CAP. I.
VVherein the state of the questi­on is opened, and the sense EXPLAINED: Wherein aswell the Imputation of FAITH is affirmed, as the imputation of the RIGH­TEOUSNESSE of CHRIST denyed, in JUSTI­FICATION.

FOR the cleare understanding of the state and drift of the question, some things would be premised, which for their evidence sake might be pri­villedged and exempted from pas­sing under much dispute or contradi­ction, yet if any thing be not sufficiently prepared for assent in the briefe proposall of it, the ensuing dis­course will labor to reconcile the disproportion, and in the progresse make satisfaction for what it shall receive upon courtesie in the beginning. As

1. That the termes justifying, justification &c. are not to be taken in this question (nor in any other usually moved about the justification of a sinner) either 1 sensu physico, in a Physicall sense, as if to justi­fie, signified to make just, with any habituall or actu­all, any positive or inherent righteosnesse. Nor yet, 2. sensu forensi propriè dicto, in a juridicall or judi­ciary [Page 2]sense (properly so called) where the Iudge hath only a subordinate and derived power of [...]udicature, and is bound by Oath or otherwise to give sentence according to the strict rule of the Law, as if to justify were to pronounce a man just, or [...] absolve him from punishment according to the strict terme of precise rule of that Law whereof he was accused as a transgressor, (though this sense be admitted and received by many) But 3. (and lastly) sensu forensi improprié dicto, in a judiciary sense, lesse properly and usually so called, vizr. where he that Titteth Iudge being the supreme Magistrate, hath an independan­cy or soveraignty of power, to moderate and dis­pence with the Law, as reason or equity shall require: So that to justify in this question, import's the dis­charging or absolving of a man from the guilt, blame, and punishment of those things, whereof he either is, or justly might be accused; not because he is cleare of such things, or justifiable according to the letter or strictnesse of the Law (for then he could not be justly accused) but because the Judge having a sufficient & lawful soveraignty of power is willing upon sufficient & weighty considerations known un­to him, to remit the penalty of the Law, and to deliver and discharg him as if he were an innocent or righte­ous man. As for the Physical sense of making just by inherent righteousnesse, though Bellarmine and his Angells, earnestly contend for it, yet till Scriptures be brought low, and Etymologies be exalted above them, till use and custome of speaking deliver up their King­dome into Cardinalls bands, that sense must no way be acknowledged or received in this dispute: Yet (to give reason and right, even to those that demand that which is unreasonable) it is true, that God in or upon a mans justification, begins to justifie him Phy­sically, that is, to infuse habituall or inherent righte­ousnesse [Page 3]into him. But here the Scriptures and the Cardinall are as far out in termes, as in a thousand o­ther things they are in substance and matter: that which he will needs call justification, the Scriptures will as peremptorily call Sanctification.

Concerning the other sense of a judiciary justifi­cation usually and strictly so called, SECT. 2 wherein the Iudge or justifier proceeds upon legall grounds to ac­quit and absolve the party guilty or accused, neither can this be taken in the Question propounded, except the Scriptures be forsaken, because the Scriptures constantly speake of this act of God justifying a sinner, not as of such an act whereby he will either make him or pronounce him legally just, of de­clare him not to have offended the Law, and here­upon justifie him; but of such an act, whereby he freely forgives him all that he hath done against the Law, and acquits him from all blame and punish­ment due by the Law unto such offences. So that in that very act of God whereby he justifies a sinner, as there is a discharge from all punishment due unto him, so there is a profession withall, or plaine inti­mation of the guiltinesse of the person now to be ju­stified according to the Law, and that he is not dis­charged or acquitted upon any consideration that can be pleaded for him according to the Law, but that consideration upon which God proceeds to justi­fie him, is of another order; the consideration of somewhat done for him in this case to relieve him out of the course and order or appointment of the Law, he whose justification stands (whether in whole or in part, it is not materiall herein) in the for­givenesse of sinne, can in no construction be said to be justified according to the Law, because the Law knowes no forgivenesse of sinnes, neither is there any rule for any such thing there. The Law speakes of [Page 4]the curse, death, and condemnation of a sinner; but for the justification of a sinner, it neither takes knowledg, nor gives any hope thereof.

Secondly, 2 That Iesus Christ the naturall Sonne of God, and supernaturall Sonne of the Virgin, ran a race of obedience with the Law (aswell Ceremoniall as Morall) and held out with every letter, jot, and tit­tle of it, as farre as it any wayes concerned him, dur­ing the whole continuance of his life in the flesh, no mans thoughts ever rose up to deny, but those that denyed him the best of his being (I meane his God­head) Which of you convinceth me of sinne? was his challenge to the Nation of the Jewes whilst he was yet on earth ( Ioh 8, 46.) and remaines through all ages as a challenge to the world. He that can [...]ast the least aspersion or imputation of sinne upon Christ, shall shake the foundations of the peace and safety of the world.

Thirdly, 3 that this Christ offered up himselfe as a Lambe without spot in sacrifice upon the Crosse to make an attonement for the world, and to purge the sinne of it, I know no spirit at this day abroad in the Christian world that denies, but that which wrought in Secinus formerly, and still workes in those that are baptized into the same spirit of error with him.

Fourthly, 4 I conceive it to be a truth of greater authority amongst us, then to meet with contradi­ction from any man, that Iesus Christ is the sole and entire meritorious cause of every mans justification, that is justified by God; or that that righteousnesse or absolution from sinne and condemnation which is given to every man in his justification, is somewhat, yea a principall part or member of that great pur­chase which Christ hath made for the world. Evan as God for Christs sake freely forgave you. Ephes. 4.32. Forgivenesse of sinnes or justification is from God for [Page 5] Christs sake; he is worthy to be gratified and hono­red by God, with the justification of those that be­lieve in him, whatsoever he is worthy of more.

Fiftly, 5 It is a truth that hath every mans judgment concurring with it, that Faith is the condition ap­pointed by God, and required on mans part to bring him into Communion and fellowship of that justi­fication and redemption which Christ hath purcha­sed for the Children of men, and that without belie­ving, no man can have part or fellowship in that great and blessed businesse.

Sixtly, It is evident from the Scriptures, 6 that God in the act of every mans justification doth impute or account righteousnesse unto him, or rather somwhat for or instead of a righteousnesse (the Scripture useth both expressions) by meanes of which im­putation the person justified passeth in accompt as a righteous man (though he be not properly or per­fectly such according to the Law) and is invested ac­cordingly with those great priviledges of a man per­fectly righteous, deliverance from death and con­demnation, and acceptation into the favor of God. The reason of which imputation, or why God is plea­sed to use such an expression of righteousnesse impu­ted in or about the justification of a sinner seemes to be this; the better to satisfie the naturall scruple of the weake and feeble consciences of men, who can hardly conceive or thinke of a justification or of be­ing justified (especially by God) without an expresse, literall, and perfect legall righteousnesse. Now the counsailes and purpose of God in the Gospell being to justifie men without any such righteousnesse (being a righteousnesse indeed whereof man in his lapsed condition, is wholly uncapable) the better to salve the feares of the consciences touching such a defect, and to prevent and stay all troublesome thoughts or [Page 6]queries that might arise in the minds of men, who when they heare of being justified, are still ready to aske within themselves, but where is the righteous­nesse? conceiving a legall righteousnesse to be as ne­cessary to a justification, as Isaak conceived of a Lamb for a burnt offering, Gen. 22, 7.) He (GOD I meane) is graciously pleased so far to condiscend to men in Scripture treatie with them about the weigh­ty businesse of justification, as (in effect) to grant and say unto them, that though he finds not any proper or perfect righteousnesse in them, no such righte­ousnesse as passeth under the name of a righteous­nesse with them, yet if they truely believe in him, as Abraham did, this believing shall in the conse­quences of it, be as good, as a perfect or compleate righteousnesse unto them, or that he will impute righteousnesse unto them upon their believing.

So that now the state & drift of the Q. SECT. 3 is not either 1, whether Faith without an Object, or as separated from Christ, be imputed for righteousnesse, for such a Faith (doubtlesse) in the point of justification was never dreamt of by any man that kept his wits com­pany: men may aswell fancy a living man without a Soule; or a wiseman without his wits, as a Faith without an Object: much lesse was ever such a faith conceived by any to be imputed for righteousnesse. Neither 2, is it any part of the intent of the Question to enquire, whether Faith be the meritorious cause of a mans justification, for both they that affirme, and they that deny the imputation of Faith for righteous­nesse, deny the meritoriousnesse of faith every waies: however it is true, that they that would seem most to disclaime it, and cast it furthest from them, do yet in some of their most beloved tenets draw very neare unto it (as will afterward appeare) Neither 3, is it the Question, whether Faith be the formall cause of [Page 7] justification, that is, whether God doth justifie a man with his Faith, as a Painter makes a wall white with whitenesse, or a Master makes his Scholar learned with knowledge, for both parties make the forme of justification to be somwhat else differing from Faith (contrary to that which is conceived to be the genu­ine tenet of Arminius) Nor yet 4, doth the Questi­on make any quere at all, whether Christ be the sole meritorious cause of the Iustification of a sinner; for both they that goe on the right hand of the Question, and they that goe on the left, are knit together in the same mind and judgment concerning this. Neither 5 doth the Question (as it is here propounded) in­tend any dispute at all, whether the active obedience of Christ falling in with the passive, and considered in conjunction with it, hath any influence into, or contributeth any thing towards the Iustification of sinners, for this also is acknowledged on both sides, (at least by the greater party of both) But 6, (and lastly) the Question in precise termes is this whether the faith of him that truely believes in Christ, or whether the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe, that is, the obedience which Christ performed to the Morall Law, consisting partly of the inward habit of grace, and righteous dispositions of his soule, partly of all those severall and particular acts of righteous­nesse wherein he obeyed, be in the letter and pro­prietie of it, that which God imputes to a believer for righteousnesse, or unto righteousnesse in his Iu­stification; So that he that believes, is not righteous onely by accompt, or by Gods gracious reputing and accepting of him for such, but as rigidly, literally, and peremptorily righteous, constituted and made as perfectly, as compleatly, as legally righteous, as Christ himselfe is, no difference at all betweene them, quoad veritatem, but only quoad modum, the justified [Page 8]every whit as righteous as the justifier, both righte­ous with the selfe same individuall righteousnesse, only this difference betweene the one and the other, the justified weares it as put upon him by another, by imputation: the Justifier weares it put upon him by himselfe, or by inherency. That the Scriptures no where countenanceth any such imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ as this, I trust (the Spirit of truth directing and assisting) to make manifest in the sequell of this discourse, and to give good measure of this truth unto the reader, heaped up, and pressed downe, and running over; heaped up by testimo­nies from the Scriptures themselves; pressed down by the weight of many Arguments and demonstra­tions; running over, with the cleare approbation of many Authors, learned and sound, and every way greater then exception.

Only give me leave here to mention that by the way, SECT. 3 which may prevent many mistakes, (yea and offences too) in reading the writings of many latter Divines, (especially of other Churches) touching this point of imputation. If we take the phrase of imputing Christs righteousnesse unproperly, out of the usuall and formall signification of it (as Luther and Caelvin, and other Divines of the reformed Chur­ches sometimes do in their writings) viz. for the giving out or bestowing (as it were) the righteous­nesse of Christ including his obedience aswell passive as active, under one and the same terme of righte­ousnesse, in the returne of it, i. in the privileges, blessings, and benefits, that are procured and pur­chased by it for men, so a believer may be said to be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed. But then the meaning can be no more but this. A be­leever is justified by the imputation of Christs righ­teousnesse, that is, God justifies a beleever for Christs [Page 9]righteousnesse sake, and not for any righteousnesse of his owne: Such an imputation of the righteous­nesse of Christ as this is, is no way denyed or once questioned. And thus such passages as those in Cal­vin. Nos gratis justificat Deus, Christi obedientiam nobis imputando. i. God freely justifieth us by impu­ting the obedience of Christ unto us: and againe, Ho­mo non inse ipso justus est, sed quia Christi justitia im­putatione cum illo communicatur (Instit. l. 3, c. 17, ss. 23.) i. A man is not righteous in himselfe, but be­cause the righteousnesse of Christ is communicated or Imputed unto him by imputation: These and such like expressions in this Author, are to be interpre­ted by such passages as these (which are frequent also in the same Author, Christus suaobedientia grati­am nobis apud Patrem acquifivit & promeritus est (In­stit. l. 2, c. 17. ss. 30.) 1. Christ by his obedience, procured and merited for us grace or favor with God the Father. And againe, l. 3, c. 14. ss 17. Chri­stus per suam obedientiam nobis justitiam acquisivit. i. Christ by his obedience procured or purchased righteousnesse for us. And againe in Gal. 3, 6. Om­nes istae locutiones peraequè valent, justificari nos Dei gratia, Christum esse justitiam nostrā justitiā, morte & resurrectione Christi nobis acquisitā &c. i. All such ex­pressions as these import the same thing, that we are justified by the grace of God, that Christ is our righte­ousnes, that righteousnes was procured for us by the death and resurrection of Christ &c. By al which pas­sages and many more of like Importance, that might be produced out of the same Author, it is fully evidēt, that when he mentioneth any imputation of the righ­teousnesse of Christ in Iustification, his meaning is only, that the righteousnesse of Christ, meaning chief­ly his passive obedience or righteousnesse, haply not excluding his active) is the meritorious cause of our [Page 10] Iustification and hath procured and purchased this for us at Gods hand, that upon our believing wee should be accompted righteous by him, or (which is but the same) that our Faith should be imputed for righteousnesse to us. To which purpose hee speakes yet more significantly and expressely in the place last mentioned in Gal. 3, 6. Quum autom justi­tiam in se repositam non habeant homines, imputatione hanc adipiscuntur. i. Men not having any righteous­nesse lodged [...]n themselves they obtaine it by impu­tation, which Imputation he thus explicates and interprets, quia Deus fidem illis fert acceptam pro justi­tia: because (saith he) God doth Impute or ac­compt their faith unto them for righteousnesse. Di­vers like passages might be drawne together out of other Authors, which must be seasoned with the same salt of Interpretation, to be made savory and meete for Spirituall nourishment.

In the Homilies of our owne Church, SECT. 4 there are some passages that mention the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse in Iustification, for the genuine sense whereof, if we consult with the eleventh Article of Religion (which is concerning Iustification, and is framed with all possible exactnesse this way, that so few words are capable of) that will directly lead us to the same Interpretation of them: we are ac­compted righteous before God (saith our Article) only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ by faith, and not for our owne works or deservings. Where [...], it is to be observed that we are not said to be constituted and made righteous before God in Iu­stification (though such an expression may in a sense be admitted) but only that we are accompted or reputed such. 2. It is not said, that we are accoun­ted righteous with the righteousnesse of our Lord and Saviour, no nor yet with his merits, but only [Page 11]thus, we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord by Faith. i. The merit of Christ or of his righteousnesse, hath so farre pre­valed with God on our behalfe, that by or upon our Faith we shall be accounted righteous before him; which (in effect) is the same truth we maintaine, viz. that God for Christs sake or Christs merits sake, doth impute our faith for righteousnesse unto us, requir­ing nothing more at our hands for Iustification. And thus Musculus expresseth himselfe roundly, Fides reputatur in justitiam propter Christum: Faith is accounted for righteousnesse for Christs sake: And againe, Commendata debet esse haec fides &c. quā consti­tuit credentibus in Christum propter ipsum, justitiae loco imputare (Loc. Com. de Iustif. sect 5) i. This faith ought to be esteemed of us, &c. which God purpo­seth for Christs sake to impute for righteousnesse to those that beleeve in him. So Luther also, ad Gal. 3.6. Deus reputat istam imperfectam fidem ad justitiam perfectam propter Christum. i. God for Christs sake accounts this imperfect faith, for perfect righteous­nesse. And Chamier calls remission of sinnes that righteousnesse which is imputed unto us. Remissio peccatorum est justitia imputatat. 3, l. 21. c. 19. ss. 10. And Vrsinus: Idem sunt justificatio & remissio pecca­torum. Cat. part 2. Qu. 60, ss. 3. Therefore where­soever, whether in the Homilies of our own Church, or in other Authors, we meet with any such expres­sion, as of the righteousnesse of Christ imputed in Iu­stification, we must not understand this righteousnesse in the Letter, proprietie, or formalitie of it, but in the Spirit, or merit of it, to be imputed, Iustificamur per Iustitiam Christi, non personae, qua ipse est vestitus, sed meriti, quae suos vestit, nobis imputatam. Dr. Pride­aux Lect. 5, ss. 11. And this manner of speech, to put the name of a thing in the proprietie of it, instead [Page 12]of the valew, worth, benefit or returne of it, is both usuall and familiar, in ordinary passage of discourse amongst us, and very frequent in the Scriptures. When we say a Merchant grew rich by such or such a Commoditie, our meaning is, that he grew rich by the game or returne he made of the commodity: He may be enriched by the Commodity, and yet have never a wh [...]t of it with him, or under his hand. So when we say such a man grew rich by his place or Office, our meaning plainly is but this, that he grew rich by such gaines or matters of profit as his place or Office afforded him; we do not meane, that his place or Office it self was his riches. So may it be said, that we are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ, and yet not have the righteousnesse it selfe upon us by imputation or otherwise, but only a righteous­nesse procured or purchased by it, really and essenti­ally differing from it, viz. remission of sinnes (as will appeare in due time.)

Thus in the Scriptures themselves, there is no figure or forme of speech more frequent, then to name the thing it selfe in the propriety of it, in stead of the fruite or effect of it, good or bad, benefit or losse, vantage or disadvantage, merit, or demerit of it.

Thus Job 33, 26. God is said to render unto man his righteousnesse, i. The fruite or benefit of his righteousnesse, in the favor of GOD, and mani­festation of it, in his deliverance and restauration: the righteousnesse it selfe in the propriety of it, can­not be rendred unto him. So Ephe. 6, 8. Whatsoever good thing any man doth, the same shall he receive of the Lord. i. he shall receive benefit and consideration from God for it. So Revel. 15, 12. Here is the pa­tience of the Saints, and c. 13, 10. Here is the patience and faith of the Saints, i, Here is the benefit and un­speakable [Page 13]reward of the patience and faith of the Saints to be seene, when the Beast and all that wor­ship him, or adhere to him shall be tormented in fire and brimstone for evermore, and those that have constantly suffered for not worshiping of him, shalbe delivered from drinking of that bitter cup. So again, So worke is often put for the wages due to it. Levit. 19, 13. Iob 7, 2. Ior. 22, 13 Esa. 49.4. &c. Psal. 128, 2. Thou shalt eate the labor of thy hands, that is, the fruite of this labour. So on the other hand, Heb. 9, 28. it is said of Christ, that to those that looke for him he shall appeare the second time without sinne: that is, without the guilt or punishment of sinne charged upon him, for otherwise, if we take sinne in the formall and proper signification of it, there wil be no difference implied betweene his first and second appearance, in as much as he was as free from the defilement or pollution of sin in his first appear­ing, as he can or shalbe in his second. So Ezech. 16, 58. Thou hast borne thy lewdnesse and thine abhomi­nations (saith the Lord) viz. in punishments or judgments answerable to them. So 1 Kings 8, 32. To bring his way upon his head, that is, the punish­ment he hath deserved by his way of sinne. So (to let passe many other instances of like construction) Gen. 19, 15. Least you be destroyed in the iniquity of the Citty; that is, in that judgement or punishment that fell upon the Citty by meanes of the iniquity of it. In such a construction of speech as the holy ghost himselfe useth in these and many such like passages in the Scripture, the righteousnesse of Christ (Active and Passive) may be said to be the righteousnesse by which we are justified, or which is imputed unto us in our justification, and not in any other.

Wherefore (to draw towards a close of this first Chapter, and withall to give a little more light, SECT. 5 that it may be seene cleare to the bottome, both what we affirme, and what we deny, in the question propoun­ded.) [Page 14]i, when we affirme the faith of him that beleeveth, to be imputed for righteousnes, the mean­ing is not either I, that it should be imputed in re­spect of any thing it hath from a man himselfe, or as it is a mans owne act: nor yet 2. in respect of any thing it hath from God himselfe, or from the Spirit of God in the production or raising of it in the soule, (though it be true it requires the lighting downe of the Almighty arme of God upon the soule to raise it) Neither 3, See this fur­ther opened and proved in the second part of this Discourse. Cap. 2. ss. 17. Is it imputed for righteousnesse in respect of the Object, or because it layeth hold upon Christ, or Christs righteousness [...], (though it be true also that that faith that is imputed for righteousnesse, must of necessity lay hold upon Christ, and no other faith is capable of this Imputation besides) because if faith should justifie or be imputed for righteousnesse, as it layes hold upon Christ, it should justifie out of the Inherent dignitie and worth of it, and by vertue of that which is naturall and intrinsecall to it, there be­ing nothing that can be conceived more naturall or essentiall unto faith, then to lay hold upon Christ, this is the very life and soule of it, and that which gives it its specificall being and subsistence: Therefore to make the Object of FAITH as such, the precise and formall ground of the Imputation of it, is to make hast into the middest of Samaria, whilst men are confident they are travailing towards Dothan: It is the giving the right hand of fellowship to the Romish Iustification, which makes faith the meritori­ous cause of it (in part). But 4 and lastly, when with the Scripture we affirme, that faith is imputed for righteousnesse, our meaning is simply and plainely this, that as God in the first Covenant of workes, re­quired an absolut and through obedience to the whol law with continuance in all things, for every mans Iustification, which perfect obedience, had it beene [Page 15]performed, had beene a perfect righteousnesse to the performer, and so would have justified him. So now in the New Covenant of grace, God requires nothing of any man for his justification, but only faith in his Sonne; which faith shalbe as a vaileable and effectuall unto him for his justification, as a perfect righteous­nesse should have beene under the first Covenant: this is that which is meant when faith is said to be Imputed for righteousnesse, which is nothing but that which is generally taught by Divines both an­cient and moderne: Sic decretum dicit à Deo, ut ces­sante lege, Solam fidem gratia Dei posceret ad salutem. Ambrosius in Rom. 4. that is, the Apostle saying that to him that believeth, his faith is Imputed for righ­teousnes, affirmeth, that God hath so decreed, that the Law ceasing, the grace of God will require (of men) only faith to salvation. And againe, upon Ch. 9, of the same Epistle, Sola fides posita est ad salutem, onely faith is appointed or ordained to salvation. Calvin writing upon Rom. 10, 8. hath words of the same importance, and somewhat more cleare and full, Ex hac distinctionis nota, colligimus, sicutilex ope­ra exigit, sic Evangelium nihil aliud postulare, nisi [...]ut fidem afferant homines, ad recipiendam Dei gratiam. that is, From this distinction we gather, that as the Law required workes, so the Gospell requires no­thing else, but that men bring faith to receive the grace of God. If God requires Faith in the Gospel for the same end for which he required wor [...]s or per­fect righteousnes in the Law: it necessarily followes, that he should impute this faith for that righteous­nes, that is, accept it from men upon the same termes (in respect of justification) and bestow the same favors, rewards, and priviledges upon the ten­der of it, that should have beene given unto men, in regard of that legall righteousnes, had it beene fulfil­led: [Page 16]otherwise he should require it for such an end, or upon such term's as he would refuse to make good unto it, when the creature hath exhibited it and ten­dred it unto him; to require it for righteousnes, or instead of righteousnes, and not to accept it for righ­teousnes, when it is brought unto him, would be as apparant a breach of Covenant with God, as it would be in a rich Creditor that should compound and a­gree with his poore Debtors for twelve pence in the pound, (or the like) but when they brought the mo­ney to him, should refuse to take it upon any such termes, or to discharge them of their debt, and give them out their bands.

Secondly, SECT. 6 when we deny the Imputation of Christs righteousnes in Justification, we neither deny the righteousnes of Christ in it selfe, we rather suppose and establish it; Neither 2 do we deny the abso­lute necessity of it, both to the Justification and salva­tion of a sinner: Neither 3, do we deny a meritori­ous efficiency or causality in this righteousnes, in respect of the Iustification of a sinner: but verily be­lieve and conceive, that God justifieth all that are justified, not simply and barely for Christs sake, or for his righteousnes sake (for a man may do a thing for his sake whom he much loves and respects, though he hath not otherwise deserved it at his hands) but for the merits sake of Christs righteous­nesse, there being a full and reall consideration in this righteousnes of Christ (I meane his death or passive righteousnes chiefly) why God should justifie those that believe in him. But 4, (and lastly) that which we deny in denying the Imputation of Christs righ­teousnes, is this, that God should looke upon a be­lieving sinner in his Iustification, and account of him as one that had himselfe don all that Christ did in o­bedience to the Morall Law, and hereupon pro­nounce [Page 17]or account him righteous, or (which is the same) that God should Impute unto him those par­ticular acts of obedience which Christ performed [...] the nature and proprietie of them, so that he should stand as righteous before God, as Christ himselfe, or (which is the same) righteous with the selfe same righteousnesse wherewith Christ was righteous, and so God make himselfe countable unto him for such obedience imputed, in as great matters of reward as he would have beene for the like obedience perso­nally performed by himselfe: In a word, this is that which we deny, & this is that which we affirme con­cerning the righteousnes of Christ in the Iustification of a sinner, that God cloaths no man with the letter of it, but every man that believes with the Spirit of it, that is, that this righteousnes of Christ is not that that is imputed unto any man for righteousnes, but is that for which righteousnes is imputed to every man that believeth. A Justified persō may in such a sense be said to be cloathed with Christs righteousnes, as Pauls ne­cessities were relieved & supplied by his hands, Act. 20, 34. These hands (saith he) have ministred unto my necessities. PAVL neither eate his fingers, nor spun out the flesh of his hands into cloathing, and yet was both fed and cloathed with them; so may a believer be said to be cloathed with the righteousnes of Christ, and yet the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe not be his cloathing, but only that which procured this cloathing unto him; and so Calvin calls that cloathing of righteousnes wherewith a beleever is clad in his justification, justitiam morte & resurrectione Christi acquisitam, a righteousnes procured or pur­chased by the death and refurrection of Christ: This righteousnes of Christ may be said to be the righteousnes of a beleever in such a construction of speech, as the knowledg of God and of Christ is said [Page 18]to be eternall life ( Ioh. 17, 3.) viz in way of cau­salitie not in the formalitie of it: And againe, the righteousnesse of a Beleever in his Iustification, may be termed the righteousnesse of Christ in such a sense, as the favor of God in deliverance out of trouble, is called a mans righteousnesse, Iob 33, 26. or as a bond servant under the Law is said by God himselfe to be his Masters money, Exo. 21, 21. because he was bought with his money: or as the Nation and peo­ple of the Jewes is often in the Scriptures called Iacob, they were not Iacob in the proprietie of his person, but in his discent and propagation. So may the righteousnesse of a Beleever be called the righte­ousnesse of Christ, viz. in the fructification of it, be­cause it is a righteousnesse descended from it, and is­suing (as it were) out of the loynes of it. What hath beene affirmed, and what hath been denyed in the Question: We come now to prove and to demon­strate the truth of both. 1. from the authority of the Scriptures. 2. from the grounds of reason: as for the third kind of proofe or confirmation, consent of Authors, we shall not assigne a peculiar place for that by it selfe, but enterlace our other proofes occasio­nally with such testimonyes, as we have received from learned and judicious men for confirmation of the point to be discussed the greatest part whereof notwithstanding, you shall meete with in the second and fift Chapters.

CAP. II.
VVherein the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse, is proved from the Scriptures, and the interpretation of those Scriptures confirmed both by reason and authority aswell of ancient as moderne Divines.

VVHat it is, that is imputed for righteousnesse in Iustification, all the wisdome or learning under Heaven, is not so fit or able to determine, as the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture; being the great Secretary of Heaven, and privie to all the waies and counsells of God; and therefore there is none to him to take up any difference, or to comprimise be­tweene the Controverters about any Subject in Re­ligion. All the difficulty and question is, because though he speaks upon the house top, yet many times and many things he interprets in the eare: All the Christian world, either know's, or readily may know, what he speakes in the Scriptures, but what his meaning and intent is in many things there de­livered, he leaveth unto men to debate and make out amongst them: To some indeed he reveales the se­cret of his counsaile, the Spirit of his Letter, in some particulars, but because these are not marked in the forehead, therefore their thoughts and apprehensi­ons (though the true begotten of the spirit of truth) [Page 20]are yet in common esteeme, but like other mens, till God himselfe shall please to make the difference by causing a clearer light of evidence and conviction to arise upon them; yea many times the nearer the truth, the further off from the approbation of many, and sometimes even of those that are the greatest pre­tenders to the truth.

Foure things there are especially, SECT. 2 that much com­mend an interpretation, when they are found in con­junction, and establish it like that King upon his Throne, Prov. 30 31. against whom there is no rise­ing up. First if the Letter or Grammar of the Scrip­ture will fairely and strongly beare it. Secondly, If the scope of the place will close directly and entire­ly with it. Thirdly, If the interpretation that is set up against it, cannot stand before the circumstance of the context about it. Fourthly, and lastly, when the judgment of able, learned, and unpartiall men, is found in perfect concurrence with it. If these con­siderations be sufficient to furnish out an interpreta­tion with authority and power, then shall we need no more Scriptures to vindicate the innocencie of our affirmative, viz. that Faith is that which is im­puted by God for righteousnesse in Iustification (the truth of our negative inseparably accompanying it, viz. that the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed) but only that one Chapter, Rom. 4.

For the first, SECT. 3 the Letter of this Scripture speakes what we affirme plainly, and speakes no parable a­bout it, yea, it speakes it once and twice, yea, it speakes it the third and fourth time, and repenteth not. Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes, v. 3. Againe, but to him that worketh not, but beleeveth in him, that justifieth the un­godly, his Faith is counted unto him for righteousnes. ver. 5. So againe, We say that Faith was imputed to [Page 21]him for righteousnesse ver. 9. And yet againe, And therefore it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse. v. 22. The same phrase and expression is used also ver. 23, 24. Certainly there is not any truth in Re­ligion, not any Article of the Christian beliefe, that can boast of the Letter of the Scripture, more full, ex­presse, and pregnant for it. What is maintained in this discourse concerning the imputation of Faith, hath all the authority and countenance from the Scriptures, that word can lightly give: whereas the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ (in that sense which is magnified by many) hath not the least reliefe, either from any expresse sound of words or sight of Letter in the Scriptures.

Secondly, for the scope of the place, this also re­joyceth in the interpretation given, viz. SECT. 4 that the word FAITH, should be taken properly and in the Letter, in all those passages cited, and from tropes and metonymies, it turneth away. Apparent it is to a circumspect Reader, that the Apostle's maine intent and drift in this whole discourse of justifica­tion (extending from the first Chapter of the Epistle to some Chapters following) was to hedg up with thornes (as it were) that false way of Iustification, which lay through works and legall performances, and so to put men by from so much as attempting to goe or seek that way: and withall to open and disco­ver the true way of justification, wherein men might not faile to atteyne the Law of righteousnesse (as he speaks elsewhere) before God: that is (in plaine speech (to make known unto them what they must doe, and what God requireth of them, to their justi­fication, and what he will accept at their hands this way, and what not. As our Saviours answer was to the Jews, asking him what they should do to worke the works of GOD, meaning for their justification: This [Page 22](saith he) is the worke of God ( i. All the workes of God requireth of you for such a purpose) that you beleeve in him, whom he hath sent, Iohn 6, 28, 29. So that that which God precisely requires of men to their justification, instead of the workes of the Law, is FAITH, or to beleeve (in the proper and formall signification) He doth not require of us the righte­ousnesse of Christ, for our Iustification, this he requi­red of Christ himselfe for it, that which he requires of us for this purpose, is our Faith in Christ, himselfe, not in the righteousnes of Christ, that is, in the active obedience of Christ, (as hereafter is shewed). There­fore for Paul to have certified or said unto men, that the righteousnesse of Christ should be imputed for righteousnesse unto them, had been quite beside his scope and purpose in this place, which was plainly and directly this (as hath been said) to make known unto men, the counsel and good pleasure of God con­cerning that which was to be performed by them­selves (though not by their owne strength) to their justification, which he affirmeth from place to place, to be nothing else, but their Faith, or beleeving. To have said thus unto them, that they must be justified by Christ, or by Christ's righteousnesse, and withall not to have plainly signified, what it is that God re­quires of them, to give them part and fellowship in that righteousnesse, or justification which is by Christ, and without which they could not be justified, had bin rather to cast a snare upon them, then to have o­pened a dore of life and peace unto them. And there­fore he is carefull, when he speakes of Iustification, or redemption by Christ often to mention Faith, as the meanes whereby this redemption is communi­cated unto men. See Rom. 3, 25. Rom. 5, 1, 2. By the light of which, and such like expressions, the sense and meaning of those Scriptures are to be ruled [Page 23]wherein justification or Redemption by Christ are taught, without any expresse mention of Faith, as Rom. 3, 24. Rom. 5.9, &c. as likewise of those where­in justification by Faith is affirmed, without expresse mention of Christ, or any thing done or suffered by him. As Rom. 3, 28.30.

And here by the way, I cannot but reflect a little upon the unsavorinesse and inconsideratnesse of their conceipt, who to avoyd the strength of the interpre­tation given of these Scriptures, will needs force themselves (contrary to all Interpreters both anci­ent and moderne, that I have yet met with, and most apparantly contrary to the most apparant scope of the Apostle, throughout this whole disputation,) to suppose that the Apostle doth not here speake of that Faith of Abraham, whereby he was justified or made personally righteous before God, but of such a Faith only, as God did approve of and commend in him, and impute unto him as a particular act of righ­teousnesse, in such a sense as that act of Phineas men­tioned Num, 25, 8. is sayd to have beene imputed to him for righteousnesse, Psal. 106, 31. Alas Paul was now in the heat of his Dispute, concerning the great and weighty businesse of Iustification, travail­ing as it were in birth with his Romans, t [...]ll he had convincingly satisfied them from the Scriptures, that the way of Iustification was not by the workes of the Law, but by Faith in Iesus Christ.

Now how importune, and impertinent to this de­signe had it beene for him to interpose a whole Chapter only to prove that, which was never doubt­ed of nor questioned by any? To wit, that Abra­ham did well in believing God, and was approved by him for it. His businesse here was not to argue what was lawfull, and what was unlawfull, or whe­ther Abraham was justifiable in his act of believing [Page 24] God. But to demonstrate and shew, how and by what meanes a poore miserable sinner, might come to be justified, and accounted righteous before God, which he clearly and fully demonstrates to be by way of Faith or beleeving, from the example of Abra­ham, whose faith was by God himselfe, imputed for righteousnesse unto him, that is, upon and by the meanes of his Faith he was looked upon by God as a righteous man. But the conceit against which we now argue, is too weake to beare any great waight of confutation.

If that yet stickes with any man, that Abraham having believed formerly (as appeares from his Hi­story) and thereby justifyed, should be said to be ju­stified by a second, or after act or believing. I an­swere 1. Be it granted that Abraham believed, and was thereby justified before that act of beleeving, whereunto this Testimony is subjoyn'd, that it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse. Gen. 15, 6) yet doth it not follow, that this testimony should be precisely limited to, or only understood of that particular act of his believing, whereunto it is sub­joyned, but it may indifferently relate as well to the first as the last act of his believing, (yea happily ra­ther to the first then to the last) for it is not said (in the place cited) that Abraham believed the Lord in this particular promise now made or renewed unto him, but indefinitely, and in the generall, that Abra­ham believed or had believed the Lord, and it was imputed, or accounted unto him for righteousnesse. So that howsoever Abraham was precisely justified by the first act of a sound Faith, which ever he put forth, yet the testimony or record of his justification by beleeving might be suspended by the Holy Ghost, till his Faith became more conspicuous, and was fur­ther [Page 35]manifested. Thus Heb. 11, 4. the testimony of Abels righteousnesse by Faith, was (as it seemes) de­ferred, till the manifestation of his Faith, by offering such a sacrifice unto God as he did: whereas it can­not be thought, but that he was a righteous or justi­fied person, and that by meanes of his Faith, before the offering of that sacrifice. So that this Objection, is easily answered.

Besides further answere might be, that the intent of the Holy Ghost in this testimony and passage con­cerning Abraham, was not to shew the time when, but the manner or meanes how and whereby he was justified. Now all succeeding acts of justifying Faith as justifying (for there are many acts of a justi­fying Faith, which are not of that kind of act, wher­by such a Faith justifieth) being of the same kind and nature with that primary and first act of belee­ving, whereby he was justified, may in sufficient propriety of speech have the effect of Iustification a­scribed as well to them, as it is to the first act it selfe. As suppose a man hath beene a true beleever in God through Jesus Christ for seven yeares together, dur­ing which space he hath constantly every day renew­ed or repeated the very same act of believing, wher­by he was at the first of a sinner made righteous, this mans Iustification or making righteous, may accord­ing to the frequent tenor of Scripture language, be aswel ascribed to any of these after acts of believing, as to the first of all, it being usuall with Scripture to ascribe effects, though not really and actually effected and done, to such meanes or actions of men, which are apt to produce and effect them. Thus he is said to destroy the Temple of God. 1 Cor. 3, 16. who shall do any thing that endanger's it, or is apt to de­stroy it. The like expression we have Romans 14, 15, and verse 20. See also and consider Mat. 16, 6. [Page 36] Esther 8, 7. Rom. 24. Mat 5, 32. with other like places without number.

Thirdly, SECT. 5 that interpretation which is set up against it, and which contendeth, that by the word FAITH, or BELEEVING, in al those passages cited, is meant, not Faith properly and formally understood, but Faith tropically or metonymically, that is, the righ­teousnesse of Christ is clearely overthrowne by many considerations and passages in the context.

First, it colour's not with any appearance or like­lyhood of truth, that the Apostle in the great and weighty point of justification, wherein (doubtlesse) he desired (if in any Subject beside) to speake with his understanding (as his owne phrase is) that is, that what he himselfe conceiveth and understand's, may be clearely understood by others, should time after time, in one place after another, without ever ex­plaining himselfe throughout the whole disputation, use so strange and harsh, and uncouth an expression or figure of Speech, as is not to be found in all his writings, nor in all the Scriptures besides. To say that Faith, or beleeving, is imputed for righteous­nesse, but to meane, that indeed it is not Faith, but the righteousnesse of Christ that is imputed, must needs argue the speakers designe to be this; the mak­ing sure that his meaning should not get out at his mouth. If Paul should manage the great point and mystery of justification, in such language and phrase of speech as this, he might truely say of what he had said herein, EDIDI, ET NON EDIDI, that he had said, and not said.

Secondly, it is evident, that that Faith or beleeve­ing, which ver. 3. is said to be imputed to Abra­ham for righteousnesse, is opposed to works or working ver. 5. Now betweene Faith proper­ly taken, and workes, and so betweene belee­ving [Page 37]and working, there is a constant opposition in the writings of this Apostle, yea and reason it selfe demonstrates an opposition betweene them (as occa­sion will be to shew more at large in the second part of this discourse) but betweene the active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ, and works, neither doth Paul ever make opposition, neither would reason have suffered him to have done it.

Thirdly, it is said, ver. 5. that to him that believeth, HIS faith is imputed to him for righteousnesse. From which clause it is evident, that that Faith (whatso­ever we understand by it) which is imputed for righteousnesse is HIS, that is, somewhat that may truely and properly be called his, before such impu­tation of it be made unto him. Now it cannot be said of the righteousnesse of Christ, that that is any mans, before the imputation of it be made unto him, but Faith properly taken is the beleevers, before it be imputed (at least in order of nature, if not of time) Therefore by Faith, which is here said to be impu­ted, cannot be meant the righteousnesse of Christ.

Fourthly, SECT. 6 if we should grant a trope or metonymie in this place, so that by FAITH, should be meant the Object of it, or the thing that is to be beleeved: yet wil it not follow from hence, that the righteousnes of Christ, should be here said to be imputed, but either God himselfe, or the promise of God made unto A­braham. For it is sayd, Abraham beleeved God, ver. 3. not that he beleeved the righteousnesse of Christ, except we set up another trope to maintaine the for­mer, and by God, will say is meant, the righteousnesse of Christ, which would be, not a trope or figure, but rather (indeed) a monster of speech. Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be here said or meant to be imputed for righteousnesse, Yea whereas the Object of Faith, as justifying, is expressed with great [Page 38]varietie of words and termes in the Scriptures: in all this varietie there is not to be found the least mention of the righteousnesse of Christ. As if the holy Ghost foreseeing the kindling of this false fire, had pur­posely with-drawne or with-held all fuell that might feed it. Sometimes Christ in person is made the Ob­ject of this Faith. Ioh. 3, 16.— that whosoever belee­veth in him &c. Sometimes Christ in his Doctrine, or the Doctrine and word of Christ, Ioh. 5, 46. Had yee beleeved Moses, yee would have beleeved me. Sometimes Christ in the relation of his person: and that either as he stands related unto God, as his Fa­ther. Ioh 20 31. These things are written, that yee might beleeve that Iesus is the Christ the Son of GOD. Or else as he stands related to those ancient promises of God made unto the Nation of the Jewes from time to time before his coming in the flesh, concern­ing a Messia to be given or sent unto them. Ioh. 8 24. Except yee beleeve that I am he, you shal die in your sins. Sometimes th [...]r aising up of Christ from the dead, is made the Object of this Faith. Rom. 10, 9. For if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt beleeve in thy heart, that God raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Sometimes againe. God himselfe is mentioned as the Object of this Faith. 1 Pet. 1, 21.— that your Faith and hope might be in God. and Iohn 12, 44. He that beleeveth on me, be­leeveth not on me, but on him that sent me: Besides many like places.

Lastly, (to forbeare further enumeration of parti­culars in this kind, which are of ready observation in the Scriptures) Sometimes the record or testimo­ny of God concerning his Son, is made the Object of this Faith. 1 Iohn 5, 10. He that beleeveth not God, hath made him a liar, because he beleeved not the record God witnessed of his Son, &c. In all this varietie or di­versitie [Page 39]of expressing the Object of Faith as justify­ing, there is no sound or intimation of the righteous­nesse or active obedience of Christ. Not but that the righteousnesse of Christ, is and ought to be belie­ved, as well as other things that are revealed and written in the Scriptures, yea I conceive it to be of nearer concernment to the maine, to beleeve this righteousnesse of Christ, then the beleeving of many other things besides comprehended in the Scrip­tures aswell as it. But one principall reason, why it should not be numbred or reckoned up amongst the objects of Faith as justifying, may (with great pro­bability) be conceived to be this: because, though it ought to be, and cannot but be beleeved by that Faith, which justifieth, yet it may be beleeved also by such a Faith, which is so far from justifying, that it denyeth this Christ (whose righteousnesse not­withstanding it beleeveth and acknowledgeth) to be the Son of God. Thus some of his owne Nation the Jewes, have given testimony to his righteous­nesse and innocency, who yet received him not for their Messiah, nor believed him to be God. And this is the frame and constitution of the Turkish Faith (for the most part) concerning him at this day.

Fiftly, SECT. 6 that Faith which is here said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse, ver. 3. is that Faith by which he beleeved in God, that quickeneth the dead, and calleth the things that are not as if they were, ver. 17. But the righteousnesse of Christ, can in no tolerable construction, or congruitie; of speech, be called that Faith, by which Abraham beleeved in God that quickeneth the dead &c. Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is not that Faith, that is here said to be imputed for righteousnesse.

Sixtly, that Faith which was imputed unto Abra­ham for righteousnesse ver. 3. is that Faith, wherein [Page 40]it is said ver. 19. that Abraham was not weak, and is opposed, to doubting of the promise of God through unbeliefe, ver. 20. But the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be conceived to be that, wherein Abraham was not weake, neither doth the righte­ousnesse of Christ carrie any opposition with it, to a doubting of the promise of God through unbeliefe, being a thing of a differing kind and nature from it. But betweene Faith properly taken or a firme belie­ving, and a doubting through unbeliefe, there is a di­rect & perfect opposition. Therefore it is Faith in this sense, and not the righteousnesse of Christ, that is said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse.

Sevently, that Faith which was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse, was that Faith, by which he was fully assured, that he which had pro­mised, was able also to doe it (for thus it is descri­bed, ver. 21.) and the imputation of faith so descri­bed, is plainly affirmed ver. 22. and therefore it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse. But the righ­teousnesse of Christ, is not capable of any such defi­nition or description, as this, that by it Abraham was fully assured, that he that had promised, was al­so able to performe it. Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ, is not that, that was imputed for righte­ousnesse unto Abraham.

Eightly, that which shall be imputed unto us for righteousnesse, is said to be our beleeving on him, that raised up the Lord Iesus Christ from the dead. v. 24. But the righteousnes of Christ is not our belie­ving on him that raised up our Lord Iesus Christ from the dead. Therefore it cannot be that, that is either said or meant to be imputed unto us for righteousnes.

Ninthly, (and lastly) whereas the question or point of imputation in Iustification, is handled only in this passage of Scripture, Rom. 4. (for those other [Page 41]places Gal. 3, and Iam. 2, only mention it, but insist not at all upon any declaration or explication there­of) it is no waies probable, but that the Apostle should speake somewhat distinctly and plainely of the nature of it here. Otherwise he might seeme ra­ther desirous to have layd a stumbling block in the way of men; then written any thing for their learning and comfort. If we take the word FAITH or BELEEVING, so often used in this Chapter, in the proper and plaine signification of it, for that Faith whereby a man beleeves in Christ, or the promise of God concerning Christ, then the tenor of the dis­course is as cleare as the day, and full of light: the streame of the whole Chapter run's limpid and un­troubled. But if we bring in a tropicall and metony­micall interpretation, and by Faith, will needs com­pell Saint Paul to meane the righteousnesse of Christ, we cloath the Sun with a Sackcloath, and turne Pauls perspicuitie into a greater obscuritie, then any light in the Scripture knoweth well how to comfort or relieve. The word FAITH, being a terme frequent­ly used in the Scripture, is yet never found to signifie the righteousnesse of Christ, the Holy Ghost never putting this word into that sheath: neither is there any, either rule in Grammar, or figure in Rhetorique, that know's how to salve up the inconsistencie of such an interpretation. SECT. 8

If it be objected and said, that faith in the Scrip­ture is sometimes put for the object of faith, as Gal. 3, 23. But before Faith came (that is, the Doctrine of Faith, or Christ himselfe the object of Faith) we were kept under the Law. So Gal. 1, 22. He preach­eth the faith, which sometimes he destroyed. &c. and may be so used with as good proprietie of speech, as hope is put for the thing or things hoped for (which is an expression not unusuall in the Scriptures.)

To this I answere, first, by concession, that true it is, the name of the faculty is sometimes put for the object appropriated to it: neither is there any hard­nes or cause of offence or mistake in such an expressi­on. It rather add's grace & comlinesse to the sentence wherein it is used, if it be used seasonably, as might be exemplified by severall Scripture instances, (if it were pertinent).

But secondly, by way of opposition I answere, First, though the faculty be sometimes put for the Object, yet the act seldome (or never) to my re­membrance. The actor exercise of the grace of hope, is never put for the things hoped for, but hope it selfe is sometimes found in that signification. As Colos. 1, 5. for the hope which is layed up for you in the Heaven. So Tit. 2, 13. Looking for that blessed hope, &c. Now that which is here said to be imputed un­to Abraham for righteousnesse, was not the habit or grace of his Faith, but Abraham beleeved God (that is, exercised or put forth an act of Faith, & it was im­puted unto him for righteousnes. So that though faith may be sometimes put for the object of Faith, yet the exercise of this Faith, or to believe, is never put for it.

Secondly, though it should be granted, that as­well the act it selfe, as the faculty or habit, may be sometimes put for the Object, yet when the act and Object have been named together, and the act ex­pressed and specified by an Object proper to it, and further, somewhat immediatly ascribed to this act under that consideration (all which is plainly seene in this clause, Abraham beleeved God, and it was im­puted unto him for righteousnesse) in this case to con­ceive or affirme, that what is so ascribed, is neither ascribed unto the act it selfe there mentioned (which is here, Abrahams beleeving) nor unto the Object mentioned likewise with it (which is here, GOD: [Page 43] Abraham beleeved God) but to some third thing re­ally differing from them both, and not so much as once mentioned or named in all the discourse (as the righteousnesse of Christ is not once named through­out this whole Chapter, no nor in any other Chapter neere at hand, either antecedent, or subsequent) what is this but to turne a mans back upon the text, to looke out an interpretation? and to exchange that which is plainly affirmed, with what is not so much as obscurely intimated or implied? and to make the Apostle speake as man never spake besides, not for wisdome or excellencie of speech, but for the uncouth abstrusenesse of his meaning? Doubtles no instance is to be found of any Author whatsoever, sacred or prophane, who so far abhorred to be un­derstood in what he spake, as to put his minde into words of such a construction.

Thirdly, and lastly, to the Objection I Answere: that neither is the righteousnesse of Christ the object of Faith, as justifying (as hath been said, and suffici­ently made good) nor doth the Scripture, where it speakes of Faith as justifying (which places are not a few) make the least mention, or give the least inti­mation of such a thing. It is true, the Scriptures some­times propound the righteousnes of Christ or his obe­dience to the Law, as that which is to be beleeved, & so it may be termed a partiall object of Faith, that is, somewhat that is & ought to be believed: but so the creation of the world is propounded to be beleeved, and that Cain was Adams Son, is somewhat to be be­leeved. And generally whatsoever the Scriptures do affirme, may be called a partiall object of Faith. But the object of faith properly, as it justifieth, is ei­ther Christ himselfe, or the promise of GOD con­cerning the Redemption and salvation of the world by him. The righteousnesse of Christ is no more the [Page 44]object of Faith as justifying, then either his being borne of a Virgin, or his ascending up into Heaven, or the like, and either the one or the other, may (in that respect) be aswell here said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse, as the righteousnesse of Christ. Thus you see at large how many passages and circumstances in the context, stand up in conte­station against that exposition, which by Abra­hams Faith in this Chapter, will needs understand Christs righteousnesse.

Fourthly, SECT. 9 (and lastly) this interpretation we con­tend for: according to which, the word Faith or be­leeving, is to be taken properly in all the passages mentioned, and not tropically or metonymically) was the common interpretation anciently received and followed by the principall lights, (I meane the Fathers) of the Church of God from the primi­tive times, and for 1500 yeares together (as far as my reading and memorie together will assist me,) was never questioned or contradicted. Neither did the contrary opinion ever looke out into the world (at least was never contended for) till the yester­day of the last age. So that it is but a calumnie or e­vill report, brought upon the opinion, and interpre­tation of this Scripture which we maintaine (unwor­thy the tongue or pen of any learned and sober man) to make either Arminius or Socinus, the Authors or founders of either. And for this last hundreth yeeres and upwards, from about Luthers and Calvins times, the fairest streame of Interpreters so runs, as to water and refresh the same interpretation. You will be ea­sily inclin'd (I presume) to beleeve both the one and the other, that both former and latter times have been friends and favourers of the interpretation given, if you will please, with diligence and with­out partiality, to ponder and examine these few te­stimonies [Page 45]and passages following, as they stand in their severall Authors respectively.

TERTULLIAN, Caeterum quomo­do fil [...] [...]let [...]t [...]tus fide [...], si non A [...]a [...] S [...]e­nim A [...]cham Deo credidit, et d [...]tatum est Iustitiae, atque extud [...] Pate multatum natio­rum m [...]ruit nun­cupart: no [...] [...]a­tem credendo Deo, magis pro­trd [...] justificamur sicut Abraham. Tertull. contra Marc. l. 5. c. 3. Denique Abra­ham Deo credi­dit, et justitiae deputatus ab isto est: sed fidem e­jus patientia probavit, quum filium immolaere jussus est &c. Idem. de Patient. c. 6. Videtur ergo eci­am in prasenti [...]oco quam multae fides Abrahae praecesserint, in hoc nunc univer­sa fides ejus esse collecta: et ita ad justitiam ei reputata. Ori­gen. l. 4. ad Ro. in c. 4. [...] Iust. Mar. Dial. cum Tryph. post medium. who lived and wrote about the yeare 194, in his fift Booke against Marcion, writeth thus, But how the Children of Faith? or of whose Faith, if not of Abrahams? For if Abraham beleeved God, and that was imputed unto him for righteousnesse, and he thereby deserved the name of a Father of many Na­tions, we by beleeving GOD more, are therefore justi­fyed as Abraham was. The same Father in his tract of Patience, Abraham beleeved God, and was accoun­ted righteous by him, but he tried his Faith by patience, when he was commanded to offer his Son. Therefor Tertullians opinion directly is, that that Faith which is said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse, is Faith properly taken, and not the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by Faith, because he saith that God tried his Faith by patience, which cannot be applied to the righteousnesse of Christ.

ORIGEN, Who lived about the yeare 203 in his fourth Booke upon the Romans, writing on cap. 4. ver. 3. speaketh thus. It seemes therefore, that in this place also, that whereas many faiths, (that is, many acts of believing) of Abraham had gone before, now all his faith was recollected and united together, and so was accounted unto him for righteousnesse. And in the same place not long after, he hath more words to like purpose. Therefore he joyned with Tertulli­an in the interpretation of this Scripture.

JUSTIN MARTYR, Who liv'd before them both, and not long after the Apostle Iohn's time, about the yeare 130, in his Dialogue or disputation had at E­phesus with Trypho the Jew, it seemes led them both the way to that Interpretation. Abraham caried not away the testimony (or commendation) of righte­ousnesse, because of his circumcision, but because of [Page 46]his Faith. For before he was circumcised, this was pronounced of him, Abraham beleeved God, and it was imputed unto him for righteous­nesse.

CHRYSOSTOM, who lived somewhat after the yeare 380, [...]. Chrysost. ad Rom. cap. 4. v. 23. circa initi­um Serm. 9. et paulo post. [...] Idem ad Gal. 3. c. in the beginning of his ninth Sermon up­on the Romans. Having spoken (saith he, mean­ing Paul in the former part of that Chapter) many and great things concerning Abraham and his Faith, &c. And a little after, Wherefore (saith he) was it written, but that we might learne that we also are justi­fied, as he was, because we have beleeved the same God? The same Father againe upon Gal. 3. For what was he the worse for not being under the Law? nothing at all, for his Faith was sufficient unto him for righteous­nesse. If Abrahams Faith was sufficient unto him for righteousnesse, it must needs be imputed by God for righteousnesse unto him, for it is this imputation from God, that must make that sufficiency of it unto Abraham. That which will not passe in accompt with God for righteousnesse, will never be sufficient for righteousnesse unto the creature.

Saint AUGUSTINE, who lived about the yeare 390, SECT. 11 Credendo quipp [...] invenimus, quod illi (Iudai) non credendo amise­runt. Quia cre­didit Abraham Deo, et reputa­tum est illi ad justitiam, Aug. in Psal. 148. versus finem. gives frequent testimony in his works, both to the opinion and interpretation contested for. Vpon Psal. 148. For we by beleeving have found that which they (the Iewes) lost by not beleeving. For Abraham beleeved God, and it was imputed unto him for righte­ousnes. Therefore his opinion cleerely is, that it was Abrahams Faith or Beleeving properly taken, that was imputed unto him for righteousnesse, and not the righteousnesse of Christ. For that Faith of his, which was so imputed, he opposeth to the un­beliefe of the Jewes, whereby they lost the grace and favor of God. Now the righteousnesse of Christ is not opposed to unbeliefe, but Faith properly ta­ken. [Page 47]Againe, writing upon Psal. 70, In eum credo, qui justificat impium, ut de­putetur fides me­a in justitiam. Idem in Psal. 70. For I beleeve in him that justifieth the ungodly, that my faith may be imputed unto me for righteousnes. Where by Faith he cannot meane the righteousnesse of Christ, because he calleth it his owne before the imputation: where­as the righteousnesse of Christ can no waies be ima­gined to be any mans, till it be made his by imputati­on: The same Father yet againe, in his tract of nature and Grace: But if Christ died not in vaine, Si autem non gratu mortuus est Christus, in illo solo justifica­tur impius: cui credenti in eum qui justificat im­pium, deputatur fides injustiti­am. Aug. De Nat. et Grat. non lorge ab ini­tio. Credidit Abra­ham Deo, et de­putatum est illi ad justitiam. Ec­ce sine opere, ju­stificatur ex fide [...] et quicquid illi, legali observati­one potest confer­ri, totum crduli­tas sola donavit. Idem de Temp. Serm. 68. the un­godly is justified in him alone: to whom, beleeving in him that justifieth the ungodly, his Faith is accounted for righteousnesse. And yet once more, in his 68 Sermon of Time ( [...]f that piece be his) Abraham beleeved God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse. See, without any worke, he is justified by Faith, and whatso­ever was possible to have bin conferred upon him by the observation of the Law his beleeving alone gave it all unto him. Certainly this Author (whoever he was) by the word CREDULITIE (for so the Latine word signifieth) whereby he expresseth that Faith which was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse, could not meane or understand the righteousnesse of Christ.

