest. 14. To the foureteenth▪ that which Mr. Walker saith overthroweth the satisfaction of Christ, hath this rea­son, that if we satisfie Gods justice by our Surety Christ there is no Pardon, for pardon and satisfaction are contra­ries, Pena & venia sunt adversa. so Mr. W. So some of the stamp, Mr. Wr. disputeth against. In this you are as a Socraticall disputant, wisely too, as in all that kinde of answer to Mr. Walkers reasons.

Sir, our satisfaction by Christ to Gods justice and Gods mercy will stand together in that name, every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the Law; what our infirmity lacked, Christs justice hath supplied. So your Mother taught you in her Doctrine of Justification, and to say that I by my Surety have satisfied for my selfe, or debt, is no more then to say, that in him and by him a beleever hath fulfilled the Law; neither doth it deny, but establish, that Christ hath satisfied the justice of God for me.

Quest. 15. To the fifteenth, It is monstrous to reason Bish. Dav. p. 315. & p 330. Tossan. ad Rom p. 38. Lu­ther ad Gal. p. 70. 2. Aret. Rom. 1. 17 & Rom. 3. 21. Mr. Pem­ble de justif p. 4. & p. 16. Mr. Bradshaw c. 1. Sect. 1. & p. ult. justifying Au­gustines speech. Justificationis forma est justi­tia, Wetten de ree. p. 34. Ju­stificationis for­mam justitia constare certū est, estque ju­stificatio reve­ra propritis & verus effectus justitiae, quoquo modo ea justitia imputari five communicari nobis intelligatur. Part. 1. l. 2. c. 2 Sect. 1. 2. Neque pontificiorum sed nostrorum Theologorum sententia est. Nam [...]ine justitia justum censeri perinde esset a [...] sine doctri­na doctum, sapientia sapientem censeri. Ib. Sect. 4. Id ib. Sect. 4. to deny Legall righteousnesse to justification, seeing Justi­fication is a making man just.

This denieth where withall both personall righteous­nesse, and the righteousnesse of Christ imputed. Mr. Wot­ton teacheth you, righteousnesse is the forme of Justification; and, it is certaine that the forme of Justification consists in righ­teousnesse, and Justification is indeed the proper and true ef­fect of righteousnesse, in what manner soever that righteousnesse is understood to be communicated or imputed to us; of this he saith, neither is this the judgement alone of Pontificians, but of our owne Divines. He nameth those words out of Polanus. For a man to be accounted just without justice or righteousnesse, is all one as for a man to be accounted learned without learning, wise without wisdome.

That Justification (and in that name) should consist on­ly in remission of sinnes, excluding the righteousnesse of Christ imputed is as unreasonable, it is without the cause by which. You tell us you have handled it at large, but [Page 74] not where one may meete with it, had it beene put here it should have beene considered. The joynt testimony of ma­ny a worthy Divine is but set us a Wooll-gathering.

For Calvine it shall be tried. I beleeve you mention him as Mr. Wotton doth the Church of England. He going a­bout to prove Remission of sinnes to be the formall cause of Justification, triumpheth in the judgement of the Church of England.

It saith, Justification is remission of sinnes; and this Justi­fication Justifica [...]io est remissio pecca [...] torum. or justice is received, accepted, and approved of God for our full and perfect Justification. To which he addeth, In which words the whole nature of Justification is comprehended, onely in remission of sinnes, and that it is affirmed the full and perfect Justification of God himselfe accepting it in judge­ment: L 2. c. 3. Sect. 1. and then addeth, neither is there in the two other parts of that Sermon, a sillable or letter which signifieth any thing to be wanting, or to be repugnant to this opinion. So he.

When he yet cannot be ignorant but our Church ur­geth the satisfaction of Christ his death and obedience to the Law, not excluding his obedience to the Law, but our workes, as before.

Our Homily sheweth a necessary concurrence on Christs part of justice, that is the satisfaction of his justice, which the Apo­stle calleth the justice of God, and it consisteth in paying our ran­some and fulfilling of the Law. So the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our Justification, but the justice of ☞ man in our works.—And after laying down our insufficiency, it extolleth Gods mercy without any desert or deserving of ours, to prepare for us the most pretious Jewels of Christs body and bloud, whereby our ransome might be fully paid, the Law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied, so that Christ is now the righteousnesse of all them that truly beleeve in him, he for them paid the ransome by his death, he for them fulfilled the Law by his life. So that now in and by him every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the Law, for as much as that which their infirmity lacked, Christs justice hath supplied. These are added for the more full understanding of what was delive­red before, and must not be left out. Nay, Christ and his [Page 75] obedience are established the righteousnesse of beleevers, and so that by which we are just before God, as before out of Mr. Wotton.

But to Calvine, I grant he saith, Justification consists alone Sola remissi­one peccatorū constat, & non alitet fieri ju­stos. in remission of sinnes, and that we are not otherwise made just. And yet I assert, that in the exclusive he did not shut out the imputation of Christs righteousnesse; but onely reno­vation, inherent righteousnesse and good workes. So to Nam si operi­bus aestimentur shew it he inferreth, for if they should be esteemed by workes, he disputeth against the Popish opinion, not against im­putation of Christs righteousnesse, and for both, read the 23. Sect. where you shall finde his dispute to be against Sect. 23. workes, in these words.

That vaine conceipt vanisheth, that Si quidem evanescit nugamentum illud, ideo justificari hominem fide, quoniam illa spiritum dei participat quo justus redditu [...] quod magis est contrarium superiori doctri­nae quam ut conciliari unquam queat. a man is therefore justified by faith, because by that he partaketh the Spirit of God whereby he is made just; which is more contrary to the former doctrine, then that it can be reconciled. He excludeth workes not the righteousnesse of Christ. One place more there.

It cannot be doubtfull but he want­eth Neque enim dubium quim sit inops pro­priae justitiae qui justitiam extra se quaetere docetur. righteousnesse of his owne that is taught to seek it out of himselfe: where Vide, non in nobis sed in Christo esse justi­tiam nostram, nobis tantum [...]o jure compe­tere quia Christisumus participes, siquidem omnes ejus [...] cum ipsa possidemus. urging the text, 2 Cor. 5. 21. he addeth.

See, our righteousnesse is not in us, but in Christ, onely belonging to us by that right, because we are partakers of Christ, seeing with him we possesse all his riches.

And speaking of Rom 8. 3. saith. And it maketh nothing to the contrary, that in another place, he teacheth that sinne was Ubi non aliud complemen [...] designat quam quod imputa­tione conse­quimar. Eo enim jure communicat nobiscum Dom Christus suam justitiam ut mitabili quodam modo quantum pertinet ad Dei judicium vim ejus in nos transfundit. Aliud non sen [...]isse abund [...] liquet exaltera sententia quum paulo post posucrat, Quemadmodum per unius inobedi­ca [...]i [...]m constituti sumus peccatores, ita per obedientiam unius justificari Quid aliud est in Christi obedientia collocare nostram justitiam, nisi asserere ca sola not haberi justos, quia Christi obedientia nobis accepta sertur ac si nostra esset? quare mihi elegantissime vide­tur Ambrosius hujus justitiae paradigma in benedictione Jacob statuisse, nempe que [...]ad▪ modum ille primogenituram à seipso non meritus, habitu fratris occultatus, ejusque veste indutus, quae optimum odorem spirabat, seipsum insimulavit patri ut suo commodo sub aliena persona benedictionem acciperet: Ita nos sub Christi primogeniti nostri fratris pre­tiosa puritate deli [...]oscere, ut testimonium justitiae à conspectu Dei referamus.—Et sane ita sefres habet, nam quo in salutem eoram facie Dei compareamus, bono ejus odore fra­grare nos necesse est, & ejus perfectione vitia nostra obtegi ac sepeliri. condemned of sinne in the flesh of Christ, that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us. Where he meaneth no o­ther fulfilling, then that which we obtaine by imputation. For [Page 76] the L. Christ doth in such sort communicate his righteousnes with us, that after a certaine marvellous manner, be poureth the force there­of into us, so much as appertaineth to the judgement of God. It ap­peareth he did no otherwise meane by the other sentence which he had spoken a little before. As by the disobedience of one man we were made sinners, so by the obedience of one man we are justified. What is it else to set our righteousnesse in the obedience of Christ, but to affirmthathereby only we are accounted righteous, because the obedience of Christ is imputed unto us, as if it were our own. Ther­fore me thinkes that Ambrose hath excellently well shewed how Sunt tamen qui existiment ju­stitiam quae ad justificationem flagitatur a Cal­vino etiam in imputatione justitiae Christi esse positam; ex horum numero est ipse Bellar. qui de Calvino ita scripsit. Jo­hannes Calvinus admittit qui­dem cum Lu­theranis non es­se in nobis ul­lam inhaeren­tem justitiam & imputari Chri­sti justitiam, & propter eam condonari pec­cata. there is an example of this rightousnesse in the blessing of Jacob: for Jacob not having of himselfe deserved the preeminence of the first begotten sonne, hid himselfe in the apparell of his bro­ther, and being cloathed with his brothers coate that savoured of a most sweete smell, he crept into the favour of his father, and received the blessing to his owne commodity under the person of another: so we doe lie hid under the pretious purenesse of Christ our elder brother, that we may get a testimony of righteousnesse in the sight of God.—And truly so it is, for that we may appeare before the face of God unto salvation, it is necessary for us to smell sweetly with his Odor, and to have our faults covered and buried with his perfection. So Calvin.

Now let these parcels be laid together, and no man of conscience not desirous to cavill, can deny, but, though he excludeth workes, he doth not the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ.

When Mr. Wotton had forced Calvine, yet he confesseth; There are yet that thinke that the righteousnesse which is requi­red to justification, by Calvine to be also placed in imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ. Of this number is Bellarmine [Page 77] himselfe, who wrote thus of Calvine. John Calvine truly ad­mitteth with the Lutherans, that there is not us any inherent righteousnesse, and Christs righteousnesse to be imputed, and for it sinnes to be forgiven. And after: Nam cum Calvinus instit. l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 22. Et in Antidoto ad Concil. Trid. ad sess. 6. contendit justificationem esse positam in remissione peccatorum, non excludit impu­tationem justitiae Christi, sed internam re no­vationem & sanctificationem. Bell. de justif. l. 2. c. 1. Sect. Johann eundem etiam Calv. reprehendir quod causam formalem justifi­cationis du plicem faciat, c. 2. Sect. sed non minori. Who also addeth, Calvino respondet Pareus. Part 1. l. 2. c. 4. Sect. 6.

Calvine when in his Institutions and Antidote he contendeth justifica­tion to be placed in remission of sinnes, doth not exclude the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ, but internall renovation and sanctification. And he reprehendeth the same Calvine, be­cause he maketh a double formall cause of justification.

And now for Pareus, give me leave to shew his judgement of Calvine in this matter. When as Bellarmine urged Calvine, as you doe to the same end, Pareus answereth.

But that vaine wrangler (Bellar­mine) Sed inanis ille vitilitigator ipsum se Calum­niae arguit, supra enim satebatur, Calvinum imputationem justitiae Christi non exclude­te, hic etiam denuo fatetur Calvinum cum Lutheranis agnoscere imputationem justitiae Christi & non imputationem peccatorum. Si igitur Calv. justificationem in remissione pec­catorum constituit & imputationem justitiae Christi non excludit, quid a Luth. dissentit? argueth himselfe of Calumny, for above he did confesse that Calvine did not exclude the imputation of the righ­teousnesse of Christ. And here again once more he confesseth Calvine with the Lutherans to acknowledge the impu­tation of the righteousnesse of Christ, and not imputation of sinnes. If therefore Calvine did place justification in remission of sinnes, and did not exclude the impu­tation of the righteousnesse of Christ; what doth he dissent from the Lutherans?

And then answering to that of his Antidote, he saith.

But in saying this, he doth dissent Verum hoc dicendo neque à se neque a Luthero, Melancthone, vel quoquam also evan­gelicorum dissentir, particula enim Sola, non excludit imputationem justitiae Christi, quod fassus est Bellar. sed excludit reno vationem quam Tridentini in sua definitione cum re­missione peccarorum ad justificationem re­quirunt: hoc respectu etiam Lutherus in sola remissione, & non imputatione peccatorum justificationem collocat; Melancthon quoque, sic Martir. Castig. de justif. l. 2. c. 6. p. 444. neither from himselfe, nor from Lu­ther, Melancthon, or any other Pro­testant: for that particle Alone, doth not exclude the imputation of the righ­teousnesse of Christ, which thing Bel­larmine confessed, but it excludeth re­novation, which those of Trent require in their definition with remission of [Page 78] sinnes to justification. In this respect also Luther doth plan justification onely in remission and not imputation of sinnet— Melancthon also—so Martir; thus Pareus.

Doctor Dounbam may be added. For though many of our L. de justif. c. 5. p. 4. Divines as hath beene said have taught, that unto justification remission of sinnes is onely required: yet their assertion it to be understood as Bellar. himselfe understandeth Calvine, as spoken in opposition to Papists, who say that to justification concurre, not onely remission of sinnes, but also inward renovation, or san­ctification. To contradict them our Divines have said that we are justified by remission onely, or not imputing of sinne. Where­with alwayes concurreth imputation of righteousnesse, and not by renovation or sanctification. Their meaning therefore by the ex­clusive particle Onely, was not to exclude imputation of righteous­nesse, which inseparably accompanieth not imputation of sinne or Saint Paul proveth, Rom. 4. 6. 8. and Bellar. himselfe con­fesseth, but infusion of righteousnesse or renovation.

Doctor Davenant answering Bell. Quartam recenset Calvini qui (ut ille ait) formalem causam justificationis in sola remis­sione peccatorum sitam docet. At nemo ne­scit Calvinum imputationem obedientiae Chri­sti requirere absque qua nulla remissio pec­catorum obtinetur. Si igitur quis a Calvine quaesi visset quidnam tandem illud sit propter quod & per quod impius justificatur; re­spondisset, propter & per meritum fil [...]i Dei, haec causa est remissionis, & causa accepta­tionis, haec causa translationis alstatu mortis ad statum vitae; Deus hanc filii sui obedien­tiam & justitiam respiciens ut a nobis fide apprehensam ab initio recipit nos in statum justificatorum. Deus perpetuo intuens hanc eandem justitiam nobis donatam & applica­tam in reliquo vitae nostrae cursu habet nos pro justificatis. De Iusti. habit. c. 22. p. 313. The fourth be repeateth is Calvins, who (as he (Bellarmine) saith) teach­eth the formall cause of justification to be placed onely in remission of sins. But no man is ignorant that Calvine requireth imputation of the obedience of Christ, without which no remission of sinnes is obtained. If therefore one had sought of Calvine what that is, for which, and by which, a wicked man is justified: he had answered, for and by the merit of the Sonne of God, this is the cause of remission, and the cause of acceptation, this is the cause of translation from the state of death to the state of life. God re­specting this obedience and righteousnesse of his Sonne, a [...] appre­hended of us by saith, from the beginning receiveth us into the state of justified ones. God alwayes beholding this same righte­ousnesse given unto us and applied, in the remaining course of our life, accounteth us for justified ones.

Chamier to Bellar. Objecting as you doe, first answereth [Page 79] out of Bellar. himselfe, then out of Calvine, Instit. l. 3. c. 12. Potuitquic quā magis contra Bell. figmentum dici? l. 21. c. 15. Sect 20. & Sect. 21. Sect. 2. to which he addeth, What can be more manifest? and Sect. 3. to which he saith, Could any thing more be said a­gainst that figment of Bellarmine? Againe he proveth the same. We are sure that cannot first be (that we be not accoun­ted sinners) without imputation of the Certi sumus ne illud quidem (nos pecca­tores censeri) prius constare posse absque im­putara justitia Christi; unde Calvini verba, justitiae imputatione nos absolvit. righteousnesse of Christ; thence the words of Calvine, he doth absolve us by the imputation of the righte­ousnesse of Christ.

And before, We (Protestants) doe Imputationem justistiae Christi omni­no censemus ejusdem justificationis fun­dum esse, qua neglecta prorsus illa nulla sit, neque in toto neque in parte, quo­modo cunque tantum vel cogitatione con­cipi queat. Ib. altogether conceive the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ the founda­tion of the same justification, which being neglected, that is altogether none at all, neither in whole nor in part, howsoever it may be conceived as much as in thought.

I will adde another witnesse for Calvine, Polanus. Now Partir. p. 114. if any man will say that the found Teachers, Calvine; and others, doe affirme that justice or righteousnesse is the forgivenes of sinnes. And againe, that justice consisteth in remission of sinnes, we must know that it is very certaine they speake metony­mically, meaning so as that either justice in their writings, is Quid enim ali­ud peccata po­tuisset occulta­re nostram pre­ter ejus justiti­am, &c. Justin. ad Diogutum. the same that justification, because we cannot be justified but by justice, or else that justice is said to be the remission of sinnes, because justice is the cause of remission or forgivenesse of sinnes; and that Calvine doth speake by Metonymia, is plaine out of other places of his workes, as l. 3. Instit. c. 17. Sect. 8.— And so in another place he plainely proveth that by, through, and for Christs righteousnesse we obtaine forgivenesse of sinnes: and c. 3. Sect. 19. having obtained forgivenesse of sinnes by meanes of Christs righteousnesse comming betweene—and more plainely, c. 14. Sect. 12. and c. 11. Sect. 1. and c. 14. Sect. 13. man being covered with the righteousnesse of Christ pleaseth God and obtaineth forgivenesse of sinnes.

So that if Calvine himselfe, and all these worthies are to be credited, nay Bellarmine and Mr. Wotton themselves, you wrong Calvine, and hence the places you talke of out [Page 80] of other Divines may receive their answer.

Quest. 16. To the sixteenth question, where the words are, &c. and that you cannot finde in Rom. 5. 19. Rom. 8. 4. Rom. 10. 4. so much as one expresse word either of the commu­nication, much lesse of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse and satisfaction to us, least of all of their being made formally righteous by such imputation.

To this, first your selfe graunt (you say) we are justified formally too, by the communication of Christs righteousnesse to us in a sense, viz. in as much as we obtaine by such communica­tion remission of sinnes which is our formall justification (with you;) so that the thing is in a sense, though not in expresse words, and you see it too.

2. Nay you grant remission an effect of righteousnesse communicated by these texts; not only pardon, but communica­tion of righteousnesse, so your words; so that here is more then a meritorious cause, here is application by faith, which you will not other where acknowledge.

3. Mr. W. denieth not remission of sinnes an effect, he with Calvine and the learned but now mentioned grant it, but that which all contend is also imputation and com­munication to that end, without which pardon cannot be, as before.

4. And Sir, if remission doth formally justifie, it is ju­stice, as before out of Mr. Wotton, and so conformity to Gods Law, deny one and you deny all.

5. But to those texts what you cannot see others have, See Dr. Dav. de bab. Just. c. 27. arg. 2. p. 363. & arg. 4. p. 365. and others. Formae consti­tuete. and you might, had you received counsell of some dead and living still: that is, consulted with the the learned, the words Rom. 5. 19. that by the obedience of one many shall be constituted righteous. Here is righteousnesse constituting righteons, and then formall, for it is the nature of the forme to constitute.

I know not what you can except but that the forme is internall, and that what is externall cannot be so termed, and hence it is that you so often put in (that sophisticall term, as ours answer the Papists in the same controversie) formally: and if that will not serve your turne, as was [Page 81] shewed you at Cheswicke out of Doctor Davenant, indeed, put a man constituted by righteousnesse, righteous, if it be not by his owne personall righteousnes, it must be by ano­thers, Christs. The place that was then read unto you was:

We grant that the forme of Justi­fication Justificationis formam concedimus illud per quod homo justificatus non modo repu­tatur & denominatur coram Deo, sed efficitur sive constituitur: quia autem homo dicitur justificatus denominatione passiva (ut ex ipsa Grammatica no [...]um est) non est absolute ne­cessarium, ut haec denominatio aut peratur a forma inhaerente, aut supponat [...]ormam in­haerentem. Hujusmodi enim denominatio­nes passivae, quandoque respiciunt formam inhaerentem, ut cum patietem dicimus deal­batum: quandoque non, ut cum dicimus hominem amatum, honotatum, damnatum, absolutum; haec enim omnia de illo vere di­cuntur in quo non reperitur forma inhae­rens, quae fundare possit hujusmodi denomi­nationes. Annotavit hoc Gulielmus Parisi­ensis, denominationes passive sivae praedica­tiones fiunt in rebus in quibus non sunt, in eis, vel ad eas, vel de iis. by which a justified person is non onely reputed and denominated be­fore God, but made or constituted so. But because he is said to be justified by a passive denomination (as it is knowne out of Grammer it selfe) It is not absolutely necessary that this deno­mination be taken either from an in­berent forme, or that it should suppose an inherent forme: for such passive denominations sometimes respect in an inherent forme, as when we say the wall to be whited: and sometimes not, as when we say a man to be beloved honoured, condemned, absolved. For all these are truly spoken of him in whom there is not found an inherent forme which may be ground for such denominations. William of Paris noted this Passive de­nominations or predications are made in things in which they are not, in them, or to them, or of them. Where he citeth Vas­ques Ut imbelle & inutile. the Jesuite rejecting that kind of argument as weake and unprofitable. Saying,

I will not fight against this kinde Nolo hoc genus denominationis impug­nare communi quodam argumento quo a­liqui utuntur, nempe quod haec denomina­tio justi videatur esse eorum quae postulant fo [...]mam intrinsecam: & mox, potest aliquid dici justum extrinseca & aliena justitia. Dr. Dav. de hab. just. c. 27 Sect. 36. of denomination with a certaine kinde of common argument which some use, forsooth that this denomination of a just man seemeth to be of these, which require an internall forme. And by and by, A thing may be said to be just by that which is externall and anothers righteousnesse.

And Chamier. Every one that is just is so said indeed from Omnis justus dicitur quidem a justitia, non ab inhaerente necessario, da­mr imputativa justitia, datur compatentium ut Ezec. 16. Dies calamitosus ut de lac. & Eph. 5. propier ea quae fiunt in ip­sis, ex Chrysost. c. 5. Sect. 28. Sect 29. righteousnesse, not necessarily from what is inherent; there is im­puted righteousnesse, there is righteousnesse of such as are com­pared [Page 82] Ezec. 16. an evill day, as of Jacob, and Ephes. 5. be­cause of those which are done in them, as out of Chrysostome.

Quest. 17. You demand where he findeth it to be any branch of the Pelagian heresie to deny Adams posterity to be made for­mally sinners with Adams sinne imputed to them in the letter and formality of it?

Sir, I suppose you intend not that I must finde your terme formally, and in the letter and formality, enough of that but now, and that if I finde it the Pelagian heresie to deny Adams posterity to be made sinners by Adams sin imputed to them, it will satisfie your question. For that see Ʋossius.

That I might meet with them both, Utrisque ut occurrerem ostendi quam vere olim scripsit Ʋinc. Lirinens▪ neminem ante prodigiosum Pelagii discipulum Caele­stium, [...]eatu praevaticationis Adae, omne ge­nus humanum negasse adstrictum. Voss. hist. [...]elay. Epist. ad Lectorem. I have shewed how truly Vincentius Lirinensis in times past wrote, that there was none before Celestius that prodigious Disciple of Pelagius, that did deny whole mankinde to be bound by the guilt of the sinne of Adam.

The Pelagians did deny Adams sinne to be imputed to po­sterity. Negabant Pela­giani, Adami peccatum im­putari posteri­tati. V [...]ss. l 2. Thes 1. p. 172. Catholicorum contra senten­tia suit, peccatū primorum Pa­rentum impu­rari omnibus ac reatu [...]eneti to­ [...]m posterita­rem, idque id­circo, quod peccante Adamo omnes in lum­bis ejus suimus. Ant [...]hes. 1. p. 174. In primis hominibus natura humana peccavit, ac per hoc naturae humanae nulla nocu­ [...] peccata nisi sua. Ib. e [...] August. ret [...]act. l. 1. c. 10.

The Catholiques opinion on the contrary was; The sinne of first Parents to be imputed to all, and the whole posterity to be held with the guilt, and that therefore because Adam sinning, we were all in his loynes.

In the first men humane nature sinned, and by this, no sins hurt humane nature but its owne.

Quest. 18. He must answer who are they that deny Insants dying before they commit actuall sinne, are punished by death, because they are guilty of Adams sinne, or affirmeth that God out of his justice destroyeth innocent babes.

Mr. Ws. answer is, he heard it by many witnesses of good credit, that heard it from your preaching.

And here you give him to understand that it is one thing to have the guilt of Adams sinne derived upon his posterity, another to have the act of his sinne in the letter [Page 83] and formality of it imputed to his posterity, so that for such imputation they should be destroyed; the former you grant, the latter you conceive will never be proved.

Dying babes then are innocent in regard of imputation of Adams act; It is nothing but the guilt that is derived, not the act, It is the guilt, not the act. Whether doe you not in this answer deny the imputation of Adams sinne with the Pelagian? and so the orthodox tenet, which Pecca [...]um, & [...]catus. Peccatum im­putari, & reatu teneri. is the imputa [...]ion of Adams sinne? I demand whether sin and guilt be one and the same thing with them? Whether there be not sinne to be imputed, and to be held with the guilt, another and distinct thing: and whether they be not di­stinguished in Divinity?

You denying the imputation of Adams act, as Bishop did against Mr. Perkins, should have told us (as Bishop Abbot saith to that Popish Bishop) how it is true that the See p. 405. Apostle saith, That by Adams disobedience we are made sin­ners. For h [...]w should we be made sinners by the disobedience, but for that his disobedience is imputed to us?

Adam (saith the same Author) bare the person of all man­kind, Id. ib. either standing to stand for all, or falling to fall for all, being to beget children according to his image—therefore when he sin­ned, we all being in his loynes (as Bellarmine saith) sinned in Id. ib. him and by him, and his sinne by imputation lieth upon us all.

For (saith Doctor Whitaker) his Ipsius enim voluntas nostra fuit, ejusque igitur transgressio nostra est, quia ille non ut homo unus consideratur, sed ut radix generis humani, in quo omnes inclusi vir­tute fuimus, utque Augustinus ait, omnes e­ramus unus ille homo. Dr. Whitaker de or. ig. pec. p. 43. De pec. mer. & remis. l. 1. c. 10. will was ours, and therefore his trans­gression is ours: because he is not con­sidered as one man, but as the roote of mankind, in which we all were virtu­ally included, and as Augustine saith, we all were that one man.

For neither should we [...]e held either Neque enim aut reatu illo aut iniquitate inde contracta teneremur, nisi ille actus quo Adamus Dei praeceptum violavir, imputa­tione nobis adscriberetur. Id. ib p. 37. with any guilt or iniquity contracted therehence, unlesse that act by which Adam violated Gods precept, should be, by imputation, ascribed to us.

Here you see, in the doctrine of this great Divine, is the act and guilt, both, and if there were no more but imputa­tion [Page 84] of that act, here is enough to cleare Gods justice in destruction of babes.