PRIMASIUS about the yeare 500, upon Rom. 4, ver. 3. Tam magna fuit dono. Dei fides Abrahae, ut et pristina ei peccata donarentur, et sola prae omni justitia doceretur accepta. that is, Abrahams faith by the guift of God was so great, that both his former sins were forgiven him, and this FAITH of his alone pre­ferred in acceptation before all righteousnesse. By Abrahams alone Faith, he cannot meane Christs righ­teousnesse.

BEDA, who lived somewhat before the yeare 700 upon Rom. 4. ver. 5. hath these words, What Faith, Que fides, nisi quam alio loco plenissime defi­nit Apostolus: Neque circunci­sio neque praepu­tium aliquid va­let, sed fides que per dilecti­onem operatur. Non qualis [...]n­que fides, sed si­d [...]s que per dile­ [...]ta mem opera­tur. Beda ad Ro. 4 5. Quia credidit D [...]o, reputatū est et ad justitiam [...]. ad remissionem peccatorum, quia per ipsā si­dem, qua credi­dit, justus effe­ctus est. Haymo in Rom. 4, 3. Quod ita firmi­ter credidit, re­putatum est illi divinitus ad ju­stitiam, i. non solum liberatus est ab omni origi­nali et actuali peccato per hanc credulitatem, sed justus est a Deo reputatus. An­selm. Cant. in Rom. 4.3. but that which the Apostle in another place fully defi­neth: neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision avai­leth [Page 48]any thing but faith which worketh by love, not any faith, but that faith which worketh by love. Certainty that Faith, which Paul defineth or describeth to be a Faith working by love, cannot be conceived to be the righteousnesse of Christ, and yet this Faith it was, in the judgment of this Author, that was im­puted unto Abraham for righteousnesse.

HAYMO, about the yeare 840, in Rom. 4, 3. Be­cause he beleeved God, it was imputed unto him for righ­teousnesse, that is, unto remission of sinnes, because by that Faith, wherewith he beleeved, he was made righteous.

ANSELME, Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, about the yeare, 1090, upon Rom. 4, 3. That he meaning (A­braham) beleeved so strongly, was by God imputed for righteousnesse unto him: that is, &c. by this belee­ving he was imputed righteous before God.

From all these testimonies it is apparant, that that interpretation of this Scripture which we con­tend for, hath anciently ruled in the Church of God, and no man found to open his mouth, or lift up his pen against it, till it had bin established upon the Throne for above a thousand yeares. Come we to the times of Reformation, here we shall finde the right and title of it still maintained by men of greatest authority and learning. Sec. 12 Christiana justi­tia est fiducia in filium Dei: quae fiducia impu­tatur ad iustiti­am propter Chri­stum. Luther. ad Gal. 3, 6. Deus reputat i­stam imperfe­ctam fidem ad justitiam perfe­ctam propter Christum, in quem coepi cre­dere. ibid.

LUTHER in Gal. 3, 6. Christian righteousnesse is an affiance or faith in the Son of God, which affiance is imputed unto righteousnes for Christs sake. And in the same place not long after: God for Christs sake, in whom J have begun to beleeve, accompts this (my) im­perfect faith, for perfect righteousnes. Doubtlesse this Author was for the interpretation given, or else his words and he, were not of the same mind.

BUCER, upon Rom. 4.3. Abraham beleeved God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes, that is, [Page 49]he accounted this FAITH or beleeving, Abraham fidem habuit Iehovae, et reputavit id ei justitiam [...] hoc est, habuit ei pro ju­stitia hanc fidem. Credendo igitur id accepit, ut Deus cum pro justo haberet. Buce [...]. Ad Ro. 4, 3. Imputari ad ju­stitiam, alio mo­do significat [...]d, per quod nos ipsi habemur in censu justorum. Atque id Paulus tan­tummodo fidei tribuit &c. (P. Mart. Ad Rom. 4, 3. Quare Abraham credendo nihil a­liud, quam obla, tam sibi gratiam amplectitur, ne [...]rrita sit. Si hoc illi imputatur in justitiam, sequi­tur non aliter es­se justum, nisi quia Dei bonitate consisus, omnia ab ipso sperare audet, Calvin. ad Rom. 4, 3. Fides reputatur in justitiam, non qu [...]d ullum a no­bis meritum af­ferat, sed quia Dei bonitatem apprehendit. ibid. in v. 4. for righteous­nesse unto him. So that by beleeving he obtained this, that God esteemed him a righteous man.

PETER MARTYR declares himselfe of the same judgment, upon Rom. 4, 3. To be imputed for righ­teousnesse in another sense, signifieth, that by which we our selves are reckoned in the number of the righteous. And this PAUL attributes to FAITH only.

CALVIN abetteth the same interpretation with as high a hand as any of his fellowes, upon Rom. 4, 3, Wherefore Abraham by beleeving doth only imbrace the grace tendred unto him, that it might not be in vaine. If this be imputed unto him for righteousnesse, it followes, that he is no otherwise righteous, but as trusting or re­lying upon the goodnesse of God, he hath boldnesse to hope for all things from him. Againe, upon verse 5. Faith is reputed for righteousnesse, not because it carieth any merit from us, but because it apprehends the goodnesse of God. If all this be not home to the point in Que­stion, I desire the Reader that desires further satisfa­ction concerning the judgment of this Author there­in, to peruse and ponder what he hath commented at large upon the sixt verse of Gal. 3. Whosoever thinks it prejudiciall to Calvin, that he should be thought to hold Imputation of Faith (in a proper sense) for righteousnesse, may if he will, pittie him, and lament over him, but without an Index expur­gatorius (and that in folio) can never relieve him. In the place last mentioned (to omit many other passa­ges and expressions: here extant, as pregnant for that imputation of Faith which is pleaded for, as eyes can looke upon) he describes at large that Faith of Abraham (which is there said to be imputed for righteousnesse) by the nature and property of it, and differenceth it from other perswasions that men may have of the truth of God. By which cariage of [Page 50]the businesse, it is as manifest as manifestation it selfe knowes how to make any thing manifest, that his thoughts were never tempted with any insinuation either of a tropicall or metonymicall sense in the word Faith: but that the plaine, ready, and Gram­maticall signification, was that which he wrought upon, Sec. 13 and fram'd his interpretation unto.

MUSCULUS, Commendata de­bebat esse haec si­des, non propr [...]e qualitatu, sed propositi Dei re­spectu, quo con­stituit, illa, cre­dentibus in Chri­stum, propter ip­sum, justitiae lo­co imputare. Musc. Loc. de. Iustif. sect. 5 Quid enim fecit (Abraham) quod imputaretur illi ad justitiam, nisi quod credi­dit Deo? Idem Ad Gal. 3, 6. Sic de hac Abra­h [...] fide loquitur, ut manifestum sit disputare ip­sum de fide, qua non simpliciter Deo, sed in De­um creditur. I­dem in Gen. 15, 6. Verum vbi pro­mittenti Deo firmiter credidit, est illi ejusmodi fides justitiae loco imputata: hoc est, obeam fidem, justus est a Deo reputatis, et ab omnibus dei [...]ctis absolutus. ibid. as far as his judgment and learning will reach, engageth himselfe for this Imputation also. In his common place of Iustification. Sect. 5. This Faith should be in high respect and esteeme with us; not in regard of the proper quality of it, but in regard of the purpose or decree of God, whereby he hath decreed, for Christs sake, to impute it (this faith) for righteous­nesse unto those that beleeve in him. The same Author upon Gal. 3, 6. What did (Abraham) that should be imputed unto him for righteousnesse, but only this, that he beleeved God? Words plaine enough to our pur­pose, yet behold from the same pen, more plaine then they in another place. Vpon Gen. 15, 6. you shall finde words of this importance. He so speakes of Abrahams Faith, that manifest it is, that he dis­putes of that Faith, wherewith a man beleeveth, not God simply, but in or on God. Where though he makes a difference betweene beleeving God simply, and beleeving in God: yet evident it is, that if there be either trope or metonymie in the word BELEEVING, he was not aware of it, because be in­terprets it of such a Faith, as properly notes the act, not the object of beleeving. Againe, afterwards, in the same place: But when he firmly beleeved God pro­mising, that very Faith was imputed to him, in the place, or stead of righteousnesse, that is, he was of God reputed righteous for that Faith, and absolved from all his sins.

BULLINGER likewise gives the same right hand [Page 51]of fellowship to the same interpretation, upon Rom. Concredidit se A­braham Deo, et illud ipsum illi pro justitia im­putatum est. Bulling. ad Ro. 4. Imputatum est illi adjustitiam &c. hoc est, illa ipsa Abrahae fi­des ipsi adjusti­am imputata est, cum ad huc age­ret in praputio. Idem. ad Gal. 3, 6. Credidit Abra­ham Deo, et im­puravit ei, scili­cet Deus, hanc fidem, pro justi­tia. Gualt. Ad Rom. 4.4. Imputavit ei justitiam, quod est, fidem gia­tam habuit, ade­o ut justum ex eo haberet justi­tia imputativa. Aret. ad Rom. 4. Fides tam fir­ma et pia, pro justitia Abraha­mo imputata est. Aret. ad Rom. 4, 22. 4 Abraham committed himselfe unto God by beleeving and this very thing was imputed unto him for righteous­nesse. And the second time upon Gal. 3, 6. It was im­puted unto him for righteousnesse. that is, that very Faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righte­ousnesse, whilst he was yet uncircumcised.

GUALTER comes behind none of the former in avouching the Grammaticall against the Rhetoricall interpretation, upon Rom. 4.4. Abraham beleeved God, and he, viz. God, imputed unto him THIS FAITH for righteousnesse.

ARETIUS no whit digresseth from the former ex­positions upon Rom. 4. He imputed righteousnesse un­to him, which is as much as to say, he so far accepted or thought well of his faith, as thereupon to accompt him righteous with an imputative righteousnesse. Where note by the way, he doth not call an imputative or imputed righteousnesse, any thing that is a righte­ousnesse properly so called, any righteousnesse that should be in one person inherently, and become ano­thers by imputation (neither do I remember the phrase of an imputed righteousnesse in that sense, in any classique Author) but by an imputative righ­teousnesse, he meanes somewhat imputed or accoun­ted by God for righteousnesse, which literally and in strictnesse of consideration is not such. Againe, the same Author more plainly and succinctly upon ver. 22. of the same Chapter, A faith so firme and pious, was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse. Illud credere, ei imputatum est ad justitiam, vel pro vera justitia. Illyr. ad Ro. 4.3. Et paulo post: Mendica illa fi­tes apprehendeus Christi justiciam, imputata ipsi est loco propriae ju­stitiae.

ILLYRICUS forsakes not his fellow-interpreters in this point. Vpon Rom. 4, 3. That same beleeving was imputed unto him for righteousnesse. And after­wards, That same poore begging faith, apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ, was imputed unto him in­stead of a proper righteousnesse.

PELLICAN [...]s breakes not this ranke, Credidit sim­pliciter verbo Dei, et non po­stulavit signum a D [...]mino: et imputabat cam sidem ipsi Abra­hae Deus pro ju­stitia qua credi­tur propersus Deus in nostrum bonum. Peli­can to Gen. 15.6. Fides qua pro­mittent [...] Deo credidit Ab [...]aham, et fuit ad justitiam impu­tata. Hunnius ad [...]om. 4 3. Hic agitur de eo. quod ipsi im­putatum est, nempe de ipsius side [...]re. ad Rom. 4.3. Eum quan vis justitia carentē numeravitque pro justo habuit, in justit [...] loco, quod promissio­nes firma fide ample [...]us est. I c [...]mel. et Iun. Not. in Gen. 15.6. Intelligimus fide [...] nomine ac­qutes [...]ntiam Abrah [...]e non in se sunv [...] m [...]ti­tu, sed in Dei promissione et benevolentia. Par. ad Ro. 4.3. Vpon Gen. 15 6. Abraham simply beleeved the word of God, and required not a signe of the Lord and God imputed THAT VERY Faith unto Abraham himselfe for righteousnes, whereby GOD is inclineable or propense to doe us good.

HUNNIUS another Reformed Divine sets to his seale that the avouched interpretation is true, On Rom. 4.3. The faith whereby Abraham beleeved GOD promising, was imputed unto him for righte­ousnesse.

BE [...]A himselfe, upon the same Scripture is as deep in the same way as any. Here ( [...]a [...]th he) the businesse is, concerning that, that was imputed unto him, viz his faith.

JUNIUS and TREMEILIUS, are likewise of the former conspiracie aginst the tropicall interpretati­on. On Gen. 15, 6. God esteemed (or accounted) him for righteous though wanting righteousnesse wherewith to stand before God, and reckoned this in the stead or place of righteousnesse, that he imbraced the promise with a firme beliefe.

PARAEUS (the last we shall name of forreigne Di­vines) dealeth out this interpretation as freely as his fellowes. On Rom. 4.3. We understand by the name or word FAITH (which is said to be impu [...]ed unto Abraham for righteousnesse) Abraham's ac­quietation or resting, [...]ot in himselfe, or in his owne me­rits, but in the promise and graciousnesse of God.

Neither are there wanong from amongst our selves, men of soundest learning and j [...]dgment, holding forth the light o [...] the same interpretation a so.

Doctor ROBERT ABBOT ( [...]wards Bishop of Sa [...]um) in his Apologie against Bishop, SECT. 15 Part 1 c p. 9. not far from the beginning: H [...]ving [...]e downe those passages of the Apost [...]e, Rom. 4, 5, and 6. he addeth [Page 53]as followeth. In which words we see, how the A­postle affi [...]meth (accordingly as I said) an Imputati­on of righteousnesse without works: which he expres­seth to be, The repu [...]ing of Faith for righteousnesse; for that thereby we obtaine remission and forgivenesse of sinnes. Againe not long after; for in the imputation of righteousnesse without works, what is it that is reputed for righteousnesse? Faith (saith the Apostle) is repu­ted for righteousnesse. Tell us then Mr. Bishop, is faith with you reputed for righteousnesse without works? Spit out man and tell us, whether in your first or second justification, you hold that a man for his faith is reputed righteous, &c. (with more of like importance, in the page following) He that will undertake to di­vide b [...]weene this Author, and the opinion we con­tend for, must be more severe then to give a man leave to be of his owne minde.

Dr. PRESTON also, maketh himselfe a stranger to the tropicall interpretation of this Scripture, and imbraceth that which is litterall and proper without scruple or question. In his Treatise of Gods Allsuffi­ciency, pag 12 13. In this sense faith is said to be ac­counted (or imputed) for righteousnesse. Abraham be­leeved God, Gen. 15. God indeed made the same proposition, that he doth here for substance, he tells him what be would do for him: and (saith the text) Abraham beleeved God, and it was counted unto him for righteousnesse. Now it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse chiefly in this sense, as it is inter­preted Rom 4 that his 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 be accounteth faith to him for righteousnes, because faith doth Sanctifie, [Page 54]and make a man righteous, &c. So that evident it is (if there be any such thing as evidence in the writings and opinions of men) that this mans thoughts were never so much as tempted, to conceit that the Apo­stle should tropologize or metonymize in the word Faith, or beleeving, in this Scripture.

Mr. JOHN FORBS, late Pastor of the English Church at Middleburgh, a man of knowne gravity, pietie, and learning, in his Treatise of Iustification, cap. 28, p. 135. hath these words, For faith in this sentence (meaning, where it is said that faith is impu­ted unto righteousnesse) is in my opinion, to be taken properly, in that sense whereby in it selfe it is distinguish­ed, both from the word, whereby it is begotten, and from the object of it in the word, which is Christ.

Thus I have cited the authority of many Authors, by way of collaterall assurance, for the securing the literall and proper interpretation of this Scripture. Not that the interpretation it selfe needeth tali auxilio, aut defensoribus istis: but only to remove that great stumbling stone of the world (which lieth in many mens way towards many truths) called PREIUDICE.

CAP. III.
Other proofes from Scripture to to establish the former conclusion, vin­dicated likewise from such excepti­ons, as may be layd in a­gainst them.

SEcondly, that the active obedience of Christ, SECT. 1 or his fulfilling the Morall Law, was never inten­ded by God, to be that righteousnesse wherewith we should be justified (in any such way of imputation as is pretended) may be (I conceive) further demon­strated, from all such passages in Scripture, where the works of the Law are absolutely excluded from justification. As Rom. 3, 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith, without the works of the Law. So Gal. 2.16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the Faith of Iesus Christ, even we have beleeved in Iesus Christ, that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law, Againe, Rom. 3.20. Therefore by the works of the Law, shall no flesh be justi­fied in his sight: Besides other Scriptures of like im­portance. Now if a man be justified by the righte­ousnesse of Christ imputed unto him, he shall be ju­stified by the works of the Law, because that righ­teousnesse of Christ we now speake of, consists of these works, as every mans personall righteousnesse [Page 56]should have done had there been a continuance in the first Covenant? Therefore this righteousnesse of Christ cannot be imputed to any man, for that righ­teousnesse, whereby he is to be justified.

Neither will these and the like Scriptures be char­med by words of any such glosse or interpretation as this: No man shall be justified in the sight of God by the works of the Law, viz. as personally wrought by themselves, because no mans works will hold out weight and measure with the strictnesse and perfection of the Law. But this hinders not, but that a man may be justified by the works of the Law, as wrought by another, supposing this other to be as great in working or obeying as the Law it selfe is in commanding, and withall, that God is wil­ling to derive these works of his upon us by impu­tation. For to this I answere 4 things.

First, SECT. 2 where the holy Ghost delivers a truth sim­ply and indefinitly, and in way of a generall or uni­versall conclusion (for in materiâ necessariâ, as this is, propositio indefinita vim obtines universalis, as Logici­ans, the best oversees of reason, generally resolve us: not to be justified by the works of the Law, is as much as not to be justified by any works of the Law whatsoever) wi hout imposing any necessity upon men, either in the same place, or else where in the Scriptures, to limit or distinguish upon it, then for men to interpose with their owne wisdomes and ap­prehensions, by distinctions and limitations, and re­servations of what they please, to over-rule the plaine and expresse meaning and signification of the words, is not to teach men obedience and submission unto, but to usurp a power, and exercise authority over the Scriptures: Neither is there any practise so sinfull, or opinion so erronous, but may find a way to escape the word of the Spirit, and to come fairely [Page 57]off from all Scripture censure, if they be but permit­ted to speake for themselves by the mouth of such a distinction. Give but the loose Patrons of an impli­cit Faith, liberty to distinguish upon like terms; where the Scriptures in the most explicit manner falls foulest upon their implicit Faith, they will be able by the attonement of such a distinction to make their peace with the Scriptures. He that beleeves not (saith our Saviour Mar. 16, 16.) shall be damned. He that beleeves not shall be damned. True (may these men say) He that beleeves not, either by him­selfe or by another, shall be damned, but this hin­ders not, but that he that beleeveth as the Church beleeveth, may be saved, though he knoweth no­thing explicitely of what the Church beleeveth: the explicit Faith of the Church is sufficient to save him. So likewise by the Law of such a distinction, the Antinomian Sect amongst us, will be able to ju­stify their non-necessitie of personall sanctification or inherent holynesse, against those Scriptures that are most pregnant and peremptory for it. Without ho­linesse saith the Apostle. Heb. 12, 14.) no man shall see the Lord: True (saith the Antinomian) without ho­linesse either in himselfe, or in some other, no man shall see the Lord: but he that is in Christ by Faith, hath holinesse in Christ, and therefore hath no necessity of it in his owne person. Who seeth not, that in these and ma­ny like cases, that might be mentioned, that liberty of distinguishing which we implead, would plainly beguile the Holy Ghost of his direct intentions and meanings in those and such like Scriptures? There­fore when the Scriptures expressely and indefinitly deliver, that by the works of the Law no man shall be justified, if men will presume to distinguish (as hath been said) and exclude such works from justifi­cation only as performed by our selves, but make [Page 58]thē every mans justificatiō, as performed by another, who tasts not the same spirit of an unwarrātable wis­dome in this distinction, which ruled in the former?

Secondly I answere, that if the Apostles charge and commission had bin, SECT. 3 in the delivering the do­ctrine of justification, either to have made, or to have given allowance for any such distinction as is con­tended about, betweene the works of the Law, as performed by men themselves, and the same works of the Law, as performed by Christ, that those indeed should have no hand in justification, but these should be all in all, these should be justification it selfe: cer­teinly he should have bin unfaithfull in this trust, and very injurious to these works of Christ, in give­ing away that place of honour in the opposition, which was due unto them, to another thing of a far inferior nature to them, viz. Faith, as it is evident he doth, in the Scripture cited. Gal. 2. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the Faith of Iesus Christ. He doth not say, but by the works of Iesus Christ, as if the opposition stood be­tweene the works of the Law as performed by men, and the same works as performed by Christ, which in all congruity of reason he should have done, had the works of the Law, as done by Christ, any such preheminence this way above the other; and not have ascribed that unto Faith (which is somewhat wherein the poore and weake creature hath to do) which was the right and prerogative of Christs righ­teousnesse. Doubtlesse Paul was no such enemy to the righteousnesse of Christ, as to set up an usurper upon the Throne, which belonged to it. Thirdly, if Pauls intent had bin to have reserved a place in justification for the active righteousnesse of Christ, or for the works of the Law, as performed by Christ, by way of opposition to the same works, as performed [Page 59]by men themselves, his indefinite expression exclud­ing the works of the Law simply, without the least in imation given of any difference of those works, either as from the one hand or from the other, would have beene of dangerous consequence, and as a snare upon men, to cause them to passe over the great things of their justification. Certainly if Paul had ever digged such a pit as this, he would have bin carefull first or last to have fil'd it up againe.

Fourthly (and lastly) if by excluding the works of the Law from justification, Pauls meaning had been, SECT. 4 only to exclude these works as done by men them­selves, but had no intent to exclude them as don by Christ, it can at no hand be thought, or once imagi­ned, but that he would have made use, yea made much of such a distinction or reservation himselfe, and would have been a glad man, if salva veritate E­vangelij, without trenching upon some Gospel truth, he could have come over so neere to his Country­men the Jewes, and have closed with them in the great point of justification upon such terms. Such a distinction might have been a happy mediator be­tweene them. For what was it that chiefly incensed the Jewes against Paul and the Preaching of the Gospell and the righteousnesse of Faith, but that the Law and the observation of it, should be passed over and not taken into the great businesse of justification. Now if Paul keeping a streight course in the Gospel, could have said unto them, or treated with them after any such manner as this: you have no reason to take offence or to be troubled, that I preach justi­fication by Faith in Christ, because I do not exclude the righteousnesse or works of your Law, no not from having the maine stroke in your justification: nay that which I preach concerning Faith, is pur­posely to advance the righteousnesse of the Law, and [Page 60]to shew you how you may be justified by it. I only Preach, you cannot be justified by your owne obser­vation of it, because the holinesse, excellency and perfection of it is such, that you cannot attaine or reach it by your owne strength: but God hath sent me to keep it for you, by whose observation imputed to you, you shall be justified. Therefore I am no ene­my to your justification by the works of the Law: but only teach you, that these works are done by ano­ther for your justification. Who seeth not, but by such an interpretation or mitigation of matters as this, Paul might have taken off, (at least) a great part of the violent and furious oppositions of the Iewes against him? A little of this oyle poured in­to the wound, would have much mollified it, and (in all likelyhood) in time have healed it. But Paul (it seemes) did not like the composition or make of it, neither durst he administer any receite of it. He can­not be thought to have bin ignorant of this distincti­on or meanes of mitigation, and with as little proba­bilitie can it be thought, that he, that could be con­tent, not only to be made all things unto all men for their good, but even to have been an anathema from Christ to win them to the Gospel, would have with­held any such word of reconciliation from them, whereby there had been the least hope of gaining them. But we do not meet with so much as any one word of this qualification in all his writings: which shewes that the difference and distance betweene them, was deeper and greater then so. The parox­ysme or sharpe contention betweene him and them, was not, whether they were to be justified by the works of the Law, either as performed and wrought by themselves, or as wrought by another, but simply and indefinitly this, whether justification were by the works of the Law (by whomsoever performed) or [Page 61]by Faith (as is more then manifest in all the passages in his Epistles, wherein this question and dispute is brought upon the stage) There is not the least inti­mation of any difference betweene them this way, whether justification should be by the works of the Law, either as performed by our selves, or as perfor­med by Christ: Paul never puts them upon the works of the Law as done by Christ, for the matter of their justification: which shewes, that both he and they, though otherwise at as great a distance as can readily be conceived in the point of justification, yet in this were both of one mind and one judgment. Paul as far from holding Iustification by the works of the Law as performed by Christ, as the stubborn­est Jewes themselves were.

But there are two things that (haply,) SECT. 5 may be objected against the Answers given, and that will seeme to make for the confirmation of that distincti­on or interpretation, which we have so much oppo­sed. First, that there is a sufficient ground laied even by Paul himselfe, upon which to found the fore­named distinction, viz. that by excluding the works of the Law from Justification, he only excludes them, as done by men themselves, but not at all as done by Christ. Secondly, that there is mention also of the works of the Law, as done by Christ, or (which is the same) of Christs being made under the Law, in one of the chiefest disputes Paul hath concerning Ju­stification. The former objection is built upon Tit. 3, 5. The latter, upon Gal. 4.4.

The words of the former Scripture, are theise: Not by the workes of righteousnesse, which we had done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Vpon which words the objection getteth up thus: Paul by so precise a rejection of works of righteousnesse done by us, that is, by our selves, plainly implies an ad­mission [Page 62]of these works as done by another for us. Where one part or member of a distinction is given, the opposite member being implied, is still to be framed to it (as readily it may). Therefore Paul had no intent to shut out, but to bring in the works of the Law (as wrought by Christ) into the businesse of Iustification.

To this I answere sundry things: First, that the active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ should be wholly excluded, and be made a stander-by, so as to have nothing at all to do in the great businesse of Iustification, this discourse hath no where affirmed hitherto, neither doth it savor any where of the spi­rit of that affirmation. It hath been expressely ac­knowledged from the beginning, to have a gracious and blessed influence thereinto as it issueth and fal­leth into his passive obedience, which together may be called a righteousnesse for which, but at no hand, with which, we are justified. Therefore this obje­ction, contending and pleading for an admission of the workes of the Law, as done by Christ, into Iu­stification, doth no waies contradict the answere given in any part of it, except it can prove the neces­sity of this admission of the active righteousnesse of Christ, either for the materiall, or formall, or instru­mentall cause of Iustification: which it no waies doth, nor pretendeth to do. And the truth is, who­soever shall doe it, that is, goe about to make this righteousnesse of Christ either the formall, o [...] materi­all, or instrumentall cause of Iustification, will be found upon a due examination, wholly to dissolve and overthrow the merit of it: the establishment whereof is yet pretended as the great and pious de­signe of that opinion.

Secondly I answore, that the inference insisted up­on in the objection from the Scripture mentioned, [Page 63]comes heavily and with much unwillingnesse and re­luctation out of the premisses: there is no necessitie, nor indeed so much as a face of probabilitie in it. The Holy Ghost may reject the works of men from being the cause of such or such a thing, and yet no waies suppose or intimate that the works of another should be the cause thereof. As when we deny ei­ther the Faith or works of any man foreseene to be the cause of his election, we do not imply that the Faith or works of Christ foreseene are the cause of such election. No more doth it follow, that because Paul rejects the works of righteousnesse which men do, from their justification, that therefore he must needs imply a substitution of the workes of Christ in their stead. If the words had gone thus, Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we OUR SELVES had done, this had beene somewhat a higher ground, and a more rationall advantage to have infer'd the opposite member of the distinction, viz. but by the works of another, or of Christ. As Act. 20, 24. where Paul expresseth himselfe thus, Neither is my life deare unto my selfe, &c. here the opposite member of the di­vision may with good probability be conceived to be implied, after this manner: my life is not deare unto my selfe, THOUGH IT MAY BE DEERE UNTO O­THERS. And yet even such an intimation here, is not of absolute necessitie neither. But if the tenor of the words had only run thus, Neither is my life deere unto me, so that I may fulfill my course with joy: No man would ever have dream't or thought of any further thing to be implied, then what was expressed. So when the Holy Ghost in a direct and plaine tenor of Speech speaketh only thus: Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had wrought (not which we our selves had wrought) for men to conclude or inferre, an implying of workes wrought by another, [Page 64]is (in plaine and necessary interpretation) to make themselves wise above that which is written:

But thirdly, (to put the matter out of all question) that excluding the works of the Law which we had done, he had no intent, by way of opposition to im­ply the works which another might doe, he expres­seth plainly the opposition himselfe, and tells us that it was according to his mercy that he saved us, not by the works of righteousnesse which we had done, but according to his mercy he saved us: Therefore here can be nothing implied by way of opposition, because the opposition is fully and distinctly set downe. And

Fourthly, least any might yet say, that it may be according to Gods mercy, and yet by the works of righteousnesse wrought by Christ too, these two may easily be reconciled and stand together: the Apostle delivers himselfe distinctly of that wherein this mercy of God he speaks of, consisteth, not in save­ing of us, by the works of Christ imputed to us, but in regenerating of us, and washing us in the new birth.

Fiftly (and lastly) as such an inference is no waies necessarie, SECT. 6 nor so much as probable, so is it no waies pertinent to the purpose for which it is so earnestly contended for, though it should be granted. Because it is evident that the Apostle here rejects the workes of righteousnesse which he names, from being any causes antecedaneously moving God to save us, and not from being the formall cause of justification. So then let us give the objection its owne hearts desire, even that it murmur's so much after, viz. that the works of Christ must of necessity be here implied, yet will it perish and come to nothing, even whilst this meat is in the mouth of it. For all that will fol­low, or can be concluded by the imaginary advan­tage of such a supposition is only that whereof them­selves [Page 65]will be ashamed when it is brought forth un­to them, viz. this, that it is not the works of the Law which we have done our selves, but those which Christ hath done, that have moved God to save us by the washing of the new birth, and by the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Which if it be under­stood and meant of the decree and purpose of God so to save us, is against the truth: if it be understood of the execution of this decree, is against themselves. For that which moved God to decree or intend this salvation unto us, was nothing out of himselfe, but that [...], that good and gracious pleasure of his will. Eph. 1.5. or as that clause [...], of his will, is somewhat more emphatically with more of the Spirit and life of the originall in it rendred by our Translators ver. 11. of his owne will, implying (as I conceiv [...]) that that will, wherewith God willeth and purposeth to save his people, is intirely his owne, borne and begotten (as it were) only out of himselfe, without the seed of any consideration of any thing whatsoever, out of himselfe. As for the execution of this decree in the actuall justification or regeneration of those whom he hath purposed to save, if this be ascribed to the works of righteous­nesse done by Christ, as the cause moving God there­unto, this cleerely establisheth the merit of the righteousnesse of Christ in justification, but over­throweth the formality of it (which is that very truth, which this discourse seeketh and ensueth) for if God justifieth or regenerates for the righteous­nesse of Christ (which imports the merit thereof) he cannot either justify or regenerate with this righ­teousnesse of Christ, as the formall cause of either: the Reason is, because it is unpossible, that one and the selfe same thing in respect of one and the selfe same effect, should put on the different habitude or [Page 66]consideration both of the formall and efficient cause. Wherefore if the righteousnesse of Christ be any ef­ficient cause of Iustification (as all must grant that will acknowledg it for a meritorious cause thereof, no man gainsaying but that the meriting cause is a species or kind of efficient) unpossible it is that it should be brought in to any part or fellowship in the formall cause thereof, as will further be demonstra­ted, when we come to lay downe our grounds and reasons for what we hold. This for Answere to the former exception.

Concerning the latter objection, SECT. 7 from Gal. 4.4. Where Christ is said, to have been made under the Law, From hence it is inferred against the answere given, that Paul doth mention the works of the Law, as done by Christ, in this discourse of Iustifica­tion, and hereupon concluded further, that therefore he had no intent to exclude the works of the Law, as done by CHRIST, from having their part in Iustification.

For Answere hereunto (not to insist againe upon that which was delivered in the first branch of my Answere to the former objection, which yet is suffi­cient to ease the point in Question of the burden of this objection) I ad this in the first place: that the phrase of Christs being made under the Law, doth not signify Christs obedience or subjection to the Morall Law, or that part of the Law which we call Morall, but rather his subjection to the Law Cere­moniall, as is evident from the scope of the place: and particularly, from that which is delivered im­mediatly (ver. 5.) as the end or intent of that his be­ing made under the Law, viz. that he might redeeme them that were under the Law. There is no reason to conceive that Christ should be said to be made under any other Law, then that, from under which he was [Page 67]to redeeme others. Wherefore we being not redee­med from the Morall Law, or from that obedience due to that (that being lex aeterna, & aeternae obliga­tionis, an eternall Law, and of an eternall obligation) but from the Law of Ceremonies, it must needs fol­low, that it was this Law, under which Christ is here said to have been made. So that if men will ga­ther anything from hence, for the imputation of Christs obedience in just sication, it must be of that obedience which he performed to the Jewish or Ceremoniall Law, and so not only the Jewes, but we of the Gentiles also, must be cloathed with the robes of a Ceremoniall righteousnesse imputed unto us for our Iustification.

B [...] secondly, if we follow that interpretation of t [...]is clause, Christ was made under the Law, which Luther [...]clines unto (and is an exposi [...]n of no hard aspect neither upon the place, perhaps of a more favourable then the former) then by Christs being made under the Law, we shall neither understand his subject on to the Morall Law, nor yet to the Ceremo­niall Law, in the preceptive part of either, but his subjection unto the Curse of the Law. And thus it expresseth both the gracious designation of God, and likewise [...]he voluntary submission of Christ himselfe unto dea [...] for the deliverance of men, not only from death it selfe (in the future) but even from the feare of death (in the p [...]s [...]n [...]) as is plainly expressed Luke 1.74. and Heb. 2.15. In which respect, the fruit or effect and benefit of this his being made un­der the Law, is here (v. 1.5.) said to be, the receiving the adoption of Sons. If this exposition will stand (as I see not how it will easily be overthrowne, there being much more to be said for the justifying of it) then is it a plaine case, that here is nothing spoken, nor intended, of any such works of Christ, as are pre­tended [Page 68]for imputation, in the Iustification of a belee­ver. No adversary I have yet met with in this con­troversie, ever affirmed, that either the death of Christ, or the imputation of his death, should be ei­ther the formall or materiall cause of Iustification. Much more might be added, for the taking of this clause of Scripture from intermedling at all to the prejudice or disturbance of that conclusion, for which we have undertaken: but having sufficiently cleared (as I conceive) our second order or sort of proofes from the Scriptures, we proceed to others yet remayning.

CAP. IV.
A third Demonstration from the Scriptures of the non-imputation of CHRISTS righteousnesse for justi­fication, in the sense ruling in this Controversie.

THirdly, SECT. 1 that the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed unto men for their righteousnesse or justification, I demonstrate (with more brevitie) from that Scripture, Rom. 3.21. But now is the righ­teousnesse of God made manifest without the righteousnes of the Law, having witnes of the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousnesse of God, which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ, unto all and upon all that beleeve. From whence I thus reason: if the righteousnesse of Faith which is here called the righteousnesse of God, (as else where it is in the writings of this Apostle) either because he is the founder and contriver of it (as Di­vines for the most part agree) or because God be­stowes it and gives unto men (as Calvin conceives upon this place) or because it is this righteousnesse only that will stand, and hold out before God (as the same Author varieth his conjecture here) or whether it be called the righteousnesse of God by way of op­position to the righteousnesse of the Law, which is (and may well be) called the righteousnesse of [Page 70]men Rom: 10.3. because they can hardly rellish or savor any other righteousnesse but it, or whether for som other reason (not so necessary or pertinent to our present inquiry) I say if this righteousnesse of Faith consists in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, then is it not, nor can it be made manifest without the Law, that is, without the works of the Law (as Calvin rightly interpreteth the meaning of the word) But the righteousnesse of Faith is sufficiently mani­fested without the Law, that is without the works or righteousnesse of the Law: Therefore it doth not consist in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse: The reason of the conn [...]xion in the major prop [...]si­tion (against which exception must be made, [...]f the conclusion be denied, because the minor is plaine Scripture in terminis) is evident. If the righteous­nesse o [...] God consists in the imputation of Christs righteousnes, then is it not made manifest without the Law, that is, without the works and righteousnesse of the Law, because to such a righteousnesse, the Law and the works thereof, are every whit as ne­cessary, and more necessary then Faith it selfe, for Faith is made only a meanes of the derivation of it upon men: but the body and substance of the righte­ousnesse it selfe is nothing else but the pure Law and the workes of it. And how a righteousnesse should be said to be made manifest without the Law, whose essence, strength and substance is nothing but the Law, I conceive to be out of the reach of better ap­prehensions then mi [...] to comprehend.

If it be here objected and said, SECT. 2 that this righte­ousnesse of God or of Faith, may be said to be made manifest without the Law or the works of it, because there are no works required of us towards the rai­sing of it: but this hinders not but that the workes of the Law, as performed by Christ, may be the mat­ter [Page 71]and substance of it. To this I answere.

First, this Sanctuary hath been already polluted, and the horns of this Altar broken downe, in the de­monstration of the former proofe.

Secondly, there is not the least intimation given, that the Apostle should have any such by or back meaning as this: but that this righteousnesse of Faith should be fully taught and apprehended without a­ny consideration of the Law, or the works thereof, as an ingredient into it.

Thirdly, the works of the Law, are neverthelesse the works of the Law, because performed by Christ. The greatnesse or holinesse of the person working according to the Law, doth not alter or change the nature or property of the works, but they are the works of the Law, whosoever doeth them, Christs being Christ, doth not make the Law, not to be the Law.

Fourthly, this righteousnesse is said to receive testimony or witnesse from the Law, that is, from that part of Scripture, which is often called the Law, viz. the Books of Moses, Mat 5, 17. and c. 7, 12. (as Calvin here well interprets) and from the Pro­phets: therefore it cannot be a righteousnesse con­sisting in the imputation of a legal righteousnesse, because there will be found no testimony given ei­ther by the Law, or by the Prophets, to such a righ­teousnesse, except it be in aenigmate, a testimony in a riddle, which no man can finde out but by divinati­on, instead of an interpretation (whereas it is repug­nant to the nature of a testimony, not to be somewhat plaine and expresse; that it may be well understood) But if we interpret this righteousnesse of God, to be a righteousnesse procured or derived upon a man by Faith o [...] beleeving, there is expresse testimony to be found given unto it, both by the Law, and also by [Page 72]the Prophets (as the holy Ghost expressely here affir­meth) by the Law: Gen. 15, 6, And he (Abraham be­leeved in the Lord, and he counted it unto him for righ­teousnesse. By the Prophets: Hab. 2.4. But the just shall live by his Faith.

Fiftly (and lastly) this righteousnesse of God is said to be unto all, & upon all [...], by or through Faith, by way of opposition to the works of the Law, ver. 20. Now betweene Faith and the Law, or works of the Law, there is a constant oposition in the writings of this Apostle, Rom. 3.27.28. and ag. c. 4.13, 14. and c. 9.32. and c. 10.5, 6. Gal. 2, 16. and c. 3.5. and ver. 11.12. &c. But betweene the Law, and the works or righteousnesse of Christ, there is no opposition, but a perfect agreement. There­fore that righteousnesse which is by Faith, cannot stand in the righteousnesse of Christ imputed.

CAP. V.
A Fourth Demonstration from Scripture of the avouched Con­clusion.

FOurthly, SECT. 1 against the imputation of the righte­ousnesse of Christ in the sense already disclai­med) for that righteousnesse by which we are justi­fied in the sight of God, I argue from Rom. 5. ver. 16. and 17. compared together. The guift of righ­teousnesse (as it is called ver. 17.) which is by Christ in the Gospel, is said (ver. 16.) to be a free guift of many offences unto justification. From whence I thus reason. That righteousnesse which is the guift of many offences, that is, the forgivenesse of many offences or sins unto justification, cannot be a perfect legall righteousnesse imputed unto us, or made ours by imputation. But the righteousnesse which is by Christ in the Gospel, by which we are justified, is the guift of many offences unto justificati­on: Therefore it cannot be a perfect legall righte­ousnesse made ours by imputation. The minor is the proposition of the Holy Ghost (in terminis) The major I demonstrate thus: That righteousnesse which extends unto a mans justification by the forgivenes of sins, can be no perfect legall righteousnesse im­puted: But the righteousnesse of Christ in the Gos­pel by which we are justified, extendeth unto a mans justification by the forgivenesse of sins. There­fore [Page 74]it can be no legall righteousnesse imputed. The Reason of the former proposition (the weaknesse of which only it must be, that ministers strength to an adversary for further dispute in this question, the authority of heaven being too pregnant in the other) is this, because a legall or perfect righteousnesse, doth not preceed to j [...]st [...]y a mans person by way of for­givenesse of sins: but is of it selfe intrinsecally and essentially a mans Iustification: yea such a Iustifica­tion with which forgivenes of sinnes is not competi­ble. For what need hath he that is legally righte­ous, or hath a legall righteousnesse imputed unto him, of forgivenesse of sins, when as such a righte­ousnesse excluds all sinne, and all guilt of sinne from his person?

If it be here objected and said, SECT. 2 that a mans sinnes are first forgiven him, and then this perfect righte­ousnesse of Christ is imputed unto him and so he is justified. To this I answere.

First, if we will needs distinguish the effects of the active and passive obedience of Christ after this manner, so as from the active part of this obedience, to fetch a perfect righteousnesse for imputation, and from the passive remission of sinnes: yet whether it be any waies reasonable, to invert the order of these effects, and dispose of them (a [...] pleasure) in a crosse method, to their causes producing them, I leave it to sober consideration. Christ [...]d not first die, and after death keep the Law for us, but he first kept the Law and then suffered death for us. Therefore i [...] we will needs make the imputation of the one a di­st [...]nct b [...]n sit from the imputation of the other, rea­son require [...], that that which was first purchased, should be first received or applied, and consequently hat imputation of righteousnesse should have a pre­cedency in order, of r [...]mission of sinnes.

Secondly, if a man hath once sinned (which must needs be acknowledged of every man that hath sins forgiven) it is not any l [...]gall righteousnesse what­soever imputed, that can justifie him: no, if it were possible for him to keep the Law perfectly in his own person ever after to the daies of eternity, this would not justify him, because such a Iustification is repug­nant to the expresse tenor of the Law. Cursed is the man (faith the Law) that continueth not in all things, &c. Therefore a man that hath not been alwa [...]es righteous, can never be made righteous by the righ­teousnesse of the Law imputed, or not imputed, or howsoever it may be conceived to come upon him.

Thirdly (and lastly) I answere, if a mans sins be once forgiven him, he hath no need of any imputati­on of any further righteousnesse, for his Iustification, because forgivenesse of sins reacheth home and a­mounteth unto a full Iustification with GOD. This is plaine from the words mentioned. Rom. 5, 16. The guift (saith Paul) that is, the guift of righte­ousnesse (as it is explained in the next verse) is of many offences unto Iustification, that is, when God hath given men their offences or debts, or forgiven them (for to give a debt, or forgive it is all one) he hath fully justified them. For that righteousnesse which God is said to impute unto men through Faith, is no­thing else (being interpreted) but the forgivenesse of sins or the acquiting of them from that death and condemnation which are due unto them. And this is all the Iustification the Scripture knowes or speaks of, the forgivenesse of our sins, or acquitting from condemnation: the genuine and proper significati­on of which word misapprehended, hath been a maine occasion of leading many out of the way of Truth in this point. A man may (in a manner) as [Page 76]plainely discerne where mens feet have faild them here, as sometimes where a Horse foot hath slip'd upon an ice. For reading in Scriptures of the justifi­cation of sinners, or of men being made just or righ­teous by Christ, they have conceived that such a thing cannot be, but by a positive and formall Law: righteousnesse somewaies put upon them, and there being no such righteousnesse indeed any where to be found, but only the righteousnesse of Christ, hence they have apprehended, that this justification must needs be by this righteousnesse of Christ imputed un­to them, whereas that righteousnesse which we have by Christ, and wherewith we are said to be justified before God by beleeving, is only a negative righteous­nesse, not a positive, it is nothing else but a non-impu­tation of sin: which I therefore call a righteousnesse, by accompt or interpretation, as having the privi­leges, but not the nature and substance of a perfect legall righteousnesse.

The Scripture shines with as much cleernesse and evidence of this truth, SECT. 3 as the Sun doth with light when he riseth in his might. Rom. 4, 6. com­pared with ver, 7, 8. Even as David declareth the blessednesse of the man, unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works. A righteousnesse without works must needs be a negative or privative righte­ousnesse, as is fully expressed in the following verses. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven: blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes not sinne. You see the imputation of righteousnesse, ver. 6. is here interpreted to be nothing else, but a not imputing of sin. And so Calvin upon Rom. 3, 21. calls this a de­finition of the righteousnesse of Faith, Beati quorum remissa sunt iniquitates, that is, Blessed are they whose sinnes are forgiven. And not long after, Paulus tradit, Deum homines iustificare, peccata non [Page 77]imputando. that is, Paul teacheth, that God justifieth men, by not imputing their sins. The like descrip­tion of this righteousnesse you have 2 Cor. 5. that which ver. 19. he calls in God, the not-imputing of our sins unto us, he calls in us ver. 21. a being made the righteousnesse of God in him. But most plainely Act. 13.38, 39. Be it knowne unto you (saith Paul to the Jewes) that through this man (CHRIST) is preached unto you forgivenesse of sins: which forgive­nesse of sins he immediatly calls their Iustification. And by him all that beleeve are iustified from all things, from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Mo­ses. You see how he expresseth the nature of this Iustification we have by Christ, viz. by the way of negative or privative righteousnesse (as was said) not a positive. All that beleeve are iustified from all things, that is, all sins from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses. So that that Iusti­fication which we have by Christ in the Gospel, is not a Iustification with righteousnesse (properly so called) but a Iustification from sinne, and from the guilt of sinne, and condemnation due to it, when Christ said to men and women in the Gospel, Thy sins are forgiven thee, then he justified them: the forgivenesse of their sins, was their Iustification.

This is the most usuall and proper signification of the word, Iustifie, both in Scriptures, SECT. 4 and other Authors (but in the Scriptures especially) not to signifie the giving or bestowing of a complete posi­tive righteousnesse, but only an acquitting or dis­charging and setting a man free from the guilt and penaltie due unto such things as were laied to his charge. In the Scripture it is usually opposed to condemning, or condemnation. He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, both these are abhomination unto the Lord. Prov. 17, 15. [Page 78]What is here m [...]ant by justifying the wicked? not making them righ eous and just men, by putting a morall righteousnesse upon them: he that can make a wicked man righteous or just so, shall be so far from being an abhomination to the Lord, that hee shall shine as the starres in the Firmament for ever and ever, ( Dan. 12.3.) Therefore by justifying the wicked in this place can be nothing else meant, but the making of them just in the rights and privileges of just men, which are freedome from censure, pun­ishment, and condemnation, as appeares by the op­position in the other member of the clause, and condemneth the righteous. So that by justifying the wicked, is nothing else meant, but the not-con­demning him. So Rom. 8, 33, 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen? it is God that justifyeth: who shall condemne &c. Where you see againe the opposition betweene being justified and condemned. See likewise Rom. 5.9. Therefore by justifying is nothing else meant but acquiting from condemnation: and so to be justified and to live: that is, to be freed from death and condemnation, are made equivalent or equipollent the one to the other. Gal. 3.11. And that no man is justified by the works of the Law, it is evident: for the iust shal live by Faith, that is, shalbe justified by Faith (for other­wise there is no strength in the argument) So againe, ver. 21. If there had bin a Law, which could have given life (that is, could have justified men) surely righteousnesse (or Iustification should have been by the Law. By his knowledge (faith Esay c. 53.11.) shall my righteous servant iustify many, for he shall beare their iniquities, that [...]s, by bearing the punishment or con­demnation due unto their sinnes, he shall deliver them from punishment. This opposition we speake of betweene justification, and condemnation, is [Page 79]cleere in other Scriptures, as Mat 12.37. Rom. 5.16. and else where.

And that this was Calvins opinion, SECT. 5 Justification is compleate in forgivenesse of sins, is most evident from many and frequent passages in his writings: by which it is apparent (against all confidence of contradiction) that he held no such imputation of Christs righteousnesse for justification, as some charge him withall, except they will conceive of him, that (like unto Rebecca) he had two nations in his womb, two contrary opinions in his judg­ment at once. His words are expresse againe and a­gaine, on Rom. 4.6. Huc accedit oppositum mem­brum, quod Deus homines justificet peccatum non impu­tando, &c. that is, Adde hereunto the opposite mem­ber, viz. that God justifieth men by not imputing sinne. And immediatly after, Quibus etiam verbis docemur, justitiam Paulo nihilaliud esse, quam remissi­onem peccatorum. that is, by with words we are taught, that righteousnesse with Paul is nothing else but remission of sins. So some Po­pish Authors charge this very opinion upon Calvin, as his error. Alioqui error Calvinia­nus est dicere, ril aliud esse justifi­cationem, quam remissionem pec­catorum. Lorin. in Act. 5. v. 31. Whether this Author was of that judgment or no, which we now ascribe to him, certaine it is, that if he had been of this judge­ment, he could never have delivered himself in more significant and pregnant words this way, then these are. And yet againe not long after the for­mer words: Manet ergosalva nobis pulcherrima sen­tentia, justificari hominem side, quia gratuita peccato­rum remissione coram Deo purgatus sit. that is, This most lovely saying remaines unshaken and safe, that a man is justified by Faith, because he is purged by a free forgivenesse of his sins before God. But we shall meet with a second opportunity hereafter, for the further insuring this Author unto us, in the Question now under disputation.

Musculus is as far engag'd for the point in hand, SECT. 6 [Page 80]as he, on Rom. 4.6. Notandum primò, remissionem peccatorum, esse justitiam nostram i. This is first to be noted, that forgivenesse of sins is our righteousnesse. And a little after: ergo justitia Dei est, quae gratis im­putatur, non imputari peccatum. i. therefore the righ­teousnesse of God which is freely imputed, is, that sinne is not imputed. And immediatly after: Quid autem iustum esse aliud est quam peccatis esse liberum? i. what is it else to be righteous, but to be freed from sins, i. from the guilt of them. And yet once more, not far off ergo qui credit, iustus est et beatus, propter remissioneus peccatorum. i. He therefore that beleeveth, is RIGHTEOUS and blessed, because of the remission of his sins. The same Author, upon Psal. 32. towards the beginning. Iucunducu est, quòd insti­tia et beatitudo nostra est remissio peccatorum per fidem in Christum. i. It is a sweet thing, that our righte­ousnesse & blessednesse stands in the remission of our sins by Faith in Christ. See more of like importance in the same place. So Luther in his Summarie of that Psalme: Iustitia nostra proprie est remissio pecca­torum seu (ut loquitur Psalmus) peccata non imputa­re, peccata tegere. i. Our righteousnesse properly is the forgivenesse of our sins, or (as the Psalme speak­eth) the non-imputation, or covering of our sinnes. So Malancthon, in his common place of JUSTIFICATION: Justificatio significat re­missionem peccatorum, seu acceptationem personae ad vitam aeternam. i. Justification signifieth remission of sins, or acceptation of a mans person to eternall life. Againe upon the twentieth Article of the Augustan Confession. Significat iustificatio in his Pauli sententiis, remissionem peccatorum, seu reconciliationem, seu impu­tationem iustitiae, hoc est, acceptationem personae. i. su­stification in Pauls saying, signifieth REMISSION OF SINS, or reconciliation, or imputation of righte­ousnesse [Page 81] i. the acceptation of a mans person. And in his Prolegomena upon the Epistle to the Romans, Justi reputamur, Deo remittente peccata. i. we are accounted righteous, when God forgives our sins. Hyperius upon Rom 4.6. Declarat Apostolus, impu­tare ad justitiam, idem esse, quod non imputare peccata: sponte & graiis ea remittere. i. The Apostle declares, that to impute for righteousnesse, is but the same, as not to impute sinnes: or freely and willingly to forgive them. Beza himselfe holds the truth as fast as any man in this point (though sometimes againe he seemes to let it goe in some expressions about the imputation of Christs righteousnesse) In his Treatise of the Supper of the Lord: Cuinam iustificationem tri­buemus? uni certè Deo, vnus siquidem Deus peccata remittit. Pofita est autem omnis iustificatio in remissio­ne peccatorum: et ìdeò justitia hac in imputatione pofi­ta, justitia Dei vocatur. i. To whom shall we attri­bute or ascribe Justification? doubtlesse to God alone, because it is God alone that forgiveth sins. And all justification standeth in remission of sins: and therefore this righteousnesse which standeth in imputation is called the righteousnesse of God. Ro. 1.17. & 3, 21. &c. Zanchius in his Common pla­ces of Divinity, in the head, concerning Iustification, hath this title: Quòd justitia fidei nihil aliud sit, quàm reconciliatio cum Deo, quae solà remissione pecca­torum constat. i. That the righteousnesse of Faith is nothing else, but reconciliation with God, which stands in nothing else but forgivenesse of sins. Mr. Fox our Countryman gives place to none in holding forth the light of this truth. In his tract of Christ Iustifying, and first Booke: Iustos eos accipio quos quotidiana remissio per fidem accepta, divino conspectui tanquam justos representat. i. I take them for just or righteous, who by a daily remission of sinnes recei­ved [Page 82]by faith, are represented as righteous before the presence of God. Againe, in the second B ok of the same Argument, Ideò justicoram Deo consistimus, quod remissa sunt nobis peccata. i. We therfore stand rign­teous before God, because our sins are forgiven us.

Chamier, SECT. 7 in the third Tome of his Panstratiae, pag. 907. challengeth the Paternity of Trent for denying remission of sins to be the form, or formall cause of justisication, affirming and [...]vincing this to have bin Augustins opinion. And speaking of himselfe and his Protestant party, saith thus, Sed ijdem justitiae proram et puppim constituimus inremissione peccatorum, nimirum quia haec nos apud Deum constituit justos. i. We (Pro­testants) place the first and last, the beginning and end of our righteousnesse in the forgivenesse of ou sinnes, because this makes us righteous before God. And a little after, Itaque justitiam nostram, quatenus constat remissione peccatorum, cum Paulo justificationem: eam autem, quae perfectione virtutum, sanctificationem appel­lamus, i. We therfore call our righteou [...]esse, as it consists in remission of sins, with Paul we call, Justi­fication: but that which stands in any perfection of vertues, sanctification. Somwhat before the former words alledged: Nos verò quod dat, admittimus, reci­procart inter se justificationem, et remissionem peccato­rum. i. We admit of what he (Bellarmine) grants, that justification and remission of sins are one and the else same thing. And againe, pag. 908. Remissio pec­catorum, est justitia imputata i. Forgivenesse of sins is that righteousnesse that is imputed to us. Stephanus Fabritius to like purpose, co [...]menting upon Psal 32.1. desines justification thus: Justificatio est actio Dei. quà eum qui in Christum mediatorem credit, ex solà gratià et misericordi propter satisfactionem et meritum Christi, à peccat is absolvit, et justum ac innocentem pro­nunciat. i. Justification is an act of God, whereby of [Page 83]his meere grace and mercy, for the satisfaction and merit of Christ, he absolves him from his sins that beleeveth in Christ the Mediator, and pronounceth him just and innocent. Lastly Amesius upon the same Psalme and verse, makes remission of sins and justifi­cation terms equipollent and reciprocall. Descriptio beatitudinis petiturà causa efficiente et continente, quae est remissio peecatorum, vel justificatio cum ejus effectis &c. i. The description of blessednesse is drawn from the efficient and holding cause thereof, which is For­givenesse of sins, or Iustification, with its effects.

It were easie (I presume) for him that hath leisure, SECT. 8 to traverse the writings of these and other Refor­med Divines, to make the pile farre greater of such passages as these: Therfore certainly they are very injurious, not onely to the names and reputations of these worthy lights in the Church of God, who deny them fellowship and communion in so glorious a truth, and would force upon them, in the very face of their own solemne declarations of themselves to the contrary, an opinion so inconsistent with the streame of the Scripture, and all sound reason; but to the truth it selfe also, by seeking to represent it to the eyes and consciences of men, as a Beacon upon a hill, or as a Sparrow upon the house top alone by it selfe, desti­tute of Friends and helpers, when as it dwells in the midst of its own people, and hath many of the very choyce of those holy and faithfull and chosen ones, that are with the Lamb against the Beast, to stand for it. So that those odious aspersions of Popery and Armi­nianisme, are Vipers that wil easily shake into the fire, when the time of shaking comes. This for a 4 ^th De­monstration of our Conclusion from the Scriptures.

CAP. VI.
Conteining a Fift Argument or proofe from Scripture, for clearing the Assertion.

FIftly, SECT. 1 I conceive, that a cleare opening of that Scripture, Philip. 39. will yield us plenty of fur­ther light, for the discovery of that truth we seek af­ter in the obscurity of our present Controversie. The words are: And be found in him, not having mine own righteousnesse, which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the righteousnesse which is of God through Faith. In the former verse the Apostle professeth what strange effects the excellency of the knowledge of Christ had wrought in him, it had caused him to count all things losse, which somtimes he had esteemed the greatest gaine, and the best trea­sure: yea to despoyle himselfe, as it were with a spirit of deep indignation, of all those formerly beloved and rich-esteemed ornaments, which were unto him as chaines of gold about his neck; and (as he then thought) highly commended him, and made him glorious in the sight of God and men (he means his Pharisaicall righteousnesse and legall observations; his Jewish prerogatives, &c. he was now so farre transformed by the renewing of his mind, by the light of the knowledge of Christ shining in unto him, that he looked upon all his, former glory, as upon [Page 85]dung, and smelt a favour of death in those things, which had bin his only confidence and hope before of life and peace. Now the reason why he favoured himselfe all that might be in these under-thoughts, and avileing apprehensions of his former things, and layed on load in this kind all he could, he declares to be this, that he might win Christ, or make gain and ad­vantage of him. How this his desire or intent of gaining Christ might be accomplished, he expresseth thus, And may be found in him. Observe: he doth not say, that he may be found in his righteousnesse, much lesse in his righteousnesse imputed to him, but simply in himselfe, That he might be found in him: which is an usuall expression in Scripture, of the spirituall estate and condition of a beleever, viz. to be in Christ. Rom. 8.1. There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Iesus. So cap. 16.7. Who also were in Christ before me, i. were beleevers, &c. What it is to be found in Christ, or how it must be with him, if he be found in him, ( viz. when his time is come, for he speaks here of the future, of the time of his breaking up (as it were) by death) he expresseth, 1. negatively thus: not having mine own righteousnesse: yet not simply and alltogether no righteousnesse, that may in no sence be called his own, but precisely and determinately, no such righte­ousnesse of his own, which stands in works of the Law. Such a righteousnesse of his own he must be sure not to have, i. not to trust to, or to shroud and shelter himselfe under from the stroke of Gods justice. 2 ^o, affirmatively thus: but that ( i that righteousnesse) which is through the Faith of Christ, the righteous­nesse which is of God by Faith. Here is not the least jot or tittle of any mention, not the least whispering, breathing or intimation of any righteousnesse he should have by the imputation of the righteousnes of Christ, no nor of any righteousnesse, by or through [Page 86]the righteousnesse of Christ: but only such a righte­ousnes as is [...], through Faith of Christ, or by beleeving in him.

Now because such a righteousnesse as this wherein is nothing more required of men, SECT. 2 but only Faith in Christ, might seeme a slender and tickle righteous­nesse to adventure so great a weight as the precious soule upon, and comes far short of that righteousnesse of a mans owne, which he might make out by the works of the Law: the Apostle addes by way of commendation of this righteousnesse, to uphold the credit and esteeme of it in the hearts and conscien­ces of men, that it is the righteousnesse of God. i. a righteousnesse which God himselfe hath found out, and which he will owne and countenance and ac­count for righteousnesse unto men, and no other but this: Even the righteousnesse of God (saith he) [...], which is in Faith, i. which comes and accrues, and is derived upon a man by Faith. The mentioning of this righteousnesse the second time, as being or standing in Faith, is doubtlesse em­phaticall. One reason Joseph gave ( Gen. 41.32.) why Pharohs dreame was doubled by God unto him, was to shew that the thing was established by God: so the reason why Paul mentions the second time (so immediatly upon the former (the consi­stence or standing of this righteousnesse, in and by Faith, in all likely hood was this, to shew that this righteousnesse certainly will carry it, notwithstanding all the unlikelyhood, and seeming imperfections of it, and that the thing is fully concluded and esta­blished with God accordingly: Or as it is often in speech betweene man, and man, when a man hath spoken that which seems improbable to him to whom it is spoken, and may be conceived that the Speaker was mistaken in his words, and would cor­rect [Page 87]himselfe, if he considered what he said, it is usu­all in such a case, if he that spake, spake advisedly and be able to make good what he said, and meanes to stand to it, to speake the same thing over againe, and so to confirme and ratifie that which was spoken against both the unlikelyhood of the thing, and the unbeliefe of the hearer. It is a passage (I conceive) carried by some such rule as this, which the Apostle hath in the following Chapter, ver. 4. Rejoyce in the Lord alwaies: Now because these Philipians were under great trialls and afflictions, and so might think it was no time for them to rejoyce in, and that Paul had forgotten himselfe, and the condition they were in, to speake to them of rejoycing, therefore to shew that he knew well enough what he said, and that he had weighed his words sufficiently, before he put them downe, and that there was no other cause but why they should rejoyce in the Lord, notwithstand­ing the fiery triall that was upon them, he redoubles the words of his exhortation. Rejoyce in the Lord alwaies, and againe I say rejoyce. So Paul here, having once affirmed, that the righteousnesse wherein he desi­red to be found, was the righteousnesse which is by the Faith of Christ, least he should seeme to have spoken that which he would not stand to, or that which he would upon second thoughts retract, he speakes the same words (in effect) the second time, and avouceth that very righteousnesse which is by Faith, to be that righteousnesse that he would stand to, and desired to be found with. If Paul had had any mind or inclination at all, to have placed the righteousnesse by which he was to be justified, in the righteousnesse, of Christ imputed, here was even a tempting occasion and opportunity to have drawne him into expressions of himselfe that way. But we see here is loud speaking, againe and againe, of the [Page 88] righteousnesse of Faith, but altum silentium, profound silence of any righteousnesse from the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ. This for a fift proofe from Scripture.

CAP. VII.
VVherein the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse is further cleered from the Scriptures.

SIxtly, SECT. 1 that that which God imputes for righteous­nesse in Iustification, is not the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe (in the sense refused in the first Chap­ter of this discourse) but Faith in Christ, I conceive may be cleerely wrought out, and evicted out of all those Scriptures, where Iustification is ascribed unto Faith. Not to heap up places in this kind (which are confessedly many:) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith, &c. Romans 3, 28. So againe, Romans 5.1. Therefore we being justified by FAITH, &c. All confesse, that MEN are justifyed by Faith: and indeed the conclusion thus far, is greater then can be gaine-said. The pregnant letter of the Scripture is too hard for any mans con­tradiction. Now when men say and professe (accord­ing to the Scriptures) that Faith iustifieth, I de­mand, what is it they meane by Faith? do they not meane their beleeving, or the Act of Faith (usually so called and expressed) which by the assistance of of the Holy Ghost is raised within them, and put forth by them? If by Faith in this case, they meane any thing besides either the habit or act of belee­ving, [Page 89]I confesse my soule hath not yet entred into their secret. The Scriptures in the matter of Iusti­fication, seeme rather to speake of that which we call the act of beleeving, then of the habit: and so learned D [...]vines (as far as I have observed) gene­rally conceive. Now for men to say and to professe themselves that Faith justifieth, and yet to condemne it for an error in another, that shall say and hold, that it is an act of Faith that justifieth, (hath in my appre­hension) as much inconsistencie of reason in it, as if a man should grant, that Hierusalem once was the joy of the whole Earth, and yet should censure him that should say, that the Citie Hierusalem was ever so: or that should grant, that Paul laboured in the Gospel more then all the Apostles, but would not en­dure him, that should say, that Paul the Apostle did so. As Hierusalem, and the Citie Hierusalem are the same, and Paul, and Paul the Apostle the same: so are Faith, and the act of Faith but the same: and if one justifieth, certainly the other justifieth also.

It may be it will be here said, SECT. 2 that they which confesse that Faith justifieth, doe not meane or con­ceive of it, as divided or severed from it's object, CHRIST. No more did ever any man that had but the first fruits of reason given him for his allow­ance. For a man to say, that he seeth, and yet to affirme, that when he seeth, he seeth nothing, is to professe open enmitie against common sense and rea­son. Neither is it any other in him (whosoever he be) that shall conceive of any act of Faith, that is not exercised or acted upon its object, either Christ in person, or Christ in promise, or the like. It is unpossi­ble that any man should beleeve, but that he must beleeve something, or in some person: and so when any man speakes of Faith or beleeving, he must of necessity imply the object with, or in the Act, [Page 90]though he names only the Act, and not the object, as the usuall manner of the Scripture expression is, where Faith or beleeving is 40 times mentioned, without addition of the object Christ, or the promise of God in Christ, or any thing equivalent to either.

Secondly, it may be it will be said, that when men professe and say, that Faith iustifieth, their meaning only is, that Faith justifieth, instrumental­ly, and not otherwise. To this I answere, neither hath any thing more bin said hitherto by me, neither is any thing intended to be said in the sequel, but according to the rule of this position: Faith justifieth. instrumentally.

But thirdly, it may be it will be yet further obie­cted and said, SECT. 3 that when men confesse that Faith iustifieth, their meaning is, that it Iustifieth, as it takes hold of Christs righteousnesse. I Answere, if this also should be granted (but the Scripture, as hath bin said, never mentioneth or describeth justi­fying Faith under any such consideration) yet it is the act of Faith that Iustifieth. As when a man put­teth forth his arme, and reacheth a pot or cup with drink in it, wherewith he quencheth his thirst, he may be said to quench his thirst instrumentally, by reaching out his arme; because this was a meanes to procure it. So let men put what meaning or inter­pretation they please upon their words, when they professe and acknowledg, that it is Faith that Iusti­fieth, if they meane at all as they say they must meane that it is the Act of Faith that Iustifieth, because both that Faith by which a man beleeves in Christ, is an act of Faith, and againe, that Faith by which a man is instrumentally Iustified, is an act of Faith: and that Faith that layeth hold upon the righteousnesse of Christ, is an act of Faith too. Therefore let men turne themselves any way, and which way they please, [Page 91]and make their words to fall either to the North, or towards the South, if they meane as they say, that faith indeed Iustifieth, they must meane, that it is the act of faith that Iustifieth. And when themselves will say that faith Iustifieth, and yet will condemne it for an error in another, that the act of faith should Iustify: they cannot escape the hands of this dilem­ma, but one of the horns will gore them; either it must follow, that they doe not meane, as they say: or that they condemne their owne opinion and meaning in another: most true it is, that it is far from truth to say, that faith iustifyeth as it is an act: and as far from truth it is, to say, that it is not the act of faith that Iustifieth.

If it be yet further replyed and said, SECT. 4 that when men say, we are justified by Faith, their meaning is, that we are justified by that which faith apprehen­deth: and this is farre from saying, that Faith is im­puted for righteousnesse. To this I Answer: 1. if their meaning be simply and without limitation so, that we are justified by that which Faith apprehendeth, when they say, we are justified by Faith, then they speake more truth, then they are aware of, and (as it seems) more then they intend to speake. For that Faith justi­fieth is most true: but that whatsoever Faith appre­hendeth should justifie, hath no fellowship with truth, (no not so much as in appearance) For By Faith we understand (or apprehend) the worlds were made, Heb. 11.3. yet no man will say, that the creation of the world justifies men.

Secondly, if men ascribe justification in every re­spect and consideration to that which Faith appre­hendeth, they utterly overthrow that which gene­rally they professe, viz. the instrumentall justification of faith. For if any thing that faith apprehendeth, justifieth every way, both materially, and formally, [Page 92]and meritoriously, and principally, and instrumental­ly, &c. Faith shall justifie no wayes: and so when men say, they are justified by Faith, their meaning must be, they are not at al justified by Faith, but by some other thing. Therfore of necessity it is, that Faith must ju­stifie some way: if it iustifieth any way, it must of ne­ceility be, by imputation or account from God for righ­teousnes, because it is all that God requires of men to their iustification, instead of the righteousnesse of the Law. The fore if God shall not impute or account it unto them for this righteousnesse, it would stand them in no stead at all to their iustificaetion: because there is nothing usefull or availeable to any holy, or saving purpose whatsoever, but only to that where [...] to God hath assigned it. If God in the new Covenant of the Gospell, requires faith in Christ for our iustification, instead of the righteousnesse of the Law in the old, and this Faith will not passe in account with him for such righteousnesse, both his Commandement and Co­venant for beleeving, and the obedience it selfe of beleeving, will both become voyd and of none effect; the intire benefit of them being suspended upon the gracious pleasure and purpose of God in the designa­tion of them to their end.

CAP. VIII.
Conteining the last proofe from Scripture, for the Non-imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the sence controverted.

THere is yet one Scripture remaining (happily amongst many more that have not yet manife­sted themselves in this Controversie) that seems (yea I verily beleeve, SECT. 1 doth more then seem) quite to o­verthrow and take away that which must be the groundworke and foundation to set this imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ upon (if ever it stands) viz. the imputability, or transferiblenesse of it from one to another. If the Scriptures doe not only no where establish, but in any place absolutely deny a possibility of the translation or removing of the righteousnesse of Christ from one person to another; this will strike the fatall stroke in deciding this Question. This I conceive will be evicted with a pregnancie irrefra­gable from that Scripture Gal. 3.12. And the Law is not of Faith: but the man that doth them, shall live in them. This Scripture doth not barely and simply de­ny a deceivablenesle or possibility of translation of the righteousnesse of the Law, from one person to ano­ther, but denies it emphatically, and with the utmost advantage of a deniall. For it denies a possibility of it to be done, even by that hand expresly, and by name, (I meane the hand of faith) which was the [Page 94]ikelyest hand under Heaven to have done it, if the nature of the thing to be done had not resisted the doing of it. The Apostle denyeth unto faith it selfe the office and power of being a Mediatrix in this case, to derive or carry over the righteousnesse of the Law, from one person to another, By which it ap­peareth also, that he had an intent particularly to make the righteousnesse of the Law as performed by Christ himselfe, uncapable of this translation or im­putation: because faith never pretended, nor ever could have ground or colour to pretend a deriving or translating of any other legall righteousnesse from one person to another for Justification, but only that which was performed by Christ. If there were any thing in all the world that could have done the thing that is pleaded for, Faith indeed hath the prehemi­nence of likely hood to do it: because it doth derive a righteousnesse from one to another, such a righte­ousnesse as is deriveable, an imputative righteous­nesse you may call it, because it is such by account or interpretation (I meane, remission of sins:) this Faith derives from Christ upon him that beleeveth: but for a righteousnesse of the Law, it cannot derive, because such a righteousnesse is not deriveable.

Let the words and scope of the Scripture mentio­nedbe narrowly examined, SECT. 2 and all this that hath been said will be found in the bowells of it. And the Law is not of Faith: [...], &c. the man that doth them, shall live in them: or (if you would translate the emphasis also which is in the o­riginall) thus: the very doer of them, the man shall live. The former clause, after Pauls succinct and presse manner of expressing himselfe, is very briefe, and therefore somewhat obscure in it selfe: but the latter clause easeth the burden of the dificulty, and casteth a sufficient light upon it. Whereunto if we [Page 95]adde but the dependance and reference that this verse hath upon the former, Pauls meaning will bee found as cleere as the noone day. Therefore when he saith, the Law is not of faith, [...] (saith the originall) by, or out of faith, his meaning can be no other but this, that the righteousnesse of the Law doth not arise or come upon any man out of his Faith or by his beleeving, or that no man is made partaker of a legall righteousnesse by beleeving: but (saith he) the very doer, the man he shall live in (or by) them. He proves the truth of the former clause, from the expresse tenor of the Law, or legall righteousnesse, as standing in full opposition to any derivation of it from one to another, even by Faith it selfe. As if he should say, no legall righteousnesse can come upon any man by beleeving, because it is only the man himselfe that doth the things of the Law, that shall be justified and live by them: the righteousnesse of the Law never goeth further (in the propriety or for­malitie of it) to the justification of any man, then to the person of him that fulfills the Law. That by the word Law, in this place, is meant the righteousnesse or fulfilling of the Law (besides that there can hard­ly be made any reasonable interpretation of the clause, if this word be taken in any other sense) may appeare by the like acception of the same word, the Law, in other passages of this Apostle, when it is used upon like occasion. Rom. 4.13. for the promise was not to Abraham or his seed through the LAW. i. through the righteousnes of, or obedience unto the Law viz. that it should be obtained, and enjoyed by any such righ­teousnesse: as is evident by the opposition in the fol­lowing clause, but through the righteousnesse of faith, i. this promise was not made unto him and his seed, that the benefit and blessing of it should be obtained by the former, but by the latter righteousnesse. The [Page 96]word is againe used in the same signification in the very next verse. For if they that be of the Law, be heires. i. that are for the righteousnesse of the LAVV. and will stand to be justified by that, (besides other places without number.)

The scope likewise of the place, and the depen­dence of the clause with the former ver. SECT. 3 apparantly evinceth this interpretation. The Apostle in the former verse had delivered it for a truth, that no man could be justified in the sight of God by the Law, i. by the righteousnesse or works of the Law, for this reason, because the Scripture saith, that the just shall live by faith. Now because this consequence might seeme somewhat doubtfull and insu [...]ficient, lying open to some such exception against it as this: what though the just doe, or must live by faith, may they not be justified by the works of the Law too, and live by them also? may not the righteousnesse of the Law be made over unto them, by faith, and so com­pound righteousnesse be made for them, of both toge­ther? No (saith Paul) the Law is not of faith: there can be no legal righteousnesse derived or drawn upon men by faith: and that for this reason, because such a righteousnesse is by the expresse letter and ten­or of the Law, consined and appropriated to the per­son of him that fulfills it: [...], the man himselfe that doth them, shall live by them. q. d. there is a repugnancy and contradicti­on in it ex naturarei, in the very nature and effence of the thing, that the righteousnesse of the Law should [...]ver be removed or caried over from one mans per­son to another, though it were attempted by the hand of Faith it selfe. God never intended that the Law and faith should meet together to jumble up a justification for any man. And whereas it is frequent­ly charged as a matter of deep prejudice upon the [Page 97]opinion laboured for in this discourse, that it mag­nityeth faith above measure, and makes an Idol of it: the truth is, that the contrary opinion, which ascribes to it a power of transferring a legall righteousnesse, [...]gnifieth it 7 times more, and ascribes a power e­ven of impossibilities to it. Faith may boast of ma­ny great things otherwise: and may remove moun­taines: but for removing any legall righteousnesse (in the sense we speake of) it must let that alone for ever. There is a greater contrariety and indispositi­on in the severall natures of faith and the Law, in re­spect of mixing or working together to make up a Iustification, then was betweene the lion and Clay in Nebuchadnezzars vision. Dan. 2.43. though in o­ther things they well agree. Repugnantia legis et fi­dei est (saith Calvin in Gal. 3.12) in causa justificati­onis: facilius enim aquam igni copulabis, quam haec duo concilies, homines fide et lege esse justos. 1. There is a repugnancie betweene the Law and faith, in the matter of Iustification: and a man may sooner couple fire and water together, then make these two agree, that men are righteous by faith, and yet by the Law too. Consonant to this Scripture last opened, is that Rom. 4.14. For if they which are of the Law be heires, faith is made voyde, and the promise is made of none effect. Where you see as full and as irreconcileable an op­position, betweene the righteousnesse of the Law, and the righteousnesse of faith, in respect of justifica­tion, as is betweene East and West: it is unpossible they should be brought together. There is a greater gulfe fixed betweene them, then was betweene Abra­ham and Dives: faith cannot go over to the righ­teousnesse of the Law, to joyne with that in Iustificati­on: neither can the righteousnesse of the Law, bee brought over unto faith. What reason there may bee conceived for this Non-imputabilitie of the righte­ousnesse [Page 98]of the Law, See Cap. 21 we shall have a faire opportuni­ty to declare, in the prosecution of our grounds and reasons, for the point we favor in this discourse: which is the next thing we hast unto.

CAP. IX.
Wherein the first ground or ar­gument for the conclusion underta­ken, is propounded and established.

HAving considered with as much diligence and faithfulnesse as frailty would permit, how the Scriptures stand affected and incline in the contro­versie depending, we are lead (in the next place) by the hand of a plaine and familiar method, to pro­pound such Arguments and considerations for the confirmation of the premisses, as reason and sobriety of thoughts about the stated Question, have sugge­sted.

My first ground and argument to prove, that the righteousnesse of Christ (in the sence now under dis­pute, viz. in the letter and proprietie of it) cannot be imputed unto any for their justification. I propound af­ter this manner.

The reason of the former Proposition is, because a perfect and compleat legall righteousnesse (and such certainly, I meane perfect and compleat, that that justifieth, must of necessity be) requires a precise, punctuall and through obedience unto all things in the Law, which any way concernes a man to doe. If there be but a letter, jot, or title wanting in any man righ­teousnesse of all that was his duty to doe, that righte­ousnesse is not (at any hand) for his iustification. The curse of the Law and eternall vengeance will breake in upon a man, body and soule, aswell through the smallest and least-imaginable defects of a legall righ­teousnesse, as through wider breaches, and greater transgressions, in case a man hath not wherewith to secure himselfe otherwise. Cursed is every one that con­tinueth not in all things that are written in the Law, to doe them Gal. 3.10. Therfore there is no escaping the curse of the La [...] by the law, except a mans obedience be absolutely absolute, aswell for constancie as uni­v [...]se, in ad things that are written viz. with refe­rence to him, and [...] calling. For otherwise, there may be a struct and compleat I [...] righteousnesse, with [...] the doing [...] Law, in ca [...]e they have no [...] [Page 100]As for instance: Adam might have performed, and accordingly have hin still Justified by a compleat Le­gall righteousnesse, and yet never have performed ma­ny duties, which the Law required of Eve, for the continuance of her iustification. So Christ ful [...]filled all righteousnesse (as himselfe faith, it became him to doe) and consequently held an exact conformity with the Law, so that neither Man, nor God himselfe, could re­buke him of sinne: and yet the Law requires many things of many others both Men and Women, which Christ never performed, as will appeare in the de­monstration of the latter Proposition (which is at hand.)

For the truth therfore of this Proposition that the righteousnesse performed by Christ unto the Morall Law, SECT. 2 will not sit and furnish all beleevers with all parts of such a righteousnesse as the Law requires of them, it is so full of its owne light, that further proofe will but runne over. How many duties are Servants indebted un­to their Masters after the flesh, by the obligation of the Law, which Christ never discharged or perfor­med, as namely that they should be obedient unto them with feare and trembling. Eph. 6.5. Againe, Wives charged by the Law with many points of o­bedience towards their Husbands, yea and Husbands with some towards their Wives, which certainly Christ never performed for them, yea he expressely declined and refused the doing of some things, as ly­ing without the verge of his Calling, which the Law requires as matters of speciall dutie from others. When he was desired ( Luk. 12 13.14.) to do Ju­stice, or take up a controversie betweene a man and his Brother, his answere was, Man, who made me a Judge, or divider over you? Implying, that he would meddle with no acts of righteousnesse, that lay with­out the precincts of his Calling. And indeed if he [Page 101]had (though it was unpossible that ever his foote should have been taken in that snare) it had over­throwne the infinit benefit that now redounds unto the world, from those acts of righteousnesse, which were performed by him in his Calling. So when the people would have taken him and made him King, Joh. 6. he absolutly refused: and refusing the office of a King, doubtlesse he would not take up­on him the execution. Therefore what righteous­nesse should Kings and Magistrates have imputed un­to them from Christ to make them just and righteous in their Callings, when Christ himselfe refused to performe those acts of righteousnesse which are pro­per thereunto. That which never was done or acted by Christ, cannot be imputed: that which never had a being, is not capable of an act of imputation to passe upon it.

It may be some will object, SECT. 3 that Love is the ful­filling of the Law: for he that loveth another hath ful­filled the Law. Rom. 13.8. and this fulfilling of the Law by Love, is such a righteousnesse as will fit all persons of all Callings and relations in the world whatsoever. Therefore the perfect Love of Christ, may be imputed for righteousnesse unto all, though particular and proper acts of obedience otherwise be wanting.

But to this I Answere. First, howsoever Love may be termed an Evangelicall keeping or fulfilling of the Law, because God accepteth of it graciously, wheressoever he findeth it in truth, and rewar deth it accordingly, yet is it not a strict, literall, and legall fulfilling of the Law, it is not such a fulfilling of it, as will hold out weight and measure for any mans justi­fication in a Covenant of works. For first, the Law requires many duties from men, and seizeth upon them with the Curse immediatly upon the first non­conti [...] [Page 102] [...] [...]al t [...]in [...]s. N [...]w Love is but one duty [...] and therefore cannot be many, much [...] Love were such a fu filling of [...] [...]q [...]ired in a legall justifica­tion [...] beleevers be justified, not by an [...] by a pers nal▪ righteousnesse: because no [...] is a true beleever but he that [...]oves his Brother truely, and whose Faith worketh by such love. Thirdly, and lastly, if the Love of Christ were capa­ [...]le of that imputation for righteousnesse, that is pre­tended, then will it follow (at least according to the principl [...] of that Opinion against which we dis­put [...]) that the whole active obedience of Christ, I meane all that righteousnesse of his which stood in holy actions conformable to the Law, was in vaine: be cause there is no other possible necessity granted of this righteousnesse of Christ by these men, but only for imputation. Therefore

Secondly to the objection I answere yet againe, that where the Scripture calleth Love the fulfi ling of the Law, it speaketh only of that part of the Law, which we call the second Table: as is no whit lesse then evident in the place last named. Rom. 13.8.9. But that fulfilling of the Law, which claimes the honour of a justification, whether by imputation or personall performance, must comprehend as well a fulfilling of the first as of the second Table.

Thirdly and lastly, that proposition, Love is the fulfilling of the Law, is not propositio sormalis, but causalis & consecutiva (as Logiciaxs speake) that is, such a proposition, wherein one thing is said to be a­nother, not because it is precisely the same in nature and being with it, but because it is the cause of it, and so hath the being of the other vertually in it. This kind of proposition is frequent in Scripture. I am the resurrection (saith Christ, Ioh. 11.25.) The [Page 103]meaning is not, that he was properly and formally the resurrection, but that he was the cause, meanes, or Author, of the resurrection. So Paul saying that Christ is our hope, meaneth only, that CHRIST is the ground or Author of our hope. 1 Tim. 1.1. In like manner, when he saith, Love is the fulfilling of the Law, his meaning only is, that a spirituall and unfeigned affection of love, is an inward princi­ple of that nature and importance which inclineth and disposeth a man to the performance and practise of all manner of duties required in the Law. Therefore to say that the Love of Christ is imputed to men for their fu filling of the Law, or for their righteousnesse, is ridiculous. More might be added by way of an­swere: but the strength of the Objection is small.

Another thing that (happily) some will object against the argument propounded, is this: SECT. 4 It is not necessary that men should have all particular acts of righteousnesse qualified with all circumstances answe­rable to their Callings, imputed unto them for their ju­stification. It is sufficient, if they have a righteousnesse imputed to them, which is equivalent to such a righte­ousnesse.

To this I Answere two things: First, they which speake such things, doe not consider the severity of the letter, the strict and peremptory nature of the Law. The Law will not know any [...], any thing by way of proportion or equivalencie: one thing as good as another will not serve the turne. The Law must have jot for jot, title for title, point for point, letter for letter, every thing to answere in the most exact conformity to it: otherwise it hath a curse in a readinesse wherewith to take vengeance on men, no life or reward.

Secondly, to impute acts of righteousnesse to a man which are proper to another Calling, and wholly [Page 102] [...] [Page 103] [...] [Page 102] [...] [Page 103] [...] [Page 104]disagreeing from that Calling wherein God hath placed him, is rather to impute sinne unto him, then righteousnesse. Because though such acts were righ­teousnesse to him that wrought them, yet if I, being in a different Calling, should be accounted by God to have done them (which is the Law of imputation) I must be judged by him as one that had transgressed the bounds of my Calling, & consequently had sinned.

Neither is that reason of any value, which some alledg, SECT. 5 to countenance an equivalencie of righteous­nesse in this kind, instead of a proprietie viz. that God was not punctuall and every waies circumstan­tiall in inslicting the Curse of the Law, upon the trans­gression of it: because they suppose, that by those words (wherein the Curse of the Law is expressed) Thou shalt die the death. Gods meaning was, that he should die an eternall death (literally) and not by way of equivalencie. Therefore God having not­withstanding inflicted this Curse by way of equiva­lencie, and not in the letter of it, why may he not impute a legall righteousnesse unto men, that hath only an equivalencie with that righteousnesse which they should have performed, though not an exact­nesse with it according to the letter.

For to this I answere: First, that the very foun­dation that is layed to build this objection upon, is sandy, and hath nothing either in Scripture, or sound reason to bottome it. From the Scriptures, nothing that I have read, is so much as pretended that way, viz that God in those words, Thou shalt die the death, must of necessity, precisely and determinatly meane, eternall death, according to the letter. And by what fire, such a spirit as this is, will be extracted or drawne out of that body of those words, I doe not yet understand. If we judge of his intent and meaning in those words by the event [Page 105]of things, or manner of execution, they were meant determinatly, neither of eternall death accord­ing to the letter, nor yet of an eternall death by way of equivalencie, but indifferently of either, because it was an eternall death only by way of equivalencie that was inflicted upon Christ for one part of Adam or his posterity: but upon the other part which pe­rish, it is inflicted according to the letter.

Secondly upon deeper consideration, it will (hap­pily) be found to be neerer the truth, to hold, that in those words, Thou shalt die the death, God his meaning was not (at lest determinatly) to threaten eternall death either in one kind or other, either ac­cording to the letter, or by way of equivalencie: but to have the word Death, taken and understood by Adam, in the extent of the signification, as it in­differently signifieth that evill of the punishment which was represented and knowne unto him, by the name of Death, without limiting his thoughts to the consideration either of the shorter continuance, or of the everlastingnesse of the duration of it. For as Scotus well determines in this case) Aeternitas non est de ratione poenae peccatis debitae, sed peccatores con­comitans, qui non possunt ut Christus, vel cum Christo cluctari. 1. Eternitie is not of the nature or essence of the punishment due unto sins, but it followes and falls upon sinners, who cannot wrastle out as Christ did, or with him. So then, eternity not being essen­tiall to that punishment or death which God threat­ned, it is no waies necessary that it should be inclu­ded (especially in such a precise and determinate manner as the objection pretendeth) in the significa­tiō of that word, wherein the punishmēt is expressed.

But thirdly and lastly, suppose the foundation be gold, yet will it be found hay and stubble that is built upon it. For what if God should take liberty to va­rie [Page 106]from the letter of the Curse, in the execution of it, should threaten eternall death literally, and in­slict it equivalently: this no waies proveth, that the creature who was bound to obey the precepts of the Law, might take the like liberty to performe one thing instead of another, or that God should ac­cept any such payment from them (whether made by themselves, or by another for them,) in the nature of a legall payment. Indeed having received a full satisfaction for all the transgressions of the Law, he may by a second or new Covenant accept of what he pleaseth to estate men in the benefit or blessing of that satisfaction, and so that which is thus accepted, becomes in this respect to him that performs it and from whose hand it is accepted, equivalent to a per­fect and compleate legall righteousnesse: because it justifieth him (in respect of all benefits and privile­ges of a justification) as well as such a righteousnesse would have done. But that he should accept on any mans behalfe, as a perfect legall righteousnesse, the performance of such things, which are not required of him, neither by the first Covenant of works, nor by the second of Grace, hath neither correspon­dence or agreement with the one Covenant, or with the other. A man (me thinks) must have a rare fa­culty to convert any thing into the similitude of a truth at pleasure, that can beleeve or conceive, that Christs preaching on the Mount, ordaining Disci­ples, reproving the Scribes and Pharises, working miracles and the like (which were parts of his obe­dience to the Law) should be imputed to a woman ( [...]or example) instead of her obedience and love and faithfulnesse to her Husband: and that she should be reputed before God, to have performed all these du­ties according to the strict forme and exigencie of [...]he Law, because Christ performed the forenamed [Page 107]duties, and these by imputation are made hers.

CAP. X.
A second ground against the im­putation of the righteousnesse of Christ (in the sense formerly rejected) drawn from the transcendencie of the nature of it.

A Second Reason, SECT. 1 why the active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ, cannot (in the parts and proprietie of it) be imputed unto any man whatsoe­ver for righteousnesse, may be contrived and cast into this frame.

That righteousnesse which is exactly and precisely fitted to the person and office of him, that is media­tor betweene God and man, or Redeemer of the world, cannot be imputed unto any other man for his righteousnesse.

But such is the righteousnesse of Christ, a righteousnesse precisely fitted to the person and Calling of a mediator. &c.

Therefore it cannot be imputed unto any other man whatsoever for righteousnesse unto him.

The minor proposition (I conceive) will be yeel­ded without much striving. If any man will under­take [Page 108]to finde any such flaw in the righteousnesse of Christ, that doth amount to the least degree of an incongruitie, or inconsistencie with his office of me­diator, attempts no lesse then the undermining the foundations of the peace of the world, and laying the hope of the salvation of men in the dust. Such an High Priest (saith the Apostle, Heb. 7.26.) it be­came us to have (i. that it was necessary we should have, if we looked for salvation by him) that is holy, harmlesse, undefiled, separate from sinners, &c. And woe unto the world, if the least either spot or ble­mish, could be found in this High Priest, or his righteousnesse. Therefore I presume that the deere interest which every man layeth claime to in the truth of this proposition, will secure it from all vio­lence of contradiction from any man.

So that if there be any thing weake and uncon­cluding in the Argument, it must be sought for in the major Proposition. Therfore let us cause that to passe through the fire, and see whether any flame will kin­dle upon it. The tenor of this was: that that righte­ousnesse which is exactly fitted to the person and office of a Mediator, cannot be imputed for righteousnesse unto any other man. How a conceipt of any such imputabi­lity should lodge quietly in any mans thoughts, I con­fesse I cannot comprehend.

The whole generation of Disputers for that impu­tation, SECT. 2 which we oppose, generally interpret the phrase of having the righteousnesse of Christ imputed, by, being cloathed with this righteousnesse of Christ, or, with the robes of his righteousnesse. Now then he that assumeth this righteousnesse of Christ unto himselfe, and apparelleth and arayeth himselfe with it, repre­sents himselfe before God, not in the habit of a just or righteous Man, but in the glorious attire of him, that makes men iust and righteous, the great Mediator of [Page 109]the world, whose righteousnesse hath heights and depths in it, a length and breadth, which insinitely ex­ceed the dimensions and proportions of all men whatsoever. And as John speaking (as is probable) of his transfiguration in the Mount (or whether it be of any other manifestation of his glory, it is not much materiall) useth these words, Joh. 1.14. We beheld his glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the Father: meaning, that the glory wherein Christ then appea­ted, was so supertranscendently glorious and excellent, that it exceeded the rank and quality of the creature, whether Angel or Man, and was meet only for him to weare, that was the only begotten of the Father: i. the naturall Sonne of God, the greatnesse of the person could not but have bin acknowledged by that vest­ment of glory, which he then had on: so may (and must) it be acknowledged and said of the righteous­nesse of his life, that it was peculiarly appropriated to him that was the only begotten of the Father, the great Saviour and Redeemer of the world. Neither did that glory of his which Iohn saw, further trans­cend the condition of the creature, then the glory of this righteousnesse doth. Now then for a silly worme, (a sinfull and contemptible creature) to take this robe of unmeasurable Majesty upon it, and to conceit it selfe as great in holinesse and righteousnesse as Iesus Christ himselfe (for that is the spirit that rules in that opinion, to teach men to assume all that Christ did unto themselves, and that in no other way, nor upon any lower terms, then as if themselves had personal­ly done it) whether this be a behaviour and deport­ment of soule of that grace and acceptance on High, which many have suffered themselves to be perswa­ded of; whether it will rellish well in the eye of jea­lousie or no, I earnestly desire that men would make it a matter of Conscience seriously to consider and re­examine. [Page 110]All the parts of his righteousnesse, all the acts of obedience that he performed, he performed them as one that had received the spirit without measure, i.e. there was a weightinesse and worth in them which did fully answere the fullnesse of that grace that was given unto him above all his fellows (a title of honour wherewith the Holy Ghost is pleased to honour the Saints) yea those acts of obedience, though hee wrought them in the humane nature, or as he was Man; yet by reason of the neere neighbourhood and streight combination of the God head in the unitie of the same person, they could not but receive excellent impressions from that also: The righteousnesse was in all the parts and circumstances of it, such as be­came God himselfe in personall union with his crea­ture, the humane nature. Now whether that be not to be accounted robbery (and that of a high nature) for the creature to assume an equality of righteousnesse, (whether by imputation or however) with God him­selfe, I leave to the sober and unpartiall thoughts of men to consider. But especially there are some streyns in this righteousnesse of Christ, that cannot be appro­priated or applyed unto any other whatsoever with­out notorious and manifest impiety. All that Christ taught and preached on earth, was part of his righte­ousnesse and obedience. For I have not spoken of my selfe (saith he, Ioh. 12.49.) but the Father that sent me gave me a commandement what I should say, and what I should speake. Therfore when he speaketh these and many such like words, I am the light of the world: Come unto me all that are wearie and heavie laden, and I will refresh you, &c. is it meet for any other to con­ceive them as spoken by himselfe in his owne per­son, but only for him that spake them. Those which were words full of grace and truth in that mouth that spake them and for which they were fitted, would [Page 111]be words of presumption and blasphemie in any o­ther, if they were conceived to be spoken either in the Name, or concerning the person of the speaker.

So that you see clearly, SECT. 3 that one maine reason why we deny the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the propriety or formality of it in justification, is, not because we deny the righteousnesse it selfe, nor because we deny the necessity of it, nor yet because we lesse honour and magnifie it, then others, but on the contrary, because we desire to establish it upon better foundations, and shew a plainer and greater necessity of it, and give more honour and glory to it, then the adverse opinion can do. If men will needs understand that Esay 42.21. of Christs fulfilling the Law: The Lord is well pleased for his righteousnesse sake: he will magnifie the Law and make it honourable, there is no such way to raise the interpretation of the words on high, as to make the righteousnesse of Christ (in respect of the letter and formality of it) incommunicable. He that should have taken the Reed out of Christs hand, that was put into it in­stead of a Scepter, and have broken it in pieces, and given him a Scepter's of gold instead of it, should have honoured Christ more, then they that gave him the Reed: So he that shall overthrow a pretended use and feigned necessity of Christs righteousnesse, and de­monstrate a true and reall necessity of it indeed, he no waies derogates either from the righteousnesse it selfe, or from the necessitie of it, but addeth weight and authority unto both. It is a speciall circum­stance or qualification much insisted upon and requi­red in the honour we ascribe or give unto God, that it be precisely, that honour which is due unto him, or due unto his Name. Psal. 29.2. and Psal. 96.8. because indeed, upon a true account, that would be found no honour at all unto him, which is not due [Page 112]unto him. He that shall deny that ever any man lay in that womb of the Virgin, wherein Christ was con­ceived and fashioned by the Holy Ghost, besides himselfe, shall neither disparage the womb that bare him, nor him that was conceived in it, but should rather honour both. And so he that shall say, there was never man buried in the Tomb wherein Christs body lay, disparageth neither. No more is it any dispargement or prejudice cast upon the righteous­nesse of Christ, to say that there was never any man formally justified with it, but himselfe alone, that it is a righteousnesse sit for no man to weare or assume to himselfe, but only for the person of him that wrought it. Nay, he that here speaketh these things, exal­teth the righteousnesse of Christ on high: and main­teineth the honour that belongeth to it. Therefore (by the way) to charge the crime of Arrianisme up­on this opinion (which some have much adoe to forbeare) is to frame an accusation against it, upon the like termes, that Potiphars wife proceeded upon in her inditement against her Servant Joseph: the foule crime of incontinencie was layd to his charge, whereas his vertuous offence was nothing else but a high streine of a chast behaviour. Gen. 39. Or it were, as if a man should be accused of want of love to the Brethren, who were now ready to lay downe his life for their sakes: greater love then which (as our Saviour saith) no man hath. There is no opini­on that can more deerely sympathize with the Di­vinity of Christ, then that that denieth the imputati­on of his righteousnesse (in the sense so frequently disallowed)

But some (perhaps) will think sufficiently to salve the congruity or sitnesse of this righteousnesse of Christ for imputation to beleevers, SECT. 4 from the consi­deration of the union that is betweene Christ as the [Page 113]head, and beleevers as the body or members; and reason after this manner. Though the righteousnesse of Christ be too glorious and excellent to be appro­priated unto men, or to be accompted unto them for their personall actions, as they are men, or as they are sinfull: yet as they are members of Christ, and he their head, they see no inconvenience in it, they may be ascribed unto them. May not that which is done by the head, be ascribed or com­municated to the whole body?

To this I Answere two things: First, that Christ and beleevers are a mysticall body, that is, a body only by way of a secret resemblance or similitude with a naturall body. Therefore an universall con­cent or agreement in all things betweene them, can­not be thought on: because then a similitude would be no longer a similitude, but an identitie: and a my­sticall body would be no longer a mysticall body, but a naturall. Now one difference betweene them is this: what any one member of the body naturall doeth, as head, eyes, eares, &c. the whole may be said to do: when the head studieth, the man may be said to study: So when the eye seeth, or eare heareth, &c. yea it is more proper to ascribe these and such like acts which are exercised by the parti­cular members of the naturall body severally, and the whole person, then to the members themselves by which they are acted: it is more proper to say, the man seeth by the eye, then to say the eye seeth: But in the mysticall body, it is otherwise: When Christ (the Head of this body) wrought miracles, the body could not be said to have wrought them. So when Paul (a speciall member of this body) re­proved Peter, the whole body cannot be said to have reproved him: because some of the members joyned with Peter in his sinne against Paul in his [Page 114]reproofe. The Reason of which difference is this, because in the naturall body; the members make but one Suppositum (as the Schoolemen speake) or one personall being, and so have but one and the same numericall principle of all their actions and motions, viz. the reasonable soule, but a mysticall body, be­ing made up of many persons or personall beings, which have every one entire natural & substantial be­ings in themselves (besides their relation of members one to another) and so have every one principles of their actions really distinct each from other. One mans will is not really and numerically the same with anothers: nor one mans grace really the same with anothers. And hence it cometh to passe, that what one of these members doe, is not necessarily to be ascribed to the whole body, but to that mem­ber only which doth it, inasmuch as it hath a prin­ciple within it selfe, which is not numerically the same with the rest.

But secondly, I answere more briefly and plaine­ly to the objection. Though the benefit of what the head doth, be communicated to the whole bo­dy, and every member (for every member in the na­turall body fareth the better for the Head, and the operations of it) yet that which the head doeth or worketh, is no waies to be imputed or ascribed ei­ther unto the hand or foot, or any other member, as if it were done by them: so doth the whole mysti­call body of Christ, and every member thereof (e­ven the whole Societie and fellowship of beleevers) reape and enjoy abundantly the fruite, benefit, and blessing of all that Christ (the Head) either did, or suffered in the world: forgivenesse of sins, peace of conscience, acceptation into favor with God, adop­tion, sanctification, hope of glory, glory or salvation it selfe (when it cometh) &c. all these and the like [Page 115]are Grapes gathered from that Vine; the active and passive obedience or righteousnesse of Christ, furnish­eth his whole body with all these precious and plea­sant riches: and yet there is no necessity that either his doings or sufferings should be ascribed or impu­ted unto them, no more then the labor and skill of the Bee, is to be ascribed unto him that eates the honey. SECT. 5

Againe, some urge the consideration of the mari­age betweene Christ and his Church, (and conse­quently, every beleever) to salve the congruity or sitnesse of his righteousnesse for imputation to beleevers: and reason after this manner. The wife by mariage, hath a right to all that is her Husbands: she is endow­ed with all his goods: they are aswell hers, as his. Therefore a beleever being maried to Christ, hath a right and title to all that Christ hath, all that Christ hath is his: and therefore his righteousnesse is his. &c.

To this I Answere two things. First, it is true, the wife by mariage comes to be endowed with all that is her Husbands: but this endowing of her with all, is no ingredient into the mariage it selfe (much lesse is it the formall cause of the mariage) but is a fruite or consequent of it. So the right and title which a beleever hath to the righteousnesse of Christ, accrues unto him by, and upon the spirituall mari­age. The mariage must be first made up betweene Christ and him (which is done by Faith, or beleeving) before he comes to have this right spoken of in the righteousnesse of Christ. Therefore it cannot be im­pured unto him in the very act of beleeving (which is the golden apple the adverse opinion strives for) and yet much lesse before the act of beleeving (which yet is affirmed by some great and le [...]rned abettors of that side) Because in both these cases, the title we speake of to the righteousnesse of Christ, should [Page 116]not grow to a beleever, by, or from, or upon his ma­riage, but either in, or before it.

But secondly, I answere yet further (and close more neerely with the spirit of the objection) How­soever by mariage there ariseth a title unto the wife of all that is her Husbands, so that it may be sayd, that all that is the Husbands, is made or becomes the wifes: yet this is so to be qualified and understood, that no Law either of naturall decencie and sobriety, or of a rationall expediencie or behoofe to either party, receive prejudice or violation. All that is the Husbands, is not every waies the wifes by meanes of her mariage, nor for every use or purpose, but only in a way of expediencie or beneficialnesse to her. As for instance: the cloaths or garments of the Hus­band, are the wifes by mariage: but how? not hers to put on, and weare upon her owne person, for so they would be hers to her owne shame and re­proach. We know it was prohibited in the Law. Deut. 22.5. The woman shall not weare that which perteyneth unto the man, for all that doe so are an abho­mination unto the Lord thy God. But hers they are, (and may be called hers) in this sense, as it is a com­fort and credit unto her that her Husband be cloa­thed like himselfe, and that his habit be according to his rank and quality. So is it indeed an unspeakable comfort, and a ground of a glorious rejoycing unto a beleeving Soule, that her Lord and Husband Iesus Christ, is cloathed with that rich and glorious robe of righteousnesse, that he is so holy, so harmlesse, so far separate from sinners, as he is: but she must take heed of assuming these things unto her selfe, other­wise then in the benefit and comfort of them: she must not thinke her selfe as holy, as harmlesse, as far separate from sinners, as Christ himselfe is. The Common or inferior Priest that should put on and [Page 117]serve in the High Priests garments, was by the Jewes adjudged guilty of death, by the hand of Hea­ven. As Mr. Ainsworth citeth out of Maimony upon Exod. 28.43. So againe, the wisdome and under­standing of the Husband, may be said to be the wifes, by mariage. But how? not for her to be wise withall, for in this respect it is her Husbands only, notwithstanding mariage: the woman is not there­fore as wise as her Husband, because the Husbands wisdome is hers by mariage: but it is hers in the benefit and comfort of it, thus: having a Husband that is wise, she shall live the better, and more com­fortable life with him, she shal be the better provided for, and the like. So the righteousnesse of Christ be­comes ours by right of our spirituall mariage with him: but not to be righteous withall (formally) for this is still his personall propriety, notwithstanding the giving of himselfe in mariage to us: but to have the benefit and blessing of communicated unto us, and derived upon us, both in our justification, adop­tion, and salvation.

CAP. XI.
A third ground against the pre­tended imputation, viz. the Non­necessitie of it.

A third Reason, SECT. 1 warring strongly against this im­putation of Christs righteousnesse, is: There is no necessity or occasion of any such imputation. The truth of the old rule doth not wax old, neither will ever vanish: Deus et natura nihil faciunt frustrà. Neither God the Master, nor Nature the servant, e­ver make any thing in vaine. If God hath sufficient­ly provided otherwise for the justification of his peo­ple, most certaine it is that he doth not impute this righteousnesse of Christ unto them, for that end: which yet is the only end, for which the necessity thereof, either is o [...] (indeed) can be pretended. That a beleever is sufficiently justified before God, without any impu­tation of the righteousnesse of Christ (I still meane in the letter and formalitie of it) I thus demonstrate. He that is compleatly justified by having his sins for­given, is justified without the imputation of this active obedience or righteousnesse of Christ. This proposition is generally granted: for no man con­tends for this imputation (in the sense we speake of) in regard of forgivenesse of sins (neither is there any colour for it) but for another purpose, as we shall see hereafter. Therefore I assume: But a beleever [Page 119]is suthciently justified before God by the forgivenesse of his sins: therefore I conclude: There is no need of this imputation of Christs righteousnesse for justifi­cation. The latter proposition, that men are fully justified before God by having their sins pardoned, hath been already proved at large (cap. 5.) by ex­presse testimonies of the Scripture: whereunto we found the judgment of Calvin (with other learned Divines of the resormed Religion) fully conforma­ble. Here we observed, that to justifie in Scripture dialect, constantly signifies, absolution from guilt and punishment, but never any qualifying or invest­ing, with a positive or legall righteousnesse, either by imputation, or otherwise. To those Scriptures, which were there produced and insisted upon (being many) yet many more might be added of like im­portance, there being no streame of truth running fuller or cleerer along the Scriptures then this. But because we shall have assistance enough from those very places alledged, to vindicate the interpretation given against all that is, or can be objected against it, we will spare that time and labor.

But against the Exposition given of these Scrip­tures, wherein it was affirmed, SECT. 2 that the Scriptures know no other justification of a sinner, but that which stands in remission of sinnes, or discharge from the punishment or condemnation due unto them, it is objected: that forgivenesse of sins is indeed a part of justification but not the whole: imputation of righte­ousnesse must be likewise added.

To this I answere: First, that Calvin is as ex­pressely of another judgment as words can make him: a professed enemie to this biformed or dou­ble justification. On Rom. 4. ver. 6, 7. &c. he hath these words. Quibus etiam verbis docemur, justitiam Paulo nihil aliud esse, quam remissionem peccatorum. [Page 120]i. in which words we are taught, that righteousnesse (with Paul) is nothing else but remission of sins. He doth not say, that Paul placeth righteousnesse or ju­stification, partly in remission of sins, partly in some­what else: but plainely affirmes, that that righteous­nesse by which we are justified or made righteous be­fore God, is NOTHING ELSE but this forgivenesse. Againe, in his Institutions. lib. 3. cap. 11. sect. 21. Iustitia fidei est reconciliatio cum Deo, quae SOLA RE­MISSIONE PECCATORUM constat. The righte­ousnesse of Faith is our reconciliation with God, which consists of remission of sins ONLY.

Againe in the same Section: Constat, quos Deus amplectitur, NON ALITER fieri justos, nisi quòd ab­stersis peccatorum remissione maculis purificentur, ut talis justitia VNO VBRBO appellari queat REMISSI­O PECCATORUM i. It is evident, that those whom God embraceth, are NO OTHER-WAIES made righ­teous, but because they are purifyed, having their spots washed off by the forgivenesse of sins: so that this righteousnesse may IN ONE VVORD, be called, REMISSION OF SINNES. Againe in the following Section. Sic remissionem peccatorum cum justitiá connectit Apostolus, Act. 13.38. ut IDEM PROR­SUS esse ostendat. i. The Apostle, Act. 13.38. doth so couple or conjoyne forgivenesse of sins with righ­teousnesse, that he plainely shewes them to be AB­SOLVTELY, OR ALTOGETHER THE SAME. Again, in the third Section of the same Chapter. Cum (Scriptura) dicit Deum justificare impium quiest ex side Christi, quis sensus esse potest, nisi fideibeneficio a damnatione liberare, quam ipsorum impietas mereba­tur? Et paulo pòst: Iustificare ergo NIHIL ALIUD EST, quam eum quireus agebatur, tanquam approba­tâ innocentiâ, à reatu absolvere. i. When the Scrip­ture saith, that God justifieth the wicked, that is of [Page 121]the Faith of Jesus, what else can be meant, then the freeing or absolving him from that condemnation by the benefit of his Faith, which his sin deserved. And a little after (in the same Section) To justifie therefore is nothing else, then to absolve a man from guilt, as one of approved innocencie, who was ac­cused as one guiltie. Yet once more: in the same Chapter. Sect. 15. Hic est fidei sensus, &c. quòd in­tercedente Christi justitiâ, impetratâ remissione peccato­rum, justificatus sit. 1. This is the meaning of a mans Faith, &c. that by the mediation or interces­sion of Christs righteousnesse, he is justified by re­mission of sins obtained. Laftly in the fourth Sect. of the same Chapter. Quarto autem capite ad Roma­nos, &c. i. In the fourth Chapter to the Romans, he first calls (justification) the imputation of righ­teousnesse, and doubteth not to place it in REMISSI­ON OF SINS. And presently citing the testimony of David, Blessed are they whose iniquities are for­given, &c. commenteth thus upon the words. Illie sane [...]nonde justificationis parte, &c. i. Questionlesse he doth not here dispute of a part of justification, but of the whole. The definition whereof he further affirmeth to be set downe by David, when he pro­nounceth those blessed, to whom a free forgivenesse of sins was given. From whence it appeareth, that that righteousnesse whereof we speake, is simply op­posed to guilt of sinne, &c. You see we have not sought far for all this abundance of this Authors minde and judgement touching the point in Questi­on: all these testimonies (the first excepted) are found within the compasse of one only Chapter, and that none of the first magnitude neither. Hee that in the presence of all these witnesses speaking so distinctly and fully from the Authors owne pen, will yet say, that Calvin [...]d not remission of sinnes to be [Page 122]our entire and compleate justification; had need be able to prove to the world, that Calvins H [...]ad and hand were at ods, when these things were written: or that his pen was suborned and bribed by some ad­versarie to conspire against his meaning, end to be­tray his judgement in the point.

Notwithstanding a great Master of the opposite way in this controversie, SECT. 3 being loath to lose a man of such authority as Calvin is, from his partie, at­tempts yet by force to bring him through all this fire and water over to him: and therefore pretends to finde more ingenuitie in Papists and in Bellarmine himselfe towards this Author, then in men of his owne profession ( Protestants I meane) that are of an opposite judgment to him in this point. Bellarmine (saith he) doth confesse and acknowledg, that though Calvin doth againe and againe place justifica­tion in remission of sinnes only, yet he holds imputa­tion of Christs righteousnesse too. To this I answere:

First, that which is here called ingenuity in Bel­larmine, I fully conceive to be nothing else, but a peece of Jesuiticall cunning, to make his adversaries opinion the more irrationall, that so he might have the more advantage against him in disputation: which will further appeare by and by.

Secondly, I conceive, that as Paul in Christian wisdome pleaded his Pharisaisme, when time was, to helpe himselfe at a pinch, though otherwise hee little regarded it: or as Sampson tooke up the jaw­bone of an Asse, to revenge himselfe of the Philistins, and threw it away when he had done: so this man findesingenuity in Bellarmines to quit himselfe in a strcight, seast Calvin should be taken from him, and to avenge himselfe of his adversaries in this Questi­on: but otherwise cares little for it.