Quest. 19. How such as deny the imputation of Christs righteous­nes (viz. in the letter and formality of it) to beleevers, doe hereby ascribe as much justification by it to infidels and reprobates as be­leevers themselves: when faith is maintained to be the meanes of bringing men into communion with Christ, and to give him part in that great benefit of Redemption purchased for the world?

Answ. You seem to me to doe so, when as what you give faith notwithstanding, you deny in the former part com­munication of Christs righteousnesse to justification, and our being made just by it communicated, which sheweth what you give to be but in word and tongue, for a co­lour and shew. Still▪ faith justifieth, not relatively to the object, applying it as an hand, but in a proper sense. Nei­ther doe you make the righteousnesse of Christ, as the meri­torious cause, so that by which, imputed, we are just, just as the Papists, whose confutation you shall meete with after, by our learned Divines.

Quest. 20. and 21. But how can Mr. Walker hold it a mi­stake to say, that justification and life are promised upon conditi­on of beleeving?

For my part, I suppose he may say so in a sound sense. And to your argument, either they are promised absolutely, or on condition of somewhat else, or of beleeving, or not promised at all.

1. I answer, They are promised to faith in Christ, that is, faith taking in the righteousnesse of Christ.

2. It is not made to every faith, not to a meere assent to the revelation, not to your faith of a proper sense (though you call it faith in Christ) when as it doth not as a hand bring home the righteousnesse of Christ by which I am ju­stified. The faith you speake of infoldeth not the object, but opposeth it in this effect justification. Faith in a pro­per sense (say you) is imputed, and not the righteousnesse of Christ.

Neither doth Mr. Walker hang out a flag of defiance to the orthodox; you doe in your whole businesse. Doctor [Page 85] Dounham calling faith a condition, taketh it with its object as all the rest you mention, against your sense, whom they oppose as they doe the Papist.

Harken and learne. Junius speaking of the covenant Cujus condi [...]io extra nos in Christo repe­ritur. p. 16. & 8. Sect 3. of grace, saith, whose condition is found out of us in Christ, and there he saith, that by that apprehended by faith we are just, &c.

Faith is wont to be considered two Fides in Scripturis & apud Patres duobus modis considerari solet, proprie secundum naturam fidei simplici [...]er; altero figurate, id est, metaleptice & correlative, qua fides apprehendit objectum suum, &c. posteriori dicitur sola justifica [...]e. Trelca [...]. p. 85. wayes, in the Scriptures and amongst the Fathers, properly according to the nature of faith simply, another figu­ratively, that is, by a metalepsis, and correlatively, as faith apprehendeth the object, &c. in the last sense it is said alone to justifie.

Our justification is not with the Nequidem justificatio nostra est cum con­ditione fidei, qua fides est habitus in no­bis, sed qua extra nos Christum appre­hendi [...]. Id. p. 88. condition of faith, as faith is an habit in us, but as out of us it appprehendeth Christ.

When as faith is an instrument, Cum fides instrumentum sit, non mi [...]um est, si quae instrumentorum ratio est nomen & officium re [...] cujus instrumentum est, ei attri­buitur. Id. p. 89. it is no wonder if, which is the na­ture of instruments, the name and of­fice of the thing whose instrument it is, be given unto it.

Christ as to be applied, is the condition of the covenant. Qua applicandusest conditio soederis. Ib. p. 100. Ad Gal. 64. 2▪

Christ is the object of faith, saith Luther, yea rather in faith Christ himselfe is present.

Hence Bucanus. And how is Et quomodo ad justitiam imputatur? non absolute, sed relative, cum fides non sola sed cum objecto suo crucifixo intelligitur; quemadmodum manus quae recipit the sau [...]um donatum non dita [...], sed the sau [...]us. Bu [...]. ad q. 35. faith imputed to righteousnesse? not absolutely, but relatively, because faith not alone, but with his crucified object is understood, as an hand which recei­veth a treasure given, doth not make rich, but the treasure.

This you account perilous, and preached against in my hearing once, you cannot indure it to be set forth with its object Christ, or it to have the nature of an hand, which yet is an ordinary orthodox expression: and to that of Bu­canus Ad Gal. p. 65. 2. for your hearers sake, I will give you an account of divers. Faith justifieth (saith Luther) because it apprehendeth [Page 86] and possesseth this treasure, even Christ present.

Therefore Christ apprehended by faith, and dwelling in the heart of the true Christian, is the true Christian righteousnesse, for the which God counteth us righteous, and giveth us eternall Ib. p seq. life.

Because thou beleevest in me, saith the Lord, and thy faith Ib. layeth hold upon Christ, &c. therefore be thou justified and righ­teous.

Hence we have first in what sense Hinc habemus primum quo sensu justifi­cationem fidei tribuimus, qua [...]enus videlicet ea Christum amplectitur & applicat. Unde Bez. (in confess▪ Major art 3. c. 4.) vo­cat unicum illud instrumentum quo Je­sum Christum oblatum apprehendimus, & vas unicum ad eum percipiendum compa­paratum: & post. art. 7 Quum ex Paulo affir­mamus nos sola fide, sive gratis, sive fide, sive sine operibus justificari (sunt enim haec sy­nonyma) non est hoc dictum perinde accipi­endum ac si diceremus, fidem esse quandam virtutem quae nos in nobis coram Deo ju­stificer; id enim esset fidem substituere in lo­cum Jesu Christi, qui unus est nost [...]a perse­cta & integra justitia. Verum ita loquimur, cum Apostolo, & fide sola nos justificari di­cimus eo quod amplectitur eum qui nos ju­stificat, nempe Jesum Christum, quo cum nos unit & copulat, ut simus & ipsius & om­nium ejus bonorum participes; quae qui­dem nobis imputata prorsus sufficiunt ad hoc ut coram Deo absolvamur▪ & pro justis cen­s [...]amur. Cham l. 22. c. 2. Sect. 14. we give justification to faith, forsooth so farre as it imbraceth Christ and applieth him▪ Whence Beza calleth it, that onely instrument by which we ap­prehend Christ offered, the onely vessell provided to receive him. And after, when as out of Paul we affirm us to be justifi­ed, only by faith, or by faith, or without workes, (for these are of the same sig­nification) this saying is not so to be understood, as if we said faith to be a certaine vertue which justifieth us in our selves before God; for that were to substitute faith in the place of Je­sus Christ who alone is our perfect and whole righteousnesse. But we so speake with the Apostle, and we say we are justified by faith alone, because it doth imbrace him, who doth justifie us, that is, Jesus Christ, with whom it doth unite and couple us that we may be partakers both of him and all his goods, which indeed be­ingimputed to us altogether suffice to this that we may be absolved before God, and be accounted for just men.

Where he citeth Bell. also, laying downe the state of the Quam gratiam fides credendo recipit: sicut cum manu pauper eleemosynam à divi [...]e recipit, ea manus recipiens eleemosynam non est ipsa eleemosyna, neque causa efficiens eleemosynae, neque propter ipsam—sed solum relative concurri [...] ad eleemosynam obtinendam, quoniam dare & accipere sunt relata. question, who giveth to Protestants.— Which grace faith by beleeving receiveth: as when a poore man receiveth an almes [Page 87] of a rich man with his hand, that hand receiving the almes, is not the almes it selfe, nor the efficient cause of the almes, nor for it—but it onely concurreth relatively to obtaine the almes, be­cause to give and receive are relates. Non male, nisi relative con­currere esset phrasis apud nos inaudita.

Sect. 16. To which report of Bellarmine Chamier noteth, He doth it not evilly, but that, that phrase, to concurre relatively, is unheard of amongst us.

It ought rather to be named rela­tively, Debuit potius relative nominari, id est, quat [...]nus fides consideratur cum suo objecto, ut cum dicitur Ecclesia super fide Petri fundata apud veteres: nos alias evicimus in­terpretandum de Christo, quem fides Petri consessa erat. Ib. that is, so farre forth as faith is considered with its object, as when the Church is said to be founded upon the faith of Peter amongst the Fa­thers. We have elsewhere evicted the place, to be interpreted of Christ whom Peters faith confessed.

Junius, But correlatively as they Sed correlative tantum ut loquuntur, qua­tenus meritum Christi apprehendit, tanquam manus mendici eleemosynam. De justis Sect. 16. speake, as it apprehendeth the merit of Christ as the hand of a begger doth the almes.

To conclude, that we may expound Denique ut metonymiam hanc quam evidentissimo possimus simili exponamus; fi­des est tanquam manus, aut tanquam loculus apprehendens thesaurum gratiae quam Deus nobis exhibet in Christo Jesu Comment, ad Heb. c. 11. this metonymy by as evident a simili­tude as we may; faith is as it were the hand, or as the purse apprehending the treasure of grace, which God gi­veth to us in Jesus Christ.

Peter Martir, And also faith it selfe, Quin etiam fides ipsa, si qua nostrum opus est consideretur, ea justificari non possumus cum opus sit & man [...]um & impersectum, lon­ge deterius quam requirit; sed illa justifi­cari dicimur qua promissiones Dei, & Christi justiriam meritaque per ipsam apprehendi­mus & applicamus. L. de justif. Sect. 8. if it be considered as it is our worke, we cannot be justified by it, seeing it is a worke both lame and imperfect, farre worse then he requireth. But we say we are justified by it as we apprehend and apply the promises of God and Christs righteousnes & merits. Respondemus ( saith the same Martir) id quod saepius a­lias diximus, fi­dem quatenus opus est non justificare; id enim habet non ex vi aliqua sua sed ex objecto, ex morte enim Christi promissionibus Dei justitia in nos derivatur: ita mendicus reci­pit eleemosynam manu le prosa vel cruenta non tamen qua manum habet ita iufir­mam & leprosam—fidem ad hunc usum factam esse & institutam à Deo. Ib. Sect. 62. & 71.

We answer, that which we have often elsewhere said, faith as it is a worke doth not justifie; for it hath that not from any strengh of its owne, but from its object. For, from the death of [Page 88] Christ, the promises of God, righteousnesse is derived to us. So the begger receiveth an almes with a leprous hand, or that which is bloudy, yet not as he hath an hand so infirme and leprous.—Faith was made and instituted of God to this use.

This Sir is the Protestant tenet, as faith taketh in the See Gerhard. de justif. Sect. 181. p. 658. Conditio prae­stita, instru­mentum. object it is a condition, and so it justifieth; rejecting this, you desert them, and joyn with the Papists, and Arminians, who calling faith a condition performed, an instrument: they allow it an instrument in a proper sense as you. Yet adde not as if faith performed were made Non quasi fides praestita proprie instru­mentum fiat, seu instrumentalis actio, qua si­cutananu apprehendimus aut attr [...]himus re­missionem nugae, &c. Remonst. ex Cens. c. 10. p. 112. an instrument properly, or as an instrumentall action, by which as with an hand we apprehend and draw to us remission: those are toyes.

Neither is there feare of his agreement with Jewes, Pa­gans, Def. Mr Wotton p. 34. Est haec una ex maximis qui­bus—Ecclesia Christia Judae­is, Turcis, Pa­ganis, separan­tur. de justif. l. 2 c. 1. p 364. and Mahometans, concurring with him in this that faith in Christ (as hath beene said) is the condition of ju­stification.

And if you beleeve Pareus, who of this question we di­spute saith. This is one of the greatest in which—the Churches of Christ are separated from Iewes, Turkes, and Pagans. Where having laid downe the difference he addeth.

Truly the Protestant Church dareth Evangelica vero Ecclesia talem formalem causam justificationis non magis audet op­ponere judicio Dei. ( He speaketh of faith not applying Christ for in a relative sense) quam stupam igni. Sed credit se justificari fide, gratis imputata justitia propter Christi me­ritum. no more to oppose such a formall cause of justification to the judgement of God, then stubble to the fire: but it be­leeveth she is justified freely by imputed righteousnesse, for the merits of Christ.

Thus have I answered your queries which were no an­swer but tergiversation, and an argument that they were too hot for you in a direct way to meddle with.

My next taske is to examine your arguments, Mr. Wrs. answer, &c. And here passing the entrance in which there is much very unsavoury, with collaterall impertinencies, which your selfe rightly conceive, are but the crude and indigested ebullitions of unnaturall heate and passion; indeed vaine-glorious babling, deserving rather pity, then examination, Mr. G. argu­ments. or as much as reading.

And come to the arguments.

[Page 89]The summe of your first argument as you give it, is. Im­putation of faith is in a proper sense, because the phrase is so of­ten used in this chapter without alteration or exchange: whereas the imputation of Christs righteousnesse hath not the least reliefe either from sound of words or sight of letter in the Scriptures.

Mr. W. answereth, Tropicall speeches may be often repeated, and are in Scripture, as Jer. 26. v. 3. 13. 19. & Gal. 3. Where faith is used ten times in an improper sense. Therefore often repeating doth not prove a proper acceptation. What say you to this? Forsooth, the conclusion indefinitly taken and in the generall is unquestionably true. What then is become of your argument? and what will helpe you?

You answer, Augustines rule approved by Divines. That Mr. G. a literall and proper sense in Scripture is still to be preferred where there is no necessity of rejecting it; or substituting an im­proper sense instead of it. You say, in the places instanced in, there is need of a trope, but not so here, neither reason nor religion contradicting it.

But Sir you cannot be ignorant but this interpretati­on of yours is against reason and Religion too in the judgement of all Protestant Divines (except heretofore ex­cepted) improved by many arguments in Sybrandus against Bertius, through all the Epistles, who calleth it a blasphe­mous heresie; and witnesse as many as are for the imputa­tion of Christs righteousnesse, and the relative sense: and that faith doth justifie as an instrument taking in the ob­ject: to them you must first answer.

Besides, is there not mention of imputation of righ­teousnesse as well as imputation of faith? vers. 6. & 11. It cannot be faith in a proper sense, that is but inherent and imperfect righteousnesse. It may be then the righteousnesse of Christ.

If Mr. Walker saith so, he is not alone, as before.

Yea, there is ground, seeing by the righteousnesse of Christ in the word, we are said to be constituted righteous, Rom. 5. 19. and where he is said to be made unto us of God righteousnes, and we the righteousnesse of God in him. For which we have the streame of Protestants against Papists, Arminians and Socinians, as before.

[Page 90]Is there not ground when as hereby God is declared just in justification? which justice faith in a proper sense, destroyeth, as Mr. Forbs, and before, seeing faith in it selfe is to divine judgement but as stubble to fire; needeth a cove­ring, and must be justified as well as the person and other workes. Here is the Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just, the just for the unjust. What doe you but not sub­mit to the righteousnesse of Christ, that which is by faith, and establish a worke, your owne worke, so is faith?

We cleare that place against Papists, as before, so doth Bellar de justif l. 2. c. 9. ipsam fidem reputari, to whom Doctor Dav Sed srivola est haec objectio; nam nihil usitatius quam causae applicanti illud tribuere quod proprie & immediate pertiner ad rem applicatā: quia igitur fides applicat & apprehendit nobis Christi justitiam, id fidei ipsi tribuitur, quod reapse Christo debetur. p. 371. Pareus format argumentum. Cui fides imputatur ad justitiam is justificatur, non &c. Sed justitia grat is imputata Abrahae & cuivis credenti im­putatur sides. Ergo, p. 484. &c. 1. Licet fides quae imputatur ad justitiam non sit ju­stitia Christi absolute; est tamen relate, quia justitiam quam in Christo quaerit, seu quia justitiam Christi sibi applicat, de qua Apostolus, Rom. 5. 18. Fide justificamur, aur pro­prie qua qualitas, aut Metonymice qua, &c. non proprie, ergo Metonymice, Pareus Ca­stig. in Luc. Calvine, as in Bellarmine. We answer thus to the Papist.

This is one of Arminius his arguments, who as he is Ad artic. quart. p. 297. for the propriety of the words, mentioneth the repetiti­on of the phrase against the figurative sense.

And thus have I before I was aware answered what Mr. Walker called your second argument also, to what you mention done elsewhere, there also is the answer; for my part I know no other righteousnesse then that of the Law or Christ: and if it be righteousnesse, and not of the Law, I meane our inherent righteousnesse, it must be Christs who was the end of the Law for righteousnesse to such as beleeve.

That for which, or the scope of the Law, the fulfilling of Finis perfici­ens, the end persecting, as Toss. out of August. [...] propter quod, vel scopum Legis, [...] complementum. Lex ergo hunc ha­bet finem ut facientes Legem & rectè viventes justificarentur; illum finem solus assequutus est Christus, & nos assequimur dum fide cum apprehendimus. Ita in Christo exhibetur & praestatur vera justitia quam Lex requitit, modo in eum credamus, ut air Apostolus, Om­ni credenti: offertur enim quidem justitia omnibus, donatur autem & imputatur solis cre­dentibus. Dr. Toss. ad. 10. c. Rom. it. The Law therefore hath this end, that those that doe the Law and live rightly should be justified. That end Christ alone attai­ned, [Page 91] aud we attaine it when as we apprehend him by faith. So in Christ there is given and performed true righteousnesse which the Nihil imperse­ctum aut man­cum potest dici justitia Dei ju­stificans. Id. ib. 173. Law required, so we beleeve in him, as the Apostle saith, To every one that beleeveth: for truly righteousnesse is offered to all, but gi­ven and imputed onely to beleevers. Where also he saith, nothing imperfect or lame can be called the righteousnesse of God justi­fying.

But these things diligently conside­red Haec autem diligenter considerata mani­feste dicunt, quid vocabulo justitiae Dei in­telligatur, perfecta nimirum illa & summa in­tegritas humanae naturae, qua quisque dona­tus est (donatur autem credentibus in eum, qui hac integritate secondum carnem abso­lurissime praeditus est nostri causa postea declarabitur) sistitur coram Deo [...], ut loquitur Paulus Col 1. 22. id est sanctus, inculpatus & qui nullius criminis possit postulari. Ea igitur à Paulo dicitur justitia Dei, non modo quia gratuitum est Dei donum, aut quia hanc lar­giendo, Deus se vere justum (id est, fidelem ac varacem) praestat, sed etiam ut opponatur justitiae hominum sive ex operibus, qua [...]esta­tur David neminem justificari. manifestly shew what is under­stood by the word the justice of God. Forsooth that perfect and most high in­tegrity of the humane nature, with which every one is indowed (but it is given to them that beleeve in him, who is absolutely indowed with this integri­ty according to the flesh for our sakes, as it shall be afterwards declared.) He is presented before God as the Apo­stle speaketh, holy, unblamable, and unreprovable. That therefore is said to be the justice of God, not onely because it is the free gift of God, or because God in giving his shew­eth himselfe truly just (that is faithfull and true) but also that it may be opposed to the righteousnesse of men, or of workes, by which David testifieth no man can be justified.

Sect. 17. But to the second Argument (passing bitter and vaine words not a few) which saith, the scope of the A­postle Mr. G. p. 66. is to put men by the false way of justification which lies through workes, and to discover the true way, that is to make knowne what they must doe, what he requires of them to justification, and will accept of them instead of the workes of the Law; and that is it which he here saith is imputed for righteousnesse. Now faith in the proper and formall significa­tion is that which they must doe, &c. and therefore is faith in a proper sense to be accounted for righteousnesse.

Against this one exception is, that you contradict your Mr. W. selfe, for the doing you urge is but the way of workes, so that it is not, and yet is the way, it is the true and false way, both.

[Page 92]To this you answer, that Christ calleth faith a worke, John P. 67. 6. 29. this is the worke of God, that yee beleeve in him whom he hath sent.

To this I answer, the words are acknowledged, and that beleeving is a work, receiving and applying is a work, and what is required there; so elsewhere explained, John 1. 12. but deny faith to be Gods way, as a worke in a pro­per sense, opposed to the righteousnesse of Christ its object as accepted of God for righteousnesse instead of the works of the Law. I doe not, nor can thinke that the meaning of Christ, Gods judgement is according to truth, it were not so if he should account that so which is not, or accept of such an imperfect worke for the righteousnesse of the Law, of which before.

Then a man should be justified by a worke, which is de­nied by many other plaine Scriptures, your selfe acknow­ledging it a false way, and the word, not of workes of righte­ousnesse which we have done, Tit. 3. 5. of which place Sy­brandus answering Bertius your Arminian Prince objecting the same text saith, that speech of the Apostle (not of workes Firmissima est enim illa Apo­stoli oratio. of righteousnesse which we have done) is most firme: your in­terpretation then must be false, who also there cite Calvi­nus (of Papists:) the words at full are these.

At the last when they are weary Cavillanrur in eo quod sides alicubi opus vocatur, at que inde nos perperam opetibus fidem opponere. Quasi vero sides quatenus obedientia est Divinae voluntatis, suo merito nobis justitiam concilier, ac non potius quod misericordiam Dei amplectendo Christi justi­tiam ab eo nobis oblatam in evangelii praedi­catione cordibus nostris obsigner. L. 3. Inst. c. 18. Sect. 10. of wresting the Scripture they fall to subtilties and sophisticall arguments. They cavill upon this, that faith is in some places called a worke, that we doe wrongfully set faith as contrary to workes. As though forsooth faith in that it is an obeying of the will of God, doth with her owne de­serving procure unto us righteousnesse, and not rather because by imbracing the mercy of God, it sealeth to our hearts the righte­ousnesse of Christ offered to us by him in the preaching of the Gospel.

And here though you hold it not meritorious, yet a worke, and oppose it to the righteousnesse of Christ offe­red in the Gospel.

[Page 93]The Lord there calleth for faith in the object himselfe, who is the end of the Law for righteousnesse, as but now: Which the Law not being able to fit us with, we have from Christ. Faith in the relative sense, as Sybr. there both out of Melancthon and Calvine. Hearken to the Homily. So that as John The Baptist although he were never so vertuous and godly a man, yet in this matter of forgivenesse of sinne, he 2. Part. serm. Salv. p. 18. fine. did put the people from him, and appointed them unto Christ, saying thus unto them, Behold yonder is the Lambe of God which taketh away the sins of the world: even so us great and as godly a vertue as the lively faith is, yet it putteth us from it selfe and re­mitteth or appointeth us unto Christ, for to have onely by him re­mission of our sins or justification. So that our faith in Christ saith unto us as it were thus. It is not I that take away your sins, but it is Christ onely, and to him onely I send you for that purpose.

Faith thus considered, though but as a leaprous and weake hand, may doe the same, so that still you are intan­gled by your proper sense of faith.

Neither can you escape to say, by workes excluded is meant P. 68. the merit of workes, or what is done with an opinion of deserving justification.

As if the Apostle onely disputed against their merit or opinion of deserving, we know they deserve not, and must have pardon themselves. The dispute is against them sim­ply as causes, to keepe this crowne on the head of Christ alone, which that leaprous hand faith and act of receiving doth, without opposition to Gods free grace or Christs righteousnesse; thus faith establisheth grace and the righ­teousnesse of Christ to Gods justice, Rom. 3. 24, 25, &c. and the Law to boote, vers. ult.

That phrase of faith in a proper sense, as a worke accepted of God for, and instead of the works of the Law, is down right the Arminian tenet, & destroyeth as I conceive, the righteousnes of Christ, making his doings and sufferings void and vaine; For to what end, if the condition be faith in a proper sense, and that instead of the righteousnesse of the Law? It is to no use, unlesse it be said to be a meritorious cause of faith being such a condition, and such acceptation, as Oste­rodus before.

[Page 94]Once it destroyeth the justice of God with which it will never stand to accept what is weake and imperfect, sin full in that respect, for perfect obedience due unto the Law.

Before I goe on, those words are considerable. Surely P. 68. to serve, worship, and beleeve in Jesus Christ as Mediatour, are Mr. Goodw. just and lawfull, yet no workes of the morall Law, nor was A­dam in his innocency bound unto them?

To passe that of Adams obligation, which was obedi­ence to what ever the Lord did or should propose unto him, and that though it be not in the Law originally it 2. Treat. p. 47. 48. may be in the Law as if stands, with additions and im­provements, as you distinguish.

Give me leave as unsatisfied to propose some questions to you now and to intreat your answer. I freely acknow­ledge you a learned man, answer satisfactorily, & eris mi­hi magnus Apollo.

1. Whether the second Person in Trinity, Jesus Christ, Gods son, were not from eternity, set and chosen Mediatour, God giving us to him for life eternall, be accepting of the same?

2. Whether since the fall that eternall purpose be not revealed, and Christ to be him in whom alone is, and ever was eternall life for his Church, men and Angels?

3. Whether as Mediatour he be not to be worshipped? and whether it be not Gods Commandement through the word in all times, as he was made knowne in the same under the notion of an Angel, Gods Sonne, &c. by obedience, faith, hope, love, feare, joy, subjection, prayer, and praise; and now with the observation of the Lords day, our Christian Sabbath to his his honor, and righteousnes, Rom. 14. 18. his service: and whether these be, or which are, or which not morall?

4. Whether worship and service to God in Jesus Christ be required in the morall Law, such faith, hope, love, feare, joy, obedience, prayer, prayse, or not? and what are the differences; and if, why worship of Christ shall be excluded? Whether worship of God out of Christ be re­quired, or abrogated?

5. Whether if it be not in the morall Law, it falleth [Page 95] under the Judiciall Law, or Ceremoniall Law, or be a Counsell, or is the Gospel a Law?

6. If to serve and worship Christ be just, &c. How can it not fall under the rule of justice, which I take to be the morall Law?

7. If not, how is that a perfect and exact rule of works and worship, as Mr. Bradsh. p. 43. the summe of what is to be done?

8. Whether Christ and his Apostles ever commanded o­ther worship. I, or the Prophets then Moses?

9. Whether the first Commandement doth not re­quire worship according to the will of God?

10. Whether those words, I am the Lord thy God, pre­fixed to the Commandements, be not the tenour of Gods covenant in Christ, to which there must be a sutable an­swer?

11. Whether any Commandement in the decalogue hath more requisites of a morall Law, then faith and worship of Christ as Mediatour?

12. Whether faith being a cause, a roote, a mother of all good, an especiall requisite to make them good, be not required in the same Lawes where thoseworkes are

13. Whether faith in the worship of Christ the Media­tour, be not that same worship and honour that is given to God the Father and the blessed Spirit? So that both or neither are morall? And how else is it that the constant practice of the Churches is in prayer to beginne in the name of Christ, and to end, to whom with thee Spirit be glory?

I finde it written that all should honour the Sonne even as they honour the Father, and that he that honoureth not the Sonne, honoureth not the Father that sent him, John 5. 23. And, Yet beleeve in God, beleeve in me also, John 14. 1. And that, Jesus cried and said, He that beleeveth on me, beleeveth not on me, but on him that sent me, John 12. 44. I finde that in righteous­nesse, the grace and workes of righteousnesse, Christ is ser­ved, Rom. 14. 18, 18. I finde that as grace is from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 1. 3. so that the [Page 96] glory of it appertaineth to both.

I finde those praised Divines of Leyden, doubting lest the Remonstrants (naming the title of their eleventh Chap. of faith in Jesus Christ) would have faith in Christ ano­ther from faith in God the Father, and in the Holy Ghost; to which they speake thus.