But thirdly (and lastly) if either Bellarmines, or his [Page 123]interpreters (who finds this miracle of ingenuity in him) meaning be, that Calvin holds the imputation of Christs righteousnesse neceslary to justification, by way of merit only, we are no further adversaries in this point: But if their meaning be (and other it cannot be without apparant prevarication) that o­ver and besides remission of sinnes, Calvin holds a necessity of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in justification, as a second part or member of it (re­ally distinct from remission of sins) to make it com­pleate and perfect, this is to burthen Calvin with such an imputation, as is not lightly incident to a con­sidering and learned man, as he was. He himselfe in his Antidote against the Counsell of Trent, in their sixt Session, takes those Fathers tardie with that Logicall Soloecisme in their Divinitie, of making the formall cause of justification double, acsi partìm remissione pec­catorum, partim spirituali regeneratione justi essemus. i. as if we were righteous partly by remission of sins, partly by spirituall regeneration. Now if he should place justification partly in remission of sinnes, partly in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse: who seeth not that himselfe is in the same condemnation with his adversaries, and builds up by example, what he pulls downe by reproofe? But he washeth his hands in perfect innocencie this way: Ego autem (saith he) unicam et simplicem esse assero. i. but I hold and affirme, (meaning the formall cause of justification) to be but one and simple. Bellarmine in­deed doth not admit of this purgation of himselfe: but will needs finde him foule in the businesse not­withstanding, and recriminates upon him the same imputation, wherewith he had burdened the counsell. Quippe qui saith he of Calvin, De Justificatione. lib. 2. Cal. Inst. l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 2. cap. 2.) disertis verbis, justificationem in peccatorum remissione, et justitiae Christi imputatione, sitam, esse [Page 124]scribat. i. Carvin in expresse words, delivers it, that justification consists in remission of sinnes, and in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse. And here is the interpretation of that ingenuity, where­of we heard the innocent Jesuit lately accused: we see how kindly and lovingly he dealt by his adver­sarie, when he would needs give him in the imputa­tion of Christs righteousnesse (by way of sub-intelli­gence) to remission of sinnes, wherein alone he had placed justification. The old adage was: [...]; The guifts of enemies are but guile. Bellarmine was willing to enlarge Calvins opinion, and to adde more then enough to it, that so he might make it the fairer marke to shoot at.

But Paraeus fairely delivers this Souldier of Christ out of the hands of that Romish Champion, SECT. 4 only by an ingenuous and faire interpretation of that passage, whereat his adversary tooke this advantage against him. Paraeus contr [...] Bellarmun. lib. 2, cap 2. Lect. 247. See the same Author in his T [...]ract De justi­ [...]ia Christi Act. & Pass. p. 179 &c. where he interprets the said passage of Calvin, much after the same manne. Hinc videre potuit adversarius (saith Paraeus) &c. i. Hence his adversary (meaning Bellarmine) might see and perceive, that saying in his Institutions, that Justification consisted in remission of sinnes, and im­putation of Christs righteousnesse, his meaning was not, that there should be a double [formall] cause of Iustification, as if we were righteous partly by remissió of sinnes, partly by imputation, and neither of them a compleate and full Iustification (for so hee should fight both against himselfe, and against the Scrip­tures) but his intent was, by two Scripture-termes equipollent, the one to the other, to expresse one and the same formall cause, or to joyne these two expres­sions together exegetically (i. So that one might helpe to explaine the other) quia remissio peccatorum sit imputatione justitiae, et vicissim imputatio justitia fit remissione peccatorum, teste Apostolo. Rom. 4. ver. 6.7, &c. i. because remission of sinnes is made, by or [Page 125]in the imputation of righteousnesse: and againe, impu tation of righteousnesse made in remission of sinnes, witnesse the Apostle: Rom. 4.6.7. &c, If this Au­thor be further consulted with in the sequel, he will tell you more at large, how Calvin placeth inte­gram justificationem modò sola remissione peccatorum &c. i. intire and compleate JUSTIFICATI­ON sometimes in remission of sinnes onely, sometimes in remission of sinnes and imputation of Christs righteousnesse without any contradiction. Neither is it hard to conceive, how the one may be the sole and intire formall cause, and the other the meritorious. Which to have been the very ex­presse meaning and minde of Calvin, is so apparant by comparing and laying together passage with paslage from him, that except a mans conceit were much relieved and strengthened by his will, he would finde it a matter of much difficulty to thinke otherwise. SECT. 5

Bellarmine himselfe, when the pange of ingenuity is but a little of him, can finde out his adversaries opinion cleerely enough. For explaining those words of the Trent Councell, wherein it is said, that righteousnesse doth not consist in Remission of sinnes only, Reijcitur (saith he) sententia Calvini de justifi­catione, more forensi, &c. i. Calvins opinion con­cerning Justification after a juridicall manner, is here rejected. And so generally when he undertakes the confutation of that error (as he calls it) which placeth Justification in Remission of sinnes only; he still chargeth Calvin with it, and seldome any other: as on the contrary, when he disputes against that o­pinion, which placeth Iustification in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, he still layes on upon CHEM­NI TIUS. Compare the 6 and 7 Chapters together, in his Second BOOKE of JUSTIFICATION.

Let me adde but onething more here out of the Councell of Trent it selfe, SECT. 5 which seems directly to point at Calvin, as the Anthor or maintainer of that very opinion, where with we have laboured hitherto to honour him, as with an Lonour which belongs unto him. Or if Calvin be not conceived to be the man, yet the opinion we shall evince from hence, to have bin famous in the Reformed Churches, when the Conncell thus thundred out against it. [...] 11. Si quis dix­erit, hominem justificari, velsola imputatione justitiae Christs, vel sola peccatorum remissione, &c. Anathema sit, i. If any man shall say, that a man is justified, either by the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ alone, or by remission of sins alone, &c. let him be accursed. From whence observe, first, that to place iustification in remission of sins alone, was an opinion by it selfe, distinct from the other, that held iustification by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse alone. For it is evi­dent, by the disjunctive particles in this Canon, that the Councell, being (as it seems) good Husbands of their thunderbolts, had an intent to strike down two opinions at once. And so Bellarmine (as we heard) explains the Councell. Secondly, observe (that which follows close upon the former observation) that ei­ther there was such an opinion then ruling in the Reformed Churches, or at least taught and maintai­ned by some eminent man (one, or more) amongst them, that held iustification to consist in Remission of sins onely: otherwise those deep-advised sages of the Councel, should have but put a dead slie into their box of oyntment, by boltring into the ayre: and indeed, rather have forged a weapon for their adversaries, then taken any from them. If it were any particular and eminent man, they struck at, as an abettor of that opinion, there can none be pitched upon with greater probability then Calvin, who still carried matters of [Page 127]Religion against them at that time with a higher hand then any other. And Bellarmine (as we heard) inge­nuously confessed, Calvin by name to be the man. Thirdly (and lastly) from this passage observe, how some mens either learning or memory misuseth them, by suggesting to them, that the opinion pleaded and contended for in this Treatise, viz. the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse, or (which is the same) that iustification stands in Remission of sins onely, is an opini­on confederate with Popish errors. Certainly those great Agents and Factors for the Roman party, would never have bin so farte overseene in their solemn and sacred assembly, to have poured out the vials of their wrath upon the head of an opinion, that was their owne.

The importune striving and contendings of some men to make Galvin for them, in an opinion, wherof (doubtlesse) his learning was never guilty, have com­pelled us to make somewhat the longer labour and discourse of it, for his rescue, and to set him cleere upon his own principles and foundations. If any man remains yet unsatisfied touching this Authors judge­ment in the point now under examination, and desires rather an heape, then enough: it were an easie matter to make the pyle of testimonies from his own pen yet farre greater, even to the wearying and punishing of such a man with his own desire. Somewhat more then hath bin here delivered, may be found in the first Chapter: where also you may see this worthy Champion of the truth, accompanied and seconded in this service, with many of his fellows not much inferiour to him. And this bv way of Answere in the first place to the objection, that Remission of sins, SECT. 6 was not the whole, but only a part of our Iustification.

Secondly, I Answer, that from the Scriptures them­selves that were alledged, it may be evidenced, as by [Page 128]expresse demonstration, that there is no more, no o­ther part or member of iustification, but onely for­givenesse of sins: that the nature and substance of it is fully comprehended in this. What can be more pregnant then that Rom. 4 6, 7. &c. Even as David also describeth the blessednesse of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works: saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sinnes are covered: Blessed is the man, to whom the Lord will not impute sinne. If there were any thing more be­longing to this righteousnesse which is by imputation, then only the forgivenesse of iniquity, or the covering of sin, would the Holy Ghost wholly have omitted it and left it out, when he intended a description, or declaration if it? Especially would he have omitted, that which is the maine and principall and formall part of it, as the righteousnesse of Christ imputed is pretended to be? If a man should prefix such a Title as this before a Book, or over the head of a Mappe, A description of the world, &c. and never so much in all his Book or Mappe, as once mention Europe or Asia, the chiefe parts of the world, but onely some obscure and lesser Countries, would it not argue, that either he wanted wit himselfe, or else hoped that his Rea­ders would want it altogether? Or if a Limner should be set on worke to draw a mans picture or portraicture, and should only draw the trunk of his body, without a face or head upon it, were this the portraicture or description of a man? No more would Paul (or rather the Holy Ghost) have called the for­givenesse of sinnes, a description or declaration of the righteousnesse which is imputed by Faith, if it had bin only a part, and that the lesser and lesse materiall part of it.

It is true, SECT. 7 sometimes in Scripture, by a Synechdo­che, a part is put for the whole: as the persons of men [Page 129]and women, consisting of bodies and soules, are called soules, Act. 7.14. and elsewhere: But 1. this is ne­ver done in descriptions or declarations of things: as when the Holyghost describes the creation of man, expresse mention is made, both of the materiall part, the dust of the earth, and likewise of the formall, Gods breathing in his face the breath of life. Neither in rea­son is that to be called the description of a thing, which conceales and silenceth that which is best and the most beautifull part of it, and onely mentioneth somewhat of inferiour consideration in it. Secondly, when such a figure is used, a part put for the whole, it is seldome or never, that the worser and more ig­noble part is mentioned, but still the formall and bet­ter part, as bodies are no where put for the persons of men, but onely Soules: Except (happily) in two cases: 1. when the whole comes under consideration and is spoken of, by reason of the inferiour part, as somtimes the body of Christ, or flesh of Christ, is put for Christ himselfe as man, and for the whole humane nature of Christ, namely when that which is spoken of him, hath its relation to him, in respect of his body or flesh. Or else 2. when the Holy Ghost would re­present the weaknesse and contemptiblenesse of the condition of the whole, then (somtimes) he calls the whole by the name of that which is the weakest part of it, and the ground or cause of the vanitie and weak­nesse of the whole. As when it is said, that All flesh is grasse, &c. by flesh, meaning Men, in respect of their weake and vanishing condition in this world. Nei­ther of which cases can be pretended in that descrip­tion of Iustification. Thirdly (and lastly) when this Figure Synechdoche is used in any of these or the like cases, a part being put for the whole, it is when things are plaine and evident, so that by the part which is named and expressed, that may readily be understood [Page 130]which is implyed, as easie to be made out, either by other places of Scripture, or by common sence, as in the instances given. All flesh is grasse: by flesh here, no man can understand any thing else, but men cloath­ed with flesh. So Acts 7. where Iacob is said to come down into Egypt with threescore and fifteen soules: no man can think that these soules came with him without their bodies. But now it is farre otherwise in this description of iustification commended unto us by Paul. That by forgivenesse of sins, should be meant, both forgivenesse of a mans own sins, and imputation of Christs righteousnesse, if it should be true, yet is it no wayes necessary: neither is it any waies apparent, that these are parts of the same whole, of one and the same iustification: neither is there any thing expresly delivered in any part of the Scripture to establish it. Therfore it is no wayes probable (even in these re­spects, that when Paul placeth a mans righteousnesse before God in the forgivenesse of his sinnes, that he should doe it by the figure Synecdoche, onely men­tioning one part, and implying another.

Againe, SECT. 8 2. if forgivenesse of sins be but a part, and the worser halfe of our iustification, then when the Scripture saith, We are iustified by his blood (as Rom 5.9.) the interpretation must be: we are justified by halfe through his blood, but the better of our iustifi­cation must come another way. For by his blood or death, we cannot have his active righteousnesse impu­ted to us. So where it is said againe (vers. 16.) that the guift (viz. of righteousnesse by Christ) is of many offences unto iustification: if the guift of many offences, i [...] the forgivenesse of a mans sins, will not amount to a iusti­fication, without the imputation of a legall righteous­nesse joyned with it, we must give a checke to Pauls pen, as the High Priests did unto Pilate, Joh. 16.21. Write not, the King of the Iewes: but that he said, I am [Page 131]the King of the Jewes: So must we say unto Paul, doe not write, that the guift is of many offences unto Iusti­fication: but, the guift is of many offences, and of many acts of righteousnesse too imputed, to Iustification. Pauls pen had made more hast then good speed (as we say) to come at Iustification before its time. And thus we must draw blood instead of milke out of many other Scriptures besides these, to nourish that opinion of the imputation of a formall righteousnesse for Iustifica­tion, if you meane to keep it alive: for the sincere milk of the word will not nourish it.

Thirdly, that forgivenesse of sinnes is a mans entire and compleat Iustification, and that there is no such further piece or part of it, as is pretended concerning the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, will appeare from hence, because that end, for which this imputed righteousnesse of Christ is thus brought into the bu­sinesse of iustification, viz. to be the right or title of the iustified to their heavenly inheritance, is other­wise supplyed by the wisdome and counsell of God, and that in a way more Euangelicall, and of more sweetnesse and deernesse to the children of God, viz. by the grace of adoption, or Son-ship (as we shall fur­ther shew ( God willing) in the reason following.

Fourthly, SECT. 9 if men will have the active righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto them for one part of their iu­stification by it selfe, and the passive obedience or death of Christ, for another part, by it selfe, and so separate and divide the benefit of his active obedience from that which we have by his passive, in Iustification: this is a method or course to destroy and lose both the benefit of the one and of the other. For if men substract the righteousnesse of his life, upon a conceit, that that will doe them service alone (which it will not doe, as we shall see afterwards) then must they want it in his death, or in his blood, and so that wil be [Page 132]ineffectuall too If it had bin possible, under the Law, for a man to have separated those qualifications which God required in the Beast for sacrifice, as viz. the Sex, the soundnesse, spotlessenesse, &c. from the Beast it selfe, neither would these qualifications, se­parated from the sacrifice, have bin of any use to the man; neither would the Beast without these, have made a sacrifice of acceptation. So neither will the active obedience of Christ profit men, if they separate it from the passive Joh. 12.24. neither will the passive it selfe be found it selfe, In the cleansing of the Le [...]e the blood of the flame Syarrow was to [...]e joyn­ed and mixed with pure water in an [...] then vessell and the person cleansed, to be sprinkled with [...]th. Lev. 14.4.5.6. that is, an attonement or ex­piation for sinne according to the will and purpose of God, except we bring in the active to it. For as it is most true which the Apostle affirmes, Heb. 9 22. Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sinnes: so is it as true, that without shedding of righteous blood there is no remission neither. And howsoever the personall union of the humane nature with the God­head in the person of Christ, was the great qualifica­tion requisite in his person to make the sacrifice of himselfe compleatly satisfactory for the sinne of the world: yet was it (as God willing, we shall hereafter demonstrate more at large) but a remote qualification in this respect, there being a necessity (not onely in respect of the decree and purpose of God, but of other ends and conveniences also) that this qualification we now speake of, the fullfilling of the Law, should in­tervene and come between that union and his sacri­fice. In the mean time, whilest I would not have the active obedience of Christ separated from the passive, nor againe the passive from the active, in respect of this common and joynt effect of forgivenesse of sins or justification, ariseing from a concurrence of them both, yet would I not have Christ in his mystery tumbled up together on a heap: for this would be to deface the beauty and excellencie of that wisdome [Page 133]which shines forth gloriously in the face thereof. I would have every thing that Christ was, and every thing that Christ did, and every thing that Christ suffered to be distinguished, not only in themselves, but also in their proper and immediate effects, respe­ctively ariseing and flowing from them severally. A pluralitie of causes may meet together in one and the same effect, and yet the diversitie and difference of their severall operations and influences contributing towards the raiseing and produceing of such an effect, may easily be distinguished and apprehended. The goodnesse of the soyle, the labour of the Oxe, the Plough, the seed that is sowne; the Husbandmans paines in ploughing, in sowing, his skill in both; the raine given from heaven to water that which is sowne: all these and such like, meet together in one joynt and common effect at the time of Harvest, viz. the Husbandmans benefit or increase. Yet is there scarce any man so much a stranger to the method and principles of Husbandry, but can assigne to every one of these causes, their proper and speciall effect, though all meeting together in that great and com­mon effect we speake of: the soyle is for one pur­pose, the Oxe for another, the Plough for a third, &c. So is it true, that all that Christ was, and all that he did, and all that he suffered, meet together in that great and common effect, the salvation of them that beleeve: yea, many of them meet by the way, in the justification of such, before they come to their jour­neys end: yet to justifie the wonderfull and deep wisdome of God, as we ought to doe, in bringing about this great work of the salvation of the world, we must enquire after and find out peculiar and di­stinct reasons and ends, for all that variety of things which is to be found in or about Christ, as why he should be God, and why he should be Man, what both [Page 134]the one and the other of these peculiarly contributes towards the salvation of men, why he should be born, why born of a Virgin, why he should grow up and live till he came to the perfect stature and age of a man, why he should be circumcised, why fullfill the Law, why preach the Gospell before his death, why at last he should suffer death; why die upon the Crosse; why hee should be buried; why hee should rise a­gaine, &c. with many more particulars of like nature that might be mentioned: all which have their spe­ciall and peculiar working towards the great worke of salvation (as in a benigne constellation every Staire gives out his peculiar influence by himselfe.) As all Rivers fall into the Sea and meet there in one, though the course of their waters lie from all parts under Heaven, from the East and from the West, from North and South: So whatever Christ was, and whatever he did, spake, and suffered, though they are things much differing in themselves, and in their im­mediate and proper effects, yet they all meet and center in that common and glorious effect, the salva­tion of those that beleeve. And for men not to distin­guish these in due manner, aswell in their effects and purposes, as in their natures, is not only to confound themselves, but (which is worse) to confound that most exquisite and admirably-beautifull frame of the Gospell, and (as it were) of a defenced City, to make a ruinous heap. From the guilt of which confusion-making in the Gospell, how unpossible it is fairely to acquit such an imputation of Christs righteousnesse as hitherto we have opposed, will further appeare in the reasons ensuing.

Fiftly (and lastly) if remission of sinnes be but a part of justification, SECT. 10 and the imputation of Christs righte­ousnesse must be added as another part of it, to make it perfect and compleat: then must the formall cause [Page 135]of one and the same effect, be double (the absurdity which Calvin, as we heard, truly charged upon the Trent Councellors, and Bellarmine as falsely recharg­ed upon him) yea (that which makes the absurditie swell yet higher) one and the same formality, or for­mall part of a thing (which is ever most simple and indivissible) shall be compacted and compounded of two things, not only of a differing, but of a diverse, yea and of an opposite importance and considerati­on, (as the sequell of the businesse rightly interpre­ted, will make manifest.) For where there is a perfect and compleat righteousnesse imputed (as the righteous­nesse of Christ is, and must be apprehended) there is no place for remission of sinnes.

CAP. XII.
A fourth reason against the pre­tended Imputation; it frustrates the grace of Adoption.

MY fourth ground against the supposed impu­tation of Christs righteousnesse, I dispose in this Syllogisme.

The proposition (I conceive) will be yeelded sine sanguine et sudore, otherwise the sword of the Spirit, the word of God, would soone command it. The Scriptures speake much of the grace of Adoption, or Sonship, of beleevers being made the Children and Sonnes of God. That we might receive the Adoption of Sons. Gal. 4.5. And because yee are Sonnes, ver. 6. Wherefore thou art no more a Servant, but a Sonne &c. ver. 7. To passe by other places without number: Joh. 1.12. But as many as received him, to them hee [Page 137]gave power, or prerogative ( [...]) to be made [or to become] the Sonnes of God. Doubtlesse this grace, or prerogative of Adoption and Sonne-ship, is not given unto men by God in vaine, not for the sweet sound only that the letter or name of Adoption makes in the cares: it hath relation to some further matter of mo­ment and consequence depending thereon. It is given as an immediate capacitie, or qualification to those that beleeve, to make them capable of their everlasting inheritance: their Son-ship is the proper and next ground of that investiture unto them. The Scriptures are in nothing more expresse then this. If we be Children, then also heires, even heires of God, and heires annexed with Christ. Rom. 8.17. So againe: Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Son & if a Son, then an heire of God through Christ. Gal. 4, 7. As if he should say, we are therefore made Sonnes, or a­dopted to be Sonnes, that so by right of this Son­ship we might be heires of God, and by the right of this Heyr-ship come to inherit that immortall, unde­filed inheritance, which fadeth not away, with Iesus Christ himselfe. The reason or strength of that infe­rence, or consequence, If Sonnes then Heires, seems to stand in this: because though amongst men all that are Sons, are not Heires, if we speake of Sonnes by nature, but only he that is the first borne: yet Son­ship by Adoption (I conceive) hath alwaies respect to an inheritance, a man never adopteth a child, but with an intent or purpose to make him his heire. So that though in the case of Son-ship by nature, it will not follow, If Sons then heires, yet in the case of A­doption, it will. And this (we know) is the case and condition of Beleevers: they are Sons of God, not by nature, but by Adoption. Vnlesse (perhaps) we will rather conceive the reason of the inference to lye in this: that the Apostle argueth and conclud­eth [Page 138]upon the supposition of this truth, that the King­dome of Heaven, or that inheritance which God hath provided for his Saints, is of another nature, and hath a preheminence and perfection above any earth­ly inheritance, as in a thousand other respects, so par­ticularly in this, that it may be injoyed, possessed and inherited by all the Children of God, though in number never so many, upon such terms, that every one may enjoy, and possesse the whole, and no mans portion or possession here suffers any losse or dimi­nution at all, though all his Brethren enjoy the same Portion and possession with him. And in this respect (haply, with some others) it may be ca [...]ed [...], the inheritance of the Saints IN LIGHT. Colos. 1.12. The light of the Sun (we know) is of that nature and property, that it is enjoyed by the whole world, and by all the Inhabitants of the Earth, divisim & conjunctim (as we [...]) upon such termes, that no mans comsort or benefit by it is at all impaired or diminished, because there are so many thousand thousands in the world, that are partakers of the same benefit and comfort with them. But e­very mans enjoyment and possession hereof is as full and entire to him, as if the Sun shined to him alone, and there were no other to divide the comfort with him. Doubtlesse if this propertie were to be found in any mans Earthly estate or inheritance, that it would goe as far, and hold out as good measure a­mongst many, as among few, or as given but to one: though a man had never so many Children, yet this consequence would hold good, if Sons, then heires, he would bestow his whole estate aswell upon his last-borne, as his first. But because there is a defect or imperfection this way in earthly inheritances, therefore it followes not with men, if Sonnes then heires: but with God it doth, because such imper­fection [Page 139]hath no place, in his heavenly inheritance. But howsoever, whether the strēgth of the Apostles infe­rence in these places, rests either in this, or in the for­mer consideration, or in any other: evidēt it is that the grace or guift of Adoption is given by God unto be­leevers for an Euangelicall capacitie, right, or title to the Kingdome of Heaven. And therefore whatso­ever opinion or notion riseth up, to magnifie it selfe against it, by dissolving and frustrateing the use, end, and intention of it, is certainly Anti-euangellicall, and not to be received, though an Angell from Hea­ven, should bring it. This for the major Propositi­on in the syllogisme, rather by way of explication, then confirmation: for being rightly understood, it cannot lightly be denied.

The Assumption followeth: But such an imputa­tion of the righteousnesse of Christ as is contended for, SECT. 2 dissolves the end, and use of Adoption.

This is evident from the expresse declaration or interpretation which themselves make of their im­putation, who are the abettors and maintainers of it. For wherefore is this imputation of Christs righte­ousnesse introduced into the businesse of Iustification? The introducers generally make but one mouth a­mongst them, and say, that the righteousnesse of Christ must be imputed unto us, that so we may have a right and title to life, or to Heaven, according to the tenor of the Covenant: Hoc fac, et vive: do this and live. For by remission of sinnes (say they, and truely) a man is only delivered from death and con­demnation, due unto sinne: but there accrues or growes no right or title to the Kingdome of Heaven from remission of sinnes unto any man. And so ap­prehending [Page 140]nothing else within reach in or about a beleever, meet or fit to make a plea or title of there­unto, they have compelled the righteousnesse of Christ to take this honour and office upon it, in a way of imputation. Neither indeed is it easy to conjecture or conceive, what other service this righteousnesse of Christ imputed should doe in justification, or for what other end or purpose it should be introduced upon such termes, and in such a way, then to qualifie men with a capacity for Heaven. Now then this being the direct and proper end, use, office, purpose and in­tent of Adoption, to invest a beleever with a capa­pacity for Heaven (as hath been demonstrated from the Scriptures) it evidently followes, that whoso­ever shall offer or attempt to set any thing else upon this Throne, seekes to dissolve and make frustrate the counsell and purpose of God concerning the grace of Adoption, in t [...]s behalfe. To bring in any other right or title to salvation besides that Adoption of Sonnes which we have in Christ, is to depresse or put downe the wisdome of God, and to exalt ano­ther instead of it.

If it be heere objected and said, that both may stand together, imputation of a perfect righteous­nesse from Christ, and Adoption both: why may they not together make a twofold coard, a stronger and more effectuall title, then either alone?

To this I answere, No: they will not twist, or winde or worke together: not so much because of the diversitie and contrariety of their natures, as the clay and yron would not worke and mix together in Nebuchadnezzars image (though this might be a sufficient consideration, I conceive, to build a nega­tive answere upon, Legalls and Euangellicalls will not joyne or combine to make a title to Heaven) [Page 141]but chiefly because either of them, aswell the one as the other, is a compleate and intire title within it selfe. Perfect righteousnesse, is a perfect and com­pleate title alone: so is Adoption or Son-ship, as per­fect and compleate a title alone, as it: As to be the first borne, or heire to an earthly inheritance, gives as direct and full a right or title to the enjoyment of it, as the lawfullest purchase can do. Now it is cer­taine, that God never ordeynes a plurality of meanes for one and the same end or purpose, when one meanes is entire and every waies sufficient for it, neither in the world naturall, nor in the world Spi­rituall (as the Gospell may be called.) [...] i. Nature makes one for one, was the old ax­iome in Metaphysiques. But especially in the Gos­pell, you shall finde it generally so, that God allowes and seales still but one means, for one purpose (I meane but one adaequate meanes in one kind, or in the same relation to the effect) and accordingly upon the bringing in or position of a second meanes for the same end or purpose, complaines presently of the abrogateing or making voyd the other. You shall observe many such passages and reasonings in the Gospell, as these. If they which are of the Law be heires, Faith is made voyd, and the promise made of none effect. Rom. 4.14. So againe, Jf the inheritance be of the Law, it is no more by promise. Gal. 3.18. & ver. 21. Jf there had bin a Law, that could have given life, surely righteousnesse should have bin by the Law. Surely, [...]: verily, certainly God would not have gone further then this Law, in procureing life unto any, if there had bin but a possibilitie in the Law to have done it.

But I desire to insist a little upon that place, SECT. 4 Gal. 2.21 and upon occasion of the passage, to reason the point a little further. I do not (saith Paul) abrogate the [Page 142]grace of God: for if righteousnesse be by the Law, sure­ly Christ hath died in vaine: A man with his first thoughts, may thinke the inference somewhat strange, and that Paul should be too weake and con­temptible in his premises, to be so sore and strong in his Conclusion. For thus a man might counter­argue with him. How doth it necessarily follow, that if righteousnesse or justification were by the Law, that Christs death must presently be in vaine? What if there were more meanes of justification, then one, more doers open into life, then one, one by Christ, another by the Law? were there any harme in this? it may be some would enter in at one dore, and some at another, as we doe into our Churches: and so nei­ther would be in vaine. But to this I answere, true, if it were with God and his counsailes and waies, as it is with men, such a conclusion would follow such premises but weakly and faintly: but it being with God and in his waies as it is, it followes roundly, and faulters not at all. It is with the poore and weake creature called man, in comparison of the Great and Glorious God in this point, as it is with many poore people in the Citie, that live upon the labour of their hands, and work to great shops, and rich Shop­keepers, in respect of their great Masters, to whom they work. It is a common complaint, that they worke for little, and are content to do it, fearing least otherwise they might starve: they do much work for a little profit: but their rich Masters will gaine to some purpose, or else they will not, or care not to trade. So in the case we now speake of, men being a feeble and impotent generation, and not able to doe, what, and as they would, count it their wis­dome to do the best they may: and therefore are content (many times) to raise great summes of meanes for bringing of smaller things to passe, it [Page 143]may be in a double or triple proportion above the level of their ends, because they are still jealous and doubt­full about the successe of the meanes they use: there are many disticulties and miscariages incident to the manageing of their designes which they cannot foresee, and therefore when their ends are matters of any great moment and consequence, or much de­sired, they heape on meanes upon meanes, and are scarce ever secure, or thinke they have done enough. Neither is it any disparagement unto them in the world amongst men like themselves, though halfe of their meanes be lost in the issue, or be found un­profitable and redundant because men use to beare one with another in such cases, it being one mans case aswell as anothers from time to time. Yea the Scripture it selfe seemes to encourage men in the use of varietie of meanes, in regard of the uncertainty of the succesle. In the merning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thy hand: for thou knowest not whe­ther shall prosper, either this or that. Ecclesiast. 11.6. Suppose a single dore through Gods Providence might be enough and enough to keepe off the thiefe from the rich mans baggs, yet he makes a double dore, and dore upon dore for that purpose: in this case it is no pregnant consequence to reason thus: if the single dore were sufficient to secure the trea­sure from thiefes, the double dore, and all the rest of the dores were in vaine. Because though there be no use of these in keeping out the thiefe (who perhaps never thought of making any attempt upon the treasure) yet are they of use to qualifie the feares of the rich owner, and to make him possesse his trea­sure in more peace. But now with God, we know it is otherwise: he never raiseth double meanes for the same end, but alwaits makes [...] (as was faid) one meanes for one end: both because hee [Page 144]knowes, how to attaine his end as infalliably by single meanes as by double: and besides, because he will have none of his meanes or ordinances laughed to scorne, or disparaged in the least measure, or to be despised or neglected by men. He will not have any two ordinances of his of the same occupa­tion, because he will have no contention or emula­tion betweene them. Consider that passage, Gal. 3.21 Is the Law then against the promises (saith Paul?) God forbid. No: but how doth he prove it is not? By this argument, because the Law cannot give life. For (saith he) had there been a Law, that could have given life, righteousnesse should have been by the Law: cleerely implying, that if the Law could have given life, which is the proper office and calling (as it were) of the promise to doe, then indeed it had bin against it, and an enemy to it, and would have taken it's worke (which is it's glorie) out of it's hand. But now since it serves quite for another purpose, the Law and the Promise agree well enough together, and doe not enter-meddle one with anothers worke. So you see the ground and bottome of the Apostles reasoning in the forenamed place: Jf righteousnesse be by the Law, then Christ hath died in vaine. He sup­poseth, and calls that an abrogateing and makeing voyd any the counsailes or ordinances of God, when another thing is set up with them, to bring the same end to passe, or to serve in the same place and office, whereunto they are appointed. And doubtlesse by authority and warrant of the same ground, we may set this paralell proposition at the right hand of that of Paul: If our right and title to Heaven be by imputati on of Christ's righteousnes, then doth God give the grace of ADOPTION in vaine. And this for our fourth ar­gument against that Imputation.

CAP. XIII.
Conteyning the fist and sixt grounds against the said imputation, viz. the taking away the necessity, 1 ^o, of Repentance: and 2 ^o, of Christs death.

GOD (saith Paul. 1 Cor. 14.33.) is not the Au­thor of confusion, but of peace. SECT. 1 There is no plant of his planting, that hurts or injur's any other plant which himselfe also hath planted: much lesse that plucks it up by the rootes. Now first, it is certaine that Repentance is an Euangelicall plant of his plant­ing, and of absolute necessity unto salvation. Except yee repent (saith our Saviour Luk 13.3.) yee shall all likewise perish, &c. Secondly, it wants little (if any thing) of the like certainty, because of the evidence of truth in it, that such an imputation of the righte­ousnesse of Christ, as is pretended and pleaded for by some, wholly dissolves and cuts off the necessity of Repentance. For he that hath a perfect and com­pleate righteousnesse of the Law imputed unto him, upon such termes, that it shall be asmuch his, being imputed, as if he had personally wrought and fulfil­led it himselfe, what colour or pretence can there be, why or how, he should stand in need of any repen­tance? The righteous (saith Christ) need no repentance. If Adam had kept the Law, he had needed no repen­tance [Page 146]more then Christ himselfe needed: and those that were in Christ and kept the Law in him, as ex­actly and perfectly as he did, what need of Repen­tance have they, or can they have, more then he? For if the exact and perfect obedience of Christ be the true ground and reason why Christ himselfe nee­ded no Repentance: and this obedience of his, in all the exactnesse and perfection of it, be as truely theirs by imputation, as it was his, or as it could have been theirs by personall performance: unpossible it is, but if it were a sufficient ground of a non-necessitie of Repentance in the one, it must be the same in the other also. He that is as righteous as Christ is (which those must needs be that are righteous with his righ­tsousnesse) needs no more repentance then Christ him­selfe needeth. I see not what in a way of sober rea­son, can be opposed against this argument That was a desperate Answere, which a zealous defender of that Faith made to save the life of his opinion be­ing assaulted by this argument (but it was right­down dealing howsoever, and faithfulnesse to his principles, in their great distresse) that Beleevers be­ing perfectly righteous in Christ, have indeed no need of Repentance.

If it be objected, and said, that notwithstanding the imputation of a perfect righteousnesse from Christ, SECT. 2 yet beleevers have their personall sins and faileings, which Christ had not: and in respect of these, they need not daily and continuall Repentance. To this I answere: True, Beleevers indeed stand in need of daily Repentance, in respect of their personall sinnes and failings, which are daily: but they that have an entire, and perfect-Law-righteousnesse imputed to them, have no such need in any respect. Therefore Beleevers are not the men, that have any such righ­teousnesse imputed to them. Certainly they that have [Page 147]the perfect fulfilling and observation of the Law im­puted unto them by God, cannot stand guiltie before God of any sinne or breach of this Law: because in the imputation of a perfect righteousnesse, there is an universall non-imputation of sinne apparantly inclu­ded. Besides, if God doth impute a perfect Law-righteousnesse to men, it must be supposed that the rights and privileges belonging to such righteousnesse doe accompanie it, in the imputation: so that the person to whom such imputation is made, stands re­ally invested and possessed of them. Otherwise God should impute the shells without the kernell, and give empty titles without the substance of ho­nour: Now one maine privilege of a perfect Law-righteousnesse is, to invest with a full and entire right unto life, out of its owne intrinsecall and inherent dignity and worth: which is a privilege wholly inconsistent with the least touch or tincture of sinne in the person that stands possessed of it. Therefore where such a privilege or right is, there can be no occasion or necessity of Repentance, because Repen­tance presupposeth sinne.

If it be yet said further, SECT. 3 that the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse, will be asmuch shaken by this Objection, as the imputation of Christs righteous­nesse for righteousnesse, because if Faith be imputed for, or instead of the righteousnesse of the Law, it must bring likewise and derive all the privileges of such a righteousnesse upon the person, to whom such imputation is made. Therefore that privelege also, which excludes the necessity of Repentance.

To this I answere, by denying the consequence of that which is brought to justify the Exception. When the Scriptures say that Faith is imputed, for, or instead of the righteousnesse of the Law, the intent and meaning is not, as if God either imputed, or ac­cepted [Page 148]or accounted Faith, for the selfe same thing which the righteousnesse of the Law is intrinse cally and formally, or as if God in this imputation either gave or accounted unto Faith: any power or privi­lege to justify, out of any inherent or internall digni­ty or worth in it, (which is the intrinsecall and for­mall property of a Law-righteousnesse) but the mean­ing only is, that God upon a mans Faith, will as fully justify him, that is, acquit him from death and con­demnation, as if he had perfectly fulfilled the Law. He that beleeveth may be as fully and perfectly ju­stified, as he that fulfilleth the Law, and yet not bee justified in the same manner, or upon the same termes. He that fulfilleth the Law, and thereby is justifyed, is justified out of the inherent & internall dignity of that which justifyeth him: but he that is justified by Faith, is not justifyed by the inherent dignity, or merit of that which justifyeth him, but by the free and graci­ous acceptatiō of it by God, for that which is justifying in it own nature, & by vertue of its inherent worth & dignity. So that although Faith be imputed to a man, for, or instead of the righteousnesse of the Law, and he by such imputation of his Faith, be justified: yet it doth not follow, that therefore he is justified upon the same terms every way, as he should have been, had he been justifyed by the imputation of the righteous­nesse it selfe of the Law. Wherefore the imputation of Faith for righteousnesse, may well stand with per­sonall sinnes in him, to whom this imputation is made, in respect of which sinnes he remaines conti­nually oblieged to Repentance: but the imputation of a perfect legall righteousnesse, for righteousnesse, makes a man perfectly and legally righteous, in the letter and formalitie of it. And this is that kinde of righteousnesse, which absolutly excludes all consi­stencie of sinne in the same person with it: and con­sequently [Page 149]leaves no place for Repentance. This for the fift ground or reason against the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ in justification ( sensuliterali. SECT. 4)

A Sixt ground against the same imputation of the active obedience of Christ, is: it takes away the neces­sity of his death. If men be as righteous as Christ himselfe was in his life, there were no more necessity of his death for them, then ther was either of his own death, or of the death of any other, for himselfe. If we were perfectly just or righteous in him, or with him, in his life, then the just should not have died for the unjust (as the Scriptures speak) for whose salvation there was a necessitie he should die: but he should have died for the just, for whom there was no neces­sitie why he should die. This Reason the Apostle expresly delivers. Gal. 2.21. If righteousnesse be by the Law, then Christ died in vaine. I desire the unpartiall Reader to observe narrowly the force of this infe­rence made by the Holy Ghost: If righteousnesse (or, justification) be by the Law, then Christ died in vaine. Men cannot here betake themselves to their wonted Sanctuary and Refuge, to say that by the Law, is to be understood the works of the Law, as performed by a mans selfe in person: Nay their own interpretation here will betray their opinion into the hand of this Reason, that fights against it. For by the word Law, in this place, understand the works of the Law, as performed by Christ, the consequence will rise up rather with the greater strength and power against them. If righteousnesse were by the works of the Law, as performed by Christ, that is, if the imputation of them were our compleat & absolute righteousnesse, the death of Christ for us had bin apparently in vaine, be­cause the righteousnes of his life imputed, had bina suf­ficient, & every waies a compleat righteousnes for us.

Neither can it be here said, SECT. 5 that there was a neces­sity [Page 150]that Christ should die, that so the righteousnesse of his life might be imputed to us. For certainly this righteousnesse of his life was as capable of such an imputation, before and with out his death, as after, or with it. For what defect or impediment can be con­ceived, that should hinder it? Adams sin (according to the principles of that opinion against which we argue) was capable of imputation, as soone as [...]t was committed: and why should the righteousnesse of Christ require any further qualification or recom­mendation to put it off upon the like terms, but onely the working and performance of it?

If it be yet said: but the persons of men had not bin capable of this imputation, without the death of Christ: therfore there was a necessity of this death of his, in this respect. To this I Answer: True indeed, the persons of men, are not capable of this imputation, without the death of Christ: but neither are they made the more capable by it. But if this righ­teousnesse of Christ we speake of, were in it selfe imputable (in the sense contended for) why should not the persons of men, be capable of the imputation thereof in the midst of their sins, aswell as Christ was capable of the imputation of their sins, in the midst of his righteousnesse? Especially considering, that (as it appeares from Rom. 5.14.) the grace and guift of God which is by Iesus Christ, saveth by a stronger and higher hand, then sin condemneth.

CAP. XIV.
Opening a Seventh ground a­gainst the pre-refused Imputation, viz. the taking away of forgivenesse of Sinnes.

THat opinion which makes and constitutes men perfectly and compleatly righteous (with allegall righteousnesse) as righteous as Christ himselfe (though it be but quoad veritatem, SECT. 1 non quoad modum (as some of that way think to distinguish themselves safe, yet it comes to the same in this respect) leaves no place for forgivenesse, or remission of sinnes, in persons so made righteous: it evacuates that high and soveraigne power of God (at least in the use and exercise of it towards those that beleeve) whereby he forgiveth sins. God (we know) forgave Christ no sinne: why? because he was perfectly righteous, and in him was no sinne (as Iohn speaketh, 1 Iohn 5.3.) Therefore if men be righteous with the same righteousnesse, wherewith Christ was righteous, as compleatly righteous as he, they have no more sin to be pardoned, then he had.

If it be said that God first gives remission of sinnes unto men, and then imputes this perfect righteousnesse unto them. To this exception, answere hath bin made already, Cap. 5. Sect. 2. To that which is there deli­vered, I adde: that Christ hath taught us to pray for forgivenesse of sinnes, even after this imputation of [Page 152] righteousnesse (if any such thing were) except we will say, that he fram'd that patterne of Prayer (usually called the Lords Prayer) onely for the use of infidels and unbeleevers. Now to aske forgivenesse of sinnes of God, and yet to conceit our selves as righteous as Christ was, is rather to mock then to worship him, whom we pray unto.

If it be here objected (as the like objection was made against the fift ground, SECT. 2 in the former Chapter) that this inconvenience sits as close, to the Imputa­tion of Faith for righteousnesse, as to the Imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ for that purpose. For if faith be imputed for, or instead of the righteousnesse of the Law, must it not derive a righteousnesse upon the person to whom such imputation is made, as per­fect and compleat, as the righteousnesse of the Law it selfe, and consequently, as the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe? How then doth that opinion leave any other place for remission of sinnes in those that beleeve, then that which standeth for the Imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ? Are they not both under the same condemnation this way?

Not to repeat what was so lately delivered in full for satisfaction and Answere to this Objection: I yet further adde (ex abundanti) that when Faith is said to be imputed for righteousnesse in justification, instead of the righteousnesse of the Law, it is evidently im­plyed, that it is not the righteousnesse of the Law it selfe that is imputed for righteousnesse, but another thing, Faith by name, instead of it. Now any other righteousnesse, or any other thing imputed for righte­ousnesse, besides the righteousnesse of the Law, will apparently beare a consistencie of sinne with it, and so leave a place for forgivenesse of sins: but the righ­teousnesse of the Law excluding the former, cannot give entertainment to the latter. When a perfect san­ctification [Page 153]is imputed to a Man for his justification, that Man can be no more reputed or thought to have sinne in him, then to be obnoxious to death and condemna­tion, which is most opposite to justification. But when that which either is no sanctification, or at most but an imperfect sanctification, is imputed for righteousnesse in a mans justification, there may be as full a justifica­tion, as perfect a deliverance from death and condem­nation, as in the former case, and yet place left in the person so justified, for an inherencie of sin: and con­sequently, for the forgivenesse of it.

CAP. XV.
Enforceing an Eight Reason a­gainst the Imputation questioned, viz. a manifest compliance with that dan­gerous errour, That God seeth no sinne in his people.

WHat communion hath light with darknesse (saith the Apostle) and what concord hath Christ with Belial? 2 Cor. 6.14, 15. SECT. 1 If this Imputation of Christs righteousnesse, which we oppose, were from Christ, doubtlesse it would have no intelligence, or compliance with any opinion so op­posite to him and his truth, as this, That God seeth no sinne in his people. The opinion it selfe, is an error so grosse and like the darknesse of Egypt, that it is even palpable and may be felt. Therefore we will not [Page 154]spend time in arraigning it as guilty, which is alrea­dy so generally condemned. But that the opinion, against which the face of this discourse is set, is of the same confederacie with this, and gives the right hand of fellowship to it, nay, leades and caries men directly into it, will cleerely appeare by this Demon­stration.

Whosoever is perfectly righteous, or as righteous as Christ is, in him God can see no sinne.

But every beleever (saith this opinion which we impugne) is as perfectly and compleatly righteous, as Christ himselfe is: Therefore in such God can see no sinne.

You see in this Syllogisme, how the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, in the sense contended for by many, brings in that error with a high hand: and therefore is to be cut off from the Sanctuary of God. And those that will hold and maintaine such an im­putation, and yet crie out upon, and condemne the opinion of Gods not seeing sin in his Children, are (in a spirituall or morall sense) like those Idolaters of old, that caused their owne Children to passe through the fire. Ismael was not the more natu­rall and genuine fruite of Hagars wombe that bare him, then this conclusion o [...] tenet, that God seeth no sinne in his Children, is of that opinion, which main­teyneth men to be compleatly righteous, by the im­putation of Christs righteousnesse, in the letter and for­mality of it. But as sometimes it comes to passe, that a man falling into love with a woman that hath a great charge of Children hanging upon her, having maried the mother, would willingly wrangle or beate the Children out of dores, and turne them off to begg: so it is often seene, that when men have [Page 153]unadvisedly imbraced an opinion, seeming in their eye a beautifull and lovely truth, and did not at first, before they were wedded to it, apprehend and con­sider what rugged and harsh consequences it had attending upon it, they shift and turne and winde themselves about every way, to quit themselves of that dishonourable charge, wherewith they finde themselves by reason of their opinion, encumbred withall. But how men that will owne an imputation of a perfect righteousnesse, can with any tollerable appearance of reason, shift off from themselves the opinion of Gods not seeing sin, in those that are cloa­thed with it, is (I confesse) beyond the line of my apprehension. If God could see no sinne in Christ, be­cause he was perfectly and compleatly righteous, how he should see it in any that are as compleatly and perfectly righteous as he, and that with the same righteousnesse wherwith he was righteous, is a riddle that cannot be made out, but by him that plougheth with a better heyfer then yet I have met with any.

CAP. XVI.
Propounding a ninth Demon­stration against the pretended imputa­tion: viz. the confounding of the two Covenants.

IT is true, SECT. 1 many that hold the way of imputation, are nothing ashamed, nor afraide, of this conse­quent, the confounding of the two testaments or co­venants of God with men, that of the works with that of grace, and (vice versa) that of grace, with that of works. These conceive that God never made more covenants then one, with man: and that the Gospell is nothing else but a gracious aide or reliefe from God, to helpe man out with the performance of the first Covenant of works: so that that life and salva­tion which is said to come by Christ, shall in no o­ther sense be said to come by him, but only as he ful­filled that Law of works for man, which men them­selves were not able to fulfill: and by imputation, as by a deed of guift, makes over that his perfect obe­dience and fulfilling of the Law, to those that be­leeve; so that they in the right of this perfect obe­dience, thus made theirs by imputation, shall come to inherit life and salvation, according to the strict and rigid tenor of the Covenant of works, Doe this and live.

But as far as I am able to conceive, men may as­well say, there was no second Adam, really differing from the first, as no second Covenant differing re­ally from the first, and that mount Sina in Arabia, is the same mountaine with mount Sion in Judaea, and that the Spirit of bondage is the same with the Spi­rit of Adoption, and that Isaak and Ishmael were but the same Child. If the second Covenant of Grace, were implicitly and tacitly conteyned in the first, then the meaning of the first Covenant, conceived in those words, Doe this and live, must be thus: Doe this, either by thy selfe, or by another, (thy surety) and live. There is no other way to reconcile them, or to reduce them into one and the same Covenant. If this were Gods meaning in the first Covenant, that keeping the Law, either by a man himselfe in per­son, or by another, should equally serve the turne, and a man should live by either, then 1 ^o, it must follow that a Mediator was promised before the fall: for this Covenant was struck with man in In­nocencie. 2 ^o, that Adam either understood not his Covenant that was made with him: or else knew of a surety and redeemer before his fall; at least as being in a readinesse for him, in case he should fall. 3, if keeping the Law either by a mans selfe, or by another, were (in Gods meaning in that Covenant) a sufficient meanes of life, then any other surety, any other Mediator, would have made the reconciliati­on aswell as he that was God and man: For God might have created a meere man with abilities to have kept the Law, as fully as Adam or any of his poste­rity was bound to doe. 4 (and lastly) if the fulfil­ling of the Law by any surety whatsoever, were a sufficient meanes of life unto Adam and his, then was the death of Christ no waies necessary: because Christ had perfectly kept and fulfilled the Law be­fore his death.

Againe 2, SECT. 2 If the first and second Covenant were in substance the same, then must the conditions or te [...]ms of agreement in both be the same. For the conditions or terms of agreement in a Covenant, are as formall and essentiall a part of a Covenant, as any other thing belonging to it. Though there be the same parties Covenanting, and the same things Co­venanted for or about: yet if there be new articles of agreement, it is really a new bargaine and ano­ther Covenant. Now if the conditions or terms of agreement be the same in both those Covenants, then to DOE THIS, and TO BELEEVE, Faith and works, are really the same: whereas the Scripture from place to place, makes the most irreconcileable opposition betweene them.

But it may be there are some, that are more shie of this consequence: that stick not to hold the impu­tation of Christs righteousnesse (in the sense opposed) and yet demuire upon an identitie of the two Cove­nants: they doe not conceive this to be the fruite of that wombe. Wherefore to prove, that the mo­ther hath no wrong at all, in having this dead child layed by her side, for her owne, I thus reason. Where the parties covenanting are the same, and the things covenanted for, the same, and the conditions or a­greement the same, there the Covenants are every waies the same. But if the righteousnesse of the Law imputed to us, be the agreement or condition of the Now Covenant, all the three, persons, things, con­ditions, are the same. Therefore the two Cove­nants, first, and second, the old and the new, are e­very waies the same: because as concerning the o­ther two, the parties Covenanting, and the things covenanted for, it is agreed on both sides, that they are the same.

If it be Objected and said: That the righteousnesse [Page 157]of the Law imputed from another, and personally wrought by a mans selse, are two deffering conditions: therfore it doth not follow, that the Covenants should be the same.

To this I Answere, that the substance of the agree­ment, will still be found the same notwithstanding: the works, or righteousnesse of the Law are the same, by whomsoever wrought: If Adam had fulfilled the Law, as Christ did, he had bin justified by the same righteousnesse, wherewith Christ himselfe was righ­teous.

If it be yet said: that Imputation in the second Cove­nant, which was not in the first, makes a reall difference in the condition. To this I answere two things in two words: 1. Imputation of works or of righteousnesse, is not the condition of the new Covenant, but beleev­ing. If imputation were the condition, then the whole Covenant should lye upon God, and nothing should be required on the creatures part: for imputation is an act of God, not of men. 2. I answere, that if it were granted, that the righteousnesse or the works of the Law imputed from Christ, were that whereby we are iustified, yet they must iustifie, not as imputed, but as righteousnesse or works of the Law. Therfore impu­tation makes no difference in this respect. Imputation can be no part of that righteousnesse by which we are iustified, because it is no conformity with any Law, nor with any part or branch of any Law (especially of any Law that Man was ever bound to keep.) Therfore it can be no part of that righteousnesse by which he is to be iustified. So that the condition of both Covenants will be found every waies the same, (and consequently both Covenants every wayes the same) if iustification be maintained by the righteous­nesse of Christ imputed.

CAP. XVII.
Wherin three Arguments more are managed against the already-impugned Imputation.

THere is no kind of error, SECT. 1 that requires, or will take more strength and plenty of truth for the conviction and demolishing of it, then that which is fortified with the pleasing appearance of a speciall confederacie with the glory of God, or of an intire sympathie with the honour of Christ. Knowing that enemie against which we conflict and wrastle in this discourse, to have as much or more of that advan­tage, then most other opinions have, that are as legi­timate as it: I conceive it necessary in that respect, to arme and imploy the more reasons and arguments in this warfare and service.

Therfore in the Tenth place, against the Imputati­on so much contended for. I oppose this Demonstra­tion. That for which righteousnesse is imputed to those that beleeve, that cannot be imputed unto them for righ­teousnesse: But the righteousnesse of Christ is that for which righteousnesse is imputed to those that beleeve: Therfore it selfe cannot be imputed for righteousnesse. The Assumption (I presume) no man will deny, ex­cept those that deny the righteousnesse of Christ, to be the meritorious cause of that righteousnesse or justifi­cation, which is conferred upon men: an opinion to [Page 159]which no man (I know) ever said, live, but onely So­cinus and his peeres. The Major Proposition I de­monstrate thus:

For the consequence in the Major Proposition, it is so evident in common apprehension, that to labour any further illustration of it, were but to light up a Candle to the Sun. Because the righteousnes of Christ, and the righteousnesse or justification of a Beleever, stand in that relation we speake of, the one to the other, as the cause to the effect: the righteousnesse of Christ being the (meritorious) cause, and the righte­ousnesse of a beleever or person justified, as the effect merited and effected by that cause. And for the Mi­nor, that is every whit as evident and undeniable, as it, viz. that the thing merited, cannot be the same with that which is the meritorious cause of it: for so the same thing should be the meritorious cause of it selfe: a conclusion so broad, that there is no appre­hension so weake, but hath strength enough to dis­claime.

Neither can it be here said, SECT. 2 that though the righte­ousnes of Christ cannot be meritorious of it selfe simp­ly, yet being a righteousnesse wrought by Christ, it may be the meritorious cause of its own imputation, and this imputation may be the formall cause of the iusti­fication of a beleever. For to this, an answere is ready: that suppose it should merit it's owne imputation, (though this be very unproper, and requires an in­terpretation more then abounding with charity, to make truth of it any waies) yet is not this imputation [Page 160]that, which men say is imputed for righteousnesse unto any man, but the righteousnesse it sel [...]e of Christ. Ther­fore if the righteousnesse of Christ be the meritorious cause of that righteousnesse which is imputed to a be­leever, and this righteousnesse which is imputed be the righteousnesse of Christ, then it is evident that the righteousnesse of Christ, must be (directly and plainly) the meritorious cause of it selfe.

Againe (in the Eleventh place) to second the for­mer argument with another like unto it. SECT. 3 If the righ­teousnesse of Christ be imputed to a beleever for righ­teousnesse in his instification, then the meritorious cause of his iustification is imputed unto him for righ­teousnesse: But the meritorious cause of a mans iusti­fication cannot be thus imputed unto him: Therfore the righteousnes of Christ cannot be thus imputed nei­ther. The truth of the Major Proposition the former Argument will maintaine against any contradiction: besides, it is pregnant with an innate evidence of truth. The reason of the Minor, is this: because the meritorious cause being a kind of efficient (as is con­fessed on all hands) cannot be either the matter or the forme of that, whereof it is efficient. Wherfore if the righteousnesse of Christ be the meritorious-effi­cient cause of our iustification, unpossible it is, that by any contriving or casting, or bringing about either by imputation or otherwise, it should ever be found or made either the matter or the forme of this iustifica­tion. For this is famously known to be an indispensa­ble and inviolable Law amongst the foure kinds of causes, materiall, formall, finall and efficient: that the two former only doe ingredi compositum or effectum, and are partes reiconstitutae, i. are intrinsecall and es­sentiall parts of the effect, or thing produced: and that the two latter, viz. the finall and efficient, are all waies extrinsecall, and stand without. As for exam­ple: [Page 163]when a Plaisterer or Painter whites a wall, the effect of his worke is the whitenesse of the wall, or the wall as made white. Now into this effect, this whitenesse of the wall, there is none of the efficient causes producing lt, either any part of it, or any ingre­dient into it; neither the plaisterer himselfe, who is the principall efficient cause of it, nor his brush or pensill, which is the instrumentall efficient cause, nor the money or wages he receives for the doing it, which is as the meritorious efficient cause of it. None of all these, is any intrinsecall or constituting part of the effect, neither as the matter, nor as the forme thereof. The whitenesse applyed or put upon the matter or subject, viz. the wall, by all the three efficients (according to their severall operations a­bout it) is the forme, or formall part of it: and the wall it selfe, whereunto this form is joyned, coupled, or applyed, by the said efficients, is the matter or materiall part of it. So in the justification of a sinner, neither is God himselfe, who is the principall effici­ent of this effect of justification; neither is Faith, which is the iustrumentall efficient of it (for God is said in Scripture to justifie men, by or through it, Rom. 3.30. which for the most part are symptomaticall parti­cles of the instrumentall-efficient cause) neither is the righteousnesse of Christ, which is the meritorious effi [...]ient cause of it, none of these are either matter or forme, or any constituting cause of iustification: but only remission of sins, or absolution from punish­ment, as the sorme applyed unto, or put upon the matter: and the matter or subject it selfe, whereunto this forme is applyed by all the 3 efficients spoken of, according to their severall and distinct manner of working, viz. the person of the beleever. This Ar­gument, to him that understands, and will seriously consider, that unchangable Law, mentioned of the 4. kinds [...] [Page 166]rally acknowledged by the contrary-minded them­selves in this Controversie.

But that Christ should be reputed before God to have sinned in me, seems unto me an assertion so un­couth and un-Christian, that a Christian had need to borrow the eares of a Pagan to hear it with patience. However, the untruth of it is thus made manifest: ‘If Christ be reputed before God to have sinned in me, he must be reputed to have had a being in me: for as operatio consequitur esse, i. the operation of a thing follows and depends upon the being of it; so he that supposeth, or reputeth a person to have done any thing, either good or evill in another, must ne­cessarily suppose or repute him to have had a being there.’

But what being Christ should be reputed by God to have had in me being yet an unbeleever, is a spe­culation too high for me to attaine unto.

Againe, Argum. 14 SECT. 2 against this supposed imputation, I op­pose this consideration. If the active obedience of Christ be imputed unto me in my justification, then is the passive imputed also. For there can be no sufficient reason given, why the one should be taken, and the o­ther left. Neither are the adversaries themselves partiall (in this point) to the one above the other: they (generally) allow place for both in their impu­tation. But that the death or sufferings of Christ, are not in the letter and formalitie of them, imputed unto me, I thus demonstrate.

The reason of the sequel in that proposition, is e­vident from the former argument. To have any thing imputed to a man in the letter and formality of it, and to be reputed and taken as the doer or sufferer of what is so imputed, are termini aequipollentes, et sese mutuò explicantes, are expressions that differ not in sense, but relieve one the other in their significati­ons.

The Reason of the minor, that no man is to be con­ceived or said to have suffered in Christ, is this, be­cause in Christ we are justisied and absolved from punishment: and therefore cannot be said to have been punished in him. He hath made us freely ac­cepted in his beloved Ephes. 16. Therefore he pou­red not out his wrath upon us in his beloved. And by his stripes we are healed, (which is contrary to being wounded or punished. 1 Pet. 224. And to say that we suffered, or were punished in Christ, is (in effect) to unsay, or gainsay, what the Gospell every where speaketh touching our Redemption and de­ [...]iverance from punishment by Christ. In what sence the sufferings of Christ may be said to be impu­ted tobeleevers, is [...] plained in the Second part cap. 3. Sect. 7. He that knoweth how to reconcile these two, may undertake to make light and darknesse friends, and needs not feare miscarying in his designe: that God should freely forgive us our sinnes, and yet punish us for them, and that to the full, (which must be said by those, that will say, we were punished in Christ. If Christ were punished for us, or in our stead (which is the Scripture language 2 Cor. 5.21, who made him sinne for us,) doubtlesse we our selves can in no sense [Page 168](wherein words and truth will agree) be said to be punished, or to have suffered in him.

But that we are not justified, either in whole or in part by the Ceremoniall Law, is a truth so neare sci­tuate to every mans apprehension, that it needs not be brought neerer by force of argumentation.

If it be replyed, that there is no necessity that any part of his righteousnesse Ceremoniall should be im­puted, because his morall righteousnesse is sufficient for imputation. To this I answere:

First, there is no warrant or rule in Scripture thus to rend and teare in pieces the one halfe from the o­ther, that which was one entire and compleat righte­ousnesse in Christ: and to take which part we please to our selves, and leave the other as a cast piece.

Secondly, if that part only of the righteousnesse of Christ, which stood in his obedience to the Morall Law, be imputed unto us for righteousnesse in our ju­stification, then will there not be found the same way or meanes of justification for the whole body of Christ: but the beleeving Jewes before Christs death, must be made righteous or justified with one [Page 169]kind of righteousnesse, and the Gentiles with another. For the Jewes before the death of Christ, had a ne­cessitie of both parts of this righteousnesse to be im­puted to them in their justification (supposing their justification had stood in such an imputation, as some stand up to maintaine) aswell ceremoniall as morall. But that the Jewes should be justified with one kind of righteousnesse and the Gentiles with another, as there is no colour of reason (that I know) to main­taine, so there is substance and strength of Scripture to oppose, Rom. 3.22.30.

Thirdly (and lastly) that righteousnesse of Christ, which is called Morall, if separated and divided from the other part which is Ceremoniall, was not a com­pleat and perfect righteousnesse in him: because it became him to fulfill all righteousnesse) aswell cere­moniall as Morall) Mat 3.15. So then, if men should be justified, onely by the Morall righteousnesse of Christ imputed, it would follow, that we should be justified before God with an incomplete and half-righteousnesse. Therfore if the Ceremoniall righte­ousnesse of Christ, be not (in the letter of it) imputed unto us for righteousnesse, in our Justification; neither can his Morall righteousnesse make matter of any such imputation.

CAP. XIX.
Propounding Five further de­monstrations of the Conclusion undertaken for.

THe Conclusion undertaken in this discourse, SECT. 1 hath many Friends (as you see) and those made of reason and Logique, and not of Rhetorique and affe­ction, to speake for it. There is (I conceive) the bet­ter ground of hope, that it will be found a truth, after all contradiction. If your perswasion this way be not yet as fully grown as mine, I desire you goe along with me to that which remaineth: sometimes the rere may doe better service then the front. Argum. 16

But that our sinnes are not imputed to Christ in any such manner, viz. in the letter and formality of them, I thus demonstrate.

If the sins of men be imputed to Christ, in the letter and formality of them, then God looks upon him and reputes him in his sufferings as one that truly and really had provoked him and sin'd against him. Even as our adversaries are wont frequently to expresse themselves concerning beleevers, by reason of that righteousnesse, which they say is imputed tot hem, viz. that God looks upon them and considers them, as having really and truly fulfilled the Law.

The truth of the Assumption I thus make manifest: ‘If God looks upon Christ in his death, as one that had truly sin'd against him, then he looks upon him as one having deserved the death he suffers. The rea­son of the consequence is apparent: because as to sin, and to deserve death, are termini converti­bles, expressions of the same importance: so to look upon a man as a sinner, and as one that hath deser­ved death, are but the same looke.’

But that God doth not looke upon Christ in his sufferings, as one that had deserved that things he suffers, is evident:

First, because as Christ offered himselfe without spot unto God, so God looked upon him in that his offering. Otherwise, if he had overlooked that spot­lessenesse of his, and imputed sin unto him in stead thereof. What had this bin, but to have put dark­nesse for light, and call good, evill? which to affirme, [Page 172]or once to conceive of God, may be called the first­ [...]orne of a blaspemous ignorance.

Secondly, if God looked upon Christ, as haveing deserved death, SECT. 2 his death could not have bin accep­ted as satisfactory for others. For as he that hath de­served death, cannot by his death deserve the sparing of others from death, who have deserved it, aswell as he, because such a mans death only answers his own personall demerit or sin, as he that oweth a cer­taine summe of money, cannot by the payment therof discharge any mans debt, but his own: So neither can the reputing of any man to have deserved death, be made consistent with a reputeing of such a mans death, to be expiatorie, or satisfactory for the taking of the guilt of death from others, except we suppose him that reputeth in this case, to be, either unable to discerne or apprehend, or else fully able to reconcile and compose the broadest contradictions.

Thirdly (and lastly) if God look'd upon him in his death, as deserving to die, then did Christ suffer death, not for our sins, as they are ours, but as they were his (by imputation.) Whereas the Scriptures every where testifie of his suffering death for our sins, but never for any sinne of his own, no more by imputation then by inhesion. And the truth is, looke in what sence our sins may be said to have bin imputed to him in the same sence they may be said to have bin inhe­rent in him: yea the inherencie of them in their pu­nishment upon him (wherein they stuck close to him indeed) is all the imputation the Scriptures know, or speake of. He laide upon him the iniquity of us all Esa. 53.6, viz. in the punishment due to it and deserved by it. So againe: Who himselfe bare our sins in his own body, &c. 1 Pet. 2.24. that is, the punishment of our sins (as we shall have occasion to shew further, God willing in the second part of this discourse.)

Let this reason also be laid into the ballance, Argum. 17 SECT. 3 and taken into consideration with the former.

The consequence in the major Proposition, is like Mount Sion, and cannot be moved. For if God reputes me to have kept the Law, as perfectly as Christ did, he must conceive of me, as worthy of my justification. For as the fulfilling of the Law, and deserving justi­fication, are but the same, Rom. 4.4. So the reputeing of a man to have done the one, is the reputeing of him to have deserved the other.

The reason of the minor Proposition (if it be not reason enough it selfe) viz. that God doth not looke upon us as worthy that Iustification which we receive, is this: because then God should shew us no grace or favour at all in our Justification (Rom 4.4. with Rom. 11.6.) but if any favour be shewed, it is only in this, that he reputeth us worthy to be Iustified, or puts a worthi­nesse upon us for Iustification. Whereas the Scrip­ture expresly affirmeth, that God justifieth, not the worthy, but the ungodly, that is, the unworthy, Rom. 4.5.

Against the foresaid imputation, Argum. 18 SECT. 4 I yet oppose this briefe Demonstration.

The Argument (I conceive) is of no easie solution to those who maintain the imputation it selfe of this righteousnesse, and not the righteousnesse imputed, to be the form of justification. Which yet I conceive to be an apprehension every whit as rationall, as that which on the other hand, maintaineth the righteous­nesse it selfe of Christ imputed, to be this forme. For whether we conceive of justification, either under the notion of a relation, being a new condition come up­on the person justified (which seems to be the best and truest notion of it) or whether we conceive it as a passion (besides which two I know no predica­ment a I nature that can be put upon it) certainly no righteousnesse whatsov [...] (properly so called) much lesse the righteousnesse of another then of the person justified, can be the forme of it. It is unpossible that one predicament, or predicamentall being, should informe another: and that righteousnesse, whether we speake of that which is habituall, or that which is actuall, belongeth neither to the predicament of re­lation, nor to that of passion, is better known to Lo­gicians, then to be made matter of disputation.

The oyle in the cruse doth not yet faile. SECT. 5 There are some drops still of further reason, to exaucthorize the opinion of this imputation.

With the rod of this Argument Calvin scourg'd those Fathers of Trent for joyning regeneration or infusion of grace with remission of sins, in justification (as we heard before) which supposing him a man but tolerably sound or sober in his intellectualls, is a de­monstration in abundance, that his meaning never was, to place Iustification in any imputation of righte­ousnesse, really distinct from remission of sins: but that his apprehensions in this point, were praecise et for­maliter the same, with this Country-mans of latter times, who calls Remission of sins, that righteousnesse which is imputed: Remissio peccatorum, est justitia imputa­ta. Chamier. Panstrat. t. 3. l. 21. cap. 19. see. 10. Idem sunt justi­ficatio, et Re­missio peccato­rum. Vismus Cat. part. 2. Qu. 60. sect. 3. Whose meaning (by the way) is not (as some of the opposite party in this cause, have catch'd and quarrel'd with like expressions from o­thers) as if God in justification, did imputeremission of sins unto men, and in this sence, remission of sins should be called the righteousnesse which is imputed: but that God really remitting and forgiving mens sinnes, such remission and forgivenesse, may well be called an imputed righteousnes, partly because it is no absolute, legall, or text- righteousnesse, but a righteousnesse by interpretation, or construction of favour: partly be­cause such a righteousnesse as it is, it is notwithstand­ing given, in the strength and mediation of the righ­teousnesse, merit, and satisfaction of another, which is Christ.

Let us yet heare (and not be wearie) what both reason and Religion can further speake against this imputation so much spoken for. SECT. 6

The Protectors of it themselves assigne no other necessity of it, but onely in respect of Gods justice. God (they say) cannot salvâ justiciâ, with the safety of his justice, pronounce a man righteous, that is not righteous (their meaning is) according to the strict and literall righteousnesse of the Law. But to this I answere:

First, that there is nothing at all necessarie to be done either by God himselfe or by man, about the justification of a sinner, by way of satisfaction to the Justice of God, since that one offering of Christ of himselfe upon the crosse. Otherwise there must be found somwhat defective or wanting in that satis­faction. If the justice of God be fully and every waies satisfied, and provided for by the death of Christ, as concerning the Iustification of sinners: doubtlesse there remaines nothing further as necessarie to be done, either by God, or by man, or by any other crea­ture, for the satisfaction of the same Justice. Ther­fore if God should impute the righteousnesse of Christ unto men in this case, some other end or pretext for it must be sought out, not any provision for, or satis­faction to his justice. The infinite valour of Christs passives, must not be abated or drawn down, to make [Page 177]way for an imaginatie exaltation of his actives. The necessity of Faith to Iustification (which is a necessi­ty confessed and acknowledged by all) [...]y [...]th not in reference to Gods Justice, as if any man satisfied that, either in who [...]e or in part, by beleeving: but the ne­cessity of it respecteth either his wisdome, or the counsaile of his will (as the Apostles expression is, Eph. 1.11) He judged it not meet (not counted it un­just) to save men in any other way by the satisfaction of Christ, then by the way of Faith. This is the WILL of him that sent me (saith our Saviour Ioh 6.40.) not the righteousnes or Iustice, of him that sent me, that every man which seeth the Sonne, and beleeveth in him, should have everlasting life. If there were nothing else to h [...]nder, but want of satisfaction to divine iustice, doubtlesse the whole world should be saved, Vehemens in De [...] est ad homi­ni benefacien­dum affectus: quem eousque puratus est ex­tendere qu [...]l IVSTICIA vlle modo permittit. Corvin, Cersur. Anatom. p. 79. with­out any more adoe. And therfore (by the way) that saying of Arnoldus, in his Censure of Molineus p. 79. is deeply taxable (except he can best [...]e himselfe, to make an a [...]tonem [...]nt for the hardnesse of his text, with a soft interpretation) There is (saith he) a strong affection in God, to doe good to man: and this affection he is still ready to act or exercise, as far as ever his justice will give him leave.

Secondly, whereas it was sayd, that God cannot, SECT. 7 with the safety of his justice or truth, pronounce a man righteous, that is not so indeed with a legall righ­teousnesse, litterally and properly so called, I answere that doubtlesse he may aswell and as truely pro­nounce and cal that man righteous, that wants a literal or legall righteousnesse upon him (especially suppo­sing he hath another righteousnesse, holding any ana­logie or proportion thereunto) as he may account any mans uncircumcission, circumcission. Rom 2.26. Or call the un-circumcised Gentiles the circumci­sion. Philip. 3.3. O [...] pronounce and call Iohn Bap­tist, [Page 178]Elias. Mat. 11.14. Or call the two witnesses, two O live Trees, and two Candle-sticks, Revel. 11.4. besides other instances in Scripture of like interpre­tation, without number) Now as Christ spake as truly, when he called John Elias, as he should have done, if he had called him, only Iohn: and the Ho­ly Ghost spake as truly when he called those that be­leeve, though uncircumcised in the flesh, the circum­cision, as if he called them, the uncircumcision, or as if they had bin literally circumcised: So may God with as much righteousnesse and truth, pronounce and call or account a man righteous, that is not strict­ly, properly, or literally such, if he hath any qualifi­cation upon him, that any way answereth or holds proportion in any point with such a righteousnesse, as he should doe, in case this man had this legall righ­teousnesse, as he should doe, in case this man had this legall righteousnesse upon him in the absolutest perfe­ction of the letter. For as in those and such like Scripture instances, the ground of the communicati­on of the Name, is only some particular agreement betweene either the persons or things, not an uni­versall concent or identitie in all things: So when God pronounceth or accounteth a man righteous, it is not necessarie that he should be literally, properly, morally and every way RIGHTEOUS: it is sufficient to beare out the justice and truth of God in giving either the Name or esteeme of a righteous man unto him, if his person be under any such relation or condition, Idemsunt, habere temissionem pec­carorum, et esse justum. Vrsinus Cat. part. 2 Qu. 56. Sect. 1. Idem sunt justificatio et remssio pecca­torum, ibid. Q. 60. Sect. 3. as belongeth to a legall righteoussesse or which a legall RIGHTEOUSNESSE would cast upon him. Now one especiall privilege or be­nefit (we know) belonging to a perfect legall righ­teousnesse, is to free the person in whom it is found, from death and condemnation: Doe this and thou shalt live: and he that hath his sinnes forgiven him, [Page 179]is partaker with him in the fullnesse of this privi­lege is as free from condemnation, as he: and may with truth and proprietie of speech enough, in this respect, be either called or accounted a righteous man.

Thirdly (and lastly) answere might be made (in few words) that forgivenesse of sinnes, is a true, yea & a compleate righteousnesse, in the kind, though it be not a through conformity with the morall Law. Re­mission of sins, is a passive righteousnesse, as absolute & perfect in the kind of it, as any active righteousnes, which consists in an entire observation of some Law. And for him that hath once sinned, or ever failed in the observation of the Law, there is no other righ­teousnesse appliable unto him, or whereof he is capa­ble, but only this passive righteousnesse of forgivenesse of sinnes. Which for all other ends, purposes, ad­vantages, privileges whatsoever, is as effectuall to him that is invested with it, as the active righteous­nesse it selfe could be, except only for selfe-boasting, and glorying in the flesh: which is a privilege (if it must needs be so called) altogether inconsistent with, and numeet for the lapsed, weake, and sinfull condition of man. So that God when he hath for­given any man his sinnes, may with abundance both of justice and truth, pronounce and call him a righte­ous man, though he be as far from that legall righte­ousnesse, as the East is from the West.

CAP. XX.
Conteyning the 21, 22, 23, and 24 Reasons to prove the imputation of Faith, and the non-imputation of the righteousnesse of CHRIST.

TRuth may have many Reasons for her, SECT. 1 though many times she hath but few friends. But Rea­sons, give them time, will make friends, and the u­surpation of error will cease from the judgements and understandings of men, when her nakednesse and filthinesse shall be discovered. But they shall proceed no further (saith Paul of men that resist the truth. 2 Tim. 3.8.9.) and gives this signe or reason of their period approching: for their follie shall be manifest unto all them, &c. Men that either are, or would be esteemed wise, will owne nothing that is foolish, when the follie thereof is made manifest un­to them. Now as some things are more visible and easier to be seene or discerned then other, for the manifestation whereof a lesser light is sufficient, whereas things lesse perceptible, require an advan­tage of light more condensed and fortified, to make a cleere and distinct representation of themselves to the sight: so are some truths in Religion better pre­pared and fitted for the understandings and judg­ments [Page 181]of men in themselves, and consequently the errors opposite to them, have a more pregnant in­consistencie with reason: and for the discoverie of such, both errors and truths, a weaker and fainter light of argumentation, is (for the most part) suffi­cient: but againe there are other truths, whose sci­tuation lyeth at a greater distance from those [...], common principles of reason, or that have a more subtile and lesse perceptible connexion with them, and for the manifestation of these (together with their opposite errors) to the judgments and consciences of men, many times the most strongest and cleerest, and-most multiplied light of discourse and argumentation, is found lesse then enough. Therefore let us yet contend with some further de­monstrations, to bring the conclusion laboured for, into a cleere and perfect light, that it may be no charge or trouble at all, to the minds and thoughts of men to receive it.

The major (I conceive) hath more reason in it, then to be denyed. If a personall fulfilling of the [Page 182]Law, could have bin no justification nor part of justi­fication to us, certainly an imputative fulfilling of it could not have bin either. The imputation of a thing from another cannot adde any strength or ver­tue to it, above a personall acting or working, yea the nature and intent of imputation (in the sense we now speake of it) is only to supplie the defect of personall performance, therefore it cannot exceed it.

For the minor; that the righteousnesse of the Law, which was performed by Christ, could not have bin our justification either in whole, or in part, in case it had bin performed by our selves, is evident from hence: because man being once fallen by sinning against the Law, and made obnoxious to condemna­tion, can never be raised or recovered againe by ten thousand observations of this Law. The Law was able to have given life, had it alwaies bin fulfilled, and never broken: but unto him that had once fai­led in the observation of it, though he had bin made able to have kept it ten times afterward, it had no power at all to give either life or justification. The guilt of that sinne wherin he had once sinned, could never have bin purged by any Law-righteousnesse: noactive obedience whatsoever, would ever have bin an attonement for him. Without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sinnes. Heb. 9.22.

Let me joyne another argument of the same line­age and stock with the former.

The reason of the major proposition (if the con­clusion sticks there) is: because imputation, in the sense it is still taken by our adversaries in this con­troversie, must be found out and ordained by God to supplie personall defects and inabilities. But where there is no Law or command given unto men to o­bey, there can be no personall defect: It is no sinne or defect in any man, not to obey, where he hath no command: and consequently there is no place, nor occasion for any imputation to supplie it.

For the minor, there is both substance and appea­rance enough of truth in it, to privilege it from be­ing a proposition of any further contention or strife. Most evident it is from the whole course and cur­rent of the Scriptures, that man in his lapsed condi­tion, since the fall, had not the Law of works, or the observation of the Morall Law imposed upon him for his justification before God, but the Law of Faith only. The morall Law, as it hath received a new authority and establishment from Christ, obli­geth and bindeth the conscience under the Gospell to the observation thereof by way of dutie and thankfulnesse unto God: but neither now nor at any time since the fall, did it ever bind any man to the practise of it, for his justification. And therfore where it is said Rom. 2.13. that the hearers of the Law are not just before God, but the doers of the Law shalbe justified: the meaning is not, as if God exacted the strict observing of the Law for their iustification, or that none should be iustified without such an ob­servance, but either 1 ^o, the words may be concei­ved spoken in a kind of ironie, as if God did deride the hope and confidence of all those, that should stand upon any such doing of the Law, for their in­stification: [Page 184]A man that promiseth a reward or mat­ter of benefit, upon such termes and conditions, which he knoweth will never be performed, by him that undertakes the performance of them, rather de­rides the pride and ignorance of his presumption, then really intends the collation of what he seemes so to promise. To this interpretation Beza much inclineth in his marginall note upon that clause. Or else 2 ^o, the meaning of those words, the doers of the Law shall be iustified, may be only this: that God will accept, justifie, and save only such, who out of a sincere and sound Faith towards him by his Christ, shall addresse themselves to serve and please him in a way of obedience to his Lawes. In this sense (which I rather conceive to be the expresse intent of the A­postle in the words) the doing of the Law is menti­oned, not as the meanes or meritorious cause of the iustification adjoyning, but either as a condition, sine quinon, without which iustification is not to be ex­pected: or rather as an outward signe and manife­station of the persons, that shall be iustified, but in a­nother way, viz. by Faith. Thirdly (and lastly) by the Law in this place, the doers whereof (as is said) shall be iustified, is not meant the Morall Law only (which restreyned signification was simply ne­cessary, to have given the clause any colour of oppo­sition or contradiction to the proposition mentioned) but the whole Mosaicall dispensation, consisting (according to the common distribution) of Cere­monialls, moralls, and judicialls. The observation of all which, no man (I think) ever affirmed to have bin imposed by God upon men for their justification. But I feare we stand too long about oyling a wheele, which would run merrily enough without it. Let us rather heare the voyce of a new argument speak­ing.

The consequence in the Maior Proposition, is blame­lesse, for this reason: because to impute unto iusts­fication, and to accept unto justification, are som­what differing in sound, but nothing at all in sence and signification. Now if God should require faith of men, and onely Faith to their Iustification, and not accept it thereunto, he should make a bargaine or Covenant with men, and refuse to stand to it when he had done: his overtures would be faire and gra­cious, but his intentions would be to seek, and no where in Scriptures to be found.

If it be here replyed and said: that though God requires onely faith of men to their justification, yet he requires somwhat more and besides, at the hand of another thereunto: therfore that which he imputes unto men for their justification, is not necessarily that which he requires of themselves, but rather that which he requires of another for them.

To this I answer: if it were the righteousnesse of Christ (which is presumed to be the thing required of another) and not the faith that is required of themselves, that God imputes for righteousnesse unto them in their justification, then may this righteousnesse of Christ be imputed for this end and purpose, before, yea and without the faith of any man. For it is cer­taine, that the Faith of men addes no vertue or vaiue to the righteousnesse of Christ: therfore if this be that which God imputeth for righteousnesse in justifi­cation, it may be imputed aswell without faith, as with it: and so men might be justified without be­leeving.

Neither will it help in this case, to say, SECT. 5 that impu­tation followeth the will and pleasure of God: and [Page 186]therfore the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed un­to any, but to him that beleeveth, because the will and pleasure of God is, not to make imputation of it in any other way, or upon any other terms. For

To this I answere: if the will and pleasure of God be to make no imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ, but upon the condition of Faith intervening: then is it evident, that this righteousnes is not impu­ted unto justification to any man, because the condi­tion of faith must necessarily intervene, and come betweene. So that if this righteousnes of Christ were (as our Adversaries would have it) imputed unto men, yet it must be onely towards Iustification, not unto it: for by their own affirmation, it is faith that hath the next and most immediat connexion therewith.

Secondly, if God suspends the imputation of Christs righteousnes upon the performance of the condition of faith, and then makes this imputation: then faith doth not take hold of the righteousnes of Christ impu­ted, but first takes bold of it, and then the imputation followeth after. Which 1. is contrary to the expresse judgement of some of the learnedest of their owne party: Who affirme this imputation of Christs righte­ousnes by God, to precede the condition of faith, or act of beleeving in men. Deus primum imputat satisfa­ctionem Christi: deinde in nobis efficit sidem, quā illamimputatam applicemus. Vr­sinus Cat. part. 2 Qu. 60. sect. 5. Fides ex parte nostra hanc justi­tiam. Sic sia Deo imputatam, ap­prehendit solum­modoet applicat. Dr. Prid. Lect. 5. de Instificat. Sect. 11. Secondle, if faith should first take hold of the righteousnes of Christ, before it be imputed, and then the act of Gods imputation should supervene upon it, and the beleever not be justified, till this act of Gods imputation had passed upon him: then must it be conceived, that a man may have the righteousnes of Christ upon him by faith, and yet not be justified by it. For if the will of God be, not to impute the righteousnes of Christ unto Iustification, but upon the condition of faith performed, and this con­dition is performed by laying hold on the righteous­nes of Christ (not yet imputed) by faith: it evidently [Page 187]followeth, that a man may lay hold on the righteous­nes of Christ by faith, and yet want that which is es­sentiality requisite to his Iustification (according to this opinion) viz. Gods imputation of this righteousnes unto him, which (as the opinion teacheth) followeth the apprehension therof by faith, and is not preceda­neous to it.

Againe, SECT. 6 yet once more for the imputation of Faith in the sence insisted upon, I plead the Apostles plea and Argument, Rom. 4.

Whether both these Propositions, in the direct sence here implyed, and with relation to the conclu­sion issuing from between them (as they are here layd down) be not the genuine and unwrested Do­ctrine of the Apostle Paul, and that over and over, in that 4 ^th chapter to the Romans, and whether the choycest learning, aswell ancient, as moderne, hath not sealed and subscribed hereunto, I referre the Reader to a diligent perusal of the second Chapter of this discourse, for his satisfaction: where likewise he may see the ashes of the contrary interpretation consumed and burnt up with the fire of the triall. So that (I conceive) here needeth no addition of any thing to strengthen either the one Proposition or the other, above what hath bin there delivered.

CAP. XXI.
Wherein the last reason against the Imputation of Christs righteous­nesse, viz. the non-imputability of the Law, is propounded and maintained.

IF the righteousnes of the Law be not imputable, Argum. 25 SECT. 1 or deriveable (in the letter and formality of it) from one mans person to another, then cannot the righte­ousnes of Christ be imputed to any man in Iustifica­tion, after any such manner.

The consequence cannot lightly be denyed by him that will but grant light not to be darknesse. Ther­fore I assume:

This Argument was mentioned in our Scripture proofes, cap. 8. where you shall find it built upon that Foundation of truth, Gal. 3.12. The reason or ground of which non-imputability, or untransferiblenesse of the Law-righteousnesse, we found expresse in the very tenour and plaine words of the Law it selfe: [...]. i. the very [Page 189]man that hath done them, shall live by them [and no other.] From which inference or addition, no mans understanding can (with reason) abstaine.

But it is like we must here againe prepare to bat­taile, and shall be assaulted with this Objection. SECT. 2

Give me leave to deliver my last Argument, out of the hand of this Objection: and so we shall draw towards a Conclusion of this first part. In my an­swer, I shall addresse my selfe to both the Propositi­ons: but chiefly insist upon the instance that is brought to prove the Minor, to demonstrate the in­sufficiencie and impertinencie of that for that pur­pose.

For the former Proposition (not to let passe incerta procert [...], that which is weake, with the credit and reputation of strength) I answere therfore to it, that the consequence in it is not so tight and pregnant, (as happily is conceived) or as the confidence of the demand annexed by way of confirmation, seems to import. The imputablenesse of the transgression of the Law, were it granted, is no concluding demon­stration of the like imputablenesse of the righteous­nesse, or obedience performed unto it: and then this Proposition will not be found any such Oracle of truth.

First, in the tenour of the Law, there is no such emphaticall restraint of the guilt or punishment due unto the transgression of it, to the person of the trans­gressor, as ther is of the reward promised to the obser­vation of it, to the person of the observer; as we heard in the clause cited from Gal. 3.12. [...], &c. i. the very man that hath done them, shall live by them: It is no where found on the other hand: [...], &c. the very man that transgresseth them, shall die for his transgressi­on. As if God in giving the Law, had left unto him­selfe a libertie and scope to derive and carry the guilt and punishment due to the transgression of the Law, as far as he pleased: but had no intent to extend the reward promised to the fulfilling of it, beyond the person of the fulfiller. Some indeed conceive, that Adams standing in obedience to the Law, had bin the standing and perpetuall confirmation in grace, of all his posterity. If this opinion could be made to appeare any thing more then conjecturall Divinitie, I grant that then, in respect of the intent and pur­pose of God, the righteousnesse of the Law had been as imputable, as the transgression of it, but this will not prove it such in the nature of it, but only by way of Covenant: and so the consequence in the propo­sition will still languish and be infirme. But though I can be confident with Paul, to call Christ, the last Adam. 1 Cor. 15.45. Yet I am somwhat tender to call Adam, the first Christ. To say that Adam by his righteousnesse should have merited the justification of himselfe and all his posterity, is (I take it) to make him somwhat more then a figure of him that was to come. But to say, that by his transgression, he merited the condemnation both of himselfe and po­sterity, is no such hard saying (I conceive) in the cares of any man. Therefore however, the righte­ousnesse [Page 191]of the Law is not as imputable, as the trans­gression of it.

Secondly, whereas demand was made, SECT. 3 by way of absolute confirmation of that former proposition, what should make any such difference, betweene the obedience of the Law, and the transgression of the Law, that the former should not be as imputable as the latter, the obedience, as the transgression? I an­swere, there may be this conceived as a ground of difference betweene them, in that respect. Sinne or disobedience to a Law is ever greater in ratione demeriti, in way of demerit or desert of punishment: then obedience or subjection to a Law, is in ratione meriti, in deserving a reward. One that takes a purse, or murders a man by the high way side, deserveth to receive more in punishment, then a thousand deserve in reward, that suffer men to travaile peaceably by them. Though he that dishonestly refuseth to pay a debt where it is due, may deservedly be cast into prison: yet it doth not follow, that he that keeps touch and payeth at his day, deserves to be exalted to a Throne. So might Adam by his transgression of the Law, merit death and condemnation to himselfe and posterity: and yet not have merited life and salvation to both, by his obedience. The reason of which difference is evident: because if he had o­beyed and kept the Law, he had only done that which was his duty to doe: and this (by our Savi­ours rule, Luk 17.10) makes but an unprofitable servant. i. (I conceive) is no ground to demand or challenge any great matters at his masters hand, ex­cept it be by Covenant or promise from him. Adams obedience to the Law, was a debt due unto God from him, severall waies, and in sundry respects or con­siderations. First, God was his soveraigne Lord, and had absolut power over him, to command him what [Page 192]service or obedience he pleased. Secondly, he was his maker and Creator, and had given him his be­ing: and in this respect had full right and title to imploy him as he pleased. Thirdly, God had bin liberall and exceeding bountifull unto him, many waies: he created him in his owne image and like­nesse: furnished him with principles of righteous­nesse: made him Lord over the works of his hand: placed him in a Paradise of all delight and content­ment. In all these respects, Adam was a debtor, yea and more then a debtor unto God, of that obedience unto his Law, which he required of him. Now the greater debtor Adam was unto God, the more and greater bands and ingagements were upon him, to make good that obedience which God required of him, to his Law: the lesse meritorious had this o­bedience bin, in case Adam had stood and perform­ed it: and the more demeritorious also was his trans­gression and disobedience. Therefore that con­sequence in the major proposition of the objecti­on,

If the transgression of the Law be imputable, then is the obedience imputable also, is so farre from being legitimate, and solid, that the imputablenesse of the transgression of it, rather overthroweth the imputa­blenesse of the obedience of it, then any waies pro­veth or establisheth it. For the more imputable, that is, punishable, the transgression of it is, the lesse im­putable, that is, rewardable, is the obedience of it. So that you see, now we have touch'd the hollow of the right thigh of the Objection, how it halts right downe upon it. And you see withall, how we might fairely and honestly discharge our selves from having any thing more to doe with the Minor Proposition, or with the instance of the imputation of Adam's sin, which was insisted upon for the proofe of it: be­cause [Page 193]if either Proposition be disabled, the glory of the whole Argument is layed in the dust.

Notwithstanding, because the imputation of Adams sinne to his posteritie (as it is ordinarily phrased) is conceived to be a master veyne in this Controversie, and is frequently produced to prove the imputation of Christs righteousnesse (by way of analogie or pro­portion.) I shall be willing to lay downe with as much brevitie and plainenesse as I can, how, and in what sense onely, either the Scriptures themselves, or sound reason, will countenance the notion of that imputation. The issue will be, that neither the one nor the other will be found, either to owne or favour any other imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, then we have hitherto granted of Christs righteousnesse to those that beleeve: The righteousnesse of Christ, is im­puted, i. is made over or given to those that beleeve, not in the letter or formality of it (as hath bin often said) but in blessings, priviledges and benefits, pur­chased of God by the merit or mediation of it. So the sinne of Adam is imputed to his posterity, not in the letter and formality of it (which is the imputation commonly urged) but in the demerit of it, i. in the curse or punishment due to it (which is the imputation commonly urged) but in the demerit of it, i. in the curse or punishment due to it, or deserved by it. Therfore as concerning this imputation of Adams sin, I answere.

First, the Scripture no where affirms, either the im­putation of Adams sin to his posterity, or of the righte­ousnesse of Christ to those that beleeve: neither is the phrase or manner of such speaking, any waies agree­able to the Dialect or language of the Holy Ghost. For still in the Scriptures, whersoever the word or term of IMPUTING is used, it is only applyed unto, or spoken of somthing of the same persons, to whom the imputation is said to be made, and never (to my remembrance) to, or of any thing of anothers, Rom. [Page 194]4.3. Abraham beleeved God, and it was IMPUTED to him for righteousnesse, i. his own beleeving was imputed to him, not another mans. So verse 5. But to him that worketh not, but beleeveth, His Faith is IMPUTED to him for righteousnesse. So Psal. 106.30, 31. Phineas stood up and executed judgement, &c. and that (viz. act of his) was IMPUTED to him for righteousnesse. i. received a testimony from God of being a righteous and holy act. So againe, 2 Cor. 5.19. not IMPUTING their trespasses (i. their own trespasses) unto them.

Secondly, SECT. 5 when a thing is said simply to be impu­ted, as viz. sinne, folly, and so righteousnesse, or the like, &c. the meaning of the phrase is not to be taken concerning the bare acts of the things, as if (for ex­ample) to impute sin to a man, signified this, to re­pute the man (to whom sin is imputed) to have com­mitted a sinfull act: or, as if to impute folly, were simply to charge a man to have done foolishly: but the phrase of imputing, when it is applyed to things that are evill, and attributed to persons that have a power of judicature over those, to whom the impu­tation is made (in which posture only, to my remem­brance the word is found in Scripture) signifieth, the charging of the guilt or demerit of what is said to be imputed, upon the head of the person to whom the imputation is made, with an intent of inflicting some condigne punishment upon him. So that to impute sinne (in Scripture phrase) is to charge the guilt of sin upon a man with a purpose to punish him for it. Thus Rom. 5.13. Sinne is said not to be IMPUTED, whilest there is no Law. The meaning cannot be, that that act which a man doth, whether there be a Law or no Law, should not be imputed to him. The Law doth not make any act to be imputed, or ascribed to a man, which might not aswell have bin imputed with­out [Page 195]it. But the meaning is, that there is no guilt of any act charged by God upon men, nor any punish­ment inflicted upon men for any thing done by them, but only by vertue of the Law prohibiting or re­streyning it. In which respect the Law is said to be the strength of sinne, viz. because it giveth a condemn­ing power against the doer, to that, which otherwise would have had none, 1 Cor. 15.56. So againe, Job 24.12. when it is said, that God doth not lay folly to the charge of them (i impute folly to them) that make the soules of the slaine to cry out, &c. the meaning is not, that God doth not repute them to have commit­ted the acts of oppression, murder, &c. For suppose­ing they did such things, it is unpossible but that God should repute them to have done them: but the meaning is, that God doth not visibly charge the guilt of these sins upon them, or inflict punishment for them. So 2 Sam. 19.19. When Shimei prayeth David not to IMPUTE wickednesse unto him, his meaning is not, to desire David not to think he had done wickedly in rayling upon him (for himselfe confesseth this in the very next words) but that David would not inflict that punishment upon him, which that wickednesse deserved. This was that non-imputation of wickednesse which Shi­mei desired of David So when David himselfe pro­nounceth the man blessed, to whom the Lord IMPU­TETH not sinne, his meaning is not, as if there were any man, whom the Lord would not repute to have committed those acts of sin, which indeed they have committed: but that such are blessed, upon whom God will not charge the demerit of their sins in the punishment due to them. So yet againe (to forbeare further citations in this point) 2 Cor. 5.19. when God is said, not to IMPUTE their sinnes unto men, the meaning is not, that God should not repute men to [Page 196]have committed such and such sins against him: but this, that he freely discharged them from the punishment due unto them By all which testimonies and instances from the Scriputres, concerning the constant and solemne use and signification of the terme imputing, or imputation, it is evident, that the M [...]nor Proposition in the Objection, viz. that the transgression of the Law is imputable from one mans per­son to anothers, hath no such cleere or certaine soun­dation in the Scriptures.

SECT. 6 And therfore thirdly (and lastly) to come home to the instance of the imputation of Adam's sinne to his posterity, which is brought for the confirmation of it, I answere also,

First, that either to say that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to his posteritie (of beleevers) or the sin of Adam to his, are both expressions (at least) unknowne to the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures. There is neither line, nor word, nor syllable, nor let­ter, nor tittle of any such thing to be found there. But that the faith of him that beleeveth, is imputed for righteousnesse, are words which the Holy Ghost counteth neither errour, nor heresie to use.

But secondly, because I would make no exception against words, further then necessitie (I meane a necessitie of making provision for the truth) enfor­ceth (I doe not like that any mans words that will take salt, and be made savourie by interpretation, should be cast out upon the dunghill: though I know a man that hath received this measure, pressed down, heaped up, and running over, from many) gran, that there are expressions in Scripture concern­ing both, both the communication of Adams sinne with his posterity, and of the righteousnesse of Christ [Page 197]with those that beleeve, that will fairely enough beare the terme of imputation, if it be rightly understood, and according to the use and importance of it in Scripture upon other occasions (as we lately cited many instances) but as it is commonly taken and un­derstood by many, it is no currant language, but oc­casions much error and mistake.

Concerning Adam's sinne or disobedience, SECT. 7 many are said to be made sinners by it. Rom. 5.19. And so by the obedience of Christ, it is said (in the same place) that many shall be made righteous. But now if men will needs exchange language with the Holy Ghost, they must see to it that they make him no loser. If when they say, that Adams sinne is imputed to all unto condemnation, their meaning be the same with the Holy Ghosts, when he saith, that by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners, there is no harme done: to exchange upon such terms, is not to rob. But it is much to be suspected, nay it is too evident by what many of themselves by way of in­terpretation speake, that the Holy Ghost and they are not of one mind, touching the imputation or com­munication of Adams sinne with his posterity, but that they differ as much in meaning, as in words. If when they say, that Adams sinne is imputed to all unto con­demnation, their meaning be, plaine and right downe this, that the demerit or guilt of Adams sin is charg­ed upon his whole posteritie, or that the punishment of Adams sinne, redounded and ran over (as it were) from his person to his whole posterity, a maine part of which punishment, lyeth in that originall defile­ment wherin they are all conceived and borne, and wherby they are made truly and formally sinners be­fore God: if this (I say) be the meaning of the terme, Imputation, when it is applyed to Adams sin, Tran­seat, let it passe. But if the meaning be, Adams sin is [Page 198] imputed to his posteritie, i. that sinfull act wherein Adam transgressed when heate the forbidden fruit, is in the letter and formalitie of it, and as it was A­dams owne personall sinne, imputed to his posteritie, so that by this imputation all his posterity are made formally sinners, before any part of the punishment of that si [...]ne comes upon them: this is an imputation, which (I am certaine) the Scripture wil never justifie, neither in the letter of it, nor in the spirit of it: yea and reason it selfe riseth up against it with a high hand.

The equitie (on Gods part) for the involving of Adams posteritie, SECT. 8 in the punishment due to his first sinne (for I do not conceive it to be an act either of district and essentiall justice in God, or yet of abso­lute or pure prerogative) but a certaine mixt act be­tweene both seemeth to be founded upon 3 things: Sine dubio potu­it Deus, si sic ei visum fuisset, Adae peccatum, aut ipsi condona­re, aut in ipso tantum ulcisci, posterisque om­nibus gratiam salutarem, co neutiquam ob­stante, liberare gratificari. Dr. Twist. and yet none of them the act of Adams sinne, nor yet the imputation of it. But 1 ^o, the demerit or sinfull­nesse of the sinne: which is a thing much differing from the act of it: the act of it being principally from God him elfe, and that by way of effici­encie properly so called (as all Divines unanimously agree) but the sinfulnesse of it wholly from the crea­ture. Secondly, the streightnesse, or narrownesse, or scantnesse of Adams person: Thirdly (and lastly) that speciall and neere relation that his posterity had to his person. From the posture (I conceive) or standing up of these (or the like) circumstances before God, may be demonstrated the equitie of his proceedings, in involving or binding over, aswell Adams posterity, as his person, in and to the same condemnation and punishment with him for his first sinne.

First for the fullnesse and weight of the demerit or sinfulnesse of it: it is almost unconceiveable of [Page 199]what aggravations it is capable of, if all those cir­cumstances and considerations were but made to speake home, which are able to charge it in this kind. Some we touched towards the begining of this Chapter: and many others there are, which I do not purpose now to insist upon, because the sin­fullnesse of this sin, is generally confessed and ac­knowledged by all, though it be true also, there are some circumstances on the other hand, which doe much case and lighten the provocation and offen­si [...]nesse of it, as we shall have occasion to shew hereafter in the second part.

Onely I desire to mention one thing, SECT. 9 (which to my best remembrance) I have not often met with under observation in this kind: though it be a con­sideration obvious and neere at hand. The sinne of Adam hath this peculiar streyne or burden of sinful­nesse in it, wherein it justifieth the sinne even of the reprobate Angells themselves, being (in that re­spect) a sinne more intolerable then theirs, These wicked Angells were entrusted but with their owne portions, respectively, and therefore what they sin­ned, they sin'd to themselves, they sin'd away & ruin'd only their personall estates in blessedness. But Adam had a deerer and deeper ingagement upon him, to keep him upright: he had the estates of all his posterity put into his hand: and knew, that if he sinned and fell, he should draw thousands thousands of soules after him into the same perdition with him: and those such, the things of whose peace, safety and welfare, the Law, of nature it selfe obli­ged him to provide for, with more care and tender­nesse, then of all other creatures whatsoever, being those that were to be his owne naturall children, even flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone: the ingage­ment of which relation the Apostle averreth (in this [Page 200]respect) 2 Cor. 12.14. where he saith, that Children ought not to lay up for the Parents, but Parents for the Children. If it be esteemed a sore brand (as well it may) upon the wickednesse of Ieroboam, that he made Israel to sinne: and yet this was no other making to sinne, then what possibly might (and ought) to have bin resisted and withstood, by those that were drawne to sinne by it: then must it needs be a far soarer charge upon the sinne of Adam, who made not Israel onely, but the whole world to sinne: and that in such a way, and by such a making, against which there was not the least strength or power in the world to make the least resistance or oppositi­on.

So then the exceeding sinfulnesse or demerit of this sinne of Adam being granted, it cannot be judg­ed any waies unequall in God or repugnant to the rules of justice, to inflict an unanswerable measure or weight of punishment upon it. Punishment is a kind of payment or recompence for an injury or losse susteyned. J paied (or restored) saith David, Psal. 69.4.) the things that I never tooke. i. I went under censure, and was punished in my good Name and otherwise, for offences whereof I was never guilty. The like phrase of restitution by way of punishment, you shall finde Iob 20.18. So that now to require or take in punishment, valuably to the losse or inju­ry a man hath susteyned, hath thus far no appearance of unrighteousnesse in it.

Therefore 2 ^o, SECT. 10 consider we further the narrow­nesse or scantnesse of Adams person, of how small receipt or capacitie his vessell was, to containe that abundance of wrath, or that fulnesse of punishment, which God might lawfully require, for the great in­jury or dishonor done unto him in that mighty sin: and this will bring you to confesse and acknowledge [Page 201]this further, that either God must sit downe by the losse (as we use to say) and want meanes of coming againe into his owne, or else he must looke out be­yond Adams person, for more to be joyned in the punishment with him, to supplie (as it were) that was wanting in him, in that respect. In civill and politique States, it is not more usuall then equall and reasonable, that when the offence is of a very high nature, as in the case of Treason and the like &c. the punishment should not be confin'd to the person of the offender (which how great soever, is ever lesse then an offence of that nature) but be further exten­ded, untill the qualitie of the offence be somewaies answered. Vpon this ground of equitie (I conceive) it was, that God would not be satisfied with the per­sonall destruction (though in a way of extraordinary judgement) of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, their sin of rebellion against Moses and Aaron, riseing to a greater height then so: but involved their Fami­lies their wives, their Sons, their little ones, yea their Tents and all their goods, in the punishment with them. Numb. 16.27, 32, 33. with Deut. 11.6. Indeed for Korahs Children (at least for some of them, it seemes from Num. 26.11. that they had withdrawne themselves from their Fathers Tent and company, before the judgement came, and so e­scaped. But for the Families, wives, Children, lit­tle ones, yea tents and all the goods of the other, yea and all those persons that remained and were found with Korah whether Children or others; when the stroke of Divine recompence came; together with al his goods, were cast in together into the scale of the punishment to make weight for the height and hey nousnesse of the sinne. The like is to be conceived in the case of Achan's sinne. Ios. 7.24.25. If the perso­nall punishments of these men would have held out [Page 202]just and full consideration with their offences, it is no waies probable, but that the punishing hand of God wou [...]d have stayed there, and not have bin stretched out further. In like manner, if the person of Adam had bin as great and large, as his offence, so that he had [...]in able himselfe to have borne the fulnesse of the punishment, which his sin deserved: I conceive it most likely that God would have deser­ved and satisfied himselfe in point of justice, out of his person alone, and not have arrested all his poste­rity for the debt. Because the most district justice that is in God, can but require and exact from the creature offending, that degree or measure of pun­ishment for sin, quae est internimiùm et parum, which holds a just and even proportion with it. And if the person of the creature offending, be able to pay the whole reckoning and summe it selfe, the like justice seemeth to require, that it be not demanded else­where, nor any others without their consent be charged with contributing to it. So that if we shall suppose the person of Adam to have bin punishable according to the height and full extent of his sin, and yet will say, that God had power to charge this sinne upon his posteritie, this must be understood of such a power, as indeed God hath by way of absolute pre­rogative and soveraigntie of dominion over the crea­ture, not of any power he stands possessed of in a way of regular and ordinary justice.

If it be here objected: SECT. 11 that notwithstanding God hath thus seized upon Adam himselfe and all his posterity with him, and hath involved them toge­ther, and made them all contributers in the punish­ment due to the first sin, yet doth not all this pun­ishment in the utmost extent of it, answere (in strict consideration) the demerit of that sin: so that that which God hath done in this kind, is no sufficient [Page 203]meanes to heale the wound of that dishonour which he received from the hand of the creature.

To this I answere: First, if this be a truth (as for the present I have nothing in a strict way of arguing to oppose against it directly) that notwithstanding God hath fallen thus heavily upon Adam & al his, yet hath not hereby made himselfe any full satisfaction for the offence committed against him: this rather tends to ease and justifie these proceedings of God in punishing aswell Adams posteritie as his person, for his offence, that is, for the demerit of his of­fence, then any waies infringeth or impleadeth any thing therein. So that we shall not need, for the cleering of Gods justice in troubling all Adams poste­ritie for Adams sinne, to have recourse to a supposed imputation of the act of this sinne unto them, the sin­fullnesse or demerit of it (which as hath been said, is a thing far differing from, and indeed contra-distin­guished against the act of it) is abundantly suffici­ent thereunto.

Yet secondly I answere withall: that though the punishment of the sinne poured out upon Adams posteritie as well as his person, will not hold out full weight and measure with the sinfullnesse or demerit of it, in which respect God may seeme still to be be­hind hand with the creature, and not to have repai­red his breach sufficiently: yet who seeth not but that he hath made a far more abundant provision for the vindicating of his glorious greatresse, by cause­ing this dreadfull tempest of his displeasure to raine upon all flesh, then if Adams person alone had bin rained upon in this kind, and the expressions of his indignation had reached no further. We have a common saying: That where it is not to be had, the King must loose his right. Certainly if the great and terrible God ever payed any sinne home in wrath [Page 204]and vengeance, he is not behind hand with this sin of Adam.

Thirdly and lastly, SECT. 12 I answere yet once more: that in this respect God may be said to have made, or gi­ven himselfe full satisfaction, in pouring out this fullnesse of wrath upon Adams sinne, not upon his person only, but whole posterity also: because he requireth nothing more by way of any further satis­faction for that sinne, but only the abiding or suffer­ing of that wrath and punishment which he hath in­flicted upon it, by Adam and his posterity. This sheweth that he is perfectly eased of that his great adversarie. At least wise, where he complaineth not, nor maketh any further demand, we cannot say that he is unsatisfyed. That sacrifice which he re­quired of his Sonne Jesus Christ for the taking away or purging the sinne of the world, was not required by way of addition to that punishment, which hee had inflicted upon Adam and all his; as if Christ with his sufferings, and men with theirs, should to­gether make up one and the same entire satisfaction unto God for Adams sin. No, the Scripture calleth it [...], that is a vice-ransom, or counter-ransom, i. a satisfaction instead of a satisfaction. 1 Tim. 2.6. which implieth, that that wrath which God had al­ready poured out upon the world for sinne, was in the nature of it and would have bin, had his mercy bin pleased to have suffered his justice to goe on with the full execution of it, and to have received at large. This for answer to the objection: and for the second particular; upon which the equity of Gods proceedings in involving as-well the whole posterity of Adam as his person in the punishment due to his first sinne, may well be built (as hath bin suid) viz the narrownesse of Adams person.

SECT. 13 The third and last (but of principall considera­tion [Page 205]in the businesse) is, the peculiar and neere rela­tion of the posteritie of Adam to his person. His posteritie was so neerely and intirely his, when the sinne was committed, and the judgment first poured out upon it, that they were in his person, and as it were a part, or somewhat of it. The time was, when all men were but one Adam: as Augustine expres­seth it: Adam erat nos omnes. i. Adam was us all. Augustin. De Peccat. Merit. et Remiss. And againe, Omnes eramus ille vnus Adam. i. We were all that one Adam. And the whole generation of mankind, is but Adam, or Adams person inter­preted, or expounded at large: and may with as good propriety of speech be called Adam, as the nation of the Iewes is often in the Scripture called Iacob. So then it being granted, 1 ^o that the sinne of Adam was exceedingly sinfull and demeritorious. 2 ^o, that his person (properly taken) by reason of the scantnesse or narrownesse of it, was not capable of the fulnesse of that wrath, which that sin deser­ved, and which it stood best with the glory of God, should be executed or poured out upon it: it cannot be thought any waies unrighteous or unequall, that his posteritie should be arrested also, and taken into Communion with his person in the punishment in­flicted, to supplie that which was wanting in it. That God should not be stinted or streightned in mak­ing provision for his owne glory in the punishment of sin, but that he should punish till he maketh him­selfe whole, at least till he cometh as neere into his owne, as conveniently he may, there is no man can judge unequall or unjust. Now then Adam, who was the sinner, having of his owne, whereof or wherewith to make satisfaction, I meane a posterity, which was so fully, so intirely, and (as I may say) so identically his owne, that it was as yet rather himselfe then his; it cannot but be thought equall [Page 206]and meet, that God should father seize upon these, to doe himselfe right, then upon the Angells or any other kind of creature that had not that neere and speciall relation to the transgressor. As in the case of the sinne of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, (and so of Achan) before mentioned, the personall punish­ment of the offenders not holding out proportion with the nature and quality of their offences: there is no man but must needs conceive it more agreeable to justice, that their owne families respectively, and those that had the neerest relation to them, should be taken to make up the exemplarinesse of the punish­ment, till it was increased and raised to the line and levell of the offence, then any other family or person, that stood at a further distance from them. God, in a faire and reasonable construction, involving Adam and his posterity in the punishment for his sinne, did but involve Adam himselfe, or his person only, be­cause his person and posterity, when this punishment was executed, were but one and the same Adam. This is the third and last particular, upon which the equitie of God, in punishing aswell Adams posterity, as his person, for his sinne, seemes to be grounded, viz. the peculiar neerenesse and relation betweene his person and posteritie.

Me thinks there is a joynt intimation of all the three, SECT. 14 in that Scripture, Rom. 5.12. Wherfore as by one man sinne entred into the world, and death by sinne, and so death passed upon all men, in that (or rather, ac­cording to the best translations and expositions, in whom) all men have sinned. Here is first the demerit of this sin implied, in that death is said to enter into the world by it. There is nothing in sinne to draw death and condemnation after it, but only the demerit or sinfulnesse of it: as for the act it selfe, whereunto this sinfullnesse cleaveth (for malum semper habitat in ali­eno [Page 207]fundo, as one saith, evill is alwaies found with somwhat that is not evill) this is directly and effici­ently from God himselfe (as hath bin said) and ther­fore death is no wages due to this: neither would it, in case it were imputed to any man, bring any guilt or condemnation upon him.

Secondly, it being further said, that death being en­tred into the world, passed [...], upon all men, or over all men, it sheweth, that Adams single per­son, was not sufficient or able to beare the fullnes of that punishment, which the sinfullnesse-of his sin had deserved: otherwise death (doubtlesse) would have stopp'd there, and have gone, or passed on no further.

Thirdly and lastly, where it is added in the close, as the reason why death, being gotten into the world, should passe directly towards men, and should pre­vaile (in speciall manner) over them, and that over them all (without exception) viz. because that in him, i. Adam, all men had sinned: this implieth, that had not men bin in the loynes of Adam, who was the sin­ner, or otherwise had no speciall or neere relation to him, this death had had no more right or advantage against them, then against other creatures.