For we who have knowne but one Nos enim qui unam fidem no vimus ex A­post. Eph. 4. v. 5. unum etiam terminum so­lum Deum agnoscimus; & in Christum cre­dimus quia Deus est, eandem omnino ob causam qua in Patrem: ita ut Christus quate­nus in eum credimus, sit cum Patre proptium ac primarium fidei salvificae objectum. Etsi enim in Symbolo profiteamur distincte nos credere in Patrem, Filium & Spiritum San­ctum, non tamen habemus tres illas distinctas personas pro tribus differentibus salvificae fidei objectis; fatemur tamen fidem deberi Christo ut Prophetae, Sacerdoti & Regi no­stro unico, non aliam tamen officii & aliam ratione personae, sed unam & eandem, qua qui recipit Christum, recipit eum qui misit eum, Matth. 10. 40. Ideo dicit Petrus nos per Christum credere Deo qui excitavit eum à mortuis, & gloriam ei dedit ut fides & spes nostra in Deo esset, 1 Pet. 1. 21. quo loco ostendit objectum ultimum seu terminum fi­dei nostrae Deum esse, á quo Christus distin­guitur non naturae sed officii ratione, qua per Filium postremis temporibus nobiscum loquutus est Deus, Heb. 1. 1.—Ubi nullum est discrimen fidei, sed una fides, quae primum ad Christum [...] directa, propter Christum optima quaeque de Patre sibi pol­licetur, in quem alioquin extra Christum credere ad salutem non possemus, ideo au­thor & consummator fidei nostrae dicitur ab Apost. Heb. 12. 1. Est ergo una fides qua Patrem & Christum com plectimur, quam e­tiam idem Apostolus ad Heb. 6. 1. appellat fidem in Deum. faith out of the Apostle, Eph. 4. 5. doe also acknowledge God onely the one terme of our faith: and we beleeve in Christ because he is God, for the same cause altogether as in the Father; so that Christ as we beleeve in him, is with the Father the proper and pri­mary object of faith that saveth. For though in the Creed we professe di­stinctly we beleeve in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet we have not those three distinct persons for three diffe­rent or divers objects of saving faith. Notwithstanding we confesse faith to be due to Christ, as to our onely Prophet, Priest, and King, not one because of his office, and another by reason of his person, but one and the same, by which he that receiveth Christ, receiveth him that sent him, Matth. 10. 40. There­fore Peter teacheth us by Christ to be­leeve in God, who raised him from the dead, and gave him glory, that our faith and hope might be in God, 1 Pet. 1. 21. In which place he sheweth the last object or terme of our faith to be God, from whom Christ is distinguish­ed, not in nature, but by reason of his of­fice, as God in the last times spake to us by his Sonne, Heb. 1. 1.— Where there is no difference of faith, but one faith, which first directed to Christ God-man promiseth to it selfe all best things [Page 97] of the Father for Christs sake, in whom otherwise out of Christ we should not beleeve to salvation; therefore is he called the Au­thour and finisher of our faith by the Apostle, Heb. 12. 1. There­fore there is one faith by which we imbrace the Father and Christ, Parem esse fi­dem in Deum & in Christum. Censura. In cap. 1 [...]. p. 154. 155. P. 68. which the same Apostle, Heb. 6. 1. calleth faith in God.

Where also they say, and prove by places brought to that purpose, that the Socinians deny faith in God and Christ to be the same.

That also must be considered, where you say by workes, (the false way) is not meant whatsoever may in any respect be said to be done by a man himselfe, if any thing should be upon any consideration required of him in reference to his justification.

To which I say, it is true in the Protestant sense, taking faith in a Relative sense; I, and of all graces else as Compa­nions, and present with the faith that justifieth, for it is not alone when it justifieth, though it alone justifieth, (as the Learned acknowledge) but then, that any thing but faith as an instrument receiving, should have efficience, that there should be somewhat, any thing, faith it selfe, accepted of God instead of the workes of the Law, to justification, I am afraid to acknowledge. Truely Sir there is more in this first heape then I was aware of at first sight, and I think you must to worke againe.

Another thing Mr. Walker excepteth against, is that you say. God doth not require of us the righteousnesse of Christ to Justification, this be required of Christ himselfe. To which you say, that before Mr. W. sheweth the grossenesse of this er­rour, himselfe drops two grosse errours indeed.

What is the first? That (say you) God requireth nothing of us to Justification, when as it is notoriously knowne that he threatens damnation except we beleeve; and to credit his saying, he cites, Rom. 3. 24. whereas the verse following quite over­throwes it, wherein the condition of faith is expressely men­tioned.

I answer, here is no errour if you will understand Mr. Walker, his meaning is, he required no workes or doing of ours for it, it being done freely by grace in Christ, which grace will not stand with our workes.

[Page 98]Neither doth he deny faith required as a condition in a sense, Relatively, or as the hand and instrument recei­ving Christs righteousnesse to justification. He denieth it as our worke, for, or instead of the righteousnesse of the Law to justification.

When you say, God threatneth damnation, except we be­leeve, is it not a sinne? a transgression of the Law? Is it not the Law's to minister death? It seemeth this faith is therefore required in the Law. You goe on.

He (say you) drops a second errour more grosse then the for­mer, saying, that faith is a qualification to us for the recei­ving, applying, and injoying Christs righteousnesse, that is, faith is a qualification to us for beleeving; for what is the receiving, applying, and injoying the righteousnesse of Christ, but beleeving as before observed?

1. Here you see Mr. W. excludes not faith beleeving as a qualification, which was your late charge, your selfe dis­charge him.

2. To say that a man may receive, that is, apply and in­joy the righteousnesse, which receiving is beleeving, he must be qualified, is no more then to say, he must have a power that he may doe; be habitually disposed, that he may act, which is so farre from being an errour, that it is impossible that a man should beleeve, receive, or apply in this kind without faith.

And with your leave Sir, faith in a proper sense qualifi­eth not, but as instrumentall, as an hand it receiveth and injoyeth, it bringeth home treasure which inricheth; the righteousnesse of Christ which justifieth. It is so far from opposition to the righteousnesse of Christ in justification, which is your tenet.

Finally, here is more granted to faith by you, then an assent, or work of the understanding, which is of some use.

But let us returne to what Mr. Walker taxed, that is, You said, God required not of us the righteousnesse of Christ for justification; this (you say) Mr. Walker cals a grosse er­rour, and instead of proofe, complaineth of it as an harsh, unsa­vory, [Page 99] and absurd phrase: and that to justifie his complaint, he saith God requires not the righteousnesse of Christ, but of Christ himselfe, implying he had need.

1. I answer, Mr. Walker in all chargeth you here but with one grosse errour, and if that be made good it is enough.

2. It is true, he calleth Gods requiring of us the righ­teousnesse of Christ for justification, absurd, &c. which he sheweth, and you touch not: see the place.

3. I suppose what you inferre as his proofe thereof is not so, nor to that end intended, but a plaine passing to it (as he conceived) a grosse errour, and so your jests p. 70. faile, are but irrelativenesse and impertinencies.

Before I come to the maine thing (not having your writing, I must speake to it as it is related) What if one should contradict your position, and say, God requires of us the righteousnesse of Christ to justification? you say he requires faith, and faith in Christ, a beleeving, which is recei­ving, applying, and injoying. Why may I not put in the ob­ject received, applied, and injoyed, the righteousnesse of Christ to justifie me? Is it not a receiving him, an apply­ing him, and injoying him, to justification and salvation? I hope it is with his righteousnesse. He that threatneth damnation for not receiving, applying, and injoying Christ, requires of me receiving Christ and his righteous­nesse also to justification, as he requireth that I be just, and revealeth him our righteousnesse, he requireth applying and receiving him, putting him on for justification; that, or perfectly to performe the Law, which being impossible it is that; and the Scripture saith that by the obedience of one I am constituted righteous, Rom. 5. 19.

But to the businesse, God required not of us the righteous­nesse of Christ for justification. This he required of Christ him­selfe: so you. This last he calleth an errour indeed, There he putteth an Accent. This saith Mr. Wr. implieth Christ had need of justification, and was bound to fulfill the Law for himselfe, and savoureth of Socinian and Samosatenian heresie, which denies Christs Godhead; for if Christs humane nature being [Page 100] from the first conception most pure, upright, and holy, was perso­nally united to his Godhead, and so the Sonne of God, and heire of all things; Who can doubt but in himselfe he was worthy of all glory, at Gods right hand from his birth: as his taking of our nature upon him, was altogether for us: so his infirmities, suffe­rings, death, and continuance on earth for the performance of all righteousnesse and obedience to the whole Law was for us, and for all the elect, who of old beleeved in him to come for them, who doe now beleeve in him exalted to glory according to his hu­manity. To think or say that he had need to justifie himselfe, and to merit by his righteousnesse the state of glory, is in effect to deny he was God, infinitely worthy of all glory as he was the onely begotten Sonne of God and Heire of all things. Thus Mr. Walker.

Here we must lay aside laughing irrelativenesse and imper­tinencies.

What say you to this? It seemeth a grosse errour by what is said.

I could I conceive (say you) put some Queries to him, that would a little trouble him to make good the truth thereof in a positive way.

You should first answer, then propose Queries. Your answer by Queries is but a wile, tergiversation. I will be plaine in answering you, as I shall be able.

How he can prove that Christ had no need of justification? 1. Quere. Surely Christ was a justified or righteous person in the sight of Mr. G. God, this justification was not superfiuous, or no wise usefull to him; and what is not superfluous, we men of the lower forme of learning judge to be some wayes needfull.

1. Mr. Walker answereth, if justification be forgivenesse and pardon of sinne onely, (as you elsewhere say) when as he is said to have need of justification, he is infoulded a sinner, to have need of remission of sinnes. Which if it be too too grosse, by it may be proved that he needed not justification for himselfe.

Yea, to be in need of forgivenesse of sinnes, and so righ­teous a person as you speake, are pugnantia secum frontibus adversis, a contradiction.

But it seemeth as he was a righteous person, that was not [Page 101] superfluous, therefore some waies needfull.

You must say for himselfe. But he needed it not for himselfe being Gods Sonne, God blessed for ever, and com­prehensor from the first moment of his conception by per­sonall union with the holy Ghost. It was needfull then for us. He was our Surety, and in that respect they might be needfull for us, though not for himselfe else.

Being our Surety, what was our debt must be paid, it Likewise in the example of Da­vid in the remis­sion of sins the Apostle must needs understand the imputation of righteousnes, without the which he can ne­ver passe by the gates of Heaven, which are the gates of righte­ousnesse, that is, where at the righteous shall enter▪ Master. Cartwright in Rom. 4. v. 6. was necessary to our life; our debt was perfect obedience to Gods Law. It was also death, the wages of our sinnes, to free us from death he must die, and he must fulfill the Law, that we may live, by the whole we come to be wholly faire, holy, unreprovable, and unblamable in his sight, com­pleate.

I conceive our election to salvation was by and in him be­fore the world as our Mediatour and Surety, and we made accepted in him Gods beloved one. That he was verily ordained before the foundation of the world, such, but manifested in the last times (a Lambe without blemish or spot) for us who by him due belteve in God. He was set for our rising, sent to and for us. Raised up an horne of salvation for us, borne to us, given to us. When the fulnesse of time was come, God sent his Sonne made of a Woman, made under the Law to redeeme us that are under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sonnes. That his making himselfe of no reputation, taking upon him the forme of a servant, humbling of himselfe, becomming obedient to death, even the death of, untill the death of the Cross, was for us. So was his fulfilling all righteousnesse, and com­ming to fulfill the Law, his comming to doe Gods will, his al­waies doing things pleasing to God; thus God purposed, thus he obeyed. He was a righteous branch, the Lord our righteousnesse.

You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (saith Saint Paul) that though he was rich, he become poore, that we through his poverty might be made rich, 2 Cor. 8. 9. For their sakes sanctifie I my selfe, that they also may be sanctified.

When as the Scripture sheweth him to be made a Surety, it is enough to shew he was not made for himselfe, but for us.

[Page 102] It pleased the Father that in him should all fulnesse dwell, he is the head of the body the Church; yee are compleate in him.

Though therefore it was not usefull to himself for him­selfe, it was not superfluous, he being our Head, our Medi­atour and Surety; It was most necessary for us. What the Law could not doe, God sent his Sonne, &c. that the righteous­nesse of the Law; whatsoever the Law requireth to justifi­cation, might be fulfilled in us. And thus is he the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that beleeveth, as before out of Doctor Tossanus, enough to that question: to the second next, which is,

Quest. 2. How he would prove Christ was not bound to ful­fill the righteousnesse of the Law for himselfe.

Mr. Walker told you, you answer him not. I may pro­pose some reasons to your consideration which perswade me so to thinke.

1. He had no need of forgivenesse of sinnes, neither was he ever forgiven, and so had no need of justification, which consisteth therein as you hold.

2. He did all for us, our need, being our Surety, in that name he was bound, God spared not his Sonne, exacted it, and our Lord Christ undertooke the worke, and finished the worke.

3. I read in our learned Writers largely observed. See Polanus, Symphonia Cathol. whose Thesis is. P. 165. 166. Christ is incarnate for us, he obey­ed Christus pro nobis est incarnatus: pro no­his obedivit Patri: pro nobis baptizatus, passus, mortuus, resuscitatus, glorificatus. his Father for us, was baptized, suffered, dead, raised, glorified for us; Christus nihil propter se aut secit aut pas­sus est, sed propter salutem omnium. Primas. in Rom. 11. which he there proveth by the Fathers.

And so on Dan. 9.

See Doctor Dounham using reasons which are to be an­swered. P. 202. 203. 20 [...]. De justif. 1. 1. c.2. Sect. 9. 10. Ad Gal. c. 4. p. 184. 2.

Luther. I could have overcome the Law by my absolute power without mine owne smart, for I am Lord of the Law, and there­fore it hath no right over me. But I have made my selfe subject to the Law for your cause which were under the Law, taking your flesh upon me—I suffered the Law to have dominion over [Page 103] me which was his Lord—which it ought not to have done.

Because, neither hath Christ righteousnesse Quia nec in alium finem perfectam justi­tiam Christus habet quam ut imputer, nec a­liud imputat quam justitiam, nec aliter justi­tia nostra est quam per imputationem, as Trel­catius. p. 82. to any other end, then that he may impute it, neither doth he impute any other thing then righteousnesse, nei­ther is he otherwise our righteousnesse, then by imputation.

Christ was the Lord of the Law. Christus Dominus legis fuit.—Tossan ad 4. Gal. p. 212. He willingly subjected himselfe, al­though the Law was not given to him Sponte se subjecit, licet illi ab utero justo & sanctificato lex posita non esset. lb. p. 213 being just and sanctified from the wombe.

The end also is shewed by the A­postle, Finis etiam ostenditur ab Apostolo, quod videlicet non sibi ipsi sed nobis talis est fa­ctus. lb. forsooth, that he was not made such for himselfe, but for us.

Therefore these axioms are to be Tenenda igitur sunt haec axiomata, Chri­stum non sibi sed nobis factum legi obnoxi­um: & nostram esse totam Christi obedien­tiam, atque adeo nobis imputatam. ld. ib. held. Christ was not made subject to the Law for himself, but for us. And that the whole obedience of Christ is ours, and so imputed to us.

Calvine. That he may admonish Quanquam ponit [...] sed [...] Christi, ut admonear ipsum non sibi privatim suisse justum, sed justitiam qua praeditus fuit, latius patere, ut collato sibi do­no, fideles locuplcret. Calv, in Rom. 5. 17. us that Christ was not just for him­selfe privately, but that the righteous­nesse which he injoyed was more large, that he might make rich the faithfull by the gift conferred upon him.

Therefore Christ the Sonne of God, Christus ergo Filius Dei qui immunis ju­re suisset ab omni subjectione, Legi suit sub­jectus, ut libertatem nobis acquireret. Quem­admodum enim qui liber erat captivum se & vadem constituendo redemit & induendo vincula exuit: Ita Christus Legi servandae obnoxius esse voluit, ut nobis immuni­tarem acquireret; alioquin frustra [...]ugum Legis subiisset, cum sua certe causa non secit. Calv. ad Ga: 44. who by right had beene free from all subjection, was subject to the Law, that he might gaine unto us liberty. For as the man that was free, by making himselfe a captive and Surety, re­deemeth, and putting on chaines, taketh them off another: so Christ would become a keeper of the Law that be might gaine unto us freedome, otherwise he had in vaine undergone the yoke of the Law, seeing certainely be did it not for his owne cause.

[Page 104] And for the undue obedience of the Et proprer obedientiam Filii non debi­tam, debitum remittit. Ar. in 3. Phil. p 49. Sonne he remitteth what is due.

Junius. But also when as he was not Sed etiam cum non esset proprie Legis debitor in se, neque respectu humanae natu­rae (alias enim propter identitatem [...] logos ipse pro se ad Legis obsequi­um [...]eneretur, quod in Legis authorem so­ret contumeliosum) nec respectu personae: Sed respectu dispositionis voluntatiae omni tamen ex pa [...]e Legi satisfecit, ut exuberans infiniti plane meriti plenitudo nobis in Chri­sto parata, &c. Jun. thes. de justif Sect. 7. properly a debtor of the Law in himselfe, nor in respect of his humane nature, (for otherwise the Word himselfe by reason of the samenesse of the person, should for himselfe be bound to the obedience of the Law, which would be contumelious to the Author of the Law) nor in respect of his person; but yet in respect of his voluntary disposition he did wholly satisfie the Law, that the overflowing fulnesse of his indeed infinite merit prepared for Sibi non na [...]us sed nobis. Id. Sect. 4. lb. us in Christ, &c.

He was not borne for himselfe, but us.

Our righteousnesse is onely the satis­faction Justitia nostra est sola satisfactio Christi praestita Legi pro nobis & tota humiliantis Christi, &c quiquid denique fecit & passus est, ad quod ipse tanquam justus & Dei fili­us non suit obligatus, est satisfactio ejus quam pro nobis praestitit, & justitia quae no­bis credent ibus adeo gratis imputatur: ea enim satisfactio aequipollet vel impletioni Legis per obedientiam, vel paenae ae [...]ernae propter peccata, ad quorum alterutrum Legi obligamur Ʋrsinus p 39 [...]. of Christ performed to the Law for us and the whole, &c. of Christ humbling himselfe, &c. whatsoever, to conclude, he did and suffered, to which he, as a just man, and the Sonne of God was not bound, is his satisfaction which he performed for us, and righteousnesse which is freely imputed to us beleeving by God. For that satisfaction is equall Ger [...]ar dat Neo-Photinianis Christum qui­dem perfecte implevisse Legem, sed ad obe­dientiam illam pro seipso adstrictum fuisse. De justif. p. 463. Sect. 35. & Socino, &c. Sic Chemn [...]t exam. de justif. p. 252. either to the fulfilling of the Law by o­bedience, or eternall punishment for sinne, to both which we are bound by the Law. Vise Echardum sasc. Controvers citantem Calvinum. l. 2. c 17. instit. Sect. 6. Ma [...]l [...]ra­tum in Psal. 4. 4. & Polanum quaest. de obedi­entia p 1 [...]0. & p. 398.

These are enough, they may sa­tisfie you.

You prove Christ was bound to fulfill the Law for himselfe, by Mr. Deering in his second Lect. on Heb. Christ by his spirit still filled his manhood more and more with grace, till the fulnesse of all righteousnesse was within him, that so his manhood might inherit salvation accor­ding to the promise, Doe this and live.

Whose booke is not in mine hands that I may examine it. [Page 105] Onely I say that it is not said that he merited for himselfe T [...]ere might be more and more powerfull exer­cise, and e [...]tern [...] manifestations, not increase in grace simply. He was perfectus vir in ventre, &c. Jer. l. 6. in Hier. tom. 5. ful of grace & truth ab initio beatū extitisse. Asse­runt Patres, Aug. l. 4 de con­sensu Evangel. Leo. Ep 97. c. 3. Ubi testatur di­vinitatē assum­ptam humani­tatem beatifi­casse, ut glorifi­cata in glorifi­cante permane­at. Se Salmer. tract. 47. p. 441. To 3. &c. c. 13 by workes of righteousnesse which he did, but the spirit filled him with grace. For those words more and more till, &c. they are not to be justified by me, it is certaine he had the spirit, was annointed with it, not by measure from the moment of conception; by that, and personall union from that moment he had eternall life, and was comprehensor, and did inherit.

When Mr. Bradshaw saith, Christ was a servant and bound to the Law, not freed by hypostatique uni [...]n: He

Yet saith, that state such as he needed not to have under­gone, and that the reason was his taking on him to satisfie, &c.

He saith, as Christ was borne of a Woman, not for his owne sake, but for theirs, whose Saviour and Redeemer he is: So being borne of a Woman, he was made under the Law also, not for his owne sake, but for ours; yea, therefore he was borne of a Woman, that so for our sakes he might be under the Law. Al­so as he became a servant for our sake, so in that very regard he came under the Law of a servant, it being all one to become a servant, and to be made under the Law of a servant, the be­ing under the Law of a servant, &c. All which is in summe, he needed it not for himselfe, but as our Surety, of which before. Sect 6.

You say. And he that holds Christ as man, was not bound to Sect. 7. fulfill the righteousnes of the Law for himself during his continu­uance Sect. 9. on earth in the flesh, must, if he be true to his principles, hold Ib. withall that Christ as man had a liberty, or dispensation from the Sect. 13. Godhead, to transgresse in respect of himselfe, and that his di­spensation P. 71. could not take place or be put in execution onely be­cause Mr. G. of the worke of redemption he had undertaken.

Answ. I answer, that I conceive there is no such need, their principle is hypostatique union, whence he was Com­prehensor; I, the Lord of the Law from the first moment: his Union, and his Unction by the holy Ghost, are in­consistent with sinne, as inconsistent with sinne as with his bringing about the worke of redemption undertaken: sin­ning is inconsistent with soules made perfect, how much more with that person, full of grace, that is glorified [Page 106] fully, the most blessed GOD?

Thirdly, you say, I would put him on this, to prove such 3 an absolute inconsistency or diametricall opposition as he seemes Mr. G. to imagine betweene Christs fulfilling the Law for himselfe and for us, as if at no hand they could stand together.

I answer, to doe for life and glory during his continu­ance on earth, and to injoy it from the first moment of his conception is vaine: and so inconsistent with nature; ab­solutely inconsistent with that person which is the most wise God.

Therefore the scope of Christ in obedience must not be himselfe, his life and glory, but us and our life and glory.

Neither doth it follow which you say, if Mr. Walker had in this worke his scope to discharge his conscience, and the benefit of others, that Christs scope in obedience was his glory as well as mans good; seeing he hath that glory as Compre­hensor before his obedience, when as a faithfull Ministers discharge of conscience by a worke of this nature, cannot be but by this worke, when the worke is done, conscience dischargeth it selfe.

When as Bernard saith, that the worke of our redemption was, opus aeque nostrum ac suum ut angelorum; there may be truth in it in divers respects. He saith it not with respect to his owne redemption or justification, and so not to your purpose.

You say it would cost him many of his thoughts and much of Mr. G. his learning to give a sufficient and cleare account, how it should any way intrench or so much as looke towards the deniall of Christs Godhead to conceive that Christ might he bound to fulfill the righteousnesse of the Law for himselfe.

I answer, for Christ to be bound to fulfill that righte­ousnesse, for himselfe his justification as you before, is to imply him a sinner, and so to deny him God.

It is also to imply him vainely bufied; living and injoy­ing life eternall being the fountaine thereof, to doe that he may live, and so to deny him to be that fountaine, and to be that person that is God.

You conceive it is farre more dangerously to shake the truth Mr. G. [Page 107] of his humanity to deny that he was no waies bound to keepe the Law for himselfe.

I conceive no danger in it, for being absolutely righteous from the first moment, and so not to need obedience or doing for himselfe, is so far from denying humane nature, that it setteth it forth most glorious: as it doth stand with humane nature to be perfect in glory, though then it worketh not to that end; so doth it in Christs humane nature, to be perfectly righteous, though he never doth one worke to that end.

And Mr. W. intreateth you to tell him whether you now deny Christ to be true man, when as sitting at Gods right hand he is not bound to obey the Law, and dy, as he did on earth? So that it is not to be compared, in the kind, with the errour of the Ubiquitary.

You say, It is marvellous to me that he being the seed of the Woman, by the Law of his Creation should not be bound to keepe that Law which both the man and the woman stood bound to keep in their innocency.

1. Sir, Wonderfull was one of the names of Christ, it is no wonder if there be many wonders in him.

2. Had he beene meere man, what you say might fol­low, being also God, there was never such a man or wo­man in innocency.

3. Adam and Eve must doe to live, doing was the way to it, but Christ was alive as soone as he was a man, there is difference.

4. He being God-man was eminently just, Jesus Christ the just, and if ever that was true of any, which the Apo­stle speaketh, The Law is not given to the just, it is true of him. By this he was the Lord of the Law, the person was so, and exempted; onely as a Surety, for us he was made under the same.

You say as the personall union with the Godhead could not Mr. G. priviledge his humane nature or body against those properties which are naturall and essentiall to it, as locality, quantity, fi­nitnesse, commensurablenesse to its place, nor communicate, nor conveigh over those properties of imm [...]nsity, ubiquity, omnipre­sence, [Page 108] &c. which are essentiall to the Divine nature. So neither could it priviledge his manhood against those morall habitudes, relations or conditions which are his essentiall in another way, as videlicet, subjection to God, obligation of serving him, and ful­filling his will, &c.

1. I answer, essentiall properties of man are insepa­rable.

2. And essentiall properties of God incommunicabla.

3. It is not suqtilis hominis oratio, to speake of man pri­viledged against properties, his priviledges (as you call them) being destructive and inconsistent with his nature.

4. The opinion that Christ did not obey for his owne life from morall habitudes, or relations, or conditions which you call essentiall in another way, subjection to God, ob­ligation of serving him, fulfilling his will: We grant all these, necessary that he might be our Surety, which is that for which he was incarnate, he came to doe Gods will; we say he was so from the instant of conception perfectly, else was he not Comprehensor, and urge that as a reason why he did it not for himselfe, but us. It is one thing to be so, and thence to doe for us according to Gods will, another to doe for that life and glory which he possesseth.

I deny not but God promised him the glory of that work of mediation, and that he wrote with an eye to that, and so prayeth for it as due by Gods eternall compact, John 17. glory there being that which he had with his Father by covenant on doing that worke before the foundation of the world, that is one thing, living on personall doing is another, it was not needfull he should doe for that being his by union in conception.

And I question whether if his obedience was debt, his owne debt, he could merit and satisfie thereby for himselfe or us, seeing debt and merit cannot consist. When man hath done all that he is bound to doe by Gods Law, he must say, and truly, he is an unprofitable servant, it is what he ought, and so not worth thankes at the Creators hands. Which yet you imply, when as before you say Christs scope in obedi­ence, was his glory as well as mans good, p. 180. before, and [Page 109] where you say in a sense it had an influence. What will be­come of mans justification by his passive obedience, which is confessed to have absolute necessity of his active to make i [...] a Sacrifice propitiatory, how is it an essentiall requisite, if due for himselfe?

That doing or suffering is of no force to satisfie which is Mr. Brad. c 7. done by bond, though the party offending bad committed no fault at all, it being ridiculous to account the payment of one debt for the discharge of another.

Nothing satisfieth but that which meriteth, nothing meriteth Ib. Sect. 12 & 12. but righteousnesse, which must be by anothers.

Concerning Christs meriting his exaltation (you say) Mr. Goodw. you will not strive with him for the present, and beleeve you may both wade deeper and know more then you doe, viz. Rev. 5. 12. Heb. 12. 2. Phil. 2. 7, 8, 9. &c. Luke 24. 26. &c.

I answer, I beleeve it, for mans knowledge is but in part. It is but a little that we know of him, O that we knew it and could walk more humbly, and so might passe them as not against us.

Onely I must put you in minde, that if those places make for your purpose, and in your sense, they prove that the Lord Christ suffered for himselfe as well as for us.

And when we grant the places of the glory of his media­tion: It will not follow of glory simply for his humane nature, which certainely he had before.

We come now to another exception that you call faith a thing done and performed by us, it being the gift of God and motion of his Spirit in us; in which Mr. Walkers scope is not to accuse you of making beleeving Gods act, or to deny man the subject thereof: but to note to you, that, the act of man in a proper sense beleeving, and as our worke, is not the condition of the Covenant, of which before.

And now let us to the bottome of this heape (as you speak) frothy words shall not stay me. Here you are charged to say, that if the Apostle had said they must be justified by Christ, or by the righteousnesse of Christ, this had beene rather to cast a snare upon them, then to have opened a doore of life and salvation, for which be (Mr. W.) curseth with Anathema mara­natha, [Page 110] the man that proclaimes it and obstinately maintaines it.

To this you answer, he keepeth back part of your words, and supply them thus. To have said they must be justified by Christ or Christs righteousnesse, and with all not to have plainely signified what God requireth of them, and will accept at their hand, to give them part and followship in that righteousnesse or justification, had beene rather to have cast a snare upon them, then to have opened a doore of life and salvation.

I answer, I thinke intimation of that whereby need­full, and that it is done, as where faith and receiving, as the hand and instrument are call [...]d for; so where the object of that is laid downe, Christ and his obedience, as Rom. 5. 19. 2 Cor. 5. 21. so that there is no snare. Let us goe on.

In the next place Mr. Wr. proposeth your first argu­ment Arg. 1. Sect. 18. reduced, which is.

That the Relative sense fathers upon the Apostle an harsh and uncouth expression often used without explaining himselfe, when he saith faith is imputed to righteousnesse, and meaneth Christs righteousnesse is imputed, which is rather to conceale then reveale it.

To this the answer is.

It is no harsh, strange, or uncouth expressure to use a Answ. figure of speech, and to meane by faith and beleeving, faith with its object, the righteousnesse of Christ, or state of the man, &c. which is shewed out of Rom. 2. the foure last vers. by Beza's interpretation.

To this you reply, It is true, there are many figures of speech which are no harsh expressions. But,

1. There are plain & direct expressions which will be made Mr. G. strange and harsh, if men will Metamorphose them into Metalep­ticall and figurative, as sweete wine becomes sharpest vineger.

2. If men coyne such new formes of speaking, and will call them figures, they may well be strange and harsh expressions.

I answer, It is not altogether what men will doe, though Answ. what such and so many men doe, as doe this, is not to be despised by you, but what the holy Ghost doth, interpreted by Scriptures, as is shewed.

And as for that Jeere on those that call it Meta­lepticall, [Page 111] it might have beene forborne. It is the practise of Figuratū genus praedicationis, per Metalepsin p. 404. more then Mr. Wr. divines not to be contemned by Mr. G.

When faith is said to be imputed, saith V [...]sinus; It is a figurative kind of predication, and nameth it Metalepsis.

I observe it in Lueas Trelcatius, Fides in Scripturis & apud Patres, duobus modis considerari soler, proprie secundum naturam fidei simpliciter; altero figurate, id est Metaleptice & correlative, qu [...]a fides ap­prehendit objectum suum. p. 85. Faith in the Scriptures and amongst the Fathers is wont to be considered two wayes, properly according to the nature of faith simply; another, figu­ratively, that is, Metaleptically, and correlatively, because faith apprehends its object. So doth he, answering Romanists.

To an objection of Arminius, Doctor Prideaux his an­swer is.

We doe not properly give justifica­tion Nos non proprie justificationem fidei at­tribuere, sed Metaleptice quatenus objecti actus propter arctam connexionem inter il­lam & habitum, uisitata Scripturae phrasi in habitum transfertur. De justif. p. 170. to faith, but by a figure called Metalepsis, so farre forth as the act of the object, because of the neere con­nexion betweene it and the habit by a usuall phrase of Scriptue is given to the habit. Note that we and by an usuall phrase of Scripture.

Sir, all Protestants are for a figure, and these name it a Metalepsis, they deserve better language then to be called Metamorphosers and coyners of figures, users of Metaleptique oyle elsewhere, and of it as a sure pinhorse, p. 82. Mr. Wr. needeth not be ashamed of using it, but yon rather; but (it may be) you knew not who used it. Now to a second exception.

Which is that your deniall of this figurative speech used in the Apostle is false.

This Mr. Walker might well doe, having proved it out of Rom. 2. the foure last verses, untill you disprove him; neither will that stand for an answer, that the Scripture he citeth stands in the utmost corner of one onely chapter, much lesse the calling his worke non-sensicall figuring and misse­figuring. When you send your Reader to what is done, let it be a bargaine, and let him take in Mr. W. p. 255.

A third exception is, that you say the Apostle useth the phrase of faith, &c. without either explaining himselfe or chan­ging [Page 112] his speech, which M. W. sheweth to be otherwise, v. 6. and 11. where it is said that God imputeth righteousnesse and that righteousnesse is imputed, as it is called faith, vers. 3. and 5. in these places, righteousnesse; in the former using a figurative, and in the latter a proper speech.

Neither can he by righteousnesse imputed meane faith in a proper sense, it is not righteousnesse, or if what is im­perfect, on which ground the learned reject that, and call it figurative, comprehending the righteousnesse of Christ which is used twice, and is righteousnesse indeed as Mr. W. P. 190. sheweth at large Socinianisme.

When as you admit that by righteousnesse in these places P. 78. the Apostle meaneth faith: You will us to see what a faire mar­ket Mr. G. Mr. Walker hath brought his Hogges to. Let me (passing your Rhetorique) demand what is the market?

You say the sense must be, when God imputeth righteousnes to a man that beleeveth, that God imputeth faith to him that be­leeveth, which is to obscure what was said before.

To this Mr. W. answereth, that it is a Pigge of your owne Sow, you are owner and driver to the market, and leaveth you to looke to it.

What you have done, as you say before, hath answer. The rest may be retorted on you, whose the argument was, who gave him the charge.

Come we now to your second Argument. Sect. 19.

That faith which is imputed is his before imputation, which cannot be said of the righteousnesse of Christ, that it is a mans before it be imputed, at least in order of nature, though not in time; therefore by faith to be imputed cannot be meant the righ­teousnesse of Christ.

To this Mr. W. that Christs righteousnesse is as truly his as his faith. You reply here you are friends in earnest, you grant the righteousnesse of Christ the beleevers, but that is not the question. What is it then? Whether it be his in such man­ner as it was Christs himselfe? that is, whether we be made righ­teous with it as Christ was, whether not onely for it and not with it?

I answer, there is no such question proposed in this [Page 113] place, neither doth Mr. Walker, when he saith we are justi­fied by the righteousnesse of Christ, say it is his that is justified in such a manner as it is Christs: nor that we are made just with it as Christ was, and yet he may well say we are made just, not onely for it, but with it.

The righteousnesse of Christ is that robe in the Prophet, that garment of salvation, with which the Church as a Bride is arraied, whence white as Snow, whiter: Wholly faire in his beauty, as Jacob in Esaues apparell to Isaac, as Cal­vine before out of Ambrose.

And if you compare it to mony, it is that by which we are rich, by his poverty, all that he did or suffered in his humble estate, we are made rich as the Apostle. He is the treasure, faith indeed applyeth him, but it is he that maketh rich. Take the learned Doctors answer if you please, and let him determine this question.

We are alike just, because with the Aeque justi sumus ac Christus, quia eadem justitia, licet non aequaliter & eodem modo: ille subjective, nos imputative, ille de pro­prio, nos de illus largitate. De justif. Doctor Prid. p. 171. same righteousnesse, though not equal­ly, and in the same manner; be as the subject of it, we by imputation, be of his owne, we of his liberality.

If you regard the truth of imputed Si veritatem justitiae imputatae spectes ( Trelcatius) non minus justi justi censemur coram Deo ac Christus, P. 89. righteousnesse, we are accounted no lesse just before God then Christ; and that, that is the money and clothing too, we shall shew at large anone.

But Mr. Walker, say you, to prove the righteousnesse of Christ to be the beleevers as well as faith is his, mis­cites two Scrip­tures, 1 Cor. 1. 30. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ is said in the first to be made unto us righteousnesse, but this proves not that the righte­ousnesse of Christ is made ours, as faith is, &c.

1. Lanswer, that, as faith is an adding to what Mr. Wr. spake, not spoken by him.

2. That the righteousnesse of Christ is ours, you granted but now, saying, here we be friends in earnest. It is a received conclusion. Junius.

Neither ought it to seeme absurd that we are justified with that righteousnes which is in him as the subject, as anothers. When [Page 114] as it is so anothers, that it is also ours Neque vero absurdum videri debet nos justitia quae Christi subjective tanquam aliena justificari, cum ita sit aliena ut etiam nostra sit imputatione, pro nobis enim pro­prie praestita, & a Deo tanquam nostra ac­cepta, quemadmodum fidei jussoris pro debitore solutionem perinde recipit cre­ditor ac si debitor ipse eam secisset; & quod est proprium capitis nostri Christi, jure communionis reliquo corpori, id est Eccle­siae & singulis membris tribuitur. by imputation. It was performed for us properly, and accepted of God as ours, as the Creditor so receiveth the payment of the Surety for the Credi­tor, as if the Debtor himselfe had made it. And that which is the pro­perty of our head Christ, by right of communion is given to the rest of the body, that is, the Church.

When God giveth Christ, he giveth his righteousnesse, we receive both by faith, and so both are ours, and there­fore Justitia Christi vere nostra, li­cet non in no­bis. Olev. ad Phil. p. 49. is he called the Lord our righteousnesse. The righte­ousnesse of Christ is truly ours, though it not in us: where he proveth the same. See him, p. 50. 51. where speaking of righteousnesse imputed, he saith, nec minus nostram esse quam si corporibus & animabus nostris adhaeresceret, it is no lesse ours then if it did adhere to our bodies and soules, Olev.

3. For the texts themselves, hearken to some, of whom you say they are on your part; they from them shew the righteousnesse of Christ ours to justification.

Calv. on the words, he was made unto us righteousnes, saith: In which he understandeth us ac­cepted Quo intelligit nos ejus nomine acceptos a Deo, quia motte sua peccata nostra expia­verit; & ejus obedientia nobis in justitiam imputetur. of God in his name, because be expiated our sinnes by his death, and that his obedience might be imputed to us for righteousnesse.

Though Christ and his righteousnesse differ, Christs righteousnesse is ours by imputation in Calvines judge­ment.

He is made unto us of God righte­ousnesse, Justitia nobis a Deo factus, quia in eo solo justi habemur: reputamur illius merito justi, Aretius in locum. because in him alone we are ac­counted righteous, we are reputed just by his merit.

And truly righteousnesse not in part, Et quidem justitia ( saith Tossanus) non ex parte sed tota nostra justitia, per remissi­onem peccatonim & imputationem totius suae justitiae, sic Jer. 23. p. 19. but our whole righteousnesse, by remis­sion of sinnes and imputation of his whole righteousnesse.

[Page 115] Righteousnesse, that is our Justi­fier, Justiria, hoc est justificator noster, donan nos vera justitia coram Deo per fidem. bestowing on us true righteousnesse before God by faith; which is so not formally, that is, inbe­rently, as Pareus speaketh, but by imputation. Pareus

Abraham is justified not with Abraham justificatus est non inhaerente sed imputata justitia per fidem inherent, but imputed righteousnesse by faith.

To that text, 2 Cor. 5. Calvine. Jam apertius docet quod su pra attigimus, tunc Deum nobis esse propitium quum pro justis agnoscit, perinde enim valent haec duo, esse nos Deo acceptos, & justos ab ipso repu­tari. Justitia hic pro imputatione accipitur, eo quod accepta nobis fertur Christi ju­stitia. Now he more plainely teacheth what we touched before, that then God is propitious to us when he acknowled­geth us just, for those two are of the same force, that we are accepted of God, and reputed just by him. Righteousnesse is here taken for imputation, because righteousnesse is accounted to us.

And in that place, to the question, How are we just be­fore God? He answereth. Forsooth Quomodo justi sumus coram Deo? &c. Ita sc. nunc justi sumus in ipso, non quia o­peribus pro priis satisfaciamus judicio Dei, sed quoniam censemur justitia Christi, quam fide induimus ut nostra fiat. Calv. we are now so just in him, not because by our owne workes we may satisfie the judgement of God, but because we h [...] accounted the righteousnesse of Christ, which we put on by faith, that it may be ours. Aretius on those words, that we might be made the righteousnesse of God.

That we may be pronounced just, Hoc est justi pronunciatemur, imputativa ju­stitia ia tanquam veste omaremur: dicitur autem justitia, quia nostra non est sed precario. In ipso, significat extra Christum nullam esse ju­stitia qua nos possimus ornare & quae valeat in conspectu Dei. Ib. Arct. in loc. that we might be adorned with impu­ted righteousnesse, as it were with a garment: but it is called the justice of God, because it is not ours, but his free gift. In him, he signifieth, that out of Christ there is nor righteousnesse with which we may adorne our Ut nos efficere­mut, saith Toss. hoc est justifi­caremur, non justitia inhae­rente, sed in eo, propter communionem quam habemus cum illo, & imputationem ejus just itiae. In locum. Summa loci est: sic sumus justi sicut Christ is peccator: at Christus est peccator imputatione nostrorum peccatorum, non reali corruptione, aut actionibus pravis: ergo nos imputatione ejus justitiae sumus justi. &c. Olev. in Phil. 3. 9. p. 46. Sic Gerhard: de justif. Le [...]. 61.

That we may be made, that is, that we may be justified not with inherent righteousnesse, but in him, because of the commu­nion [Page 116] we have with him, and the imputation of his righteous­nesse.

We be just with God, not indeed Justi, saith Beza, apud Deuminon quidem justitia nobis inhaerente, sed quoe cum in Christo sit, nobis per sidem à Deo imputatur: ideo additum est, in eo Sic ergo sumus justi­tia Dei in ipso, ut îlle peccatum in nobis, ex imputatione. Bez. in locum. with righteousnesse inhering in us, but which, when it is in Christ is imputed to us from God by faith: therefore it is added, in him. Therefore we are so the righteousnesse of God in him, as he is sinne in us, for sooth by imputation. So that in this you oppose not Mr. Walker alone, but the word and interpretation of our learned Au­thors.

Secondly, he answers (say you) that this righteousnesse of Christ is the Beleevers, in order of nature, before it be counted or imputed for righteousnesse unto him. For God, whose judgement is according to truth, doth not account that to the beleover which he hath not before communicated, or at the same time doth com­municate to him. Well, what of this? you say, He begges 1. the question that God doth impute the righteousnesse of Christ to a Mr. G. beleever in his sense.

I answer, we are past begging now, and when your Answ. sense appeareth, it will be, and is found, Arminian, Socinian, and Pontifician, as shall be seene anone, and Mr Walkers the sense of all Protestant Dlvines against them.

You say he proveth idem per idem. I answer no, he pro­veth 2. the righteousnesse of Christ the beleevers from the truth of Gods judgement, whence he doth not account that to the beleever which he hath not before, or at the same time communicateth to him.

To your descant on his words, before, all I will say is, 3. there is added or at the sametime.

If it be true at the same time, it is enough to evade the in­consequences, which arise from its being before, and you should have taken notice of this, or. And now to the third Argument.

The third Argument was, granting a Trope, yet is follow­eth 3. Arg. Sect. 20. not that the righteousnesse of Christ should be imputed here, but God or the promise made to Abraham.

I answer, the Apostle calleth it righteousnesse, vers. 6. and [Page 117] vers. 11. as before. Neither doe you disprove it, by saying God or the promise, you e [...]illy oppose Christs righteous­nesse, God and the promise.

Is not God Abrahams in Christ, and so Abrahams saith in Christ supposed to his faith in God? 1 Pel. 1. 21. We by him doe beleeve in God. Is not the promise of Gods being A­brahams God in Christ, to whom it is first made, and in whom it is Yea and Amen, to Abraham and his seede? The Apostle saith, If we be Christs, we be Abrahams seede, and Heires according to promise, so Abraham and beleevers are Heires in the Heire, by being Christs, and so the promises containing our inheritance, are ours. Hence amongst the rest we are Heires of the righteousnesse which is by faith.

Sir, in that promise you might have seene the seede, the seede is Christ, and in the promise, his natures, offices, adap­tations, doing, dying, rising, sitting at Gods right hand; our salvation, our justification by his righteousnesse. Abra­ham by faith saw his day and rejoyeed: saw all these by faith. So did Abel, his Sacrifice witnessed he was righteous, accepted in the righteousnesse of Christ, and so his Sacrifice. So did Enoch please God, which is impossible without faith in Christ, in whom God is well pleased. So did Noah, and hence was he just before God, an Heire of the righteousnesse which is by faith. So did Abraham beleeve in Christ, and it was counted to him for righteousnesse. So David, &c.

The Prophet after openeth him a righteous branch, and the Lord our righteousnesse.

The Apostle more plainely as before, the promise was the Seed, and blessednesse, and we are blessed with all in Christ, they are the inheritance of beleevers in and by Christ the Heire.

Glevian hath passages this way observable. Having said, Cum Deus sit justus, ideo non imputat pecca­tum, quia im­putat hlit justi [...] nam. seeing God is [...]ust, he imputeth not sinne, because he imputeth the righteousnesse of his Sonne. He addeth,

David did therefore build on the Sacrifice and intercession of the highest and eternall Priest, of whom he seake by the holy Ghost; Thou are a Priest for [...], &c. And so David beleeved, not in righteousnesse inhering us himselfe, but in that [Page 118] which was imputed from the High Nitebatur igitur David Sacrificio & inter­cessione summi & aeterni sacerdotis, de quo per Spiritum sanctum loquutus est, Tu es Sacerdos in aeternum, &c. Arque it a David non in inhaerentem in se justitiam, sed imputa­tam à summo Sacerdore Christo credidit. Sic Abraham non in se quaesi vit justitiam, sed side extra se vidit diem Christi & gavisus est: dies autem non solum tempus dispensation is gra­tiae Christi significat, sed totum beneficium tum demum exhibirum cum venit plenitu­do temporis. P. 48. ad Phil. Priest, Christ. So Abraham sought not righteousnes in himself, but by faith out of himselfe, he saw the day of Christ, and rejoyeed. The day signifieth, not onely the time of the dispensation of the grace of Christ, but the whole bene­fit then as length exhibited, when the fulnesse of time came.

Therefore that inscription of the Ideo inscriptio illa soederis in tarne Abra­hoe sigillum justitiae sidei appellatur, propte­rea quod Abrahain ex semetipso utpote cor­rupto & injusto egressus, side in promisso semine justitiam possederat; eique in prae­putio credenti imputata suerat: nunc autem impresso sigillo rei extra ipsum positae & e­minus conspectae suit in carne ipsius confir­mata possessio. lb. p. 50. Covenant in the flesh of Abraham, (Circumcision) is called the Seale of the righteousnesse of faith, because, as a corrupt and unjust man, had possessed by faith in the promi­sed seed, and it was imputed to him beleeving in Vncircumcision: But now the possession was confir­med by an imprinted Seale in his flesh of a thing placed out of himselfe and seene afarre off.

Abraham beleeved, saith Pet. Mar­tyr. Credidit Abraham—at the quid credidit? hocsc. semen sibi dandum ese, unicumsc illud, ut Paulus interpretatur, in quo omnes nationes essent benedicendae, quod est Chri­stus Jesus, Gen. 15. 6. Gal. 3. 16. L. Com. de just. Sect. 23. But what did he beleeve? Forsooth this seed to be given unto him, that one seed, as Paul interpreteth it, in whom all the Nations of the earth were to be blessed, which is Jesus Christ.

Amongst other things Abraham beleeved. Pareus addeth, Sed etiam spi­rituali per Chri stum caput se­minis, ex quo in totum semen benedictio & gloria coelestis sluere debait. Apostolus enim promissum semen expresse dicit esse Christum; nec dubitari porc [...], seminus promissionem cui credidisse Abraham dicitur, cohaerere cum promissionibus antegressis & subsequ [...]tis de semine & benedictione om­nium geatium per illud. Fuit igitur Abrah [...] sides generalis quidem seu Catholica (ut vo­cant so phistae) assentiens o [...]l verbo Dei: Sed & specialis promission [...] data de semine, quod est Christus Ira Ambro [...] in Comment. Credidit Abraham Deo, Quid credidit; se­then se habiturum [...]linmin quo c [...]es gentes justificarentur. In Christo igitur suit sun­data Abrahe sides. Ad Rom. 4. ad vers. 5. p. 263. But also of that which was spirituall, by Christ the Head of the seed, from whom the blessing and heavenly glory should flow unto the whole seed. For the Apostle expressely saith the promised [Page 119] seed to be Christ. Neither can is be doubted but the promise of the seed which Abraham is said to beleeve, to agree with the promises going before, and following of the seede and blessing of all Nations by it: therefore the saith of Abraham was indeed generall or Catholique (as the Sophisters call it) assenting to eve­ry word of God, but also speciall to the promise given of the soed, which is Christ. So Ambrose on his commentary. Abra­ham beleeved God, What did he beleeve? that he should have seed, that is, a Sonne in whom all Nations should be blessed. Therefore Abrahams saith is founded in Christ.

And here may you be well minded of your Doctrine, that the object of the faith, that is imputed, is Jesus Christ, and that it bringeth into communion and participation of him and his benefits; which being true, how could Christ and his righteousnesse be excluded?

But now to your tedious discourse following involved in many vaine words, which I will not touch.

1. You complaine of his friend Metalepsis, which you doe but play with, to which having seriously answered be­fore, I say no more.

2. Then you demand, whether because a man cannot, be­leeving, separate the righteousnesse of Christ from Christ, by God there must be necessarily understood the righteousnesse of Christ.

To which I answer, you doe but trishe, Beleeving insol­deth God his in Christ, Christ and what ever is lapt up in that word Blessednesse; temporall, spirituall, eternall, with Jesus Christ: visiting, redeeming, raising up Christ an horne of salvation, salvation from evill, righteousnesse and e­ternall life, are the mercies promised to Abraham, Gods holy covenant and his oath, in Zacharies song. There is more in it then I suppose you are aware of, as if you had but trifled in earnest.

You marvell why Mr. W. still mentions the satisfaction of P. 83. Christ with the righteousnesse of Christ. Whereas you intend no difference or dispute about the satisfaction of Christ but his active obedience to the Law. Whether this be imputed that there­by we may claime Heaven, by Doe this and live. And that his [Page 120] thrusting in of the passive obedience or satisfaction is to presents you odious as an enemy to Christs satisfaction.

1. I answer, Sir, we must crie you mercy, or else won­der as you, why you had act opened this before this time.

2. It seemes you are then for the imputation of Christs Passive obedience to obtaine pardon, and then Passive righ­teousnesse is that which is imputed, and faith in a Relative sense to that. And what is become of your proper sense then?

This Mr. Wotton blameth in Piscator, Yet I no where finde in holy Scriptures that there is need of Tamen nusquam in sacris literis reperio imputatione passivae Christi obedientiae ad eam consequendam opus csfe, licet verum & perspicuum sit, illus perpessiones (ex Dei decreto) suisse necessarias ad veniam nobis impetrandam. Neque (ut vere dicam quod res est) intelligere possum quis veniae reli­ctus sit locus, si (paenas in Christo persol­vendo) Irae divinae satisfecisse, & supplicium peccatis debitum pertulisse existimenur, nam paena & venia adversa sunt. Manuscrip. accepto Jan. 13. 1613 of Mr. Wotton. imputation of the Passive obedience of Christ to obtaine it, (Justification or pardon) though it be true and cleare; those sufferings to have beene necessary (by the decree of God) to obtaine par­don to us. Neither (that I may truly say what the thing is) can I understand what place is left to pardon, if we should be judged by suffering punish­ment in Christ, to have satisfied Divine wrath, and borne punish­ment due to sinne: for pardon and punishment are adversaries. Tell us by your next whether and how farre Magister sit hic [...]endus.

3. Mr. Walker findeth our debt to the Law to be not onely death for sinne, but doing that we may live, and we thinke both must have satisfaction, and are inseparable; and if Christ be the object, why shall his righteousnesse be excluded? is he [...] the Lord our righteousnesse? is not the Lord's being in [...] and all the returne there­by the issue of Christ and his righteousnesse? is not the new Testament confirmed in his bloud? are we not by his obe­dience constituted righteous? is it not by the righteousnesse of one that the free gift [...] upon all to justification of life? The Apostle saith, that the promise to Abraham that he should be the Heire of the world, was not through the Law, but through the righteousnesse of faith, Rom. 4. 13. that is the righteous­nesse [Page 121] of Christ which faith layeth hold on and applieth, by that the promise was made. And why shall we not thinke his faith then built on that righteousnesse? You will not question but we have all for Christs sake, his righteousnesse sake and merit, they must be imputed, and we by faith have fellowship with them, or never have benefit.

4. Mr. Walker doth thinke Christs Passive righteousnes to be obedience to the Law, that which the Law exacted of us, and we being insolvent of our Surety, and that you cannot escape by calling it satisfaction to God, not to the Law, seeing it was Gods Law; and in satisfying God his Law must be satisfied.

To your demand. Doth it follow (though a man cannot separate the righteousnesse of Christ from Christ himselfe in be­leeving) that the righteousnesse of Christ must needs be the object of faith as justifying? And adde, much lesse doth it follow that this righteousnesse of Christ must needs be signified by this word God, or by the promise of God concerning Christ, which himselfe granteth to have beene the object of faith, as justifying.

I answer, it is sutable to reason to pitch on the righte­ousnesse of Christ in matter of justification, seeing without righteousnesse there is no justification, and by righteous­nesse, what ever it be, there must be justification, of which before. The rest hath a full answer as I suppose also. There are other reasons besides inseparablenesse.