So that now, these things duly considered, SECT. 15 evident it is, that the imputation of Adams sinne, or rather of the act of Adams sinne: (for otherwise it is nothing to the purpose (so much spoken of and urged in this case) to his posteritie, is not the ground or cause of the punishment that is fallen upon his posteritie for it (neither is there the least little in the Scriptures founding that way) but chiefly that speciall commu­nion they had with him in his nature (having then their severall beings respectively in his loynes) and consequently in his sinne. [...], See more of this in the Second Part. cap. 2. Sect. 11, 12, 13. in whom all have sinned (saith Paul.) Therfore now the ground of that punishment or condemnation which is come upon all men, is not the imputation of Adams [Page 208]sinne, much lesse of the act of Adams sinne (as before we distinguished, but if any imputation be in this case, it is of every mans owne sinne in Adam, for it was not Adam alone that sinned, but all sinned in him it is every mans owne sinne that is imputed to him, and for which he is punished. As Levi himselfe is said to have paied tithes in the loynes of Abraham his Fa­ther, not that Abraham's paying of tithes was imputed to Levi, Heb. 7.9.10. so neither is it to be said, that Adams sinne is imputed to his posterity, but rather that this posteritie themselves sinned in Adam; and it is but every mans own sin, not Adams, that is imputed to him. To make a bare and district imputation of the act of anothers sin, the adequate and sole ground and foundation of that heavy judgement and punishment that is layed upon all men in this kind, is not so much to represent God to the minds and consciences of men, as a district, just and severe Judge (which with their interpretations may be affirmed of him) as to make him so farre to take pleasure, or to delight in blood, and in the ruine of his creature, that he will take occasion, even where none is, to slay and to de­stroy with death And of the two (doubtlesse) it were lesse dishonourable unto God, to conceive or say of him in this case, that he fell thus heavie in wrath and judgement upon the whole posterity of Adam, be­cause he would doe it, or because it was his absolute will and pleasure so to doe: then to pretend or con­ceive the bare imputation of the act of Adams sin, the cause or reason of it. For in the former, the absolute power or Soveraigntie of God over the creature, is plainly asserted (though perhaps in terms somwhat harder then many eares will well beare) but in the latter, there is only a cold and hungry pretence al­ledged, to beare out one of the greatest and most weighty acts of judgement that ever God exercised. Of the two it is lesse dishonourable to a Prince or [Page 209]Monarch, to professe a power above Law, then to exercise it under a pretence of justice. And what is there more in the imputation of Adams sinne, to make the punishment of it upon all his posterity, an act of justice in God, or to ease the conceit of absolute So­vereigntie, then if there were no such imputation at all? Or suppose God should repute me to have sin'd in Adam, and because he so reputeth me, shall exe­cute judgement upon me; in case I did not so sinne, as God reputeth me to have done, it had bin altoge­ther as much justice in God to have punished me without any such reputing me to have sinned, as with it. But in case I did sinne (as the Scripture testifieth to my face I did) now there is no necessity or occas­on why God should impute Adams sinne unto me, to make me capable of punishment: the imputation of this my owne sinne is abundantly sufficient. Besides, suppose I could not be truly said to have sinned my selfe, being yet in the loynes of Adam, and so my owne sinne not to be imputed unto me: yet my com­munion with Adam in his nature, or my neere rela­tion to him, being one of his children and posterity, upon the former supposition, that Adams sin was not punishable to the height in the punishment of his person only, is a full and sufficient ground to beare out the justice of God, in laying all that punishment upon me he hath done. But of all conceits or appre­hensions in this point, that hath the least consisten­cie with sobernes and truth, which makes the impu­putation of the act of Adams sin, which act was more from God, then from Adam, as hath bin said, though the sinfulnes of this act, was wholly from Adam, and not at all from God) to his posterity, to be the reason and ground of that fore punishment wherin they are all included & involved: as if Gods reputing a world of men to have done that, which indeed was from himselfe (and therfore could at no hand be sinfull) [Page 210]were a sufficient ground in justice & equiti [...], to bring the guilt of everlasting death and wrath upon them.

The summe of all that [...]ath bin reasoned at large in this Chapter, SECT. 16 amounteth to this: 1. that the imputa­blenes of the transgression of the Law (were it granted) from one person to another, doth not necessarily evince the like imputability of the obedience of the Law. 2. that in Scripture, there is nothing said to be imputed unto any man but that which was his, before the imputation. 3. that to impute, doth never signifie the bare ascribing or setting o­ver any act good or bad, unto any man: but a suitable deal­ing by the person, to whom the imputation is made, accor­ding either to the merit or demerit, of such an act. 4. that therfore, neither the act of any mans obedience nor disobe­dience to the Law, can either in Scripture language, or propriety of speech, be said to be imputed to any other, then to the persons themselves, obeying and disobeying. 5. That the Scriptures are altogether silent concerning the impu­tation of Adams sin to his posterity. 6. That reason it self fully demonstrates, any such imputation, to be no sufficient or tollerable ground or reason, why God in a way of justice and equity, might involve Adams posterity with his per­son, in the punishment due to his sin. 7. (and lastly) that there are other grounds herof both more agreeable to rea­son, & to the rules & principles of common justice & equi­ty: so that there is not so much as the least degree of any necessity, to bring the Imputation of Adams sin (in the sence pressed by our adversaries for their turns) upō this theatre

The Conclusion resulting from the constellation of these particulars, is easily discerned to be this, that the Imputation of Adams sin to his posterity, is no better Ar­gument to prove the imputation of Christs righteousnes (in the sence questioned) to beleevers then the impu­tation of Christs righteousnes, is to prove, the imputation of Adams sin: and that neither the one nor the other (in the sence urged and opposed) have any firm foot­ing either in reason or Religion.

CAP. I.
Wherein is contained a briefe proposall of the Particulars in this Second Part.

HAving brought forth our strength, both of Scripture and Reason (seconded in both with sufficient authorities of men of best esteeme) as well to overthrow the conclusion set up by the Adversa­ry in the Question debated, as to esta­blish that which we have undertaken for and oppose against it: it remaines, that for the making good the ground which we have gotten, we should dis­arme our enemies, and take away those weapons from them wherein they trust, by answering those Scriptures and Reasons which are usually chosen for the service of this warrefare, and whereby some endeavour as well to build up, what we have laboured hitherto to throw downe, as to cast downe what we have to built up. The truth is, that no cause or truth reigneth in fulnesse of glo­rie [Page 2]and peace, till all the enemies thereof be, either reconciled or put under his feete. In consideration where­of. I shall no wayes smoother or dissemble any objecti­on of the adverse party, as farre as I know, they have yet pleaded, or can conceive, they may possibly plead yet further for themselves in the point depending, nor seeke to gaine the least advantage to my selfe by cutting the haire, or diminishing the strength of any argument, I shall propound against my selfe to answer: but rather on the other side, shall shew all fairenesse and faithful­nesse in relieving my adversaries, in their oversights and as farre as my ability extendeth endeavour to supply that which is wanting on their part, in maintenance of the cause they have undertaken.

I shall therefore in this Second Part of my Worke: first lay downe and prove (with all convenient briefenesse that may be) some conclusions, which have speciall re­lation to the Question depending, and will give a further light of insight therein, and which will be as foundations or grounds to frame answers upon, to severall objections that are, or may be made, against the decision main­tained in this Discourse.

2. I shall lay downe and open some distinctions, which will make a cleare and lightsome way for the truth through the darkenesse of many difficul­ties, which seeme to oppose it on every side, as well from the Scriptures, as reasoning otherwise.

3. I shall lay downe the nature and purport of Iustifica­tion, in the severall causes and carriages thereof according to the Scriptures, as farre as I am able to conceive.

4. I shall briefely propound and answer the Scriptures that are conceived to make against the opinion conten­ded for in this Treatise, according to the tenour and im­portance of the former grounds and distinctions.

5. And lastly, I shall with like brevitie close the whole businesse, by propounding and answering the reasons and Arguments, that seeme chiefely to lye against, the Doctrine hitherto maintained.

CAP. II.
Some Conclusions laid downe, and proved for the further clearing of the Point in Question, and for answering sundry of the Objections following.

HE for whose sinnes a plenary satisfaction hath beene made (either by himselfe, or another for him, Conclusion 1 SECT. 1 and hath beene accepted by him against whom the transgres­sion was committed, is as just and righteous, as he that never sinn'd, but had done all things that were requisite and meete for him to doe: This is evident: because there is as much justice and righteousnesse in repairing the wrongs and injuries done to any, as there is in abstaining from doing wrong. Hee that by his cattel, or otherwise, hath made spoile in his neighbours corne, and hath given him full satisfaction for the spoyle done to his content­ment, is as good a neighbour, and deales as justly and honestly with him, as he that never trespassed in that kind upon him. The essence and nature of Justice or righteous­nesse (in the sense we now speake of) is this (as the knowne definition gives it) Suum cutque tribuere; to give to every one his owne, i. that which in a way of equity and right is due from us unto them. Now when we have injured or damnified any man in any of his rights, or things be­longing to him, there is nothing more due to him from us, then that which is his owne, i. that which is fully va­luable to the injurie we have done unto him. Therefore he that tenders a valuable consideration, or satisfaction, for an injurie done to another, is just according to the height and utmost exigencie of justice, and consequently as just as he that never was injurious, or did wrong.

There is no medium, or middle condition or standing, beteewne a perfect absolution and freedome from all sinne, and a perfect and compleate righteousnesse; Conclu. 2 SECT. 2 but hee that is fully discharged and freed from sinne, ipso facto, is [Page 4]made perfectly and compleately righteous. See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 34. And Mr. Bradshaw Iustisi. p. 78. &c. The reason of this is evident: nothing can any way diminish or preju­dice the perfection of righteousnesse, but only sin: as no­thing can hinder perfection of light, but darkenesse in one degree or other, or perfection of sight, but blindnes in some degree or other. So that as the aire when it is free from all degrees of darkenesse must of necessitie be perfectly and fully light, and a man that is in no measure or degree blinde, must needs be perfectly sighted: so he that is per­fectly freed from all sinne whatsoever must of necessitie be compleately and perfectly righteous withall. It is unpos­sible to conceive a man defective in any part or point of righteousnesse, and yet withall to conceive him free from all sinne, sinne and righteousnesse being in subjecto capaci contraria immediata, as Logicians speak. The Scriptures them­selves stil make an immediate opposition between the two Natures or Conditions we speake of, Sinne, and righte­ousnesse, never acknowledging, or so much mentioning a­any third between them. As by one mansdisobedience (saith Paul) many were made sinners; so by the obedience, of one shall many be made righteous. To findout a third estate betweene sina nd righteousnesse, we must find out a third Adam, from whom it should be derived. An estate of neutrality here, is such an estate or condition, as the man in the Moone enjoyeth.

Adam, Conclusion 3 SECT. 3 See Mr. Gataker against Goma­rus p. 28. whilst his innocencie stood with him, and till his fall by sinne, was compleately righteous, and an estate of justification before God; yea, for the truth and sub­stance of righteousnesse, as righteous, as he could or should have beene, if he had liv'd to this day in the most entire and absolute obedience to the Law. His righte­ousnesse by this meanes had beene of a longer continu­ance, but not of any greater perfection or truth. Even as the second Adam, the Lord Christ himselfe, was as com­pleately and perfectly righteous from the wombe and so from his first entrance upon his publique ministery as he was at last when he suffered death. And had there beene any defect or want of righteousnesse in Christ at a­ny time from his conception to his death it must needs have beene sinfull (all absence of righteousnesse neces­sarily including a presence of sinne as the absence of light a presence of darkenesse answerable thereunto) and con­sequently [Page 5]the great worke of the salvation of the world had miscarried in his hand. To say that Adam was not perfectly righteous, and consequently in a justified estate or condition before God, untill his fall by sin, is to place him in an estate of condemnation before his sinne, there being no middle or third estate betweene these two. Ju­stification and Condemnation, as the Scriptures evident­ly imply in many passages as Rom. 5.18. Deut. 25.1. Rom. 33.34. &c. in all which places (with some others) you shall finde an immediate opposition betweene them. But especially this appeareth from Rom. 8.1.2. compared with verse 3. and 4. where you will finde Justification descri­bed by non-condemnation, or freedome from the Law of sinne and death: if there were a third estate or conditi­on, betweene justification and condemnation, non­condemnation would not so much as necessarily imply justification, much lesse be used as a clause or terme e­quivolant thereunto. Therefore to grant, that forgive­nesse of sinne puts a man into the same estate and condi­tion wherein Adam stood before his fall (which is gene­rally granted by men of opposite judgement in this con­troversie, and nothing granted, neither in this, but the unqeustionable truth) is to grant the Point in question, and to acknowledge the truth laboured for throughout this whole Discourse.

Perfect remission or forgivenesse of sinnes includes the imputation or acknowledgement of the observation of the whole Law, Conclu. 4 SECT. 4 See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 27.28. Omnia mandata factadeputantur, quando quicquid non fit, ignosci­tur. Aug. Retra. l. 1. c. 19. even as the imputation of the Law fulfil­led, necessarily includes the non-imputation of sinne, or the forgivenesse of all sinne, in case any hath beene com­mitted For how can he be said to have all his sinnes ful­ly forgiven who is yet look'd upon or intended to be dealt withall, as one that hath transgressed, either by way of omission, or commission, any part of the Law, and he that is look'd upon, as one that never transgressed any part of the Law, neither by omission, nor commission must needs be conceived or look'd upon as one that hath fulfilled and kept the whole Law which is nothing else but to have a perfect righteousnesse, or (which is the same) a perfect fulfilling of the Law imputed to him. So that besides that perfect remission of sinnes, which hath beene [Page 6]purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ for those that be­leeve, there is no neede of (indeede no place for) the impu­tation of any righteousnesse performed by Christ unto the Law, because in that very act of remission of sinnes, there is included an imputation of a perfect righteous­nesse: or to speake more properly, and with Scripture exactnesse, that act of God whereby he remitteth and par­doneth sinne, is interpretatively, nothing else but an im­puattion of a perfect righteousnesse or of a fulfilling of the Law. Compare Rom. 4. ver. 6. with ver. 7. and 11. Even as that act of the Physition by which he recovereth his pa­tient from his sicknesse, may with full proprietie of speech be called that act, whereby he restoreth him to his health: this expression were but a plaine interpretation of the o­ther, and no more nor any thing else in substance, but it. And so that Act, by which the Sunne dispells the darke­nesse, may indifferently be called that act, by which hee fills the Aire with light. And as the Physitian doth not heale the disease by one act, and recover or restore health by another act, really differing from it, but doth both by one and the same act, healing the disease, and restoring, of health, being but two differing names or considerati­ons of one and the same thing; In like manner, God doth not heale sinne, that is, forgive sinne by one act, and re­store the life of righteousnesse, that is, impute righteous­nesse by another act at all differing from it, but in and by one and the same punctuall and precise act, hee doth the one and the other; forgivenesse of sinnes, and imputation of righteousnesse; being but two different names, expres­sions, or considerations of one and the same thing. And as it is but one and the same person that is sometimes called Iesus, and sometimes Christ, and the person Iesus, is some­times called by the name of Christ, to import and signifie, that he is an annointed one; and againe, the person Christ, is sometimes called by the name Iesus, to signifie that he is a Saviour: even so one and the same act of God is some­times called forgivenesse of sinnes, and sometimes an im­puting of righteousnesse, and the forgivenesse of sinnes is sometimes called an imputing of righteousnesse, to shew and signifie that a man needs nothing to a compleate righteousnesse, or justification, but the forgivenesse of his [Page 7]sinnes: and againe, the imputing of righteousnesse, is sometimes called the forgivenesse of sinnes, to shew that God hath no other righteousnesse to conferre upon a sin­ner, but that which stands in forgivenesse of sinnes. So that these two termes or expressions; imputing righteous­nesse, and forgiving sinne, do but aide and assist one the other towards a full explication of the nature and im­portance of that act of God, which sometimes goeth un­der the one name, and sometimes under the other.

If it be here demanded: SECT. 5 but how can God be said to impute a righteousnesse to a man, which never was, nor ever had a being, no righteousnesse (at least of that kinde, whereof we now speake) having ever beene, but that per­fect obedience which Christ performed to the Law? I answer,

1. That there is as expresse and compleate a righte­ousnesse in the Law, as ever Christ himselfe perfor­med: yea, a righteousnesse more proper, and appropri­able to all sorts and conditions of men, than that personall righteousnesse which Christ himselfe per­formed (as was shewed at large in the former part of this Treatise) And what if it be said, that God, in remis­sion of sins through Christ from and out of the Law im­puteth to every man that beleeveth, such a righteousnesse as is proper to him? This I am certaine, is a thousand times more agreeable both to reason and to the Scriptures, then to hold an imputation of such a righteousnesse, that is, of such a systeme and frame of actions, which were indeed a righteousnesse to him that wrought them, the Law requiring them of him, but can be a righteousnesse to none other person whatsoever, the Law requiring the same acts for no man is therefore just or righteous, be­cause he doth the things which the Law simply requireth, but because he doth those things which the Law requi­reth of him, in reverence to his personall condition, cal­ling, and relations in every kinde. A man may be as wicked and sinfull by doing that which the Law requi­reth of another man, as by doing that which the Law pro­hibiteth unto all men. But of this enough already. But

2. To the Objection propounded, I answer, further, that to say God cannot impute a righteousnesse which ne­ver [Page 8]had a being, i. which never was really and actu­ually performed by any man, is to deny that he hath power to forgive sinnes. Because for givenesse of sinne is an imputation of righteousnesse (as hath beene proved) yea, and of such a righteousnesse which as the Scripture teacheth us, is without workes, ( Rom. 4 6. Rom. 3.28 &c.) i. a righteousnesse, not consisting or made up of any workes performed to the Law by any man: and what is this, but such a righteousnesse, as never had a being? Conclusi. 5

Hee that is fully acquitted and discharged from his sinnes, SECT. 6 needeth no other righteousnesse, to give him a right or title unto life. See Mr. Gataker against Gomarus p. 27.34. &c. The Reason of this is evident also. Death is the wages of sin, and of sin only, being due to no creature in any other respect nor upon any other terme whatsoever: and therefore cannot in a way of ordinary justice be inflicted by God upon any creature, but for sin.

Now he that is free from death, and no wayes obnoxi­ous thereunto, See Mr. Brad­shaw Iustific. p. 79. cannot but be conceived to have a right unto life, there being neither any middle condition be­tweene death and life, wherein it is possible for a reasona­ble creature to subsist, nor againe any capacity of life, but by some right and title thereunto. Adam whilst his inno­cency and he stood together, and whilst he was free from sinne, had a right and title unto life, yea, and had the pos­session and fruition of it given unto him; (for how could he be threatned with death, Gen. 2.17. who was not actu­ally possessed of life) though he had not yet performed the Law; either by himselfe or any other for him, in any such sence as is contended for by some, as of absolute necessitie to give a right and title unto life: and if he had not a right unto life by his freedome from sinne, but was to purchase this right by an actuall fulfilling of the Law, it would be known, what quantities of obedience to the Law hee must have paid, before he had made this purchase, and how long he must have obeyed and kept the Law, before this right and title unto life would have accru'd unto him. For had he lived a 1000. yeares in his integritie and uprightnesse without the least touch of any transgres­sion, he had still bin a debtor of obedience to the Law, upon the same termes that he was at the beginning, and the least interruption or breach in the course of his obe­dience, [Page 9]had even now beene the forfeiture of that life hee enjoyed. So then this position also is unquestionably true, that there needs no other righteousnesse, but onely the forgivenesse of, or freedome from sinne, to give a man a cleare and lawfull title unto life.

Notwithstanding the Scriptures of the new Testa­ment, seeme to place the immediate right or capacitie which beleevers have to the Kingdome of heaven, and e­ternall glory, rather in the grace of Adoption or Sun­ship vouchsafed by God unto them through Jesus Christ, then in any righteousnesse whatsoever (even remission of sinnes it selfe not excepted, (as was proved more at large in the 12th. Chapter of the former part of this Treatise. The reason whereof may (haply) be this: because the life and blessednesse which come by Jesus Christ to the world through Faith, are of a farre higher nature, excel­lencie, and worth, than that life which was covenanted by God with Adam, by way of wages for his worke, or obedience to the Law; and therefore require a higher, and fuller, and richer capacity or title in the creature, to in­teresse him therein, than that did. Worke or labour faith­fully performed, is sufficient to entitle a man to his wages, or hire: the labourer (saith Christ) is worthy of his hire: but the gift of an inheritance, requireth a speciall grace and favour, no lesse than of an Adoption to make a man regularly, and according to the usuall course of humane transactions capable thereof.

That satisfaction which Christ made to the justice of God for sin, Conclusion 6 SECT. 7 and whereby he procured remission of sinnes (or, perfect righteousnesse) and reconciliation with God for those that beleeve, See Mr. Gataker against Goma­rus. p. 4.15.25. And Paraus de Iustit. Christi. Act. & pass. p. 168. & 180. consists onely in that obedience of his, which he performed to that peculiar and speciall Law of mediation which God imposed upon him (which we commonly, though perhaps not altogether so properly call his passive obedience) and not at all in that obedience or subjection which he exhibited to that com­mon Law of nature, which we call morall. This is evi­dent; because nothing can be satisfactory to divine ju­stice for sinne, but that which is penall, without shed­ding of blood (saith the Apostle, Heb. 9.22) there is no remission, and consequently no satisfaction: for doubt­lesse [Page 10]where there is satisfaction; there is, and may be remission. Now that that obedience or subjection which Christ exhibited to the morall Law, was no wayes penall to him, is evident from hence: Penall to him in respect of his Godhead it could not be, the divine Na­ture being no wayes passive in it selfe, nor capable of punishment. Againe, in respect of his humane nature, this obedience could not be penall, because it was re­quired of man in his innocency, and imposed by God upon Adam before his fall: yea, and still lieth, and shall he to the dayes of eternity, upon men and Angels, yea and upon Jesus Christ himselfe in their glorified conditions. Love (which the Apostle affirmeth to be the fulfilling or keeping of the Law) never falleth away. Therefore to make obedience to the morall Law, penall, is to affirme, that man was punished; and that by order and appoint­ment from God before his fall, or before hee sinned, and that the glorified Saints and Angels, yea and Iesus Christ himselfe are now punished in heaven.

Besides, the Scriptures themselves no where ascribe this satisfaction we speak of, or the work of Redemption, nor any part or degree of it to the holinesse, innocency, or active obedience of Christ, but still to his passive. See Rom. 3.25. Rom. 5.6, 8. 2 Cor. 5.21, Eph. 1.7. Ephe. 2.16. Col. 1.14. Heb. 2.14. Heb. 9.12.14.26. Heb. 10.10. 1 Pet. 2.24. 1 Pet. 3.18, 1 Iohn 1.7. Revel. 1.5. &c. Besides many other places of like importance, Conclusion 7 But this is a point which I have had occasion to prosecute more at large elsewhere, SECT. 8 where I have fully answered that common answer and exception to these and such like Scriptures, See Mr. Gataker against Goma­rus, p. 8.19.20. &c. Qui verò obedi­entiae activae, aut sanctitati nati­vae, meritum justitia ascri­bun [...], mortem Christi fine du­bio inanem red­dunt. Par. de Iustic. Christi Activa & Pas­ [...]va. p. 181.182. that they are all figurative, and by a Synechdoche, expresse the whole by mentioning only a part. Therefore I shall not further insist upon this here.

If Christ had fulfilled and kept the Law for us, i. in our steed till the utmost period of his life, there had beene no occasion or necessity of his dying for us. There is no light clearer than this. For if we stand before God by vertue of the perfect obedience of Christs life imputed to us as our owne righteousnesse and obedience to the Law, perfectly righteous, we are no more obnoxious to the curse of the Law, and consequently have no neede of any satisfaction [Page 11]to divine justice, nor of any remission of sinnes by blood. Duo ista pronust­ciata, Christu [...] sanguinis effusio­ne redemit nes ab execratione legis, & Chri­stus obedientiam pr [...]stitit pro [...] ­bis, implicant contradictionem. Piscator. There needs nothing more to a perfect justification, than a perfect righteousnesse, or a perfect fulfilling of the Law. This the Apostle clearely layeth downe, Gal. 2.21. If righ­teousnesse be by the Law (whether performed by our selves, or by another for us, for there is the same reason of both in respect of justification) then Christ is dead in vaine. This proposition is so cleare, and full of the light of its owne truth, that both Piscator, and Pareus heretofore, and Mr. Gataker of late, have not simply affirmed, but with more than an ordinary confidence avouched, that to hold an imputation of the active obedience of Christ a­mounts to no lesse than an abrogation of his death. But this consequence also (I remember) I have argued more at large in the 13. Chap. of the former Part of this Treatise, and therefore for the present leave it. Conclusi. 8

That Vnion and Communion which true beleevers have with Christ, SECT. 9 doth no wayes require or suppose any such imputation of his righteousnesse unto them, as is conceived. That Vnion and Communion which the wife hath with the husband, doth not require, that whatsoever the husband hath should be imputed to the wife, or that the wife should be reputed to have whatsoever the hus­band hath. The wife is not reputed wise, because the husband is wise, she may be weake and simple notwith­standing, and justly so reputed to be: neither is the hone­stie or faithfulnesse of the husband in marriage so imputed to the wife, and therefore she must be reputed faithfull and honest in the same kinde. The wife may be loose and false, and deservedly so esteemed by all men, notwith­standing her union and communion with an husband, of upright affections, neither doth the union and com­munion which the rest of the members of the body have with the head, necessarily require, that whatsoever the Head hath or doth, should be imputed to all the mem­bers respectively. The eyes which are in the head, are not imputed to the hands or feete, nor the eares which grow upon the head, imputed to the heeles, nor the actions or naturall functions of seeing and hearing, the one perfor­med by the eyes, the other by the eares, imputed to the armes or legges, so that these should be said either to see [Page 12]or to heare as they doe. In like manner there is not the least shew or colour of pretence, to build a necessity of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to beleevers, upon that union and communion which they have with him, or to conclude and inferre, that because beleevers have union and communion with Christ, therefore his righ­teousnesse must be theirs in such a sence, that they may have the denomination of righteous therefrom, or be con­stituted and made righteous therewith. May it not be said with as much reason, that because beleevers have union and communion with Christ, therefore his soule and his body must needs be imputed to them, yea and his wisedome, and his power, and his glory imputed to them also, so that they are esteemed by God, as wise, as power­full, as glorious by vertue of such imputation, as Christ himselfe is.

That union and communion which beleevers have with Christ, SECT. 10 are sufficiently, yea abundantly salved and made good in these and such like particulars. 1. By ver­tue of this union and communion with him, they are actuall members of that mysticall and blessed body or society, whereof he is the head. 2. They are partakers of the same spirit with him who dwelleth in them, as he dwelleth in Christ himself. 3. They have communion & fellowship in the same fruits and effects of the Spirit with him. 4. By vertue of this union and communion with him they have part and fellowship in that Redemption, which he hath purchased with his blood. 5. They have speciall interest in that infinite wisedome and power of his, as in all other perfections, and excellent endowments of his person, whereby he is both every wayes able, and alwayes ready and willing to doe marvellously for them, and to ad­vance the things of their peace. 6. they have a compleate right and title to that immortall and undefiled inheri­tance, which is reserved in the heavens. 7. They have communion and fellowship with God himselfe, and spe­ciall interest in his love. 8. And lastly, they have com­munion and fellowship one with another, and are deare­ly and deepely interessed in the mutuall affections one of another, besides many other rich priviledges of like na­ture, and of very precious concernment. So that to deny [Page 13]the imputation of Christs righteousnes is no more to deny or any wayes to obscure their union & communion with Christ, than to deny that the miracles which Christ wrought are imputed to us, or than to deny that a man seeth with his hands, or healeth with his heeles, is a de­nying that the members of the body have any connexion, union or communion, with the head.

The sinne in of Adam is no where in Scripture said to be imputed to his posterity: Conclusi. 9 SECT. 11 neither can any other impu­tation thereof be proved, either by Scripture or sound rea­son, than that which stands, either in a communion of all his posteritie with him therin (the second Adam only excep­ted, who for divers reasons was an exempt person) or els in a propagation of his nature defiled therewith, or lastly, in that punishment or condemnation that is come upon the world by it. But as for any such imputation of it, by vertue whereof, precisely considered, and simply as an act of Gods justice, all his posterity should be constituted and made formally sinners, neither doe the Scriptures acknowledge, nor sound reason admit. The former clause of this Conclusion is unquestionable. The Scriptures wheresoever they speake of Adams sin, and the relation of it to his posterity, wholly abstaine from the terme of im­putation, neither doe they use any other word or phrase in this Argument of like signification and importance with it, at least in that notion and sence, wherein it is so frequently used by many in this controversie. But first, they acknowledge a communion betweene Adam and his posterity (except the before excepted) in this sin, in respect whereof, the sinne may as well be attributed to any, and to all of his posterity, as to Adam himselfe, as Abrahams act of paying tythes to Melchizedeth, is ascribed to Levie being in his loynes, as well as to Abraham himselfe. And to say as the thing is (saith the Holy Ghost, Heb. 7.9.) Levie also which receiveth tythes, paied tythes in Abraham. The truth and propriety of which saying, he makes good by this demon­stration in the next words. For he was yet in the loynes of his Father [Abraham] when Melchizedech met him. It is not here said, that Abrahams paying tythes, was imputed to Levie, but that Levie himselfe payed tythes (in that act of Abrahams) as well as Abraham. So that this act of paying tythes, was [Page 14]as well Levies act, as Abrahams, and is imputed to him not as Abrahams act, but as his owne. In like manner the Scripture plainely affirmeth, that all Adams posterity sinn'd in Adam (in that first sinne of his especially) Rom. 5.12. but it no where affirmeth, that Adams sinne is impu­ted to them. Their owne sinne in Adam, may with good propriety of speech, and safety of truth, be said to be im­puted to them: but that Adams sinne, otherwise than as it is or was theirs, as well as his, by reason of that subsi­stance and being they had in him or in his loynes, should be imputed to them, hath neither ground in Scripture, nor consistence either with reason or truth.

That old rule in Metaphysiques, SECT. 12 Operatio rei consequitur esse rei, i. the Acts or operations of things still follow the being of things, and are proportionable and suteable thereunto, is sound and rationall, and of perfect a­greement with that Scripture Reason, cited from Heb. 7.10. There are severall kinds of beings and subsistences of things. A thing may have its being, either in causis, or extra causas, i. either in the causes of it onely, or out of the causes viz. when it is actually produced and in a compleate being. Againe, those things that have their beings onely in their causes, may have their being either in their su­pernaturall causes onely, as the counsell, purpose, and power of God; or in the naturall causes also, that is, when such things have an actuall and compleate being, which according to the common course of nature and provi­dence, are able and apt to produce them. Thus in Winter, the Rose may be said to have a being in the roote of that shrubbe that is apt to beare it in Summer, the naturall season for such births Thus Levie (as we heard) is said to have beene, i. to have had a being, in the loynes of Abraham. And this all mankinde, even Adams whole posterity, had a being and subsistence in Adam. Now there are none of these kinds of beings and subsistences of things, but have their acts and operations proportionable and proper to them; the perfecter being, the perfecter and lesse de­pendent operation. Things that have an actuall and compleate being out of their causes, act, and worke of themselves, their causes that produced them, as such, having no communion or fellowship with them [Page 15]in their actions: Things that have their beings onely in their causes, act and operate in, and by, and with these onely, as having their whole dependence on them, and subsistence in them, yet are these acts and operations of things in their causes onely, as truely theirs, though not as perfectly and compleately theirs as they are the causes themselves, in and by whom they were performed. Thus Levie did as truely pay tythes in Abraham, as Abraham him­selfe did, in whom he paied them, otherwise wee make the Scripture lesse true, in affirming the one, then the o­ther. So that act of eating the forbidden fruit by Adam, was as truely the act of all his posterity, as his owne, though not so compleately and perfectly theirs, as his, hee having no dependance on them, or subsistence in any of them therein, but they all depending on him, as one in and by whom God had given them all their be­ings, and having their subsistence in him, as the naturall productive roote of all their actuall & compleate beings. The Fathers generally have taught this in­existence or be­ing of all men in Adam. Fuit Adam, & in illo perierunt omnes. Amb. in Luc. lib. 7. Adam erat nos omnes: omnes eramus ille unus Adam. Cer­tum manifestum­que est, alia esse propria cuique peccata, in qui­bus hi tantum peccant, quorum peccata sunt, a­liud hoc unum, in quo omnes pecca­verunt, quando omnes ille unus homo suerunt. Aug. de Peccat. Merit. & Remis. l. 1. c. 10. In A­damo omnes pec­cavimus ib. c. 13. Si parvuli, quod vera fides habet, nasiuntur pecca­tore [...], profecto eo modo quo sunt: peccatores, etiam pravaticato­res legis illius, quae in Paradise lata est, agnos­cuntur, Aug. de Civi. l. 16. c. 27. Qui non fuerit regeneratus, in­teribit, anima illa de genere ejus, quia testa­mentum meum dissipavit, quan­do in Adam cum omnibus etiam ipse peccavit, ib. There being then a certaine and unquestionable truth, in this, that Adams sinne, was the sinne of his posteritie, as well as of his person, this the Scripture affirmeth and hold­eth forth unto us, as one maine ground and considera­tion, why and how the world comes to be involved in the guilt and punishment of Adams transgression.

2. Adams sinne comes to relate or to have reference to his posteritie, in matter of pollution and defilement, and consequently of guilt and punishment by naturall descent and propagation from him. Adams person, the fountaine and spring-head of all his posteritie, being corrupted and poysoned with him, except God should have wrought miraculously and above the course of nature, either by a through purging of the fountaine, before any streame is­sued from it, or by dissevering and untwisting (as it were) the poyson from the waters, in the very point and mo­ment of their issue and source (neither of which he was any wayes bound to doe) could not but send forth streames of like corruption and defilement with the foun­taine it selfe. This the Scripture plainely teacheth in ma­ny places. Who can bring a cleane thing out of an uncleane? not one, Iob 14.4. God himselfe by his ordinary power can­not doe it. So our Saviour, Ioh. 3.6. That which is borne of [Page 16]the flesh [corrupted and weakened by sinne] is [by the course of nature, whereunto God himselfe hath righte­ously consented] flesh, i. a creature or thing of the same sin­full and weake nature and condition with it. And (to forbeare other texts of like importance this way) the Apostle, Rom. 5.19. expresly affirmeth, that by the diso­bedience of one (meaning Adam) many were made sinners: not by the imputation of the Act of his sinne to them (this is neither Sunne, nor Moone, neither Scripture, nor good Reason) but by corrupting and defiling his owne person, by reason whereof, all that are borne of him in a way of naturall dissent and propagation, must needs be borne sinners.

3. (And lastly) death and condemnation are justly come upon the world, no so much (to speake properly, and with the Scriptures) for Adams transgression, as by Adams transgression, partly as this transgression of his was the sinne and transgression of the world (as hath beene already said and proved) partly as by meanes of this sin, the world, I meane all the sonnes and daughters of men that are borne into it, are become personally (and so com­pleately sinfull. In this sence, it is said, that by the offence of one death reigned (viz. over all) by one) Rom. 5.17. and so that death passed over all, in that all had sinned, ver. 12. And againe, that judgement came by one unto condemnation, ver. 16. And that all men by nature are children of wrath, &c. Ephes. 23. If men can find any propriety in the word Imputation, to signifie any of these three Considerations, let the sinne of Adam be said to be imputed to his posterity, I shall no wayes contradict it: but for any such imputation, as is pretended and pressed by many, by which men should be constituted and made formally sinners before God, and the sinne no wayes looked upon as theirs, but onely by meanes of such imputation. I neither finde the Scriptures affirming, nor am otherwise able to comprehend.

Though justification and salvation came unto the world by Christ the second Adam, Concusi. 10 sect. 14 as condemnation and death came by the first Adam, yet are there many different considerations and circumstances, betweene the com­ming and bringing in of salvation by the one, and of con­demnation by the other. The Apostle himselfe gives in­stance [Page 17]in two particulars wherein they differ greatly, Rom. 5.15.16. And besides these, there are many others. As first, the sinne of Adam, by which he brought condem­nation upon the world, was as well the act of all his poste­ritie as his owne, in which respect they may as truely be said to have brought condemnation upon themselves, as Adam, but that obedience, by which Christ brought sal­vation into the world, can with no propriety of speech, nor with any consistence of truth, be said to have beene theirs, or performed by them, who are saved by it, so that these cannot now be said with any more truth to have saved themselves, then if they had not beene saved at all. It is said indeede, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himselfe, 2 Cor. 5.19. But it is no where said, that the world was in Christ reconciling it selfe unto God. 2. A­dam by his sinne brought condemnation upon those who were in his loynes, and had a naturall being in him: but Christ by his obedience brought salvation unto them, that had no such relation to him, nor any being or subsistance in him, either naturall or spirituall (which is by faith) but were wholly aliens and strangers from him, yea and enemies to him. 3. All those that are condemned by Adam had their being in him altogether, at one and the same time. Caine was not in Adam, before Iudas, nor Iudas after Caine, but amongst those that are saved by Christ; there is an order and difference of time in respect of their ingraf­fing into him: some are sooner, and some later in him. Andronicus, and Iunia Pauls Cozens, were in Christ before him, Rom. 16.7. 4. That disobedience of Adam by which he brought condemnation upon the world, was active: but that obedience by which Christ brings salvation to the world, is passive, as hath beene already proved, and may further appeare by comparing, Rom. 5.19. with Phil. 2.8. &c. 5. And lastly, the whole weight of the Redemp­tion and salvation of the world by Christ, depended upon the merit and satisfactorinesse of that obedience of his by which it was procured, and not at all upon any relation of those to him or seminall involution or comprehension in him, for whom it was procured but the burthen of the condemnation comming by the transgression of Adam, depended not onely (or not so much) upon the demerit, [Page 18]or offensivenesse of the transgression but upon the relation of those to him who were condemned by him, as having a true naturall and seminall being in him or in his loynes, when he transgressed. So that though the sin of Adam had bin of an inferior nature and of lesse demerit & provoca­tion in the sight of God than it was, yet might Adams po­steritie justly have bin involv'd in the same condemna­tion by it, wherein now it is, but if the obedience or sufferings of Christ had beene of lesse value, merit, ac­ceptation or satisfaction then they were, the redemption and salvation of the world, could not have beene carried out, or obtained by them.

Hence the different manner of the Scriptures speaking of the one and of the other, SECT. 15 is very considerable, when it speakes of the Redemption or Iustification by Christ, it sometimes useth an expression, importing the worth, me­rit, or acceptation of Christ in his sufferings, as where God is said for Christs sake to have forgiven us our sins, as Eph. 4.32. But when it speaketh of the condemnation of the world by Adam, it no where saith, that God for Adams sake, subjected the world to death and condemna­tion but only thus, By one man sinne entred into the world, and death by sin, Rom. 5.12. And againe, through the offence of one many are dead, ver. 15. Againe, By one mans offence death reigned by one, ver. 17. with many the like, still using termes and expressions, which doe not necessarily import the sinne of Adam to have beene the meritorious or deme­ritorious cause, (though this be not denied) but rather the instrumentall and mediating cause simply of this con­demnation. It is true, the vertue and efficacie of the pas­sive obedience of Christ it selfe, whereby the salvation of the world is purchased, is many times expressed by the fame propositions or particles of speech, By, and Through, as Rom 5.11. By him we have received the attonement, &c. but there is nothing more frequent in the Scriptures then to speake that sparingly, and in generall termes onely in one place, which it speaketh fully, and with exactnesse, in an­other. But when it useth expressions constantly of one and the same line and importance, and never riseth higher, there can be no ground from the Scriptures, of conceiving any thing above or beyond such expressions, [Page 19]in any subject; as on the other hand, when we have ex­pressions that are richer and fuller, and more distinct in any place, we are not to measure or confine our appre­hensions and understandings of things to those that are lower and more generall. As in the case in hand, the more frequent expressions are, that, by Christ, or through Christ, and so by his blood, or thorough his blood, &c. we have Redemption, or Remission of sinnes: yet must we not from hence conclude, that therefore Christ, or his blood are barely an instrumentall cause or meanes of Redemption, and have nothing of merit in them, because these particles, by and through, usually signifie an instru­mentall efficiencie, and no more: the reason is, because the Scripture elsewhere supplieth that which is wanting in such expressions as these, and represents to us that speciall and peculiar kinde of efficiencie, which we call meritori­ous in Christ and his sufferings. And had it bin simply the demerit or offensivenesse of Adams sin that had brought the judgement or condemnation upon his posterity, there can hardly any reason be given, why the sin of the Angels that fell, should not have brought the like judgement and condemnation upon their whole creation: because doubt­lesse the sin of these Angels, was every whit as demeritori­ous, and full of provocation, as the sinne of Adam was.

And therefore (by the way) they that use our English Translation onely, had neede be admonished, SECT. 16 that they take the word, OFFENCE (as the Originall [...], is five or sixe times translated in that one Chapter, Rom. 5.) not, as commonly it is taken, in an active signification, or sence, as if it were either simply or principally the of­fensivenesse of Adams sinne to God, or the height of the de­merit thereof, that inclin'd or moved him to bring death and condemnation upon the world for it, but rather in a passive (which is the sence that the Originall directly leadeth unto) i. for a sinfull stumbling (as it were) or mis­carriage, not out of envie, malice, or other sinister end or intention, which are the maine aggravations of a sin, and raising the offensivenesse of it to the greatest height, but out of an inconsideratenesse or incogitancie, which though it be no cloake for sinne, yet is it a roote of the least bitternesse or provocation, from whence it is lightly [Page 20]possible for sinne to spring. And doubtlesse (to speede this Conclusion as fast as wee can) the consideration of that difference betweene the first and second Adam, which we have in hand, I meane in respect of the great disproportion betweene the demerit of the one, and merit of the other, is the ground and bottome of that notable and comforta­ble difference betweene them, wherein the Apostle so triumpheth, Rom. 5.15. reasoning and raising up himselfe and others after this manner: but not as the offence, so also is the free gift, viz. in respect of an equall efficacie and power in the one to condemne, and in the other to justifie and save: there is a great difference betweene them in this regard; For if through the offence of one, many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man Iesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. i. [...], &c. q.d. If the sinne of Adam being but a [...], an inconsiderate stumbling, or a sinne pro­ceeding from incogitancie, and Adam hmselfe but one, hath yet beene able to involve many. i. his whole poste­ritie, all that shall be borne of him, in death and condem­nation; much more must it needs be conceived, that the grace, i. the gracious intent & purpose of God towards men, and the gift by that grace, viz. of righteousnes & justification, by such a man as Iesus Christ is, who is both God and man, should abound unto many, i. justifie and save with farre greater efficacie power, and authority, (and as it were) with an higher hand, all those that by spirituall regeneration and a true faith shall descend from him. The strēngth of of the Apostles reasoning and inference in this passage Scripture, lyeth in this. The salvation of the world (faith he) must needs proceede with farre higher hand by Christ, then the condemnation of it did, or doth by Adam; Because 1. The foundation and ground worke of the one, was the free and gracious intent and purpose of God, which is a stronger, and more active and lively prin­ciple or spring to set all the wheeles and worke on going that depend upon it then a permissive decree onely, which (as seemeth here intimated and imployed) is the maine foundation the other ( viz. the condemnation of the world by Adam) had, in respect of God. This permis­sive decree, though it be as cleare as the other, in respect [Page 21]of the event and comming to passe of such things as are comprehended in it, yet is the motion of it but slow and heavie in comparison of the other. Gods permissive de­crees are chiefely executed by second meanes, or by occa­sion, of his withdrawing himselfe and leaving the crea­ture to it selfe: but his gracious decrees have his heart and soule and strength, and might in their execution. And secondly, (that which is the more proper and immediate cause of the difference here laid downe by the Apostle) the condemnation of the world, as touching matter of provocation and offence given unto God, proceeds onely in the demerit and strength [...], of one in­considerate act of sinne, and that [...], from one onely meere man, whereas the salvation of the world, ad­vanceth in the strength of such a righteousnesse, attone­ment, or justification, as was procured indeed by one man, but this one man was Jesus Christ, who is valuable with thousand thousands of men, and ten thousand times ten thousand thousands. So that what he hath purposely, and with all his might done for the justification and salva­tion of the world, must needs be of an incomparable farre greater efficacie to carry these before it, then the stumbling, or unadvised sinne of one poore, meere, and meane man (in comparison) can be to procure the con­demnation of it.

Onely I desire that it should be here considered and re­membered, that there is nothing said in all this Conclu­sion, any wayes to extenuate, either the demerit or guilt of Adams sinne, beneath their just proportions and de­grees, but onely to shew, that there is a great excesse of merit in the obedience of Christ, above the rate and pro­portion of demerit in the disobedience of Adam.

There being these and other differences betweene Adam, in his condemning the world, and Christ in his Act or Worke in saving it: it is evident that all such arguments or reasonings which are drawne from specialites and par­ticularities of agreement betweene them, are invalid and insufficient, except they have some other foundation to beare them.

That which makes a true and lively Faith instrumen­tall in Justification, Conclusi. 11 SECT. 17 is nothing that is essentiall or natu­rall [Page 22]to it, whether descent, propertie or act, but somewhat that is extrinsecall, and purely adventitious, viz. the force and efficacie of that will, good pleasure, ordination, co­venant, and appointment of God in that behalfe. As it was neither the stature nor comelinesse of Aarons person, nor his descent from Levie, nor his grace, nor his wise­dome, nor his knowledge, nor any service formerly done by him, either unto God, or his Church, nor any thing that in any proprietie of speech could be called his, that made him an high Priest, but Gods calling him unto, and investing him with that honour and function; he might have beene all that hee was otherwise, and might have done all that hee did otherwise, and yet without this a­nointing and appointment from God, another might have beene high Priest, and not he: So might Faith have beene Faith, both in the Originall and descent of it from the Spirit of God, as likewise in all that native beautie and excellencie that belongs to it, yea and put forth all those acts, which otherwise it puts forth, as to bring men to Christ, to lay hold of Christ, &c. and yet never have attained the honour that is now put upon it, never have beene instrumentall in Justification. And as the same anointing or calling from God, which were confer'd upon Aaron, would have made any other man Priest, though of another Tribe, though lesse gracefull of person, of meaner gifts and abilities every-wayes than Aaron was, had they beene conferred upon him; so had any o­ther grace, as love, patience, temperance, or the like, the force and power of the same covenant or ordination from God to assist them, it cannot be conceived, but that any of these would justifie as effectually, as faith it selfe now doth. Therefore it is unquestionably evident, that Faith doth not justifie, as it relates to Christ or as it apprehends him, or redemption by him, or the like, because all these, and such like properties or acts as these are essentiall and naturall unto Faith (I meane to such a Faith as we speake of) and that Faith which hath not, or doth not all this, is no true, lively, or effectuall Faith, or instrumentall in justification: Wherefore, if Faith should justifie in re­gard, or by vertue of any of these, it should justifie by it selfe, or by some dignity, quality, or act that is proper to [Page 23]it, or inherent in it. Hence it is that Scripture still suspends the justifying power or propertie of Faith, upon the will, free grace, and good pleasure of God, but never upon any act or qualitie proper to it selfe. This is the will of him that sent me (saith our Saviour, Ioh. 6.40.) that every man that seeth the Sonne, and beleeveth in him should have everlasting life, &c. clearely implying. 1. That it is not any seeing of Christ, either corporally or spiritually, nor any beleeving in him that could carry eternall life, had it not the effica­cie of the will of God to strengthen it thereunto. And 2 that had this Will of God fallen in conjunction with any other grace, or act of grace besides Faith they would have carried eternall life; after the same manner, and with as high an hand, as beleeving now doth. Naamans leprosie was cureable onely by the waters of Iordan, why? because the will and decree of God concerning this effect were upon these waters, and upon these onely; Abana and Pharpar, or any other River whatsoever would have done as much, had the same decree of God concurred with them. When causes have an intrinsecall and natu­rall power and efficacie to produce their effects, it is very improper (if not ridiculous) to ascribe such effects to the will and good pleasure of God. As to say it is the will of God, that the grace of patience should make a man pati­ent, or the grace of humility, should make a man hum­ble, or that such an element as we call fire, should burne, or the like, though there be a truth in them; yet there is so little savour or weight of truth in them, that such say­ings are not worthy the holy Ghost, and neither these nor any of their fellowes of like importance to be found in the whole Booke of God. So to say, that it is the Will of God, that beleeving in Christ should justifie, and so save men, if beleeving in Christ simply as it is beleeving in Christ did it, were an eccentricall expression, and no where to be parallell'd in the Scriptures, I might adde many other Scriptures, as Ioh. 1.12. where it is said, that to those that received Christ, i. that beleeved in him, God gave the power or prerogative to be his Sonnes, i. de­creed that such should be Sonnes unto him, and by ver­tue of such a decree, really made them such upon their be­leeving; which clearely shewes, that beleeving in Christ, [Page 24]as such, doth not make a Son of God, but receives this power or prerogative by especiall guift from God: which gift might have beene given to any other grace, as well as beleeving. So Eph. 2.8. By grace ye are saved, through Faith, viz. in Christ: therefore Faith doth not save simp­ly, as, or because Christ is the object of it, but by the effi­cacie and force of that gracious and good pleasure of God whereby he hath covenanted with his creature that such a Faith shall save it; which good pleasure or Covenant of God with men concerning Faith, is called, Rom. 3.27. the Law of Faith which Law is that which gives it that strength and power which it now hath, to justifie and save. It were easie to make this pile of Scriptures large: but those that have beene touched, are sufficient to shew which way they generally incline in this particu­lar.

Neither is that common plea, SECT. 18 which is so frequently insisted upon, to prove the contrary, viz. that Faith justi­fieth in relation to its object, or as it receiveth and ap­prehendeth Christ, or Christs righteousnesse, or the like, of any value, if it be duely considered. The strength of the argument is usually bound up in this similitude. As the hand is said to enrich a man, because it receives the money or treasure, whereby he is inriched; so Faith must needs be said to justifie, because it receives Christ, who is our righteousnesse, and by whom we are justified. To this I answer, that it is not simply the taking silver or gold with the hand, that enricheth a man, no nor the sil­ver or gold so taken, that simply enricheth him. A man may be never the richer for receiving great summes of money of silver and gold; nay, a man may be much the poorer and more miserable for receiving or taking mo­ney, if he receives or takes it contrary to the Lawes: As when a thiefe breakes into an house, and takes away much treasure with him, or puts forth his hand to take a mans purse by the high-wayes side; his hand in these cases cannot be said to make him rich because it receives treasure: neither doth the treasure so received make him rich, but poore and miserable, because now he is ob­noxious to the sentence of the Law, and ownes his life and all he is worth besides, unto it. Therefore if a mans [Page 25]hand enricheth him by receiving that which doth enrich him, it doth it not simply as it receiveth it (for then it should doe it alwayes, and in all cases whatsoever) but it doth it by vertue of that Law, or agreement of the state where he lives, which secureth a man in the quiet pos­session and enjoyment, of such money or treasure, as hee lawfully receives to his owne use. So, though Christ be a treasure of righteousnesse and justification in himselfe it doth not presently follow, that whosoever takes hold on him, or beleeves in him, should presently be made righ­teous, or justified by him: but here must intervene some Law, Covenant, or Decree from God, to establish and authorize such a beleeving or laying hold on him to be a mans righteousnesse or justification. Wee doe not sup­pose they can, but for argument sake we will suppose, that if the Devills should beleeve on Christ, hoping, or ex­pecting to be justified by him as men doe, who beleeving are justified, yet they should be never the nearer any ju­stification by him, though he be a treasure of righteous­nesse. Why? because God hath made no Law, Promise, Covenant, or agreement with them, that they should be justified by Faith: therefore if it were possible for them to beleeve as men doe, yet Christ would be no more any righteousnesse unto them than now he is.

Much more might be said (and may be said elsewhere) for the evidencing of this Conclusion: but here I would hasten. In the meane time I desire to explaine my selfe a little further; touching this Conclusion, onely in two words. When I denie that Faith justifieth in its relation to its object, or as it layeth hold on Christ; I am farre from saying, or conceiving that any Faith should justifie, but that onely which layeth hold on Christ; yea, I grant, and verily beleeve, that whereas there are many other acts of Faith besides beleeving or laying hold on Christ, as viz. to comfort and strengthen and purifie the hearts of those that beleeve, and the like, yet that decree or good pleasure of God, which (I conceive makes Faith justify­ing, concurres with it towards this great effect, onely in that act of laying hold on Christ, and not in any of the other. So, that in this sence, I grant & hold that Faith may be said to justifie, as it layeth hold of Christ comparative­ly, [Page 26] viz. as this act of Faith is distinguished, from those o­ther acts, which it likewise produceth; it doth not justi­fie, either as it comforts, or as it purifies the heart, &c. but onely as it relateth to Christ, and layeth hold on him. This onely is that which I deny, that this act of Faith, where­by it receiveth or layeth hold on Christ, hath that in the nature, or inherently in it, or any otherwise, or by any other meanes, then from the will and good pleasure of God, which makes it availeable unto justification.

It hath no foundation, Conclus. 12 either in the Scriptures or Rea­sons to say, SECT. 19 that Christ by any imputation of sinne, was made formally a sinner: nor that sinne in any other sence should be said to be imputed to him, then as the punish­ment due unto it was inflicted on him. I shall not neede to insist upon the justification of this Conclusion partly because it hath beene sufficiently argued and cleered in the former part of this Treatise: Cap. 19. Sect. 1.2. but chiefely, because it is given in with both hands by the chiefe masters of that way of Imputation which we oppose. Christ (saith Bishop Downham Tract of Iu­stifica. p. 40.) was made sinne, or a sinner, by our sinnes, not formally (God forbid) but by imputation, &c. And Bishop Davenant De Iustit. Ha­bit. [...]einhaerent. Desp. c. 24. p. 33. Voluit Christus peccata ita in se suscipere, ut non inde peccator, sed hostia pro pecca­to constitueretur. idem. p. 333. calls it a thing repugnant to the salvati­on of men, and blasphemous once to imagine, that Christ should be made wicked, [ i. formally a sinner] by any imputation of sinne to him. And a little before, hee makes the impu [...]ation of sinne to Christ, to stand in the translation of the punishment of sinne, and curse of the Law upon him. And in another place, Christ was wil­ling so farre to take our sinnes upon him, not as to be made a sinner hereby, but [onely] a sacrifice for sinne. So that if the men with whom wee have to doe in this busi­nesse of imputation, would but stand their owne ground, and walke peaceably with their owne principles, wee should soone comprimize. For their great maxime is, that in that manner wherein our sinnes are imputed unto Christ, in the same Christs righteousnesse is imputed un­to us. If so, then are not we made formally righteous by any righteousnesse of Christ imputed to us because Christ is not made formally a sinner by any sinne of ours im­puted to him. Conclusi. 13 SECT. 20

Faith doth not onely (if at all declare a man to be righ­teous, [Page 27]or in a justified estate, but is the very meanes by which Justification or righteousnesse is obtained, so that no man is to be reputed (nor indeede is) a person justi­fied in the sight of God (specially if we speake of yeares of discretion) untill hee obtaines this grace of justifica­tion, by beleeving. This is the constant Doctrine of the Scriptures: and there is not one of many of our Refor­med Divines that doe oppose it. He that beleeveth not (saith our Saviour himselfe, Mar. 16.16.) shall be damned. If Justification were in order of time before faith, it might very possibly be that many might escape damnation, who yet never beleeved, because they might die in that interim of time, which is supposed to lie betweene a mans justifi­cation, and his beleeving. The like argument might be framed from that passage also, Ioh. 8.24. Except you beleeve that I am he, you shall die in your sinnes. But there are other texts of Scripture so pregnant for this truth, that there is no rising up with reason against them. Therfore we conclude (saith the Apostle) that a man is justified by Faith, with­out the works of the Law, Rom. 3.28. That which hee had laboured hitherto, and laboureth on in some Chapters following, to prove, was not how, or by what meanes a man might know, or be declared, either to himselfe or others that he is a justified person, but how and by what meanes he might come to be justified. These two are of a very farre differing consideration and importance. It is of a thousand times more concernement to a man to be justified, than to know that he is justified. Besides, if the Apostles scope and intent here had beene to argue the de­claration, or to propound the meanes of a discovery or manifestation of a person justified, and not simply to prove and shew, how and by what meanes justification it selfe is to be attained, there can no reason be given, ei­ther why he should have excluded the workes of the Law, or insisted upon Faith, rather than many other gra­ces, as love, patience, &c. especially why he should have insisted on Faith onely; without the association of other graces. For it is certaine, that obedience to the Law, and so love, patience, temperance, humilitie, &c. are as effe­ctuall, nay, have a preheminence above Faith it selfe, for the discovery of a man in the estate of Justification. Shew [Page 28]me thy faith by thy workes, and I will shew thee my faith by my workes, Iam. 2.18. Therefore workes are more easie to be seene, and more apt for discovery or manifestation, then Faith: for that which discovereth or maketh things ma­nifest, is light ( Ephes. 5.13.) whereas that which needs manifestation, is darkenesse in (comparison) and there­fore the more unfit and uncapable of being a meanes for the discovery and manifestation of other things. So else­where, love is represented as a grace of speciall use and service this way, I meane for the discovery and manife­station of justification, or of a man in a justified condi­tion, but is never mentioned, as of any use for justifica­tion it selfe. Wee know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brethren, 1 Iohn 3.14.) The Scripture doth not any where ascribe the like discoverie of justifi­cation, unto Faith: but justification it selfe it ascribeth unto Faith againe and againe. Therefore being justified by Faith, &c. Rom. 5.1. So ver. 2. so Gal. 3.8. The Scriptures foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles by faith, &c. It would make a sence very unsavoury and weake, to carry the interpretation of these words, thus. The Scrip­tures foreseeing that God would declare by Faith, that the Gentiles were justified: neither would such a sence any wayes accommodate that which follow­eth.