For what is remaining in your owne words, I must say F. 84. that they are of that manifest inconsequence and indigestednesse, that I will rather trust the Reader with his owne apprehensions concerning them, then to trouble him or my selfe with a farther answer.

The righteousnesse of Christ can in no tolerable construction be A [...]g. 4. Sect. 21. called that faith by which Abraham beleeved in God that quick­neth the dead, therfore the righteousnesse of Christ is not that faith which is here said to be imputed for righteousnesse. Ile adde the first proposition, that faith which is said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse, is that faith by which he beleeved in God that quickned the dead. This (you say) is your next argument whereby you p [...]on [...] by the Word, that faith in these pas­sages [Page 122] is not meant the Active obedience of Christ.

1. I answer, first, in this expressure added, you change the conclusion. It was never Mr. Walkers meaning by faiths object to stand on, alone, Christs Active obedience, but both Active and Passive obedience.

2. When you exclude this, it seemeth you allow that which is Passive to be the object. So that faith may be in that and him that quickneth the dead; the other inseparable part must not be excluded.

3. I answer, it is faith in Christ and his perfect righ­teousnesse whereby we beleeve in him that quickneth the dead, by faith in Christ I beleeve in God, be is my God as Abra­hams, by which our Lord proveth the resurrection, Matth. 22. against the Sadduces, it reacheth that blessing; by faith in Christ, Abraham, saw Christs resurrection, and so his owne, as David did the resurrection of Christ, Acts 2. 30. as Gods oath to him, which was the same he swore to Abraham. Yea, he saw and beleeved his owne resurrection; indeed lapt up in Christs resurrection, as of a member in the raised head, and rejoyced at it, 16. Psal. fine, compare the places.

The Apostle saith the spirit is life because of righteousnesse, Rom. 8. 10. which life is without question (though I ex­clude not life simply) the quickning of the dead, as in the next, v. by righteousnesse, I take imputed righteousnesse meant; Hanc ipsam quam nos asse­rimus imputa­tam. Cham. de just. c. 2 Sect. 59. c. 15. Sect. 36. Sect. 37. and, Chamier calleth it the very same we call imputed; and for that quickning of the dead, see the same Cham. out of Tolet, and Cajetan calleth it the righteousnesse of Christ.

Neither is there opposition here, but subordination, betweene Christ and God and life and faith in Christ and his righteousnesse.

Neither are these effects of two faiths, faiths of adifferent kind, but of the same, there is but one faith, by which, as I beleeve in Christ and his righteousnesse, so in God, as he is in Christ for blessednesse simply, the remission of sinnes, the re­surrection of the body, and everlasting life; the naming of one excludeth not, but necessarily implyeth all the rest.

And though Mr. Walker (as you conceive) Reads not Christs lying three dayes and three nights in the grave, any where [Page 123] called faith, or signified by that expression, yet I suppose I read the Gospel to be called faith, and if that you mention be Gospel, it must be called faith, infolded under that ex­pression. I am sure faith by which I beleeve remission of sinnes, resurrection of the body, and everlasting life, to be faith in God through Christ satisfying, obedient even un­till death, continuing Gods set time in the state of the dead, for us, our justification and pardon, yea, salvation, to the glory not onely of free grace, but exact justice, and doe you consider the same.

Abrahams faith imputed to him, was such a faith where­in Arg. 5. Sect. 22. he was not weake, nor doubted of Gods promise, vers. 19. & 20. This can be no description of Christs righteousnesse.

I answer, though this be no description of the righte­ousnesse of Christ, yet Abrahams faith imputed might be a strong faith in the righteousnesse of Christ, and this makes nothing against the Relative consideration of faith: what ever the degree of faith is, the object is the same, nay the stronger the faith is, the more is a man united to Christ, the greater is his communion with Christ and fellowship with God, and so is his hold fast of righteousnesse, and so his peace and comfort. So that this hindereth not, but righteousnesse under the notion of faith, may be im­puted.

When you say the question is not whether Abraham had communion with Christ in his righteousnesse or no, either more full or lesse full; but whether what is here affirmed of Abra­hams faith, can be applied to the righteousnesse of Christ, and be conceived as spoken of that.

I answer, it can be applyed to the righteousnesse of Christ, and thence Abrahams communion with Christ in his righteousnesse, in that full manner faith being so full and strong.

When you demand, Was that faith whereby Abraham P. 85. doubted not of Gods promise, the righteousnesse of Christ?

I answer, it was the same faith by which he apprehen­ded the righteousnesse of Christ, by which hee beleeved the promise, and in God: What was that promise of but [Page 124] the seed, Christ and his righteousnesse and blessednesse in and by the same?

You say your Antagonist starteth a new question, you re­member not you ever met withall from the Pen or mouth of any Divine, viz. Degrees in Justification, as if he held because A­brahams faith was stronger, it had fuller communion with Christ in his righteousnesse then other beleevers have, and so must needs be more justified, and consequently others justification un­perfect.

1. Then there is somewhat you never heard of, I have betweene two famous and godly Divines in my time, though I approve not that Justification hath degrees. It is none of Mr. Walkers, there may be, and are degrees of uni­on and communion with Christ, and so of faith, by which neither of these I suppose are here perfect. It followeth not of Justification or righteousnesse, seeing every one is perfected for ever, wholly faire, compleate. Mr. Walkers aime is no more then this, that he more strongly applied it, that his a apprehension was stronger, and that he had more sen­sible communion with him in his righteousnesse. Mr. Calv. on those words, Rom. 1. 27. unto faith faith, because so much Quia quantum progreditur si­des nostra, quā ­tumque in hac cognitionepro­sicitur, simul au­gescit in nobis Dei justitia, & quodammodo sancitur ejus possessio. as our faith goeth forward, and so much as in this knowledge it profiteth, the righteousnesse of God together increaseth in us, and after a manner its possession is established. Let the last phrase explaine the first, that of increasing, and what is said in my poor opinion is safe.

This your argument I read urged by that Prince of the Arminian band, Bertius, p. 135. where it is answered by Lubbertus.

Faith imputed to Abraham was that by which he was assu­red Arg. 6. Sect. 23. that he who had promisnd was able also doe it, vers. 21. & 22. But Christs righteousnesse is not capable of any such de­scription as this is, therefore it is not imputed.

I answer, though Christs righteousnesse be not capable of such description, that by it Abraham was fully assured, yet faith which apprehended the righteousnesse of Christ, was, it seemeth it was of its nature, assurance is opposed to doubt, as by faith he received it, he as a reasonable and [Page 125] understanding agent did it, and knew the same, by faith he was perswaded and assured of the same, and so of God in Christ as revealed, of the promise in which God appeared to him Almighty, ingaging power for the same. This be­ing added, let your argument and Mr. Walkers answer be turned loose together, and stand or fall.

For his ill-sounding phrase or two, at best, deserving rods, Scorpions: Let it be tried, the first is the repetition of the expressure censured in the former answer, to which all I will say is, let what is said by you and answered, be tur­ned loose.

But he saith, the more Abraham rested on Gods power, the more justly did God count him a righteous man and impute G. Christs righteousnesse to him; which implies God doth with lesse justice impute the righteousnesse of Christ to a strong faith.

I answer, more justly may be considered in regard of ex­pression or manifestation of it to us, for if it appeare just­ly to be done where the faith is weake, where it is strong the appeareance is more cleare. Truly your advise is good, we cannot speake too too considerately and advisedly. I will say here, Nemo sine crimine vivit, & optimus ille qui minimis urgetur. He is an happy man that offends not in what he blameth another. Woe be to your writing, this book, if Rods and Scorpions be made use of for every inconsiderate and un­advised word or speech.

Finally, that which is said, that the object of Abrahams faith, was Gods power and ability, and your inference there­fore not the righteousnesse of Christ, is in effect Bell. argument to exclude speciall mercy.

Abraham did not beleeve sins to be Abraham non creditit sibi per specialom miscrico rdiam remissa suisse peccata; sed se patrem suturum multarum gentiū, &c. Idest, credidit Deum qui promiserat omnipoten­tem ac sidelissimum, arque haec sides eirepu­tara suit in justitiam: ergo. for given to him by speciall mercy, but that he should be the Father of many Na­tions, &c. That is, he beleeved God who had promised to be omnipotent & most faithfull, and this faith was reputed to him for righteousnesse.

Pareus answering, granteth that Abraham did beleeve [Page 126] those things which his adversary saith, but that did not exclude his faith of speciall mercy in pardon by Christ, and then:

Abraham beleeved God not onely Credidit Abraham Deo non solum promit­tenti silium ex Sara, sed etiam promittenti benedistionem omnibus gentibus in semine nascituro ex silio Saroe: In semine tuo bene­dicentur omnes Gentes. Hoc vero semen Apostolus ad Galatas docer esse Christum, & benedictionem interpretatut redemptionem ab execratione, & justificationem per sidem, ad Rom. 4. 11. clarius dicit Abrahamo suisse imputatam justitiam sidei, &c. promising a sonne of Sarah, but also promising blessednesse to all Nations in his seed to be borne of the sonne of Sa­rah; In thy seed shall all Nations be blessed. The Apostle to the Galati­ans, teacheth this seed truly to be Christ, and interpreteth the blessing Redemption from the curse, and justi­fication by faith, and Rom. 4. 11. be more clearely saith, that unto Abraham was imputed righteousnesse by faith.

We beleeve in Jesus Christ for Pardon in the Creed, and God Almighty, so did God appeare to Abraham. Christ and his righteousnesse are not opposed to Gods omnipotence, they are subordinate: And now to the seventh Argu­ment.

That faith that is imputed, is beleeving in him who raised Arg. 7. Sect. 24. up Christ from the dead, vers. 24. Christs righteousnesse is not our beleeving in him that raised up Christ from the dead: it therefore is not imputed.

I answer, your assumption and conclusion (which is a common fault) are laid downe onely of the righteousnes of Christ, not of faith, whereas, what you are to im­prove, is faith in a Relativesense, and taking in Christ and his righteousnesse, which had you done, the answer had beene easie. This faith taking in Christ and his righteous­nesse is faith in God which raised up the Lord Christ from the dead, the same faith that beleeveth in Christ and his righ­teousnesse, beleeveth in God that raised up Christ, so is it laid downe, 1 Pet 1. 21. upon it our justification dependeth; and if it were not, the Apostle saith our faith is vaine, and we are yet in our sinnes. Christs Resurrection supposeth him fully satisfying by obedience, even untill death, acqui­ted. In the Creed there is faith in God Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, dead and risen, &c. whence our remission of [Page 127] sinnes and life everlasting. Who can lay thing to the charge of Gods chosen? Who can cordenone? It is Christ that is dead, yea, rather that is risen, &c.

Here is sweet harmony, I will leave this also to any rea­sonable judgement.

The summe of it is thus much as laid downe by your Vlt. Arg. Sect. 25. selfe. The point of imputation in justification being onely han­dled in this Scripture, and no where else explained, it is no waies probable but that the Apostle should speake somewhat distinctly and plainely of the nature of it, otherwise he might seeme ra­ther to lay a stumbling blocke in the way, then to write any thing for the learning and comfort of Christians.

To this I will first take the boldnesse to answer, and then consider of the matter as betweene you and Mr Walker.

1. I answer the point of Imputation is not onely han­dled in this Scripture, it is handled, Gen. 15. 6. and then Psal. 32. which are the foundations of what the Apostle here doth concerning the same, and after, Gal. 3. 6.

2. It is elsewhere explained manifestly, Rom. 3. 24. Rom. 5. 17, 18, 19. Rom. 8. 4. & Rom. 10. 4. Yea, 1 Cor. 1. 30. 2 Cor. 5. ult. whereas Christ, and his righteousnesse, and obedience are laid downe that by which, so by imputati­on. C. 7. Sect. 14. To be made just by the justice of another, is to be just by imputation, it being not possible for any man to be just by ano­thers justice, but by imputation, saith Mr. Bradshaw. So is Adams sinne ours, so is our sinne Christs righ­teousnesse ours by imputation, as all our Divines.

Now by the foundation judge of your superstructives.

I adde, this speech is a distinct and plaine speech, which appeareth by the unanimous judgement of all reformed Writers (but you Mr. Wotton, Arminius, &c.) against the Papists, who stumble at Christs righteousnesse, and esta­blish their owne.

As also by all places of Scripture wherein the effects gi­ven to faith that justifieth, are given to it in respect of its relation to Christ, as his proper effects to faith meerely as an instrument causing union and fellowship with him by whom they are effected.

[Page 128]Your interpretation is a meere stumbling blocke, and destroyer of comfort. This a principall foundation of comfort. The kernell of the Gospel and head of consolation, as Junius. Saint Paul judged it so when as he accounted all as dung, and would be found not having his owne righteousnesse, therefore not faith in a proper sense, his, and a kind of righteousnesse, but that which is by faith. I will finish this, making it my prayer, which Doctor Prideaux did.

The greatest and best God grant that Faxit Deus optimus maximus ut nos om­nia pro detrimentis habeamus, & comperi­amur in eo non habentes justitiam nostram quae est ex operibus, sed cam quae est ex fide. De justif p. 171. we may account all for losse, and may be found in him not having our owne righteousnesse, which is of workes. (I will adde) faith in a proper sense opposed in justification to the righteousnesse of Christ; but that which is by faith, which faith receiveth and appli­eth, the righteousnesse of Christ Active and passive; those robes of righteousnesse and garments of salvation. In him to that end.

But it is meete you should be heard.

You say, to this Mr. Walker answereth mum. Let the Reader see there, and in his last booke, and judge if his answer be mum.

You goe on. Onely he gravely instructeth us, that it is more comfortable to us for to rest on Christs righteousnesse, &c. then to build on faith, which in the best is mingled and stained with many doubts often times.

Surely this is geave advise, though you jest, you may finde it one day as some Papists have dying, what ever you doe in dispute, when as your soule shall be ready to take its flight from your body, and that to appeare before Gods tri­bunall. It will wish it may (and I pray it may) appeare, nay it must appeare in, clothed with this righteousnesse of Christ imputed by God, applied by faith, if then it hath comfort: in, agone quanti Papistis? Papists then esteeme of this.

You goe on relating what Mr. W. saith, viz. Therefore the Apostle doubtlesse intends Christs righteousnesse, and so be doth expresse in plaine words (to another purpose) c. 5. 19. 8. 4. & 10.4.

[Page 129]I answer, those words to another purpose, are your own words, in good time it shall be tried.

These are more then mum, and Mr. Walker saith the A­postle plainly expresseth that faith imputed, is called righ­teousnesse imputed by those texts, vers. 6. & 11. It had beene fairer for you to have answered mum.

Against part of this (you say) Mr. Walker maketh an op­position betweene things of the most direct and essentiall subor­dination that can be, and which doe inseparably involve one the other, resting on Christs righteousnesse, and building on faith.

1. I answer. If Mr Walker did doe so, he failed as you in all your arguments, or most of them. Your fault was to make opposition betweene those things which are subor­dinate, as before.

2. It is none of Mr. Walkers fault, he doth not make opposition between e faith and Christs righteousnesse. It is your selfe in stating the question. You say, faith in a pro­per sense is imputed, and not the righteousnesse of Christ: as a worke in a proper sense, you oppose it, and it is indeed opposed to the righteousnesse of Christ, so there is no sub­ordination. It is true of the figurative sense you dispute against, that faith involveth the righteousnesse of Christ in this place overthroweth your cause; you must be behol­ding for an interpretation here to your friends the Papists, or you are gone.

You say it is impossible that a man should not build on faith, that doth not rest on Christs righteousnesse, that is, the satisfaction which he hath made, because faith is a resting on this satis­faction, and so a resting on Christs righteousnesse, includes a building on faith; for who can rest on this righteousnesse, except he beleeves that such a resting as this will stand him in­stead?

1. Here you grant faith a resting on Christs rightcous­nesse. It is true, the faith that receiveth and applieth the same, cleaveth and adhereth to it and resteth on it, then is it not an affent alone, or worke of the understanding: this establisheth our Relative sense.

That other, building on faith, and that by on other be­leeving, [Page 130] it is but a Castle in the aire; at best it is but an as­sent or beliefe which the Devill hath, who beleeveth, that he that beleeveth in Christ shall be saved. It is a beleeving in abeleeving, which in your sense is a worke, which is op­posed to Christs righteousnesse in justification by your doctrine. For the establishing the one, you deny the other, and so destroy subordination. It is safest to rest only on that Rocke Christ, there is no other foundation; S. Paul did so, When as he would be found not having his owne righteousnet, as faith in a proper sense, such as it is.

But you say. Sure I am that Paul built upon faith for justification as well as on the righteousnesse of Christ (as Master Walkers beloved phrase is) though in a different manner (which hath beene formerly explained, when be said we know that a man is not justified by the workes of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, and as Christ speaketh concerning himselfe, John 12. 44. He that beleeveth in me, beleeveth not in me, but in him that sent me, that is, not so much in me, as in him that sent me. So may it be said, he that buildeth on faith, buildeth not on faith, but on the truth and faithfulnes of him who hath pro­mised forgivenes of sinnes and salvation to him that beleeveth.

1. Let the Reader note, how you speaking of building (for justification on faith and on the righteousnesse of Christ) the former is currant, the other Mr. Walkers belo­ved phrase; building on the righteousnesse is Mr. Walkers phrase; would a man thinke this man a Christian that rea­deth this so jeeringly proposed, or that there were such a direct and essentiall subordination as was asserted but now, and such an inseparable involution? surely it would raise much doubt. It is very offensive to me, and I conceive it much more to God and Christ, no marvell that establish­ing faith in a proper sense you say and not the righteous­nesse of Christ.

2. Doe you not bring in Paul building on two oppo­fite foundations according to your doctrine? a work and Christ? the errour he refuteth to the Rom. and Gala­tians?

And whether he be not brought in equally building on [Page 131] faith and Christ? your phrase is as well, whether it agre­eth with Saint Pauls spirit, who would be found in him, not having his owne righteousnesse? which faith is in yoursense, but that which is by faith which it receiveth. Saint Pauls words that he beleeved in Christ, that he might be justified by faith of Christ, are no more then this, that he beleeved in Christ, that so by that faith in Christ he might be justified; knowing that (not workes) the onely way, here is no be­leeving by beleeving on beleeving, his building by belee­ving is in Jesus Christ, which is no other then beleeving in him for justification. By that very place faith as a worke is excluded by Saint Paul.

If all workes together justifie not, Si enim omnia o pera simul non justificant ( as Pareus) quomodo o pus fidei justificarer, hoc est justos faceret coram Deo? In Iocum. how should that worke of faith ju­stifie, that is, make just before God? Note it then.

The true sense is, which the Apostle Sensus verus est quem Apostolus c. 3. ex­plicabit, nos fide benedictionem Abraha sus­cipere; benedictio autem Abrabae est remis­sio peccatorum & justitiae imputatio propter Christi meritum fide accepta, hoc ad Rom. 4.6. dixit, fidem nobis imputari ad justiti­am: quae phrasis correlative intelligenda est, pro obedientiam Christi fide applicatam no­bis imputari ad justitiam, seu justitiam im­putari propter obedientiam Christi fide ap­plicatam, uti in Comment. ad Rom. prolixc est demonstratum, Id. ib. in the 3. c. will explaine, that we re­ceive the blessing of Abraham by faith. Now the blessing of Abraham is remission of sinnes, and imputation of righteousnesse received by faith, be­cause of Christs merit. This Rom. 4.6. he said to be imputed to us for righteousnesse: which phrase is correla­tively to be understood, for that, the obedience of Christ applied by faith to be imputed to us for righteousnesse, or righteousnesse to be im­puted for the obedience of Christ applied by faith, as is largely de­monstrated in my Commentary on the Romans.

And for the other place where you say, It may be said be that buildeth on faith, buildeth not on faith, but on the faith­fulnesse Utconsideratur cum objecto suo, ut cnm di­citur Ecclesiae super fide Petr [...] fundata apud veteres, & nos &c. as Cham. of God, promising forgivenesse to a beleever. Though it be true of Christ, that he that by faith beleeveth on him, buildeth on Gods faithfulnesse, or as otherwise revealed, and of faith in a Relative sense. As it is confidered with his object, as when the Church is said to be founded upon the faith of Peter, by the Antiens, and we have shewed.

[Page 132]It is not so of faith in a proper sense, your faith.

There is somewhat considerable yet, and that is the subordination here spoken of, especially as in the cited text, John 12. 44. he that beleeveth in me, beleeveth not in me, but in him that sent me. And I intreat you to ponder.

1. Whether faith in Christ the Mediatour and God be not the same, and in the morall Law as faith in God, surely either both or neither are by this text, that sticketh you see in my stomach.

2. That it is not incongruous that the same faith which laieth hold on Christ and his righteousnesse, should lay hold on God also, it is in him, and him that sent him; him as revealed, God, as Rom. 4. a quickner of the dead, able, raising up Christ. What then becommeth of those arguments you make to exclude Christ and his righteousnesse from faith imputed to Abraham? It seemeth these may consist, there is a subordination and involution of God as in Christ, in faith in Christ.

It may occasion other thoughts to put the Crowne on Christs head, to deny it to faith in a proper sense as op­posed to the righteousnesse of Christ, in the point of Justi­fication.

You say, for the mixture or staining of faith with many doubtings, this is no consideration at all, to detaine or keepe a man from building upon it, if it be faith unfeigned and true, because there is the same justification and salvation promised to the weakest faith and to the strongest.

If faith were taken in a Relative sense, it might be gran­ted, because of the object, the righteousnesse of Christ, here is perfect righteousnesse, all the Law requireth, he being the end of the Law for righteousnesse to a beleever; take both, you have the condition of the Gospel: no matter for strength or weaknesse of faith in the point of Justification.

It is not so for faith in a proper sense, not involving, but excluding the righteousnesse of Christ.

You have nothing to object to Gods just judgement; gratuide acceptilation of faith, for the perfect obedience [Page 133] of the Law, in a proper sense, that Arminian brat destroy­eth Gods justice: and that faith can no more be accepted then any grace else, it is worse, then to put all graces as the Papists doe, as our owne teach you, you shall never prove it the condition of the Gospel.

Why may I not say the same of Repentance in generall, of love, or the feare of God? these as imperfect as they are, justifie as well as faith (in your sense) if that be a sufficient reason alone, it is what hath the promise, see 1 Jes. 16. 17, 18. faith so taken is not the onely condition or quality; all graces, I, workes else have their place. It is not faith a­lone that justifieth: and how can any of these be instead of personall righteousnesse, perfect obedience due to the Law, which is your tenet of this faith. It is necessary to take in Christ and the righteousnesse of Christ, for which faith hath a peculiar working; it is the consent of the soule, whence marriage indeed, union, communion with Christ his righteousnesse, and all his benefits.

In the next place answers are given to those places where P. 88. faith and hope are used to signifie their object.

1. To which Mr. W. saith, First, you grant the Apostles used such tropes.

2. When as you say the habit of faith may be used to signi­fie the object, but not the act, he answereth, Gal. 1. 22. & 3. 23. & Col. 1. 5. the habit and act both, yea the act is principally meant.

3. And thirdly, that you grant the act so used, but shife it by denying Christs righteousnesse the object of beleeving, which he hath proved.

4. And lastly, that you deny Christs righteousnesse the object of faith as it justifieth, whereas it is the proper object.

To these you say, That you will not be troublesome to the Reader here to relate the passage be strikes at, and tell us of copies in some mens hands.

These I must passe, necessarily keeping counsell, and take for granted what is not accepted against.

The substance of the answer consists you say in two or three untruths.

[Page 134]1. When he saith the act of faith is to be understood, Gal. 1. 22. & 3. 23. & Col. 1. 5. its contrary is true.

To which all I will say is this, that I know not how to define faith or hope without the mention of the object therein, and that to the being of faith and hope there is necessarily union with, or acting on the object; there is no faith, nor hope in God, but it butteth on him.

2. Whereas Mr. Walker saith he hath proved the righ­teousnesse or active obedience of Christ to be the object of faith as justifying. You say he hath not in all his discourse made the least haire of that head blacke or white.

1. I answer, first, those words or active obedience of Christ are your words, not Mr. Walkers, his words are Christs righteousnesse, which though Mr. Walker excludeth not, yet with him that is not all, he meaneth active and passive righteousnesse.

For the Passive obedience, I hope that shall be acknow­ledged Rom. 3. 25. the object of faith as it justifieth. Christ dead is the object of faith in the Creed for remission of sinnes; and the A­postle saith, as that we are justified freely by grace through, &c. So whom God hath set forth a propitiation through faith in his bloud.

And I demand whether faith that justifieth be not con­fessed by you faith in Christ, and that it is an instrument causing union, bringing us to participation of him and his benefits; Christ and his righteousnesse are the object of faith, which you granted to be an instrument.

I demand what that righteousnesse of God, Rom. 3. 22. Quod eam no­bis Dominus sua misericor­dia largiatur, aut ideo quia sola coram Deo consistit. John vers. 21. Ubi nulla ju­stitiacēsctur nisi perfecta abso­uraque Legis obedientia. which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all that beleeve? whether it be not Christs? whether it be so called, Because God of his bounty bestoweth it on us, or therefore because it alone holdeth wa­ter before the Lord? as Calvine on the place. Once he resolved it, quam per fidem obtinemus, which by faith we obtaine; and that which must be justice at Gods tribunall, as Cal­vine. Where none is accounted righteousnesse unlesse perfect and absolute obedience to the Law, as the same Author, where I reade farther.

If so be that no man be found that hath attained such ex­act [Page 135] holinesse; it followeth that all are Quod si nemo hominum reperitur qui ad tam exactam sanctitatem conscenderit, sequi­tur omnes justitia in se ipsis destitui. Tum oc­currat Christus oporter, qui ut solus justus est, ita suam justitiam in nos transferendo ju­stos nos reddit. Nune vides ut justitia fidei, justitia Christi sit; ut ergo justificemur—Christus materia, verbum cum fide instru­mentum; quare fides justificare dicitur, quia instrumentum est recipiendi Christi, in quo nobis communicatur justitia▪ Postquam Christi sumus participes non ipsi solum justi sumus, sed opera nostra justa reputantur co­ram Deo. without righteousnesse in themselves. Then Christ must helpe, who as he is alone just, so by transferring his righ­teousnesse on us, maketh us just. Now thou seest how the righteousnesse of faith is the righteousnesse of Christ; that therefore we may be justified—Christ is the matter, the word with faith the instrument. Therefore faith is said to justifie, because it is the in­strument of receiving Christ, in whom righteousnes is communicated to us. After that we are par­takers In Christū im­pingebant, per quem unum ad justitiam adi­piscendam pa­tet aditus, act vers. 30. Datus nobis in▪ justitiam Chri­stus est. v. 32. Christi dignitas in hoc sita est, ut sit lumen, sa­lus, vira, resur­rectio, justitia, medicina nobis omnibus. lb. Diximus autem alibi quomodo justitiam▪ fide induant homi­nes, quia sc. im­putatur illis Christi justitia. lb. C. 10. 3. & v. 5. Meminetimus ergo qui fide justi sunt extra se justos esse, nempe in Christo. Justi coram Deo censemur, quia afferimus perfectam Legis obedi­entiam, nam justitia transgressioni Legis etiam in minimo apice opponitur; quia eam non habemus in nobis, Deus nobis gratuito denat, lb. id. ad Gal. 3. 6. of Christ, not onely our selves are just, but our workes are reputed just before the Lord. So Calvine.

What righteousnesse is that, Rom. 4. b. and that righ­teousnesse of faith, vers. 11. What that the Gentiles attai­ned, and the Jewes submitted not to, but stumbled at? Rom. 9. Saith Calvine, they did stumble at Christ, by whom alone the way to obtaine righteousnes is open.

Christ is given to us for righteousnes.

Christs honour is placed in this, that he be light, salvation, life, resurrection, righteousnes, healing to us all; where also we may see of whose and what righteousnesse he speaketh.

We have elsewhere said, how men put on righteousnes by faith, because for sooth Christs righteousnes is imputed to them.

And then he sheweth the righteousnesse of faith to be established out of the very doctrine of the Law.

Let us remember therefore, that those that are righteous by faith, are just out of themselves, for sooth in Christ.

Who saith elsewere, we are accounted just before God, for as much is we bring the perfect obedience of the Law, for righ­teousnes as opposed to the transgression of the Law, even in the least point; because we have not that in our selves, God doth free­ly give it us.

What is that Phil. 3. where Saint Paul will be found in [Page 136] him having that righteousnes which is by the faith of Christ, the Fides offertnu­dom homihem Deo, ut Christi Justitia indua­tur. Deus nos justi­ficet, sua boni­tate, vel quod justitiam ab ip­so donatam fide recipiamus. Justitiam Dei accipio, quz a­pud Dei tribu­nal approbatur In ipso saith Aretius, sc. Chri sto Domino meo qui est ju­stitia—fidei autem est quia per fidem illam apprehendi▪ mus cum sicim­putata & Christi merito nobis applicetur. Ad Phil 3. 9. Inveniri in Christo tacitam ha­bet relationem ad Dei judicium; is enim in amando contemplatur unum sirum Christum in quo acquiescat, itaque quos comperit in Christo esse (id est Christo per fidem insitos) in [...]is nullam invenit condemnationem, quia justitia qualē ille requirit à no his, id est, perfecta, accumulata, exornatos eos invenit, nimirum Christi justitia per fidem nobis imputata. Bez. in locum. righteousnes which is of God by faith, on which place Calvine. Faith offereth man naked to God, that he may be clothed with Christs righteousnes.

Where also he saith, righteousnes of faith to be of God—but because God justifieth us by his goodnes, or because we may receive by faith righteousnes given from him.

I take that to be the righteousnes of God which is approved at Gods tribunall.

In him, forsooth, Christ my Lord, who is righteounes—But it is said to be of faith, because by faith we apprehend it, seeing it is imputed and is applied to us by Christs merit.

To be found in Christ hath a secret relation to Gods judge­ment, for be in loving doth behold his one Christ in whom he is well pleased: therefore those whom be doth finde to be in Christ, that is, inset to him by faith, in those he findeth no condemnation, because he findeth them adorned with righteousnes such as he re­quireth of us, that is, perfect and heaped up, forsooth, Christs righteousnes imputed to us by faith.

Christ himselfe must be put upon us that we may be found Dr. Whitaker against Camp. & Dar. English. p. 231. Ib. in him, Rom. 13. 14. Phil. 3. 9. 2 Cor. 5. &c. with his clo­thing our selves must be clothed, that they may be beautified and gloriously adorned, Phil. 3. 9. when he excludeth all kinde of workes, he must needs understand the righteousnes of Christ.

This also is the constant doctrine of all reformed Churches, some few Divines excepted, and those noted too.

And lastly say you where he affirmes this righteousnes of Christ to be the onely object of faith, as justifying, whereas it hath beene evidently demonstrated, that is neither the proper nor lesse proper object thereof as such, and that the Scriptures no where speakes so of it.

1. To which I answer, by righteousnesse Mr. Walker [Page 137] meaneth not a part, but the whole.

2. Here may men take notice of your sincerity, cal­ling Christ and his righteousnesse the object of faith, and faith an instrument in justification, when as yet you deny Christs righteousnesse to be the proper or improper object of faith as it justifieth.

What followeth is but evill language.

I will passe that.

We come now to the fifth and last act of our Tragedy, as Sect. ult. you speake.

And pitch on that. He blameth me farther for not being P. 92. ashamed or blushing to affirme that from the times of Luther and Calvine, the fairest streame of Interpreters runne to water and refresh mine interpretation.

To this you answer, No, and you know no reason you have G. of being ashamed or blushing for standing up for the truth. And that if you should doe otherwise, concerning the judgement of ☜ the best Interpreters, since Luther and Calvines time touching the Scripture in question, then I doe, then I should be like unto you and speake what is contrary to the truth.

1. To all which, all that I will now say, is that I cannot Answ. but so much the more wonder at you.

2. For Arminius his interpretations being quite ano­ther way then yours.

And his being of the twaine nearer Mr. Walker, then Mr. Goodwine, we have seene already; let the Reader judge.

You say you have named Orthodox Authors for faith in a proper sense, and are ready to examine and scan their testimonies with any sober and dispassionate man whatsoever. Were I wor­thy to be accounted such a man, I would be for you.

Concerning Abailard, their dealing with him for incontinen­cy. You say it is well for Mr. Walker that there is not a Law of like penalty amongst us for incontinency of tongue, and feare Mr. Walkers manhood would be one of the first that should suffer.

But quis tulerit, &c. all I will say is; It is well for you, you would scarcely scape scotfree, were this book of yours [Page 138] in that respect before equall Judges. You would lose your manhood. For that man I have read that story, and else­where finde Mr. Walker was not the first that charged this errour on him. It is observed by that Lord.

This controversie a certaine man Hanc litem contra Bernar dum excitat A­bailardus quidam, multis post seculis; qui licer in postremis, non ullo tamen hic poste­rior. Morney du pless. de missa, p 13. 27. called Abailardus stirred up against Bernard many ages after, Who though he were of the last, yet here was not be­hinde any. Where he sheweth out of Bernard; The obedience Obedienria Christi utique non minus no­stra, quam pec­catum Adae. of Christ is no lesse ours, then the sinne of Adam. He is wer­thy reading. For your testimonies, Mr. Walkers answer and they must be also turned loose together, as you Print them and himselfe since, to which this containeth no answer but vaine words, p. 94.

Onely you say, except much learning or somewhat else had set him and his wits at ods, he could never have affirmed that no one Orthodox Divine either ancient or later ever understood by faith imputed for righteousnes, faith in a proper sense, but the satisfaction of Christ himselfe, and that himselfe hath done it often in this discourse.

1. For him you have not shewed it.

2. For others it had beene easie to give an instance.

3. Sibrandus was of the same opinion, who therefore challengeth Bertius twice, to shew, but one, one, I say one Velunum, unū unum, inquam locum qui hoc perspicuis ver­bis doccat. places which teacheth this in plaine words. I am so yet, I have not met with one but Mr. Wotton, &c.

For his Testimonies, you promise briefenesse, and why? Be­cause, say you, I verily beleeve the Author himselfe would have spared it, had he but rightly have understood the opinion a­gainst which he hath armed himselfe with so much fury, and what is meant by faith in a proper sense.

Confidens animi, &c. I wish the knowledge had beene still kept with you.

For Testimonies you say, because they prove that which no man questions, viz. Justification by the righteousnesse and satisfaction of Jesus Christ in a meritorious way, and doe not so much as touch or come neare the point in controversie, except it be in way of contrediction i [...] himselfe that produceth them, I [Page 139] take my leave of them at once, and wish them rest and peace.

Sir, I commend your wisdome, this is a short cut, if you can so get off. But you must not thus escape, nor your meritorious way. It is as a City of refuge when you are closely followed. You thinke your selfe safe when as you get it once over your head. It is (as you say of Metalep­ticke oyle) your surest pinhorse; in this it differeth, that is shewed the answer of learned Protestants; this is a bor­rowed shift of Popists, who use it as you against the impu­tation of Christs righteousnesse. I meete with it often con­futed by the Worthies of our side. It may be they may satisfie you, I promised it before, now I will labour to be as good as my word.

I therefore assert that it is not enough, and so neither the scope of the holy Ghost, nor writers Protestant, that Christs righteousnesse be a meritorous canse of justificati­on, but there must be also an application thereof to this effect, which is done by Gods imputation and our appli­cation of the same by faith; by which imputed by God and applied by us, it is effectuall to our justification, that whereby we are just before God.

For Christ should be in vaine given for righteousnesse, un­lesse Frustra enim in justitiam Christus datus foret, nisi fru­itio ex fide su­erit. Cal. in Rom. 3. 24. Ubi vero ad Christū ventū est primū, pri­mum in eo in­venitur exacta Legis justi [...]ia, quae per impu­tationem no­stra fit▪ Id. ad vers 31. Imo vero utcunque a Christo redempti sumus, donec tamen vocatione patris inscrimur in illius communionem & tenebrae & mortis haeredes & Dei adyersar [...]i sumus. Calv. Instit. l. 3. c. 14. Sect. 6. Me [...]ium Christi materia extra nos subjective, imputative vere nostra, saith Doctor Prideauxl De justif. p. 196. there shall be an injoyment by faith.

But when we come first to Christ, first there is found in him exact righteousnesse of the Law, which by imputation is made ours.

Yea truly, howsoever we be redeemed by Christ, yet untill by the calling of the Father we are inset into his communion, we are both darknesse and heires of death, and the adversaries of God.

The merit of Christ is the matter, out of us subjectively, imputatively truly ours.

Doctor Davenant to that part of Bell. where he laying downe the state of the question, saith.

[Page 140] The question is of the formall cause, Quaestio est de causa sormali, at vocula propter non formalem sed meritoriam desig­nat. but that word for, doth not denote the formall but meritorious cause.

Let therefore Christs obedience be the Sit itque, saith the Doctor, Christi obedi­entia causa meritoria justificationis nostrae propter quam Dous nos justificar. meritorious cause of our justification, for which God doth justifie us. What followeth now?

And truly in justification such a for­mal Atque revera in justificatione talis causa formalis ponenda est quae sunul & meritoria esse possit, nisi enim contineat illam dignita­tem in se, propter quam homo rite justifica­tus reputetur, nunquam erit causa formalis per quam justificatus existat in conspectu Dei De Just. hab. c. 22. p. 312. cause is to be put which also together may be meritorious; for unlesse it con­taine in it selfe that worth for which a man is rightly reputed justified, it will never be a formall cause by which a man shall be justified in the sight of God. And elsewhere.

Therefore one and the same righte­ousnesse Eadem igitut & unica justitia Christi, in se & suo valore considerata, est meritoria causa humanae justificationis; considerata autem quatenus imputatur, donatur, applicatur tan­quam sua singulis credentibus, & in Christum insitis, subit vicem causae formalis—Deus er­go qui non justificat nisi respectu ad abso­lutam justitiam, Christi justitiam quae sola ta­lis est, intuetur, atque cam Christi membris impurare dignatur, quo facto agit cum illis & statuir de illis ac si esses illorum, atque hoc est facere Christi justitiam causam for­malem justification is nostrae. Arg. 10. c. 28. p. 373. of Christ, considered in it selfe and its worth, is the meritorious cause of mans justification. But considered as it is imputed, given, applied as their owne to all beleevers, and inset in­to Christ, it is insteed of a formall cause—God therefore who justifieth not but with respect to absolute righte­ousnesse, beholdeth Christs righteousnes, which is only such, and is pleased to im­pute the same to Christs members; which being done, he dealeth with them, and determineth of them, as if it were their owne, and this it is to make Christs righteousnesse the formall cause of our justification. Where also take notice of his stating the question betweene us and Romanists.

The most perfect obedience of Christ Christi mediatoris in nobis inhabitantis atque per spiritum sese nobis unient is per­sectistima obedientia est formalis causa justificationis nostrae, utpore quae ex donatione Dei & applicatione fidei fit nostra. Id. p. 313. the Mediator dwelling in us and by his spirit uniting himselfe to us, is the formall cause of our justification, as that which by the gift of God and ap­plication of faith be made ours.

There is Protestant Doctrine flourishing in Cambridge in my time, the Antithesis of the Papist followeth.

[Page 141] The obedience or righteousnesse of Mediatoris obedientia five justitia non donatur five applicatur credentibus, vice aut per modum causae formalis, cujus virtute stent justificari aut Deo in aeternam vitam ac­ceptati. Id. ib. the Mediatour, is not given or applied to beleevers in the place or by way of a formall cause, by whose vertue they stand justified or accepted of God to eternall life.

I need not to make uses of these passages, they are cleere, as for other, so the present purpose.

I will take one place out of that Orthodox Doctor Tossanus.

The matter truly is the obedience of Materia quidem est obedientia Christi sive meritum ipsius—sorma est illius imputatio, & remissio peccarorum, quae sit per & prop­ter sanguinem Christi, quae imputata facir ut justitia Christi quae erat aliena nostra fiar, vere & realiter, non minus per imputatio­nem quam est Christi per actionem, quia ei insiti sumus & nobis vere donatur, & vere à Deo acceptatur. Thes. 11. p. 62. ad Rom. Christ, or his merit—the forme is the imputation thereof, and remission of sinnes; which is done by and for the bloud of Christ, which being imputed causeth that the righteousuesse of Christ which was anothers is made ours, truly and really no lesse by imputation then it is Christs by action, because we are inset to him, and it is truly given to us, and indeed accepted of God. So the Palatinate.

Come we now to that great Doctor of France, Chamier, he speaking of Papists, saith:

Therefore they beleeve not Christs Itaque justitiam Christi non credunt esse intrinsecam causam, hoc est materiam, ut nos loquimur, justificationis, sed exttinsecam duntaxat, five meritum. L. 21. c. 1. Sect. 28. righteousnesse to be aninward cause, that is the matter as we speake of ju­stification, but outward onely, or the merit. He goeth on.

Andradius ( a great stickler in the Councell of Trent taught,

That our justification in Christ, or Andradius in Christo nos justificati, sive Christum esse justitiam nostram nibil signi­ficare aliud, quam Christum veram expres­samque justitiam nobis promeruisse. Christ to be our righteousnesse, to signi­fie no other thing, then Christ to have merited true and expresse righteousnes for us. Thus he laieth downe their tenet. Now for the Protestants, thus:

But Protestants conclude—But ju­stification Catholici vero statuunt—sed justificati­onem per quam apud Deum justi sumus, esse imputationem justitiae Christi inhaerentis: quae non potuerit alio ullo modo nobis mereri vi­tam nisi sic imputaretur. by which we be just with God to be imputation of righteousnesse inbering in Christ, which shall not be [Page 142] able any other way to merit life unto us unlesse it be so im­puted.

I will transcribe another passage, and so doe two things at once, that is, speake to this and the point of be­ing sinners by Adam. For in both these you agree with Papists, the matter will be manifest by bare laying downe.

Truly we grant by the disobedience of Concedimus sane per inobedientiam Ada­mi constitui omnes vere & reipsa inherente in justitia injustos: sed alteram patrem non Adami justitia imputata hoc dicimas esse salsum. Imo contra negamus posse nos fieri injustos injustitia inhaefente per waum ho­minem, nisi hujus unius hominis injustitia nobis imputetur—quare falsum est non im­putari posteris injustiriam Adami. C. 2. Sect. 9 Adam all to be constituted truly unjust and with injustice indeed inbering. But the other part, that we are not un­just by the injustice of Adam impu­ted, we say this is false. Yea on the contrary we deny that we can be made unjust, by injustice inherent, by one man, unlesse the injustice of this one man be imputed unto us—therefore it is false that the disobe­dience of Adam is not imputed to his posterity. He goeth on.

Neither doth Pererius ( the Jesuite) Nec movet me Pererius commentans in haec ipsa Pault verba—non dixit Paulus (in­quit, quasi aliquid magnum, neque aliis ob­servatum in theologiam in veheret) inobe­dientia Adami constitutos esse peccatores ne quis putaret per inobedientiam imputatam: sed dixit per inobedientiam, videlicet per peccarum intrinsece manens in ipsis ab Ada­mi inobedientia prosectam. Similiter ergo non quod Christi obedientia constitut ju­stos quasi fiant homines non per justitiam in­haerentem sed per imputatam: sed per obedi­entiams constituti justos, quia haec causa suit meritoria. Enim vero cui se speravit persua­surum priorem illam Phrasin, justitia justos, injustitia in justos fieri non nisi formaliter (ut illi logui amant) alteram vero per justitiam, per obedientiam non nisi meritorie signifi­care?—quare nihil obslat phrasis quidem quo minus illud per justitiam unius multi constituentur justific intelligamus dictum, at justitia illa sit non tantum meritoria causa si­cut Papistae volunt, sed etiam formalis pet quam nos nunc sumus apud Deum justi, Ib. Seth. 11. 12. move me commenting on these very words of Paul—Paul said not (saith he as if he brought into Divinity some great thing, and not observed by others) us to be constituted sinners by the disobedience of Adam, lest one should thinke it by imputed disobedi­ence, but he said by disobedience, that is, by sinne remaining within them, comming from Adams disobedience. After the same manner therefore, not that Christs righteousnesse should con­stitute just, as if men were made just, not by inherent righteousnesse, but by imputed: but to be made just by obe­dience, because this was the meritori­ous cause. But whom did he hope to perswade, that first phrase to be made just by righteousnesse, injust by un­righteousnesse [...] otherwise their for­formally (as they love to speake) but the other, by righteousnesse [Page 143] and obedience, not to signifie otherwise then by way of merit?—Therefore that phrase truly nothing bindereth, but that, by the righteousnesse of one many shall be constituted righteous, we may so understand to be spoken, that, that righteousnesse may be not only the meritorious cause as the Papists would, but also the formall by which we are now just with God. And againe.

The first place out of Rom. 5. Primum locum, ex Rom. 5. Bellarminus & Becanus ita explicant ut negent obedien­tiam Christi dici formalem nostae justificati­onis nostrae causam sed efficientem: pro­bant quia opponatur justitia Christi inobe­d entiae Adami, & sicut per hanc injusti ita per illam justi dicamur constituti: arqui per inobedientiam Adami non formaliter, sed efficienter & meritorie constituimur injusti: ergo similiter per obedientiam Christi non formaliter sed efficienter & meritorie con­stituimur justi. Sed ad hoc sophisma jam disputatum est, c. 2. Bellarmine and Becanus ( both Je­suites) doe so expound, that they deny the obedience of Christ to be called the formal cause of our justification, but the efficient; they proveit the obedience of Christ is opposed to the disobedience of Adam, and as we may be said by this to be constituted injust, by that just. But by the disobedience of Adam we are constituted just not formally, Hic ergo iterum concedo & inobedien­tiam Adam, & obedientiam Christi consti­tuere nos & efficienter & meritorie injustos justosve, nam & de illa nemo nos audit ne­gantes, & de illa expresse disputavimus ipsi tomi hujus, l. 9. Sed non imputati nobis utramque constanter negamus. Imo nega­mus posse nos meritorie efficere sive inju­stos sive justos, nisi prius imputentur: nam si non imputentur nullo modo nostrae fiunt, sunt enim actus singulates & individui, ita­que proprii eorum a quibus sunt, & pro­inde personales, actus autem proprios & personales esse commines absurdum est & contradictiorium. Itaque oporter imputa­ti, nam haec communicatio non opponitur proprietari quia ratio longe est alia; Itaque ipsum Adami peccatum, ipsam illam in­quam inobedien iam necesse suit imputari poslerls ac promde etiam Christi obedien­tiam. Illam quidem quia Adamus is suit in quo esse censebatur universum genus hu­manum per narutam. Ista vero quia in Christo est universa multitudo fidelium, per [...] inde factam, ut non tan [...]um per Ad [...] peccatores facti sint omnes, sed in ipso peccasse dicantur, quod longe aliud est. Dico igitur certum esse, & ab Adam [...] realiter injustos omnes esse consti [...]utos, & à Christo omnes fideles, realiter justos, sed nego [...]d ab Apostolo considerari, qui causas potius inquitar primas, tum illius condem­na [...]ionis, tum illius justificationis. Nam & [...] considerat jam tum in Adamo, non ta­men Adamo peculiare, sed pertinens ad omne genus humanum. Ut sensus sit, jam tum cum Adamo damnatum fuisse universum genus hu­manum sive sic factum reum inobedientiae in Deum, unde etiam apud Augustinum peccatum dicitur originis paena primi peccati; quomodo autem paena esset nisi illud ipsum primum peccatum imputaretur? but efficiently and meritorioush. But to this sophisme we have already dispu­ted in the second chapter.

Here therefore againe I grant, both the disobedience of Adam and the o­bedience of Christ, to constitute us both efficiently and meritoriously just or un­just, for of that none heard us denying; and of the other we have expressely disputed in the ninth booke of this Tome; but wee constantly deny that both are not imputed unto us. Yea, we deny they can meritoriously make us either injustor just, unlesse they be first imputed, for they are no wayes made ours unlesse they be impu­ted. For they are singular and indi­viduall acts, and therefore proper to them from whom they are, and there­fore personall. But for proper and personall acts to le common it is absurd [Page 144] and contradictory. Therefore they must be imputed, for this communica­tion is not opposed to propriety, because there is a far other reason of them, there­fore it was necessary that the very sinne of Adam, I say that very same diso­bedience should be imputed to his po­sterity, and therefore also Christs obedi­ence. That truly because Adam was he, in whom humane nature in gene­rall was judged to be by nature, but the other because there is the universall multitude of beleevers in Christ by Similiter in Christo ipso universa fideli­um multitudo dicitur facta sive justificata, si­ve quod idem est ipse Christus sactus omni­bus justitia, sive omnes in Christo facti ju­stitia.—Sed quia illa ipsa Christi justitia sit nobis communicata per gratiam, tam certo, ut certo sit nostra, nec minus certo quam si ipsi praestitissemus, qui non potuimus. Bre­viter utrumque verum est, justitiam Christi esse causam efficientem sive meritoriam nostrae justitiae.—Et rursus, sive forma­lem ut Bellarminus, sive materialem ut nos maluimus, causam nostrae justificationis. Cham. de justif. c. 17. Sect. 10. 11, 12, 13. &c. p. 902. grace; whence it commeth to passe that not onely all are made sinners by A­dam, but are said to have sinned, which is farre another thing.

I say therefore it is certaine that all are from Adam constituted really unrighteous, and all the faithfull from Christ really righteous. But I deny that to be considered of the Apostle, who rather inquireth into the first causes as of that condemnation, so of that justification, for both according to judgement, he considereth it in Adam then, yet not peculiar to Adam, but appertaining to whole mankind that the sense may be, even then when Adam sinned, whole mankind to be damned or made guilty of disobedience against God, whence also in Au­gustine, originall sinne is called the punishment of the first sin. But how should it be the punishment unlesse that same first sinne should be imputed?

In like manner in Christ the whole multitude of faithfull, is said to be made or justified, or which is the same, Christ him­selfe made to all righteousnesse.—But because that same righte­ousnesse of Christ, so communicated to us by grace, so surely, that it may be surely ours, nor lesse surely then our selves had per­formed it, which we could not doe.

[Page 145] Briefely, both are true, that Christs righteousnesse is the effici­ent or meritorious cause of our righteousnesse.—And also either the formall cause, as Bellarmine, or the materiall, as we would rather, of our justification. See him againe. Sect. 22. & 23. 27. Nos ergo sic statuimus Chri­stum dici justi­tiam nostram.

For both causes, both because Christ is the efficient cause of righteousnes inhering in us, and because his satisfaction or merit is imputed unto us; we therefore thus determine Christ to be called our righteousnesse, and so as it followeth.

You see here your distinction and answer Popish, and re­futed by our learned.

Know you not (saith Doctor Whitaker to Campian the Jesuite) that our sinnes were imputed to Christ, and why may not Christs righteousnesse be imputed to us in like manner, &c. seeing you are compelled on the one side a­gainst your will, to confesse an imputation, why doe yee not also grant it in the other? especially seeing the Apo­stle Against Camp. Englished. p. 224. Armin. scripsit causam meri­toriam Christi obedientiam, &c. non obje­ctum imputati­onis, fest. Hom. p 84. himselfe propoundeth to us this Antithesis, 2 Cor. 5. 21. Therefore we are so made righteous in Christ as he was made sinne for us, which must necessarily be understood of imputation, the payment is ours, no otherwise then by imputation. Consider on what side you are, and come a­bout.

It is no marvel Arm. went before you & M. W in the same Arminius wrote Christs obedience to be the meritorious cause, &c. not the object of imputation. Let us heare himselfe.

I say faith is imputed unto us for Dico fidem nobis imputari propter Chri­stum & justitiam ejus, in qua ennunciatione fides est objectum imputationis: Christus vero et obedientia ejus, est causa justificati­onis impetratoria, sive meritoria, quia Chri­stus cum obedientia sua objectum est nostrae fidei, & non objectum justificationis seu im­putationis Divinae, quasi Deus nobis Christum ejusque justitiam imputet ad justitiam, quod fieri nequit. Armin. Epist: ad Hypol. Christs sake and his righteousnesse; in which proposition, faith is the object of imputation, but Christ and his o­bedience the obtaining Cause or meri­torious of justification, which Christ with his obedience is the object of our faith, and not the object of justifica­tion or divine imputation, as if God did impute unto us Christ and his righteousnesse, which cannot be. Let your admirers behold this, and your selfe denying your opinion to be Arminian, and they will say your o­pinion is as like as if it came out of Arminius his mouth. [Page 146] It is the same in this businesse.

You go on and say.

Onely I cannot but take notice of a very strange peece of Di­vinity wheresoever he had it—Concerning Calvine, here he teacheth that sinnes of commission are taken away by that part of Christs satisfaction imputed, which is called his Passive obedi­ence or voluntary suffering the penalty of the Law: and sinnes of commission by his Active obedience in fulfilling the righteous­nesse which the Law requires, which is the other part of Christs imputed satisfaction. This you call a Lernean Lake, of hide­ous and portentuous Divinity, things you should have censured Mr. Walker would not have received, though an Angel from Heaven should have brought them to him.

But— sua narret Vlysses.

The summe is, there are sinnes of commission and of omission, such are all defects of what was to be in man, perfect righteousnesse. Though the guilt and punishment of all be taken away by the bloud of Christ a Lambe, the defect must also be made up by the perfect obedience of Christ our Surety, he must and did doe this that we may live.

But say you, he affirmes the taking away of sinnes of omis­sion by the Active obedience of Christ onely, whereas the Scrip­ture teacheth that without bloudshedding there is no remission.

I answer, onely is your owne, none of Mr. Walkers, and though it be given to the bloud of Christ as justification is, it is by a Synecdoche, as Calvine and others use to speake; his Active righteousnesse is not excluded. It was the pre­tious bloud of Christ as a Lambe without spot. Yea, his suf­ferings even to death were his obedience.