But I hasten, SECT. 21 passing over many places; wherein Justi­fication it selfe, not the discovery of Justification, is at­tributed unto Faith, and conclude with that one testimo­ny, Gal. 2.16, We knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Iesus Christ, Even we have belee­ved in Iesus Christ, that wee might be justified by the faith of Christ, &c. not because we were righteous or justified, or that we might know our selves to be justified, but that we might be justified by the faith of Iesus. If the Apostle should here speak of a de­clarative justification, there is no relation why he should have excluded the workes of the Law, these being every whit of as declarative an importance this way, as belee­ving it selfe, nay, above it (as we proved before) and the Scripture it selfe plainely intimates: Little children (saith Iohn) let no man deceive you, He that doth righteousnesse is righ­teous, &c. i. is thereby, viz. by his doing righteousnesse, [Page 29]declared to be righteous or a person justified: it is no where said in such a sence, that he that beleeveth, is righ­teous. Therefore it is evident, that the opposition which this Apostle still makes betweene the works of the Law, and beleeving, in the point of justification, is not at all in respect of the notification or discovery of it, either to the justified themselves or others, but simply and absolute­ly in respect of the effecting it. Besides, to make Paul say thus, that they had beleeved in Christ, that they might know that they had beene justified by beleeving in him, is to make him speake at a very low rate of reason, and understanding, and not much short of contradictions. For with what tolerable congruity or construction of reason, can a man be said, to beleeve with this intent, or for this end, that hee may know he is justified by belee­ving? The doing of a thing for a certaine end, is no meanes to certifie, or assure any man, that the end is, or shall be, much lesse that it hath already beene obtained, by the doing it. Much more might be argued both from the Scriptures, and reason, and testimony of Authors for this Conclusion, if it were either necessary or seasonable in this place.

Neither are the things that can be objected against it, SECT. 22 of any such weight, but that they may receive a faire and ready answer. I have heard onely of two Arguments that are made against it. The first is this, If a man must be­leeve, before he be justified, then God doth not justifie the ungodly, because he that beleeveth cannot be counted an ungodly man. To this I answer in few words, that when the Scripture saith, that God justifieth the ungodly, the meaning is not as if the person to be justified must needs be ungodly, i in the midst of his prophanenesse, in the very nicke and instant of time, wherein God justifieth him. But God may be said to be he that justifieth the ungodly, because he hath found out a way and meanes whereby to juftifie sinners and ungodly men, viz. Faith in Jesus Christ, which neither the Law knoweth, nor could ever the wisedome of men or Angels have imagined. The justification of the ungodly is ascribed unto God, as an high and excellent clogium of his wisedome and good­nesse; as when Christ is said to save sinners, the meaning [Page 30]is not, that men are actually wicked and sinfull, when salvation is actually conferr'd upon them, but that he af­fords meanes to those that are sinners, as viz. the grace of Faith, Repentance, &c. whereby they may be (and many are) saved.

Or else secondly Answer might be, that God may be said to justifie, not onely when hee absolves and per­fecteth the act or worke of justification i. when hee passeth a sentence of absolution upon the be­leever, but even when hee beginneth it, i. when he first toucheth, moveth, or incline the heart to beleeve, upon which justification properly so called, dependeth and followeth immediatly. Now before and untill this supernaturall touch or motion of the heart from God, a man in strictnesse and proprietie of speech may be called, ungodly. It is a common rule among Divines for the in­terpretation of many Scriptures: In Scripturis, saepe fieri di­citur, quod fieri incipit. In Scripture that is often said to be done, which is onely begun to be done, and whereof the cause onely is yet in being. Thus Prov. 11.2. Shame is said to come, when pride commeth, viz. because pride is the cause of shame; and Tit. 3.5. God is said to have sa­ved men, when he hath conferred regeneration, or the washing of the new birth upon them, because regenera­tion is a meanes of salvation; besides many like instances that might be added. In like manner justification may be said to come, when Faith commeth; and God may be said to justifie, when he giveth men Faith, whereby they shall be justified, &c. In this sence therefore God may be said to justifie the ungodly, because he giveth Faith unto men being yet sinfull, whereby they are justified.

Thirdly, (and lastly) Further answer might be, that there being no prioritie of time at all but onely of nature between a mans beleeving and his being justified; so that in the very first instant and touch of time wherein he can be conceived truely to beleeve, he is to be conceived ju­stified also; God may as properly be said to justifie the ungodly, though he justifieth onely those that beleeve, as to give Faith, or the grace of beleeving unto the ungodly. The reason is plaine, because in respect of time, a man is as immediately ungodly before his justification, as he is [Page 31]before his beleeving, though he be not justified, SECT. 23 till hee beleeveth.

The later Objections against the Conclusion in hand, is, if a man hath the Spirit of God given him, before hee beleeveth, he must needs be justified before he beleeveth: otherwise it must be said, that a man may have the Spirit of grace and sanctification, and yet be in an estate of wrath and condemnation. And that a man hath, and must have the Spirit of Grace before hee be­leeveth, it is evident, because otherwise he could not be­leeve.

To this I answer, first, by concession, that a man is not able of himselfe, and without the speciall presence and assistance of the Spirit of grace, to raise an act of a true beleeving in his soule.

But secondly, by way of exception, I answer two things, first, that though a man cannot beleeve, without the gracious assistance of the Spirit of God, yet doth it not follow from hence, that there should be the least imaginable distance, or space of time, betweene a mans receiving the Spirit, and his beleeving, wherein hee should remayne liable to condemnation, because the first touch of the Spirit upon the soule, & the act of beleeving, may be, [...], and sticke as fast and close together in respect of time, as the scales of Leviathan doe in respect of place, which (by the description and testimony of God himselfe, who best knowes their composure and frame) are so neere one to another, that no ayre can come between, Ioh. 41.16. The Sunne was not first made, and after­wards shined: but his shining in respect of time, is as ancient as his creation, there was not the least distance or space of time betweene, wherein any thing could be done, or the least motion performed. So may the com­ming of the Spirit of Grace unto the soule, and the act of the soules beleeving, touch in one and the same point of time (an infinit power being able to worke any thing in a moment) in which case it is evident, that there is no place for the inconvenience mentioned in the objection, viz. that a man endued with the spirit of grace should for a time be in an estate of condemnation, except hee were justified before he beleeveth.

2. SECT. 24 Be it supposed that the spirit of grace should be at worke in the soule for any space of time before the soule hath put forth an act of true beleeving, yet till there be a saving worke of Faith wrought by him in the soule, it is no wayes inconvenient nor contrary to truth, to judge the person in an estate of condemnation, though he may be comming on in a way towards justification. As men that never come to be justified, but perish in their sinnes everlastingly, are said to be partakers of the holy Ghost, ( Heb 6.4.) that is, may have many great and excellent workings of the holy Ghost within them, and upon them; so may men to whom the grace of justification (and sal­vation upon it) is intended by God, have the like work­ings of the Spirit upon them for a time, and yet have no worke at all upon them truely saving. i. which hath an essentiall and necessary connexion with salvation. And till some such worke as this is wrought, though the Spirit of God be in them, yet are they under condemnation, and dying in their present condition, without somefurther worke of grace should certainely perish. Now though there may be many workings of the Spirit of God in men before they beleeve, which may be called Saving in regard of their issue and event; yet is there none formally saving, that is, that hath salvation promised unto it, till Faith it selfe be wrought. The first touch of any worke upon the soule, that is, either truly sanctifying, or necessarily saving is that whereby the soule is inabled to touch upon Christ for its justification; neither is the habit of Faith first planted in the soule by the holy Ghost, and afterwards, the soule enabled by it, 'to exercise and put forth an act of beleeving whereby it, is justified: but as the common and more probable opinion is, that fruit-bearing trees, were at first created with ripe fruits upon them, so doth God at first create both the habit and act of faith in the soule in the same moment of time, and not the one before the other. So that the first act of beleeving whereby the creature is primarily justified, is not rais'd out of any pre­existent habit or grace of Faith, as all after acts of be­leeving are, but is as immediately the product or effect of the power of God as the habit of Faith it selfe is; even as the fruits which (according to the opinion mentioned [Page 33]were created with and upon their trees, did not grow out of these trees, nor were produced in a na­turall way by them, as all after fruits growing upon them were, but were as proper and immediate ef­fects of the creative power of God, as the trees themselves. So we see at last, that the conclusion laid downe, is no waies prejudic'd nor shaken by either of these objections. Conclu. 14 SECT. 25

The sentence or curse of the Law, was not proper­ly executed upon Christ in his death, but this death of Christ was a ground or consideration unto God, whereupon to dispence with his Law, and to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty or curse therein threatned. This is evident, because the threatning and curse of the Law, was not at all bent or intended against the innocent or righteous, but against transgressors onely. Therefore God in in­flicting death upon Christ, being innocent & righte­ous, did not follow the purport or intent of the Law. If he had inflicted death upon all the transgressors of the Law, this had bin a direct execution of the Law, because this was that which the Law threatned and intended. But God in spareing and forbearing the transgressors, (who according to the tenor of the Law, should have bin punished) manifestly dispenceth with the Law, and doth not execute it. As when Zaleucus (the Locrian Lawgiver) caused one of his owne eyes to be put out, that one of his Sons eyes might be spared, who according both to the Letter and intent of the Law, should have lost both, he did not precisely execute the Law, but gave a sufficient account or consideration, why it should for that time be dispenced with, and not put into executi­on. In this sense indeed Christ may be said to have undergone or suffered the penalty or curse of the Law: 1 ^o, it was the curse or penalty of the Law, as [Page 34]now hanging over the head of the world, and ready to be executed upon all men for sinne, that occasio­ned his suffering of those things which he endured. Had not the curse of the Law either bin at all, or not incurr'd by man, doubtlesse Christ had not suffered at all. Againe 2 ^o; (and somewhat more properly) Christ may be said to have suffered the curse of the Law, because the things which he suffered, were of the same nature and kind (at least in part) with those things, which God intended by the curse of the Law, against transgressors, namely death. But if by the curse of the Law we understand either that intire systeme and historicall body (as it were) of penalties and e­vills, which the Law it selfe intends in the terme, or else include and take in the intent of the Law as touching the quality of the persons, upon whom it was to be executed; in neither of these senses did Christ suffer the curse of the Law, neither ever hath it, nor ever shall be suffered, by any transgressor of the Law that shall beleeve in him. So that God re­quired the death and sufferings of Christ, not that the Law properly, either in the letter or intention of it, might be executed, but on the contrary, that it might not be executed, I meane upon those, who be­ing otherwise obnoxious unto it should beleeve.

Neither did God require the death and sufferings of Christ as a valuable consideration whereon to dis­pence with his Law towards those that beleeve, SECT. 26 more (if so much) in a way of satisfaction to his justice, then to his wisdome. For (doubtlesse) God might with asmuch justice, as wisdome (if not much more) have passed by the transgression of his Law without consideration or satisfaction. For him that hath a lawfull authority and power, either to impose a Law, or not, in case he shall impose it, it ra­ther concern's in point of wisdome and discretion, [Page 35]not to see his Law despised and trampled upon without satissaction, then in point of justice. No man will say, that in case a man hath bin injured and wrong'd, that therefore he is absolutly bound in Ju­stice, to seeke satisfaction, though he be never so eminent in the grace and practise of Justice: but in many cases of injuries susteyned, a man may be bound in point of wisdome and discretion, to seeke satisfaction in one kind or other. Austin of old, and D. Twist of late, besides many other Orthodox & lear­ned Divines See Mr. Gata­ker Defence of Mr. Wotton. p. 59.60., hold, that God, if it had pleased him, might have pardoned Adams transgression, without the atonement made by the death of Christ. Therfore according to the opinion of these men, it had bin no waies contrary to the Justice of God, nor derogatory to the glory of it, if he had freely pardoned it, with­out any consideration or attonement. Only it is true, his requiring that full satisfaction which hath now bin made by Christ, is very sutable and agree­able to that nature in him which we call JUSTICE, or severity against sinne: and if he had pardoned sinne without it, he had lost or passed over an oppor­tunity of the declaration and manifestation of it to the world, but had done nothing repugnant to it, or to the prejudice or disparagement of it. And thus far I can willingly subscribe to the opinion. But whether such a free and satisfactionlesse condonati­on may be conceived to have had any possible con­sistence with the wisdome of God, (and therefore whether it had bin simply possible or no) I am yet somewhat unsatisfied. For a man to over-slip an opportunity, that might lawfully be taken hold of, and managed by him to some speciall advantage to himselfe, either in point of Reputation, Estate, &c. or the like, is repugnant to the principles of sound wis­dome and discretion, but not of Justice; at least not [Page 36]of Justice properly so called. And the Holy Ghost (Heb. 2.11.) making it a thing so well becoming God ( [...] &c. i. For it became him, &c.) intending to bring many children unto glory, to consecrate the Prince of their salvation through sufferings, i. not to save men without the death and sufferings of Christ, seems rather to ascribe this cariage and me­thod of the businesse to the wisdome of God, then to his Justice. But because confidence requires bet­ter grounds, then present conceptions and appre­hensions, I forbeare further contending about the point in hand, for the present.

Only I desire this may be considered and remem­bred, as fully evident from the tenour of the Conclu­sion last estsblished, that neither did the Law require of Christ the suffering of those things which he suf­fered, nor were the things which he suffered every waies the same (though in consideration, value, and importance, the same fully) with those, the suffer­ing whereof the Law threatned against all transgres­sors.

CAP. III.
Certaine distinctiōs propounded and explained, necessary for the further understanding of the businesse in questi­on, and the cleering of many dif­ficulties incident to it.

THe word Iustification is taken in a double sense: Distincti 1 SECT. 1 either actively, or passively: In the active signifi­cation (as farre as concern's the question in hand, and as the Scripture use of it extendeth in the great businesse of the Justification of a sinner before God) it most usually signifieth that act of God, whereby he justifieth, i. absolveth a beleeving sinner from the guist of, and punishment due to, his sinnes. It may, in this active signification, signifie also, any act of any other efficient cause of Iustification whatsoever (of which kind there are many, as we shall shew after­wards) whereby it operates or contributes any thing, towards this effect, the justification of a sinner. Yea to this active signification of the word, may be referred the act of the forme it selfe, or formall cause of Iustification which also in a way proper to it, may be said to justify.

In the passive sense, justification may signifie the ef­fect it selfe of any or of all the former actions, but most properly and frequently it signifieth, that com­compleate [Page 38]and intire effect wherein all their seve­rall influences and contributions meet and center to­gether, viz. that alteration or change which is made in the person, or rather in the estate or condition of a person, when he is justified; which effect, alteration, or change, standeth in this, that whereas he was be­fore the passing of such an act upon him, a man under the guilt of sinne, and liable to condemnation, now he is a free man, acquited and discharged from both. In the former sense, justification is atributed to God 1 Rom. 8.30. Whom he hath called, them also he hath justified, &c. and ver. 33. it is God that justifieth, and so to Faith often. In the latter sense, it is attributed to, or spoken of men. Rom. 5.1. Therefore being justified by Faith, &c. and ver. 18. Even so by the righteousnesse (or justification) of one, the free guift came upon many to the justification of life. i. to the full discharge and acquitting them from all sinne, upon which life and salvation alwaies follow. So that if the Question be asked what our justification is, or wherein it stands, it must first be inquired, what justi­fication it is, that the Question intends, for active ju­stification is one thing, and passive another, and an­swere is to be made accordingly: In like manner re­mission of sinnes, signifieth either Gods act, whereby he remitteth a manssinnes: or else the effect of this act in and upon him, whose sinnes are so remitted. And generally all actions, either have, or in sufficient propriety of speech, may have the same name with their proper passions or effects (yea and sometimes with the relations resulting from them). As calefa­ction, frigefaction, &c. It is true, there are severall other acceptions and significations of the word Iusti­fication, besides absolution from sinne, when it is, or as it may be used in other cases, or upon other occa­sions: as Christ himselfe is said to have bin justified [Page 39]1 Tim. 16. who yet had no sinnes forgiven him: and Abraham is said to have bin justified by workes. Jam. 2.21. who yet had not his sinnes forgiven by or through his works. So a man that is falsely accused, may be justified, and yet have no offence forgiven him, as Christ was by Pilate when he professed that he found no fault in him. Luk 23.4. But in the case and Iustification of a sinner before God, the word ju­stification still signifies and imports, absolution from, or remission of sinnes, together with the punish­ment due to them: Neither can there any instance be produced from the Scriptures, of any other signi­fication.

Iustice, or righteousnesse, Distincti. 2 SECT. 2 hath severall acceptions in the Scriptures when it is atributed unto God, it sig­nifies sometimes, that universall and absolute holy­nesse and integritie of his nature, which maketh him infinitely averse from doing any thing, little or much, contrary to the true rules of Iustice and Equity, and inclines him only to do things agreeable hereunto. Thus it seemes to be taken. Psal. 11.7. For the righ­teous Lord loveth righteousnesse, &c. So Dan. 9.14. Rove. 16.5. besides many other places. Sometimes againe (and that very frequently) it signifieth, that nature in God which we commonly call truth, or faithfulnesse, in keeping promise. Thus it is taken, Psal. 36.6. Thy righteousnesse is like the great Moun­taines. i. thy truth in thy promises can never be sha­ken, or removed: Thus Heb. 6.10. God is said not to be unrighteous, i. (as Paraeus well interprets) not unfaithfull in his promise, &c. So againe, 1 Ioh. 1.9. God is faith full and Iust to forgive us our sinnes, i. con­stant in his promise this way. Thirdly, by the righ­teousnesse of God, is often meant that gracious affe­ction and disposition of his towards his people, by reason whereof he is still propense and inclineable, [Page 40]to doe them good, as either to relieve and support them in trouble, or to deliver them out of trouble, or the like. And this (doubtlesse) is the most fre­quent signification of the word of all other. Thus Psal. 145.7. They shall abundantly utter the memory of thy great goodnesse, and shall sing of thy righteous­nesse, that is, of thy clemency and grace towards thy people. So Psal 51.14. Mica. 6.5. besides other places without number. Fourthly, that gracious purpose and intent of God towards his elect, for giving them saving Faith in due time, is sometimes called the righteousnesse of God. Thus, 2 Pet. 1.1. those beleevers to whom Peter writes, are said to have obteyned like precious Faith with him, through the righteousnesse of God, &c. Fiftly, (that which is of most concernment to the question in hand) by the righteousnesse of God, is sometimes meant, that Iusti­fication, or that way, method, or meanes of Iustifica­tion, whereby God Iustifieth, and makes men righte­ous. Thus Rom. 3.21. The righteousnesse of God which is without the Law, i. that way and course which God hath found out for the Justification or making men righteous, which consists not in the ob­servation or works of the Law, is said to be manife­sted, being witnessed by the Law. ( i. the writeings of Moses) and the Prophets. So the verse following: the righteousnesse of God, which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ. In the like sense the word is also used Rom, 1.17. Rom. 10.3. In all which places (with their fellowes) by the righteousnesse of God, is meant that Iustification, or way of making men righteous, which God himselfe out of his speciall wisdome and grace, hath found out and recommended unto the world, as being farre differing from that way of Iu­stification, which the wisdome of the flesh and the [Page 41]thoughts of men run so much upon, viz. by workes and observation of the Law. In the same kind of expression, mens owne righteousnesse, signifies ( Rom. 10.3.) that way or meanes by which they intend or seeke to be Iustified.

Some Divines of great worth and fame, affirme, Iustitiae ve [...]abu­lum, in Scriptu­ris, se mper notas Dei bonitatem, Miseri [...]ordians, salutem & re­demptionem: nunquam vere adhibetur ad id significandum, quod vulgo iusti­tiam dicimus, nēpe affectum il­lum quo Deus ad scelera et pecca­ta. vindicanda propendet: irae & iudicij voca­bula ad hoc signi­ficandum potius adhibentur. Cameron: My­roth: in ve. 21. cap. 3. ad Rom. p. 178. that the word Iustitia, Justice or righteousnesse, in Scripture, never signifieth, that which is common­ly called Justice in God, that is, that nature or affecti­on in God, which inclineth him to punish, or take vengeance on sinne; (this they say is usually expressed by those terms, wrath and judgment) but either the goodnesse, mercy, and salvation of God, or the like. But whether this observation will stand or no, I make some question. For in the sixt place, I con­ceive that sometimes, that very affection in God mentioned, viz. his severity against sinne and sin­ners, is expressed by this word, righteousnesse. In this sense the word (I conceive) may well be taken. Rom. 3.25.26. &c. that he ( i God) might be Iust, and a Iustifier of him which is of the Faith of Iesus. that is, that God might appeare and be declared to be a severe Judge and punisher of sinne, and yet iu­stifie and acquit all those from sinne, who beleeve in Iesus Christ. Seventhly, Christ himselfe sometimes seemes to be called the righteousnesse of God, as Esa 42.21. The Lord is well pleased for his righteousnesse sake. So Esa. 51.5. &c. Now Christ may be called the righteousnesse of God, because he is the great Au­thor or Mediator of that righteousnesse or Iustification which God vouchsafeth unto the world. Lastly, the society and company of those that are made righteous or iustified by God through Christ, are called the righ­teousnesse of God: 2 Cor. 5.21. of which phrase we shall speake further in this Distinction.

Againe 2 ^o, this word Iustice or righteousnesse, SECT. 3 [Page 42]when applied to men, sometimes signifieth, that ge­nerall frame of the heart or soule, consisting of all those holy dispositions and affections, which are found in some degree, in every true-borne child of God. In this sense God himselfe attributeth righ­teousnesse unto Noah Gen. 7.1. Thee have I seene righteous, &c. In this sense righteousnesse is opposed to the corrupt and sinfull frame of the heart in the estate of unregeneratenesse, and a righteous man to an unregenerate man. This sense is obvious in Scrip­ture. Secondly, the fruits, works, or actions, ari­sing from such a frame of heart, are sometimes called, righteousnesse. Thus it is used. Act. 10.35. 1 Ioh. 3.7. and elsewhere. Thirdly, that particular and speciall disposition, which inclineth a man to deale uprightly and according to the rules of equity, with all men, and is opposed to fraud, violence, op­pression, &c. together with the worke and fruite of such a disposition, sometimes goeth under the Name of Iustice or righteousnesse. See Gen. 30.33. Deut. 1.16. Esa 33, 15. besides many other places. Fourth­ly, (and with more concernment to the point in hand) Iustification it selfe (in the passive sense decla­red in the former distinction) is sometimes (by a me­tonymie of the cause for the effect) expressed by the word, righteousnesse. Thus Gal. 2.21. If righte­ousnesse ( i. Justification) come by the Law, i. by the works of the Law, then Christ is dead in vaine. So Rom. 10, 4. Christ is the end of the Law for righteous­nesse ( i. for Justification) to them that beleeve. So ver. 5. Moses describeth the righteousnesse which is of the Law, &c. i. sheweth wherein that Justification consisteth, which is to be attained by the Law, if men will seeke to be justified by it: So againe. Ro. 5, 17, The guift of righteousnesse, i. of Justification: and ver. 18, by the righteousnesse of one, &c. i. by the [Page 43] iustifying of one (as the former translation reads it, and that I conceive more agreeably to the originall [...].) or rather by one iustifying, i. by one procurement of Iustification, the gift came up­on all men ( viz. that beleeve) unto Iustification of life: meaning, that Christ by one and the same meanes used for the iustifying of men, purchased and procured the Justification of all those that should be­leeve, be they never so many, and that such a Iustifi­cation, which shall be accompanied with salvation: See more instances of this signification of the word. Rom. 8.4. Rom. 9.30. Rom. 10.10. 1 Cor. 1.30. &c. with divers others. Thus also, in the same propriety of speech, to make righteous and to iustify, are but the same: as to make wicked and to con­demne. Compare Rom. 5. ver. 19. with ver. 18. Fiftly, sometimes Christ himselfe is (by an ellipsis of the efficient or procuring cause very usually in Scrip­ture) called the righteousnesse of men. i. the Author or procurer of their Justification or righteousnesse: as Ier. 23.6. 33.16. &c. In the same figure of speech, he is elsewhere called our hope, our life, our sanctification, our redemption, &c. i. the Author, and procurer of all these respectively. Sixtly, by a me­tonymy of the cause for the effect, or of the antece­dent for the consequent (a common dialect also in Scriptures) aswell the benefits, and rewards of a mans righteousnesse, in the first and third acception of the word, as the blessings and privileges which ac­company that righteousnesse which we have by the merits of Christ in our Iustification, are sometimes expressed by the terme, righteousnesse. Thus Iob 33.26. God will render unto man his righteousnesse. i. will recompence and reward every mans uprightnesse and integrity, with sutable blessings, and expressions of his love So Psal. 112.9. His righteousnesse re­maineth [Page 44]for ever. i. the praise, and other rewards of his righteousnesse, shall be durable and lasting. So Gal. 5.5. We through the Spirit waite for the hope of the righteousnesse of Faith. i. for the great and royall privileges promised by God (and accordingly hoped for by us) to that Iustification which is by Faith in Iesus Christ, See the first Chapter of the former part of this discourse. Sect. 4. p. 12. &c. Seventhly, the word righteousnesse, in some construction of words with it, hath no precise or proper signification, distinct and apart from the word with which it is joyned, but together with that word makes a sense or signi­fication of one and the same thing. Thus in the phrase of imputing righteousnesse ( Rom. 4.6.11. &c.) the word imputing, See impedit ira. &c. p. 43. doth not signifie one thing, and righteousnesse another, but together they signifie one and the same act of God, which we call, free iustify­ing: So that to impute righteousnesse, is nothing else but freely to iustifie: and righteousnesse imputed, free iustification (passive) It is th [...] in many idio m's and proprieties of languages. In that Hebrew phrase of covering the feet, Iudg. 3.24. 1 Sam. 24.3. Nei­ther of the words are to be taken in any proper or peculiar signification, but together they signifie one and the same thing, and that differing from the pro­per signification of either of the words. Many o­ther instances might be given in severall phrases or formes of speech the true sense and meaning where­of is not to be gathered from the proper significati­on which the words have severally in other con­structions, but from the concurrence and joynt as­pect of them in that phrase. Thus the Scripture phrase of going in to a woman is not to be interpre­ted, according to the significations of the words, in other sentences or constructions of speech; but ac­cording to the importance which they still joyntly [Page 45]have when they are found together.

Eightly (and lastly) the word, righteousnesse ac­cording to the propriety of the Hebrew stongue, which often useth abstracts for concretes, signifieth sometimes a Society or company of righteous or iusti­fiedones, sometimes of just or upright ones. In the former sense you have it, 2 Cor. 5.21. That we should be made the righteousnesse of God in him, i. a company of righteous or iustified persons, made such by God, through Iesus Christ. In the latter sense you have it Esa 60.17. where God promiseth to his Church and people to make their exactors righteousnesse i. a ge­neration or company of men that should deale righ­teously and fairely with them. In this dialect of speech, poverty (for so it is in the originall) is put for a company of poore men. 2 Kings 24.14. So Cap­tivity for a company of Captives. 2 Chr. 28.5. Deut. 21.10. and in sundry other places. So againe, circumcision for circumcised: Phil. 3.3. election for elected, Rom. 11.7. with the like.

So that aswell in studying as arguing the Question in hand, great care must be had, that we be not in­tangled and lose our selves in this multiplicitie of significations of this word, righteousnesse, which is a word almost of continuall use and occurrence in the businesse of Iustification, and yet of such an ambigu­ous and different signification and importance, Distincti. 3 See sect. 4. See Pareus De Iusti. Christi Active et Passi­ve: p. 180. D. Prideaux Lect. 5. de Iu­stifi. p. 162. Mr. Eradshaw Iustifica: p. 68, 69. &c. Mr. Forbez. Iustificate. 25. p. 111, 112, &c that without much heedfulnesse, it may occasion much stumbling and miscariage in our understanding.

The righteousnesse or obedience of Christ is two­fold, o [...] of two kindes: the one Divines call Iustitia personae, the righteousnesse of his person: the other Iustitia meriti, the righteousnesse of his merit. The terms of Active and Passive, wherein this Distincti­on is commonly conceived, are not altogether so proper, because even in that obedience which we call [Page 46] Passive, Christ was in some sort active, as willingly and freely submitting himselfe unto it. Notwith­standing the Distinction might passe well enough in these termes, Obedientia Chri­sti duplex [...]st: al­tera, quam vi le­gus communu, qua creatura ratio­nalus, verus ho­mo cum esset; altera, quam vi legude mediati­one peculiarus, sive pacti de re­demptionis nego­tio initi, quam neris humani Mediator et Re­demptor, Dro Patri, debu [...]t et exhibuit, Gata­ker against Go­marus, p. 4. See further p. 15. [...] p. 25. ibid. The righ­teousnesse of his person is that, whereby he iustifyeth himselfe only, or is himselfe righteous: the righte­onsnesse of his merit, is that whereby he iustifyeth others. The former consisteth partly of that integri­ty of nature which was in him, partly of that obedi­ence which he performed to the morall Law, or that Law which is generally imposed upon all men. The latter, of that obedience or subjection which he per­formed to that peculiar Law of Mediator-ship, which was imposed upon him alone, and never upon any man besides. For it is evident that Christ both did and suffered many things, not simply as he was man, but as he was Mediator: especially his voluntary submission of himselfe unto death for the ransome and attonement of the world, was the fulfilling of the great commandement in the peculiar Law of Medi­ator-ship, being no waies bound by any precept in the Morall Law thereunto. If Christ had been bound as man, or by the Morall Law, to die for the sinnes of men, his death had bin ineffectuall for others. For certaine it is, that no man dischargeth another mans debt, Qui obedientiae activae aut san­ctitati nativae, meritum justitla ascribunt, mor­rem Christi sine dubie innnem reddunt. Pareus De Iustic: Chri­sti Activ. and Pass. p. 181.182. &c. by paying his owne: and our Saviour him­selfe, injoyneth his Disciples, when they should doe only that which was commanded them, though they should do this to the uttermost, yet to say that they were unprofitable Servants, they had done but that which was their duty to doe. Luk 17.10. Besides, hee that maintaineth, that Christ was bound by the moral Law to die for the sinnes of men, saith (in effect) that if he had not died, he had bin a sinner, and deserved to have bin punished himselfe: and so extenuateth and abaseth to the dust the infinitenesse of that [Page 47]grace, which the Lord Iesus Christ manifested unto the world, by his dying for it.

If it be objected and said, SECT. 5 that other men are bound to lay downe their lives for the truth when they are call'd thereunto, and so for one another. 1 John 3.16. and this must needs be by the Morall Law: therefore Christ stood bound by the same Law to doe the like.

To this I answere, 1 ^o, that men considered sim­ply as men, and not as sinners, or as men that have sinned, were not bound by any Law whatsoever to lay downe their lives at all, nor upon any occasion whatsoever: because God by promise had setled the inheritance and possession of life upon innocencie and integrity, for ever. Therefore as the Apostle rea­sons in another case. Gal. 3, 21. Is the Law then a­gainst the promises of God? God forbid. So is it to be conceived in this case, that the promise of God be­ing, Dee this and thou shalt live, there was no Law that should contradict it, that is, that should enjoyne a man being innocent, and doing all things required in the Law, to die or part with his life, upon any termes whatsoever.

Therefore secondly, that obligation or comman­dement which now lieth upon men to part with their lives, either for witnessing the truth, or upon any other occasion, was not originally any branch of the Morall Law; but partly by reason of the inter­veening of sinne, but especially by reason of the great benefit of the redemption of the world from sinne by Iesus Christ, it is now a superadded duty (amongst many others) somewaies reducible to the Morall Law, but not properly or directly conteyned in it. And thus the Scripture it selfe plainely determineth. For speaking of this duty, of laying downe a mans life, in case the spirituall (yea or perhaps the tempo­rall [Page 48]rall necessity of some men doe require it (and doubt­lesse there is the same reason of all other cases in this kind) it grounds the equity and obligement of it, upon the grace and benefit of Redemption by the death of Iesus Christ. Hereby have we perceived love, that he layd downe his life for us: THEREFORE wee ought also to lay downe our lives for our Brethren. 1 Joh. 3.16.

So that (in the third place) Iesus Christ being uni­versally free from sinne in and from the first instant of his conception to his death, and having none (nor any need of any) to die for his redemption, could have no tie or obligation upon him from the Morall Law, to lay downe his life upon any occasion what­soever, in asmuch as this Law in the first institution and imposure of it, requireth death of no man upon no occasion but for sinne (neither did it then require this by any way or duty, but of threatning) neither doth it now require it of any man, but upon the sup­posall of sinne, and that great deliverance from sinne, brought into the world by another, Iesus Christ.

Fourthly (and lastly) I answere yet further; that no man hath ever any calling from God by vertue of the Morall Law, as now it stands with all the addi­tions and improvements of it, to lay downe his life, either for witnessing the truth, or for the benefit of the Brethren, or for any other possible end or pur­pose, when that end (whatsoever it be) for which this laying downe a mans life seemes to be requi­red, may be aswell, that is, as Lawfully, and as suf­ficiently provided for in another way. For certain­ly neither doth the Morall Law, nor God himselfe by vertue of any commandement in this Law, require of men at any time, to die like fooles: and what is it but to die like a foole, when a man shall give his life for that, which might aswell, and as effectually bee [Page 49]procured by him in another way? If therefore it be conceived, that Christ might be called God by vertue of the Morall Law, to lay downe his life for witnessing or sealing the truth, I answere, that Christ could have as sufficiently provided for the honour and advancement of Truth another way, as by his death, viz. by the inward illumination and con­viction of the judgementsand consciences of me [...] by his spirit. Therefore he had no call by the Morall Law, to die for this end. If it be yet objected: but the salvation of men his Brethren, could not be pro­vided for by him in any other way, but by his death only: Therefore in this regard and for this end, he might be bound by the Morall Law, to die: To this I answere (as before in part) that the Morall Law considered as simply morall, i. as requiring only those duties of a man, which were required of him in his estate of innocencie, threateneth all sinners (without exception) with death, without giving the least intimation or hope of any to die for them; so farre is it from imposing it by way of duty upon any man whatsoever, to die for them. Therefore whatsoever may now be conceived to be imposed upon any man by way of duty in this kind, doth not arise from the originall and native morality of the Law, but from that alteration and change which the grace of redemption by Iesus Christ, hath made in the estate and condition of men, by reason whereof many generall principles and impressions of the pre­ceptive or directive part of the Law, are improved, and extended to many d [...]t [...]es, which were not at first comprehended or intended in them. From all which duties it is evident, that the Lord Christ, considered simply as a man, or as an innocent and sinlesse man, or as having his condition no waies altered or made better by any Redemption by any another, SECT. 6 was abso­lutely and universally exempt and free.

Thus at last we have (I conceive) sufficiently clee­red [Page 50]and established both the truth and necessity of the distinction last propounded, viz. of the righteous­nesse of Christ, into that which is commonly called Active, wherein his personall integrity and holinesse is absolved, and made perfect; and that which is cal­led Passive, which is the righteousnesse of another Law differing from that which is called Morall, and was performed by him, meerely in relation to the justifi­cation, or righteous-making of others. The truth and necessity of the distinction, might be further e­victed from the Scriptures, as from these and such like. Esa. 53.11. 2 Cor. 5.21. Heb. 7.26. Heb. 9.14. 1 Pet. 3.18. &c. By all which passages it is e­vident, that Christ doth not justify others by the morall righteousnesse of his person whereby himselfe was made righteous, but by that other righteousnesse, which we may call mediatorie, satisfactorie, passive, or meritorious; and yet with all that this righteous­nesse it selfe could have done nothing this way, but upon presupposall of, and inconsistence with the o­ther, (as will hereafter further appeare) But because this hath bin sufficiently performed by others Pareus de Iustic. Christi Act. et Pass. P. 181., and the distinction it selfe is granted and acknowledged by the learnedest Bish: Dave­nant De Iustic: Habit. c. 28. p. 364. Argum. 3. Mr. Bradshaw Iustific. p. 67.72. &c. Bish. Downham Iustific [...] c. 1. c. 2 Section 9. of those that are (or at least, some­times seeme to be) of opposite judgement in the maine of the controversie depending, I thus leave it.

Onely I desire to remember you of the Item Pa­reus gives De Iustic: Christi Act: et Pass. p. 180. out of his observation touching this Dictinction; that the neglect hereof causeth much con­fusion, and encumbreth the Doctrine of Iustification with many difficulties and inconveniences, and renders it hardly defensible against the Papists and other adversa­ries to the truth of it. Therefore in managing the present Question about imputation, speciall care must be had, that we neither use our selves, nor admit from [Page 51]others, these words, the righteousnesse of Christ, but with an eye to this Distinction.

A thing may be said to be imputed to a man in seve­rall respects and considerations. First, Distinct. 4 SECT. 7 a mans owne acts whether good or [...]evill, may be said to be imputed to him, when he himselfe and none other, is simply, and without reference either to reward or punish­ment either reputed or pronounced the doer of them. This sense of imputation is not unproper, yet do I not remember the word any where in the Scrip­tures so used. But in this sense, aswell the Active as Passive obedience of Christ, are by God imputed to Christ himselfe, and to no other: and the sinnes of be­leevers themselves, to themselves that have com­mitted them respectively, and to none other.

Secondly, a mans doings whether good or evill, may be said to be imputed to him, when he is either actually rewarded, or punished because of them, or else is look'd upon by the Judge, as one that shall in due time either be rewarded or punished for such doings, except some reasonable and just occasion, shall in the meane time intervene, to alter either of these purposes concerning him. In this sense Shimei maketh request to David, that he would not impute folly to him, that is, that he would not punish him for that foolish act of his reviling him. So the sinnes of unbelievers may be sayd to be imputed to them, when either they are punished by God in this world, or else cast into Hell for them. In this sense also, the sinnes of the elect themselves before they beleeve, may be said to be imputed to them, because they are looked upon by God, as persons yet liable to condem­nation for their sinnes, and that should in time actu­ally be condemned, except by the precious benefit and advantage of Gods patience and long sufferance towards them, they should come truely to beleeve in Iesus Christ before death.

Thirdly, Another mans trespasse or offence may be said to be imputed unto us, when either we are challenged or look'd upon as advisors, counsellors, or furtherers of him thereunto, or otherwise are hardly dealt with or punished, as if we had bin ac­cessary in some such way: And so another mans vertue, learning, valor, and well-deserving in any kind may be said to be imputed unto him, who is conceived or look'd upon, as the chiefe Author, teacher, or incourager of the other, in any of these. In this sense the faire and hopefull cariage of King Ioash towards the beginning of his Reigne, may be imputed to Iehojada the Priest. 2 King. 12.2. with 2 Ch. 24.2. Thus the knowledge and courage which were found in Peter and Iohn are (in effect) imputed to Christ himselfe by the Priests and Rulers. Act. 4.13. In this sense also the victory won by the valor and courage of the Souldiers, is oft imputed to the Ge­nerall or chiefe Commander.

Fourthly, one mans sinne (and so his vertuous act) may be said to be imputed to another, when this o­ther, through ignorance or mistake, is look'd upon as the man that had performed either the one or the other, and is either censured or punished, or else ho­noured, or rewarded accordingly. In this sense King Porsenna's hostile attempt against the Romans, may be said to have bin imputed unto his Scribe or Officer by Scaevola, when upon a mistake he slew him, sup­posing him to have bin the King. I do not remem­ber any instance for this sense of the word imputation, in the Scriptures.

Therefore Fiftly, one mans wickednesse or ill deserts, may be said to be imputed unto others, when they are any waies punished, or worse dealt with in consideration thereof: as on the contrary, a mans worth, vertue or well-deservings in any kind, may [Page 53]be said to be imputed to others, as viz. his children, kinsfolke, friends, &c. when they are considered, and well dealt with in any kind, because of their re­lation unto such a man. In this sense David may be said to have imputed Ionathans kindnesse unto Mephi­bosheth his Sonne, when he preferred him to honour, in consideration thereof: and so the wicked act of those that accused Daniel and caused him to be cast into the Lyons Den, may be said to have bin imputed unto their wives and children, by the King, when he caused them also to be cast into the Lyons Den for it. Dan. 6 24. So the sinne of Achan, to his house and Family. Ios. 7. and the sinne of Dathan and Abiram to their wives and Children. Num. 16. In this sense likewise, Paul willeth Philemon to impute to him (for so the word signifieth [...], Phil. ver. 18.) any wrong or injury that his servant Onesimus had done him, meaning that he was willing and ready to make satisfaction for it. In this sense of imputation (and in this only) the sinnes of men may be said to be imputed unto Christ, viz. because he suffered the things which he did suffer, in consideration of them: and these sufferings of his againe may be said to be imputed unto us, because we are rewarded, that is, justified & saved in consideration of them. But that ei­ther our sinnes, should be therefore said to be imputed unto Christ, because he is reputed by God to have committed them, or that his righteousnesse, whether active, or passive, should be therefore said to be im­puted to us, because we are reputed by God to have done or suffered the one or the other, In this sense the imputation aswell of the Passive, as A­ctive obedience of Christ, are els­where denied in this Treatise. See Part 1. c. 10 Sect. 4, &c. hath nei­ther footing nor foundation either in Scripture or reason.

Sixtly, taking the word imputation in a large sense, SECT. 8 that also may be said to be imputed to a man, which essentially and directly conduceth either to the be­nefit [Page 54]or punishment, which accrueth unto him, from that which is more properly and immediatly impu­ted to him. In this sense, when the wife or children of a man that hath well deserved of a state or Family, are any waies rewarded or well dealt with in consi­deration of his desert, not only the deserts them­selves, but his ingenuous and liberall education, to­gether with his vertuous dispositions, as essentially requisite to make him a man capable of such deser­vings, may be said to be imputed to them. i. they have a benefit accrueing to them from such educati­on and dispositions of his, though not immediately, but by the intervening of those worthy acts and ser­vices performed by him. In this sense not only Achans sinfull and sacrilegious act of taking away the wedge of gold and Babylonish garment, but the bitter roote it selfe that bare this cursed fruit, I meane his covetousnesse, may be said to have bin imputed unto all those of his house, that were pun­ished with him for that sacrilege, In this sense likewise aswell the habituall holynesse of Christs person, as the morall righteousnesse or active obedi­ence of his life, may be said to be imputed to those that beleeve in him, because these were essentially and directly requifite, to make his death and suffer­ings, justification and life and salvation to them, as hath bin further opened in the former part of this Treatise. But because this signification of the word is somewhat remote and unusuall, and hath no man­ner of counteuance from the Scripture, Piscator, Pa­raeus, with other learned and Orthodox Divines, have simple denyed all imputation of the active righ­teousnesse or obedience of Christ, and (doubtlesse) the Doctrine of Iustification, as it is layd downe in the Scriptures, would not at all suffer, if the expression were layd aside altogether.

Seventhly, a thing may be said to be imputed to a man when he is looked upon or dealt with, as if he had some true worth or qualification in him, where­unto there are speciall privileges belonging, when as yet he hath not, the worth or qualification indeed, but comes to have right to the privileges notwith­standing in some other way. In this sense righteous­nesse is said to be imputed to him that beleeveth, Rom. 4.6.11. &c. that is, he that truely beleeveth in Christ, is looked upon by God, and partly hath, and partly shall have and injoy all the privileges and blessings which do belong, and are annexed by co­venant or promise, unto a perfect and compleate Law-righteousnesse, though there be no such righte­ousnesse found in him, because Iesus Christ by his death and sufferings hath purchased a right and title for him to these privileges and blessings: which title is actually derived and settled upon him, upon his beleeving. So that to say, God imputeth righteous­nesse to a man, is but (in effect) to say, that God lookes upon him with the same grace and favor, where­with he would looke upon him, if he were properly and legally righteous indeed, and had never sin'd, and intends all the further privileges and blessings of such a righteousnesse unto him. In such a sense as this, when a man take's likeing to, and loves another mans child, and intends to settle his estate upon him, he may be said to impute Son-ship unto him, because though he be not his Son, yet he confer's the rights and privileges of a Sonne upon him, as viz. fatherlike affection, and his inheritance.

Eightly, SECT. 9 one thing may be said to be imputed to a man, for, or instead of another, when the rights and priviledges which originally and properly belong to the one, are yet exhibited and conferr'd upon him, upon the performance of the other: or againe, when [Page 56]upon the committing of one offence, he is charged with the guilt and inconveniences of another, the guilt and evill consequences whereof are more no­torious and manifest. Thus he that provideth not for his owne, especially for his houshold, hath the sinne of denying the Faith, i. the Gospell, imputed unto him (1 Tim. 5.8.) because the evill consequen­ces of both sinnes are much the same, but yet are more readily acknowledged, as likely to arise from the latter. In this sense also the Faith of him that be­leeveth, is said to be imputed to him for righteous­nesse ( Rom. 4.3.5. &c.) because the same privileges, which originally and more apparantly did belong unto, and were setled by God upon a legall righteous­nesse, or immunity from sinne, do now belong unto, and are setled by Covenant and promise from the same God, upon beleeving.

Ninthly and lastly, any matter of profit, benefit or advantage, which any waies accrueth, or is coming towards a man, whether by way of due debt, or of free donation and grace, or the like, may be said to be imputed unto him accordingly. Thus ( Rom. 4.4.) the reward, viz. of justification and life, is said to be reckoned, or imputed to him that worketh, ( i. that shall deserve it by a perfect observation of the Law) of debt, and not of grace. The meaning is, that if any man should be rewarded by God with life and happinesse, upon his perfect obedience to the Law, such a reward would be generally taken and looked upon by men, as no matter of grace or favor from God, but as a matter of right and due debt to such a man.

There is no word or terme (to my remembrance) belonging to the dispute in hand, or to the Doctrine of Iustification in generall, more incumbred with va­riety of significations then this of Imputation, and [Page 57]consequently more obnoxious to mistake and mis­understanding. There is scarse any proposition can be framed, wherein this word is used indefinitly and without speciall limitation or explication, but may both be granted and denied, according to a dif­ferent sense and acception thereof. As for example, such propositions as these. The active obedience of Christ is imputed. The active obedience of Christ is not imputed. The passive obedience of Christ is imputed, The passive obedience of Christ is not imputed, &c. are ei­ther true or false, according as the word imputed, is understood and taken in them. Therefore speci­all care must be had how and upon what termes this word passeth, or be admitted in the present Contro­versie.

Obedience to the Morall Law may be said to be required of men two waies, or in two respects: Distinct. 5 SECT. 10 First, by way of iustification, that a man thereby may be esteemed perfectly righteous by God, and accord­ingly have all the privileges of a compleate righteous­nesse conferred upon him. Secondly, by way of sanctification, that he may testifie and expresse his subjection unto God, and his unfeigned desire of pleasing him in all things. In both respects this o­bedience was required of man, in his estate of inno­cencie, and is still required of the Holy Angells, yea and was required also of the Lord Iesus Christ him­selfe. Compare Mat. 3.16. with Iohn 15.10. &c. But since the fall of man, it is not nequited of him, by way of justification (in the sense expressed) but only in a way of sanctification. This is evident by these a consideratios. First, because a man being once touch'd with sinne, and failing in the least point of obedience (as all men were, and did in the fall) is not capable of any such obedience to the La [...], whereby it is im­possible for him to be justified, no, though he should [Page 58]keepe the Law with all possible exactnesse ever after to the worlds end, without the least failing in the least point of obedience thereunto: the condition of a legall justification being, that a man must continue (à carcere ad metas, from the very first entrance upon his being, to the last end thereof) in all things that are written in the Law to doe them, so that the least trip or stumbling throughout all his course, wholly dissolves and overthrowes such a justification. Se­condly, because God hath opened another way for the justification of sinners, viz. Faith in Jesus Christ, and certaine it is, that he never sets up one way a­gainst another, or one ordinance against another, so that what he intends should be effected by one, he should intend to be effected by another also, as hath bin argued and proved more at large, in the former part of this Treatise. cap. 12. Sect. 2. &c. Therefore to affirme, that the fulfilling of the Law is required of any man either by himselfe or by another in his stead, for his justificati­on is to affirme, either that a man that hath sin'd, hath not sin'd, or that which God hath said, he hath unsaid.

Christ may be said to have kept the Law, Distincti. 6 SECT. 11 in refe­rence to our justification, two waies, or in a double sense: either 1 ^o, for us: or 2 ^o, in our stead. In the former sense, it may be admitted, that Christ kept the Law for our justification, but not in the latter. The former sense only imports, that this obedience of his had an influence into our justification, and did contribute that which was of absolute necessity thereunto; which hath bin explained, and granted, and (in part) proved formerly. The latter sense im­ports, that the keeping of the Law, was primarily required of every man for his justification, since the fall, and that God, in respect of the personall disabi­lities of men for such performance in reference to such an end, sent his Sonne Iesus Christ to performe it [Page 59]in their roomes and places. Which supposition stands convict of a manifest untruth in the former Distinction, and elswhere in this Treatise. Part 1. cap. Sect. Distincti. 7. SECT. 12

The Iustification of a sinner (I meane Passive) though it be but one and the same entire effect, yet may it be ascribed to many (and those very diff [...]rent) causes respectively, according to their severall influ­ences, and differing manner of concurrence thereun­to. God may be said to iustifie, Christ may be said to iustifie, yea the Holy Ghost in a true and proper sense may be said to iustifie, Faith may be said to iustify, the Minister may be said to iustifie, (as well as to save, 1 Tim. 4.16.) remission of sinnes may be said to iustifie, &c. Whatsoever contributeth any thing, more or lesse, either in a superior or inferior way, to­wards the raising and producing any effect, the ef­fect it selfe may not onely according to truth, but in ordinary propriety of speaking be ascribed unto it. It is as true to say (and not unproper) that the sling in Davids hand, or the smooth stone which he slang, or his act of slinging, killed Goliah, as to say, that Da­vid himselfe killed him, though it's true, David was the principall efficient in this action, and the other were but inferior and instrumentall. So that to reason thus, Christ iustifies, therefore Faith doth not iustifie: or thus, Christ is our righteousnesse, therefore Faith is not our righteousnesse, or remission of sinnes is not our righteousnesse, &c. is as if a man should argue after this manner. It is God that maketh rich, therefore money maketh not rich, or a diligent hand mak­eth not rich, which yet is a truth, and is affirmed by the Holy Ghost, aswell as the other. Or thus, It is God that purifieth the heart: therefore man purifieth it not, neither doth Faith purifie it, nor doe afflicti­ons purifie, &c. Or thus, The Physician recovered the sick: therefore his Physique did not recover [Page 60]him. It is a weake reasoning, à positione causae prin­cipalis, ad remotionem accessorie. Christ may Justifie, and Faith may justifie, and remission of sinnes may justifie: yea Christ doth not iustifie without Faith, nor without remission of sinnes, more then either o [...] these iustifie without Christ, though it be true, Christ iustifieth after a manner peculiar to himselfe, and Faith and Remission of sinnes, each of them after a manner proper to it selfe, and the manner, of Iustifi­cation which is proper to Christ, is more excellent and of superior consideration, to the manner where­in either Faith or Remission of sinnes Iustifie. There­fore the argument doth not follow, from the affir­mation of Iustification by Christ, to the negation of the same Iustification by Faith, or any other thing: but it well f [...]llowes, from the affirmation of the pe­culiar manner of Iustification which is proper to Christ, to the negation of the same manner, as belong­ing either to Faith, or to Remission of sinnes, or any thing besides. This arguing is substantiall. Christ Justifieth by way of merit, or satisfaction, or attone­ment for sinne: therefore neither Faith, nor remissi­on of sinnes, nor any thing else iustifieth, either by way of merit, satisfaction, or attonement. Therefore care must be had to distinguish the simple act, from the peculiar manner, of Iustification.

CAP. IIII.
Conteyning a briefe Delineation or survey of the intire body of Justifica­tion, in the severall causes of it, accord­ing to the tenour of the Conclusions and Distinctions layd downe in the two former Chapters.

AS well to give a full and free accompt of mine owne judgement, SECT. 1 and of what I conceive and hold touching the great businesse of Iustification, and the whole cariage of it in the Scriptures and coun­saile of God, as also to furnish my Reader with some further and cleer [...]r light, whereby to comprehend the darknesse, and to discover the insufficiency and weaknesse of those arguments, that either are brought from the Scriptures, or otherwise framed, against the maine Conclusion defended in this Trea­tise: I thought it not amisse to inlarge the Discourse by one Chapter the more, wherein to delineate and represent (according to the modell of my weake in­sight into so great a mystery) that faire piece or frame wherein the grace, justice, and wisdome of God have sweetly conspired for the justification of a poore sinner. And because the perfect knowledge hereof (I meane of the gracious designe of God in and about the Iustification of a sinner) depends upon the [Page 62]knowledge and right apprehension of the severall causes concurring and contributing thereunto (as in­deed the true knowledg of all th [...]ngs whatsoever, ariseth from the knowledge of the causes thereof) I desire leave to premise some few generall rules touching the number, nature, and property of causes in generall, but only such, which are generally ac­knowledged and subscribed unto by sober men that have had their wits exercised in discerning things agreeable to reason, and who can be no waies suspe­cted as partiall, or any waies engaged, either on the right hand or on the left, in the Disputes agitated in this Discourse.

The first rule I lay downe concernes the number of causes in generall, Rule 1 and is this: There are foure (and but foure) generall heads, fountaines, or kind of causes, whereunto and under which, all, and all manner of causes, be they never so many or various, which any waies conduce or contribute towards the raising of any effect or new being, may be reduced and comprehended. These are usually knowne and called by these names: 1 ^o, the efficient, 2 ^o, the finall, 3 ^o, the materiall, 4 ^o, the formall. The sufficiencie of which division of causes in generall, might easily be argued and made good by demonstration, but that it hath beene done by many before me, and besides hath now for many ages by-gone, bin admitted by men of reason and learning, into the same honour of unquestionable truth, with their [...] i. their first and most undoubted principles of Rea­son. Rule 2

My second rule respects the different habitude or relation in generall, SECT. 2 betweene the two former, and the two latter causes (as they were named) towards their effects, and is this. The efficient and finall cau­ses do never ingredi compositum, i. are never any [Page 63]part, any thing of the substance, of the effect pro­duced but are alwaies extrinsecall thereunto, and have their beings distinct from it. As on the other hand, the materiall and formall causes, are alwaies intrinsecall to the effect, and together make up (as it were) the intire substance and essence of it. As for example: The Carpenter who is the efficient cause of the House that is built, and so his Axe, Saw, Ham­mer, &c. are no parts of the house: neither is the conveniencie or accommodation of the dweller or owner, which is the finall cause of the House, any part of it; which appeares thus, because the house may stand, and be the same house that it is, though the Carpenter that made it be dead, and though it had neither dweller nor owner belonging to it. But the tymber, Brick, stone, &c. which are the materi­all cause of it, and the order, or method wherein they are contrived and wrought together in the building by the workman: which is the formall cause, are the essentiall and constituting parts of the house: so that if either of these should be altered or taken away, the house it selfe must be altered, and taken away with them.