Still you must remember that there be what is debitum in esse, to life, for which there is provided the active obe­dience of Christ; the Church is holy, unreprovable, unblame­able, wholly faire, not by taking away spots alone, but the beauty of Christ put on it.

You say he maketh the Active obedience of Christ penall and satisfactory, as if to live righteously and holy here had beene a punishment, when as himselfe saith it was his meate.

[Page 147] Sir, what if he had said so? It was no lesse to take mans nature to be made under the Law. It was the becomming poore of him that was rich, his humiliation and abasement.

Yourselfe say, it cannot be denied in all this, but that the Active obedience of Christ may in some sense and respect be cal­led satisfactory too, as concurring and falling in with its influ­ence into the bloud or death of Christ, &c.

Your reason, it was his meate, &c. is a truth of Gods whole will in his hand. It was his meate to doe; I, and to suffer; he did it willingly, which yet you confesse was pe­nall.

3. You say, the worst is, he divideth the satisfaction of Christ into parts, and utterly destroyeth and abolisheth the infi­nitenesse thereof: for what may be divided must needs be finite, and that which is the part of another cannot be infinite.

And I pray you, are they not distinguishable into Active and Passive? either they are, and differ, or are the same; and why doe you establishing the one (if you doe so) dispute against the other? is it not by both if they be inseparable and not to be divided?

Neither doth division of Christ himselfe, or doing and suffering abolish the infinitenesse of Christ. There are in him distinct two natures, three offices, body and soule, his Active obedience hath parts, and by parts were his suffe­rings made a whole. All which stand with Christs infinite nature, and the infinite value of his satisfaction.

And what doe you excluding Active obedience, which yet you confesse to be in a sense satisfaction, and give all to what is Passive?

Mr. Walker making our righteousnesse to consist in the whole righteousnesse of Christ is farther from division, lesse destructive then your practise, denying and rejecting the Active obedience as the object of faith in justifica­tion.

Your objections urged, p. 98. are trifling impertinencies, grieving your selfe, separating them, not Mr. Walker who is for the whole obedience of Christ.

Amongst them there is one passage to be taken notice [Page 148] of as a glosse corrupting the text, the text is, If righteous­nesse be by the Law, Christ died in vaine, Gal. 2. 21. Your glosse, that it is true of the Law performed by Christ as well as by men themselves, and then if the righteousnesse of the world be by the Active obedience of Christ his death must needs be in vaine.

This is but a corruption of the text. The scope is, ju­stification is not by mans personall obedience to the Law, and that if man had beene able to obey perfectly, the death of Christ had beene vaine; man not being able, but being a transgressor, Christs death is necessary, which doth not exclude his obedience to the Law for us, Christs death doth not (alone taken) make us just, as is required, and thus is it by our Surety supplied.

Your selfe say it is satisfaction in a sense, and to fall in with death, so farre righteousnesse is by the Law, Christs obedience unto the fame.

You must acknowledge Christ a fulfiller of the Law, and and an establisher of it this way, and that faith in Christ doth not make the Law of God of none effect, as the word spea­keth, and learned Expositors, of which before. And when as workes or the righteousnesse of the Law are excluded; it is not Christs, but a mans owne.

Our Church in the Homily putteth Christs death as a ransome, and yet add [...], who besides this ransome fulfilled the Law for us perfectly. It requireth on Christs part justice, that is satisfaction to Gods justice, or the price of our redemption, by the offering of his body and shedding of his bloud, with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly—So that in him our justification is not onely Gods mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the Apostle calleth the justice of God, and it con­sisteth in paying our ransome and fulfilling of the Law, and so the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our ju­stification, but onely shutteth out the justice of man, that is to say, the justice of our workes, as to be merits or deserving our justification: thus our Church in the Homily.

That which you call your last labour, p. 98. is but tri­ [...]ling, such at least is the Livery you give the learned men [Page 149] who use the figure Metalepsis. And that of wilfull men and importune spirits, and that the bare laying downe the words is enough, and that Mr. Walker hath ratified it. All these are but trifling, and so I passe them. Let us come to some­thing.

You say, concerning those testimonies in generall, I desire to propound but this one consideration, whether it be probable, &c. That so many learned interpreters through so many generations, expounding a Scripture which they conceive Tropicall, should none of them give warning, or so much as take notice of a Tro­picall expression, but deliver their minds in the same words, where­in the Trope shall lie.

Sir, I answer. First, the thing may be done by many 1. Ancient and later Divines too, and those never the wiser that neglect the search of them, out of coneipt of their owne great light.

Our learned ( exceptis before named) to a man have 2. expressed themselves for the Relative sense and faiths justifying as an instrument, and the challenge is in Print many yeares agone to Bertius bragging of testimony to name vel unum, as much, or little, as one expresse place or Doctor for the contrary. For ours there are testimo­nies enough before. Romanists themselves, as you for a pro­per sense, confesse Protestants to be for that which is Tro­picall, when as some urge difference amongst us, ours an­swer there is none. You were not borne, nor your by-way observed by those that were curious to object the same. P. 312. Doctor Davenant cleareth Luther by the Jesuite Vasques. And to that which is maine in our businesse of them of those who teach the obedience and righteousnesse of Christ imputed to be the formall cause of justification he faith,

But this is the common sentence of At haec communis est nostrorum omnium sententia, neque quod ad ipsam [...]m attiner▪ quisquam [...] nostris a [...]ter scripsit au [...] sensi [...]. Ib. all ours neither if we respect the thing it selfe, is there any one that wrote or thought otherwise. One may be confident of it in his judgement, he knew none of ours, if there were, they are without; indeed yours is but of [Page 150] yester-day amongst us. And shall we now thinke they held your proper sense? Iudeus Apella, non ego.

Whereas you persist in the contrary, Mr. Walker hath given testimonies, and many more may be given to fill bookes.

For Bucer I wonder you mention him, when as your Mr. Wotton speaking of him saith,

Whom I perswade my selfe to have Quem ego hujus de imputatione opinio­nis authorem fuisse mihi persuadeo. Part. 2. l. 1. c. 14. p. 170. beene the Author of this opinion of imputation. Where also you may reade his exposition of that Article in the Augustine con­fession, in these words, in the conference at Ratisbon, Anno 1546.

That is, because by this faith we ap­prehend Quia hae fide apprehe [...]dimus justitiam perfectam Christi, ideo Apostolus dixit cre­denti in eum qui justificat impium, fidem e­jus reputari in justitiam, fidem sc. apprehen­dentem justitiam Christi, id est, ipsam Chri­sti justitiam. the perfect righteousnesse of Christ, therefore the Apostle said, to him that beleeveth in him that justifi­eth the ungodly, his faith to be reputed to righteousnesse: faith, fors [...]oth, apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ, that is, the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe. Where Mr. Wotton is willing to use the Popish shift of a meritorious cause, if it would serve, as you before. I finde Bucer also amongst those of Sybrandus, and his writings are not now in mine hand.

For Bullinger I have read in him, Constat ergo ex his Christum implevisse [...]egem, & hunc esse perfectionem in or [...]e omnium, Dec. 3. ser. [...]. p. 177. 1. He infer­reth it from the text, Rom. 8, 4. It is certaine therefore from these, Christ to have fulfilled the Law, and him to be the perfection of all men in the world. And then:

In him there is the most perfect love In eo est dilectio Dei perfectissi [...]a & ju­stitia per omnia absolurissi [...]a, & hanc nobis imperfectissimis communicat gratis, si creda­mus; condonat enim nobis peccata factus pro nobis expiatio, & communicat nobis suam justitiam quae imputata vocatur, ex 2 Cor. 5. ult. & Rom. 4. credidit Abraham, &c. Fide enim comprehend [...]mus Christum quem credimus absolurissime pro nobis Deo satisfecisse, a [...]que Deum nobis paca­tum esse propter Christu [...], & nobis Christi justitiam gratis imputari tanquam nostram (& revera ex donatione, nostra) quia nos su­mus jam filii Dei. of God, and righteousnesse every way most absolute, and he doth freely com­municate this to us that are most im­perfect, if we beleeve; for he pardo­neth to us our sinnes, being made for us a [...] expi [...]tion, and communicateth to us his righteousnesse which is called impu [...] [...]ive, (which he proveth 2 Cor. [Page 151] 5. ult. & Rom. 4. Abraham beleeved, &c. For by faith we comprehend Christ, whom we beleeve most absolute­ly Quando nullus mortalium exacte satisfe­cit Legi per se, quomodo igitur promittitu [...] justitia, vita & salus servantibus Legem: nimirum respicit ea promissio ipsam Christi perfectam justitiam quae imputatur nobis. Ib. to have satisfied for us, and God to be at peace with us for Christ, and the righteousnesse of Christ to be free­ly imputed unto us, as our owne (and Unde jam clarum est istas Christi Domini sententias aequipollere, Qui credit in me ha­bet vitam aeternam; &, Si vis ingredi in vitam serva mandata, &c. truly our owne by his gift) because we be now the children of God.

When as no mortall man exactly Tota ergo decalogi abrogatio in illis de quibus jam ante diximus consistit, quod sc. Christus in fide est perfecta justitia nostra. p, 179. satisfied the Law for himselfe, how therefore to justice is promised life and salvation to such as observe the Law? No wonder, for that promise respecteth that perfect righteousnesse of Christ which is imputed unto us.

Whence it is now cleare those sayings of the Lord Christ to be equivalent, He that beleeveth in me hath eternall life, and, If thou▪ wilt enter into life, keepe the Commandements.

Therefore the whole abrogation of the decalogue, consisteth in those things of which we have spoken now before, that Christ in faith is our perfect righteousnesse.

And now Reader see how truly he saith of his Authors, that they exclude all other things whatsoever, without ex­ception, from this i [...]tation; and thus for this demonstra­tion, as you are pleased to call it, we shall see more after­ward.

Come we now to your second demonstration, which as farre as it will reach, say you, makes the matter greater then contradiction, that the Authors could not in their expositions and commentaries possibly take the word Faith [...] Beleeving in a figurative sense, but in a proper.

Let us see this Demonstration.

Because (say you) the word faith taken in a figurative sense for the righteousnesse of Christ, is partly manifest and open blasphemy, partly most ridiculously absurd; for example, Luther on Gal. 3. 6. Deus reputat istam imperfectam fidem, &c. for perfect righteousnesse, if by faith there we understand the righ­teousnesse of Christ, and not faith properly, he makes Luther an [Page 152] [...] [Page 153] [...] [Page 152] execrable blasphemer, for he calleth the righteousnesse of Christ imperfect righteousnesse. Illiricus a beggerly faith, &c. and there­fore.

1. I answer that Calvine and Luther take the word, faith, in this point of justification, as an instrument Relatively, figuratively, and that it justifieth as it taketh in its object Christ and his righteousnesse, and not in a proper sense, as a worke considered in and by it selfe, and that they teach the righteousnesse of Christ to be that which being imputed by God, and applied by our faith, to be that whereby we be just before God, is as evident and cleare as the Sunne in the firmament shining at noone day.

2. That the rankest enemies of Gods grace, whether Arminians or Papists; yet, never (knowing the same) were so inconsiderate to lay such a charge on them.

3. That it is an injurious kinde of dealing with Au­thors, to force them to speake against manifest expressures of themselves in their writings, a miserably poore shift, a signe that a man is neere driven in a strait, desperate, especially in writing to doe so. It were more modesty to say we understand them not, or deny their authority with reason, to say they erre, then thus as it were to snarle at them, and bite them.

4. When as we speake of faith that it is imperfect, beg­gerly, leprous, we speake of it (though an instrument) as it is in it selfe, and therefore taking it so, deny it to justi­fie as a worke, or for its worth, and say it hath need of ju­stification it selfe; and that in justice God cannot account it for the righteousnesse of the Law, we speake of it as of an hand that receiveth riches. Whether it be weake, or uncleane, or leprous, so it affordeth a strong argument a­gainst your proper sense, and a necessity that when as it is said to justifie that it should doe so in respect to the object it is imployed about, the righteousnesse of Christ which it receiveth.

And when as by a Trope the righteousnesse of Christ is signified, or taken in with faith the instrument, there is [Page 153] none that saith either that faith is the righteousnesse of Christ, or whatsoever is predicated of the instrument faith, is true of the object of it the righteousnesse of Christ. When you prove these, Christ shall be and his righteousnes as is said of faith, imperfect, leprous, &c. till then, though the faith that is imputed be so, it will not be true of the object, imperfection and leprosie is its owne. Justification properly is the effect of Christs righteousnesse, which is given to faith not as imperfect or weake, or strong, but as an hand receiving the righteousnesse of Christ, which ap­plied, justifieth.

Thus as I am able I have indeavoured to answer you, not leaving willingly as much as one passage unanswered, and now may say, what you say not withstanding or doe against Mr. Walker, or the cause, He may still have Peliade stomachum cedere nescii. The stouter a man is for the truth, I say the truth, the greater is his glory.

For a close, give me leave to the many testimonies used already, to adde some more out of some learned moderne writers, by which the Reader may see whether the pro­per sense of faith, or that which is Relative to its object the righteousnesse of Christ hath their constant patronage, and whether we be justified by faith in a proper sense, or the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ.

Luther shall lead the way. He to the Galatians hath ma­ny places. I in my reading him over have observed these, as he is in English.

I have another righteousnesse and life, which is Christ the son P. 8. 1. of God. Wherefore Christ apprehended by faith, and dwelling in the heart, is the true Christian righteousnesse, for the which P. 65. Col. 2. God counteth us righteous, and giveth us eternall life. Whoso­ever shall be found having this confidence in Christ, apprehen­ded P. 66. 1. in the heart, him God will account for righteous; this is the meane, and this is the merit, whereby we attaine remission of sins P. 66. 2. and righteousnesse. Because thou hast laid bold on Christ by faith, through whom thou art made righteous.

We are indeed justified and made righteous in Christ. P. 70. 2.

And teacheth what true Christian righteousnesse is, namely [Page 154] that righteousnesse whereby Christ liveth in us, and not that P. 82 1. which is in our person.

Now, because Christ liveth in me, the refore looke what grace righteousnesse, &c. is in me, it is his, and yet notwithstanding the same is mine also by that unspeakable union and communion P. 83. 1. which is through saith, by the which Christ and I are made one body in spirit.

For as much as Christ liveth in me, it followeth, that as I must P. 91. 1. p. 83. 2. needs be partaker of grace, righteousnesse, &c. I am now one with Christ, that is to say, Christs righteousnesse, &c. are mine.

Christ died for sinnes that he might make us righteous, there­fore when I feele my selfe a sinner, through Adams transgressi­on, P. 89. 1. why should I not say that I am made righteous through the righteousnesse of Christ.

I will account and pronounce thee as righteous. P. 112. 1.

But because I am covered under the shadow of Christs wing, Ib. as the Chicken under the wing of the Hen.

Through whom we are made perfect, sinne is pardoned for Ib. Christs sake in whom thou beleevest, who is perfectly just, whose righteousnesse is thy righteousnesse, and thy sinne is his sinne. P. 113. 1.

For all the promises past are contained in Christ to come, there­fore as well Abraham as the other Fathers, are made righteous P. 116. 2. by faith in Christ, they by faith in him to come, we by faith in him now present.

Therefore all the world is blessed, that is, receiveth imputation P. 119. 1. of righteousnesse, if it beleeve as Abraham did.

Therefore to say that the Nations are blessed, is nothing else P. 119. 1. but that righteousnesse is freely given to them, or that they are counted righteous before God.

Moreover, if the Nations be blessed, that is to say, accounted P. 119. 2. righteous before God, it followeth that they are free from sinne and death, and are made partakers of righteousnesse, &c. by faith in Christ.

Gen. 12. 9. speaketh of such a blessing as belongeth to im­putation of righteousnesse; which is available before God, and re­deemeth Ib. from the curse of sinne, now this blessing is received ☞ onely by faith, for the text saith, Abraham beleeved, &c.

[Page 155] To make us righteous before God there is a farre more ex­cellent price required, which is neither the righteousnesse of man, P. 120. 1. or the Law. Here we must have Christ to blesse us, &c. as Abra­ham bad.

Whom Abraham himselfe by faith did apprehend, and through him was blessed. So making an happy change with us, Ib. he tooke upon him our sinfull person, and gave unto us his inno­cent P. 139. 2. and victorious person, wherewith we being now clothed, are freed from the curse of the Law. He that doth so (beleeve) hath this innocency and victory of Christ, by saith onely therefore we P. 140. are made righteous, for faith laieth hold on this innocency and victory of Christ.

The Law threatneth unto thee death, &c. but be not afraid, P. 160. 2. fly not away, but stand fast, I supply and performe all things for thee, I satisfie the Law for thee.

Therefore there must come a farre other Mediator then Mo­ses, P. 161. 1. which may satisfie the Law.

The putting on of Christ, consisteth in putting on Christs in­nocency, P. 175. 1. his righteousnesse, his wisdome, &c.

But Christ himselfe is our garment, &c. to be apparelled with Christ is not, &c. but with an incomparable gift, that is to say, Ib. with remission of sinnes, righteousnesse, peace,—and Christ himselfe.

But you are clothed with a new garment, to wit, with the righteousnsse of Christ, now when we are apparelled with Christ P. 176. 1. as with the rohe of our righteousnesse, and salvation, &c.

For as much as Christ pleaseth God, and we are in him, we P. 188. 2. also please God and are holy.

In him doe I beleeve, if I be a sinner and erre, be is righ­teous P. 189. 1. and cannot [...]rre. He with all that is in him is made P. 145. 1. unto me of God righteousnesse.

Faith Gods gift and worke in our hearts, which therefore P. 47. 1. justifieth us, because it apprehendeth Christ our Redeemers

We say faith apprehendeth Christ, which is the forme, which P. 65. 1. ☜ adorneth and furnisheth faith, [...]s the colour the wall. P. 66. 1.

Very forme and perfection of faith.

Faith therefore justifieth, because it apprehendeth and posses­seth P. 65. 1. this measure, even Christ present.

[Page 156] To him that beleeveth, sinne is pordoned, and righteousnesse P. 67. 2. imputed.

Calvine.

God to be without Christ alwayes angry with us, that we In Rom. 3. 24. are reconciled by him whilest we are accepted in his righteousnesse, &c.

By faith we come to the possession of that benefit. Ib.

But by naming bloud alone he would not exclude other parts of redemption. But rather under one part to comprehend the whole summe.—So by a Synecdoche the whole expiation is Ib. named.

For Christ should be in vaine given to us for righteousnesse, unlesse there shall be fruition by faith. Ib.

When we come to Christ, first in him there is found the exact Ad vers. 31. righteousnesse of the Law, which by imputation is made ours. ☞

Neither doe we otherwise attaine righteousnesse, but because, as it is brought unto us in the promise of the Gospel, so we see the In Rom. 4. 3. possession of it as it were by faith.

From whence we gather that it is not disputed what manner of men, men are in themselves, but in what place God accounteth them, not that—but because when the cause is sought why God Ib. loveth us, and acknowledgeth us as just, there is a necessity that Christ should come forth who may clothe us with his righte­ousnesse.

For (that a man may be justified) there is required perfect and numeris suis omnibus, 1. every way consummated obedi­ence as the promise of the Law soundeth, Lev. 18. 5. Those that are already apparelled with the righteousnesse of Christ, they not onely have God favourable to them, but to their workes, whose spots and wrinkles are covered by the holinesse of Christ, that they Ad. v. 6. 7. 8. come not to account, if so the righteousnesse of faith be the onely cause why workes are accounted just.—

But by Christs righteousnesse we are another way restored to sal­vation, neither is it therefore accounted to us, because it is within Ad Rom. 5. 17 & 19. vers. us: but because we possesse Christ himselfe with all his goods, given to us by his Fathers bounty, the free gift of righteousnes signifieth imputation.

But indeed that we may come to the participation of the [Page 157] grace of Christ, it behoveth that we be inset into him by faith. Ad vers. 17.

That thou mayest injoy Christs righteousnesse, it is necessary Ib. that thou be a beleever, because by faith we attaine fellowship with him.

But it behoveth us to be just if we be accepted to him. Ad vers. 18.

When he pronounceth us to be constituted just by the obedience of Christ, hence we gather, Christ in that he satisfied his Fa­ther, to have attained righteousnesse for us; whence it followeth, that the quality of righteousnesse is in Christ, but that which is proper to him to be accounted to us. He 'interpreteth also what is the righteousnesse of Christ, when he calleth it obedience. Where I beseech you let us observe what we must bring into the sight of God if we would be justified by workes: forsooth the righteous­nesse Ad vers. 19. of the Law—every way absolute.

You see therefore us to be altogether excluded from the righte­ousnesse of workes, and therefore that we fly to the righteousnesse Ad Rom. 8. 3. of Christ, because there can be none in us.

Which is especially necessary to be knowne, because we be never clothed with the righteousnesse of Christ unlesse we first surely know.—

Now he sheweth the manner whereby the heavenly Father re­storeth to us righteousnesse by his sonne.—

There is no doubt his righteousnesse to be called; which is his Adc. 10. 3. gift.

But we have elsewhere said, how men put on his righteousnes by faith; forsooth because Christs righteousnesse is imputed to them.

But after he cast all under guilt, he substituted a new righ­teousnesse in Christ.—Which being given freely, is accepted by faith.

He excellently taketh away this scruple, when as from the very In vers. 5. Doctrine of the Law he establisheth the righteousnesse of faith.

The place is out of Lev. 18. 5. where the Lord promiseth eter­nall life to those who shall keep his Law.

And so by their owne defect constrained they might learne to Ib. fly to Christ, 1 Cor. 130. be was made—whereby he un­derstandeth us in his name to be accepted of God, because by his In 1 Cor. [...]. 30. death he hath expiated our sinnes, and his righteousnesse should [Page 158] be imputed to us. For when as the righteousnesse of faith consisteth in remission of sins and free acceptation, we obtaine both by him.

Now he more plainely teacheth what we before touched, that then God is favourable to us when as he acknowledgeth us for just, for those two are all one, that we are accepted of God, and that we are reputed just. Righteousnesse here is taken for accep­tation, because Christs righteousnesse is accounted to us.

How are we just before God? forsooth, as Christ was a sin­ner, for after a manner he tooke upon him our person, that he might be made guilty in our name, and might be judged as a sin­ner, not with his owne, but others faults, when as himselfe should be pure, and free from all fault, and should under-goe the pu­nishment not due to himselfe but us. So forsooth are we just in him, Ad 2 Cor. 5. ult. not because by our owne workes we may satisfie the judgement of God, but because we are decounted the righteousnesse of God, which we put on by faith that it may be ours.

When as he saith, that be beleeved was imputed to him for Ad Gal. 3. 6. righteousnesse, he therein signifieth him to be just who is accoun­ted such with God, but when as men have net righteousnesse laid up in themselves, they attaine it by imputation, because God ac­counteth it to them for righteousnesse; therefore we are said to be justified by faith, not because he transfuseth the habit or quality of faith into us, but because we are accepted of God. But why is so great honour given unto it that it should be called the cause of our righteousnesse?

1. We must know it to be onely the instrumentall cause, for ☞ speaking properly it is nothing else but Gods gracious acceptation, in which our salvation is laid. But because the Lord in giving unto us a testimony of his love and favour by the Gospel, com­municateth unto us that righteousnesse which I called it, therefore we receive the same by faith.

Therefore, when as we give to faith mans justification, we dispute not of the principall cause, onely we observe the manner whereby men come unto true righteousnesse, this righteousnesse is a meere gift of God.—but it is possessed onely by faith.

Therefore all those phrases of speech are as one, that we are justified by grace, Christ to be our righteousnesse, Gods mercy to be the cause of our righteousnesse, righteousnesse to be attained for [Page 159] us by the death and resurrection of Christe-Righteousnesse to be bestowed on us by the Gospel, that w [...] by faith obraine righte­ousnesse.

We have put you in minde, that those that are just by faith, that they are just out of themselves in Christ, not because we have praise of honesty among men, are we accounted just before God—but when we bring to him the perfect obedience of the ☜ Law—because we have it not in our selves, God giveth it us freely.

I passe what Mr. Walker hath gathered out of these and other Authors, and Printed, and many testimonies of o­thers, which I truly have by me already gathered, which needed but transcription. I will content my selfe with the testimonies of some few your selfe name, and but a few, that the world may see what faith is due to you in citing Authors. I confesse I have not all their writings by me, either to examine your testimonies, or bring them for my selfe, so farre as I have will give a sufficient taste to the Reader.

For Bucer I referre me to what was observed before.

And so for Bullinger, and the Reader may turne to Mr. Walker.

Luther on that very text you cite, hath these passages. Gal. 3. 6.

Because I am covered under the shadow of Christs wings.

Flying to Christ our Mediator and Reconciler, through whom we are made perfect; Through him we have all things who one­ly▪ doth supply whatsoever is wanting in us. For Jesus Christs sake in whom we doe beleeve.

It is forgiven thee for Christs sake who is perfectly just, whose righteousnesse is thy righteousnesse, and thy sinne is his sinne.

Christ which was given for us, whom we apprehend, that causeth that God doth account that faith though it be imperfect for perfect righteousnesse.

This object I bring sent from the Father pleased you, and because you have apprehended and imbraced this object, there­fore ye please him.

Nothing commeth betweene (me a sinner and Christs love) but [Page 161] Christ the Mediator.—Imputation of righteousnesse is also ne­cessary, sinnes doe remaine in us which God doth utterly hate, therefore it is necessary that we should have imputation of righte­ousnesse, which we obtaine through Christ, and for his sake who is given unto us, and received of us by faith.

The reconciler (whence sinne is no sinne, damnable and not) is the Mediator betweene God and man, even the man Jesus Christ, Rom. 8. 1.

Judge now whether he excluded the object or no, whe­ther he taketh it not in as what is apprehended and appli­ed by faith.

Peter Martyr hath these words.

But also faith it selfe, if it be con­sidered Quin etiam fides ipsa, si qua nostrum opus est consideretur, ea justificari non possumus, cum opus sit & mancum & imperfectum, lon­ge deterius quam requitit. Sed illa justifica­ri dicimur qua promissiones Dei, & Christi justitiam meritaque per ipsam apprehendi­mus & nobis applicamus. Loc. Com. de justif. Sect. 8. as our worke, we cannot be ju­stified with it, seeing it is a worke both lame and imperfect, much worse then (God) requireth; but we are said to be justified with it, as by it we apprehend the promises▪ of God, and the righteous­nesse of Christ and his merits, and applie them to our selves.

Suppose to thy selfe the most filthy Fingas tibi mendici hominis foedissimam & leprosam manum, qua capiat eleemosynam ab offerente: certe mendicus ille à foeditate s [...] lepra manus haud quaquam juvatur, sed eleemosynam qualicunquc accipit. Sect. 8. and leprous hand of some begger, with which he may receive an almes from him that offereth it; surely that begger is not helped from the filthinesse or le­prosie of his hand, but by whatsoever hand it doth receive. Ib.

He that hath Christ in himselfe, he Qui in s [...]ipso Christum habet, is omnino justitiam habet, de illo enim Paulus scribit ad Cor. 1. c. 1. qui factus est nobis sapientia, justitia, &c. Sect. 52. hath righteousnes altogether, for of him Paul writeth ad Cor. 1. 1. who was made to us wisdome, righteousnes, &c.

Here he calleth that righteousnesse Hic (Phil. 3. 9.) cam justitiam quae es [...] ex operibus & ex Lege appellat suam: eam vero quae est ex fide quamquam maxime optat appellat justitiam Jesu Christi. Sect. 52. which is of workes and the Law, his; but that which is of faith, and which he most wisheth, he calleth it the righte­ousnesse of Jesus Christ.

Abraham beleeved, &c. But what did he beleeve? forsooth Credidit Abra­ham, &c. At ille quid credidit? hoc sc. semen sibi dandum esse, unicum, viz. illud, ut Pau­lus interpretatur, in quo omnes nationes essent benedicendi, quod est Christus Jesus, Gen. 15. 6. Gal. 3. 16. Sect. 23. [Page 161] this onely seede to be given unto him, that is, as Paul interpreteth, in which all Nations were to be blessed, which is Christ, Gen. 15. 6. Gal. 3. 16. Pareus.

What did Abraham beleeve? to Quid credidit Abraham? nempe, concionem illam consolatoriam de Dei gratia singulari—de semine nascituro ex Sara—Apostolus e­nim promissum semen expresse dicit esse Christum. Nec dubitari porest, seminis pro­missionem, cui credidisse Abraham dicitur, cohaerere cum promissionibus antegressis & subsecutis de semine & benedictione omni­um gentium per illud. In locum. wit, Gods consolatory Sermon of Gods singular grace—of seed to be borne of Sarah— for the Apostle calleth the promised seed, expressely Christ. Neither can it be doubted the promised seede which Abraham beleeved to agree with foregoing and following pro­mises of seede and blessing of all Nations by it: and then A­brahams faith was a generall faith or Catholique (as Sophisters call it) assenting to every word of God, But also speciall resting See Pareus in cap. 4. dub. 3. Justitia ergo fi­dei imputata est, &c. p. 310. & ib. At Abra­ham sola fide &c. on the promise given of seed, which is Christ. So Ambrose, Abraham beleeved God: What did he beleeve? that he was to have seed, that is, a Sonne, in whom all Nations should be ju­stified. Therefore Abrahams was founded in Christ. The A­postle will more clearely declare this faith about the end of the chapter expressely teaching; Justifying faith ought to be fastned in the death and resurrection of Christ. Pareus, p. 268.

And in the former page, Now on Nunc contra probat Abrahamum justifi­catum esse fide, hoc est, justitia gratis impu­tata credenti, idque diserto Scripturae testi­monio. the contrary, he proveth Abraham to be justified by faith, that is, with righteousnesse freely imputed to the be­leever.

And there having denied faith as a vertue to justifie, though it be most excellent, &c. Abraham is proposed not as working—but as by faith freely receiving righteousnesse, p. 270.

Againe, When faith is said to be imputed for righteousnesse it is not to be understood but Relatively, because righteousnesse shall be freely imputed to the beleever, or because the beleever of Sed Meronimi­co sensu dixit fidem, id est, Christum fide apprehensum, essenostram justitiam. grace shal [...] be reputed just.

I will name but one place more now of Pareus, he is often before cited, who when in answering Bellarmine, he had said of Luther but in a metonymicke sense he said faith, that is, Christ apprehended by faith, to be our righteousnesse.—Addeth.

[Page 162] Which figurative sense called Me­tonymia, Quem sensum metony micum si oppugnat Adversarius, certe non Lutherum impugnat sed Spirium sanctum blasphcmar, qui Chri­stum expresse vocat justitiam nostram, Jer. 23 6. & 1 Cor. 1. 30. Casting. 1. 2. c. 4 p. 418 419. if the Adversary opposeth, surely he opposeth not Luther, but blasphemeth the holy Ghost, who calleth Christ expressely our righteousnesse, as Jer. 23. 6. & 1 Cor. 1. 30.

Calvine followeth, in both places mentioneth the ob­ject. Abraham by beleeving doth no other thing then imbrace the grace tendered to him, by which he meaneth the promises; Christ that seed especially and his righteousnesse, and that is in­folded in the goodnesse of God which it is said to apprehend.

And on the same place. But by faith they borrow from else­where Fide autem quod sibi deest aliunde mutu­antut, ideoque apte vocatur imputativa fi­dei justiria. Resertur illic promissio se­min is suturi. Ubi causa quae­titur cur—pro justis agnoscat, Christum pro. dire necesse est, qui sua nos ju­stitia induat. Aliena justitia nos fides ornat quam à Deo mendicat. And on Gat. 3. 6. Fides hic rela­tionem habet ac respectii ad tale. verbum Dei, quo sreti homines acquie scere in ipso possint. Quum autem justitiam in se repositam non habeant homines, imputatione hanc adipiscuntur. Primo sciendū est esse causam duntaxat instru­menta [...]em, nam proprie loquendo justitia nostra nihil alind est quam gratuita Dei acce­ptio in [...]qua fundate est nostra salus. Sed quia Dominus testimonium nobis amoris sui & gratiae per Evangelium reddendo, illam quam dixi justitiam nobis communicat, ideo side illam percipimus. what is wanting to them, and therefore it is openly called imputed righteousnesse by faith.

Thither is to be referred the promise of future seed.

Where the cause is sought. Why—he acknowledgeth us for righteous, it is necessary that Christ come forth, who clotheth us with his righteousnesse.

Faith adorneth us with anothers righteousnesse, which it beg­geth of God.

Faith here hath relation and respect to such a word of God, which men beleeving can rest in it. What the promises are be sheweth towards the end of his Commandement on that place, as Pareus and Martir before.

Which righteousnesse seeing men have not placed in themselves, they obtaine it by imputation.

To that question, why is so great honour given to faith, that it is called the cause of our righteousnesse? he an­swereth.

First, we must know it is onely the instrumentall cause, for to speake properly, our righteousnesse is no other then Gods free ac­ceptation, in which our safety is founded.

But because the Lord in giving us a testimony of his love and [Page 163] favour by the Gospel, doth communicate to us that righteousnesse I called, therefore we receive it by faith.

Therefore when we give mans ju­stification Ergo cum fidei tribuimus hominis justifi­cationem, non de causa principali dispura­mus, sed tantum notamus modum quo per­veniunt homines ad vetam justitiam: justitia enim haee est meram Dei dotum, non quali­tas quae in hominibus haereat, sed fide tantum possidetur, &c. to faith, we dispute not of the principall cause, onely we observe the manner by which men come to true righteousnesse: For this righteousnesse is Gods meere gift, not a quality which may inhere in men, but is possessed onely by faith.

We have therefore called to mind those Meminetimus ergo qui side justi sunt, eos extra se justos esse, nempe in Christo. that are just by faith, are just out of themselves, forseoth in Christ.

We are justified before God, Quam afferimus persectam Logis obedien­tiam, nam justitia transgressioni Legis etiam in minimo apice opponitur, eam quia non habemus in nobis, Deus nobis gratuito donat. when we bring the perfect righteousnes of the Law, for righteousnesse is oppo­sed to the transgression of the Law, even in the least point, because we have it not our selves, God giveth it to us freely.

Abraham therefore is not justi­fied— Non ergo justificatus est Abraham—sed quia Die gratiamamplexus est fretus Medi­atore promisso in quo omnes Dei promissio­nes sunt Etiam & Amen. but because be imbraced the grace of God trusting in the promised Mediatour in whom all Gods promises are Yea and Amen

Let the Reader observe but these passages on the same place, and he may observe the vaine considence of this objector of Calvine, for his proper sense of faith, and oppo­sition of the common tenet.

To Gualter, M. Wr. rightly willeth the Reader to see how hardly we are put to it, when as you cite the bare words themselves to prove your interpretation: for Aretius (for I have not to examine by either Musculus or Gualter, or Il­lyricus, &c.) Shal in the next place be considered.

The instrumentall cause is faith of Organica causa est sides Jesu Christi, haee est, justitia illa Dei imputativa applicatur nobis per sidem in Christum. In Rom. 3. 22. Jesus Christ, that is, that imputed righteousnesse of God is applied to us by faith in Christ.

It is called the instruments of jusii­fication, Organum justifieation is dicitur quod ju­stitia Dei nobis applicetur per sideth. because the righteousnesse of God is applied to us by faith.

[Page 164] Because seeing it is of God, and in Quia cum Dei sit, & in Deo proprie no­bis tamen imputatur & applicatur, adeo ut cum rei mortis simus, Deus nos absolvat à paena & justos pronuntiet imputata nobis sua justitia; hinc imputata justitia dici potest & gratuita. In Rom. 1. 17. God properly, yet it is imputed and applied to us, so as when we be guilty of death, God absolveth us from pu­nishment, and may pronounce us just, his right cousnesse imputed unto us, hence may it be called imputed and free.

With which he maketh us just, this Qua nos justos facit haec imputativa est, nam aliena justitia impurarur in justis per se, de hac loquitur in paesentia &c 1. vers. 17. e cap. 3. Rom. v. 21. is imputative, for anothers righteous­nesse is imputed to men unjust by themselves, of this he speaketh in the present place.

Consider (in justification) the sinne Considera non imputari peccatum quod inest homini, sic contra in justificatione im­puta [...]i justitiam quae non inest homini. In. c. 4 v. 6. which is in a man not to be imputed, so contrary in justification, that righte­ousnesse to be imputed which is not in man.

Faith therefore so holy and so firme Fides igitur tam pia & tam firma pro ju­stitia ci imputata est, quia haec apprehendit misericordiam & propositam promissionem, hinc justitia ei etiam impuratur. Adv. 22. is imputed to him for righteousnesse, be­cause this apprehendeth the mercy and proposed promise, hence righteousnesse is imputed to him.

Christ is made to us of God righte­ousnesse, Justitia a Deo nobis factus est, quia in eo solo justi habemur, reputamur illius merito justi. Ad 1 Cor. 1. 30. because in him alone we are accounted just, we are reputed just with his merit.

That we might be made the righte­ousnesse Ut nos efficeremur justitia Dei, hoc est, justi pronunciatemur, imputativa justitia taoquam ves [...]e ornaremur: dicitur autem ju­stria Dei quia nostra non est sed precario, &c. Ad 2 Cor. 5. uls. of God, that is, might be pro­nounced just, and be adorned with im­puted righteousnesse as with a garment. It is called the righteousnesse of God because it is not ours but freely.

In him he signifieth that out of In ipso significat extra Christum nullam esse justitiam qua nos possimus ornat [...], & quae valeat in conspectum Dei. lb. Christ there is no righteousnesse with which we can array our selves, and which availeth in the sight of God.

That he might perfectly fulfill the Ut perfecte Legem impleret quod nobis impossibile erat, deinde paenas, &c. In Gal. 4. 4 Law which was impossible to us, &c.

[Page 165]Thus for Aretius, who no whit digresseth from the for­mer.

Beza. And not rather an instru­ment Aut quasi sides sit illud quod nos justifi­car, ac non potins inst umentum duntaxat & quidom gratis nobis da [...]um, quo tanquam manu quapiam Chris [...]um iustitiam nostram apprehendimus. In c. 4 ad Rom. 2. onely and freely given us, with which, is an hand, we apprehend Christ our righteousnesse.

To righteousnesse, in those words there is a figure called Hypal­lage.

For properly God is said to impute Nam propric dicitur Deus imputare justi­tiam per sidem, ut mox, vers 6. & 11. quid autem sit, supra ad 1. vers. 17. & 3. 20. righteousnesse by faith, as by and by in the 6. & 11. v. what that righteous­nesse is, is opened before on c. 1. vers. 17. and c. 3. vers. 20.

For Junius, the man might be thought either blind, or un sound in his principles that will but mention him.

By the promises which Abraham by saith imbraced, in­clude that of Christ our seed.

Faith in the predicament of relation Fides in genere [...], non justitia cat in quantum habirus—sed ratione diffe­rentiae relativae quae gratuitam justitiae & vi­tae aeternae promissionom fiducialiter ample­ctitur. Jun. Tles. de justif. Sect. 11. justifieth not as an habit—but by reason of its relative difference, which considently imbraceth the gratious pro­mise of righteousnesse and eternall life.

But relatively onely as it apprehen­deth Sed relative tantum quatenus meritum Christi apprehendit, tanquam manus men­dici eleemosynam. Sect. 16. deth the merit of Christ, as the band of the begger doth the almes.

The occasion therefore was this, that Occasio igitur haec fui [...], quod Abraham side simplicistima acqureverit simplicibus illis Dei promissionibus, justitiamque Dei eadem prehenderet prour a Deo non operantibus ad morcedem, sed credentibus ad justitiam & vitam imputa [...]u [...] quemadmodum Apostolus optime interpretatur. In Gen. 15. Abraham with a most simple faith did sit downe in those most simple pro­mises of God, and laid hold of the same righteousnesse of God by the same faith, as it is imputed not to workers to a reward, but beleevers to righteousnesse and life, as the Apostle doth best of all interpret.

To conclude, that we may expound Donique ur Metonymiam hanc quam evi­dentissimo possimus simili exponamus, si­des est tanquam manus aut tanquam lo cu­lus apprehendens the sautum gratiae quem nobis Deus exhibet in Christo Jesu. In Hch. c. 11. 1. this Metonymy by as evident a simily as we can. Faith is as an hand, or as a purse apprehending the treasure of grace which God in Jesus Christ exhibiteth to us.

[Page 166]Doctor Abbot is added in his defence of Mr. Perkins. I be­leeve the words are there, though I cannot finde them, and have foure times inquired, and spent more time then will make an answer. Where we have first, righteousnesse imputed without workes; secondly, what that is by your relation, the reputing of faith for righteousnesse, for that thereby we obtaine remission and forgivenesse of sinnes.

And you conclude, he that will undertake to divide this Author and the opinion we contend for, must be more severe then to give a man leave to be of his owne minde.

I finde the words otherwise cited in your Master Mr. Watton, and will say nothing to them, untill I finde them, but suspend.

But this I am confident of, that the Author no more favoureth your opinion, then any of those that are called your adversaries in this question; and who ever shall read his whole chapter, and consider whom he defendeth, and what against Bishop, shall see our arguments for the imputa­tion of Christs righteousnesse which you oppose proposed by Mr. Perkins, opposed in many things by Doctor Bishop the Papist, and made good against him by Dr. Abbot, who doth it as a sonne of the Church of England indeed. What he undertakes you may see, p. 381.

That our justification and righteousnesse before God standeth not in any inward vertues, &c. but in the imputation of Christs obedience and righteousnesse made ours by faith, shall be proved P. 381. P. 383. to him, God willing, by better arguments then be shall be able to disprove.

In that place, for this by the way he nameth, 1 Cor. 1. 30. But the Gospel teacheth us to acknowledge Christ immediat­ly and wholly our righteousnesse and salvation, in whom, and not in our se'ves, we are made the righteousnesse of God, that is, just in the sight of God, in that his obedience and righteousnesse ☞ performed and wrought in our name, and for our behoofe, is im­puted P. 384. unto us by faith in his bloud.

1. Mr. Perkins argument is, That which must be our righ­teousnesse before God, must satisfie the justice of the Law, which saith, Doe these things and thou shalt live.

[Page 167] But there is nothing that can satisfie that justice of the Law P. 387. but the righteousnesse and obedience of Christ. Ergo.

This argument the Doctor defendeth.

He sheweth this Scripture meant of the Morall-Law. P. 389.

Now Mr. Perkins to take away the opinion of our owne righ­teousnesse, and to shew that we have no other but the righteousnesse of Christ to rest safely upon, alleadgeth as Gregory doth, the rigour and severity of Gods judgement which admitteth of no­thing but what is exact and perfect, according to the rule of ju­stice P. 396. prescribed to us.

2. His second argument is taken out of 2 Cor. 5. ult. As Christ was made sinne for us, so we are made the righteousnesse of God in him. But Christ was made sinne by the imputation of P. 399. our sinnes being most boly. Therefore a sinner is made righteous, in that Christs righteousnesse is imputed unto him.

Which are made good out of Anselme, Augustine, and Hierome.

Where you shall finde a comparison made good against you.

And, that answered that he was made sinne not by imputation, P. 401. &c. but a Sacrifice. Where he demandeth why the Sacrifice of sinne should be called by the name of sinne. See him who is large in spea­king thereunto, out of the Trope and Fathers. There I finde Christ needed not for himselfe to be made under the Law, for to performe the righteousnesse thereof for his owne justification before God, being otherwise simply and absolutely just. But what he did he did it for our sakes, that we thereby through faith in P. 402. 403. him should be justified in Gods sight.

It followeth that the righteousnesse of God must be understood of another righteousnesse, which is that whereof the Apostle in­structeth Rom. 4. 6. 1b. us, whereby the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes, according to the words of David, &c.

Hitherto the Argument standeth good. As Christ was made sinne, so we are made righteousnesse; Christ was made sinne by the imputation of our sinne, we are therefore made righteous P. 404. by the imputation of his righteousnesse.

Mr. Perkins his third Argument, is from Rom. 5. 19. As by the disobedience of Adam, men were made sinners, so [Page 168] by the obedience of Christ are they made righteous. But men are made sinners by the imputation of Adams sinne unto them, and P. 404. not onely by propagation of naturall corruption: Therefore by im­putation of Christs justice we are made righteous.

The case is very cleare, that if we be sinners by the imputa­tion of Adams sinne, then are we also righteous by the imputa­tion P. 405. of the righteousnesse of Christ.

Where he defendeth the imputation af Adams sinne, which he proveth against Bishop, (and Bellarmine himselfe somewhere, and you) out of Bellarmine citing Bernard for it, &c. and Augustine, p. 406. and Bernard, p. 407. and Chry­sostome.

Now I pray thee Reader doe but judge whether this Doctor be of Mr. John Goodwines side, the opinion he con­tendeth for or against him, and never credit his testimony but on examination.

Doctor Preston maketh himselfe a stranger to the Tropicall interpretation of this Scripture, and improveth that which is li­terall and proper, Treat. Allsuff. p. 12. & 13. In this sense faith is said to be imputed for righteousnesse. Abra. beleeved God Gen. 15. God indeed made the same proposition that he doth here for substance, he tels him what he would doe for him. And (saith the text) Abraham beleeved God, &c. Now it was accounted to him for righteousnesse, chiefely in this sense, as it is interpreted, Rom. 4. that this very taking of the promise, and his accepting of the Covenant, in that he did receive that which God gave, that put him within the Covenant, and therefore the Lord reckoned him a righteous man, even for that very acceptation and beleeving.

But that is not all, but likewise he accounteth faith to him for righteousnesse, because faith doth sanctifie and make a man righ­teous, &c. And then cry out evidence.

1. Doth the Doctor in all this discourse mention your proper sense?

2. Doth he establish it with an, and not the righteous­nesse of Christ imputed?

3. Doth he not insold the object? He tels him what he would doe for him. So that all that he would doe for him was what he beleeved, on which imputation.

[Page 169]Your selfe adde. This very taking of the promise, and his accepting of the Covenant, and that he did receive that which God gave, was that wherefore the Lord reckoned him a righteous man.

Is not here receiving the object, the promise, the covenant, and what God gave.

Is not Christ and his righteousnesse in all these, the seede, and righteousnesse of God? If it be by receiving these, he was accounted just, these must not be excluded, this testimony is not against us, but for, and against you, who exclude these.

I will intreat the Reader to consider some of his parti­culars in the same worke.

The Covenant is the ministration of life and justification— New con. p. 75. the Covenant of grace shewes him a righteousnesse to satisfie this Law, that himselfe never wrought; shewes him a way of obtai­ning pardon by the satisfaction of another.

Abraham saith the Lord, I will give thee a seed, and in P. 108. that seed both thou thy selfe, and all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed.

There was no other way to make mankind partaker of the Covenant of grace but onely by faith, by beleeving God, and ta­king P. 118. & 119. the promise and the gift of righteousnesse by Jesus Christ. P. 120.

Because we beleeve the promises and the Covenant of grace, therefore the Lord accepts us and counts us righteous.

I would die that I might have Christ and his righteousnesse. P. 170.

What difference is there now betweene him and the rest of ours, who make the same things objects, and taken in to make us just?

As that of Christ the seed, &c.

And though righteousnesse be not named there, it is in­folded, and explained by the Prophets who reveale Christ in the Covenant, the Lord our righteousnesse, and that with him was to be brought in everlasting righteousnes. And it was granted when the Apostle laieth downe cir­cumcision the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith: faith receiveth righteousnesse which God promised, being the Seale of the whole Covenant there is infolded the [Page 170] seed, Christs, and Christs righteousnesse.

Mr. Forbs is the last, to which testimony I answer.

1. In the same place he saith. That opinion of the Me­tonymicke sense of faith, agreeth with the truth of the matter in it selfe.

2. When he saith that it is taken properly, yet it is with cautions. If they that take it so, erre not in the significa­tion of it, or the true sense of the imputation of it.

3. And now let us consider what he doth farther. C. 31. p. 161.

He teacheth Christs righteousnesse the onely matter of justi­fication.

And the Lords imputing thereof the forme. That opinion (of Gods accepting our imperfect righteousnesse) can never be main­tained P. 163. with Gods honour.

That God justifieth us by accounting unto us Christs obedi­ence, which is in it selfe perfect righteousnesse, in such a sort as by this his imputation, it is ours as truly, and doth as truly cleare P. 164. us before God as if it were our owne indeed, and we our selves had indeed performed it.

We must first have righteousnesse, for God justifieth no man P. 169. that hath not righteousnesse. It is abomination, Prov. 17. 15.

That opinion of those who place our righteousnesse in faith, properly taken, as it is the act of the heart without relation of it as an apprehending instrument unto Christ, is much more perni­tious ☞ then the opinion of the Papists. P. 80.

Nothing in Heaven or Earth in man or without man, is the matter of mans righteousnesse before God, except onely Christ and his obedience. Therefore it is said by the Apostle that he is made to us of God, &c. 1. Cor. 1. 30. and in the Prophet, Jer. 23. 6. P. 85. P. 90. and 33. 16. where also he urgeth that text, 2 Cor. 5. ult. and cleareth it, and Dan. 9. 24.

He urgeth Gods justice in justifying, and that if God should justifie us—by faith, as it is a worke or habit in us, God should never be seene to be just, &c. the Saints in Scripture have ac­knowledged their faith imperfect, whence he concludeth nothing P. 98. can be righteousnesse except Christ alone.

And now let the learned judge of those passages: The cleare approbation of many Authors. The judgement of able, lear­ned, P. 1. trea. [Page 171] and unpartiall men is found in perfect concurrence with it: And that

From about Luthers and Calvines time, the fairest streame of P. 44. Interpreters runnes to water and refresh this interpretation.

And so whether you have cause of shame and blushing for the same, and whether Mr. Walker had not cause of blaming you for not being ashamed and blushing: I say let the Reader judge.

Musculus is cleare for us, as by these testimonies tran­scribed.

Est quidem sides vera quaedam qualitas in pectoribus nostris, sed non justifications quatenus est nova qualitas, sed quatenus gratiam Dei in Christo oblatam apprehendit, In Rom. 3. 24. &c.

Quomodo illa in nobis impleta est per Christum, pri­mum imputative, aliena justitia, quae Christi est, adeoque & nostra, quia caro sumus de carne ejus & os de ossibus illi­us: hac ratione vere justi sumus, quia scilicet Christus no­stra est justitia, sanctificatio, redemptio, 1 Cor. 1. ad Rom. c. 8. vers. 3. &c.

Huc etiam facit quod justitiam fidei vocat justitiam Dei, non ob hoc tantum, quod illa Deo tribuit justitiam, sed & ob id quod nos per illius justitiam gratis in Christo fi­lio ipsius justificamur per fidem, ita ut aliena justitia justi simus, non propria. Maxima pestis est totius mundi, quod hanc Dei justitiam talem esse non agnoscit, per quam nos justificemur, sed putat nostra ipsorum nos esse justitia sal­vandos; electi vero non ita, unde quid Apostolus scribat, Ar­bitror, inquit, omnia &c—Ex eo vero non ascribemus no­bis aliam justitiam quam eam quae est Dei per fidem Chri­sti. In Rom. 10. 3.

Verum placuit antithesi uti peccatorum nostrorum & justitiae Christi. Nos peccatores eramus, ille justus. Ut com­mutatio fieret, nostra peccata imposuit filio justo, ac vicis­sim justitiam illius communicavit nobis peccatoribus. Propter aliena igitur peccata factus ille peccatum est, & nos propter alienam justitiam justitia Dei facti sumus: sicut enimille non suis, sed nostris peccatis peccatum a Deo, ita [Page 172] nos non nostra ipsorum, sed ipsius justitia justitia Dei fa­cti sumus a Deo.—

Facta namque mutatione peccata nostra sua, & justitiam suam nostram fecit, &c.

Sed secit nos justitiam, id est, imputavit nobis justitiam, idque non nostram, quae nulla est, sed suam, gratuitam vide­licet & olementer a se imputatam, quam habeamus non in nobis, sed in ipso filio.—

Loquitur de justitia quam nobis in Christo imputat si­cuti peccata nostra illi imputavit—In hac commutatione omnis nostra salus est sita, ubi & Augustini illud; Ipsier­go peccatum, &c. in 2 Cor. 5. ult.

Deinde sub Lege esse debitorem est esse faciendae Legi, ad obediendum illius praeceptis, ac subeundum transgressionis paenashic quaeritur an isto quo (que) sensu factus fuerit sub Lege Christus Dei Filius? Etenim si justo non est Lex posita sed injustis, quisnā reperietur ex omnibus hominibus, ad quem minus pertineat subjectio ista qua Legi sit subditus, quam Christus Filius Dei omnium innocentissimus ac justissi­mus? Accedit & hoc, quod qui Dominus est Legis liber est ab ejus observantia: talis autem est Christus, &c.

Verum ut paucis sententiam meam expediam, non im­pediunt rationes, quo minus etiam hoc posteriori sensu, Christum sub Lege factum esse intelligamus. Licet enim hand quaquam propter se subjici debuerit Legi; sub­jectus tamen suit propter alios quos redimere debebat. Qui aliorum in se debita recipit, non minus debitor est quam si propter sua ipsius esset debita creditori obstrictus.

Christus autem propterea missus suit in hunc mundum ut debita nostra inse recipenet, proque illis satisfaceret; sic venit in sua factusque est sub Lege, haud propter se, sed prop­ter cos qui sub Lege servient es condemnationi erant prop­ter illius transgressiones obnoxii sic subjicit, ut eos qui &c. Musc. in Gal. 4.

And now for your other two Treatises of the same mat­ter, God willing I shall examine all in your owne order.