My third Rule toucheth the absolute incapacitie in every one of these causes, Rule 3 of any more relations then one, in respect of one and the same effect, and proceeds after this manner: No one thing or cause whatsoever, can put on more habitudes or relations of causalitie then one, in respect of one and the same effect. As for example, that which is the efficient cause of a thing, can never be the formall, nor the materiall, nor finall cause of it. So againe, that which is the materiall cause of a thing, cannot be the formall cause of that whereof it is the materiall, nor yet the efficient or finall: and there is the same considera­tion of them all. Neither the Carpenter, nor his [Page 64]skill, nor his Ax, nor his Hammer (which are all efficients) can be the matter of the house he builds with them: neither can the tymber or stones, which are the materiall cause of it, be the efficient cause al­so. &c. It is true, in some cases, and in an unproper and metaphoricall sense, the same person that in one consideration is the efficient cause of a thing, may in another consideration be the finall cause of it. As when a Carpenter builds an house for himselfe to dwell in, in a sense he may be called both the efficient and finall cause of this house. But this is an unproper expression, and according to Grammati­call and expresse importance of the words, not con­sonant to truth. For if we speake properly, the Car­penter cannot in this case be said to be the finall cause of his house, because the nature and propriety of the finall cause is, to receive it's being, by and from that, whereof it is the cause, and not to have a subsi­stence and being before it, as the Carpenter hath be­fore the building of his house. Therefore the fi­nall cause of the house under instance, is the Carpen­ters conveniencie of dwelling, which is a thing of a­nother nature, and farre differing from his person. The like interpretation must rule to make exactnesse of truth of that common saying in Divinity, that God is the efficient and finall cause or end of all things, See sect. 6▪ of this c. which the Scripture expresseth by calling him Alpha and Omega, Revel. 1. But for the rule it selfe last layd downe, if rightly understood, it is universally and unquestionably true, that one and the same thing cannot possibly stand in more relations of causality then one, to one and the same effect, no more then one and the same point of Heaven can be both East and West, or North and South, in respect of the same Country or place.

The 4 ^th and last Rule I desire to lay downe, Rule 4 SECT. 3 con­cerns the multiplicitie of divisions, whereof the 4 generall heads of Causes mentioned, are capable. The rule I deliver in these words. Though there be but foure kindes, or heads of causes in the gene­rall, yet under every one of these heads there are se­verall species of causes comprehended, and though all these under kindes or particular species of causes, agree together in that common nature of causality, which is expressed in that general head, under which they are respectively and severally comprehended, yet have they speciall and particular differences, and those very considerable one from another, betweene themselves. To prosecute all the distinctions or di­visions of causes, that are found in Authors, or o­therwise might be thought upon, would be to cast oyle upon the flames, and make the Reader double wearier of the length of his discourse, then he is already. I shall therefore instance (and that as briefly as may be) in some few, which I conceive have speciall relation to the businesse in hand, and without the knowledg whereof, the Doctrine of Iustification, can hardly be thoroughly and cleerely understood.

The first generall head of causes, which we called the Efficient, admits of more divisions and subdi­visions, and conteynes more species of causes under it (which are yet all efficients) then any of the other, yea then all the other three together. The truth is, that there is such an endlesse varietie of the kindes of efficient causes, [...]hat it is very difficult to finde them all out, or to give fitting names to many that may more easily be found. It shall suffice for our present occasion to mention some few divisions of them.

First, of efficient causes, some are principall, SECT. 4 others lesse principall. The principall efficient cause, is that [Page 66]which worketh independently and from it selfe (I speake now in respect of created causes only: be­cause otherwise, all causes whatsoever have a depen­dance upon God in their working towards the effect, having other efficients under it, which worke like­wise towards the same effect, but depend upon it (the principall cause) in their working: and these are causes lesse principall, or instrumentall. The Carpenter is the principall efficient cause of the house, his Axe, Saw, and Hammer, &c. are but instrumen­tall efficients: because though these conduce and con­tribute somewhat towards the building of it, yet they are assum'd and ordered in their working by the Carpenter, and would do nothing if they were not acted and moved by him, whereas himselfe worketh independantly, being acted and guided in his worke by a principle within himselfe. It is true, in a sense the Carpenter may be said to depend upon his instruments in working, viz. as being unable to worke or build without them: but in point of cau­salitie, that only is counted a dependance, when a thing is either assumed, supported, or directed by a­nother in it's efficiencie: none of which can be veri­fyed of the Carpenter in respect of his instruments wherewith he worketh.

Againe, of causes efficient, whether created or in­created, principall or lesse principall, some are na­turall, some artificiall, and some morall. By the effi­cient naturall, I meane that cause which hath it's effi­ciencie, or contributes towards the effect, by the ex­ercising or putting forth [...] of some power that is na­turall and essentiall to it. Thus the Sun is the naturall efficient cause of the light in the ayre, and of all other sublunarie effects which it produceth, because it pro­duceth them all only by the exercise and putting forth of such principles, as of light, motion, influ­ence, [Page 67] &c. as are naturall to it. In this sense, that kinde of efficient which otherwise is called volun­tary, i. that workes freely and with the know­ledge of its owne working, and is contradistinguish­ed to that which is purely and simply naturall, may sometimes, and in respect of some effects, be termed naturall also, as viz. when it acteth towards any ef­fect by any faculty, principle, or power that is natu­rall to it. In this sense David may be called the na­turall efficient cause of the motion of the stone, wherewith Goliah was slaine: Yea the increated efficient cause himselfe ( God I meane, who in other respects, is termed the supernaturall efficient) may in this sense be called the naturall efficient or pro­ducing cause of the world, (and so of all other effects whatsoever produced by him) viz. as he effecteth them either by that power, or by that authority which are naturall or essentiall to him.

Secondly, the efficient cause artificiall, is that which produceth its effect by the exercise of some acquired or superadded principle or habit of art. But of this kinde of cause we shall have no use in the businesse of Iustification, therefore we passe by it.

Thirdly (and lastly) the morall efficient cause, is that which contributes towards an effect, by inclin­ing or moving the will or desire of the naturall effi­cient cause (capable of such motion) towards the doing or effecting of any thing. Thus first the wa­ges for which a workman contracts to build an house or the like, and secondly, the hope he hath of receiving this wages upon the performance of this work, and thirdly the inward disposition which is in the workman, to undertake such a worke in consi­deration of such wages (with the like) may all be called morall efficient causes of that worke or [Page 68]effect, whatsoever it be, that is performed by him. So the love and kindnesse which Ionathan in his life­time shewed to David, were the morall e [...]cient causes of that favour which David shewed to Me­phibosheth his Sonne. With this kinde of causa [...]ity, the greatnesse of the sinne of Sodom and Gomorrah, together with the severity which is in the nature of God▪ against such sinnes and sinners, was the cause of that horrible destruction that came in fire and brim­stone upon it, and the sinne of Achan the cause both of his owne ruine, and of his whole Family, with infinite more of like consideration.

For that likewise is to be knowne and remem­bred, for our better understanding of the businesse of Iustification when we come to it, that this impulsive or morall efficient cause is of two sorts or kinds: First, that which moves the naturall efficient from within himselfe, to doe such or such a thing, which Logicians call [...]. Secondly, that which from without moves or inclines him accord­ingly, which they call [...]. As for example, when a man upon the knowledg or sight of another mans miserie in any kind, is perswaded to administer comfort or reliefe to him, the miserie of the man being knowne to him is the latter kinde of cause of that comfort or reliefe which he admini­sters; and the inward tendernesse or compassionat­nesse of his nature towards those that are in miserie, is the former. Of both these kinds of efficients, there may be many, in respect of one and the same effect, some more principall, i. more effectually moving, and some lesse; as will cleerely appeare in the ease of Iustification.

Thirdly, SECT. 5 of the efficient causes, some are more re­mote, and mediate; others againe more neere and immediate. The remote cause of a thing, is that [Page 69]which contributeth towards the effecting of it, but yet doth not reach the effect it selfe, but by the inter­posall and mediation of another. The next and im­mediate cause, is that which produceth the effect, without the interveening of any other cause be­tweene. Thus a mans eating and drinking, are the remote causes of his health and strength, by meanes of a good digestion, distribution, and incorporation of what is so digested, into the severall parts of the body coming betweene, which latter are the neerer and more immediate causes thereof. So the capa­citie and diligence of an Apprentice in learning his Trade, are remote causes of that estate or subsistence, which afterwards he raiseth by working upon it: and consequently of all that good which he doth in any kind, with his estate so gotten. So that absti­nence or temperance which the Apostle speaketh of; 1 Cor. 9, 25. in him that striveth for masteries, is the remote cause of all those victories and prizes which he obteyneth and carrieth away, by running, wrestling, &c. And generally whatsoever prepares or qualifies the naturall efficient for the producing or accomplishing of any effect, may properly be called a remote cause of the same. And in this re­spect, the personall holinesse, and the active obedi­ence of Christ to the Law, may be called the effici­ent causes of Iustification, but causes remote, not im­mediate, because they qualifyed him for such suffer­ings, whereby this great effect of justification was procured, but had no immediate influence there­into.

Onely that is briefly to be remembred concerning this division of causes efficient, that as there may be many remote causes of one and the same effect, so there may be many immediate and conjunct causes also, (though some great Artists conceite other­wise [Page 70] Keckerman System. Logic. l. 1. c. 15. p. 146. but these must still be of severall kindes. The principall and instrumentall causes are alike im­mediate, in respect of the effect joyntly produced by them, &c. And the first, or increated cause, God, is [...]like immediate in every effect, with the created cause that is most immediate to it.

There are many other Divisions and kindes of this first head of causes, which we call efficient, as 1 ^o, there is the efficient solitarie, and the efficient in con­sort or association with other causes. 2 ^o, the effici­ent which hath a proper, naturall, and direct ten­dencie towards the effect, which they call efficiens perse: and the efficient which falls in on the by, and concurr's towards the effect, but accidental­ly, and besides any natural inclination it hath towards the raising of the effect, which they call causa per ac­cidens. 3 ^o, there is a kinde of efficient which they call subordinata, i. of an inferior order, in respect of another cause that is of a superior; and coordinata, i. such a cause, as is of the same ranke and order with another, &c. besides divers others; which I insist no further upon, because I conceive the Doctrine of Iustification may be sufficiently delivered and under­stood without the particular knowledg of them.

The second generall head of causes mentioned, SECT. 6 was the finall cause, or the end, so called (as it seem's) because both the action and intention of the principall efficient are terminated, ended, and satisfi­ed in the assecution or atteynment thereof. There are severall divisions and kinds of this cause also: but because there is little, or no dispute or question touching the finall cause of Iustification, amongst those that are much dissenting in judgement about other causes thereof, I shall passe over this cause with the more brevity.

The finall cause or end of an effect or thing caused, [Page 71]or of a thing to be effected or caused, is either that which is called Finis perse, that is, such an end as the effect is naturally and of it selfe apt to produce, and raise: or else that which is called Finis per acci­dens, that is, such a thing and end, which followes upon, and may be in some sort said to be produced or occasioned by the effect, but yet is a thing of that nature and importance, which doth not answere the nature and propriety of the effect by which it was occasioned or produced. Thus the hardening of reprobate and wicked men, and so the increasing of their condemnation &c. are accidentall ends of preaching the Gospell, or of the Gospell preached, because they are oft occasioned and somewaies cau­sed and produced thereby, but do not answere or suite with the nature and propriety of the Gospell or preaching thereof, which are sweet and gracious. As on the contrary, the softening and melting of the hearts of men, and so the furtherance of them in the waies of salvation, &c. are ends pers [...], or proper ends of the preaching the Gospell, because they are not only produced by it, but likewise are things that sympathize in nature and property therewith, and sweetly answere the tenor and importance of such an action.

Againe secondly, of finall causes or ends per se, some are primarily such, &c. more properly so cal­led: others againe are secondarily such, and lesse properly so called. The finall cause or end primarily and properly so called, is that which the principall efficient intends to accomplish and to attaine, by meanes of such or such an effect produced by him. And this againe is double, or of two kindes. First, that which is more principally so intended by him; Secondly that which is lesse principally intended. The end lesse principally intended, is that which is [Page 72]intended with reference and subordination to some further end, as viz. to that which is more and most principally intended: as on the contrary, the end more principally intended, is that which hath infe­rior ends subservient to it, and destinated to the effecting of it. Thus the house it selfe which the work man builds for himselfe to dwell in, is the lesse principall end of his labour in building and his own conveniencie of dwelling or otherwise, is the more principall, because the house was intended chiefly in relation unto this. So the sorrow which Paul wrought in the Corinthians by his Epistle (1 Cor. 7.9.) was the lesse principall end of his writing, and their repentance the more principall, because that was intended by him, as a meanes conducing unto this. And that end which is intended simply for it selfe, and without any subordination or reference to another end beyond it, is the supreme, Sove­reigne, and most principall end of all, as the glory of God is to himselfe in all his works, and should be to the creatures also in all theirs.

But secondly, the finall cause or end lesse properly socalled, is that, to which or to whom, or for whose good, the end properly so called, is intended. Thus the patient or sick person, is the end of that recove­ry or health, which the Physician seekes to procure: and the elect, the end of the great dispensation of God in Christ: and in this sense God himselfe is sayd to be end both of this, and all other his dispensations whatsoever.

The third generall head or fountaine of causes, SECT. 7 was the Materiall. Now the matter, or materiall cause of a thing, is either that which is properly, or unproper­ly so called. The matter or materiall cause properly so called, is that which in union with the forme, makes up a substantiall compounded body. So that [Page 73]this kinde of matter (matter properly so cal­led) is proper to, and only found in that kinde of nature or being, which we call a substance, as the Heavens, the 4 Elements and all things that are com­pounded and made of them, and is it selfe alwaies a substance. The matter of a thing unproperly so called, is that which hath some kinde of analogie or proportion onely to that which is matter properly. In this sense, that other nature or kinde of being, which we call accidentall, as actions, passions, qua­lities, figures, relations, &c. may be said to have matter, as viz. either their subjects wherein they have their existences and beings, or their objects, upon, and about which they act, worke, or are ex­ercised: or thirdly (and lastly) the parts whereof some of them doe consist, and are made up. In the first sense, the wall may be called the matter of the whitenesse that is put upon it, and the fire, the matter of the heate that is in it, and a man the matter of the learning or knowledge that is in him, &c. In the second sense, the wall is the mat­ter of that act of the Painter or Plaisterer, whereby he made the wall white; and so the servant or slave of old, was the matter of that act of manumission, whereby his Mr. set him at liberty, and made him free; and the elect of God both men and women are the matter of the act of God, whereby he saves them. In the third and last sense, the severall parts of whitenesse that are in the wall, as the whitenesse that is above, and the whitenesse that is beneath, that which is on the right hand, and that which is on the left, with that which is in the midst, are the matter of that area or whole extent of whitenesse which is in the wall. In this sense, the three lines whereof a triangle is made, is said to be the matter of the triangle, and letters and syllables to be the [Page 74]matter of a word, and words the matter of a sentence &c. But there is no accident whatsoever, that hath any matter properly so called: nor any actiō any other mat­ter properly or unproperly, or however called, but on­ly the subject, matter or object, on which it is acted, and wherein it is terminated and received. What hath been said concerning this materiall cause, is dil­ligently to be remembred, and carried along with us to the businesse of Justification; because it much concern's one veyne of the Question or controversie depending.

The fourth and last head of causes, SECT. 8 was that which is called the Forme, or formall cause of a thing. This cause is divided or distinguished into that which is properly, and that which is improperly so cal­led. The forme properly so called, is that cause, which together with the matter properly so called, constitutes and makes up a substantiall compounded body. This kinde of forme is alwaies it selfe a substance, and not an accident: and still the more noble or principall part, of that body which it informeth. The particular species of it are not knowne, but onely by the properties and operations which flow from them respectively. The forme, or formall cause of a thing unproperly so called, (which is that kinde of forme wherewith only we have to doe in the businesse of Iustification) is allwaies a thing of that inferior nature or being, which we call accidentall or adjunctive, Because it is still susteyned in ir's being, in some other nature which is substan­tiall, and hath no subsistence in, or by it selfe, yet hath not this forme the denomination of a forme al­waies in regard of the subject, wherein it hath it's being, and to which it gives a kinde of being also, as learning gives a man his being learned, &c. but in regard of that action or motion whereby it is intro­duced [Page 75]into the subject, and is therefore called the forme of an action, motion, or alteration, not because it gives any other kinde of being to any of these (for it rather receives it's being from them) but only a being knowne and distinguished from all other acti­ons, or motions whatsoever. For actions, or moti­ons; as calefaction, frigefaction, and so Redemption, Iustification, salvation, &c. are severally knowne and distinguished one from another (and so from every other action or motion whatsoever besides,) by that proper forme, impression, or alteration which they introduce and make in their subjects or objects a­bout which they are exercised and acted respective­ly: as the heat or warmth which is caused in my hand by the fire, maketh that action of the fire by which it is caused, not simply to be, but to be known to be that action which we call calefaction or warm­ing, and none other, i [...] bei [...]g unpossible that such a forme or impressi [...]n as heate is, should be introduced into any subject, but by such an action, as calefa­ction or warming is. In this case the heate which is caused in my hand, may be called the forme of cale­faction, not because it gives a being unto it (which is the proper notion and consideration of a forme) but rather because it receives it's being from it, and so gives it a manifestation or distinction from o­ther actions, which is one property of a forme pro­perly so called, according to the knowne maxime in Logique, which teacheth us, that the forme in­cludes or presupposeth 3 things, 1 ^o, the being of a thing. 2 ^o, the distinction of it. 3 ^o, the operation of it. Posita forma, tria ponuntur: 1, esse res 2, di­stinctio rei. 3, o­peratio rei. And doubtlesse the terme or notion of a forme, can in no other respect (or at least, in none so pro­per) be ascribed unto actions or motions, as in this: viz. because those qualities, impressions, alterations, relations, &c. which they cause and produce in their [Page 76]subjects, have this analogie or proportion with formes properly so called, that they give distinction unto them, as these do to those things or natures which they informe; though in another respect they be opposite to them (as hath bin said) formes pro­perly called still giving a being to the things whereof they are formes, whereas these formes appropriated to actions, alwaies receive their beings from them.

So then to aske or inquire concerning the forme of any action, as Iustification, Redemption, or the like, what it is, is but to aske, what is the name, nature, property, or condition, of that effect, impression, or alteration, which is immediately and precisely caused and produced by it, in that subject matter, whether person or thing, whereon it is acted. Thus to aske, what is the forme of that action which we call frigefaction or cold-making, is but to aske, what the name and nature of that impression or alteration is, which is caused thereby in that subject, whereon it worketh. And that (happily) may be one maine reason of the difficulty which is apprehended, and of the intricatenesse and confusion that are found a­mongst many writers touching the forme of Iustifica­tion, because the formes of Actions are seldome made matter of Question or inquirie, either in Phi­losophie, or Divinity, or in any other Art or Science, as farre as my weake learning and memory have taken notice: neither do I remember (for the pre­sent) any Question on foote at this day, touching ei­ther the matter, or especially the forme of any action, but only this of Iustification: Nor have I met with any, which do so much as plainely, perspicuously, and distinctly, declare and explicate, what they meane by this forme of Iustification: whereby it may (I conceive) easily come to passe, that Authors may be at a losse one of another, and scarce one of [Page 77]many cleerely understand the minde and meaning ei­ther of his fellow or his opposite, in this point.

Having with what convenient brevity we could, SECT. 9 discoursed and layd downe the number, nature, and kinds of causes, so farre as I conceived the know­ledge and consideration of them necessary to a di­stinct explication and understanding of the Doctrine of Iustificatiō as it lies in the veines of the Scriptures: Come we now roundly and cheerefully on, to draw up the Doctrine it selfe, according to the direction and importance of what hath bin delivered herein.

I begin with the efficient causes of Iustification, which are many, and those of very different conside­ration. Haply it will not be necessary, if possible, to insist upon all, that stand in this relation of causa­litie unto it,

The Principall naturall efficient cause (according [...] the description of this cause given) of Iustification, is God himselfe, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, considered is one and the same simple and intire essence: though this act of justification (as that of creation, and some o­thers besides) is in special manner appropriated to the first person of the three, the Father, as other acts are to the other two persons, Redemption to the Son, Sanctification to the Holy Ghost, &c. in both which notwithstanding, all the three persons, being but one and the same int [...]re and undivided essence, must needs be interes [...]ed. Thus Rom. 8.33. where it is said, that it is God that justifieth, it is meant by way of appropriation of God the Father, because there is mention made of Christ the second person, immedi­ately, it is Christ that is dead, &c. Now that God is that kinde of cause of Iustification, which hath bin attributed to him, and no other, is evident from the description of this cause formerly layd downe Sect. 4. of this Chapter. For 1 ^o, that he is a cause of Iusti­fication [Page 78]is the consent of all men without exception: besides the Scripture lately cited Rom. 8. is full and pregnant this way, It is God that justifieth. 2 ^o, that he is neither the matter, nor the forme of Iustificati­on, is sufficiently evident of it selfe, neither did ever any man affirme either the one, or the other of him: and besides, we shall cleere this further, when we come to inquire after these causes. 3 ^o, that he is not the end or finall cause of Iustification, appeares from that property or condition of this cause, mentioned Sect. 3. viz, that it is to be atteyned or receive it's being, by meanes of that thing whereof it is the end: which cannot be verified of God or his being, in re­spect of Iustification, inasmuch as these no way de­pend upon it. This likewise will further appeare, when we come to lay downe the finall cause. There­fore 4 ^o (and lastly) he must of necessity be the effi­cient cause of Iustification, there being no fift kinde of cause whereunto he should be reduced.

Secondly, SECT. 10 that he is the principall efficient cause, and not instrumentall, is evident also: because he is not assum'd acted, or made use of by any other, in or about the justification of a sinner; but himselfe pro­jecteth the whole frame and cariage of all things, yea and manageth and maketh use of all things in­strumentally concurring or belonging thereunto. It is God that justifieth the Gentiles by or through Faith. Gal. 3.8. so Rom. 3.30, &c. God maketh use of Faith, and so of his word, and of the Ministers of his word, to produce Faith in the hearts of men, and consequently to justifie them: but none of these can be said to act or make use of God, in or about this great effect.

Thirdly that he is the Naturall efficient cause of Iustification (according to the notion and descripti­on of this cause given Sect. 5.) is evident because in [Page 79]the exercising or putting forth this act of Iustificati­on, he acteth and worketh out of that authority and power which are essentiall and connaturall to him, and not out of any superadded or acquired principle of art or otherwise, whereof he is wholly uncapable. It is true, he is moved to the exercise of this act of [...]ustifying men, by somewhat that is extrinsecall and not essentiall to him, viz. the intercession of the death and sufferings of Christ: yet the act it selfe in the exercise of it, proceeds by vertue of that autho­rity and power, which are estentiall to him (as hath bin said) No creature can be said to justifie or for­give any man his sinnes no not by Christ, but God a­lone. Who can forgive sinnes but God onely? Mar. 2.7.

Fourthly, SECT. 11 the Morall or internall impulsive cause of Iustification, as it is an act of God, is that infinite love, goodnesse, mercy, sweetnesse, and gracious­nesse in God himselfe towards his poore creature, Man, looked upon as miserable, and lying under con­demnation for sinne. This was the moving and pro­curing cause of the guift of Christ, and his death and sufferings, from him, and consequently of that justi­fication, which is procured and purchased by Christ and his sufferings. So God loved the world, that hee gave his onely begotten Son, that whosoever beleeveth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life, [ viz by Iustification through him] Ioh. 3.16.

Fiftly, the externall Morall or impulsive efficient cause of this act of God, is the Lord Iesus Christ him­selfe, in, or through his death and sufferings: or (which is the same) the death and sufferings of Iesus Christ, God looking upon Christ as such, and so great a sufferer for the sinnes of men, is thereby strength­ened and provoked, to deliver those that beleeve in him from their sinnes and that condemnation which [Page 80]is due unto them, i. to justifie them. The Scripture is cleere in laying downe this cause. Even as God, for Christs sake, freely forgave you viz. your sinnes, i. justified you. Ephe. 4.32. Those words for Christs sake, are a plaine and perfect character, of that kinde of cause we now speake of. This with the former i. both internall and externall, impussive or moving causes, are joyn'd together. Rom. 3.24. And are justified freely by his grace (here is the inward impul­sive cause of Justification) through the Redemption that is in Christ Iesus, viz. by meanes of his death and sufferings: here is the outward moving cause we speake of. Neither can the Death and sufferings of Christ, with any shew of reason, or with any tole­rable construction or congruitie of speaking, be re­ferred to any other cause in the businesse of justifica­tion, but the impulsive only. He that would make Christ the instrumentall cause of Iustification, Mr. Walker Socinian. disco­vered, &c. p. 138. disco­vers himselfe to be no great Gamaliel in this learn­ing, and had need thrust his Faith out of doores (as he doth in many places) and not suffer it to have any thing at all to doe about his Iustification, least his Christ and his Faith should be corrivalls, and con­tend for preheminence therein. And yet more re­pugnant to reason is it, to make either Christ him­selfe, or any righteousnesse of his whatsoever, either the matter, or materiall cause of Justification (which yet the Socinian Discoverer doth Ibid. p. 139) or the forme, or formall cause thereof, which is done by some others. But that is a streyne of unreasonablenesse above all the rest, to make either Christ or his righteousnesse, both the formall and materiall cause too, of this great act of God we speake of, the Justification of a sinner, these causes being of so opposite a nature, and diffe­rent consideration (as hath bin described) and yet e­ven this conceit also hath found enterteynment with some.

To this kinde of cause we now speake of must be reduced also the active or personall righteousnesse of Christ, as farre as it hath any influence into, or any waies operates towards the justificatiō of a siner. For though it be not satisfactory simply and directly in it selfe, nor contributing any thing immediatly by way of merit, towards the Iustification of a sinner (the reasons whereof have bin former [...]y given) So that God is not thereby provoked or mov'd to justi­fy any man: yet falling in conjunction with that o­ther righteousnesse of Christ which we call passive, and making his blood to be the blood of a Lamb un­defiled, and without spot (1 Pet. 1.19.) it cannot be denied, but that here and in this consideration it hath some kinde of an impulsive and moving effici­encie towards Iustification, qualifying (in part) the sacrifice of Christ for that fullnesse and height of ac­ceptation with God.

The great misery of the poore creature, man, ly­ing under condemnation for sinne, cannot properly be conceived or call'd any cause of his justification: yet is it somewaies reducible to this externall impulsive cause in hand, inasmuch as that goodnesse and graci­ousnesse of God we spake of, was hereby occasioned and moved to take some course for it's Iustification and salvation.

Concerning Faith, SECT. 12 the generall and uniforme Do­ctrine of Reformed Authors gives it for an instru­mentall efficient cause of Iustification (which is the sixt and last kinde of efficient we shall insist upon) and so it hath bin more then once represented in this Treatise: yet we meet with many expressions concerning Faith even in the best and most approved writers, which doe not so much sympathize with the instrumentall, as the impulsive efficient. Thus Musculus speaking of Abraham, Ob eam [...] ­dem (s [...]. qua promittenti Deo sirmiter credi­dit) justus est a Deo reputatus, Musc. in Gen. 15. ver. 6. saith, that he was [Page 82]reputed righteous by God, FOR that Faith, whereby he firmly beleeved God promising. Aretius thus, Imputavit ei justitiam, quod est fidem gratam habuit, adeo ut justum e­um haberet ju­stitia imputati­va. Aret. ad Rom. 4. God imputed righteousnesse to Abraham, that is, ac­cepted his Faith: and againe: a Faith so firme and pious, was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse: In all which expressions, with many others both in these and other Authors, of like importance, there seemes rather an impulsive or perswasive, then an instrumentall efficiencie, ascribed unto Faith. The Scriptures themselves also, in respect of other favors blessings, and deliverances, vouchsafed by God unto Beleevers, seeme (at least in many places) to ascribe rather an impulsive, then instrumentall efficiencie unto Faith, in the procuring of them. So Daniel was brought out of the Denne, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, BECAUSE he beleeved in God. Dan. 6.23. In like manner the Prophet Hanani to King Asa: The Ethiopians and the Lubims, were they not a great host with Charets and horsemen exceeding many? yet BECAUSE then didst rest upon the Lord, he delivered them into thine hand. 2 Chr. 16.8. See Jer. 39.18.2 Chr 31.18. &c. 14 11. with many others. Notwithstand­ing elsewhere, this Faith of Beleevers, the Holy Ghost makes rather instrumentall, then impulsive, and that in respect of such favors also. M [...]ny instances whereof are found in that one Chapter, Heb. 11. By Faith they passed through the Red Sea. ver. 29. By Faith the walls of Iericho fell downe, 39. Againe, ver. 33. it is sayd concerning, Gideon, Barak, Sampson, &c. that through Faith they subdued Kingdomes, wrought righteousnesse, stopped the mouthes of Lyons, quenched the violence of fire, &c. For reconciling this seeming difference in the Scriptures, it may be said, that the instrumentall and impulsive efficients are not so opposite, but that sometimes, and in some cases, the instrumentall cause may put on the conside­ration [Page 83]of an impulsive also, and aswell move a man to doe a thing as assist him, or be made use of by him, in the doing it. Thus a competent strength of men, may aswell move a King to give battaile to an ene­my, as assist him in the battaile, and obteyning the victory. So a Carpenter or other artificer, having tooles or instruments thereafter, may be perswaded or moved by them (in part) to undertake some piece of worke, which otherwise they would not. And thus Faith (I conceive) may in different respects, be look'd upon, either as an instrumentall, or as an im­pulsive cause in Iustification. As it is a ground or rea­son, why God justifieth one man, when he justifieth not another (for the beleever is alwaies iustifyed, and that because he is a beleever, and the unbeleever not) so it hath the nature of an impulsive cause: againe, as it is subservient to the counsell or decree of God concerning Iustification, and is accordingly made use of by him in the act of Iustification (for he is said to iustify men by and through Faith, Rom. 3, 30, &c.) it puts on the nature and consideration of an instru­mentall cause properly so called. True it is, Faith is not an impulsive or moving cause in Iustification of the same kinde, nor after the same manner that Christ and his sufferings are: these are impulsive and mo­ving in a superior way, by way of merit, and conse­quently of Iustification simply, and therefore are at no hand to be reckoned amongst the instrumentall causes thereof, whereas Faith moveth only in an in­ferior and under way, and by such a motion, where­with causes properly instrumentall sometimes move (as hath bin said) and therefore mooveth, not pro­perly to Iustification, or to Iustification simply, but comparatiuely, that is, to the Iustification of such and such men, viz that doe beleeve.

Other causes there are instrumentally inservient [Page 84]unto Iustification, as viz. the word of God that is preached, the preaching it selfe of this word, the Mi­nister by whom this word is preached, the sight ap­prehending or understanding of this word, the opera­tion or worke of the Holy Ghost by which this word is made effectuall in the heart and soule of a belee­ver: and generally whatsoever tendeth or contribu­teth towards the worke of Faith in the soule, may be called instrumentall, in or about Iustification, accord­ing to the importance of the old maxime, Quod est causa causae, est etiam causa causat [...]. But how the Sa­craments should become instrumentall causes or meanes of Iustification, must be knowne by inquir­ing at the Oracle at Rome: for neither the Scriptures, nor the Reformed Religion have any of this learning in them. This briefly for the efficient c [...]uses of Iustification, which is the first generall head of causes, among the foure.

Secondly, SECT. 13 concerning the finall causes of Justifi­cation, all parties, as farre as I know, are (upon the matter) agreed also: For though one may discover, and put upon accompt, more intermediate or subor­dinate ends or finall causes hereof, then another: yet no man denieth (at least can with reason deny) but that the Glory of God, which is the generall, great, and sovereigne end of all things whatsoever, hath the preheminence also amongst and above all the ends of Iustification, that can be named, or enter into the heart of man to conceive. The great subordi­nate end, and which lies fairest and fullest in view to the sight of all men, is the advancement of the creature, or persons iustifyed, to that exceeding height of glory, and endlesse happinesse, in the intire and satisfying injoyment of God, which himselfe was graciously pleased to ordeyne them unto from the beginning, and to prepare and make them meet [Page 85]for, in time. Besides these two, there might be diverse other more appropriate and particular ends, both in respect of God, the Iustifier, and the elect of God, the Iustified, assigned, as in respect of God, the manifestation of his abundant pardoning grace or mercie tempered with justice, &c. in respect of the creature Iustifyed, deliverance from wrath or pun­ishment due to sinne, a way making unto Adoption, and fatherlike grace and acceptation with God, with all the sweet privileges and blessings depending hereon, &c. but because there is no question or con­troversie stirring about these, and the Doctrine of Justification may be competently knowne and under­stood without a particular enumeration of them, I forbeare to make it matter of further labour to the Reader, to insist upon them.

The chiefe contention and dispute amongst Re­formed Divines in the businesse of Iustification, SECT. 14 is a­bout the two causes that are yet behinde, viz. the materiall, and the formall, but especially about the latter. Therefore

Thirdly, Mr. Walker So­cinianisme dis­covered, &c. p. 139. concerning the matter or materiall cause of Justification; the Socinian Diseoverer, with some others, conceive they cast a spirit of honour upon the righteousnesse and satisfaction of Christ, by setling this relation of causalitie in respect of Iustification, upon them: but doubtlesse much upon the like terms of mistake, with those mentioned by our Sa­viour Ioh. 16.2. who should thinke that they did God service, when they killed his best servants. For

First, by making these the matter, See Part 1. c. 17. Sect. 1.2. &c. or materiall cause of Iustification, they devest and spoyle them of the honour of that causalitie, which is proper and peculiar to them, and 7 times more honourable, then that which is this way attributed to them, viz. of that causalitie, which we call, meritorious. This [Page 86]is evident by the tenour of the third Rule formerly laid downe in the second section of this Chapter, whereby it appeares, that no one cause whatsoever can put on more habitudes or relations of causality then one, in respect of one and the same effect. So that if the righteousnesse of Christ be the meritorious and impulsive cause of Iustification (which is gran­ted on all hands without exception; even by the men against whom we reason) it can at no hand be dee­med the materiall cause also. Because the meritori­ous and impulsive cause, is a kinde of efficient, as both hath bin lately proved, and besides, is general­ly so notioned and acknowledged by all: neither can it be reduced to any of the other 4 heads of causes, with any tolerable congruitie or colour of reason. It was never heard of to this day, that any efficient cause was the matter of the effect produced by it.

Secondly, the righteousnesse of Christ, whether A­ctive or Passive, or both, cannot be the matter of Iustification, because the matter of a thing is alwaies En [...] incompletum, an incompleate and imperfect en­titie or being, untill the introduction and union of the forme with it, which still gives perfection of being and existence to it. But the righteousnesse of Christ, take it in what otion, or under what conside­ration you please, hath an intire, perfect, and com­pleate being; neither can it fall under imagination, what forme it should be capable of, that by union with it should adde beauty and perfection to it.

Thirdly (and lastly) if the righteousnesse of Christ be the matter of Iustification, it must be either matter properly, or unproperly so called. Matter properly so called, which they call materia ex quâ, it cannot be, because this kinde of matter, 1 ^o is proper to sub­stantiall natures or beings onely. 2 ^o, is it selfe al­waies [Page 87]a substance. 3 ^o, is alwaies a part of that nature or thing whereof it is the matter. 4 ^o, (and lastly) is still the inferior, weaker, and viler part thereof. Whereas Iustification (in the first place) being an act, hath only an accidentall, not a substantiall being: and consequently is not capable of matter properly so called, as no act or action whatsoever besides is. Secondly, the righteousnesse of Christ, was never con­ceived to be in praedicamento substantiae, to be a sub­stantiall nature, but an accidentall forme or quality: and therefore cannot be matter (properly so called) of any thing. Thirdly, the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be a part of Iustification, because Iustification (as hath bin said) is an action, and the righteousnesse of Christ a forme or qualitie: and most certaine it is that one predicamentall nature or being, cannot be a part of another. Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ cannot be this matter of Iustification we now speake of Fourthly (and lastly) it is furthest of all from all colour or appearance of truth, that the righteous­nesse of Christ, in what composition or union soever it shall be found, should be the weaker and lesse worthy part thereof, being of that infinit perfection and worth, which we all acknowledg, and ascribe unto it: Therefore certainly it is no matter of Iusti­fication properly so called.

Secondly, SECT. 15 that neither is it any matter hereof un­properly so called, may be thus demonstrated. Mat­ter unproperly so called, is either that which Logi­cians call, materia in qua, or materia circa quam. Mat­ter in the former notion, imports only the subject of a thing, that is, a substantiall nature, as supporting some accidentall forme or being in it. In this sense fire is sayd to be the matter of the heate that is in it, and a man to be the matter of the learning or know­ledge which he hath, &c. But this is most unpro­per [Page 88]and least used sense or signification, of the word MATTER, of all other. In the latter notion, the mat­ter of a thing, is the object, or that thing, upon which any thing acteth, or about which it is conver­sant or exercised. In this sense, wood or tymber may be said to be the matter of the Carpenters art or imployment, and his Scholars the matter of the Masters instruction, &c. This kinde of matter is most commonly and properly attributed to acts that are transient, and with motion and alteration: though it may be ascribed to that other kinde of act also, which is without alteration, and is called imma­nent, in which sense, bookes or the knowledge of things conteyned in them, may be said to be the matter of the Schollers industrie or studie, and the persons predestinated to be the matter of that im­manent act of God, which we call Predestination, &c.

Now that the righteousnesse of Christ, cannot in either of these notions or significations of the word matter, be the matter of justification, it is evident. First, not in the former, because Iustification, is not the subject wherein this righteousnesse inhereth, or whereby it is supported in being: the righteousnesse of Christ hath no dependance at all, in respect of the being of it, upon Iustification. Not in the latter, be­cause that act of God whereby he justifieth a sinner, is not acted or exercised, upon or about the righte­ousnesse of Christ, nor terminated in this, neither is there any change or alteration made in the righteous­nes of Christ by that act of God, whereby he justifieth a sinner; which yet must be, if it were that matter we now speake of, that is, the object of Justification. Because Iustification being a transient act in God, it must of necessitie make some change or alteration in that upon which it falleth or is acted, whatsoever [Page 89]it be: the truth is, that the righteousnesse of Christ, being (as hath bin proved) the efficient impulsive cause of Iustification, rather acteth and worketh upon God, then he upon it, when he iustifieth any man. Therefore doubtlesse the righteousnesse of Christ can in no sense, agreeable to truth and ordinary con­struction of speech, be called the matter of Iustifi­cation.

Wherefore (in the last place) concerning the mat­ter of, or materiall cause of Iustification, SECT. 16 it can be none other, but either the subject, or the object of [...]ustification, that is either God himselfe, or the per­son that is to be iustified. For as for that kinde of matter, which we called ex qua, matter properly so called, Iustification, being an act, or action, is alto­gether uncapable of it, as hath bin already said. Nei­ther hath any action whatsoever any materiall cause at all, in this sense. It remaineth therefore, that the matter of Justification, must be of that kinde of mat­ter, which is lesse properly so called, whereof there are but these two species, or sorts, (as hath bin said) the matter in qua, and the matter circa quam, i. the the subject, and the object. If we take the subject of Iustification, or him on whom the act it selfe of Iustification, in respect of the production and being of it dependeth, and will call that the matter of it, then God himselfe must be the matter we inquire after: because the act of Iustification, in respect of the raising and bringing forth of it, dependeth only upon him. But this (I confesse) is a very uncouth and proper expression, to call God the matter of justi­fication; neither hath the tongue or pen of any man (I conceive) ever taken any pleasure in it. Or if by the subject of Iustification, we understand the subje­ctum recipie [...]s, that is, the subject receiving, and wherein the act of Iustification is terminated (which [Page 90]is as proper a signification of the word, as the other the old tried rule being, that actio est in patiente tan­quam in subjecto) then the subject and the object will prove but one and the same, viz the person that is to be iustified, that is, the beleeving sinner. Thus it is in all other actions likewise; the subject receiving the action or impression of the Agent, and the object upon which the Agent acteth or wor­keth, are still the same. And for any other matter of Iustification, besides that which hath bin now assign'd, viz. the sinner who beleeveth, I verily be­leeve there is none to be found: who though he be, both the object and subject (in the sense given) of Iustification, yet may he more properly be called the matter of Iustification, as he is the object, then as the subject thereof, because the notion of matter, better agreeth (of the two) to that which is called circà quam, or the object, then to the other, which is the subject. And this for the matter or materiall cause of Iustification, the person to be iustified, or belee­ving sinner.

Fourthly (and lastly) to make forward towards the consideration and inquirie of the formall cause of Iustification, SECT. 17 about which the tongues and pens of men are turn'd into the sharpest swords.

First, for the Popish opinion, which (as Bellarmine describes it from the Counsell of Trent, subscribing himselfe also with both hands unto it) Certe conci­lium causam for­malem justifica­tio [...], in ipsi us justitie infusione constituit, &c. Bellarm. De Iu­stific. lib. 2. c. 2. versus sinem. placeth the formall cause of Iustification, in the infusion of inhe­rent righteousnesse, I shall not make it matter of long confutation. The opinion is built upon another o­pinion, as rotten as it, viz. perfection of inherent righteousnesse: for if this be found to be imperfect (and it will never be found other, till this mortall hath put on immortalitie) the credit of that other o­pinion is lost, and that by consent of their owne [Page 91]principles: who teach that in Iustification men are made perfectly and compleately righteous. So that any one sinne, little or great, veniall or mortall, pro­ceeding from any one of their iustified ones, utterly overthrowes the opinion of their Church touching the formall cause of Iustification. It stands them in hand, if they desire to build up this determination of their Councell with authority and honour, to raise the levell of another enterprize of theirs, and to prove, not only a possibilitie, but a necessity also of a perfect observation of the Law of God, by those that are iustified and regenerate. When they have quitted themselves like men in this, and have layd the foundations of such a necessitie firme and strong, we shall (haply) then consider further of their Do­ctrine touching the formall cause of Iustification: in the meane time we shall be at libertie to make inqui­rie after a better.

Yet Secondly, SECT. 18 I conceive the Doctrine of the late Socinian Discoverer touching the same businesse, to be no whit better, but rather at a farre deeper defiance both with reason and truth. The formall cause of Justification (saith he) Mr. George Walker Socini­an. Discovered. p. 139. is that communion betweene Christ and us, and that reciprocall imputation of our sinnes to Christ, and of his righteousnesse and full satis­faction to us, which communion ariseth and floweth from the spirit which God sheds on us through Christ, which spirit dwelling in us (in some measure, so as he dwelleth in the man Christ, from whom he is derived to us) doth make us one spirituall body with Christ; and workes in us Faith, and all holy graces and affections, by which we ad­here and cleave to Christ, and apply and inioy his righ­teousnesse, &c. Doubtlesse here is a great deale too much matter to make a good forme. The essentiall character of a forme or formall cause is to be a single simple and uncompounded being: whereas that [Page 92]which is here presented to us, for the forme of Justi­fication, is rudis indigesta (que) moles, an indigested heape of compositions. Surely this forme is so deformed, that the Author need nor feare any corrivall or com­petitor with him for it.

For 1 ^o, if the Iustification we speake of, or the forme of it, stands in that communion which is betweene Christ and us, then Christ himselfe is iustified with the same Iustification, wherewith sinners are iustified and consequently hath sinnes forgiven him, aswell as they. Because that communion which is betweene Christ and us, who beleeve, is but one and the same Communion, and wherein Christ partakes aswell as we. Therefore if the same forme of Iustification be found in him, which is in us, the same Iustification must be found in him, or on him likewise.

2 ^o, That communion which is betweene Christ and those that beleeve, cannot be the formall cause of Iustification, because it is no righteousnesse, nor conformity with any Law, either directly or indire­ctly, either properly and precisely, or by way of e­quivalencie, and interpretatively: himselfe like­wise affirming ( p. 138) that in the act of iustification God makes men righteous by the perfect righteousnesse and full satisfaction of Christ) expressing hereby (if be expresseth any thing) the formall cause (at least. according to his owne apprehension) of Iustifica­tion. So then the communion which is betweene Christ and us, being a farre differing thing from the righteousnesse and full satisfaction of Christ, it fol­lowes, as well agreeably to his owne pen, as to the truth it selfe, that the Communion he speakes of is not the formall cause of Iustification.

3 ^o, The formall cause of Iustification, SECT. 19 must needs be (as we shall hereafter further demonstrate) the proper impression or effect of the act of Iustification, and consequently the effect of God who justifieth or exerciseth that act, that is, of God the Father (as himselfe rightly supposeth p. 137.) whereas that Communion betweene Christ and us (which hee speakes of) ariseth and floweth (as himselfe also ac­knowledgeth in the passage cited) from the Holy Ghost. Therefore unpossible it is that this Com­munion should bee theformall cause of Iustifica­tion.

4 ^o, This Communion betweene Christ and us, is a consequent of our Iustification, and taketh not place, hath no being, till after we be fully and com­pleately iustified. This himselfe likewise (upon the matter) acknowledgeth in the words cited, affirm­ing, that it ariseth and floweth from the Spirit which God sheds on us through Christ, &c. Now that the Spirit is not shed upon us till after, or upon our be­leeving (and consequently till after we be iustified, for Iustification followeth Faith as close as imagina­tion it selfe can imagine) is evident from those and many the like Scriptures. This spake he of the Spirit which they that believed in him, should receive, &c. John 7.39. And God which knoweth the heart gave them witnesse (viz. that they truly beleeved, as ap­peares from the former verse) in giving unto them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us. Act. 15.8. Then Peter said unto them, Amend your lives and be Baptized every one of you, in the Name of Iesus Christ for the Re­mission of sinnes, and yee shall receive the guift of the Holy Ghost. (Act. 2.38.) They were to beleeve before they were Baptized: but the receiving of the Holy Ghost is promised after. See further to this purpose, Act. 6.5. Act. 8.15.16. [Page 94] Act. 11.17. with the 15. Act. 19.2. &c. So then, the Communion that is betweene Christ and us, flowing from the Spirit which God sheds on us through Christ, and this act of sheding being still performed by God after or upon our beleeving, and consequently after or upō our compleate Iustificatiō, it undeniably followes, that this Communion cannot be the formall cause of our JUSTIFICATION because this is accomplished (and accomplished it cannot be without the formall part or cause of it in being) before the other receives it's being.

5 ^o, SECT. 20 If the communion that is betweene Christ and us, were the formall cause of Iustification, Christ him­selfe might be truly said to be iustified, by the same act of Iustification with us. This is evident, because the Communion spoken of relates aswell to him as to us, and is inherent in him, as much as in us: and whatsoever partakes of the same forme, or formall cause with another, is (doubtlesse) in respect of this form capable of the same denominatiō with it. If the forme of that Iustification be as well, or as much in Christ, as it is in us, Christ may as wel be said to be iu­stified thereby as we. But to say that Christ should be iustified by that communion which is betweene him and us, is [...], a hard; saying to the tender cares of Christians. Therefore certainly, though that Communion which is betweene Christ and us, be a sweete and precious thing, yet is it not the formall cause of Iustification, no more then Samuel was therefore Isaak Abrahams Son, because he was a good Sonne like him. And

6 ^o. If the Communion betweene Christ and us, be the formall cause of Iustificatton, then is not the reci­procall imputation of our sinnes to Christ, and of his righ­teousnesse and full satisfaction to us, this cause also; which is yet affirmed by the same Author and with the same breath. This consequence is pregnant and [Page 95]conquering: because this reciprocall imputation, is an act of God the Father (and so supposed by the Author himselfe, and if rightly understood, not with any variation from the truth) whereas the Com­munion mentioned, floweth from the Holy Ghost, (as hath bin already observed, and is here likewise expressely affirmed.) Now unpossible it is that two acts really differing the one from the other, should ever so combine or incorporate, as to make the forme, or formall cause of any thing, (which as hath bin said) is alwaies a single and simple being, and voyd of composition. This reason stands in force, though we take his reciprocall imputation, which he joynes with his communion, to make up the forme of Iustification, in a passive sense, viz. for the effect of that act of God, whereby he maketh that reciprocall imputation. For neither can two effects really dif­fering, ever so complie or consent together to sim­plisie one the other, as to raise a third thing or being betweene them of simplicitie enough, to make the formall being of any thing.

7 ^o, Neither can this reciprocall imputation, taken by it selfe, be the formall cause of Iustification, because 1 ^o, it comprehends and includes two severall and distinct acts of God, or two distinct and severall ef­fects of two such acts of his, The imputation of our sinnes to Christ, is an act or effect, really differing from the imputation of his righteousnesse and satisfa­ction unto us. This is evident: because as the ren­dring Christ obnoxious unto death, is a thing really differing, and of opposite consideration, from the making of us righteous, and capable of life; so the acts by which these are effected, must needs be real­ly differing also the one from the other. Now (as hath bin already argued) it is unpossible that any forme, or formall cause, should be made of any pluralitie of ingredients, or be a composition made [Page 96]of severall things really differing the one from the o­ther. 2 ^o It is impossible that this reciprocall impu­tation should be the forme we inquire after, because, only the beleeving sinner (as hath bin fully proved Sect. 16. is the matter of Iustification. Now the forme of a thing (at least the accidentall forme, which is the kinde of forme under inquirie) is al­waies found in conjunction and union with the mat­ter proper to it, and never in any other. Christ therefore being no beleeving sinner, and consequent­ly, no fitting or possible matter for the forme of that Iustification (whereof we speake) to be coupled with, it cannot be that the imputation of our sinnes to him, should either be this forme it selfe, or any part of it. 3 ^o, No imputation whatsoever, nor of whatsoever, can be the forme of Iustification; 1 ^o, because it is no righteousnesse, either in one kinde or other, neither a righteousnesse literally or properly so called, nor yet a righteousnesse by way of interpreta­tion: whereas the forme of Iustification (whatsoe­ver it be) must of necessity be a righteousnesse, either of the one kinde or of the other. It is true, a righ­teousnesse imputed, (supposing such imputation) is a righteousnesse: but the imputation of this righteous­nesse, can be noe righteousnesse. Therefore no impu­tation whatsoever can be the forme of Iustification. 2 ^o, Every forme, or formall cause gives according to the nature of it, a sutable denomination to the subject, whereunto it is united; as heat gives the denomination of hot, to the fire, and learning, the denomination of learned, to the man endued with it, &c. But no imputation gives any sutable denomi­nation to the persons to whom it is made, or in whom it inheres; men are not said to be imputed this or that, for any imputation made. Therefore impu­tation is noe forme at all; and consequently not the [Page 97]forme or formall cause of Iustification.

8 ^o, The Author himselfe within a very few lines after the words lately cited from him, falls off from his reciprocall imputation, and affirmes, the righteous­nesse of Christ it selfe, to be this formall cause of Justifi­cation calling it, our formall righteousnesse. But this is but one drope of that powreing shower of con­tradictions, which hath fallen from his pen upon that discourse, and stands in swamps and plashes all over it.

9 ^o, SECT. 21 (and lastly) in all this voluminous and multi­formed description of the formall cause of Iustifica­tion, there is not the least mention to be found of forgivenesse of sinnes, as neither within the whole compasse of that draught of the Doctrine of Iustifi­cation, which in severall pages together of the dis­course mentioned, he presents unto the world; as if Iustification and remission of sinnes, were like Sa­maritan and Iew, which have no dealings one with another. Ioh. 4.9. Whereas Reformed Divines generally, (and I thinke) I may say, without exception, never handle the Doctrine of Iustification, especially never professe to assigne or explicate the formall cause thereof, without mention making of remission or forgivenesse of sinnes, conceiving them to be things of the most arct and neerest affinitie that may be, as indeed they are.

The opinion and description last cited, touching the formall cause of justification, containes matter of more particular grievances, then have yet bin touch'd or complained of. But because I conceive the unreasonablenesse of it, a sufficient caution and securitie against the infection and propagation of it, and that no man will ever be so hard put to it for a formall cause of Iustification, as to take up that, I shall therefore for the present, with that chastise­ment [Page 98]and correction which it hath already received, let it goe.

But thirdly, Neither can that opinion stand, which maketh the imputation or application of the righteonsnesse of Christ, SECT. 22 the formall cause of Justifica­tion. (a) We teach, that Christs righ­teousnesse, both habituall and actuall, by which he was formally just, is the matter; and the imputation thereof [...]s the fo [...]me of Iusti­fication. Bish. Downham. Tre. of Iustifi. lib. 1: c. 5. Sect. 2. See more to this purpose im­mediatly fol­lowing, where he citeth also the Magdebur­genses & Schar­pius, as being of the same judge­ment with him. Against this opinion we argued in the latter part of our refutation of the former: where we evi­ctingly proved, that no imputation whatsoever, or of whatsoever, could possibly be the forme of Iustifica­tion. The plea is at hand, in the last Section, save one; therefore I repeate nothing thereof. Only I adde as of further consideration, against this opini­on, 10, that if the righteousnesse of Christ be the mat­ter of Iustification (which the opinion maintaineth) and the imputation hereof the forme, then one righte­ousnesse must be the forme of another righteousnesse: because the forme of Justification (as hath bin often said) must needs be a righteousnesse (and so is ac­knowledged, and termed by the Author himselfe) Fo [...] the righ­teousnesse wher­by a man is for­mally just, is in­herent in him­selfe, &c. Bish. Downham, Vbi supra. So that if the matter hereof be a righteousnesse, and the forme a righteousnesse also, one righteousnesse must informe another, which is (I conceive) a greater burthen of absurdity, then the reason of any consi­dering man can beare.

Secondly, if imputation be the forme, and the righ­teousnesse of Christ the matter of Iustification, then that which is lesse perfect and of an inferior being, shall be the complement and perfection of that which is more perfect, and of a superior being: it being a generall and knowne maxime, that the forme still actuateth the matter, and adds a further degree of being and perfection unto it. Now this imputati­on we speake of, being (and that by the full consent and acknowledgment of the Authors of the opinion) somewhat inherent in the person justified, and intrin­secall to him, For the righteousnesse wher­by a man is for­mally just, is in­herent in him­selfe: for what is more intrin­secall then the forme? Bishop Downham, Iusti. lib. 1. c. 5. Sect. [...]. must needs be of inferior worth [Page 99]and value to the righteousnesse of Christ. Neither in­deed can it well be conceived, how any thing at all should be for mall, or of a perfecting or actuating na­ture, in respect of the righteousnesse of Christ.

Thirdly, neither doe the Scriptures any way fa­vour this opinion, or complie with it in any expressi­on found in them: nor doe I finde the Authors themselves so much as pretending any Scripture ap­probation of their judgment in this kinde.

Fourthly (and lastly) if the judgement of the late Bishop of Sarisburie (a learned man, doubtlesse, though a Bishop) be of any authoritie, he is absolute­ly declared against the imputation of Christs righteous­nesse, and pleades for the righteousnesse it selfe impu­ted as the formall cause of Iustification. The most perefect obedience (saith he) Christi Me­diatoris in nobis habitantu, at­que per spiritum sese nobu unien­tis persectissima obedientia, est formalu causae justificationu no­strae. Bishop Davenant, De Iustic. Habit. c. 22. p. 313. of Christ the Media­tor, dwelling in us, and uniting himselfe by his Spi­rit to us, is the formall cause of our Iustification, &c. And if his testimony be of any value, Reformed Au­thors generally are of a concurrent judgement with him herein. Haec com­munis est nostro­rum omnium sen­tentia, Christi obedientiam & justitiam nobis imputatam, esse formalem cau­sam Iustificatio­pis. Idem ubi su­pra. p. 312. Notwithstanding.

Fourthly, that neither is this opinion, which mak­eth the righteousnesse of Christ imputed the formall cause of Iustification, of any such intire consistencie with the truth (besides the counterpoyse of the au­thorities and judgements of the Authors standing up for the former opinion) may be evidenced upon these grounds.

First: that which is an efficient cause of Justifica­tion, cannot be the formall cause also. This is cleere by the tenor of that generall rule, laid downe Sect. SECT. 23 of this Chapter, concerning the incapacitie that is found in every one of the 4 causes respectively, of putting on more relations of causalitie then one in respect of one and the same effect. But that the righ­teousnesse of Christ, is an efficient cause of Iustification, [Page 100]hath bin already proved; and besides, is (upon the matter) so acknowledged by the Authors themselves of this opinion, who generally grant it to be the me­ritorious or impulsive cause thereof.